Customer Reviews

The Mill on the Floss

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

 

 

It would be unreasonable to review the BBC miniseries without having a sound relationship with the novel or the author of the novel, for the entire premise of the production rests on it being faithful to the novel. In fact it is masterfully adapted by James Andrew Hall, who is a purist in the full sense of the term, and directed deftly by Ronald Wilson.

The dry nature of the tale is bewildering and draining of the influx of tenderness that George Eliot infuses her writings with. If this was by design it is reprehensible; if by accident unfortunate. The 8 episodes are a quick watch and dramatized expertly, but for a few liberties which are inevitable and must be forgiven. If we are to judge the work independent of the novel it ought to receive one star. It lacks a sense of momentum and remains indifferent to the flow of the narrative which it chooses to highlight and substantiate through an episodic definition and by strength of allusions strewn strategically throughout the period drama. I fear the accuracy and representational realism stops at the recreation of a style, but cannot claim likewise when it comes to the mood of the era, which is all-too-often dramatized as dry and restrained, empty and distant, privileged and scarcely populated. I beg to reason that it is an imagery that has now become branded as accurate, but caters only to the prejudiced imagination we give sway to.

If the production attempted to stay faithful to George Eliot and the novel then it baffles one completely. Why was the end so shoddily patched? Why have so many (actually all) of the events and vignettes of an ostracized Maggie find no place. You watch the previous 7 episodes and appreciate much of the recreation, then you watch the last episode and wonder what happened to the preceding (read: missing) one. It is as if all that follows after Maggie's return from her "eloping" (here treated as Stephen's doing outright and exculpating nature completely) has no bearing on the narrative. And religion is relegated to the vague presence of a Bible when in Eliot's masterpiece it spills into the very fiber of everyday life in ways that are comical, tragic and overtly critical of the church's relationship with the townspeople.

This miniseries is an undeniably appreciated effort which inexplicably falls short of its intention. The casting is practically perfect. Indeed it is. Even Mr. Wakem, here much more loving towards his son than we may like to interpret (but happy to become engaged into the critical dialogue). Stephen, Lucy, the adult Tom and the aunts and uncles are extraordinarily portrayed and the three stars are a testament to the excellence of the cast and the skill they display.

One more episode and it would be a huge success.

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

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.

When I finished reading this book, I felt it is one of the most perfect things I have ever read, and also the most deeply depressing book I have ever read. The bleakness and struggle of this world is relentless. The more recent version of this story with Tara Fitzgerald is glossier than this version, and much shorter. It is because this is a miniseries; this length makes it more like the book. Like the strong, steady, slow plodding of the mill wheel, the river runs through this story and makes everything musty and dank. (4 stars because, like many of the 70s miniseries, it does drag a bit at times)

I think this version suffers from the casting of young Maggie Tulliver and the horrible wig that she wears. This child is more willfully dislikable than the girl of the story who is always caught in the wrong by trying to do what is right; and when she transitions to a young lady the change is unbelievable, because the basic character changes so much with the change of the actress. This leaden little girl becomes a sprightly, delicate young woman. (Ironically, Tara Fitzgerald's Maggie would be a very good match for this girl - her portrayal of Maggie was very bull-headed.) But this type of casting match - child to adult of the same role - is always difficult and can be forgiven. Taken individually, each actress does a wonderful job, and Pippa Guard is nice to end up with; her lightness gives the character a new dimension.

George Eliot presents us with characters who have great internal dissonance with their exterior (appropriate for a woman writing under a man's name). ANTON LESSOR, who plays the "hunchback" friend is creepily odd in the early scenes (because he is simply too old to be playing that age) - but that weirdness is just the right way to introduce this character. He has a wonderful extreme contrast about his person and his presentation that create a real discrepancy, and this is precisely what this character needs to have, and it is marvelous casting. We need to feel sorry for him, like who he is, but feel revolted by him as well, and between his performance and the Direction, this is achieved....no easy task! Christopher Blake, as the infuriatingly arrogant brother also hits all the right notes, and in this case the young actor playing the younger version of him matches him tone for tone.

The book has a very problematic section of an elopement (of sorts), problematic, because in the book we spend that time in Maggie's internal emotions and thoughts, and the turmoil of her inner conflict is impossible to flesh out in film. Thankfully, this version does a very good job of establishing her conflicting motivations, without becoming too talky or expository.

Dark and murky, this is an interesting story of complex lives in difficult times, beautifully directed by Ronald Wilson.

I was disappointed with this longer version of The Mill on the Floss. I thought, being BBC and a long version it would be a definitive one, but I have to agree with the other reviewer. This version left out some very important events, and emotions seemed washed out rather than passionate and moving. I like long movies, but this dragged because it just doesn't hold your attention. The 1997 Masterpiece Theatre version is so much more powerful, and keeps all important events intact, spending less time on Maggie's mother worrying about the fate of her china, and more on character and plot development, with a very haunting score. I really hope the other version is released on DVD-if so, I will probably donate this one to the library, because I can't quite see myself rewatching it. I would rather read the book, instead.

I have never seen the other movie version of "The Mill on the Floss" which other reviewers have mentioned, so I can't compare the two, and honestly it's been a few years since I read the book so my memory of it is not entirely clear. That being said, here are my thoughts on this miniseries.

To start with the criticism, it was made for TV in the 1978 (I think) - that in itself should tell you something about the quality. At four hours, it was slow, and dragged a bit at times. However, despite this, it still felt rushed, as though a lot of things were cut from the book. One scene I particularly missed was the very moving one (in the book) where Lucy visits Maggie after Maggie's aborted elopement.

However, I still enjoyed it and found it to be very touching and emotional, in the same way the book is, especially at the end. I loved the scenes in the last episode between Maggie and her mother, Maggie and Philip, and Maggie and Tom at the very end. I thought the acting was very good overall - older Maggie, Lucy, Philip, Tom, and Maggie's mother in particular spring to mind. Oh, and Maggie's aunts were hilarious. The only actor I thought could have been much better was Stephen Guest; he was so annoying that I found it very difficult to believe that Maggie or anyone else could stand being in the same room with him, much less love him. I didn't like him much in the book, but this adaptation magnified his conceit and shallowness. Other than that, however, and the understandable condensing, I think it was pretty faithful to the book.

In conclusion then, I think this miniseries is worth watching for those who love the book; but since it has nothing in particular to recommend it as a movie in its own right, I doubt anyone else would enjoy it.

Edited to add: The DVD has no special features.

This is great when you read or watch it! If you read 'about' it, there doesn't seem to be anything very inviting. I read the description and it didn't sound like anything I would want to read or watch. So I read the reviews and it still just didn't sound like anything that would catch my interest. I had some downtime, so I decided to watch it anyway.

It's excellent! The descriptions can't do it justice, but when the story develops around these characters, it all comes together in an intriguing way. And oh my, the ending! I was very glad that I took the time to watch it.

Unrequited love and a family bent on self-destruction are at the heart of this story. The movie is based on the novel by George Elliot. The story is of the lives of Tom and Maggie Tulliver, a brother and sister growing up at a mill along the river Floss around the 1820's. The novel and this mini-series span a undefined period somewhat over a decade, from Maggie's childhood into her young adult years.

George Elliot was the pen name of Mary Ann (Marian) Evans, a Victorian write of great ability. By this time women wrote freely under their own name, but she did not want to be judged as a woman or considered merely a woman writer of light romance. For that reason and because her lengthy relationship with a married man she chose to use a pen name.

This 1978 version of The Mill on the Floss is a good adaptation, but not a great one. Also be warned that while the story is interesting and at times compelling, it is not a true romance. Indeed it is seen by some as partly autobiographical. In the story Maggie is exiled from the family because of the man she loves, as Marian Evans was because of her relationship with a married man. In order to enjoy this type of a story you must care about the characters. While Maggie has a number of qualities that draw you to her, by the end of the series I was thinking they all contributed to their mutual doom.

Recommendation: I consider Silas Marner, Middlemarch and her last novel Daniel Deronda to all be superior to this story. There is a 1997 Masterpiece Theatre version of The Mill on the Floss that I have not yet seen. Many considered the Masterpiece Theatre version to be the better of the two. If you enjoy period movies rent this version.

A bit of a rant, I'm afraid: The first adaptation I saw, several years prior to this review, was the 1997 Masterpiece Theatre version. I hope to come away from a good period literary adaptation with a variety of feelings and some food for thought. I came away from the 1997 film with little other than a dull shock at the depressing morbidity of it all.

So it was with severe reservations that I tried this much earlier effort. I was surprised to find myself thoroughly engrossed- the characters were appealing despite their flaws, they seemed convincingly related to each other, and somehow the 'point' of the book (as I see it, anyway- this is of course subjective to a degree) shone through far more starkly to me. Why?

Well, there is something about period adaptations that I think many modern viewers fail to realize: they are just that- adaptations of a book. And while it is true that no book can have it's entire substance successfully transplanted to film, there is a growing trend toward focusing on 'emotion' and 'passion' at the expense of the original books detail and dialog- the very dialog and detail that made the story worthy of adaptation. The value of intellectual substance, especially spoken interaction between the characters, CANNOT be overlooked!

Which brings me to my next point: the complaint that these older BBC dramas appear 'stagey.' Perhaps they do- why need this be seen as a detriment? Some of the best movies I have ever seen were quite sparing in the cinematic department, and stage productions were the audiovisual presentation of choice (indeed, necessity) for centuries. Gorgeous settings and musical scores are well and good but are empty shells without engrossing human drama at their center. I can do without the former in a film, but NOT the latter.

So back to square one: I consider this 1978 Mill on the Floss 10 times superior to the later one. I came away with it feeling genuinely sad for the characters and with a clear sense of both the tragic consequences of vindictiveness, and the beauty of forgiveness and familial love and peace. Pippa Guard as Maggie was particularly striking in her appeal, as I am sorry to say I felt no emotional attachment to Tara Fitzgeralds more cold, less vulnerable interpretation of the same character.

It is not perfect as it leaves out some important scenes as others have noted but I nonetheless HIGHLY recommend it to those whose senses are not too cloyed by the crudely hormonal, action-oriented style of many modern films.

George Eliot is one of my favorite authors of English literature, and my favorite of her novels is Middlemarch. This 1978 adaptation of The Mill on the Floss is the longest adaptation, though not the best.

This eight-part BBC adaptation of George Eliot's novel follows the book quite closely (I also liked the 1997 abbreviated version starring Emily Watson as Maggie Tulliver which I consider the best adaptation of The Mill on the Floss)though it is not without its flaws. This is at heart a story about tangled relationships and the fragility and fickleness of the human heart. Set in Lincolnshire in the 19th century, it explores the relationship between the Tulliver siblings, Maggie (Pippa Guard) and Tom (Christopher Blake), and of how their lives get tangled with that of their neighbor's Phillip Wakem (Anton Lesser). The hunchbacked Wakem's intellectuality attracts Maggie's interest, though Wakem is the one who becomes besotted. The fact that both patriarchs are bitter enemies and Tom disapproves, makes things worse. Personally, I found this story to be one of the most complex of Eliot's works, and really quite tragic. The production qualities are rather low-budget and the show itself is predictably outdated but it is worth a watch especially to compare with later adaptations.

I have seen some other movies based on George Eliot novels. I really enjoyed Daniel Deronda and Middle March. However, "The Mill on the Floss" is extremly boring and very hard to follow. Some of the dialect is hard to understand. I was only able to watch two episodes and lost interest.