Malory Towers TV series

[Anita Bensoussane]

It is a pity we've lost Minti Gorne, but I expect we'll soon get used to April V. Woods as Felicity. Miss Grayling has been played by Jennifer Wigmore, then Birgitte Solem, then Jennifer Wigmore again!

[Machupicchu14]

Miss Grayling has been played by Jennifer Wigmore, then Birgitte Solem, then Jennifer Wigmore again!

Can't believe I am just realizing this now

[Moonraker]

Dear or darling child/ren, Nigel.

Thanks, Fiona.

[Anita Bensoussane]

Anyone watching the fourth series? Having seen four episodes, I must say I've enjoyed them very much and I feel (so far, anyway) that the adaptation has returned to the high standard set by the first series.

Having storylines revolving around both first and fourth formers offers more scope as far as plot threads are concerned, and the younger girls are great. June (Edesiri Okepnerho) is boldness and impudence personified, and I like the portrayals of Clarissa, Ruth and Connie too. Oh, and I've already got used to April V. Woods as Felicity. I look forward to seeing how things unfold.

[Machupicchu14]

I'm often wondering these days how the series would have turned out if they had kept to the original Blyton stories. Don't get me wrong, I really do love this show and think it's amazing! But it really does seem to steer further and further away from EB's Malory Towers stories I fondly remember.

[Anita Bensoussane]

I've now finished watching the fourth series and felt that it was excellent - closer to Enid Blyton's originals than the second and third series. The main plot points from the book were covered (the complicated relationship between twins Ruth and Connie, June's impudence and daring, the "weak heart" saga, Darrell struggling with being in authority, and the sitting of the School Cert) even though they were modified considerably. Newcomers June, Clarissa, Susan, Ruth and Connie (and Felicity, who had a small role in previous series) all joined the school as first formers even though three of them were fourth formers in the book, but that worked well as it provided opportunity for lots of interaction between the first and fourth forms (and it also bodes well for future series - I'm hoping for at least one more!)

There was plenty of additional material which enhanced the drama and humour, and even the well-worn "search for treasure" plot was woven skilfully into the story this time.

The new girls were all great but June (Edesiri Okepnerho), Felicity (April V. Woods) and Clarissa (Amy Roerig) stood out to me. With such a strong cast, and the programme being at the top of its game, it would be a shame to end things here!

[Moonraker]

It all sounds promising, Anita. I haven't watched it yet, but when we get a rainy day I will start to binge-watch!

[Anita Bensoussane]

It's definitely bingeworthy!

[Moonraker]

Looks like today might be the day!

[Katharine]

I'm wondering if I've seen a different programme from everyone else? The few clips I've seen have been awful and have only the loosest connections to the book.

My daughter asked me a question the other day which reinforced my opinion of the programme. She said was Irene Jewish? Well, as far as I remember, most of Enid Blyton's books only ever mentioned things like morning prayers, possibly visiting a church or country chapel, so vaguely Christian, but I don't remember her mentioning any specific religion. The main exception obviously being her bible story books. However, as she didn't (as far as I recall) mention any particular religion, I guess there's no reason to suppose that Irene wasn't Jewish.

However, I wondered why a Jewish character had appeared in Malory Towers, as I didn't recall the books mentioning any religion in great depth. Then my jaw dropped:-

SPOILER ALERT

Apparently Irene's widowed father was marrying Mam'zelle and there was a situation where one wanted a traditional French song and the other wanted something Jewish. I know my memory isn't quite what it was these days, but I know there was never anything even vaguely along those lines in any of the books and to make it worse, I'm pretty certain it alters something that Enid DID write. Unless I've confused two characters, I seem to recall that Irene was a scatterbrain who constantly forgot/lost her Health Certificate at the start of each term. In one book, after searching frantically for it, she went to face Matron to say she'd lost it, only to be informed that 'her mother' had already posted it.

A pretty clever feat considering the TV programme said that Irene's mother had died when she was a baby! Still, the TV programme seems to be getting more and more far-fetched, so maybe Irene's mother wrote health certificates in advance, and just had someone post them after her death? Or was there a step-mother, who Irene's father divorced before marrying Mam'zelle, or perhaps Mam'zelle was the mother who had posted the health certificate, which seems a little odd - why didn't she just bring it to the school with her?

Initially I felt angry that the Malory Towers books have been mucked about with so much, but having just written this, I feel on the point of tears - why, oh why have they been altered to this extent? I feel it's an insult to Enid's excellent writing, and what a shock any child is going to get if the TV programme inspires them to read the books - hardly a word will be the same.

[Machupicchu14]

SPOILER ALERT

Apparently Irene's widowed father was marrying Mam'zelle and there was a situation where one wanted a traditional French song and the other wanted something Jewish. I know my memory isn't quite what it was these days, but I know there was never anything even vaguely along those lines in any of the books .

This aspect of the show really disappointed me I must say, because if I had not complained that Mam'zelle Dupont had been sadly removed from the TV adaptation, this literally was the last straw for me.
I do remember when reading the books the two Mam'zelles were a major highlight of the stories, and to see the storylines changed so much around made me feel quite annoyed.

Initially I felt angry that the Malory Towers books have been mucked about with so much, but having just written this, I feel on the point of tears - why, oh why have they been altered to this extent? I feel it's an insult to Enid's excellent writing, and what a shock any child is going to get if the TV programme inspires them to read the books - hardly a word will be the same.

I still love the Malory Towers show but I have decided to treat it as an interpretation of the books rather than an adaptation (like the BBC Production of The Musketeers or even Little House on the Prairie!), to avoid feeling disheartening that its resemblance to the books is many times taken away. I definitely agree with your last statement. I wonder if the new FF adaptation will be this way too.

[Moonraker]

I've now finished watching the fourth series and felt that it was excellent - closer to Enid Blyton's originals than the second and third series.

I'm wondering if I've seen a different programme from everyone else? The few clips I've seen have been awful and have only the loosest connections to the book.

Your account, Katharine, makes the series seem truly awful. I still haven't watched any of it and you've almost put me off bothering! "Excellent" or "awful"? I am intrigued!

[Anita Bensoussane]

One man's meat is another man's poison (Pete recently gave a modified version of that saying in another thread! )

It's an interesting discussion. I tend to regard all adaptations as interpretations. Even if the makers of a TV serial or film try to stay completely faithful to a book, it won't be the version I had in my head as I read it. The casting of certain characters might not match my own conception, I may not agree with where buildings or gardens or beaches etc. are placed in relation to one another, and scenes that were important to me when I read the book may be handled in a way that doesn't do them justice in my eyes. Reading is an extremely personal process, and so is the process of adapting a story for the screen. Even if I were to cast and film my own version of a book (assuming I had the skills to do so), I'd no doubt still find I couldn't replicate exactly what the author's words had conjured up in my imagination.

There has always been a divide between the page and the screen, as they're such different entities. As a child I read Black Beauty, Heidi and the Famous Five series (to give just a few examples) before watching adaptations on TV. The televised versions often departed significantly from the books. Sometimes, I watched a TV serial or film before reading the book/s which had inspired it. I discovered (for example) that the popular TV programme Little House on the Prairie differed greatly from Laura Ingalls Wilder's originals, and that the film of The Railway Children had Bobbie looking far too old, and omitted the canal boat episode. One of my favourite childhood films was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and it was only as an adult that I read the book and found that the original story was vastly different. The children's mother was still alive so there was no Truly Scrumptious - and no Child-Catcher either! Roald Dahl invented those characters for the film and they've become as iconic as the car itself.

Although I do recall some TV adaptations from my childhood that stuck closely to the books (the serialisations of The Enchanted Castle and Brideshead Revisited, for example), on the whole it was more usual to find deviations. The page and the screen require different approaches, and going from one to the other isn't straightforward.

I've grown used to these differences over the years, often loving a TV/film version in its own right even if it departs significantly from a book that I also love. Therefore, I find I don't mind adaptations which show a creative response to the original work.

I'd like to comment on Malory Towers specifically, but will do so in a different post.

[Katharine]

Anita, I had no idea so many other books had been altered, I don't think I've read most of the books you mentioned!

I can agree with your point about people having interpretations in their minds, so I accept that a character might be slightly taller/younger/more freckled etc than I may have imagined them, and I'm sure my image of the school buildings will differ to those of other people's. A classic example is the suggestion that Corfe Castle is Kirrin - I've been there, and it's nothing like I would have imagined Kirrin Castle to look like.

I can't remember the canal boat scene in the Railway Children, but if it didn't have a bearing on the main story in the film adaptation, I wouldn't have a problem with something being omitted. It's when totally 'alien' plots, characters etc are introduced that I object to. If the actress playing Mam'zelle needed to be written out, surely a more suitable option could have been chosen, such as her missing France, or being offered a better position elsewhere? I recall one of the French teachers (can't remember if it was MT or St Clare's), talking about the arrival of a new niece - so maybe going back to help out with a family situation would also be a way of writing out a character, but to completely alter the home set-up of a well-established character such as Irene is utterly ridiculous.

Enid Blyton doesn't tend to give a great deal of background information on her characters, usually it seems to only be where necessary to the plot line. So apart from useful information such as Alicia having several brothers, Sally having a much younger sister etc., we know very little about the home lives of the girls, so I just can't understand why the writers altered one of the few bits of information we do have about a character's home life.

If it was felt to be necessary/desirable to have a plot featuring a Jewish wedding, then for goodness sake, why not introduce an entirely new and fictitious character (to go with the entirely fictitious storyline) or use another character who Enid gave us no background info on? Presumably we will have one of the girls becoming a nun at some point to balance out the diversity of faiths??

[Anita Bensoussane]

Each series of the Malory Towers TV adaptation consists of 13 half-hour episodes made and funded by companies in the UK and Canada (a 2-episode Christmas special was also broadcast last year). The books as they stand wouldn't provide enough material for such a lavish production. One way to make the stories more involved is to concentrate on characterisation, and I think that has been done wonderfully well. Girls like Irene, who don't have dramatic storylines of their own in the books, are fleshed out and developed. Irene remains absent-minded with a talent for maths and music, but more is made of her in the TV version. We see her closeness to her widowed father, learn of her Jewish background and feel for her as she copes with the news of her father's engagement. None of this is in the books but it fits well and is really quite touching (I thought so, anyway), bringing more depth to her character.

We only have one Mam'zelle instead of Mam'zelle Dupont and Mam'zelle Rougier - but then Matron provides a great deal of humour instead, and can be both stern and sympathetic (depending on the circumstances). It makes sense that her part has been beefed up for the TV programme, as her role in the school means that she's in a position to be with the girls at all times of the day and night, dealing with illnesses and emergencies and all sorts of issues that crop up outside lessons. It goes without saying that casting would have been carefully considered and that cost would have played a part. It wouldn't have been possible to have numerous members of staff, all with relatively small roles - especially during the filming of the second and third series, when Covid restrictions were in place. Making Matron a key character works extremely well in my opinion.

Regarding plotlines, I must admit I'm not keen on far-fetched additions such as the girls hunting for treasure, or a prominent teacher turning out to be a criminal. Neither do I like certain references that jar because they stand out as too modern, such as Sally saying she'd prefer to be known as Form Representative rather than Head of Form.

What keeps me hooked series after series is the inspired casting of the main characters, and the interesting explorations of their backgrounds and emotions. The essence of Malory Towers is there strongly in the portrayals of Darrell, Gwen, Mary-Lou, Sally, Felicity, June and the rest. The sets and locations are spot on too, helping create the magic.