Daniel McGachey, who is reviewing Number 13 for the Ghosts & Scholars M.R. James Newsletter, sent some initial comments:
"I've now watched Number 13 twice and I'm thoroughly impressed with the production. In fact, I enjoyed it more the second time and got a lot more out of it. Despite the switch in locations and some alteration to the characters, the adaptation is pretty faithful to the original, while bringing in a twist or two that heighten the horror. The cast are all good, the locations and costumes and look of the film are sumptuous and it looks an altogether more lavish affair than AVFAH on what I imagine was still a fairly low budget for a BBC drama. If AVFAH was informed by the Lawrence Gordon Clark productions, there were quite a few moments where this production seemed entirely possessed by the spirit of the '70s films (no pun intended)".
Jon Potts also e-mailed with his comments:
"I... just wanted to give my views on the latest adaptation. I really enjoyed View last year but this surpassed that greatly. The casting was again excellent and it was good to see David Burke given another role, this time as the Innkeeper. Greg Wise also excelled as Anderson though I thought he seemed moodier than the original character - quite an unsympathetic man, who deserved what came to him (just my opinion though). The whole thing was very 'Lawrence Gordon Clark' and certain scenes reminded me of Stalls of Barchester, particularly when Anderson was doing his research (very Dr Black). Like you, I hope the BBC choose a story, not yet dramatised, for next year, but I won't complain whatever is screened. The Ghost Story for Christmas series in the '70s was always eagerly anticipated in our household, and it's fantastic that the tradition has made a comeback. Here's to next year".
But Reggie Oliver has a very different opinion:
"My view of Number 13 is rather different than those that have so far appeared on your website. You might be interested in a contrasting view. Greg Wise, excellent at playing charming scoundrels like Wickham in Pride & Prejudice, was highly improbable as the repressed academic Anderson. It was misconceived from first to last, mainly because the director and writer had such a lazy, thoughtless idea of what a James story should be about. For them it was the clichéd notion of repressed scholars in dusty libraries and olde English atmosphere piled on thickly. (James hated all that Gothick stuff; his stories were a rebellion against it.) There is a novelty and sophistication in even MRJ's weakest stories which completely escapes them. A rather drab Scandinavian hotel is so much more interesting as a setting than the stereotypical old English inn. The use of Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights, the central panel of which was hanging on the wall of the old inn bedroom, was an exotic absurdity, and destroyed any sense of reality. No early 20th-century hotel would dream of having such a thing. What astonishes me most is the way they seem to ignore MRJ's most original effects and substitute drearier ones of their own. There was a shadow on the wall, but not a dancing shadow - so much more fascinating - there was a hand that emerged from Number 13 and grabbed the protagonist but it was a black leather gloved hand rather than 'clad in ragged, yellowish linen and the bare skin, where it could be seen, had long grey hair upon it'. There is more but I won't go on. It is as if they had said to themselves: 'let us take the bare bones of the story but let us strip James's effects of their weird and alarming originality and make them as conventional and clichéd as we possibly can'."
Philip Mayes agrees:
"I was looking forward to Number 13, but I must agree with Reggie Oliver's views on this unholy work. The problem was that the producers have attempted to film a story that was too technically difficult for them to achieve: the silhouettes projected on the wall outside the bedroom, and the fact that room 13 physically takes up space in the two adjoining rooms when it appears. Instead they decided to go for nightmarish images, which had no logical connection to the story. Also the discovery of the manuscript at the beginning of the story, rather than at the end, makes no sense, and suggests that by breaking the seal the protagonist has brought the misfortune upon himself. Also, from reading the short story, I get the feeling that the main character is rather likeable, not an uptight prig as he is in the film."
Daniel McGachey responds:
"Despite my own liking for the production, I agree to a certain extent with some of the criticisms. I had tried to keep my own comments as general as possible, as I had hoped not to put any Spoilers in. But I did wonder about the use of the Bosch painting, mainly because it's such a well known piece, and was also disappointed by the hand, though less so on my second viewing and I think I can understand why they went the route they chose. But, while I don't think it's perfect, I still found much to enjoy."
Michael Connolly has something to add:
"I have something to say about the BBC3 MRJ adaptations. There have only been two so far, but in one important respect they are superior to the 1970s' ones. In that the actors are given more to do, with an emphasis on class conflict for example, they work better as drama. The earlier ones, especially The Ash-tree which left out a lot of material and plot details from the story, tend to be very sparse as drama. While the new ones leave out plot details also, they have substituted new ones of their own. And whether or not this is a good thing depends on the individual. See the mixed reviews you have received. While someone should tell BBC3 that there are more authors than MRJ, I hope it continues with the series. Overall, both A View from a Hill and Number 13 were more successful entertainment than BBC1's Dracula, which could well be the most forgettable version ever largely because the new material did not really work, even on its own terms."
Tracey Edwards comments:
I enjoyed this immensely - more so, as usual, on my second viewing. It was a perfectly reasonable adaptation, with fine acting, sets, and direction, but I have several criticisms, some mentioned above already. When compared to the '70s tales, e.g. A Warning to the Curious, it was lacking in very basic chills. A View from a Hill was somewhat better and more chilling, and fit in very well with the classics. The 'less is more' approach needed to be applied here I think. There was too much subtext and too many subplots, e.g. alcoholism and repressed sexuality. Some of the music was quite bland and slightly over used, in particular the opening title music, which was a little too comedic, as were some scenes and dialogue.
Again as in A View from a Hill, simple key images that would have conveyed so much were missing; one of the most striking and disturbing ones is that of the silhouette of the demon surrounded in red, the writhing figure of the demonic Francken. It could have been cast on the ground if there was no building opposite, Also, the eerie singing/wailing sound coming from the room, which would have worked far better than the dull and cliched echoing ghostly laughter. And the loud band that accompanied the opening of the envelope - just not needed.
I think the biggest mistake was the use of the gloved hand at the climax. A thin white arm draped with old rags would have worked far more effectively than a brand new leather glove. I agree with changes only if they serve the telling of a story. Not really up to the standard of the Laurence Gordon Clark classics, but nevertheless extraordinary that such wonderful, eerie, low key dramas can be produced in this day and age. I hope they continue for many years.
Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Rosemary Pardoe (and the contributors)