1 Interviewer: Peter, Um, Great Expectations- but Did It Meet
Interviewer: Peter, um, Great Expectations- but did it meet yours? Peter: It sort of did and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. It was a very decent, robust, competent, workmanlike adaptation and nothing damns it with faint praise more than that (interviewer:not really that good). I thought it was a really likeable attractive piece of work, I really liked Jeremy Evans. When you think how awful he was in War Horse, but that wasn’t really his fault, I thought War Horse was so treacly and this was pretty decent- he is a pretty good lead to play this. I wondered why we were hearing it all again, I mean it’s great, I love it, I can’t get enough of Pip being beastly to Joe Gargery and being snobbish to him and the awful toe-curling embarrassment of all that, just deathless, I can’t get enough of them but why are we seeing it all again, especially as the film seems to be making a bit of a virtue of not having anything radically new to say about it- I don’t think, unless I miss.. Catherine thinks it does. I thought it was good and I’ll sit and watch it perfectly happily, there were some very nice cameo turns in it- Sally Hawkins, who’s just born to be a Dickens player, David Walliams as Mr Pomchook . So I thought it was good but I wondered why we were hearing about it again, what was the point when people like the BBC, with their version of Bleak House , which was so radical and strong, why do this, why do this now? Why do it if you’ve really nothing new to say? Presenter: Catherine, can you answer that question, Mike Newell’s talked about this being his sexy version of Great Expectations- did you feel any of that? Catherine: I didn’t feel sexy, I didn’t feel it was sexy and I didn’t feel sexy watching it, I felt the opposite of sexy.
[Show full text]