Customer Reviews

The Good Soldier

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This production of "The Good Soldier" shows what television can do to translate a terrific novel to the screen. The story is about two couples, one American and one British, and is narrated by the American husband. As the story develops, he realizes that most of what he has believed about his relationship with his wife and with his British friends is based upon lies. For this reason, several crucial scenes are shown twice -- the first time they appear innocent or inexplicable; the second time, when the narrator has learned of the events leading up to the scenes, they take on a very different appearance. The uncertainty of the truth of what you are seeing is indicated in an opening montage of various scenes from the entire story, which (if you haven't read the novel) will seem very confusing at first. By the end of story, you can see why the narrator begins by describing this as the saddest story he knows. I saw the production decades ago on PBS, and then for many years had a recorded VHS tape (now gone). It's great to have this on DVD. It would be nice to know if there are any special features, but even there aren't, it's still great.

By the way, it's true that John Ratzenberger (Cliffie on Cheers) does a great job as a seductive love interest for one of the women. Hard to believe if you watched Cheers, but Ratzenberger has a wider range as an actor than you would think.

Of course, much is lost in the translation of "The Good Soldier" from page to screen, chiefly the narrative and temporal complexities of the novel. However, the television adapatation is successful in its use of time shifts, and, like Ford's work, the film is impressionistic, often showing us a scene twice to give the viewer two different impressions.

However, we lose Dowell's process of writing itself and his relation with the reader. In the film, Dowell is mainly absent from the last third of the story because it is told from Leonora's perspective, whereas in the novel Dowell's voice is dominant throughout, even when he is recounting what has only been told him.

Of course, any book - especially a modernist novel - loses a good deal of its complexity in the transition to film, and "The Good Soldier" is on the whole a successful adaptation of the novel, much better than the adpatations of other modernist novels I've seen, like "Ulysses" and "Mrs. Dalloway." The film was shot on location in Nauheim and elsewhere in Germany, which shows the care this production takes with Ford's work.

The four principals are all excellent in their roles, particularly Jeremy Brett and Susan Fleetwood as the Ashburnhams. The score was excellent as well. The production also keeps Dowell's voiceovers to a minimum, which may be something of a loss but it is welcome in a televison adpatation, which thankfully shows us a great deal of the action instead of telling.

Overall, then, I found this adaptation of "The Good Soldier" to be one of the more successful installments of "Masterpiece Theater" and probably one of the best film made from a modernist novel that I have seen. While we lose the complexities of Dowell's narration and his potential unreliabilty, the film utilizes the time-shifts and impressionistic technique of Ford's novel, and there are subtle hints that Dowell may know more than he lets on. Thus, the film's success stems from its faithfulness to the aesthetic spirit of Ford's novel.

Caveat: The film will make little sense at first to those who have not read the novel, which is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nuances of the story.

With a stellar cast that includes Jeremy Brett, Robin Ellis, Susan Fleetwood, Vickery Turner, Elizabeth Garvie, Pauline Moran, and John Ratzenberger, "The Good Soldier" is the story of two Edwardian couples who become friends when meeting for nine consecutive years at an annual retreat in a German spa. Superbly adapted from the novel by Ford Madox Ford, "The Good Soldier" features beautiful costuming, meticulous set designs, and superb photography in a 104 minute production that is technically flawless in its execution. Viewers are treated to an unfolding story of unexpected plot twists, memorable characters, and shifting perspectives, as this remarkably engaging story of love, loss, betrayal is revealed. Strongly recommended for community library video collections, the DVD format of "The Good Soldier" allows for the inclusion of a Ford Madox Ford biography, cast filmographies, and a scene index feature.

The Good Soldier is a rather haunting period story and film, with many delicate layers of meaning and subtle character revelations, made more complex because they are seen from different perspectives, but also (paradoxically) because often they are seen, rather than spoken of. The contrast between the measured elegance of the couples, and the anguish (it is revealed) that seethes below the surface of their leisurely, even lazy, lifestyle, is absolutely rivetting.
Although it is essentially a sad story - the 'soldier' of the title seems at first to be the villain, then turns out to be the victim - Jeremy Brett's performance is such that this scarcely matters, one is more struck by the quality of his portrayal, which far surpasses the undeniable excellence of the other actors. Brett is able, with a minimum of words, and the slightest gesture or fleeting expression, to reveal an entire sea of his character's suffering.
The tale is set in the Edwardian era, yet its theme of social relationships is surprisingly modern (with its overtones of wife-swapping, extra-marital affairs etc).
The viewer can't help but be drawn into the lives of the characters, trapped, as they seem to be, with their pain and age-old human problems. It is a brilliant film, and a special one.

I am a very visual person so I can sit through lots of meaningless despair as long as it photographed in beautiful settings with lots of lush costumes and fantastic architecture. This film has all of that. It helps that the cast is strong and rather attractive, too. It makes for a "good show."

As for the content, well...I found the story interesting, told as it is, from the view point of the man who was deceived. First we see the splendid surface--the two wealthy couples, one American, one English, in a German spa, pre-World War I. They spend several years together, performing, as the narrator says, a "minuet." A lovely picture. Then the narrator lets us in to the story behind the story, almost as he has discovered it. From reading some of the reviews of the book, it seems that the narrator is much more befuddled than he is portrayed in the film. That may be a flaw in the translation of book to film...I don't know. As the layers of the characters peel away and we learn of the rotten-ness at the core of the apple (his words), the story intensifies, or as they used to say, "the plot thickens."

My attention was held throughout, mostly by the strength of the actors and the visual splendors. The plot, itself, doesn't have much to offer modern audiences. We know about adultery, betrayal, revenge, hypocrasy. There is nothing here that illumines any of the characters, raises them up to a higher plane. No one changes, learns anything, grows, transcends his dire situation. Most of the players chose cowardly outs---three out of five chose suicide, and one descends into madness. So I wasn't left with a particularly satisfied feeling at the end.

The main character, who is supposed to be the befuddled weakling, was played by the charming Robin Ellis, who I fell in love with in the tv series, "Poldark." That's probably what kept my interest--not a great reason. But he remains as befuddled at the end as he was in the beginning. So one could ask "What's the point of all this?" Perhaps Ford Maddox Ford was using this as a means to discover answers to his the riddles of his own life. Here he offers us questions but no answers.

I suppose there is more value to the story if one were to read the novel, but having seen this, I don't think I'll bother. I give it four stars just for the splendid production. (It was really funny to see John Ratzenberger, Cliff Claven, the mail man in "Cheers," in a totally different setting.)

This Ford Maddox Ford's novel is a slice of Edwardian life... and a picture of life's psychological problems, errors and lack of resolution. Sad story - very common story. Unresolved issues and unhappy people. Unfortunately the quality of the video on the DVD is not good. But I am still happy to have a copy of this movie. Superb acting.

The Good Soldier is an old favorite and one I thought I would always be condemned to view from an old VHS tape. The DVD is a great update of an old friend.

This movie is a gem. I bought Ford Madox Ford novel before watching it, to make sure I would understand. And when I watched the DVD, I saw that the movie was perfectly faithful to the novel. The story is beautiful and tragic , it shows how society prevents the characters to live freely their lives.It's not a shallow and light movie, it requests much attention to be quite understood, but the viewer is fully rewarded, because it is most interesting. It's also extremely beautiful to watch: the settings, the costumes, the actors and actresses, all is a pleasure for the eyes. Susan Fleetwood, Vickery Turner, Robin Ellis , Jeremy Brett, are perfect performers. I loved every one of them, but above all Jeremy Brett. This excellent british actor was often underrated (if you want him to be awarded, at least , a posthumous Bafta, see facebook: "posthumous BAFTA for Jeremy Brett". He was sometimes accused of overplaying; in "the good soldier", his performance is subtle, he expresses Ashburnam feelings with a mere look and it's enough...Really, it's a splendid movie.

I bought this film because I am a huge fan of Jeremy Brett and wanted to see him in a role other than Sherlock Holmes. I would have liked this film better if Brett's character would have been a little more involved, but at least I did get to see him in a different role on screen. I also was pleased to see "Miss Lemmon" from "Poirot" in the film briefly. I don't know if I would recommend this. I bought it for a personal reason, not because I thought it would be great. For me, it filled that purpose, and I will probably watch it more than once, but not often.

Recently, my wife and I wanted to see a decent drama. (TV really has become the "wasteland" predicted in the 1950's; moreover, we didn't know that the 2005 version of Charles Dickens' "Bleak House" would be re-run on PBS within the next few weeks. We'd missed it last year.) So, we checked our old VHS collection and found we'd taped the 13-part series, "To Serve Them All My Days," from Masterpiece Theatre in the mid-1980's. Our copies even included insightful commentary from Alistair Cooke. Remember him?

At the end of "To Serve Them All My Days," Mr. Cooke said an upcoming program would be "The Good Soldier, " a 1981, BBC production. We didn't remember this one and thought it might be worth viewing, if it was anywhere near the quality of, "To Serve Them All My Days." Stars of "The Good Soldier" were said to include Jeremy Brett, of Sherlock Holmes fame, and Elizabeth Garvie, who played Elizabeth Bennett in a quite entertaining version of "Pride and Prejudice," in 1979. Robin Ellis whom we also liked in "Poldark" would play John Dowell, the vacuous American husband and narrator of "The Good Soldier."

I searched the Amazon.com listings to see if "The Good Soldier" might be available on DVD. Amazingly, it was due to come out the following week. The reason I go into all this is to say we had every reason to believe that this production would be a good one, coming as it did from what we regard as the "golden age" of Masterpiece Theatre. What we got instead was disappointing.

In all honesty, we did find most of the acting, scenery, costumes, and other production features of "The Good Soldier" to be fine. It was the story that let us down--if there really is a story. From what we can tell, the saga takes place in the 9-year period before World War I, 1904-1913. It's possible, the author, Ford Madox Ford (who had changed his last name from the very German, Hueffer) wanted to return to a more pleasant era when he finished this piece in 1915. This was shortly after World War I broke out. If the author also wanted to show how decadent and purposeless things were at that time he may have succeeded there, too.

As I was saying, the story takes place about 100 years ago and centers on two middle-aged couples. One is English (Edward and Leonora Ashburnham); the other, American (John and Florence Dowell). They meet at a German spa and get along so well they keep meeting there over nine ensuing summers. On the surface, they seem well-behaved, well-dressed, and friendly. But beneath the calm and elegant facade, Edward is a latter-day Casanova whom women find irresistible. He seduces one woman after another right under his wife's nose, finally to include Florence, the wife of his friend John Dowell. (Florence has been faking a heart condition in order to reduce John to the role of solicitous keeper). But when she sees Edward alone with his teenage niece, Nancy, Florence gets jealous and kills herself. When Edward can't have Nancy, he also kills himself. Nancy, who came from a broken home and was raised by nuns, then goes insane. Despite all this, John Dowell ends up with Nancy and becomes her keeper just as he'd been for Florence.

Some of the dialogue seems tongue-in-cheek, if not downright campy. One example is where Leonora accuses Florence of being a whore. Florence objects, but Leonora dead-pans, "All whores say that." (Ironic since Leonora is supposed to be a devout Irish Catholic and sensitive about her faith and heritage. Also, she's quite privileged and refined. What would she know about whores?) Similarly, John Dowell seems to be especially gullible and naive all the way through the story, even as he narrates. In fact, he starts his narration with the quote, "This is the saddest story I've ever heard." John also says shortly after his wife's suicide, "Now I can marry Nancy." Maybe it's supposed to be funny? Maybe not? We're told in the analysis that the author wanted John to be "an unreliable narrator." Oh well, at least we're spared the Louis Carroll line: "And the momrads outgrabe."

Ford Madox Ford is described as a "modernist writer," which may mean that he's the literary equivalent of Picasso or Salvador Dali. If this be true, we won't look for any more works by Mr. Ford. His personal life was a mess and he was sued for child support by his estranged wife. He served 8 days in prison as a result. Perhaps his writing was a release for him where he could devise characters and stories that were even more messed up than his own life. And in this, readers can feel relieved that they may not have it so bad after all. I call this the "Tennessee Williams effect" for the American writer whose sordid tales did much the same thing. Sure it's a stretch, but there can be some kind of social value from this, can't there? I didn't waste $18.69, did I?

In summing up, none of the characters in "The Good Soldier" is particularly worthy of our concern and the plot is virtually nonexistent. People end up cheating on each other and committing suicide or losing their minds. Was Mr. Ford trying to say that it was better to have a world war than to die from boredom, or what? His characterization of Americans is also unnerving. Are they supposed to be superficial or naive, when compared to their British counterparts? Or are the British just supposed to be cynical, sarcastic, treacherous, and mixed up? (The Nazis tried to persuade us of these British traits in their propaganda during World War II. Germans, on the other hand, were supposed to be much more forthright, industrious, and trustworthy--like Americans.)

As to how often flashbacks are used, at the beginning, middle, and end, apparently, this was supposed to be an impressionistic device that readers would find unusual and profound. To my wife and I it just added to the mishmash and confusion. If you're going to tell a story, go ahead and tell it. If you're not going to tell a story and instead just mill around with useless characters who don't know what they want and end up wanting to kill themselves, keep the whole thing to yourself and don't bother anyone else.

If you enjoy psycho-dramas with plenty of betrayal, seduction, and doubletalk, e. g., "Dangerous Liaisons," starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich, "The Good Soldier" may be for you. But if you prefer to see stories that convey a positive message, have good guys and bad guys, failure or success, you should pass on "The Good Soldier." Get, instead, "To Serve Them All My Days," or the 2005 version of "Bleak House," with Gillian Anderson. "Bleak House" may be the best thing from Masterpiece Theatre in the past 20 years.