Reading the novel as i watched the DVD, it is obvious what Miss Evans wrote cannot be put on the screen without a lot of voice over. It is an extremely analytical, author description novel nearly 800 pages long. Like Bondarchuk's 'War and Peace,' you get a tableau of the best set pieces, with BBC costume drama values fully in evidence. A bit of a pity really, because the novel has its faults, mainly too little of the background of the changes of the time, eg Reform, the Railways (but the previous Eliot novel had been too full of such material, and it had failed at the box office!), and poorly underwritten male characters, eg Will, Fred, and Mr Bulstrode. The TV version does not address these shortcomings, and suffers accordingly. Rufus Sewell barely gets a part as he grimaces away - a lot of his little dialogue has been removed, especially his vitriolic rebuke near the end of Rosamund for flirting with him when Dorothea catches them in flagrante - a terrible sop to female, nay feminist, sympathies! But the main characters are richly drawn - Juliet Aubrey and Douglas Hodge, despite the odd looking into the middle distance to suggest about five pages of the novel's description, act extremely well.However, while Patrick Malahide is left to look rather silly because he seems to turn on his wife for little reason! Read the novel, enjoy the DVD, and see Rosamund get away with almost as much as Becky Sharp - the emptiness of British decorum - because of modern sensibilities! Let's hope the remake does not miss the chance to give the little vampiric minx her just lashing!
Add a Review
-
badajoz-122 November 2009
-
HotToastyRag23 February 2021George Eliot's classic was brought to life by BBC's miniseries in the early '90s. Starring Juliet Aubrey, the heroine who knows what's expected of her but can't ignore her heart, this compelling story is a must-watch (or must-read) for anyone who loves the genre. Social constraints, class structures, gossip, and daring melodrama feels right at home in this time period.
My heart completely went out to Patrick Malahide, though, so as much as I enjoyed watching this six-parter, I wasn't able to root for the other fellows. Patrick was just so sorrowful! Juliet marries him and is quickly disappointed in their marital life. He's a boring and strict reverend, but she knew exactly what she was getting when she accepted his proposal. In fact, she was drawn to his intellect from the beginning and wanted to learn from him. It turns out he's rather private and doesn't want to have lengthy, intellectual discussions with her; but is that really the end of the world?
For Juliet, it is. She wants more from her marriage. She has a brain, and she wants her husband to appreciate it as much as she does. But while she enjoys friendships with both the new doctor in town, Douglas Hodge, and her husband's cousin with a bad reputation, Rufus Sewell, it's less harmless than she thinks it is. Poor Patrick is also disappointed by his wife's behavior, and he sits at home with a broken heart when she's out galivanting and embarrassing him.
There's a lot more to this miniseries, though, and you'll be entertained by all the delightful characters and plot twists. It's always interesting to see the change in a town due to a railroad station. Progress also brings undesirable elements to an otherwise happy and peaceful community, and some people resent the modernization. You'll see Robert Hardy, Jonathan Firth, Elizabeth Spriggs, Trevyn McDowell, and more familiar faces. And does the voice of George Eliot sound familiar? It's Judi Dench! -
gilleliath4 September 2019Andrew Davies has had a very good career adapting classic novs for TV, on the back of the BBC's classic 1995 Pride and Prejudice. But Austen's book was already written almost like a film script - all he had to do was copy out the words. He tried the same trick slightly earlier in this version of perhaps the greatest English novel, but it doesn't work nearly so well.
The book depends so much on the author telling us about the characters' inner lives - something which can't just be transferred wholesale to a narrator. It seems simple but is actually almost as difficult to adapt as things like Ulysses or The Steppenwolf, and this version no more than scratches the surface. I suspect it must seem dull to those who don't know the book, certainly it didn't make anything like the splash of P&P. It must be a bit embarrassing to put on such a lavish production and get only one BAFTA nomination, for the music.
The cast is good and two in particular are perfect: Patrick Malahide as Casaubon and Rufus Sewell in his breakthrough role as Ladislaw - he has never suited any other part quite so well. Juliet Aubrey, sadly, comes nowhere near doing justice to Dorothea, one of the most attractive heroines in literature; she has the earnestness but not the luminousness.
It was originally a BBC production, but I gather from these reviews that Masterpiece Theater added a voiceover for the benefit of you dumb Yanks, eh? :) -
'Middlemarch' is one of my favourite novels and the serialization is one of the best that I have seen. All the actors enliven the saga of this, George Eliot's masterpiece with an impressive panache. Juliet Aubrey as Dorothea, the heroine, needs a little bit of getting used to, but she portrays the character convincingly. Rufus Sewell was made for this role He exudes all the charm, the enigma and the romance in Will's personality beautifully..so much so that you really feel for him and his love for Dorothea as you feel for them in the novel. The only thing I'd like to say as a mild warning is that read the novel before you see this adaptation because the serial is made taking that for granted. For any admirer of Eliot this serialization is a must-see. With a beautiful music score, beautiful scenery, this adaptation is sensitively made..and memorable.
-
TheLittleSongbird26 December 2013Of all of George Eliot's novels, all of which are at least worth reading, Middlemarch gets my vote for personal favourite. It's an incredibly rich story in detail and emotion and the characters are human and complex, though some like Casaubon are purposefully not very likable. And what a brilliant adaptation this is, even better than 2002's Daniel Deronda and that was fabulous as well. Both share the same virtues but 1994's Middlemarch for me is superior because the ending is far more satisfying(if not as bleak as the source material). Middlemarch from a visual stand-point is of very high quality to look, the locations are just splendid, the costumes and period detail very authentic with an eye for detail and the series is wonderfully shot as well, simple but not simplistic and expressive but not overly-elaborate. The music is sensitively orchestrated and understated, not sounding out of place whatsoever. The writing is as rich and human as that in the book, the social commentary strongly emphasised without falling into the trap of swamping things. It also is delivered naturally, has a sense of structure and flow and is adapted intelligently. The adaptation is very faithful(apart from the omission of one plot-point), and the constantly riveting storytelling is layered without trying too hard or feeling bloated. It is easy for a faithful adaptation to be bogged down from being too faithful or trying to do too much, Middlemarch doesn't do that. The pacing is relatively slow and deliberate but the adaptation benefits from that. As anybody who's a fan of the book would argue for a book as detailed as Middlemarch is that that kind of pacing is needed so that it all makes sense and has time to breathe and resonate. The same can also be said for the long(around the 6-hour mark)length. The direction is controlled and subtle, doing nothing to undermine the drama within the story, and the acting is excellent from all. Robert Hardy in particular is a joy to watch, and Michael Hordern also seems to be having a ball. Juliet Aubrey plays Dorothea with strength and passion though the wild streak may take some getting used to, Douglas Hodge is appropriately dashing and idealistic and Rufus Sewell full of brooding charisma. Patrick Malahide makes for a creepy Casaubon, and Judi Dench's voice over is wonderfully sincere and makes the story comprehensible for those unfamiliar and manages to do that without feeling too obvious. To conclude, in every way this adaptation of Middlemarch is brilliant and does justice to a literary masterpiece. 10/10 Bethany Cox
-
childgaia71 October 2022Just loved this series. As a lover of British period drama this is one of my favourites. Some fabulous acting to boot. Can't believe someone said the actors were too old, Rufus Sewell being 40 when this was made. Not true, he was 27. Quite an exaggeration considering it was made 28 years ago. I would much rather some great acting by established actors than more age appropriate cause it fits the narrative more. Definitely not old by any means. So many wonderful characters in this, that it's hard to pick a favourite but I do really like Dorothea who the series is based on. Quite a fan of George Eliots novels. Can't fault this production.
-
carmen16324 December 2023To be honest, I don't think it's possible to translate the richness, depth and refinement of the book Middlemarch to the screen. A narrator gives the most beautiful comments, which is why this book is such high-class literature. The narrator was 'George Eliot', of course, and she was so wise, funny and compassionate that the story is reduced to half without her comments.
It's remarkable how George Eliot has set up Middlemarch. Usually, the narrator is on the outside of the story, and the events that take place with the characters make the story. But not in this case. The narrator is on the inside. He knows about life, psychology, philosophy, religion and spirituality, and he connects all this knowledge to the small lifes of the characters.
So, without the narrator, what's left is precisely this TV adaptation. It's the outside of the story. It shows the most beautiful clothes, gardens, coaches, china, townhouses, and music. The actors tell the story by saying the words their characters do and mimicking the feelings that go along with them. It's not bad at all. But it misses the heart, the inside.
How can we get to the inside of all the marriages without the narrator? How can we get to the personalities of all the characters without the narrator? It's simply not possible in this case. Maybe, with some class A actors we had a better chance, but that's not the case, unfortunately. So, like the characters without the narrator, we stumble through this adaption, which is remarkably fitting in a way.
If you like to see the outside of this story, watch this series. But if you want to see the whole package, please read the book. -
Middlemarch (1994) was directed by Anthony Page. It was adapted brilliantly by Andrew Davies from George Eliot's novel.
We expect great acting from any BBC series, and we're not disappointed here. All of the actors were unknown to me, but one actor--Juliet Aubrey-- truly impressed me with her portrayal of one of the protagonists--Dorothea Brooke. (I wasn't the only one impressed. Aubrey won the 1995 BAFTA TV Award for Best Actress for playing this role.) If you know the novel, you'll remember that Dorothea makes one of the worst fictional marriages of all time. She lives to regret it.
George Eliot wrote long, leisurely novels with many characters and many plots. This novel was about change coming to a provincial town. It's actually a historical novel. It was written in 1871-72, but is set 40 years earlier. So, when Eliot wrote the novel, she knew what her characters didn't know about the years to come.
The status of women and the coming of progress are two of the themes of the novel. Dorothea's marriage is of her own choosing, but that's not often true of Eliot's woman protagonists. Also, Eliot didn't specialize in happy endings. (Well, Silas Marner has a happy ending, but there's plenty of gloom along the way.)
This film is definitely worth seeing. Every part of it is done professionally and well. If you love Victorian novels, and especially if you love George Eliot's work, don't miss it. If you're really not into Eliot, you'd better consider carefully. The series is over six hours long!
We saw this film on the small screen. It was intended for TV, so that's not a problem.
P.S. The series was so popular that thousands of people in England bought the novel. It was the top best seller in England for weeks! -
tammyahansen10 August 2023I finished reading Middlemarch (which I loved) and immediately began watching this miniseries, which had been recommended to me. I'm very particular about screen adaptations of my beloved books and I'm pleased to say that this one delivered on every level. Not an easy thing to do for a story that's over 800 pages, but the characters are well-rendered and the adaptation hits all the right notes. (Side note: why is there a non-existent seventh episode listed with a completely fabricated description of events that someone apparently thinks took place after both the book and the telecast ended? Very odd.)
-
petermorton-253935 August 2021I'm reading MM for about the 5th time - agreeing with whoever it was who said it's one of the really great 'grown-up' novels.
I looked up the TV movie as well (first time since it was released) and it holds up wonderfully well - mainly because it sticks to well to the text - or at least to a stripped-down version of the text. Almost all the characterization is first-rate.
The only thing that gave me pause was Patrick Malahide. A fine actor, but he struck me as both too young and too 'human' for Casaubon; in fact rather 'acting' the part of an older man and a monster of egotism. Can one imagine him writing that truly appalling letter of proposal to Dorothea? I don't think so. -
someofusarebrave9 February 2011Some time into this series, I realized this film rubbed me the wrong way in a manner very similar to 'Jane Eyre' and previous versions of 'Pride and Prejudice' had. Thinking more about it, I realized that the reason is because of the clear lack of comprehension exhibited by those in charge of converting these rather dense and equally beloved classics to film. These books are all deeply feminine--they were written by women, about women and for the past hundred years have been read by a primarily female audience, with the exception of reading assigned for school. These conversions have all been equally well-meaning on the surface, but at root something far more evil has been taking place. It is no accident of the industry that male directors and male screenwriters have been solely responsible for crafting these conversions. It is ALSO no accident that they are aimed at the sort of female audience who believes soap operas to be decent entertainment.
These stories are about the "female condition" within the social circles occupied by their female authors far more than they are about these characters romantic matches and mismatches. These are women who grow and change and act rather than be acted upon like most so-called "heroines" of today's so-called "great" stories. This is why these stories have appealed to women throughout the ages--they provide us women with both a template for growth and one for happiness.
This is something men can never understand. To cover for their own incomprehension, the male directors and writers who have in the past taken over such projects have focused on the men's stories instead.
Suddenly the women seem like victims, rather than act-ors in their own lives; they stand still in the center of rooms where men pace and rant.
If we want stories that actually reflect our lived experiences of the world, we have to fight to get them made. If we sit back and let whatever happens, happens, we simply wind up with dreck like this. -
tedg22 March 2006TeeVee miniseries exist because of strange economic wrinkles. The nature of the medium is so episodic, so finely grained that it is forced to satisfy the needs created by the sameness and thinness. Its why MacDonalds' sells chicken.
So just as the main fare is perverted in a cartoonish simple sense, so is the antidote extreme in the other.
To feed this beast, you need to have stories that only have scope in the larger context and you must (a rule) be able to get that context only by watching more than one chunk, what in TeeVee land is called an episode. Its a strange term that belies its odd requirements.
Into this niche have long come soap operas, shaped by emotional bumpings and worries of extreme characters. And for a few decades the rich uncle of soap operas have flourished as well. These have to be lush, set in a romantic era. And if they come from a respected novel, so very much the better.
Its better because viewers think they are doing something intelligent, and also because writers don't have to thrash out the essential mechanics. But in reality it doesn't matter what the source material, these all go through more or less the same refining process and come out the other end much the same. Its a matter of market need.
If you actually read the books behind these you'll find a bewildering variety that isn't apparent in their small screen translations. Where Austen (for example) was all about the appearance, Eliot was about the internal holding of bonds. Where Austen was all about attaining a position, Eliot, writing in the next generation, was about the challenges of holding those positions.
In a way, Eliot's innovation was get inside, under the appearance. It doesn't matter what the doctor's house or service look like, only that some nitwit thinks the appearance is important. Its a bit scandalous that as we consume this product, what attracts us, at root, is the appearance of the thing. We are the enemy she writes about.
If you just glanced at this, you'd find it indistinguishable from any of the other such pretty things it is classified with. Its a true insult to the book. An absolute scandal. The creative team should be driven out of the village. Cinematic heathens!
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements. -
Irie21225 March 2024Middlemarch is widely considered one of the greatest English-language novels, the equal of Moby Dick and Ulysses. It is not plot and characters that make masterpieces; those essentials ultimately matter less than use of language and the quality of the thought, two things that cannot be fully equalled on screen. But this Middlemarch is about as good as it ever gets.
Consider this sentence from Eliot, about a vain young girl in the presence of a man she wants: "Every nerve and muscle in Rosamond was adjusted to the consciousness that she was being looked at." Reading that, you feel it. Or this, about blind love: "Strange, that some of us, with quick alternate vision, see beyond our infatuations, and even while we rave on the heights, behold the wide plain where our persistent self pauses and awaits us." I could open Middlemarch at random, to any of its 800+ pages, and find sublime observations like those.
Andrew Davis (writer) and Anthony Page (director) obviously cherish Eliot's book. The tone, the pace, the mise-en-scène in England and in Rome-- all of it is superb. The principal actors, Juliet Aubrey, Rufus Sewell, Douglas Hodge, and especially Patrick Malahide bring it all to life, aided by an ensemble of British actors, most of whom were known to me because of their distinguished careers. (There are weaknesses, of course, including two young actresses, Trevyn McDowell and Rachel Power, who are just good enough).
I've read Middlemarch three times, and watched this series twice, between readings. Perhaps the greatest compliment I can give it is that the praiseworthy incarnation of Eliot's characters actually served to enhance the 2nd and 3rd reading of her remarkable novel. -
ToneBalone6030 April 2022How can you take this seriously when most of the actors are 20 to 30 years older than the characters they are supposed to be playing.
This novel contains a lot of passion but given the age of the actors that is completely lost and it's almost ridiculous.
Rufus Sewell is around 40 when this was made will Ladislaw the character is supposed to be playing was only around 22 to maximum in the novel.
We have a wealth of excellent younger actors in Britain. It's time to start casting that resembles the original material.
This isn't artistic licence.
And tell Equity to butt out. -
nyfreelanceeditor30 May 2022I only turned to this video adaptation having exhausted all of the Austen, Dickens and Trollope available. All fiction is autobiography to some extent, and Evans' novels are no exception. She was an adulteress and a social outcast who pretended to be married and pretended to be a man. Portraying her critics in her characters as professional and moral failures whose dreams and ambitions are frustrated and thwarted no doubt gave her some satisfaction. But in the end I look to be inspired. Middlemarch is neither inspired nor inspiring. In a time of central bank created strife, scarcity, want and struggle, I have no patience with uninspiring literature or its film adaptations.