The Go-Between

2015
6.8| 1h30m| en| More Info
Released: 20 September 2015 Released
Producted By: BBC
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

An elderly man pieces together his childhood memories after finding his diary from 1900, which he wrote when he was 13 years old.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

BBC

Trailers & Images

Reviews

phillip-mcdowell I have neither read the novel nor seen the first film adaptation, but after viewing the 2015 release of The Go Between I can understand why it was nominated for so many awards. Wonderful cinematography, exact period costumes, even how the outdoors shots were cleared of practically all remnants of modern life, put you there in 1900.Great acting by all of the cast, especially from Jack Hollington who plays young Leo.The stiffness and stuffiness of the Edwardian lifestyle for the British upper class is well presented in the film, although by 1900 cracks were beginning to appear in the veneer of this strict social structure of the haves and have-nots. The delineation of how and when the classes meet each other and interact is clearly displayed.My how times have changed in the 21st century. If the Queen's grandson may marry a mixed race American divorcee imagine what say a daughter of a mere Lord may have over her own life choices.
Rachel Morgan I am, more often than not, left disappointed when my favourite literary classics are adapted for television or the big screen, and while this BBC production of LP Hartley's novel is not perfect, it does better than most.The drama begins with a crushed, sorrowful looking older Leo (Jim Broadbent) travelling on a train to Norfolk, the scene of his foreign past. He imagines his younger self, (Jack Hollington) who accuses him of being a "Dull Dog." The older Leo then lays the blame for him being this "creature of ashes and cinder" squarely on the shoulders of his younger self. I found it to be a clever, and moving way of beginning the story. We then travel back fifty years in time to the scorching summer of 1900 and the characters that would haunt Leo into his old age.Leo spends his holidays at the country manor of his upper-class friend Marcus. (Samuel Joslin) It is here that he meets the beautiful, but manipulative and selfish Marian, (Joanna Vanderham) who he becomes instantly besotted with. He then becomes a postman of sorts, as he delivers love letters between Marian and her bit of rough, the tenant farmer Ted Burgess. (Ben Batt)Over the course of the summer, Leo feels increasingly uncomfortable and guilty about ferrying these correspondence, which he now knows aren't just "normal letters," back and forth. The engagement of Marian to the landlord, war hero, and thoroughly decent Trimingham (Stephen Campbell Moore) increases Leo's torment even further.I found it to be well directed, beautifully shot, with picture perfect locations. The performances were excellent throughout, especially from Master Hollington as young Leo. His acting was subtle, natural, intuitive and he had a charismatic presence that you could not take your eyes off of. One to watch out for I would say.At times it felt a little rushed, especially at the end where Broadbent returns as Leo, Batt as Marian's grandson, and Vanessa Redgrave plays the part of an older Marian. That is just a small complaint though. Overall, I found it to be a very moving adaptation of my favourite LP Hartley novel
Angus T. Cat When I first heard the BBC was going to show a new version of The Go Between I wanted to turn in and watch it. I read the novel years ago and it made a vivid impression on me. Its always been one of my favourite books, and I thought of it with fondness after I moved to East Anglia.It was wonderful at first seeing the older Leo with his younger self (in his green suit) on the train. I liked how the filming concentrated on the house and the lush greenery. But I was disappointed. The new Marion is no Julie Christie. Fair enough, no one else is Julie Christie except Miss Christie herself, but the Marion in this re-imagining is fair, very pretty, but lacking any real depth until she becomes angry with Leo for not taking messages to Ted. The new Ted, like Marion, is lovely to look at. I wasn't surprised when Ted was swimming in the nude and working in the fields stripped to the waist. (The BBC has been broadcasting several adaptations of classic novels recently including scenes with topless and wet males, trying to capitalize on the fervor made by Colin Firth swimming as Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice) It was nice to have some eye candy for the ladies and it worked well with the themes of the story. The cricket scene and the following concert were well played too.It turned out to be a chocolate box depiction of the Go Between, full of richness but full of sweetness mostly on the surface, mostly shallow, and ultimately unsatisfying. I disliked the compartmenting of the story so the viewpoint of the old Leo was shoehorned to the end. I missed some of the key scenes in the novel, such as Leo offering his dry bathing suit to Marion so she can dry her hair with it and Leo polishing Ted's cricket bat. I missed seeing Norwich Cathedral, and Marion meeting up again with Leo at the train section wasn't as meaningful as her ditching him at the Cathedral and telling him to wait for her. While the cricket scenes and concert scenes were effective the new version doesn't give as much indication of the class divide as the original novel or the 1971 film. I liked the hints of a Norfolk accent in Ted's speech: it would have been nice to hear and see more Norfolk in the film. It felt very abridged and heavily cut so it could fit into a 90 minute slot. I much prefer the 1971 film. Harold Pinter did a fine job with the screenplay, and the acting is superb. Only Vanessa Redgrave and Jim Broadbent achieve any pathos in this version. The young actor who plays Leo is sweet looking and finely suggests his inner torment. The viewer however isn't given any notion of Leo's acting and conniving to win popularity in the house. Several times in the novel Leo plays for effect, like asking for a large amount of sugar in his tea because small boys are supposed to like sugar. I groaned at the ending: seeing the Old Leo and the young Leo together in the train traveling to the house was effective, but seeing them together walk towards the house at the end, preparing to speak to Marion's grandson, was corny. Marion's recounting of what happened to the others in the house did sound like a rushed through list, and didn't convey the weight of destruction: how the brand new century so promising in that long ago summer turned out to be devastating for Marion, her family, and the country.
alex239-545-53158 This was a major disappointment compared to the novel and original film. Like most modern period dramas, it is style over substance, with stunning photography masking a misguided script and some unconvincing acting.The earlier 1971 movie was a flawless adaptation, with Harold Pinter's script tending to say less with more, upping the tension with the slow, languid pace reflecting the heat of the summer and limited, meaningful dialog. Here, unnecessary lines are inserted as will, many not even in the novel, such as Leo's embarrassment about his old and ragged summer clothes after Marian accuses him of lying – this is just a cheap way of garnering sympathy for the boy, and not reflective of the times it was set. Such things would have been left unsaid. It is the same through the program; everything needs to be spelt out, rather than leaving it to the actors to subtly convey.There are poor minor plot additions such as Ted seeming defensive about being poor – certainly not true to the book, and a far cry from Alan Bates and his worldly self confidence. Here he attempts to be brooding and moody, as oppose to charismatic and cheery but with a fiery temper, and it makes him far less likable and far less obvious why Marian would risk everything for him. Mariam herself is only passably acted, with Julie Christie an impossible act to follow. Marian's father being away is another pointless adjustment, and the production misses his steady, world weary presence, especially in the smoking room scene that was so integral to the first film. Trimmingham also loses some of his aristocratic dignity and military bearing, and the writer inexplicably takes away his fantastic line that gives him such honour and pathos: "Nothing is ever a ladies fault, Leo".Leo himself puts in a fairly lifeless, strangely camp performance, with a certain charm combined with adolescent awkwardness which is very different from the more honest, believable performance in the film. Less attention paid to the central theme of oppressive heat, the film seems to move much quicker and out of sequence. It's also more outwardly emotional, compared to the stoicism of the film and novel, where passions are repressed and below the surface. The vital moments here are filled with shrieks and histrionics. The final meeting is too warm and pleasant – it should have that edge of regret, memory, pain and nostalgia mixed together, the dialog has been watered down, the hint of bitterness discarded.Unfortunately it suffers greatly by comparison, because taken by itself it is a very solid, beautifully shot production. The filming is breathtaking, with so many lovely touches including the reflection in the water scene and that wonderful final shot of older Leo against the hall and endless lawn. For people who haven't seen the original or read the book this may seem a far better film that the one I have described.