Episode 14: Originalism and Revisionism plus early reviews of the original book. One day I will finish going through the original book and will embark upon a discussion of the portrayals of the book on film and TV. At that point I am going to have to address the tension between the originalist approach to the story and the revisionist approach. Basically this is the tension between the view that the original book is Canon and should never be changed in any portrayal of it and the view that the original source material is there to be played with, changed and expanded. The 1978 film, at a running time of 102 minutes, obviously had to summarise the story heavily. This is surely forgiveable. However it did not just summarise the story. There were places where it changed it. Yet the 1978 film, and its telling of the story, is much loved by many in it's own right, independently of the original book. And this leads us to an awkward possibility that I am going to introduce into the debate at this point: When it comes to WD there are actually TWO originalist positions. One treats the original book as Canon in any analysis of subsequent versions. However another treats the 1978 film as Canon in any analysis of film or TV versions that came after it. In fact I'll go even further: The addition of a female character to those who leave Sandleford in the film was, perhaps, an implied criticism of the sexism of the original book. I'm going to introduce the idea that the 1978 film clearly has such a following, in it's own right, that it has earned a Canon status all of its own. I'm well aware that this may annoy devotees of the book. But it is so clearly the main reason for love of WD in so many of its devotees that it is, arguably, pointless to deny it this status. When it comes to analysing the 1978 film I do plan to fairly ruthlessly compare it to the original book, and will not hold back on criticising it from a Book originalist perspective. However, the 1978 film set up conventions, when it comes to telling the story on screen, that subsequent versions have felt the need to acknowledge, for example the opening of the story with a stylised version of the story of the Blessing of El-ahrairah. In any case, my analysis of film and TV versions of the book is going to throw up some surprising examples of much loved portrayals being ridiculously inaccurate, while far less admired versions get some very specific elements of the story surprisingly right. To this end, there will be a theme of 'Crimes against Watership Down'. Specific charges including abuse of geology and geography. Coming across Efrafa on the way to WD from Sandleford is an example of the latter, that I regret to say the 1978 film is guilty of. This would involve a ridiculous journey on the part of Captain Holly. As for geology...the 1999 tv series has too many offences to name. But they will be named. As an interesting aside, the portrayal of the stories of El-ahrairah in the Canadian TV series are worthy of credit as it is the only version that includes more than one of them. Let me sum the above up as follows: there is no version of WD, including the original book, that should be free from criticism or from praise. I will respect originalist perspectives completely. But I will also give a full and fair hearing to any revisionist portrayals of the story. 14.3: Early reviews of WD Courtesy of Ric Morris. A short 1974 review of WD from the Daily Mail. A longer 1974 review from the Liverpool Daily Post. A 1976 article, again from the Daily Mail, abourt the first audiobook of WD, read by Roy Dotrice, which was heavily abridged, and advance information on the 1978 film, that was being made at the time.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related