Why a new Helen
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Inspector Lynley Mysteries
john-4385 — 18 years ago(September 10, 2007 07:05 AM)
In viewing Natural Causes last night we were surprised to see the Helen (Lynley's wife) is now being played by a new actress. What's going on??
-
middlemiriam — 18 years ago(September 12, 2007 02:14 PM)
I guess Lesley Vickerage wanted to move on or was tied up in other projects. Saw her last in P.D. James "Murder Room" This Helen seems too sunny and level headed I cannot imagine her reacting to the marraige problems the way Helen did in previous episodes. Besides Vickerage always seemed a little neurotic and I often wondered why Lynley was so besotted by her. She was from his 'class' of people though.
-
thatsnumberwang — 18 years ago(September 12, 2007 05:38 PM)
Besides Vickerage always seemed a little neurotic and I often wondered why Lynley was so besotted by her.
I totally agree. I couldn't tell if it was the way his character was written (poorly) or my personal feelings about the actress playing (old) Helen, but I could never understand why Lynley was practically obsessed with Helen when it was pretty clear she didn't give a fig for him. The new Helen seems bluff and brusque. Unfortunately for us the audience, it may take some time for them to mesh. As of right now they have zero chemistry (I realize the series is all but canceled. I'm just writing this from the perspective of the American audience that still has a few episodes that are unseen.)
http://saucybetty.blogspot.com -
trpdean — 17 years ago(November 04, 2008 02:43 PM)
I always thought that Helen as played by Leslie Vickerage was one of the least appealing characters I've ever seen in movies or television - terribly ugly, wholly uninterested in her boyfriend/fiance - deeply obnoxious, consistently whining, always catered to by her boyfriend (Lynley) who seemed slavishly attentive.
I've not read the books, but I thought we were to understand that Lynley's utter blindness to her awfulness was the great weakness in his character (or else that one day we'd learn of Helen's blackmail of Lynley or a family member that made him solicitous, and always fearful lest she get out of his sight).
Helen as played by Vickerage is a true wretch - not someone anyone would want to spend ten minutes with. If that was NOT the impression the creators wish to give us, then of course one would have expected they'd have had a new Helen as soon as Vickerage began to play the character - perhaps they just took terribly long to get us a Helen we don't grit our teeth to hear - and hide our eyes to see. -
angelofvic — 18 years ago(September 12, 2007 10:34 PM)
I don't know. I hate the new Helen. I loved the old Helen she was perfect, beautiful, and a perfect match for the moody broody Lynley.
Ugh. This is a terrible choice.
Looks like all they were going for was similar haircolor.
. . . . . . . . -
-
angelofvic — 18 years ago(September 22, 2007 02:40 PM)
I don't like the new one at all. Complete 180 degrees from the old one. Why do that to an already-established character?
If they want Lynley to have a love interest, introduce a completely new person. They don't have to follow the novels.
Anyway, if somehow the series continues, I hope they either dispense with Helen altogether, or get an actress that is as wistful and dreamy and sensitive and poetic and pensive as the old Helen was.
. . . . . . . . -
angelofvic — 18 years ago(September 24, 2007 09:01 PM)
Really? I wonder how she was different from the novels, and whether the new one is any more like her?
I don't see much chemistry between the new one and Parker, but that may be because they are pretending they have all this shared history when in fact she's a substitute actress. Plus, I started disliking her when I learned she was supposed to be Helen before that, I gave her the benefit of the doubt.
She doesn't seem very likeable or romantic or vulnerable, or someone who could be as emotional as Lynley.
But again, this is all talk in the dark, if the series really is over. Maybe like someone said, Granada TV could pick it up.
But I
still
don't like the new Helen and I think it would take a lot to get me to like her like Parker stop acting like she's the bee's knees we haven't even gotten to know her yet!
. . . . . . . . -
maryborrege — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 08:36 PM)
(Warning. Previous eposode spoiler below.)
How could anyone "like" the old Helen? She was sulky, surly and insensitive to the needs of anyone save herself. As it happened her husband lost their baby too. Thanks to self absorbed Helen he not only lost his child but his wife too and in one feld swoop. Helen just turned tail and took off without notice. Some love. Lynley didn't lose much. His needy attachment to a woman like Helen is a bit masochistic.
In the book Helen was not quite the sourpuss as depicted in the series. (She was an interior decorator, not in forensics.) The catch was Helen and Lynley were both indecisive about the other and could never get their act together as a couple. Helen resented her husband's work, but then why marry a detective?
As a couple Lynley and Helen weren't too bright. It became an irritant for many readers. All things consideredthe new Helen is a breath of fresh air.
At least so far.
If Lynley has been canceled it will be missed. It wasn't as well written as Rumpole of the Bailey, the early Inspector Dalglish, or Morse, but it was better than most of the cheaply produced stuff they are putting on TV today. -
Virginiana — 18 years ago(November 08, 2007 08:00 PM)
In the book Helen was not quite the sourpuss as depicted in the series.(She was an interior decorator, not in forensics.)
Ummm not even
close
.
In the books, Helen is LADY Helen Clyde, daughter of an earl and, as such, from Lynley's own social class. She has inherited money and therefore does not need to work. When we first meet her she is rather spoiled and self-centered, very interested in fashion (has a passion for high-heeled shoes which she wears no matter how much they hurt her feet) and travels a good deal, seeming to spend a lot of her time engaging in the aimless round of pleasure of the wealthy socialite. Elizabeth George has described her character as an "ageing It Girl", an expression which doesn't translate well to the US but which any Brit will understand. Beneath her flightiness, though, Helen proves in the very first novel that she has a good heart and cares about others, regardless of their social class.
As the series moves on Helen gets a bit more serious she starts working part-time as an assistant to Simon St. James, Lynley's best friend and a leading forensic pathologist. Her work falls in the category of clerical help/lab assistant, though, not trained scientific analyst. She still remains lovably flighty and indecisive, though there's a memorable scene in one book where she can't figure out how to operate a microwave.
She is somewhat reluctant to marry Tommy, whose moodiness can be unnerving and because she fears losing her identity as his wife, and after she does she has major identity crisis when she tries to select wallpaper to redecorate some rooms in their London house. She feels inadequate to the task of committing to a decision, unsure of her own taste. Ergo, she is not not NOT an interior decorator!
But I agree with you that Helen in the novels is far from a sourpuss. She's flighty, indecisive, and spoiled, sure, but she's also very loving and patient with Tommy's faults. The way she's been depicted in the TV shows the confident professional scientists is a million miles from the Lady Helen of the books. No wonder Elizabeth George disliked the portrayal! -
beat — 17 years ago(September 27, 2008 12:46 PM)
How could anyone "like" the old Helen? She was sulky, surly and insensitive to the needs of anyone save herself.
you're right: helen was really annoying, i couldn't stand her. but the actress was perfect, and that's why the 2nd helen was a really bad choice, she just didn't have anything to do with the first one. really odd choice.
-
jojo-acapulco — 14 years ago(December 06, 2011 02:10 PM)
I think they had to find a new Helen because the old Helen was the least appealing character in this or almost any other show. I always wondered why Lynley was attracted to a bitchy neurotic self-absorbed psychologist when the far more appealing Havers was right there at his side.
In the books, Helen is a pleasant, elegant, and very attractive woman who fit Lynley's life style much better than Havers could, and the thing made sense.
The departure of the old Helen is, for me, a breath of fresh air in a series that was getting moldy. -
Moscoso1967 — 12 years ago(February 22, 2014 04:27 PM)
I agree with many posters here, Helen as played by Lesley Vickerage was indeed miserable and whiny and IMO neither beautiful nor particularly feminine (as someone had claimed). I think she's one of the most annoying characters in a British crime/drama series I've ever seen. She and the whole annoying, almost soap-opera like drama about Lynley's and Helen's relationship is the main reason which spoiled this series for me and why I prefer other shows like "Lewis" or "Inspector George Gently". Compared to Vickerage's Helen I even prefer Joyce Barnaby by a mile.
I couldn't stand her right from the very first episode she was in and it never seemed convincing and especially not understandable why Lynley was so besotted with her as she had absolutely nothing going for her.
There are/were more believable romances and appealing love-interests, like Lewis and Laura Hobson (they really got a great chemistry, plus IMHO Holman is a better actress than Vickerage), Sam Tyler and Annie in "Life On Mars" or Richard and Camille in "Death in Paradise" (what a pity Ben Miller quit the show). -
tedtunes — 18 years ago(October 24, 2007 09:36 AM)
Funny you should say that about the new hair coor - I said to my friend who's also a big fan - Why on earth couldn't they at least have got the new Helen to darken her hair - the old Helen was very dark with severe short hair, this one's nearly blond with long pretty hair - I sometimes wonder who's running things on these series, really I do!
-
zarembazwoman — 18 years ago(November 08, 2007 04:47 PM)
Beautiful???? I thought she was homely, sour and dour. I never could understand why the Lynley character was so mad about her. I couldn't stand her. I liked the new Helen, so I was devastated when she was killed.
-
wimsattm — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 03:10 PM)
Lesley Vickerage was such an awful actress that I was actually glad to see her leave the series. The only worse actor in the series is Nathaniel Parker, whom a reviewer in a British newspaper calls 'Television's most turgid detective.'
-
trpdean — 17 years ago(May 18, 2008 04:33 AM)
I don't want to be unkind about the actress, but I disagree, angelofvic, quite honestly I find the old Helen truly ugly. I'm watching the series now - from start to finish (by renting the DVDs) and am just amazed at this Helen. No, I haven't read the books which may explain why Lynley chose someone who so dislikes him, is so neurotic, and is so ugly - but from the television programs, it doesn't make sense.
-
wireshock — 18 years ago(September 30, 2007 01:41 PM)
Why they changed actresses is unknown (to us) and there is no "official" word that I know of. It APPEARED that they had simply written the character out of the series. A number of episodes followed Vickerage's last appearance in which "Tommy" was distraught about the state of his marriage, but given his other problems (like practically being thrown out of the force) it largely seemed the plots had moved on. When she returned in "Natural Causes" they pretty much glossed over her selfish disappearance, and Tommy greets her back as if he hadn't suffered at all.
My guess is that Vickerage decided not to continue and was thus "written out" of subsequent episodes. This would explain why it was never announced she had leftthey may have hoped they would eventually be able to get her back after a season or so. Having the couple continue to be estranged was therefore a workable solutionuntil Elizabeth George gave Helen a more significant "fate" in one of her novels.
That is why I think they brought the character back, so they could sync it back up with the books. That is what they essentially have done, for those who've seen more recent episodes which have yet to air in the U.S. But doing that only meant, without giving everything away, that THIS new Helen is destined to disappear from the series anyways. So why bother? Perhaps because the BBC get another dramatic episode ending (which EVERY episode seems to demand these days!) out of the character
As for the Vickerage characterization, it is true that Elizabeth George found it appalling, but the relationship between Helen and Tommy in the BBC series was the BEST thingapart from the Havers/Lynley tensions, of courseabout it. Both Vickerage and Parker played deeply flawed characters; watching them eat away at each other was the MAIN plotline of the series. That's why most viewers find the new Helen, who lacks the edgy angst of the old one, so lackluster and disappointing.
At least the boring replacement isn't the MAIN character, which is how I feel about Martin Shaw as the "new" Dalgliesh. Sheesh! What a boring Dalgliesh! Losing Roy Marsden was like losing Connery as Bond. He had DEFINED the role.