The Mayor of Casterbridge
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.97 You Save: $6.94 (54%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $4.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Mayor of Casterbridge
Movie Review: Great Moral movie!
Summary: 5 Stars
I had a chance to view this movie after rereading the book since high school. Never got it before about moral crimes and retributions. Great movie.Movie Review: Thomas Hardy would be proud
Summary: 5 Stars
I'm certain that Thomas Hardy would be thrilled to see his characters come to life with the skills of Ciaran Hinds, James PurefoyMovie Review: Good but fast Casterbridge
Summary: 4 Stars
I enjoyed this version of The Mayor of Casterbridge, although it took me a second start watching it to truly connect and enjoy the ride. I haven't seen any other film version, but have read the book, and consider it one of my favorites, as well as one of Thomas Hardy's best.
On my initial attempt to watch the film, I stopped about 10 minutes into it,and put it aside for several days. Although I thought it beautifully realized (so far as visual quality, setting, and the actors chosen to play the roles), I found the fastpace truly irritating. I must admit, I'd hoped for a much more leisurely, thoughtful rendering of the book. It all felt too rushed - and the beginning is important, as it sets up the entire story and all that follows. If you don't care about the characters in the initial set-up, how can you possibly care what comes after?
I appreciate that with a book being transformed into film, some license must be taken. After all, Sense and Sensibility (Ang Lee's version, that is, with the screen play by Emma T) took plenty of license - combining some characters, leaving others out, and transferring dialogue to characters that in the book had not uttered those particular words - all for expediency, and to keep the film not only moving along. But it "felt" like Jane Austen, and care was clearly taken to ensure that Austen's tone and sense of time, place and circumstance were not sacrificed on the alter of expediency. As clearly Emma and Ang were able to do it (and in a lot less running time than given this version of The M of C), I figured someone bothering to translate The Mayor of Casterbridge to film would be able to do the same.
With this version of The Mayor, all important plot points seem to be there, but the atmosphere/tone of the book I loved so much was sorely lacking - for me, an important issue. Why else does one enjoy and read one author over another? What else makes one brilliant while another (telling a similar tale)pedestrian? Why bother to make a film of an author's work if you are totally insensitive to what it was that made the author go through the long, arduace process of bringing that particular story and those particular characters to life in print?
I finally figured, what the heck! I've already bought the DVD (based on my love of the book), so I might as well watch the thing. And truth be told, I did enjoy it. After awhile, I found myself once again swept up in the story, and actually caring what happens, as I had on reading the book.
Much of that has to do with the casting, and the quality of the actors chosen. All managed to paint vivid impressions with the few brushstrokes the limited time alotted them allowed.
The main characters were extremely well cast. I particularly like the lead actress playing Elizabeth Jane's mother. Frankly (in my opinion), she gave the character more depth than Hardy had in the book, giving flesh to the one character in the book that I had always felt was an enigma. The actress playing Elizabeth Jane was spot on, as was her "love interest", the Mayor's foil. Polly Walker gave a beautifully nuanced performance that truly brought to life a women who continues to choose the direction dictated by her heart, in an age when such choices could mean utter ruin. (In today's world, she'd likely be running the show!) The sexual politics of the day were wonderfully realized through her performance in particular.
And Ciaran Hinds (sp?) was, I thought, brilliant in his depiction of a basically decent man struggling to take possession of his soul, trying to make up for a regretable personal history, continually tortured by the character flaws that continue to haunt. His performance gave final, true weight to the entire endeavor. I must admit I had only seen him in "Calendar Girls" up to that point (in which he was very good as well, in a much more limited role), and was truly impressed at his ability to get across as complex a character as The Mayor of Casterbridge.
So yes, eventually, I allowed the film to take hold, and the high caliber of the acting to sweep me along. But again - and not to give anything away - I wish that more time had been allowed at the end of the film as well.
I do suppose that, as the film was clearly a made-for-television flick, some time constraints were imposed. I just wish that, at times, the director had let us linger just a bit longer at certain points in the story. Cramming everything in Is a talent, I suppose. But more thought should have been given to why Hardy is still read and appreciated nearly two hundered years later (perhaps appreciated more now than during his lifetime).
More care should have been taken to get across all the subtle moments that are the hallmark of Hardy - all the happiness,tragedy, and in-between that reveal who we are as human beings; the choices we make and the consequences of those choices; the sometimes oppressive weight of the society and times we live in; the intentional as well as the unintentional cruelties we sometimes inflict on each other. My feelings for Hardy's work, as I am sure it must be for others, runs much deeper than his ability to spin a good yarn. When I read the Mayor of Casterbridge, I lingered on his words, and marvelled at the depth he was able to achieve in simple, sparing language.
This film version of the book sometimes felt like it had been made by a devotee of the Evelyn Wood School for Speed Reading, not by someone who savoured the experience of being allowed into Hardy's world. Savouring Hardy's words and the emotions they bring out should have been given as high a priority in the director's mind as the plot points. Clearly he was surrounded by the talent to pull it off.
And if he couldn't, he should have just handed the reins over someone who could - like (not to belabour the point!)Ang Lee, a maestro with true vision and an artist's touch, someone able to magically capture powerful emotions with a few brush stroke, all the while getting across a strong sense of the time and place in which the story is unfolding.
The acting made the whole enterprise rise to Nearly the top, however. So my four stars is a tribute to all the wonderful actors (including those not mentioned in this review) who made this version of The Mayor of Casterbridge worth watching.
And the one point taken away is for the clear lack of appreciation the director showed for the material handed him.
Movie Review: Good but fast Casterbridge
Summary: 4 Stars
I enjoyed this version of The Mayor of Casterbridge, although it took me a second start watching it to truly connect and enjoy the ride. I haven't seen any other film version, but have read the book, and consider it one of my favorites, as well as one of Thomas Hardy's best.
On my initial attempt to watch the film, I stopped about 10 minutes into it,and put it aside for several days. Although I thought it beautifully realized (so far as visual quality, setting, and the actors chosen to play the roles), I found the fastpace truly irritating. I must admit, I'd hoped for a much more leisurely, thoughtful rendering of the book. It all felt too rushed - and the beginning is important, as it sets up the entire story and all that follows. If you don't care about the characters in the initial set-up, how can you possibly care what comes after?
I appreciate that with a book being transformed into film, some license must be taken. After all, Sense and Sensibility (Ang Lee's version, that is, with the screen play by Emma T) took plenty of license - combining some characters, leaving others out, and transferring dialogue to characters that in the book had not uttered those particular words - all for expediency, and to keep the film not only moving along. But it "felt" like Jane Austen, and care was clearly taken to ensure that Austen's tone and sense of time, place and circumstance were not sacrificed on the alter of expediency. As clearly Emma and Ang were able to do it (and in a lot less running time than given this version of The M of C), I figured someone bothering to translate The Mayor of Casterbridge to film would be able to do the same.
With this version of The Mayor, all important plot points seem to be there, but the atmosphere/tone of the book I loved so much was sorely lacking - for me, an important issue. Why else does one enjoy and read one author over another? What else makes one brilliant while another (telling a similar tale)pedestrian? Why bother to make a film of an author's work if you are totally insensitive to what it was that made the author go through the long, arduace process of bringing that particular story and those particular characters to life in print?
I finally figured, what the heck! I've already bought the DVD (based on my love of the book), so I might as well watch the thing. And truth be told, I did enjoy it. After awhile, I found myself once again swept up in the story, and actually caring what happens, as I had on reading the book.
Much of that has to do with the casting, and the quality of the actors chosen. All managed to paint vivid impressions with the few brushstrokes the limited time alotted them allowed.
The main characters were extremely well cast. I particularly like the lead actress playing Elizabeth Jane's mother. Frankly (in my opinion), she gave the character more depth than Hardy had in the book, giving flesh to the one character in the book that I had always felt was an enigma. The actress playing Elizabeth Jane was spot on, as was her "love interest", the Mayor's foil. Polly Walker gave a beautifully nuanced performance that truly brought to life a women who continues to choose the direction dictated by her heart, in an age when such choices could mean utter ruin. (In today's world, she'd likely be running the show!) The sexual politics of the day were wonderfully realized through her performance in particular.
And Ciaran Hinds (sp?) was, I thought, brilliant in his depiction of a basically decent man struggling to take possession of his soul, trying to make up for a regretable personal history, continually tortured by the character flaws that continue to haunt. His performance gave final, true weight to the entire endeavor. I must admit I had only seen him in "Calendar Girls" up to that point (in which he was very good as well, in a much more limited role), and was truly impressed at his ability to get across as complex a character as The Mayor of Casterbridge.
So yes, eventually, I allowed the film to take hold, and the high caliber of the acting to sweep me along. But again - and not to give anything away - I wish that more time had been allowed at the end of the film as well.
I do suppose that, as the film was clearly a made for television flick, some time constraints were imposed. I just wish that, at times, the director had let us linger just a bit longer at certain points in the story. Cramming everything in Is a talent, I suppose.
But more thought should have been given to why Hardy is still read and appreciated nearly two hundered years later (perhaps appreciated more now than during his lifetime). More care should have been taken to get across all the subtle moments of happiness,tragedy,and in-between that was clearly important to Hardy. Who we are as human beings, the choices we make, and the effect we have on each other - these were, I think, important to Hardy. When I read the book, I lingered on his words. This film version of the book sometimes felt like it had been made by a devotee of the Evelyn Wood speed reading course.
Savouring Hardy's words and the emotions they bring out should have been given as high a priority in the director's mind as the plot points. Clearly he was surrounded by the talent to pull it off.
And if he couldn't, he should have just handed the reins over someone who could - like (not to belabour the point!)Ang Lee, a maestro with true vision and an artist's touch, someone able to magically capture powerful emotions with a few brush stroke, all the while getting across a strong sense of the time and place in which the story is unfolding.
The acting made the whole enterprise rise to Nearly the top, however, so I still have to take away at Least one point because of the director.
Movie Review: You can't get your life back
Summary: 4 Stars
Drunkenly auctioning off your wife and baby is reason enough to despise someone, but the "Mayor of Casterbridge" gives us plenty of other reasons to despise and pity him. The A&E adaptation of Thomas Hardy's novel is an all-around solid one -- solid scripting, solid directing, solid acting from Ciarán Hinds and Jodhi May.
At a county fair, Michael Henchard (Hinds) gets drunk, and auctions his wife and baby daughter off to a kindly sailor. So he swears off booze for the next twenty-one years, and works hard to become a pillar of the community.
Nineteen years later, the sailor is lost at sea, and the wife Susan (Juliet Aubrey) and grown daughter Elizabeth Jane (Jodhi May) return to Casterbridge, and find that Michael has become the mayor and corporate head of the town. He's also incredibly sorry for what he did, and asks Susan to remarry him quietly so his crime never needs to be known. She does.
But Michael soon feels threatened by his brilliant new manager Donald Farfrae (James Purefoy), who is also falling in love with Elizabeth Jane. Michael's corporate power begins to slip, and when Susan dies he discovers a shocking fact about his daughter -- sending him into a spiral of lies, jealousy and misery.
Basically, it's all about watching someone's life go down the drain. There have been more complete adaptations of the Thomas Hardy novel, but this one is just fast-moving and tense enough to give it a feeling of urgency.
The big lesson: Henchard's life isn't wrecked because of alcohol, or even because he auctionied off his wife -- he ruins his own life with his lies, viciousness, and the ugly flaws that makes him try to control the people around him. It has some cute scenes between Purefoy and May in a rainy barn, but other than that it's a relentlessly dark movie.
The whole thing is set in a picturesque English village in a pretty green countryside. David Thacker doesn't neglect the nastier, grimier side of life, but he peppers the story with beautiful visuals (Elizabeth in the graveyard) and moments of merriment or friendship. Then they get ruined by confrontations with Henchard.
Hinds and May give the best performances here -- Hinds gives us a solid performance, as a man who tries to do the wrong thing, but is led astray by his temper. He can flip from miserable repentence to cold cruelty in a moment. And May gives a wonderfully sensitive performance as a confused young girl whose romance and job are derailed by her "father's" resentment.
"The Mayor of Casterbridge" is an all-around solid miniseries, with two really outstanding performances by May and Hinds. Melancholy and bittersweet.