Man in an Orange Shirt

Five stars for the film itself! 0 stars for PBS!This is a deeply haunting and exquisitely beautiful film, well cast, slickly produced, achingly moving, and far above the usual television fare. I saw the original British version and quite fell in love with it. It is, I believe, arguably, a better film than either CALL ME BY YOUR NAME or GOD'S OWN COUNTRY (although I do love those). In fact, I loved it so much that I bought the original British DVD since I have a multi region player. I've probably watched the original British cut at least 15 times. When it aired on PBS I knew the film so well that I noticed that some dialog was missing from PBS's version. Since other reviews have dealt with the plot and story, I will not go into that here but will give you the lowdown about the cuts in the PBS version presented on this blu-ray product.In order to compare the two versions, I set up two monitors and two players side by side. One ran the PBS version as aired, and the other monitor ran the original British DVD, both in sync so that I could spot EXACTLY what was missing. Below is a summary of my findings. I wish that I could list all 44 cuts with explanations of each, but I'm sure a review that lengthy is not allowed here, so I will summarize with selected examples. (Be aware of possible SPOILERS. Time numbers are approximate and are based on the British DVD running time-- your counter may not show the same).The BAD NEWS is that there are at least 44 cuts or alterations made by PBS (I counted 44, but some could be counted as two). This speaks horribly of PBS's respect for their audience. The film aired on PBS in a full two-hour time slot so *no edits were necessary due to time constraints* since the original full version of the film falls well short of two hours anyway. Thus, it was NOT necessary to cut the film for time.The GOOD NEWS is that most of the cuts, while maddening to say the least, are minor and are not substantive to character, story, or understanding/enjoyment of the film. So this blu-ray, although cut, is not necessarily a bad choice unless you are really a purist.[Note: The original British version contains several "rear" shots of bare behinds. PBS has cut these (or, in one case, darkened the picture so much that it cannot really be seen). Apparently PBS thinks adult Americans cannot handle a bare behind. ]Here are just a few selected examples of the more "minor" cuts:Cut #1 - (1:39) ) During the chaotic battle scene Michael shouts to another soldier, "Aim at the olive groves until the others get through to relieve us!" This line was cut by PBS (why?? what possible reason could there be to cut this?) CONCLUSION: a maddening cut, but NOT substantive to the scene or programCut #5 - (10:22) When Lucien steps out of his shop to meet Michael on the street, in the original Lucien says, "I'm Lucien-- landlord, watchdog, purveyor of shade to the gentry. Who are you?" PBS cut this so that Lucien merely says, "I'm Lucien. Who are you?" (does PBS think we don't know what "gentry" is? also lost is Lucien calling himself "watchdog" which he later proves as he looks out for Thomas in prison by meeting Michael at the pub and again when he picks up Thomas upon Thomas' release from prison. Also lost is the fact that Lucien is the landlord. Why cut this??). CONCLUSION: an amazingly stupid cut but NOT essential information.Cut#14. (42:15) Mrs. March (Thomas' mother) remarks to Michael about Thomas' beard: "His father did that [ie, grew a beard] once for Ibsen. Does it suit him?" PBS cut the Ibsen line, which told us that Thomas' father was evidently an actor. CONCLUSION: not crucial information, so NOT substantive to the overall understanding of the scene (yet why oh WHY cut this??)Cuts #18 & 19 (54:00-55:06) PBS cut several shots of the department store employee looking across the room at Michael and making flirtatious eye contact. This is not substantive to the overall scene, as we still understand what is happening, yet it is maddening to think that PBS thinks that a bit of understated same-sex flirting is too much for adult American audiences to handle. (!!) And, yes I have to say it in this instance--- one cannot help but wonder if these cuts would have been made had the participants been male and female.And here are some examples of the more IMPORTANT things which PBS cut:Cut #4 (9:35) - After the war, when Michael gets off the bus in London, cut by PBS was a significant approx. 5 second shot of postwar heterosexual couples on the street openly hugging and kissing as they are reunited (as Michael steps down from the bus and studies his street directions for a moment). CONCLUSION: THIS IS A substantive change because the idea behind this shot is that post-war HETEROsexual public displays of affection were permitted, encouraged, and condoned--right on the sidewalk. In contrast, Michael has to reunite with Thomas in a dingy, dark upstairs storage room (Lucien's upstairs) and then flee to the country in order to express affection.Cut#15 - (49:04) After Flora's sister tells her that she saw Michael with a suitcase and Flora calls his work and says "Oh, his wretched teeth. How stupid of me to have forgotten", PBS cut the rest of this scene, almost 30 seconds (!!) in which baby Robert continues to scream in his playpen and Flora screams back at him angrily and goes over and shakes the playpen up and down violently with Robert in it. Then, realizing what she's done, she picks Robert up in her arms and sobs, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry". CONCLUSION: This is substantive for several reasons, not the least of which is that it links importantly with a scene in part two when, at the dinner table, Flora implies to Adam that she was a bad mother to his father (Robert), but got a second chance with him (Adam).Cut#16 - (51:30) PBS cut an approximately 20 second scene in which Michael comes home (after failing to meet Thomas upon his release from prison) and Michael tenderly and lovingly greets baby Robert, squatting down to Robert's playpen level and gently caressing his head. CONCLUSION: THIS IS SUBSTANTIVE for it answers Flora's previous angry question "Are you even safe around children?" and it is ALSO important as Michael's loving way with the baby contrasts sharply with Flora's angry and abusive shaking of the playpen (see 15. above), also cut by PBS.Cut#25 - (12:06) Cut was this important dialog relative to character: Adam (showing nude phone photo to Claudia): "Is that the [...] of a serial killer?" Claudia: "This is so not okay. You're leaving a table of friends just to [...] a complete stranger!" This is a SIGNIFICANT cut as this is a major thesis statement of Adam's character!Cut #39 - PBS Cut Adam saying to Steve: "Flora's SO not a granny". This is important for us to see how adam views Flora, especially in light of their violent words in a later sceneCut#44 - Cut 25 second conversation between Adam and Steve. Adam asks: "Could you ever imagine having kids with me?" and they discuss it. This is important as it shows that Adam has been thinking about settling down from his hook-up lifestyle and it is this thinking that makes his ending resolution with Steve plausible.Those are just a few selected examples. So, yes, there were some important things cut, but nothing that was absolutely crucial to one's understanding of the program as a whole. If you have a multi-region DVD player, I would encourage you to just buy the DVD from Amazon in Britian in order to get the uncut version, unless you have a large screen and really need the increased resolution of blu-ray (unfortunately, at this writing, there is no British blu-ray) . If you need the resolution of blu-ray go ahead and buy this version. The cuts are absolutely maddening, and are a real insult to PBS's audience; but they are mostly snippy, and are overall not significant enough to impede your enjoyment or understanding of this beautiful film. Yet, finally, one must still exclaim, "Shame, shame on PBS!" They could at least have released the original version on the blu-ray, if not on-air!

From reading the previous customers’ comments, I saw that one person believed the PBS version to be sanitized while another customer said the UK version and the PBS blu-ray was exactly the same. I decided to do a comparison and viewed the UK version, the PBS DVD, AND the PBS Blu-ray.The PBS DVD and PBS Blu-ray were one and the same inspite of the NC-17 rating that accompanied the Blu-ray. They were indeed cleaned up when it came to nudities and profanities that were in the original UK version. The nude scenes were either edited or the frame cropped so that only the upper body was in view. In one scene, it was darkened so that it appeared as if the character was wearing something.But what seemed baffling is that certain minor scenes were also edited out of the PBS version. For example, there was a scene that showed Michael bringing Thomas’s painting back to the cottage. From the PBS version, we know that Flora took the painting down in their flat and forced Michael to get rid of it. Part 2 showed Adam finding the painting in the cottage but it wasn’t clear how it got there. This little scene linked everything together.The scene where Michael comes back to his flat and breaks down on The stairs, the next scene you see in the PBS version is Michael going back into his flat with his bowler on his head and Flora was folding some laundry. Michael starts speaking to Flora but his bowler mysteriously disappeared showing a break in continuity. In the UK version, Michael goes back into his flat, takes his bowler off and bends down to play with his son by the playpen. Flora stops folding her laundry and walks out to pick up Michael’s suitcase and walks into the bedroom to unpack his clothes. Michael then realizes that Flora knew about his plan to leave her. He walks to the bedroom door and starts speaking. The PBS version got away with the cut because Flora’s folding laundry and her putting clothes away from the suitcase looks very similar so most viewers will not realize that in actuality she was doing so in two different rooms.In Part 2, there was a scene when Steve brought his sketches to the veterinary office to see Adam. Adam asked Steve to meet him at the cafe down the street. In the PBS version, the next scene was Adam flipping through the sketches in the cafe saying “ they’re beautiful “. In the UK version, it actually shows Adam going into the cafe and Steve saying “I thought you weren’t going to come” before flipping through the sketches.These are just a few examples of the cut but it doesn’t take away from the power of the overall story. Personally I like originals so if I had the choice, I would choose the UK version.

Although shot way back the story of Michael and Thomas is what everyday relationships are about. They cant deny that true love existed before Flora came truly in the picture. The memories Thomas and Muchael shared will last them a lifetime,,,,it will make you cry

I have ADHD, so although I often make it through a movie, it involves frequent pauses. This movie caught my attention so much, I stayed through to the end with no breaks. It goes many places other movies are scared to. It makes you think. It does what movies are supposed to. It's only been a few weeks since I've seen this movie, but I'm ready to watch it again.

Vanessa Redgrave turns in what is arguably her finest performance of all time: acting against her own beliefs. With WWII in the background, this is not a 'war movie', but rather, a true love story that begins on a WWII battlefield to which we don't return. Instead, attention turns towards lives after the war's end. It's the mid-1940's, when being gay's illegal in the UK. A Captain turned banker and another turned artist reunite under the constant threat and pressure of being exposed for being truly in love. In order to 'do what society expects', one marries, has a son and tries to live well within the mores and confines of a typical, for the era, marital relationship. The artist isn't simply left out. He's the Groom's Best Man, then the son's Godfather. Definitely a close friend of the family. I believe that's as much as I should reveal about the beginning of the plot so as not to be a spoiler! This is the scenario in Part 1 of a 2 part BBC series. Turning to Part 2, in this episode we've an 80yo Vanessa Redgrave playing the female lead, perhaps 40 years later. The widow of the banker and surrogate mother to a young man who's relationship to her's not apparent until the plot unfolds. (Hushed, I'm not telling). As much of the modern day film viewing audience should already know, Vanessa Redgrave has long been an Ally within the GLBTA human rights movements. This is certainly not the first gay-affirming film in which she plays a leading role! What makes her performance a superb stand out is not simply amazing talents and skills as a master-class actor. The character the legendary Redgrave plays is. I watched the latest addition to a huge Redgrave collection of films (including televised and streamed shows) moved to anger. tears of compassion, thrilled with joy and more completely satisfied with what turns out to be an astonishing accomplishment making a myriad of unspoken socio-political statements about being human, loving, mistaken and reptentant. All of the other characters and their actors supply this 2 hours series with everything Redgrave must have in order to skillfully maneuver her character as the elder who lives to reveal the complete (hi)story. (As Ms. Redgrave's following knows, hardly another soul alive today can tell a story as well as she). With a treasure trove of veteran actors who could have taken this role, I cannot imagine any of them being quite as able to land this picture's main point. Oh how I love it when the great artists use their keen abilities to lead the viewing public into an era of socio-political understanding. This is an extremely important film because it's as entertaining as it is rich with performance artistry that can't help but move hearts and minds. Frances de la Tour ("Vicious") plays a smaller but very significant role that lands a supporting point to the plot that should not go unnoticed. Well worth the wait to get this BBC film across the Atlantic, I recommend owning it most highly~

Beautiful cinematography and an outstanding performance from Venessa Redgrave (perhaps reprieving elements of her character at the end of Atonement ) underpins a very simple message : much has changed in terms of acceptance of homosexuality, but are gay men any happier?Many people have slated part 2 but I think they are missing the point. This series was made in 2017 as part of the BBC2 season to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967.Part 1 depicts a doomed relationship post world war 2 because society would not accept two gay men together. The result is they are both unhappy , as is the wife of one .Part 2 also shows doomed relationships initially via app dating, and despite a modern lifestyle for the gay protagonist, a lack of acceptance from a deeply conservative grandmother whose own homophobia was caused by the 1st story - and a lack of acceptance then of gay relationships. That homophobia forced a gay man to marry her, despite her loving him deeply.Despite the saccharine happy ending, given what we know about the lifestyles of the lead characters , the narrative highly suggests the relationship is unlikely to last. Gay men have still not found true love and that despite a huge change in society in terms of acceptance, unhappiness remains .“The trouble with open relationships is that they don’t end in a satisfying plate-smashing row. They just become about coffee beans and cat litter.”

brilliant drama set over 2 different time periods 1944 when homosexuality was frowned upon & it was seen as despicable behaviour. a straight marriage back then would give the impression of normality but which of the characters are happy with this false image? fast forward to modern day where homosexuality is more acceptable but issues & acceptance still are apparent

Apparently the story for this film came from Patrick Gale's own family. The repercussions of a forbidden wartime gay romance echo down the years to the present time. The story is engrossing and the performances are heartfelt. The past and present stories contrast gay life before and after decriminalisation of homosexuality. A poignant production. Julian Morris, originally from Crouch End in London, should be more well known.Mark Houston (Author of Phyllis and Dolly Take a Stand & The Hunters and the Hunted [YA])

This DVD tells the beautiful story of gay lovers from 2 generations within the same family, demonstrating how these relationships affected each family in their own time period. The first couple meet during World War II, then reconnect after the war. Gay men were prosecuted and imprisoned at that time if caught. Michael marries and hides his orientation, while Thomas is arrested, prosecuted, and goes to prison. Michael's wife finds out about the relationship, and ultimately, Michael must make a choice. Sixty years later, Michael's grandson Adam, also gay, must make choices about his life, no less important than Michael's were in his generation, even though Adam is living in a much more accepting time.Just comparing the societal pressures of the times as well as personal issues and temptations each man faces, is an interesting contrast of how things have changed, yet remain the same in many ways