caught this British mini-series on classic theatre station and settled in to watch it. liked it so much that i ordered a copy of the series. i admired the writers and director on how they handled the subject matter with intelligence and a matter of fact attitude. i was also surprised at the frankness of the love scenes between the two female leads but than again a lot of British cinema deals openly wih sexuality regardless of gender. i find Janet mcteer who portrayed vita sacke-ville west always gives a remarkable performance now what role she takes on. you can feel the the tortured pain she's going through as the mounting tension grows between her and her husband when he discovers she is having an affair. i thought all the actors gave a brilliant performance and highly recommend this piece of rare cinema.

I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.*I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!

Watched this TV movie way back in Stockholm, Sweden in 1991. I would not have believed it could happen in real life, if it had been a fiction, but it is not. It set me wondering for a bit. I like it a lot, though. The portrayal of Vita Sackville -West by Janet McTeer was very convincing , almost real, while Cathryn Harrison's portrayal of Violet Trefusis was interesting. The whole episode was truly heartbreaking and showed the complexities of the characters involved. Credit be given to Penelope Mortimer for the screenplay and the director Stephen Whittaker. The movie was also rather successful in capturing the scenes and the social stratification of England and France of the early 20th.century.

I have only seen this once and it was an unforgettable experience. This TV series on Masterpiece Theater pulled out all the stops and was an emotionally draining but fantastic and daring in its depth and depiction of homosexuality and all its complications. I would love to see this again.