This isn’t so much a review as a response, hence I’m not going to give a synopsis or structure this in any specific way. Hopefully those of you who’ve read the book and seen the TV adaptation will know what I’m talking about.

I should probably start out by saying that Jonathan Coe is my favourite author and that ‘The Rotter’s Club’ is one of his best works.

I was very excited about Wednesday’s opener of a three-part adaptation of the book written by Clement and La Frenais and starring (amongst others) Mark Williams, Sarah Lancashire and Julian Rhind-Tutt. Being such a fan of the book it was almost inevitable that the TV version wouldn’t live up to my expectations, but unfortunately it didn’t even come close.

My main problem is with the writing, the novel uses a lovely technique of bookending the 70s action with a dialogue between two of the characters’ children in the present day. This works beautifully helping to relate the action to the present and keeps you guessing about whose children they are. This is completely scrapped in the TV version and the opening was instead a cheesy ‘I Love the Seventies’ style montage including the dreaded ‘Smash’ advert.

Coe’s writing is universal and I related to his teenage characters as much as my parents did. By placing the school at the centre of the story Coe manages to touch every reader, things in a comprehensive or grammar school haven’t changed that much in the last 30 years. Clement and La Frenais choose to focus on the parents, making the tone far more of a soap opera than a coming of age story. It seems somehow empty, a retelling of the events of the novel rather without any of its richness or textual depth. It’s obviously difficult to transfer to screen a novel as textually rich as Coe’s, he layers newspaper articles, songs, poetry and reviews upon diaries and letters; but Clement and La Frenais don’t even seem to attempt this intertextuality.

The importance of the political backdrop and the satirical elements of the book are also missing in favour of a far more basic representation of class tensions. The most successful element of script (and casting) is the doomed romance between Lois and Malcolm, which is believable and moving. Unfortunately the shocking and heartbreaking conclusion to their relationship was incredibly poorly dealt with, rather than a shock it had a clumsy build up which ruined what should be an extremely violent and horrible interruption to the action.

This is the general problem with the script, everything is dealt with in a heavy-handed manner. Perhaps part of the problem lies in the fact that the writers probably read the book’s sequel ‘The Closed Circle’ while writing this. Knowing how a character ends up in adult life will obviously affect how you present them as a child. One character in particular is shown simply as a racist, homophobic, bigot; whereas in the book he’s so funny you don’t notice any malicious undercurrents in what he’s saying. He seems like a Viz character rather than Alf Garnet and this representation is clearly affected by the extreme views he develops as an adult in the second novel. Everything is pared down to its simplest level and the shades of grey are lost.

I don't have a problem with adaptations changing the action or characters to make a book work on screen; but I do have a problem with this type of treatment which seems to suck the soul out of the book and leave us with a hollow story about three families in the 70s. Clement and La Frenais have written some great work for the screen, but this is more 'Honest' or 'Vice Versa' than 'Porridge'. Essentially though they're just the wrong writers for the project, it seems all they can see is the story and not what makes the novel great, I think a younger writer would have been far more capable of relating the spirit of 'The Rotter's Club' to the screen.

Oh and the three actors playing the Ben, Doug and Philip are all so similar looking I find it hard to tell them apart.


Anyone else have an opinion?

Yup.

I agree.

Mostly.

I think if I hadn't read the book I would have enjoyed the programme more, but it's definitely a pale imitation. I was reading in Time Out that Clement & Le Frenais have created an ending which pretty much leaves no room for the sequel to be filmed. D'oh!

I suppose I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't already read the (far superior) book, but it's hard to imagine. Maybe I wouldn't have given it the time I gave it because I do like the book so much, it was quite dull, might have switched off altogether - who can tell.

Thanks for replying, was starting to feel as if I'd alienated everyone with my over analysis!

Have you read 'The Closed Circle'?

Nah, waiting for the paperback, and I always like to save a good book for me holidays. Very much looking forward to it, and in preparation am reading 'The Rotters Club' for the 3rd time.

I'll resist the urge to give anything away then, and hope the slight hint about one of the character's futures goes unnoticed!

i watched it and thought it was alright, reasonable funny and entertaining. i have not read the book. i didn't like the nostaglic stuff, its too predictable and general. the ending surprised me, i thought it was quite clever how they cut quickly to the knob thing then back to the couple making me think 'whats this then' then cut back to the knob with a slow pan which reveals the answer.

I've also not read the book, but I caught the Saturday repeat of this adaptation and thought it was very good. Well. apart from the appearance of "Granny Face" that was in Green Wing. Why do people find him attractive?

Anyway, apart from that, I was getting quite into it. Having no prior knowledge of what was going to happen the ending was quite a shock for me. In fact it made me sob like a girl. Which is ok, what with actually being a girl.

When I get the time, I'll go out and hunt down the book. But purely as a piece of drama I'd say it was very enjoyable.

And he was Rafe Spall! From Shaun! Woo. I love him.
But yes, the character was an arse, and must be annoying to watch if he's so different in the book.

It is done far more effectively in the book - there's no real foreshadowing, apart from references that some people might get such as the date and the name of the pub - Coe manages to describe perfectly these two young people in love, and then in one short paragraph pulls the rug out from under our feet - it's a brilliant piece of writing.

The second episode was a vast improvement, I thought Doug's jaunt to London was particularly well handled. I also very much like the actress playing Cicely, she's captured exactly how I imagined her to be (the devil in an A-cup)

It's just a shame that SoTD's Rafe Spall is still suffering with the writer's overly simplistic version of Sean Harding, that character should be hysterical; but he's still just coming across as a bigoted little shit. You're supposed to think everything he says is a piss take, unfortunate they can't include his letters to the school paper I think they really endear Sean to you, which makes the revelations in the book's sequel (The Closed Circle) all the more shocking.

Well the third episode was unfortunately as disappointing as the first. I guess the second afforded them more narrative freedom, as they didn't have to introduce the characters or tie up all the loose ends.

I didn't like the changes they made to the end of the story - which were obviously done to avoid the book's open end (leading to its sequel). Even though they're not planning to adapt the second book I still feel the original ending would have left things settled enough, with the right degree of ambiguity.

It also felt suddenly rushed, plot points were madly rushed through and lots was skipped out - so much so I can't help feel that someone unfamiliar with the books would have lost interest in many of the characters and storylines as they were sidelined or skimmed over.

I understand three hours isn't long to fit in all the action, however an even tone throughout should have been maintained - last week's episode felt relatively leisurely compared with last night's breakneck speed.

Overall a disappointment even though I did think the young actors gradually came into their own and should be applauded for their efforts.

In the book Bill Anderton tells Claire that he thinks her sister is dead. In the adaptation Claire tells Bill that she thinks her sister is dead.

In the book Richards fucks up his Physics A-Level. In the adaptation he leaves before finishing his exams and Culpepper fucks up his Physics A-level.

In the book Jennifer Hawkins wants to see Star Wars. In the adaptation she wants to see Rocky.

In the book Ben tricks his family into thinking he's going home and then goes to find Cicely. In the adaptation he's persuaded to do it by his sister.

I could go on, but I'll probably get just as irritated as I did when watching the bloody thing - why all the pointless bloody changes?

Really bizarre changes weren't they? I know some of them were because they're not adapting 'The Closed Circle' (for example they made it a lot more obvious what happened to Miriam and didn't have Richards being drugged as there isn't going to be a sequel to resolve these mysteries); but some of them just seemed pointless (Rocky/Star Wars being a prime example). Oh and why didn't we hear about Cicely's 'friend' Helen?

A very frustrating watch for fans of the book.