Posted by Peter Hyland on August 17, 2016 at 09:06:31 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: Film review in The Times - and further posted by Paul Crisp on August 17, 2016 at 01:35:49:
Today's Times articles are behind the usual paywall. However, very briefly: the first article is by Andrea Gibb, the film scriptwriter, and explains why the Russian spy plot was included, and why Titty's name was changed. She writes:
"Since this was a cinematic story, we felt more peril was needed to sustain it. This had to be realistic . . . That's when Ransome presented us with another gift: his secret past."
Marks to Andrea Gibb for breaking cover on this, but I'm afraid I can't agree with her. My view is that, far from "presenting" it, AR would have been horrified at anything from his real past in Russia being imported into his S&A adventure stories.
As to Titty/Tatty, Andrea Gibb is on slightly better ground:
"There was no edict, no politically correct diktat from on high. We, the film makers, had long and careful discussions, in consultation with the Arthur Ransome Trust, and came to a consensus to change it."
The other article is about the Altounyan connection with AR and also, sadly, about Aleppo, much of which is now in ruins. The connection has a tragic topicality. Both these Times articles are well-written, a welcome change to some of the stuff seen lately.
Post a followup (Only if you agree to the Terms and Conditions)