"Little Dorrit," Little Disaster?

I mourn the recent loss of PBS; it cut its broadcasting services to analog television sets on my birthday of all days! Though I thankfully managed to watch all fourteen episodes of "Little Dorrit" online prior to the end date, I still tuned into Masterpiece Theatre on Sundays to watch Matthew Macfadyen, Claire Foy, Alun Armstrong, et al delight me on the big screen. (The departure of PBS in particular has led me to revisit my staunch opposition to cable and satellite television.)

I was disappointed to read that the BBC intends to move away from its big-budget costume dramas. I imagine "Little Dorrit"'s ratings were not the sole determinant for the change in direction, nor the departure of Jane Tranter. While I applaud the desire to adapt other works and explore different historical eras beyond the nineteenth-century, I hope this move is not a permanent one and that the BBC considers adapting other novels, besides those by Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy.

The more recent adaptations of Elizabeth Gaskell's novels (Cranford, North and South, and Wives and Daughters) were a move in the right direction, I thought. Although I had heard of Gaskell prior to seeing any of the above-mentioned mini-series, I had never bothered to pick up her books. Thankfully, one look at Richard Armitage fixed that in no time!

One of the most wonderful adaptations the BBC has done to date--at least in my opinion--was Bleak House, starring Gillian Anderson of X-Files fame, Anna Maxwell-Martin of North and South, and others. I had read all 989 pages of the Penguin edition prior to viewing it and was stunned by the strength of Andrew Davies' script, the stellar casting, and the overall magnificence of the production. I even managed to convert a few Dickens-phobes by thrusting the three-disc DVD on them, despite protests that they loathed Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, and A Tale of Two Cities.

For a friend of mine--a lover of period dramas, but not an avid reader--the adaptations are one of the only ways she's willing to engage with literary classics. Were it not for Tess of the D'Urbervilles, The Way We Live Now, or Jane Eyre, my friend would be entirely unaware of Thomas Hardy, Anthony Trollope, or Charlotte Bronte. In these instances, I think period adaptations, despite their various liberties as regards plot and characters, serve a valuable function: namely, edifying those who would otherwise pass libraries and bookstores by and who'd never know whether Jane marries Rochester, whether Melmotte gets his comeuppance, or whether there's a happily ever after for Tess and Angel.

I imagine part of the problem, particularly in these tough economic times, is the budget. Bleak House recently came in at £8 million, or a whopping $11.7 million USD. That's a hefty pricetag, notwithstanding the length and calibre of the production. Budget cutbacks are apparently responsible for the canning of a new adaptation of E.M. Forster's A Passage to India, which was set to star Matthew Macfadyen, Sally Hawkins, Gemma Jones, and others. (Un?)fortunately, we'll just have to settle with the original David Lean version, I suppose.

However, I still regard it as a bit of a disappointment, given my penchant for Regency and Victorian literature. If it's ratings that the Beeb is worried about, then I'd suggest something novel: try adapting a book that has never been brought to the small screen before. Charlotte Bronte did write other novels besides Jane Eyre; we can live without another version of Sense and Sensibility; and, perhaps we can even live without Charles Dickens entirely! Don't permit those who dislike reading to live in ignorance of the classics!