Father Brown - Style and Sunny Skies, But No Substance

[Note: this concerns series 1 - I'm halfway through series 3 at the moment, and my impressions are somewhat different.] 

I’ve long been excited about the new Father Brown adaptation. I read several volumes of short stories featuring G.K. Chesterton’s clerical sleuth last summer, and enjoyed them immensely. In typical fashion, Chesterton used them to tote his own views, but included a fascinating howdunnit mystery, often hinging on paradox. The quirky, child-like character of Father Brown, the humorous philosophical discussions, the hilarious Chestertonian one-liners, and the gorgeous, glorious descriptions easily set the stories among the classic mysteries.

The old series with Kenneth More was quite good, but suffered from being made in the 1970s. The writing, mostly lifted directly from Chesterton, was witty and well-delivered, and elevated it beyond most shows of its time.

Lady Felicia, Mrs. McCarthy, Brown, Valentine, Suzie, Sid

Unfortunately, the new adaptation bears little relation to its source material. It starts off sticking to the original plot, but things quickly spin into embellishment. Father Brown (Mark Williams) has lost his air of whimsical befuddlement and dithering curiosity, and appears altogether too keen-minded (which, in the books, he only became during the final unveiling). He’s been turned into a much more wise, sagely, liberal Cadfael-esque figure. 

Another thing: Father Brown’s figure was always described as rather roly-poly. Williams is too tall to pull that off, but he does occasionally get in the childishness. Yet it's only very occasionally. Some joys are granted by the supporting cast: Sorcha Cusack is hilarious as the neighborhood busybody, and Hugo Speer makes a convincing and relatable Inspector Valentine, considering its never easy playing the Lestrade/Japp figure. Nancy Carroll's Lady Felicia is there for seemingly no reason. Kasia Koleczek as Susie, Father Brown’s Polish housekeeper, serves to advance the plot at times, but her boyfriend Sid (Alex Price) is truly interesting, being a some-time petty thief.

The show can’t quite decide what it wants to be. At times, it’s whimsical to the point of silliness, but at others serious on the level of a police procedural. It’s a disjointed effort to fuse the lightheartedness of 1990s Poirot episodes with the darker tone of modern shows such as Lewis. At times, this does work. In The Bride of Christ, Father Brown chases a killer accompanied by an eccentric, bright nun with a penchant for Christie and Sayers novels. But in The Devil’s Dust, the disappearance of a teenage girl lends a grisly cast to the tale. In general, however, it sticks to the light-hearted investigations, to which it lends itself well.

George Bernard Shaw, Hillaire Belloc, and G.K. Chesterton

As a mystery series, it is passable, but when compared to the original, one scratches the head. Gone are the theological discussions, the vivid evocative scenery, the brilliant paradoxical crimes. While, as I said, it’s not bad as a mystery, the real mystery is why one would want to change from the originals. In fact, five of the ten are entirely new stories. Making them longer is necessary, of course, and I can understand some changes being made, but watering it down to such an extent is ridiculous. Chesterton’s stories were masterpieces of the genre, why change them? Lacking are the gorgeous dialogue and occasional soliloquies:

Reason and justice grip the remotest and the loneliest star. Look at those stars. Don’t they look as if they were single diamonds and sapphires? Well, you can imagine any mad botany or geology you please. Think of forests of adamant with leaves of brilliants. Think the moon is a blue moon, a single elephantine sapphire. But don’t fancy that all that frantic astronomy would make the smallest difference to the reason and justice of conduct. On plains of opal, under cliffs cut out of pearl, you would still find a notice-board, “Thou shalt not steal."

There is the occasional line directly from GKC:

"A socialist means a man who wants all the chimneys swept and all the chimney-sweeps paid for it."

"But who won't allow you," put in the priest in a low voice, "to own your own soot."

Yet, in general, if there is a quote, the point is missed:

Mrs McCarthy: "He's a thief. And a thief is just a man with no respect for property."

Brown: "On the contrary, Mr. M. Thieves respect property, they merely wish it to be their own."

Missing the witty addendum: "--that they may more perfectly respect it."



Alec Guinness as Father Brown in 1954

Also, the show obviously has no interest in the Christian or Catholic side of Father Brown. In the show, Williams’s Brown says that it is dangerous to take the Bible too “literally.” At one point, in order to speak to a criminal, he forgives a constable “an egregious infidelity.” No true priest would take his job that lightly. There are many other slip-ups. To give an example - at one point, Father Brown tells a criminal “God is not your scapegoat!” which, though true in that case, is a very unfortunate choice of words, considering the original origin of the word scapegoat. (Hebrew: Azazel, used to describe the propitiatory sacrifice of a goat to cover sin - often considered to be a prophetic picture of Christ’s death.) There are many others, often involving details in Catholic ceremony.

The entire Brown-Flambeau interaction is a travesty - missing all of Father Brown's best points. Flambeau has become an angry man with a grudge against the church, since his father was executed as a deserter by the British army. What? Kalon the sun worshipper is not given any plausible arguments from Father Brown, just a snarled retort: "There are no astral spirits!" Very much lacking in reason. Speaking of which...

I think my most Righteous-Indignation-worthy moment was when they changed Father Brown's statement to Flambeau (and also a description of his method) from...

"He attacked reason," said Father Brown. "It's bad theology."

...to...

"You sponsored reason to attack theology. Something no true cleric would ever do. Even an Anglican."

The point was reversed. It's insulting to Chesterton, and tremendously arrogant of the writers to think they could re-invent a beloved literary character. I wonder what would've happened if they tried that with a Dickens invention. Despite Peter Jackson's faults, he was devoted to portraying Tolkien's ideology correctly, even if he did not agree with it (emphasis on "was"). David Suchet treats Agatha Christie's creation, Hercule Poirot, with almost religious reverence, down to the size of eggs that Poirot prefers and the number of teaspoons of sugar in his tea. Ironically, if you want a more theologically friendly picture, go to the secularly-written Foyle’s War. 

It is best to resort to Father Brown’s original words: “My brain and this world don't fit each other; and there's an end of it.” We can’t really expect any better from secular British writers, but the wild joy and illogical grace of the originals is missing. That said, I’ve enjoyed their nostalgic setting and plots. The supporting cast are fun, and though Mark Williams is not my ideal Father Brown, he’s grown on me. Overall, entertaining escapist fare, but lacking in substance.

Longish