One need not have any familiarity with the short story on which this is based to quickly grasp the thrust of where this adaptation will go. I think the framing, narration, and voiceovers work against the storytelling in some measure, or at least the extent to which these are employed, for they add a layer of artifice that dampens the inherent value of the tale. On the other hand, the gothic primary setting and musical selections - organ and choral - help to add a tinge of uneasy atmosphere to the proceedings, not least in those select instances when the audio is slyly manipulated. Then again, even within the abbreviated television airtime of forty-five minutes, the pacing feels weirdly slow and stilted: not taking ideal advantage of the length it has, needing to be more drawn out to allow for more detail and progression, yet also advancing the tale in a halting manner that's not fully convincing. This is in addition to the flat, extremely subdued tone that the presentation constantly maintains. In fairness, this was the first writing credit of filmmaker Lawrence Gordon Clark, and only his third outing as director including other television credits; 'The stalls of Barchester' further represents only the first of the BBC's "Ghost story for Christmas" series. There is no expectation that the result would be perfect. Even at that, however, it's a little sleepy.
By all means, the narrative in and of itself is firm and interesting. It might be more actively engaging if not for the heavy use of the flourishes noted above, which in part make for the cinematic equivalent of a man sitting in front of a fire and reading a story to us. Indeed, the narrative in and of itself is rather diminished as we see it for just that reason. I would also observe that the telling is rather vague about the minutiae of the course of events; it doesn't so much relate the tale as it does provide insinuations and possible hints. Granted, I don't doubt that this approach was intentional - laying out a mystery, above all else, as to the life and fate of Archdeacon Haynes; moreover, not being familiar with M. R. James' short story I can only assume that either these matters are a fault of adaptation, or perhaps James was also just as stalwart in putting the mystery first. In any event, I can only remark on the TV movie, and what I see is storytelling that's nonspecific and imperfect. Adding this to the majorly restrained, understated tone (so understated that it's barely stated at all) that Clark sustains throughout, it's safe to say that this doesn't make for the most robust and captivating of viewing experiences. And I say that as someone who often appreciates the quieter, subtler side of genre fare, or even prefers it.
It's broadly well made, certainly, including the modest stunts and effects; the production design is admirable. The manner in which some lines are delivered feel off to me, which I chalk up to Clark's direction as well, but mostly the acting is fine. I did, in fact, enjoy watching. I just think James' story perhaps deserved better treatment than what it got, with more substantive elucidation of - well, if not the truths behind the mystery, then at least the pieces of the mystery, so that the mystery could be more absorbing and impactful. The picture as it presents rather keeps itself so low-key and ambiguous that maybe the framing was necessary after all just to provide in some capacity a plot that was more concrete and tangible. Suffice to say that 'The stalls of Barchester' will not appeal to all; this is best reserved for those who like the softer and more muted side of horror, and mystery, and even then favor will surely vary significantly from one viewer to the next. I see what Clark was doing here; I'm just not convinced that it entirely works. By the strength of the underlying tale, however questionably realized on film, this earns enough esteem in my book to help it stay afloat, but one should be well aware of the nature of the material before they consider watching.
By all means, the narrative in and of itself is firm and interesting. It might be more actively engaging if not for the heavy use of the flourishes noted above, which in part make for the cinematic equivalent of a man sitting in front of a fire and reading a story to us. Indeed, the narrative in and of itself is rather diminished as we see it for just that reason. I would also observe that the telling is rather vague about the minutiae of the course of events; it doesn't so much relate the tale as it does provide insinuations and possible hints. Granted, I don't doubt that this approach was intentional - laying out a mystery, above all else, as to the life and fate of Archdeacon Haynes; moreover, not being familiar with M. R. James' short story I can only assume that either these matters are a fault of adaptation, or perhaps James was also just as stalwart in putting the mystery first. In any event, I can only remark on the TV movie, and what I see is storytelling that's nonspecific and imperfect. Adding this to the majorly restrained, understated tone (so understated that it's barely stated at all) that Clark sustains throughout, it's safe to say that this doesn't make for the most robust and captivating of viewing experiences. And I say that as someone who often appreciates the quieter, subtler side of genre fare, or even prefers it.
It's broadly well made, certainly, including the modest stunts and effects; the production design is admirable. The manner in which some lines are delivered feel off to me, which I chalk up to Clark's direction as well, but mostly the acting is fine. I did, in fact, enjoy watching. I just think James' story perhaps deserved better treatment than what it got, with more substantive elucidation of - well, if not the truths behind the mystery, then at least the pieces of the mystery, so that the mystery could be more absorbing and impactful. The picture as it presents rather keeps itself so low-key and ambiguous that maybe the framing was necessary after all just to provide in some capacity a plot that was more concrete and tangible. Suffice to say that 'The stalls of Barchester' will not appeal to all; this is best reserved for those who like the softer and more muted side of horror, and mystery, and even then favor will surely vary significantly from one viewer to the next. I see what Clark was doing here; I'm just not convinced that it entirely works. By the strength of the underlying tale, however questionably realized on film, this earns enough esteem in my book to help it stay afloat, but one should be well aware of the nature of the material before they consider watching.