Masterpiece Theatre: Bleak House

There will always be inevitable comparisons to which adaptation of Bleak House people prefer, this or 2005. From a personal point of view, there is no real preference as both adaptations are outstanding in their own way.

This and the 2005 version can be regarded as complimentary to each other, as each contains elements of the story not present in the other. In general, the 1985 version is strong on BLEAK, and the 2005 version is strong on characterizations.

This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down).

"Bleak House" (1985) is a wonderful BBC adaptation of the novel by Charles Dickens. The movie was made for TV, so it does well on the small screen.

I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005).

This series gets 2 stars solely because it puts some of Dickens' Bleak House on film and perhaps someone will read the book. Contrary to what is probably received opinion, Diana Rigg was poor as Lady Dedlock.

This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent.

This is a great adaptation and a great miniseries in its own right. The plot cutdowns might disappoint the fans of the book (but really how many modern readers have read Bleak House without seeing a film version first?

It's sometimes said that 99 percent of all lawyers give the rest a bad name.I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.