Skip to main content

Poetry On The Telly

Last night BBC 2 aired a 50-minute dramatisation of Christopher Reid's magnificent long poem, "The Song of Lunch", which I think takes its place now, beside "The Rape of the Lock" as vers de societe classic.  Reid is part of a generation of major English poets who have somehow been sidelined by the NextGen - so that James Fenton, Craig Raine, Charles Boyle are, though of course widely-known, somehow not treated with the kid gloves afforded to Kid Armitage and Sundance Duffy.  Well, Reid is tops in my book.  The production was marvellous,sad and very funny, and superbly well-acted, though Rickman seemed perhaps overly-distracted, and Emma's neck was not as long as in the poem.  It made me think the whole thing was a reverie, whereas in the text, it seems more vividly nightmarish - the lunch is happening, the crisis is real.  I am not sure the fellow cast as the original owner of the bistro was funereal enough; and the Eliot-look-alike was too fat and short.  Also, would an editor in Bloomsbury real get blotto on one grappa and two bottles of plonk, having consumed a starter, a bit of pizza and a few breadsticks?  Likely not.  Still, the sadness of time was perfectly portrayed.  This proves poems can work on TV.  Bring them on!
Labels:

Comments

martine said…
We enjoyed it immensely. my partner said it could have been on the radio but I don't agree, the visual aspect of looks exchanged between them and things going on in the background was important to the interpretation. Great to see such things making it on to the telly.
best wishes
martine
Sat Oct 09, 06:39:00 pm 2010
Sheenagh Pugh said…
" Also, would an editor in Bloomsbury real get blotto on one grappa and two bottles of plonk"

You're joking, right? Anyone would be drunk on that lot, whatever they'd eaten - certainly over the driving limit!
Sun Oct 10, 01:47:00 pm 2010
EYEWEAR said…
Sheenagh, I used to drink a few bottles with a meal and not end up forgetting I was with other people, or crawl up to the roof of the resto and brood. Can't do that anymore of course.
Sun Oct 10, 06:26:00 pm 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more