El gran vendaval

There have been several film adaptations of The Mill on the Floss, but the 1936 version is the only one I've ever seen. It reminded me very much of Hungry Hill, so if you liked that movie, you'll probably like this story as well.

Two families have a long-standing feud, and while the younger generation is aware of the enemy camp, they can't help but be drawn to it. Geraldine Fitzgerald falls in love with forbidden fruit Frank Lawton, and her brother James Mason has a fit. He's the "good kid" and hates his enemies as he's been taught. As James tries to stop the romance, he also faces his own prejudices and works hard managing his father's mill.

If you're not very well-versed in dry period pieces, you might fall asleep or get lost during this one. It tends to rush plot points, and it doesn't try very hard to "dummy things down" for the audience. But, if you like proper British stories, and you get wrapped up in feuds, try renting one of the versions of The Mill on the Floss and see what you think.

I am somewhat surprised that 2 out of the 6 reviews of this film were by people who hadn't even seen the film.I would count them as extremely lucky as this is a really dull affair,which at times doesn't even make sense.At the beginning the source of the feud is discussed and the law action started.Mason et al are all young children.We then go forward a few years ,it seems like 20 when Mson et all are adults and it appears that the law case over the mill has just been resolved.Well the wheels of justice may grind exceedingly slow but not that slow.One can only think that the producers were trying to replicate the success of David Copperfield,well it has to be said that they failed miserably.It is an effort to try and keep working out what is going on.At least Mason and Fitzgerald would go on to better things.

I can not go into a dissertation about the movie vs the novel. I can not write a comparative study of the The Mill on the Floss with other novels by George Eliot or her contemporaries. I do appreciate the other commenter's' reviews. However, I would like to correct a few factual errors. As a child, Tom Tulliver bullies his friend "Bob" (not Phillip) into giving him the shilling. Phillip, son of the elder Tulliver's nemesis, observes this act and chides Tom for his behavior in front of Tom's sister, Maggie. (PS - the wealthy family is not the Tullivers. Phillip and his father are wealthy and Tullivers are the working class.) As an adult, Bob and Tom become friends and business partners as Tom is not a bad person, but he certainly is a pigheaded one. However, Tom can not forgive Phillip and his father for the wrongs the old man brought onto the Tullivers and therein lies the basic conflict in the plot. All in all, I didn't think the movie was all that bad and the pace of the plot as well as the acting held my interest from beginning to end. If you are a James Mason fan, you will probably like it better than some of his other movies from that period.

This was Mason's first "serious" movie, and he was very good in it. And yes indeed it would have been glorious to see him have a turn at Heathcliff at that point in his career. Later, he should have had a crack at Mr. Rochester. Too bad...our loss.

I have always been more of a fan of George Eliot's stories than of many of her more, shall we say, "sentimental" contemporaries. Her stories were grittier, with far more realistic characters - and this is one of her best. A childhood feud spills over into adulthood and some unique pig-headedness that maximises the misery for the Tulliver and Wakem families. James Mason takes on his first major cinema role here, and he does it well as the opinionated "Tom", elder brother of "Maggie" (Geraldine Fitzgerald) who is admired by "Philip" (Frank Lawton), but he is from the family that put old man "Tulliver" from his mill after losing a law suit - a fact that "Tom" will neither forgive nor forget... There is a smattering of strong supporting characters from Martita Hunt, Fay Compton and Felix Aylmer to give added richness to this rather sad story of bloody-mindedness (and of the dependence young women had on their men-folks in the 1830s). The production is a bit stagey at times, but really redeemed by the last - tragic - ten minutes, and though this adaptation really does simplify the characters a little too much, it still clings on to enough of the story to make it worth a watch.

Haven't seen the movie, but having just finished the book I had to post in defense of Eliot and "Floss". The novel is not Eliot's best, but it should go without saying that bad Eliot is way better than most 'literary' fiction you find today. The structure of the book is not very good, and the last half of the novel becomes about the love triangle between Maggie, Phillip, and Stephen -- Tom gets lost in the shuffle a bit, until the very end. I can see James Mason in any of the male leads -- but probably he would have rocked as Phillip, the hunch-backed, somewhat effeminate soul mate for Maggie. Tom is a bit of stick of the mud in the book and frankly not that interesting a character. The book is all about Maggie though -- her internal conflict, between her duty to Tom and family, and her instinctive desire for personal happiness and fulfillment, make the book. I can't wait to see how this film handles her!