I think Eddie was the perfect choice to play angel,when i read the book i hated the character of angel couldn't take to him anymore than i could Alec after he abandons Tess but since watching the BBC version i think Eddie plays the character really well. Him and Gemma had a really good chemistry, besides I'm so fed up of seeing the leading love interest in period dramas as being tall dark and handsome,polished and boring.
share I am one of those who liked him as Angel Claire.
Where there is hope, there is light that always shines
nice to see someone else agrees ;D
shareI thought Eddie's Angel came across as very dimwitted in most of scenes, and I just felt like Tess and Angel's courtship was rushed to the point where their romance and reunion did not have the emotional impact it should have. And, a lot of times that it seemed that while Gemma was acting her heart out, he just stood there like, "Huh?". He's very good at emoting, but for some reason when it came to a lot of the dialogue he just seemed kind of stupidfied and lifeless. He's cute, but I don't think he had much romantic charisma here, which the character of Angel needs to possess so that not only Tess but her fellow dairymaids fall for him. That for me was lacking, and while Angel isn't a particularly strong character, he has to have some of that on his side, but I didn't feel that vibe from Eddie. I couldn't see why Angel meant so much to Tess, or why she would defend him and kill Alec to get him back. In the 1998 A&E mini I could see why she would want Angel back and why she still loved him, despite his treatment of her and his hypocrisy. Oliver Milburn exuded a gentle charisma, had a kind voice and was more appealing. Of course, the blame can't be entirely placed on Eddie, maybe it was the way he was directed, since I haven't seen his other work I don't mean to put him down as an actor, I just didn't care for his portrayal in this BBC mini.
shareI thought Eddie did a superb job as Angel. Every actor interprets a character differently. If you purchase the DVD the extras section has interviews with the actors and the director which are very informative and bascially they admit they did change certain scenes. I loved this version of the "Too Late" sequence since IMO the 1998 adaptation was too long, and too wooden. Gemma Arterton played Tess so passionately and the final few minutes of the movie are some of the saddest on film.
sharei agree the 1998 version didnt give me any real emotion at all but i sobbed when gemmma arterton played out hose final scenes, and eddie on the hill waiting for the flag was such a sad and heartrendering scene.
shareTotally agree with you...I still can watch it and it makes me incredibly sad. That to me is great filmmaking if it can cause you to feel some sort of emotion be it happy or sad. Kudos to the entire cast and crew for creating such a great new adaptation of this classic story.
shareIve watched the first 3 a episodes a few times now but only watched the Th once, hate the ending so much but it was beautifully done!
shareI thought Eddie did a superb job as Angel. Every actor interprets a character differently.There is interpreting and there is not showing up - unfortunately Eddie did a lot of the latter. He did improve as the series progressed - episode 2 and parts of episode 4 were his strongest, but that's not saying much. His delivery was so lazy at times, it beggared belief - watch the scene where both he and Gemma are on the run in the woods (episode 4): Gemma acts her heart out and he replies in a fashion that would put Keanu Reeves to shame: 'I won't leave you again'. That is just awful.
I just watched the series, and all I can say is I guess I'm a less-is-more type of viewer. I felt the actor playing Angel was at ease in his role and convincing, whereas the actor playing Alec and--yes--the actress playing Tess were over-the-top.
It's been years since I've read the novel, but my memory is that you aren't supposed to see either Tess or Angel as particularly heroic or wise. Though both are virtuous and well-intentioned, neither quite has the resources to overcome the bad hand dealt them.
If this director wanted a more romantic version of the story, that's fine, but I found it a little ridiculous.
I loved this version of the "Too Late" sequence since IMO the 1998 adaptation was too long, and too wooden. Gemma Arterton played Tess so passionately and the final few minutes of the movie are some of the saddest on film.I disagree about the wooden comment on the 98 'Too late' sequence - it's all in the eyes: watch her move and shuffle from corner to corner and gradually traverse up the the stairs from whence she came. Subtlety at its best. It helps that the Angel in this version looks completely wan, haggard and wasted - it makes the scene and situation that much more tragic and pitiable.
I think it was just the way Gemma delivered the lines and the anguish and urgency in her voice as well as Eddie's haggard appearance that makes me like the newer version better. I did go to YouTube to watch the 1998 version and I know what you mean about the body language and the eyes, however, I think the more desperate reaction from Tess works well also. I must read the book to totally comprehend what Hardy had in mind.
shareI think it was just the way Gemma delivered the lines and the anguish and urgency in her voice as well as Eddie's haggard appearance that makes me like the newer version better.I think you've misunderstood me: I love Gemma's interpretation on this - I feel it's far closer to the book (in comparison), but I also see the beauty and quality in Justin Waddell's rendition, too.
I agree. He did very well in the role! I think he's goodlooking- even if its not in the "conventional" way.
share[deleted]
I've since seen Eddie in The Other Boleyn Girl and Elizabeth: The Golden Age, and enjoyed his performance in both. I think he's better suited to earlier period drama. In Tess Of The D'Urbervilles, I feel he was miscast as Angel. Whether it was the way he was directed or his interpretation of the character or the combination of the two, he came across as insipid and brain dead (except in his scenes without dialogue where he emoted - very effective). On the DVD interview he's very funny and insightful but in the film he's lackluster for the most part. Of course, it's very possible that both Gemma and Hans are stronger actors or maybe have a stronger presence onscreen.
shareI think the reason the character of Angel might come across as insipid and brain dead may be the director's idea of portraying people with these strong religious moralistic ideas. Brainwashing comes to mind, they hold all the emotions because religion taught them emotions were sinful, even his parents and the teacher he was supposed to be engaged with were the same. It is like they are all half-asleep, only come alive when talking about God and morality.
Quit ya moanin
[deleted]
[deleted]