Brimstone and Treacle: 2 Adaptations

 
So, let's talk about teleplays for a minute. The term teleplay was first used in the 1950s to describe 60-90 minute plays that were specially written for the TV as one offs. There used to be programs dedicated to producing these plays, and they generally had limited sets and actors. They were pretty much stage plays on the TV. And from the 60s to the 80s there was one man who was considered to be the very best out of the bunch. Dennis Potter was one of the best writers for the BBC, writing complete series along with numerous teleplays. His most famous series include The Singing Detective and Pennies from Heaven (both of with were turned into rather unsuccessful films). Unfortunately, Potter was a sufferer of psoriatic arthropathy, a rare skin and joint disease which left him bed ridden, depressed and irritable for most of his life. So, this meant that a lot of his teleplays were very dark and often dealt with the lowest forms of the human existence. Which is where Brimstone and Treacle comes in.

Pattie Bates, daughter of Tom and Amy/Norma Bates, was involved in a severe hit and run accident and for 2 years has been reduced to a blubbering baby, strapped down to a sofa and unable to feed or wash herself. This task falls to her poor parents, especially for Mrs. Bates, who is quickly reaching her breaking point as she cannot leave the house. Into this mess steps a charming stranger, Martin Taylor, who claims to be an old friend of Pattie and was unaware of the state she is in due to be out of the country. After fainting from hearing the news, he makes his way to the Bates' household with the pretence of returning Tom's wallet, and he appears to be the answer to everyones prayers. Yet is he really, for behind his nice facade is a sinister presence that threatens this already rocky household.

There are 2 versions of this (if you hadn't already guessed from the title): the 1976 teleplay with Michael Kitchen as Martin, Denholm Elliot as Tom and Patricia Lawrence as Amy, and the 1982 film with Elliot returning as Tom, Joan Plowright as Norma (the name was changed between versions) and Sting as Martin. Yes, that Sting. And you'd be surprised at how different both of them are. But before we go into the fun stuff, we need to go into the sordid little history of this story, because it's what everyone talks about and what everyone remembers. If you don't want spoilers, stop reading now. This play was banned in 1976 for including a scene where Martin rapes an unknowing, mentally disabled Pattie. Unfortunately, this is what makes the play famous. It was eventually shown 11 years later, but by then any and all political or social commentary of the time was lost on audiences who did see it.

Dennis Potter himself has said that he wrote Brimstone and Treacle "in difficult personal circumstances. Years of acute psoriatic arthropathy... had mediated my view of the world and the people in it. I recall writing... that the only meaningful sacrament left to human beings was for them to gather in the streets in order to be sick together." You can see traces of this view in the teleplay and a little less so in the film. In order to look fully at the differences and similarities between the two versions, I'm going to have to go into massive spoiler territory (and I will also have to talk about the rape quite a bit as well), so if you don't want anything spoilt, don't read the rest until you have seen whichever version interests you. I will say this though, they are too similar for one to be any better than the other, and it really comes down to more personal taste. For me, I can't choose between the two, they both have elements that I like and hate. I think that in terms of overall quality the teleplay is better by a centimetre, yet there are some things from the film that I really like. And I will go into what they are and all that in a minute. So, now that that's out of the way, let the spoilers commence!

Let's look at our anti-hero, Martin. We don't really know much about him and when we first meet him, we can assume that he's either a con artist or just a general scum bag from the way he tries to weasel his way into people's lives. As the story continues, it becomes clear that he is some sort of supernatural being and it is hinted that he is the Devil. In the teleplay, you are almost outright told that he is the Devil, as his powers are very prominent within the story. Also, Kitchen's performance is really unsubtle about it, with little asides and hints to the audience. In the film, it's more ambiguous, and in all honesty, Sting probably wasn't the best actor for the part. He comes off as rather confused as to what the character is meant to be like and therefore appears incompetent. He was brooding and rather menacing at times, but at others he just came off as childish and naive. So, I wouldn't say he was the Devil, rather one of his demon minions. Kitchen, however, really feels like the Devil and is generally more theatrical than Sting. And where Sting comes off as childish, Kitchen just comes off as patronizing.

The only other character I want to talk in depth about is Pattie, portrayed in the teleplay by Michelle Newell and Suzanna Hamilton in the film. Now, I'm not sure what kind of direction Newell was given, but in the teleplay I was torn between being offended and laughing my head off by her performance. She was being too over the top, making stupid faces and generally taking everything too far. Hamilton was more realistic, and it's one of the things I prefer about the film. Though both performances were a bit iffy, Newell's would've been more acceptable on stage. But in close up, on a screen, it was just awful. Denholm Elliot was excellent in both, though I think he had a little more to work with in the teleplay. I don't understand why Mrs Bates' first name was changed from Amy to Norma, but the acting was good in both. I preferred her in the film, but that's just because it's Joan Plowright, and she's awesome.

Okay, let's talk about context. Surely there wouldn't be that many changes from teleplay to film. Well, amazingly there were. There are some scenes  that are shuffled around and one of the big reveals that is left to the end in the play is shown half way through the film. Sting also gets a lot of extra scenes, some even without his shirt on, and there are some parts that are elongated to create a longer running time, and there is one important scene from the play that is gone altogether. The scene I'm talking about is near the end of the teleplay, where Martin points out Tom's bigotry regarding his support of the National Front (a far right, nationalist party that was most popular in the 70s, and had a 'whites only' bias), and shows him what the logical conclusion of his racism and continued support would be. It's a very strong scene, and for me the best part of the play, but because it was banned all social context for this scene is gone, and so all those people who saw it in 1987 lost all the power that would have been there if it had been released in 1976. The other big difference is the prayer scene in the middle is longer in the film and it drags. It's done so much better in the teleplay, with the lighting and wind effects. In fact, a lot of the effects are done better in the play. I think that the film squanders the opportunity it has (what with being a film and all) and while it looks better and has more sets than the play, it just plays it safe, which is a shame.

And now we get on to the message Potter was trying to convey, which is pretty much the same in both. This is a tricky onw, and some people may not see it this way. But this is what I took out of it, and there are no definitive answers and I make no real attempt to answer them. Pattie only becomes responsive after Martin rapes her, becomes fully concious again after he attempts to rape her a second time. Now, this could just be one of those weird psychological things where after a person has gone through traumatic incident, they need another traumatic incident in order to snap them out of their slump. But if Martin is the Devil, and Mrs. Bates has been praying for a miracle to bring Pattie back... well, let's just say it raises some questions. Like, is Martin, the physical embodiment of the Devil (or a demon, still iffy about that), the miracle that Mrs. Bates has been praying for? Did Martin know that by raping Pattie, he would be bringing her back to conciousness? And, biggest question of all, what happens next? Nothing good, that's for sure. For you see, we discover that Pattie was hit by a car while she was running away from her father after discovering his infidelity (in the film with a co-worker, in the play with one of Pattie's friends). So, this then leaves us with the question was it a good thing Martin came into the Bates' life? You can answer both yes and no, but nothing is clean cut.

In the end, this was designed to raise questions rather than give answers. I still find it amazing that two very similar adaptations could have so many differences in them. I must say again, that there were some things that I didn't get around to talking about, but as this is one of my wordiest reviews I figured that I should stop. After writing this, and thinking about it intensely, the teleplay is by far the superior version, and if I haven't spoilt it enough for you, then that is the one you should watch if you are so inclined. I will say that the infamous rape scene won't seem very shocking today. It is slightly more scandalous in the film because it has nudity, but you don't see anything horrorfying. So yeah, that's my 5 cents. Next time we will be back to CAE movies, starting with Bernie. Until next time readers.