Set in late 1800's Britain, "Jude" traces the life of the title character (Eccleston), a learned but humble stonemason, who courageously struggles with life's disappointments only to be struck with unspeakable tragedy. A beautifully depressing human drama, "Jude" traverses the highs and lows of life through its dreary tale of one man's steadfast conviction to his beliefs and to the woman he loves. Not for everyone, "Jude" is a film for realists into serious drama which many will likely regard as a "downer". (B+)
Add a Review
-
=G=18 August 2003
-
paul2001sw-118 April 2004There are three common errors made by directors of historical films that Michael Winterbottom neatly avoids in 'Jude', his adaptation of Thomas Hardy's novel. Firstly, he creates a picture of a livable past, not some shallow collage of country houses and Dickensian squalor but a world in which a normality, of sorts, might reign. Secondly, he sets out to explore that normality, instead of simply judging the past by present values. Finally, he is working with a script that is neither archaic and stiff nor laced with modern anachronisms. Add to this strong direction and casting (Christopher Ecclestone is excellent in the title role, and a young Kate Winslett fetchingly appealing as Sue), and the result is a good film; but it lacks something of a dramatic punch.
I haven't read the book, but one senses from the film that it may represent a fierce attack on then-contemporary values, particularly those involving marriage, values which drive the characters to their ultimate misfortune. One senses this, but in the movie this theme is played down, so the story seems merely to tell of the ups and downs of Jude's life, presented as fairly accidental happenings. A terrible tragedy eventually occurs; and, because of what has happened in the past, a second, avoidable, tragedy then follows. The problem, dramatically speaking, is that the second tragedy appears smaller than the first, thus the end of the film serves as an anti-climax. Without a unifying sense of accusation, we, instead of a powerful polemic, are left with only the tale of an unfortunate.
'Jude' is one of the better, and the least sentimental, of historical films. But something of the point has been lost in translation. -
DennisLittrell16 December 2001This pessimistic and rather brutal cinematic production is based on the nineteenth century novel Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy. A bowdlerized and altered version of that novel first appeared in Harper's New Monthly Magazine as a serial beginning in December 1894. Its original title was 'The Simpletons,' a title modern viewers of this movie might find appropriate considering how Jude and Sue round out their lives.
It need hardly be said that any motion picture, and certainly not one running only about two hours, can hope to do justice to Hardy's novel (his last, incidentally) which is about 180,000 words long (about 400 pages of dense text). An earlier TV mini series version made by the BBC that I have not seen, Jude the Obscure (1971), ran for almost four and a half hours in six episodes. But this is a pretty good movie anyway, highlighted by an enthralling performance by Kate Winslet.
The movie starts rather slowly, if picturesquely, until Kate appears and then the movie comes to life. I have seen Winslet in several films, including her first feature film when she was18-years-old, Heavenly Creatures (1994), an interesting film made in New Zealand based on a sensational matricide from the 1950s. She was very good in that film, her budding talent immediately obvious as the spinning, laughing, crazy teen who went off the deep end emotionally. In Jude, Winslet's sharp, confident and commanding style is given greater range and she comes across with a performance that is full of life, effervescent, delightful, witty, sly, clever, and very expressive, and she looks beautiful doing it.
The story itself, a naturalistic tragedy that in some respects anticipates Theodore Dreiser, et al., was considered immoral in its time. 'The Bishop of Wakefield, disgusted with the novel's insolence and indecency, threw it in the fire,' according to Terry Eagleton who wrote the Introduction for the New Wessex Edition of the book. Modern film goers will hardly notice the implied critique of marriage that offended Victorian readers, but they might find the scene where Arabella throws the pig's 'part' at Jude indelicate. Victorian readers found that scene most offensive. As a public service I want to warn any modern viewer who might be offended at seeing Kate Winslet naked to avoid this film. (Just Joking: Kate is quite fetching in the Rubenesque shot.) To be honest, though, this really is a tragedy that still has the power to offend some sensibilities. Certainly you don't want the kids to see it.
Christopher Eccleston plays Jude and does a good job, and Rachel Griffiths in a modest part plays Jude's first wife Arabella. Director Michael Winterbottom stayed spiritually true to Hardy's dark vision while tailoring the tale for modern audiences. There's a nice period piece feel and some charming cinematography. The denouement is well set up and so realistically done that we don't know whether to be horrified or outraged. I think I was both.
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!) -
agvii8 April 2003You can't discuss this movie without discussing the novel of the same name. The movie stays remarkably true to the novel; from character to location. If anything, the movie enhances the novel--through Christopher Eccleston's fantastic performance we see in Jude the light of desire and the crush of defeat.
Though another review characterizes Thomas Hardy's depiction of females as misogynistic, I disagree. The character of Arabella is certainly a villain at her heart, but the character of Sue Bridehead is a mirror of our tragic hero, Jude. Through their interactions, we see not only a stunning performance by Kate Winslet, but also a relationship of equals in misery. Certainly, the males in the novel and movie are depicted at least as wretchedly as the females.
This movie draws the viewer in and gives you insight into Jude's world, from it's optimistic beginning to its tragic end. Definitely not a date movie, but absolutely fine film-making. -
dbdumonteil1 July 2001How could such a sprawling novel like Hardy's become a two-hour movie? It was a mammoth task and the result is only partly successful.That's why the beginning of the movie seems botched.Actually everything happens when Kate Winslet's character appears.The main flaw lies in the fact that Jude's main ideal was to become an intellectual,Christminster remained his horizon till the very end.In the movie,the second part of the movie focuses on the Sue-Jude relationship.After the doyen's letter,his cultural ambitions take a back seat and it's Sue who provides the main interest:a woman ahead of her time,despising marriage, this leading to her downfall.Then again,the film recreates the fatality (recalling sometimes French writer Zola )hanging on Jude and Sue only occasionally (Drusilla warning the hero).Arabella's character,though vital in the novel,is sometimes reduced to a walk on,the same goes for Aunt Drusilla. Assets: a very good music score,fine performances with K.Winslet the stand-out,beautiful photo and nice film sets.
-
LunarPoise24 April 2009Winterbottom keeps the temperature of the searing original novel in his faithful, brilliantly realised film adaptation. Hardy was sick when writing Jude, out of sorts, and the bleak tale has in some quarters been credited more to bile than his muse. Jude's fate is certainly more damning than other Hardy heroes such as Tess, and the final third of this tale requires a strong heart to get through.
Jude Fawley is a self-educated stonemason looking to enter the hallowed halls of (a thinly-disguised) Oxford. Class and snobbery combine to crush that dream, but he fights and wins his other dream, to secure the love of his cousin Sue. Headstrong and independent, a prototype Suffragette, she will face her own stern test and be found wanting.
Christopher Eccleston inhabits the character fully. The scene in the pub where he recites the Lord's Creed in Latin, then challenges the undergrads to judge if he got it right, is painful and poignant. Winslet is stunning as the admirable but infuriating Sue Brideshead whose choices in life are oblique but all-too-real. A cold draft of air oozes from her expression every time she shuns Jude. There isn't a missed beat in Winslet's portrayal of a woman who goes from supremely confident to utterly lost.
Winterbottom would go on to tinker and experiment, unsuccessfully, with Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge in The Claim. Here, he keeps it strictly BBC, evoking the early industrial age magnificently in his cobbled streets and fog-shrouded spires. An array of British acting talent fill out the supporting roles superbly, most notably Liam Cunningham as the put-upon Phillotson, and Rachel Griffiths as pig-hugging Arabella, whose rising fortune sways in counter-point to Jude's slow, inexorable decline. In one scene where she encounters her estranged son at a fairground, the interaction between woman and child is both naturalistic and magical. The expression on the face of Little Jude's sister is priceless. Perhaps a happy accident, perhaps genius from the director, but all the more tragic for what follows.
One of the most ill-fated couples in British literature are vividly brought to life in this film, designed to satisfy fans of the novel. Hardy, one feels, would approve. -
SKG-25 April 1999The adage "a great novel rarely makes a great movie" is not as true as is supposed, but I'm sorry to say it's true here. Director Michael Winterbottom and writer Hossein Amini fail here because they fail to understand the town of Christminster, the town Jude loathes and yet wants to be accepted by so desperately. The town functions almost as a character in the novel, but here you feel nothing from it, and therefore the context for everyone's actions is removed. And except for Sue and Arabella(well played by Kate Winslet and Rachel Griffiths, respectively), the characters are underdeveloped). It looks appropriately dark, and the other actors are good, but I felt at the end like there was something missing.
-
Haydeck21 January 2003I started watching this movie after having read the viewers' comments, so I was prepared for the depression inducing effect everyone kept talking about. Seems like you are never prepared enough for this movie. Sadness and tragedy are in the air right from beginning, you can feel them all the time, even when things start getting better for the two protagonists you know it can't last...because they are doomed, losers, not meant to be happy together. And yet the love they share is the purest and most devoting love I have ever seen on screen; it stunned me how true Jude was to Sue, and how brave Sue was, accepting Jude jr. as one of her own, no questions asked. Many people might find the scene of Sue giving birth and being watched by Jude jr. disturbing, yet it is essential to understand his later deeds, at least partly. The climax of the tragedy is so emotional and so immensely cruel it rips your heart out. I felt the theatre was falling into pieces and so were we, watching this emotional tornado, weeping like possessed. The experience of this movie will make you ponder life, love and death, it will make you understand how important it is to teach your children well and never make them feel undesired. It will make you realize how important it is to always think twice before commiting yourself, even in the modern world flooded with divorces. It will show you what it means to really love, completely and uncompromisingly. I highly recommend this masterpiece, a tale of two beautiful, unfortunate heros ahead their time, doomed by cruelest fate imaginable. 10/10
-
SnoopyStyle19 May 2015Jude Fawley (Christopher Eccleston) comes from a lower class rural village. He aspires to be educated but is a simple stonemason. He marries country girl Arabella (Rachel Griffiths) thinking she's pregnant. Jude is wrong for the country life and Arabella departs for Australia claiming that she thought she was pregnant and did not trick him. Jude goes off to Christminster where he hopes to go to the university. He is taken by cousin Sue Bridehead (Kate Winslet). The university rejects him and Sue refuses him after he reveals that he's married. She marries the religious Phillotson (Liam Cunningham) but it's a loveless marriage. She and Jude go off together in a life of struggle. Arabella sends him Juey who she claims is his. Jude and Sue have two more children together but their common-law relationship causes problems and ends in tragedy.
Director Michael Winterbottom brings some life to this difficult story. He could have made this darker and moodier. He could have played up the star-crossed lovers. He could also put the social structure much more out front. He is blessed with two great actors. Eccleston and Winslet are terrific. This is a fine romantic epic. -
aroseisarose28 September 2004...but i loved it. i was at the library getting a movie for girls night and then i saw the jacket for this movie. first thing i notice it has kate winslet, its historical, and the tag line is really catchy so i check it out, drive to my friends house and start the show. instead of a cute feel good romance i'm confronted with a heavy movie of death, love, hate, and betrayal.
now i found this movie to be amazing. the story was very much true to hardy's novel (well up until the end) and while the film is dark it is wonderfully so. it is not a lighthearted period romance but rather a study on human behavior and how it can go terribly wrong when the heart becomes involved. it is obvious that they love each other, and the fact they are cousins is secondary... they had never known each other as children as most children know their cousins. they met as adults and fell in love as such. their story is an impassioned one of trail and error romances, exploring ones desires and drives, the burden of nonconformity, and what can cause as love to break down.
very good, very powerful, but a very abrupt ending with one of the best closing lines. ****/***** -
jboothmillard9 September 2005I mainly wanted to see this because I heard that Kate Winslet had some good nude scenes, but I she is also one of my favourite actresses. It is actually quite an interesting story based in the Victorian times in a not completely wealthy village. It basically tells the story of a life and love story between Jude Fawley (the very talented, once Doctor Who, Christopher Eccleston) and Sue Bridehead (Winslet). Very interesting for a British film, excellent acting by both Winslet and Eccleston. It is quite distressing to see moments of Winslet having a baby, but if you overcome and pass that moment, the rest is very good. Touching, romantic and dramatic in places, what more could you ask? Kate Winslet was number 55 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, she was number 2 on The 50 Greatest British Actresses, and she was number 29 on The World's Greatest Actor. Very good!
-
The best film of the 1990's.
Dazzling and heartbreaking in every way imaginable.
Eccleston and Winslet give career performances, Hossein Amini's screenplay is judicious and honest, and Winterbottom's direction and cinematography capture everything there is in Hardy's greatest novel.
Unmissible, unparallelled, and devastatingly beautiful. -
SMK-423 January 1999The film is glorious to look at, but at times too glorious to look at. The film makers went to great lengths in their search for appropriate locations - they even filmed in the street I used to live in at the time of the filming (Northumberland Street in Edinburgh), and I could observe how much effort they had to go through to make the street look authentical. Having spend all this effort the scenes had to end up in the final product, but they are not really contributing anything to the film. I would describe them as gratuitous location shots.
-
clemato24 March 2003Life and love can be tragic and beautiful. The ways of society and the heart are not simple and can be quiet opposed.
Jude is a masterpiece as a novel and film. Yes, it is quiet the most painful story, but all lives worth living have pain and heartbreak, love and laughter. This is no sugar-coated romance, but a dark, dirty, tragedy. What affects me so is the timelessness of this story. Michael Winterbottom truly made a wonderful film - he did not write the story folks.
Christopher Eccleston is a master actor, he brings such a full-blown sense of the man "Jude". He really knew this character strongly and I feel that he has a level of intelligence and feeling that is rarely used in modern male actors.
Kate Winslet is a stunning actress. Hard to believe that she carried the level of passion and maturity in "Jude" as Sue Bridehead at the ripe age of 20. She is truly one-of-a-kind and deserves all accolades placed upon her shoulders.
I had no problem with the love scenes and nudity in this movie - although that could be because Chris Eccleston is so incredibly attractive. Isn't love-making crucial and appropriate for two people in love? I don't understand how some people commented poorly on that. It seems quite acceptable for me.
Don't look for mushy weepy romance in Jude. You will find power, grief, passion, love, and bravery. Jude and Sue possess more bravery than most people living today, the tragedy is that they risked everything for their love - which destroyed them and the lives of their children.
Masterpiece film making and acting. Bravo! -
Bulworth-217 August 1999This film has remained in my mind since the first time I saw it (back in the winter of 1997) and has earned its place as my favorite movie of all time; while not technically spectacular, commercially successful, or critically supported, it is both a wicked strike at oppressive Victorian morals, a sour commentary on the effects of religion on a society, and an extremely well-crafted love story about a relationship that endures years of torment on both sides and a horrible tragedy. Kate Winslet and Christopher Eccleston are the two best British actors working today (check out "Heavenly Creatures" and "Shallow Grave" if you don't believe me) and I applaud Michael Winterbottom for bringing this great book to the screen.
-
Jude The Obscure is Thomas Hardy's final novel, and his bleakest. It doesn't seem an obvious choice for cinema, hence why it failed at the box office.
An air of gloom hangs over the whole proceedings. The story is a little like Tess- a man's chance at love is destroyed by a woman from his past. Jude (Christopher Eccleston) is the man in question- an ambitious country boy whose desire is to become a student at Christminster (Hardy's made-up name for Oxford). He moves to Christminster and falls in love with his clever cousin Sue Brideshead (Kate Winslet). Unfortunately he is already married- to loose country girl Arabella (Rachel Griffiths), who keeps popping up and ruining Jude's chance at happiness. The climax of the film is one of the most tragic and horrific things you will see in a long time.
The film is quite well done. It is a bit graphic (this is Michael Winterbottom after all) and anachronistic in places, but there are enough tinges of Hardy to make it a costume drama. He certainly hasn't butchered it as he butchered Tess in his film Trishna.
The problem of the film is that Jude is a bit of a ninny, who doesn't seem to have the ruthlessness or the cleverness needed to get into the academic elite and constantly runs back to Arabella. The incestuous aspect is also very off-putting. One feels sorry for Jude and Sue but one can never feel entirely comfortable with their relationship.
Another problem, at least adaptation-wise, is that Arabella, who is a horrible sadist in the book from what I've heard, is merely a nuisance here. Perhaps Winterbottom thought that might be too much misery for people but it does mean that the film ends abruptly.
Acting-wise, everything is fine. Eccleston convinces as a country boy, although his Northern accent does come out at times. Winslet does well as spirited Sue Brideshead, similar to Rose in Titanic so not much of a stretch for her.
EDIT: Having now read the novel- not my favourite Hardy novel but a powerful novel nonetheless- the film gets the sexuality right. Everything that Hardy couldn't show, this film shows, so for those who complain that the film has too much nudity, this is actually quite true to the novel- particularly as none of it is very erotic. Jude's weakness for the flesh is almost animalistic.
Leaving aside the hot and steamy, we have that whole spiritual dimension. That part of the novel is quite hard to translate and it doesn't really come through in this film. Jude is meant to be too noble for this world, hindered by his fleshy desires.
And the film really does let Arabella off too lightly. In this, she's a typical country wench- a tart with not much of a heart. However in the book, she's not only a tart with no heart, she's a proper butcher, cruel to the point of sadism. -
bardlover7 March 2006Overall, the movie was very close to the Thomas Hardy novel from which it takes it plot. However, one thing got to me: Jude doesn't die in the end. I found the ending unsatisfying. I understand why the filmmakers didn't include the stillborn baby, for there was already so much tragedy, but Jude needed to die. I mean, Tess died, Michael Henchard (Mayor of Casterbridge) died, and Jude died. It brings completion to the novel/story--Jude finally escaped the horrors of his life.
All in all, the movie was well executed. The actors (especially the actor who portrayed Jude, who I've only seen in one other movie--the modern Othello done by BBC/PBS) were well cast. I just wish they hadn't made that one change. -
webber-george10 September 2015If you like dark dramas with a touch of romance, then this is the movie for you. The film is actually very true to the book and absolutely engrossing. The acting in the film is truly superb so much that the characters come to life on screen, so that you almost can become them and see through their eyes. This is a moral play, as well as a look at the way society imposes rules of conduct. When I came in toward the middle of the movie, but I got sucked into it. I find it a great movie to watch on a nice rainy day. Obviously, the book is practically required reading after you see this movie. Truly a haunting movie that you will remember for a long time and keep coming back to.
-
TheLittleSongbird2 November 2009Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure is a very complicated and ambitious book, and while heavy-reading it is a fine piece of literature. This 1996 film adaptation is a rock-solid adaptation, that is ambitious and realistic. I will admit some parts like the killing of the pig is anything but tender, but none of the scenes are over-sensationalised.
As an adaptation of the book, it works very well. If I had a quibble, the secondary characters could have been developed more than they were depicted. The screenplay is well crafted; the writers and the director have at least some idea how Hardy's work should work on film and stay relatively true to the book. The music both haunting and beautiful at the same time was absolutely outstanding.
The direction is very fine, never sluggish and never overdone. It was about right. The cinematography is superb, dark, fluid and sensitive. And the period detail was just as good. It was this element alone that contributed to the mood of the adaptation. The love story here which is dirty and tragic was beautifully realised, and very rarely struck a false note.
The performances were just brilliant, no overplaying or underplaying as far as I could see. Special mention must go to the two lead performances. Christopher Ecceleston is a very talented and I think under-appreciated actor, and in the title role he was perfectly cast and showed real versatility. As Sue Brideshead, the beautiful Kate Winslet is positively luminous and is true to her character. Out of the supporting performances, the best is Rachel Griffiths as Arabella, a very modest performance I must say.
Overall, has its minor flaws but a very well done adaptation of a complicated book. Always realistic and never overly-sentimental as I feared. Though the ending is heart-rending. 9/10 Bethany Cox -
tgtround14 July 2000A well made film with all of the right intentions but it just can't compensate for the tarnished nature of the original novel.
When it comes down to it, Hardy isn't interested in love - his women are strange, often deceitful creatures. Hardy, was let's face it, bigotted and a mysoginist.
To try and make this look like a love story is a big mistake. -
kg2238425 February 2000In this day and age, hollywood cranks out hundreds of films made for one purpose. The almighty dollar. The first thing that caught my attention while watching this film is its lack of any entertainment value from the very beginning. No gimmicks, no effects to draw your money. This is possibly the best movie I've ever seen. In fact, it is more than a film, it is an experience. Jude progresses so that its closing moments strike so much agony into your heart, you are changed. It is the type of film you can only experience once. Any added viewings would only be analyzing it. Jude is the epitome of what true, high, fine art should accomplish. A feeling you can never recreate. If you enjoy art you will love this film, and if you look for entertainment, you will be so shocked by it, you will never look at films the same way. Since seeing Jude, all other films seem bland and heartless. The final punch is so powerful it will make even endings like those in The Rear Window and The Sixth Sense seem mediocre and even predictable. Anyone with 3 dollars or a library card should do themselves the favor and experience a piece of life only found in this movie.
-
JamesHitchcock29 December 2016Jude Fawley is a young man working as a stonemason in a rural village in Victorian England. Jude is highly intelligent, and dreams of a university education, even though he is from a working-class background at a time when very few working-class people went to university. Jude's ambitions appear to have come to an end when he makes an imprudent marriage to Arabella, a sensual, earthy farmer's daughter who does not share his intellectual aspirations. After only a few months, however, Arabella abruptly abandons him and emigrates to Australia.
Now feeling free to pursue his original ambition, Jude moves to the university city of Christminster, but his application to study at the university is rejected, largely on the basis of his lowly social origins. He falls in love again when he meets his cousin, Sue Bridehead, who shares his intelligence and, like him, sees herself as a free spirit with no time for social convention. . At this period in her life, however, Sue is not so contemptuous of social convention as to live openly as man and wife with another woman's husband, and because Jude is still legally married to Arabella she decides to marry Jude's former school teacher, Richard Phillotson. Later she changes her mind and abandons Richard to live in an adulterous relationship with Jude.
The film is, of course, based on Thomas Hardy's novel "Jude the Obscure". It keeps reasonably closely to Hardy's plot, although with one or two alterations, and also keeps his invented place-names. Hardy intended these names to disguise real places- his "Christminster", for example, is supposed to be Oxford- but the film was not always shot in these locations. Much of it was filmed in the North, especially in and around Durham, although there are exceptions. We see a shot, for example, of the Dorset town of Shaftesbury, which does indeed appear in the novel under the name of "Shaston".
The last film I saw from director Michael Winterbottom was "The Claim", another Hardy adaptation, in that case of "The Mayor of Casterbridge", but one which transferred the action from Dorset to the American West. I hated "The Claim", partly because of its unnecessary change of setting, but also for other reasons, so I was pleasantly surprised by "Jude". It has its faults, but they are mostly those of its literary source, which is far from being my favourite Hardy novel. (I enjoyed "The Mayor of Casterbridge" a lot more). Neither Hardy nor Winterbottom can make me believe in the "Father Time" episode, which struck me as a piece of unnecessary sensationalism when I read it. ("Father Time", in the novel, is the nickname of Jude's son by Arabella, who turns up towards the end of the story; the nickname is not actually used in the film, where the boy is referred to as "Juey").
Also Winterbottom, perhaps even less than Hardy, never really makes me understand just what Richard has done to merit his shabby treatment at the hands of his wife and his former pupil. In the novel he can come across as a rather dull pedant, but here, as played by the good-looking Liam Cunningham, he comes across as decent and likable. He is, admittedly, rather older than Sue, but in an age when older man/younger woman marriages were commonplace this in itself would not have been an obstacle to a happy marriage. (Cunningham, in fact, was only 35 when the film was made, only three years older than Christopher Eccleston, who plays Jude).
These points apart, however, "Jude" is overall a reasonably good film. Eccleston, who regards this as his best film, gives an excellent performance as Jude, a proud, passionate and free-spirited man who pays a heavy price for his defiance of social convention. (Apart from the failure of his university ambitions, Jude finds it difficult to get work when potential employers discover that he and Sue are "living in sin"). It has a dark, gritty look, quite different to the normal bright colours and lavish costumes of most British "heritage cinema", but this is appropriate to the humble social backgrounds of its main characters and to its sombre theme, the downfall of a young man who had much to offer society but found himself rejected by it. 7/10 -
It's an adaptation of Thomas Hardy's harrowing novel in which a young man (Played by Christopher Eccleston) falls in love with his cousin (played by Kate Winslet) upon meeting her for the first time. Their love is probably to blame for all the problems that come their way throughout the course of the film. Winslet is especially daunting as she is haunting in the character of Sue, a young woman who is just out to please the ones she loves until tragedy strikes and she is forced to think differently. Eccleston is stellar as the title character of Jude, a role that was also offered to the likes of Ewan Mcgregor and Colin Farell just to mention a few but just watching Eccleston in his first scenes as the character and you just cannot possible imagine anybody else playing the role. For the sake of art, you will have to endure full frontal nudity on the part of Winslet, as well as a graphic scene in which she gives birth. So, you've been fore warned. Director Michael Winterbottom, captures the beauty and picturesque nature of old England in his brilliant masterpiece.
-
newradical33620 July 2006did anyone notice as I did the use of Edinburgh for the town of, I think Christchurch, or some made up place where Jude goes to pursue university? Being home that I miss often i instantly recognised most of the scenes there as being filmed on the Royal Mile in the old town and directly around the square in front of St Giles. Also all the churchyard scenes, including their children's graves was in Greyfriars Churchyard nearby. i found it interseting why theyd give it a false name, furthered by the fact that in the scene in which Jude follows Sue into a public meeting in a hall the man speaking almost seems to be discussing the divide between "the new town" and "the old" which anyone who's visited Edinburgh will be well aware almost splits the town in two, the rich and the poor. the new town being visible in the film in scenes such as following the children's death and Sue's departure Jude follows her to an anonymous house before she returns to the church, I think its just below Queen Street. Where was that supposed to be by the way? Just happened to catch the film while flicking last night and thought it was ace, harrowing, but rewarding nonehteless.
-
spaamie114 November 2007I disliked the characterization of Sue in this film. Sue was supposed to be "higher" than Arabella, spiritual and intellectual. To see her smoking a strange man's cigarette and carousing with the boys in the bar was a bit of a shock. And the bit about "your child killed my children" was not at all like Sue. At no time in the book did she attach blame to anyone but herself. Her ultimate neurosis was her complete self-centeredness. She led poor Jude and Fillotson a merry dance and ended up ultimately rejecting both of them. That's one of the reason I detest this character, in the book as well as the movie. Nothing matters to her but herself. You even get the sense in the book that the death of the children only mattered in its reflection on herself.
The movie is also missing the ultimate irony, Arabella's second "seduction" of Jude and his eventual death in her home, in her bed. Christopher Eccleston is wonderful as a consumptive; they should have given him a lovely death scene instead of leaving him standing in the snow.
Kate Winslet is a beautiful Sue, but the characterization is a bit too tough and brazen. Christopher Eccleston was simply sublime. And did anyone else notice David Tennant in the bar? Two Doctors in the same room... :)