The Casual Vacancy

When I read J.K Rowling's novel The Casual Vacancy (which was her first major work since Harry Potter) I loved it. Sheer genius amounts of story telling with an intrinsic and abundant level of style, character and panache that only she could produce.

Naturally I was excited when I heard it was coming to the BBC as a three part drama. And whilst elements of Rowling's remarkable work were transferred well on screen, and whilst I do feel the series was executed well enough, there were not nearly enough stand out star moments and factors to blow me away, as the book did.

Initially from the off I had high hopes; there were a few promising signs to start with. The location was stunningly picturesque - instantly capturing Pagford, and so too in a different sort of stunning was Fields equally captured. The music too was greatly suited, and the cinematography brilliantly set up the idea of traditional village values being challenged in a modern world.

A lot of positives came too from some of the great ensemble of cast assembled. A good deal of the script focused on Krystal, played by fresh newcomer Abigail Lawrie. I though her performance was stunning. Instantly she captured the unique mix of driving forces and character traits of Krystal Weedon; from her raw savage attitude to the world, to her fragile state of mind, to her up front sensuality, to her buried naivety, to her scarred but shining and endearing light. If any spark of brilliance can be definitively taken from the TV version of The Casual Vacancy, it is the discovery of this superb young actress, who deserves to go far. 

Other bastions of brilliance were present too. Rory Kinnear's character may have been written off quickly, but he was still used well as an ever present presence throughout the plot, and his gritty swagger came into great effect in playing the pivotal role of Barry Fairbrother. Keeley Hawes is another British acting treasure who brought tons of quality and watchability to the table as Samantha Mollinson. Sassy, sexy, charming and charismatic; she was another triumph. Though not unique as such, but Keeley Forsyth's dedication and execution to the character of Terry Weedon was very impressive too.

However there were other major casting and acting elements that did not turn out nearly so bright. Richard Glover as Simon Price was horribly over played and clichéd to a tee, and his on screen son Joe Hurst, whilst clearly attempting for subtle underplay, just came off as a boring half attempt at depth. Small and big screen staple Simon McBurney was disappointingly two dimensional, and his on screen wife Monica Dolan, whilst endearing on some levels, definitely came off as a blunt instrument to me when it came to any moments of sincerity. 

Even mature and iconic acting staples Sir Michael Gambon and Julia McKenzie, whilst being well crafted and believable enough in terms of character, were never at all as fluid and as powerful as they needed to be to really hit home as Howard and Shirley Mollinson.

It is here I think in the distinct lack of power, progression and direction for a great chunk of the cast, where we can start to see the problem with this adaptation of The Casual Vacancy. You see, if you compare the series with the book (often fatal I know) you will see that a massive amount has been left out. I know that J.K. Rowling is notorious for sticking to the original text when it comes to adaptations of her work, and of course I also know that in any adaptation of a book some things must be sacrificed. I just think that Rowling should have written the screenplay, instead of or even alongside Executive Producing. At least then she may have stood a better fighting chance of keeping what needed to be kept in order for the TV story to progress as it should have, and as the book did.

The whole idea, and the whole reason the book's plot worked so well in my view, was it featured such a vast array of characters with a vast and beautifully detailed array of character flaws, traits, plots and sub plots, all tethered and tied together sublimely by Rowling. Yes this TV version had a big ensemble cast but not nearly big enough, and with not nearly enough oomph. 

Quite a substantial amount of characters have been left out of the TV series altogether, and those who do make the cut have not been given nearly enough of their original plot and subject matter. Yes we can feel we know these characters on face value on TV, but compare them to their original novel counterparts and you will see that they are found severely wanting.

It is almost as if the producers of the series wanted to scatter just enough intrigue and plot development amongst the characters to hold viewing, and to move from beginning to middle to end as soon as possible. The result is interesting enough, and still a fine watch on its own if you knew nothing about the background to the story. But if you investigate, and dare I say even compare the series to the original book, then I feel that you like me will be glad they gave The Casual Vacancy a good go, but also feel sad and a little empty when you consider that it was unfortunately not what it had the potential to be.