Previously adapted for television in 1968, renowned author M.R James’s classic ghost story “Oh, Whistle & I’ll Come To You, My Lad” is updated for modern audiences by writer Neil Cross (Spooks, Luther) and director Andy de Emmony (Cutting It, Canterbury Tales), with the estimable John Hurt as this version’s victim of a restless coastal spirit…
Retired astronomer James Parkin (Hurt) is forced to relinquish his catatonic wife Alice (Gemma Jones) to a care home, while he goes on a respite holiday to an idyllic seaside town they used to visit in their youth. Parkin arrives at a quiet hotel and settles down for a few day’s rest in his portentous double room, before discovering a ring buried on a beach inscribed “Who Is This, Who Is Coming?” Taking the ring back to his room as found treasure, this “theft” seems to attract the attention of a shrouded apparition, which Parkin first notices following him on an empty beach, before being subjected to sleepless nights thanks to curious scratching and a shadowy figure banging on his door. Has the spectral owner of the ring followed Parkin back to his hotel? Or are these supernatural scares a symptom of Parkin’s guilt over leaving his sick wife in someone else’s care?
Whistle & I’ll Come To You makes some changes to the source material (the Robert Burns poem which inspired James’s story), but the alterations were perfectly reasonable and helped give the story its own sense of identity and purpose. There’s ultimately nothing here that’s pushing boundaries of the genre, as half the fun is simply relishing the tense atmosphere that grips the screen from the opening seconds. It’s an old-fashioned spooky tale, told with clarity and restraint, held together by Hurt’s natural charisma. A world away from the effects-fuelled hauntings that clutter cinemas, Whistle & I’ll Come To You holds your mind in its icy grip with uncomplicated ease: a deserted overcast beach, a porcelain sculpture of a cherubic boy’s head with a clenched smile, nocturnal scratching under a bed, a lamp that turns itself off while you sleep, wind breathing against the gaps of a window frame…
It’s possible to be cynical about the old-fashioned nature of this drama and it’s feasible many will guess the twist, but Whistle & I’ll Come To You is about staying in the moment and savoring the ambience. It’s about watching every contour of John Hurt’s leathery face, scanning the background for lurking spooks, and keeping your ears pinned back for scuttling movements off-camera. The writing and direction to an admirable job of keeping you engaged with the story, particularly with the unsettling subplot of Parkin’s poor wife being left alone in the nursing home. To paraphrase Parkin himself, what’s scarier: the continuation of the human personality after bodily death (ghosts), or the death of the human personality while the body survives (his wife’s plight)?
Overall, Whistle & I’ll Come To You is all about your approach to the material. If you’re a restless soul who prefers their horror to be more extroverted in execution, you’ll very likely be quickly bored and maybe underwhelmed by the distressing reveal. But if you savor a sense of creeping dread, and appreciate ghost stories that you can place yourself in the context of, this is a fine example of the art form. The final night’s haunting, building to a wonderfully edited shock moment on a bed, was a satisfying climax to a beautifully sustained hour of eeriness. The denouement leaves you with lingering questions, and should send you to bed with some spine-chilling images lodged in your memory — like waggling fingers under a door frame…
WRITER: Neil Cross (based on the story by M.R James)
DIRECTOR: Andy de Emmony
CAST: John Hurt, Gemma Jones, Lesley Sharp & Sophie Thompson
TRANSMISSION: 24 December 2010, BBC2/HD, 9PM
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.
38 Comments
I kind of enjoyed this, for John Hurt, but overall felt a bit disappointed as it was a bit overstretched for 55 mins. I didn’t realise he just found the ring, early on. I thought he’d buried it himself, many years ago and had come back to a place he previously stayed at with his wife. I twigged what the twist would be, but the ending was just too weird.
@Dom: You’re right in how you perceived the story — I was trying to protect the storyline in recounting it. Was it overstretched? Perhaps. Certainly you could tell the story in 30 mins, but then maybe the sense of dread wouldn’t be able to totally infect audiences? Anyway, the atmosphere and Hurt were the major positives here, and the story largely stands the test of time (even if it was tweaked). I thought it was great to see the tradition of a Christmas ghost story back on British screens again.
Great Christmas Eve viewing. Thought the setting, atmosphere, pacing and John Hurt were perfect. Would have liked the figure on the beach to be less tangible. The ending chilled the blood! Terrific work all.
I like the tangibility of the figure on the beach, the solidity (and feet) of the figure made it more threatening. However the figure in the 1960s version is way creepier; it was directed by Jonathan Miller and is well worth checking out. I liked John Hurt’s character more than Michael Hordern’s in the original, who was closer to MR James’s sceptical character (the story about the wife was added, but kind of works and is probably preferable to a sceptic who strongly disbelieves in ghosts and is then haunted by one, by now a pretty well-worn idea).
The source material is MR James’s story rather than Burns’s poem, from which it really just takes its title. In the story, also, it’s a whistle he finds. Personally I wish they’d left it that way because the ring scenes were too evocative of LotR (the adverts almost seemed to push this intentionally).
Here’s the original poem, from the Bard of Ayrshire:
http://www.robertburns.org/works/424.shtml
Hope the Beeb gets back into the tradition of Christmas ghost stories (The Signalman, with Denholm Elliott, is the best of the old bunch), although I don’t think they need to keep returning to stories they have filmed before. There’s no shortage of ghost stories they could adapt.
I thought this was truly dreadful. Who was haunting him? Was it a dream? Where did his wife go at the end? Very slow and not even scary
It was good. The ending sequence was great save the wife part. It wasn’t scary at all. Why did she seem to have so much hostility towards him?
I think I will watch something with alittle more talent , Lost Hearts I haven’t seen in a while and always chilled me. I will give this new version credit, it did give you chills at times but they shouldn’t have set it in the modern, it takes all the fear right out of it at times but they did create a fine sense of isolation.
In regards to 1968 version. It is great and much more like the story. I think the Colonel character would have been a welcome addition to the new version but Michael Holden’s acting at the end is quite awful. The consistent ‘Oh no!’ is pretty laughable.
Does anyone know the filming location? The beach and cliffs were awesome.
Just “in and around South East England” according to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/10_october/12/hurt.shtml
The windmill farm is at Camber Sands just behind the dunes. The rest is filmed around Kingsate and Botany Bay in Kent.
Mixed feelings about this – it was filmed absolutely beautifully, and did a spectacular job of creating that ambience of creeping dread, and Hurt was fantastic. But it was perhaps ever so slightly too ponderous in places. Mind you, that wonderful montage of Hurt’s disturbing dream felt all the scarier and the more horrifying and devastating when it followed forty minutes or so of silence and slowly creeping fear.
My biggest issue was the dialogue, so it was just as well there was so little of it. I loved Hurt’s early monologue about love, but that moment where he talked to the hotel manager about the question of ghosts and about the spirit living on etc etc really suffered from overwriting – the issue seemed to come out of nowhere, and Hurt suddenly seemed to launch into this very eloquent and beautiful speech about mortality that just felt completely at odds with everything we’d seen up til then. It was obviously a point that needed to be made, but it could’ve been done more subtly rather than being thrust in our faces like that.
Sorry, this was just bad and I shouldn’t have expected better from the creator of the appalling ‘Luther’.
Can anyone explain the introduction and relevance of the wife as a character? So he’s lonely and guilty – why did we need that to be crowbarred into the script?
And let’s not ignore the single biggest problem, in the book he finds a whistle, not a ring. It’s the whistle that gives the story it’s name!
Speaking of past adaptations of M.R. James; I’d love it if the BBC released the readings by Christopher Lee which were made for TV about 10 years ago. THAT voice, THOSE ideas – majestic in their scariness.
Luther was appalling??
Describing it as bad is a compliment.
It was dire and apart from the title bore no resemblance to the orginal story.
The 1968 Miller/Michael Horden version was an atmospheric and generally true adaptation of the written story and is unsurpassable in my opinion. When watching it I still get a shiver up my spine at the end and one of my friends will now only watch it during the hours of daylight, it had such an affect on him the first time he viewed it.
When writing a screenplay it’s very easy to get the audience to jump with fright at the appearance of a “monster” but, in the Miller version you are left to draw your own conclusions as to what was or was not happenning to poor Professor Parkin. Was there a haunting or was his mind going ?
Having said that, how many people having seen the 1968 film/DVD have not woken up in the night having thought they heard something rustling/moving in their bedroom ?
Yes the 1968 version was an “adaptation” but the core of the story was pretty much followed. Why oh why do people feel the need to rewrite a perfectly good ghost story? What has happened to original thought?
I’m sure the BFI won’t be releasing the John Hurt version on DVD in the years ahead as they have done with the classic BBC 1960′s/70′s “A Ghost Story for Christmas”, most of which were M.R.James stories.
So with the way things are going can we next year look forward to a rewrite of the nativity story perhaps?
That would be interesting.
Some things are best left as they are. M.R.James was original and his stories should not be rewritten.
I too would love to know where it was filmed. Lovely location/s.
Adam said “Personally I wish they’d left it that way because the ring scenes were too evocative of LotR.” Well the weathered face of John Hurt reminded me of Ian McKellen’s in one or two shots!
I came to this without background knowledge of the source material.
Whilst the programme had undeniable atmosphere and the casting was wonderful I felt a little cheated. “The denouement leaves you with lingering questions” well exactly!
E.g. it felt like there was an unspoken conspiracy between nurse and wife. Why? Also the central character seemed so kind and loving. So why would anyone (let alone his wife), object to him wanting to to relive the happier days of his long marriage. Why did he deserve such an outcome (trying not to give anything away!), when the nurse’s dialogue reinforced the fact that he deserved a rest?
It seemed unrealstic that he could find a small ring buried in all that sand. Perhaps it would have been better to say put his flask cup down on it and the sound could have attracted his attention (& did he keep refilling this flask via an unseen facility in his bedroom because he was practically alone in the hotel?!).
I also felt that the ‘shaky-cam’ in a few shots belonged to an older DIY programme.
This could have been something quite special.
I found this on Kent Council’s web.
Kent Filming Locations: Thanet: Botany Bay, Kings Gate Bay and the Sea Pavilion at Walpole Bay.
Whistle and I’ll come to you was written by Neil Cross and is a modern adaptation of M R James’ Edwardian ghost story. It stars John Hurt and tells the tale of a man’s encounter with an apparition on a desolate British beach.
Based on the original novel, Oh Whistle And I’ll Come to You, My Lad, this one off drama explores the themes of ageing, pride and the supernatural.
It also stars Lesley Sharp and Gemma Jones.
Whistle and I’ll come to you will be shown on BBC TWO 24th December 2010
Kingsgate Bay
Known for its beautiful sandy beach, Kingsgate Bay has some of the best sea caves in the country. Kingsgate Castle, built in the 1760′s for Lord Holland, overlooks the beach making Kingsgate Bay truly wonderful.
Nice to know – will go there one day!
Cheers
They also filmed this at Camber Sands, the windmill farm is on the fields just behind the sand dunes. I have spent many a happy holiday down there.
I have always been a fan of M R James’s work and this story is my favourite. I have to say that they have wasted a great oportunity to film it as the original story. The 1968 version was a more faithfull adaption but was weakened by it’s need to try to be over artistic. (Not unusual for Jonathan Miller).
This version was awful! Why have the wife at the end? Why change it to a ring? In the original it was the blowing if the whistle that summond the spirit.
Please read the original short story or find the BBC adaption with Robert Powell reading. You will learn then what a hatchet job this was!
I have absolutely no idea what the ending means. Does he die and then she gets better? He dies then she was never demented in the first place? He was already dead and needed to be visited by her non-existent ghost before he realised it? What?
@Tony: The fact it can be interpreted so many ways is surely a strength.
We watched this and did enjoy it (I did not know there was another version with Michael Horden) We kept trying to figure out what was happening, and came up with a couple of versions. Was the place where his wife was a kind of “waiting room” for lost souls? All those people sitting in a row wearing exactly the same gown. It might have been that she needed to be set free by his death – there were tears on her face when he died, and then she became animated, and then disappeared!
Or had she died at that hotel and her “soul” was still there – hence she kept saying “I am still here”! Was she waiting for him so they could be together.
It was spooky, but we wondered what the Cherub’s head was for (was it meant to signify a Cherub in a cemetary?
I have not read the original story, but now I want to, and try to get to the bottom of it all (although I believe it is quite different)
It might have been that you had to make up your own mind, as to the ending also.
Nice to read other people’s comments and interpretations of the events!
I agree with the previous posters that it is nice when an ending is open to a certain amount of speculation, but there should be some narrative pointers to help you come to a reasonable interpretation – even if it one of many. In this case there’s absolutely nothing. If the writer had a particular story in mind then they singularly failed to get it across in this adaptation.
Maybe if they’d concentrated on that rather than lifting the climax from ‘The Haunting’ we’d have had a better programme. I’ve just re-read the original story and I have to wonder why they felt they had to make so many changes. M.R. James was very careful to set the story in a context (that of a priory) and to provide a second character (the Colonel) to guide the narrative and give the main character a voice.
I thought it was absolutely wonderful – engulfing from the beginning, although I can see how the real-time shooting style would’ve bored those with a dreadfully short attention span.
I picked up what seems to be a crucial suggestion in this tale – that they had a child who died, and that John Hurt’s character was somehow responsible?
In his vision/dream, he sees his wife cradling an absent child in her arms, then the porcelain face of a cherub being smashed, and when she appears to him at the end, she is childlike in appearance.
I thought the suggestion was that they had a child together, or she had been pregnant with a child, and he seemed to be somehow implicated – perhaps he was accidentally responsible, or she held him responsible for its death, hence her anger towards him.
She could have gone into that catatonic state in shock when the child died, and he could have carried that guilt around with him for years until it finally became greater than he could control. Or perhaps he had always simply DENIED her a child because he preferred it to be just the two of them, and she never forgave him?
‘Dreadfully short attention span.’ What?!
I did not get bored with this at all but I did not fully engage with it either. So, the production felt like a missed opportunity despite the cast’s best efforts (and they were all good performances).
I did wonder if the protagonist had been responsible for some (unknown) wrong doing. Maybe he had been a workaholic with no time for a family. Who knows? So I agree with Mike’s comment above “but there should be some narrative pointers to help you come to a reasonable interpretation.” Without these it was less easy to empathise with the characters.
This seemed a little like an abstract painting where the artist just allows the medium to flow onto the canvas then ask ‘well what does this piece mean to YOU?” However, this was an interpretation of an original work. Therefore, when I have some time I will seek out the poem/story that inspired this second TV adaptation.
The main problem, I think, is there seems to be no personality or originality in the film. The ‘atmospheric’ photography looks very trendy, but makes it seem like a TV commercial, especially the beach shots. The forced sombre photography, out of focus shots, and shaky camera reminded me of Red Riding – also full of unnecessary style and little of emotional substance. This just confirms to me how filmmaking has changed since Miller’s version. The abstract dream sequence was a series of advertising cliches. The appearance of the wife at the end poorly acted and also derivative. Not one brave or original idea in the entire film. Clarity and clear suspense are missing completely.
However, it is good to see the BBC backing the Christmas ghost story again. I agree that these opportunities should be given to directors with something to say.
Since it’s come up a couple of times, anyone who is interested in reading ‘Oh Whistle and I’ll Come to You’ can get the free eText from Project Gutenberg which houses out-of-copyright books in a number of formats including for eBook readers.The story, which is very short, is part of his 1904 book ‘Ghost Stories of an Antiquary’
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8486
Some of James’ other books are also available on Gutenberg.
Enjoy – but don’t forget to lock all the doors and turn the lights down low.
Hmmm.
Just read the short story via the above link – thank you for that.
I have to say that I think it is altogether creepier and more cinematic than the BBC TV version.
I’m sorry, but this was far scarier than the hammy 60′s version; the climax of which was a dancing bedsheet being pulled around on a string? Really?
There is beauty in ambiguity, and what the 2010 version excelled in was making it ambiguous as to whether or he was seeing a literal apparition of his wife, or a phantasm, a trick of the mind projected by his own guilt (more likely, I would say.
And of course the cinematography and acting was far superior.
(This, by the way, is coming from someone who is generally against remakes, and detests most modern cinema.)
Whatever your opinion of this adaptation there is one real mystery remaining for me – why the BBC said this was based on the M.R. James story?
In fact, from what I remember of the title credits, M R James was not even mentioned. I don’t understand why Neil Cross didn’t make a few more changes and call this a completely new story. It differed enough from the 1968 version, which itself is different from the original story, to be far from an ‘adaptation’ of the story; to call it such is a travesty.
For me, the story in itself was not that bad, but it was not an M R James story and the BBC should be ashamed that they think they can sell it by calling it a ‘thoroughly modern re-working’ of the tale.
I love the tradition of the BBC showing a ghost story for Christmas but this was a real cheat on both counts.
I’m not against this type of film being made for the BBC (after such a long time). It’s just that I think it is such an insult to the viewer, to the MR James story, and to Jonathon Miller’s film. Back in the 60′s, the BBC had faith in writers such as Nigel Kneale or new directors like Miller, Robert Fuest and Ken Russell. It’s beyond me why this 2010 remake was accepted as part of the BBC Christmas ghost story tradition.
I also cannot understand why anyone could not find the 60′s version terrifying. I still think of it as one of the best dramatisations of a ghost story ever filmed. How can you not appreciate the craft and bold imagination that has gone into this from performances to sound and cinematography?
A big problem with the remake stems from the over-stylised photography and ridiculous performances, especially from the nurse – trying hard to be dreamy and weird with no basis in reality. The hospital is unrealistic, the recurring shots of the door meaningless and trying to rip off the shining. The remake tried too hard to be weird and arty without any justification – from the beginning. And that dream sequence with the broken doll head was ludicrous – straight out of a pop promo. How did that add to the character or story? The ending had no real ambiguity because the character was not complex or realistic enough from the start. We just didn’t care.
Michael Horden in Miller’s film was such a pompous, strong character and we believed in his dismissal of the supernatural. Totally. The suspense was almost unbearable when this clearly established rationalism was confronted with the uncanny logic of the supernatural. This building tension and unease is there in the story, so to me this was a perfect adaptation.
Yes, in the 60′s version a simple white sheet was terrifying, accompanied by the carefully established mood of dread and isolation. For a moment, I began to think I saw the remake trying something just as original and imaginative with a dark shape somehow manifesting in the dark corner of the room, but it was to do with how I was viewing it on my monitor, and it turned out to be his wife just sitting there, uttering some nonsense, attempting to be ‘ghostly’ and trying to look like Sadaka in Ringu.
Compare this with Jonathon Miller’s apparition which was shapeless and monstrous. It’s all to do with how it was filmed, with the pacing and sound which made it seem like a hint of some other terrifying world, not a woman with a white sheet on standing on a pretty beach… dreadful…
@Paul: You were apparently much younger when you saw the ’60s version, so I’m not surprised you prefer it and remember it as being scarier. All remakes of scary stories don’t feel as haunting when you’re 30 years older, with high expectations. I saw this with my family, who haven’t seen the previous version, and they were unnerved throughout and got a satisfying jolt at the end. And it then provoked 10 mins of discussion about what it all meant. Job done, no?
Sure, it had flaws and some problems, but it was actually very restrained and beautifully put together. I could understand the disappointment if there had been CGI flying around the place, and a loe-rent actor in the lead. But we got John Hurt, a stylish look, some genuine creepiness, and an ending that provokes questions (and 30+ comments in a review here). It was hardly a dud.
No, not a dud, but I can’t help compare with the BBC adaptations from the 70′s. I don’t like to seem too harsh, as it isn’t easy to make a good horror, and it is a very positive move from the BBC. I enjoyed some of the scares and John Hurt’s believable reactions. You’re getting a lot of reactions I think because people do want a return to the days of the traditional BBC ghost story. Nigel Kneale’s adaptation of The Woman in Black is a good example of a story told simply, without frills, well crafted and not at all wasteful.
It’s a shame because John Hurt is obviously a top drawer film actor and a genuine sense of mounting creepiness is evoked. I like the fact it takes its time and slowly builds tension. Problem is as discussed above there narrative threads just don’t tie together enough – however loosely. Ambiguity is fine but confusion means the script writer has failed somehow unfortunately. The Lesley Duncan nurse character was downright annoying. If you want a successful recent ghost story then make sure you look out Mark Gatiss’ Crooked House trilogy – there’s even one featuring mysterious nocturnal door knockings!
The opening scene was shot in Sutton and they may as well have shot the whole thing in a lay-by off the A217 for all the atmosphere they managed to muster. It was billed as an MR James adaptation so I’m going to treat is as such and say that the makers managed to lose virtually everything that was good about the original story and the excellent 1968 adaptation. Had it not been for the inclusion of John Hurt it would have been totally unviewable.
The pacing was even slower than the 1968 version which is thought provoking without us having to spend time trying to work out what it’s about because the story has been well told. I think the idea in this one was that John Hurt’s wife was torturing him from beyond the grave of her acting career and John Hurt admirably died of shame.
Clearly the makers wanted to tell their own story and trade on the MR James name. If any Film Schools would like to teach their students how to rip the heart out of an original story they could do no better than show them this.
I was left completely confused and wanting answers at the end of this story! The figure on the beach and the ring were obviously nothing to do with his wife! So what were they all about? And why did he die? Why was he scratching the floorboards before he died? I feel that had there been some explanation at the end it would have been a much more enjoyable watch. I was left frustrated. Has anyone read the book and if so does it explain the ending?
Hi Trish,
The original story is available to download from Project Gutenberg. As it is out of copyright the text is free:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8486
To avoid spoiling it for you, I’ll just say the ending of the book is not the same as the one in the adaptation, so no answers there.
I am obviously very easily scared as this programme freaked me and my bloke out!! I still have moments now when I hear a noise or the dog scratches at the door! I didn’t quite understand it to be honest but having read the replies on this website it is a little clearer although as someone else mentioned, I didn’t understand why the wife came crawling up his bed! I assume he died of a heart attack? It was very cleverly written I thought but then I am easily scared as mentioned earlier!