Customer Reviews

Masterpiece Theatre: Mill on the Floss

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Mill on the Floss is an incredible novel, and arguably George Eliot's greatest work. All of the characters are extremely well-developed, the story is beautiful and the ending is heart-rending in its abruptness.

The masterpiece theatre adaption of this wonderful book left me feeling somewhat empty. The main story is there, but it is unable to make a connection with the characters in the brief two hours. A lot of scenes are missing, a lot of character development is absent, and the viewer is thus left with characters acting through the story of the novel with barely any of the emotions that were attached to the words. Students and teachers be advised: Watching this movie will give you an idea of the novel's plot, but will leave you with a very superficial understanding of the characters. In other words, don't expect to ace the essay test if you watch this film and don't read the book. In the long run, I gave it 3 stars because it's hard to go wrong with this story, but it is definitely an example of the book being better than the movie. Read the novel, then watch this movie!

The 1978 miniseries is over 3 hours long. The 1997 movie is 1 hour and 45 minutes long. Yet, every event in the 3 hour version is in the shorter version. The reverse, however, is not true. Five crucial events of the story are visible in the 1997 (shorter) version but are missing from the 3 hour version:

(1) the first conflict between Mr. Tulliver and Mr. Wakem, in which Tulliver wins, then insults Wakem. This shows why Tulliver thinks he'll win again and is strung along by a lawyer until he has mortgaged everything. It also provides motivation for Wakem's vengeful act of buying the mill, which in the longer version is left unmotivated. We are merely told that he is fed up with Tulliver.

(2) The selling of the mill to Wakem. In the 1978 version, we are told that it happened. In the 1997 version, we see it happen.

(3)The selling of the furniture of the Tullivers. This makes their homelessness visible and visceral.

(4) The scene in which Tom pays his father's debts. In the 1978 three-hour version, we are told that it is going to happen; then we see Tulliver on the way back from the meeting. We need to see this climatic event. In the 1997 version, we do.

(5) The restoration of the deed to the mill to the Tullivers.

The picture quality is acceptable in both versions, as is the music, but are better in the 1997 version. The casting is acceptable in both versions. The acting is acceptable in both. So, why do I give 3 stars to the 1978 version and four and a half stars to the 1997 version?

The screenplay. Since both screenplays tell the same story with almost the same events, this comparison provides an excellent study for those interested in screenwriting.

The 1978 version appears to have been written by a stage playwright (and not a good one at that). Each scene is set. People chat for a few moments. A character enters. Whatever is going to happen in that scene happens. Characters exit. Next scene.

The 1997 version is written like a movie. We are thrust into a scene just as something is about to happen. It happens. We cut to the next scene, where we are again thrust into the moment when something is about to happen. This makes for far more effective storytelling.

Also, the nitty-gritty of the scenes is better done in the 1997 version. It isn't the acting. It is the fact that the actors have a script that will let them make the emotions effective, and they do.

If you compare either version (or any movie version) with the book, then of course you can call it Cliff Notes. That tells you nothing.

The ending is better in the 1978 version and is also faithful to the book. The beginning of the 1997 version is also a mistake, while the beginning of the 1978 version is acceptable.

The problem is that the 1997 version is only available on VHS and hard to get at that. So, get the 1978 version if you can't get the videotape or don't want to; otherwise, wait and hope that someone will have the sense to put the 1997 version on DVD.

I've seen this movie on Masterpiece Theatre and was thrilled to find it on amazon. It is well worth buying. If you like Wuthering Heights..you'll like this movie too.

The movie was well done, and the acting is good. My personal thought is that the book is much better. Read the book for more insight into the characters and for a better scope of the whole situation. The ending (just like in the book) in unpredictable, which makes the movie worth watching.

George Eliot's novel The Mill on the Floss (Penguin Classics) is one of my favorite books, and after seeing the low overall rating for this movie, I was a bit hesitant as to whether or not I wanted to watch it. But since I love the story I figured I would give it a try. I'm not yet sure of whether or not I made the right decision.

All of the actors in the movie were fine. I love James Frain in the Tudors, so I was really excited to see him play my favorite character from the book, Philip Wakem. While he did a good job in the scenes he was in, his character did not make a big impression on me. I had found him much more interesting than either Tom or Stephen, but I guess that whoever made this movie thought differently.

I was a bit concerned before watching this about the length: it's only about an hour and a half, and most good mini-series are three or four hours long. However, the short length was really no problem. They were able to include all of the important scenes without the entire film seeming rushed.

(Major spoilers-only read if you know the story) The filmmakers did not do a great job with the ending. While I absolutely love the novel, I've always felt a little bit uncomfortable with the ending. I think that Eliot just wanted to have a beautiful, tragic ending where both Maggie and Tom died together, but when she came to the end of the book, she couldn't real think of what to do, so she just ended up creating an unlikely, facile scene where they died together. Having the city suddenly flood just didn't seem to tie in too well with the rest of the story. I love tragic stories where the main characters die in the end, so I had nothing wrong with Maggie and Tom dying, I just was not impressed with the manner in which they did so. While the filmmakers did the typical things to make the ending beautiful, something about it seemed kind of corny to me.

The movie overall was entertaining, but it exposed how weak the ending of this wonderful story really is. Usually when I get through watching a mini-series or movie on one of my favorite books, I feel inspired to reread it. However, I felt sort of embarrassed to consider this one of my favorite stories after watching it. So, watch this at your own risk.

I thought this one was very depressing. Did not leave me feeling good about any part of it. I know it is considered a classic but I would not want to watch it again.

I just don't know what to say. I haven't read the book, and now I really really don't want to. My main issue is that the cover and description are very misleading. I like some of Masterpiece Theater's interpretations of classic literature, but I gotta say, DON'T WATCH THIS! Just to be sure, I'm going to pass along a spoiler:

So she's all like: "I can't be happy. I want to be in love with you, but I can't because my brother will hate me." And then her bedroom floods, and there's this convenient little picturesque canoe outside her window. So she goes and says to her brother: "Join me in my canoe, and forgive my foolishness," and he replies: "All right." So then he tries to get in the canoe, but he misses it completely, and drowns instead. Apparently when someone doesn't know how to swim, they can drown, but it still doesn't stop them from trying to rescue other drowning people. So she drowns too.

The end.

Didn't expect THAT when you read the back cover, did ya?