User Reviews

British television of the 1980's managed to produce scores of movies and miniseries based on classic novels. Name a book by a British author of the 19th or early 20th centuries, and you can bet there's an adaptation for British TV. Most of them are faithful, well-acted, full of authentic period details, and don't have the same nettlesome commercial sensibilities of American TV. A lot of them are very good: for example, the long series of Sherlock Holmes stories starring Jeremy Brett, or Fortunes of War with Emma Thompson.

One problem: they tended to crank these things out, with the same actors and directors, so that one period piece set at an English country manor featuring well-spoken actors in tailored tweeds looks and feels more or less like any other period piece set at an English country manor featuring well-spoken actors in tailored tweeds.

With Evelyn Waugh, that's a big problem. Waugh is a hilariously funny writer, even when he's writing about infidelity and death and the other terrible things that happen in "A Handful of Dust". So the film version, with Kristen Scott-Thomas, Alec Guiness, and Stephen Fry in a small role, follows the plot of the book, and uses much of the dialogue, but they've cut out most of the humor.

Take a scene from the book where Tony and Jock get very drunk and telephone Brenda (Tony's wife) and stagger around to her flat in the middle of the night. In the book this scene goes on for several pages -- they phone her, get lost, phone again, have a few more drinks, etc -- but in the movie it lasts all of two minutes. In another part of the book there's a parish priest who recycles his sermons from thirty years earlier, all of which were written while he served in the army in Afghanistan; the parishioners don't mind the references to deserts and jungles and tigers. That's not in the movie at all.

It's not a bad movie, just very disappointing if you've read the book. "Bright Young Things", Stephen Fry's more recent adaptation of Waugh's "Vile Bodies" was a much more accurate version of Waugh's black humor and satire. The humor is almost entirely missing from "Handful of Dust".

In one sense this is two films in one, always difficult to pull off and more so when the contrast is so startling; for two thirds of the running time we're comfortably ensconced in the thirties and living the privileged life vicariously largely via the Lasts (James Wilby and Kristin Scott-Thomas) who rattle around with their small son in a Gothic pile except when Brenda (Scott-Thomas) is up in Town banging her sponging lover (Rupert Graves). The main problem here is that there is insufficient contrast between Wilby and Graves to convince us why Scott-Thomas elected him as a lover (I'm speaking of course merely about external appearance and outward behaviour; Beaver may well have been exceptional in bed but nothing about him hinted at excitement, in fact he and Wilby could easily have passed for brothers, and in those days Brenda would have no other yardstick). There's also a symbolic element which tends to be heavy-handed; having encountered an eccentric named Dr Messenger (geddit) Wilby decides more or less on the spot to underwrite the Dr's expedition to South America and go along himself for the ride so that the heavy-handed point being made is that he is leaving a moral jungle for a tangible one. The last third of the film finds him in the jungle, stricken with fever, left alone by Messenger who is never able to get the help he went in search of, and 'saved' by Tod (German for 'death') a white man gone native played by Alec Guinness, who cynically keeps him a prisoner in all but name. As we might expect with actors of this calibre the acting is first class as is the period feel and if you can accept the wrench from Shires to Jungle you may well enjoy it.

Although Evelyn Waugh is one of my favourite writers, I cannot think of any great films which have been based upon his works. Or, for that matter, any great television series; I have never been a fan of that monumentally tedious adaptation of "Brideshead Revisited" from the early eighties. I think that the reason why Waugh does not adapt particularly well to the screen has to do with the nature of his writing; he was, in both politics and religion, an arch-conservative who found himself at odds with the progressive spirit of his times and attacked that spirit in a series of bleakly satirical novels. Like many satirists he was not a writer who thought primarily in visual terms (even though he was an art lover); I doubt if anyone reads him for the beauty of his descriptive passages. He had a strong authorial voice for which film-makers often have difficulty in finding an equivalent. Perhaps the best attempt is Tony Richardson's version of "The Loved One", which updated the story from the 1940s to the 1960s and expanded Waugh's satire to take in various aspects of contemporary American life. Although this film has a much more left-wing agenda than Waugh would have been happy with, at least Richardson and his scriptwriters never lose sight of the fact that they are adapting a work of satire.

Like the previous reviewer, however, I felt that the makers of "A Handful of Dust" ignored Waugh's irony and simply turned it into a tragedy made in the best "heritage cinema" style. It was directed by Charles Sturridge who was also responsible for that television "Brideshead". Waugh's novel, a tale of adultery among the upper classes, was intended as a satire on the mores of the British landed gentry and social-climbing bourgeoisie, and also on the eccentricities and hypocrisies of the English legal system, especially with regard to divorce. Waugh himself had gone though a divorce a few years earlier and, like his hero Tony Last, had been obliged by social convention to manufacture sham evidence which would allow his adulterous wife to pose as the wronged party. The title is an allusion to T. S. Eliot's "The Waste Land":-

I will show you something different from either Your shadow at morning striding behind you Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; I will show you fear in a handful of dust,

and Waugh's satire has a bleakness which matches that of Eliot's lines.

Something else which makes "A Handful of Dust" a difficult novel to film is its weak structure. The strange ending, in which Tony is held prisoner in the Brazilian jungle by an elderly eccentric who forces him to read the complete works of Dickens over and over, is quite different in tone to the rest of the book and has the air of something tacked onto the novel from a separate work. Which indeed it is- it was originally a separate short story entitled "The Man Who Liked Dickens" and was pressed into service as an ending for the novel, presumably because Waugh could not think of anything more original. The film keeps this ending (although Waugh did in fact write an alternative one for his American publishers), and it cannot be said that it is any more successful on the screen than it is on the printed page.

In the novel Tony was a rather dull, pedestrian country squire, and part of Waugh's theme was that he was strapped for cash and finding it difficult to keep up his ramshackle, crumbling country house Hetton Abbey. His surname has obvious symbolic overtones with its implication that he is the "last of his line". (His only son is killed in a hunting accident). His glamorous younger wife is referred to as "Lady Brenda" whereas he is a plain "Mr.", suggesting that she comes from a socially more elevated family than he. In the film, however, we get little sense of his financial difficulties or of a family in decline. Tony as portrayed by James Wilby becomes a handsome, youthful aristocrat, living in a magnificent Victorian Gothic stately home- in reality Carlton Towers, the Yorkshire home of the Duke of Norfolk.

The film also stars a number of other luminaries of the British cinema, but few of them make any impression. Kristin Scott Thomas as Brenda and Rupert Graves as her lover John Beaver both have a thankless task; Waugh, still bitter over his own divorce, made both characters completely worthless. Graves has the added difficulty in that Beaver, although worthless, needs to be fascinating enough to be credible as the man who inspires an almost insane passion in a beautiful titled lady. Alec Guinness appears in a cameo as Tony's captor Mr. Todd; it is far from being his best performance, but at least it is not as embarrassing as his role as the Indian professor in "A Passage to India" from four years earlier.

Period pieces like this one were a frequent staple of the British film industry in the eighties and nineties, and this trend was the subject of some criticism as evidence of the British national obsession with nostalgia. I have never accepted the validity of this criticism; a number of these costume dramas, such as Merchant Ivory's "A Room with a View" and "Howards End", were excellent in quality and asked some pertinent questions about Britain's past. I have to admit, however, that at its worst "heritage cinema" could be beautiful but lifeless, and "A Handful of Dust", lacking the savage bite of Waugh's novel, falls into this category. Three years later Sturridge was to make an equally lifeless version of E.M. Forster's "Where Angels Fear to Tread". 5/10

I usually love aristocratic period pieces and was drawn in early with its Howard's End/Remains of the Day feel; however, it went off the rails after the initial scenes offering us a glimpse into the main couple's world. I understand movie adaptations can't usually fit all the nuances and details that propel the characters' motives, but one minute, Brenda seems content with her life, if not a little bored, and the next, she's not shy about chasing a bland young man (Beaver) with whom she'd barely spent any time and had zero chemistry. The viewer gets zero build or indication she is falling in love/infatuated/connected with him in any way. Then, she's spending all her time away from her husband and talks about Beaver as if he's the love of her life--yet we don't see why any of this is driving her. Her son dies in a tragic accident and then she reveals she wants a divorce and to be free to marry Beaver. The husband sucks it up and attempts to absorb the role as the bad guy by allowing himself to be sued as the defendant and goes as far as to fake proof he had an affair. Brenda, who originally only wanted to be free to marry another man then starts bickering over the proposed settlement out of nowhere. Yes, this was supposed to indicate she was being manipulated by Beaver over money, but there aren't any supporting scenes building to that, leading you to wonder if some key scenes were cut during editing. But then the husband gets tough and cuts Brenda off and for some inexplicable reason, follows an obvious crack-pot explorer to Brazil where he is abandoned by guides, dying-then-saved, and then kidnapped in a truly bizarre segue and presumed dead. He is the only character who represents "good" and this is how it ends for him? I wasn't just disappointed; I was mad.

It was hard to believe that the movie I was watching at the end was the same one I'd started with. It was like 5 different script writers were tasked with different parts of the story, and none of the spans joined seamlessly. The background music was at times out of place in a 1930's piece and the lighting indoors was cheap and harsh, almost like a soap-opera. I still haven't figured out why Angelica Houston's character was even there. They could've cut every scene she was in and knocked 10 minutes off this mess with no effect on the plot or outcome. The only highlight for me was James Wilby's performance.

My personal opinion is that the acting in this film is brilliant and Evelyn Waugh would have been proud! It's true that the humour in the book has been toned down but everything else is there. And as for the acting - just witness Kristin Scott Thomas' amazing performance running the gammut of emotions all at once when she realises it isn't her lover but her son who has died. First there is fear, then relief, then guilt at her relief. Also James Wilby portraying a father dealing with grief yet trying to maintain the British stiff-upper lip. This is what real acting is about. Brilliant stuff. Now all we need is a decent DVD release. The German British import is a travesty with poor sound, the wrong aspect ratio, and a battered source print. Very sad.

That Evelyn Waugh was a master of irony seems to have escaped the makers of "A handful of dust" who have consequently produced a movie that is a conventional tragedy. Marital infidelity is a theme he revisited often,here it is the key to the whole story,the catalyst that sets the terrible events in motion. Tony Last's wife is bored with him and his obsession with his crumbling ancestral home.She takes a lover,an archetypal 1930s "trimmer" called John Beaver,a strange young man who lives with his mother who has fallen on hard times. When the Last's young son is killed in a riding accident she judges the time right to announce she is marrying Beaver. Ever the gentleman,Last allows her to divorce him on the grounds of his "adultery" with a professional co - respondent in a Brighton hotel. Waugh,like Dickens,had a healthy disdain for the legal profession,and the lawyers'contempt for the law and their clients is abundantly clear. A series of not terribly convincing events sees Last ending up in South America doomed to read Charles Dickens in perpetuity to a very unpleasant Englishman who lives amongst the natives. His wife marries his best chum.Floreat Etona. As misery piles upon misery one longs for even the slightest sense that the makers of "A handful of dust" were aware that Waugh was having a gentle poke at the stupefyingly thick - headed upper classes and their hatred of "scenes" or any displays of emotion. If you need an example look no further than our own dear Royal Family. Mr R.Graves fails to give even the slightest clue as to why Last's wife should want to marry him.He is vacuous,dull and boring.Waugh's more famous trimmer was in fact called Trimmer("Men at arms")and despicable character though he may have been,seducer,thief and layabout,he was at least interesting. Miss Scott Thomas is superficially enchanting but it becomes clear as the story progresses that there is a lot less than meets the eye.Of all the actors,she alone seems to have a brush with humanity. Mr J.Wilby opens the movie as one kind of cliché and ends up as another.From Somerset Maugham to Joseph Conrad without a true moment along the way. The other parts are filled competently enough,indeed the whole film smacks of "competence",but,sadly,"competence"is not enough.

I was hopeful when this film started that it would be very enjoyable, the setting was my favorite, a big manor house in the country of England, and the genre being a period film, is also my favorite. But as it got on, I was not happy with where the plot was going. The actors did a fine job. Except for Kristin Scott Thomas's character, the self-centered Brenda Last, the character development was not good. James Wilby as Tony Last was very good, he made me really root for this character and I suppose that is why I hated the end so much. He deserved a better ending. Rupert Graves as John Beaver, was quite dull with no charisma, so I couldn't figure out why Brenda would fall for him. There were some great actors in the cast: Judi Dench, Angelica Houston, and Alec Guinness etc. The story did nothing to allow these great actors to really show their stuff. Angelica's role was a cameo at best. Judi Dench had a bit more lines, but really also a cameo.

Additionally, the Brazil part of the movie seemed quite out of place. I'm sorry, but the end left me feeling cheated and saying "What?!". Not my cup of tea. I was going to recommend it to a lady I know that likes period films, but after it was over, I changed my mind.

The story opens in 1932, in the magnificent country estate of Tony and Brenda Last (James Wilby, Kristin Scott Thomas). Tony loves puttering around the old manor, while Brenda longs for the party life in London. Out of sheer boredom, she begins an affair with a social-climbing mama's boy (Rupert Graves).

As the title indicates, this is a grim story, the first part being a rather typical domestic drama focusing on the stuffy, idle rich. No one plays the snobby aristocrat better than Thomas, and she is so wonderfully convincing, you'll hate her. Wilby is well-cast as the dull but loyal lord of the manor who dotes on his young son. Graves is handsome and suitably innocuous. This section of the film exaggerates the stiff-upper-lip, passionless lives of the upper classes in contrast to the end, which takes us halfway around the world to a primitive land. This part was very creepy and left me cringing.

I love period pieces set in posh locations, so I really enjoyed this movie. It's beautifully photographed at the exquisite Carlton Towers estate. The acting is excellent and the odd turn at the end may leave one a bit depressed but still satisfied. Recommended.

I know that aristocrats are supposed to be unemotional but this wooden, joyless film is more brittle than old paper. I thought it was a play adapted to film because of the unnaturally stiff interactions between the actors and the obvious plodding story. After reading that this is based on a book I feel sorry for the readers. The movie is far-fetched, undeveloped and shallow.

Even for 1988, it's bizarrely unwieldy, like a large stone and just as emotionless. Again, I'm not sure if the source material is to blame but this period drama plays more like a "period dragger."

The premise is familiar enough at first, a bored rich housewife has an affair with a casual houseguest. After abandoning her husband, their son is accidentally killed in a tragic horse accident. The husband (who hardly reacts to the tragedy) decides to go on a trip to the jungle with a random explorer he meets. He gets a fever and the explorer drowns when he goes for help. A half white/half native man saves his life only to end up enslaved by the man as his book reader for life.

I have no idea why the writer would believe that the husband would deserve such a fate since his wife is the one who cheated on him. Anyway, if you want to watch a boring movie with beautiful scenery this is the one for you.