The Urquhart Trilogy *Spoiler Warning*

[HStorm]

My personal literary recommendation for anyone with an interest in politics would be the work of Michael Dobbs, a former Tory party chairman. He's been a novelist since 1989 and in my opinion he's still to write a bad book. His work is brilliantly-plotted, technically very accurate and informative, dramatic and full of wonderful moments of black humour. (Naselus and Modeski can confirm all that.)

Amongst his novels are three set in the Second World War - Winston's War, Never Surrender, and Last Man To Die (all featuring special guest-star Winston Churchill! ) - and a terrifying tale about a tragically real trade; European babies being kidnapped and sold on the black market in the former Soviet Union and the Far East. It's called The Touch Of Innocents.

But most of all I recommend his most famous creation; the Francis Urquhart trilogy. These are the thrillers House Of Cards, To Play The King, and The Final Cut. They are about an ageing politician who knows he is nearing retirement and has never managed a higher office than Chief Whip, and so, when once again passed over for a senior position, he uses every dirty secret his office puts at his disposal to overthrow the Prime Minister and succeed him at the expense of all his closest colleagues.

These three novels were so popular that they were all turned into television serials by the BBC - perhaps the Beeb's best drama serials of the '90's - with the outstanding Ian Richardson perfectly-cast in the role of the dastardly Urquhart. The stories are clever, fast-paced, funny, and enthrallingly cynical. Perhaps the best political fiction ever written.

(Other work from Dobbs worth looking out for includes the Goodfellowe series.)

[Naselus]

In the case of the Urquhart Trilogy, I recommend the TV series even more than the books, for the simple reason that Dobbs had Urquhart lose in all of his books, and the BBC chose to let the villainous bastard win. It just seems that bit more accurate than Dobbs version, since it's more believable that one with Urquhart's evil genius for politics would be almost unstoppable. Even when he finally dies in the third one, the BBC have it happen on far more favourable terms, while Dobbs still persists in the oddly hopeful view that we all get our come upance at the end.

[HStorm]

I thought Urquhart's death in the novel, which had him cast as a hero in the foolish eyes of posterity, was a far more favourable way for him to go out than the disgraced assassination victim he became in the televised version. (In fact, Michael Dobbs had his credit withdrawn from the titles of The Final Cut in protest at the adaptation, as it managed to miss the whole point of the story.)

[modeski]

I think there is an argument to be made for both versions. However there is no argument the TV version did make *great* TV. I notice the trilogy is out on dvd now actually. Having not read the books I can't comment on them, but I do remember watching the TV series more than once with Storm and Nas. Quite deliciously captured the corruption, deception and darkly humorous world of british politics. It had balls!

[TheCritique]

I am pleased to announce that I have aquired the TV series, and it lives up to its reputation. Not sure about the ending - it seems to leave several questions unanswered, and I think an alternate, more intricate ending might be more fitting. Any thoughts?

Note: The quality and style of the acting is brilliant, especially the Shakespearian style of talking directly to the audience, confiding in them as co-conspirators etc.

[HStorm]

Gotta agree with all of that. I'm not so fond of the last episode of The Final Cut for reasons I've already stated, and yes, it does leave questions unanswered.

I've never been able to figure out, for instance, why Corder bothered to send Tom Makepeace a copy of the tape, or indeed where the copy came from, seeing that Tim Stamper and Sarah Harding had the only copies, which were destroyed in the explosions in To Play The King.

So on the face of it, The Final Cut was not too well adapted compared to the other two. Still compulsory viewing though.

[ringmasterrob]

Critique has also lent me his box-set of the trilogy which I have now watched. My opinion? A masterpiece and a triumph. Ian Richardson does a fantastic job as Urquhart, one of his knowing glances or smiles to the camera says more than a page of dialogue ever could and his cold delivery of the 'You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment' catchphrase really allows the audience to get into it. I agree with what Will said about the Soliloquy way of talking to the audience, really draws you in.

I sort of agree with the comments about the Final Cut, especially the errors about Mattie’s tape. For me the last half of Final Cut's last episode (from the convoy being stopped by schoolchildren onwards) is a disappointing way to end it, but up until that point I enjoyed it very much. I can't choose a favourite between 'House of Cards' and 'To Play the King'.

The former is great because it shows Urquhart at his scheming best, pulling every dirty trick in the book to get his way without ever getting caught. The latter is made exceptional because of Michael Kitchen's sterling performance as the socially-conscious King; his rivalry with Urquhart is compelling to watch. As a whole I would reccomend this to anyone with even a mild interest in politics.

[HStorm]

Some sad news, the mighty Ian Richardson died at the age of 72 earlier this month. A true legend of screen and theatre, not to mention one of those reassuring rarities; a polished, mild-mannered Glaswegian gent.

*Raises a glass to the great Ian R.*

[Thanatos]

I too don't know why Corder sent Makepeace a copy, but there's only one way he could have got one (though it's not made explicit): he recorded the meeting between Stamper and Harding, which he was bugging, at which Stamper played her the tape.

I hadn't seen the trilogy when this thread was started three years ago (and I still haven't read the books), but I got the DVDs nearly a year ago, and it's quite definitely the second-best TV drama I've ever seen (nothing can beat I, Claudius). House of Cards is definitely the best of the trilogy, perhaps because the situation allows for a better story than do the sequels, and also because of the brilliant performance, the best in the trilogy other than Richardson's own, from Susannah Harker as Mattie Storrin. My other favourite actors in the trilogy as Colin Jeavons as Tim Stamper (I'd previously seen him as Lestrade in the wonderful Jeremy Brett version of Sherlock Holmes) and Nickolas Grace as the ridiculous Geoffrey Booza-Pitt (he also played the best ever Sheriff of Nottingham in the also wonderful 1980s series Robin of Sherwood).

Of the other two I prefer The Final Cut, despite the aforementioned oddities about the ending. Michael Kitchen (the King) underwhelmed me slighty, and Sarah Harding, though well acted by Kitty Aldridge, is nowhere near as good as a character as Mattie; I get the feeling she's there simply because Urquhart 'ought' to have another affair (thankfully this is not repeated in The Final Cut, despite the hint at the end of the first episode - what made me think it was going to happen was, of course, that Urquhart denied it).

[HStorm]

thanatos said:

I too don't know why Corder sent Makepeace a copy, but there's only one way he could have got one (though it's not made explicit): he recorded the meeting between Stamper and Harding, which he was bugging, at which Stamper played her the tape.

The recording of Stamper-playing-the-recording is just as clear as the recording itself, so it's not very likely. Still, an unlikely explanation is better than no explanation at all.

Did you notice, by the way, that when Corder plays the tape, some of Mattie's lines appear to have been abridged? If you listen to her confrontation with Urquhart at the end of House Of Cards, she makes quite a lot of extra accusations before saying, "The one who killed Roger O'Neill?!?" On the tape in The Final Cut, she says, "Tell me you weren't the one all along!" And then she goes straight on to, "The one who killed Roger O'Neill?!?"

Have you also noticed how sad it is that some people notice these things in the first place?

Of the other two I prefer The Final Cut

I prefer the novel of The Final Cut to the TV version. The incongruities in the plot and the rather unsubtle content tends to make me roll my eyes.

Michael Dobbs also hates the TV version. He was irritated that it made very little sense, and was offended by the opening scenes of Margaret Thatcher's funeral. He is a close friend of Thatcher's - we all have our failings - and the story embarrassed him, because many of his friends were holding him responsible for the script when he had no power of preventing it.

I actually quite enjoy scenes that involve Thatcher being dead - happiest of fantasies - but then I don't have to answer for them.

[Thanatos]

I have no reason to suppose that Dobbs's irritation at the differences from his book is unjustified, but offense at the funeral scene is silly. Either he is very over-sensitive or he just wanted something else to complain about.

[HStorm]

I don't think he's bothered by the differences in fact; he's happy with the TV adaptation of To Play The King, and that bears only a moderate resemblance to the book version at all. He was just annoyed that the closing stages of The Final Cut made little sense when adapted for the screen, while the funeral scene was his main objection to the series as a whole.

I do strongly recommend you get the books by the way. They're all substantially different to the TV series, and while the series are superior (bar in the case of The Final Cut), the novels are still excellent entertainment in their own right.