The Reputation of "NORTH AND SOUTH" (2004)
THE REPUTATION OF "NORTH AND SOUTH" (2004)
Does the 2004 miniseries "NORTH AND SOUTH" have a lesser reputation than other Elizabeth Gaskell adaptations like "WIVES AND DAUGHTERS" (1999) and "CRANFORD" (2007)?
I wonder. I came across this PDF version of an article on Elizabeth Gaskell novels called "Gaskell Now & Then: The Reception of "Cranford" and "Wives and Daughters".
One, I found it curious that the authors left out any discussion on Gaskell's 1855 novel, "North and South" and other works. Two, the authors had this to say about the 2004 miniseries in Chapter 4:
"It is beyond doubt that the BBC adaptations of Gaskell’s novels have been the driving force behind Gaskell’s still rising popularity among the general public, and consequently the attention given to Gaskell as well as Gaskell’s popularity within the academic field. In a time when people find it more convenient to turn on the television or look things up on the internet, getting people to read a book has proven difficult. That is, unless those people have already seen the adaptation of that book in TV or on the internet and liked it, and now want to know more. "Wives and Daughters" was adapted for television by the BBC in 1999, and starred a
number of well-known British actors. It was immediately very successful, and in 2000 won awards at the British Academy Film and Television Awards (BAFTA), the Broadcasting Press Guild Awards and at the Royal Television Society, among others for best actor, best actress and best drama series. It is no wonder that in 2004 the BBC went on to adapt "North and South" as well. Starring less well-known actors, this adaptation was markedly less popular, receiving only one nomination at the BAFTA’s for best production design. In 2007 "Cranford" was adapted by the BBC from three Gaskell novellas: "Cranford", "My Lady Ludlow" and "Mr.
Harrison’s Confessions". The cast comprised several well-known actors, including Judi Dench, Eileen Atkins, Imelda Staunton and Michael Gambon, and the series did extremely well, ranking in the top ten of BBC programmes for the duration of the series. It was nominated for eight BAFTA’s and won three, including Best Actress; it was nominated for eight Emmy Awards and won two, and it was nominated for three Golden Globes."
"NORTH AND SOUTH" did less well than the other two miniseries, "WIVES AND DAUGHTERS" and "CRANFORD"? I realize that it only earned a nomination for Production Design (which I personally find shameful). But I could have sworn that it did well, ratings wise. However, the authors went on to say this about "NORTH AND SOUTH":
"Of the three BBC adaptations, "North and South", Gaskell’s only social problem novel to have made it onto the television screen, has been received far less well than "Cranford" and "Wives and Daughters". As discussed before, modern novel reading is used mostly by people for escaping their own life, for relaxing, and for allowing the public to submerge themselves in other people’s life. We see this happening not only in novel reading, whether that be modern novels or historical novels, but also in television watching. Thus, it only stands to reason that, like novels, television shows which feature more depressing subjects might be less popular than shows with a more positive theme, especially if that show consists of multiple episodes spread out over several weeks, as people would prefer to escape from their own situation to the lives of people who have at least a marginally better life than their own. It also explains the popular demand for everything on television to have a happy ending. However, as shows such as "Eastenders" or "Coronation Street", which are also about the working class and their hardships, are very popular, we can only assume that the lesser degree of popularity of the adaptation of "North and South" must be a combination of audiences having to watch nineteenth-century hardships - which are markedly different from the present day hardships as seen in "Eastenders" and "Coronation Street" - and perhaps a less interesting plotline that tends to focus more on the social circumstances of the characters than on their romantic lives."
Now I am confused. Television audiences did not mind stories about the working class in 20th century Britain, but were less tolerant of a miniseries about the cotton textile industry and the working class in 19th century Britain? And this is supposed to be the reason why "NORTH AND SOUTH" failed to win any major nominations and awards? Or did television and literary critics simply believed that Elizabeth Gaskell had no business writing a social drama like "North and South"?
Do you feel that the authors of this article gave a sufficient reason for the lack of critical acclaim for "NORTH AND SOUTH"? At the moment, I certainly do not. Nor can I understand how "WIVES AND DAUGHTERS" and "CRANFORD" are more highly acclaimed. Then again, I could be speaking from my own personal bias.