Has anyone seen the 6 hour BBC miniseries version from 1978, starring Alan Bates (Henchard), Janet Maw (Elizabeth Jane), and Jack Galloway (Farfrae)? How do the two compare?
I have watched the A&E version on DVD 3 times now. It is absolutely wonderful. The acting, the plot, the wardrobe, the scenes, the music... all top-notch. Very, very moving story and just beautiful to watch. Too bad it's over...
I know this question was posted ages ago, but I'm curious as well.
I've not seen either the 1978 6 hour version *or* this one. I'm inclined to rent this one, as I really like Ciaran Hinds and Jodhi May, but the '78 one has Alan Bates (whom I adore) and got a slightly higher IMDb rating, but I think from fewer respondents.
It sounds like both are faithful to the book, and that is my first concern. But the '78 version is almost twice as long. "Longer" doesn't always equal "more accurate," so I'm in a quandary.
Any insight would be appreciated.
"Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax." ~ Schopenhauer
I just finished watching the Alan Bates 1978 version that I ordered after watching the Ciaran Hinds 2003 version.
I was expecting great things after reading rapturous reviews of the 1978 but sadly I was underwhelmed. It's true that Alan Bates acted up a storm as Michael Henchard but I found his forceful characterisation rather relentless and wearing, but I suppose that was the point of it. Anna Massey was delightful as Lucetta but rather an odd casting choice all the same. Apart from that the rest of the cast was serviceable rather than inspiring.
Even though the 2003 version is only 200 min compared to the 360 min of the 1978 version I much preferred it. Jodhi May's heightened acting style is a little too rich for some people but I love it, and her Elizabeth Jane provided a welcome alternative focal point. James Purefoy was perfectly cast as Donald Farfrae and didn't put a foot wrong. Polly Walker as Lucetta and Juliet Aubrey as Susan Henchard were also very well cast. Ciaran Hinds as Michael Henchard was very good although I can see why many people would compare his more contained performance unfavourably with the fireworks of Alan Bates prior one, but I'm not one of them.
I can't compare them to the book as I can't remember reading it but although the 1978 version has more detail, for instance as to the various ways in which Farfrae got up Henchard's nose, it also lacks a certain deftness and brevity in story telling compared to the 2003. To be blunt a good deal could be pruned from the 1978 version, for example showing two dances at a wedding reception when a half of one would have been sufficient. So apart for some smaller details I can't recall anything of the story that was in the 1978 version that wasn't also in the 2003 version.
"It is life Jim, but not as we know it"
Purple Lemon:
Thanks for your timely and insightful response! I'll follow your advice and go for the 2003 version, as I'm sure it won't disappoint. Your critique addressed precisely what I wanted to know. It doesn't sound like I'll miss anything in the shorter version, and I was actually hoping this was the case. :O
I'm of the mind that there are some films, especially adaptions or sagas, that need to be 2-1/2 to 3 hours or more to do justice to the story, but they are few and far between. I've seen several films and wondered if the directors just couldn't bear to part with anything, or didn't know when to say "Cut."
I'll look forward to checking out the Purefoy and Hinds performances. I just saw Jodhi May in another BBC period piece - "Daniel Deronda" - and thought she was terrific.
Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
~ S.
"Politeness is to human nature what warmth is to wax." ~ Schopenhauer
I don't think you will be disappointed. Any problems that are in the 2003 are also in the 1978 to my mind. I think it's to do with the nature of the story itself which is a little harder to get across than Tess of the D'Urbervilles for example where the characters and their motivations are more straight forward and easier to understand. With the Mayor of Casterbridge it is not really explained why Henchard is the way he is, you just have to take it as read.
Yes Jodhi May was great in Daniel Deronda. I also liked her very much in The Turn of the Screw.
"It is life Jim, but not as we know it"
Purple Lemon:
It's been a while since I've seen (or even read) "Tess," but I can see what you mean about more accessible motives and actions. Although, I think Hardy had a way with creating equivocal characters and circumstances. I watched "Far From the Madding Crowd" about a year ago, and remember thinking "I really liked that. Did I like that? Did I get that?" At least he makes me think, and that's a good thing I'll wager.
It's amazing - and a wee bit clairvoyant - that you should mention "The Turn of the Screw." I watched "The Innocents" about a week ago and it occured to me then that I have an old copy of the J. May version, but have never seen it. I'll dig it out and give it a view.
I don't suppose you've seen the "Jude" adaptation with Eccleston and Winslett? I was on another board and someone posted that it was the most depressing film they'd ever seen. If not, no problem, but since you seem to be my reliable "Hardy" guru I thought I'd ask. I'm not familiar with the book at all, so I've no preconceptions.
~S.
"Wagner's music is better than it sounds." ~ Mark Twain
No I've not seen Jude and the only two Hardy works I'm familiar with are Tess and Casterbridge so I'm far from being a Hardy guru! I am a fan and collector of English Costume Dramas in film and tv mini-series so that's how I find my way to these various book adaptations. I have added Jude to my DVD rental queue to see what it's like. The Innocents is a wonderful film and still holds up well.
"It is life Jim, but not as we know it"
I've seen Jude and yes it's depressing. It was good but there was a particular event that I can't stomach and was totally shocked and saddened when it happened. However, if you've never seen it you should probably watch for yourself. All of Hardy's work is depressing on some level. The only story that is not is Under the Greenwood Tree. It is really good and has a happy ending. Sweet film.
"What happens to a dream deferred?"
Thanks, Ilario, I'll take your advice. I've said much the same thing about some films. Two that come to mind are "Dogville" and "Grave of the Fireflies." I thought the former was also shocking, even appalling in parts; the latter simply broke my heart. But I'm glad that I saw them. Some movies I watch for sheer entertainment value, and I'm probably less picky than I could be. But certain films have had a lasting impact on my world view, even if it means I might not be able to find the nerve to sit through them a second time.
This is what I love about these boards. I've not seen "Greenwood Tree," and will put it on my list. And thanks to PurpleLemon I've got two more Hardys there too.
Thanks again.
~S.
Oh, my ~~~ I have to edit this because I just searched for "Greenwood Tree," found "Under the Greenwood Tree," and realized that I did see this years ago, I think on "Masterpiece." I remember because it has Keeley Hawes in it, who I thought was so de-light-fully funny in "Death at a Funeral." I'd love to see it again, though - it was just so...nice.
"Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free."
~~~ V For Vendetta
[deleted]
[deleted]
I just watched it on YouTube and thought it to be one of the most compelling series ever. Alan Bates was absolutely wonderful. Had never read the book, so I was literally on the edge of my seat, wondering what was going to happen next. I thought it was brilliant.
share