Ruth Rendell 's thriller is arguably her finest book :I must have read it three times ; it displays her concern for education which is present in some of her other books too.As a writer, Rendell's main problem, IMHO, is that there are too many characters and too many subplots in her post 1990 works; "a judgement in stone ' does not suffer for it .The story is linear , clear and very convincing.
The opening scene is excellent: Eunice is still a little girl and the teacher asks her to read : she can't , the whole class sneers at her ,and she urinates on the floor .It shows the girl's hatred for letters ,for books and education and her shame ,her humiliation (to be illiterate in our society is as appalling as to be disabled :many of these illiterate people could probably have been "saved" , had the school be given the means with very small number of pupils in certain classes); Eunice's hatred and humiliation emerge again when she burns the magazines, when she pretends she's broken her spectacles,and when she cannot read the shopping list ; the greenhouse episode is not from the novel,but it highlights the maid's problem.More than Joan Smith 's religious ravings , it's the feeling to be different that leads the unfortunate girl to crime. It's more obvious in the highly superior Claude Chabrol's " la cérémonie" based on the same book :the French director ,whose hatred for bourgeois people is blatant in his best works , made the Coverdale -the name was frenchified -nice but condescending and unbearable in their life of luxury .
But it takes great actors to convey such subtleties: Jean -Pierre Cassel and mainly Jackie Bisset were the perfect couple ,here we're left with two insignificant actors;the same goes for Melinda,the daughter ,who is botched : she was more sympathic to the maid, offering to teach her reading ; an user has pointed out too,quite rightly so,the disappearance of the reserved highbrow Giles Mont (replaced by a bland Bobby).
Only Rita Tushingham plays her game well ,mainly in her first part ;although her director/husband insists too much on her threatening side ,she's the only one who compares favorably with Sandrine Bonnaire's performance in "la cérémonie " .If looks could kill,hers certainly would.
On the other hand Jackie Burroughs overplays and she's almost unbearable : if she regrets so much her life of sin in the past ,why does the director dress her like a prostitute ?Chabrol had a stroke of genius :he made Joan a hypocrit -which she was more or less in the novel- , and put a lot of humor in her character ,helped by his wonderful interpret ,Isabelle Huppert.
As for the ending ,Chabrol wins hands down : his use of the video recorder (replacing the simple tape recorder of the novel)is another strong idea ,faithful to the book, whereas Rawi's directing is flat ,devoid of suspense : it looks like you are in " Friday the thirteen's umpteenth number";and the final scene,in spite of the ambiguous phone call makes you think that ,in case of success,there could have been a "judgment in stone 2": here the screenwriters misrepresent what Rendell had in mind : the very title of the book tells it all :how can you judge such an impenetrable person,who is completely insane when the story ends :check the final words of the book;even you and me, who are (more of less) sane human beings ,we can't understand this mumbo jumbo.
It would hardly deserve a 5 ,but I'll give an extra star for Miss Tushingham 's performance.
The opening scene is excellent: Eunice is still a little girl and the teacher asks her to read : she can't , the whole class sneers at her ,and she urinates on the floor .It shows the girl's hatred for letters ,for books and education and her shame ,her humiliation (to be illiterate in our society is as appalling as to be disabled :many of these illiterate people could probably have been "saved" , had the school be given the means with very small number of pupils in certain classes); Eunice's hatred and humiliation emerge again when she burns the magazines, when she pretends she's broken her spectacles,and when she cannot read the shopping list ; the greenhouse episode is not from the novel,but it highlights the maid's problem.More than Joan Smith 's religious ravings , it's the feeling to be different that leads the unfortunate girl to crime. It's more obvious in the highly superior Claude Chabrol's " la cérémonie" based on the same book :the French director ,whose hatred for bourgeois people is blatant in his best works , made the Coverdale -the name was frenchified -nice but condescending and unbearable in their life of luxury .
But it takes great actors to convey such subtleties: Jean -Pierre Cassel and mainly Jackie Bisset were the perfect couple ,here we're left with two insignificant actors;the same goes for Melinda,the daughter ,who is botched : she was more sympathic to the maid, offering to teach her reading ; an user has pointed out too,quite rightly so,the disappearance of the reserved highbrow Giles Mont (replaced by a bland Bobby).
Only Rita Tushingham plays her game well ,mainly in her first part ;although her director/husband insists too much on her threatening side ,she's the only one who compares favorably with Sandrine Bonnaire's performance in "la cérémonie " .If looks could kill,hers certainly would.
On the other hand Jackie Burroughs overplays and she's almost unbearable : if she regrets so much her life of sin in the past ,why does the director dress her like a prostitute ?Chabrol had a stroke of genius :he made Joan a hypocrit -which she was more or less in the novel- , and put a lot of humor in her character ,helped by his wonderful interpret ,Isabelle Huppert.
As for the ending ,Chabrol wins hands down : his use of the video recorder (replacing the simple tape recorder of the novel)is another strong idea ,faithful to the book, whereas Rawi's directing is flat ,devoid of suspense : it looks like you are in " Friday the thirteen's umpteenth number";and the final scene,in spite of the ambiguous phone call makes you think that ,in case of success,there could have been a "judgment in stone 2": here the screenwriters misrepresent what Rendell had in mind : the very title of the book tells it all :how can you judge such an impenetrable person,who is completely insane when the story ends :check the final words of the book;even you and me, who are (more of less) sane human beings ,we can't understand this mumbo jumbo.
It would hardly deserve a 5 ,but I'll give an extra star for Miss Tushingham 's performance.