Where was the challenge in adapting "The Golden Bowl"?
I was frightened of it. It was Ruth Prawer Jhabvala who convinced me that one of the good things about it was that it has a resolution at the end that is positive and more upbeat than books like "The Portrait of a Lady" or "The Wings of a Dove". It was not such a dying fall.
How do you compare this to your previous Henry James adaptations?
It's different from them. This film is a series, and we did this on purpose, of long dialogue scenes, which if you're not paying attention then nothing is happening. If you do pay attention, then a lot is happening.
Why is Henry James so difficult to adapt?
It could be the adaptation itself, or mistakes in casting - the actors aren't able to act in the required style. Then of course, his later books are very tricky to do. His earlier works are much more straightforward. There's a narrative line and a lot of light, witty dialogue, which would help a screenwriter. But the later books don't even have scenes. In "The Golden Bowl", there are very few actual scenes. The breaking of the bowl is in the book, but most of them are hidden.
How do you work with the actors?
There has to be a lot of discussion about it. I try to enlighten the actors if they don't know why they're saying something. Sometimes they enlighten me. It's a give-and-take procedure. When we get on the set, our scenes are pretty improvised; they're very much determined by location.
.
