Mill on the Floss (1978) (import)

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.