The Woodlanders

I haven't the slightest idea what a spoiler is and I doubt whether many folks who are not film buffs will know either, so I'll just have to hope that my comments don't enter that category and request that you use a non-jargon word in order that us ordinary punters can understand.

I cannot agree with comments made concerning the scenes dragging or the film itself lacking cinematic scope. Some critics have taken this view but I believe this is rather an indication of how susceptible critics can be to saying what they think people will expect them to say (whilst conveying the distinct impression that they are the most bravely objective critics in the world).

No, this is a film which refuses to go at the pace expected of it but, rather, courageously moves at the precise pace demanded of it by the overall direction and approach. I am glad I haven't read the book because it might have tempted me to try to make a like-for-like comparison and thereby go on to make erroneous deductions.

The two mediums, film and literature, demand different approaches and, to me anyway, this thoughtfully filmed tale is at ease with itself and that is all we can ask of it. It is not trying to be Gone With The Wind or even Pride and Pejudice, nor should it make the attempt.

Like Bleak House, it will completely glide past the attention span of the viewer who is anxious for untimely progression or who is not mentally prepared for its purposely ponderous and understated theme. What I would suggest, most humbly, is that anyone with doubts set aside a whole evening with nothing else planned and no interruptions possible. Then forget anything you have previously experienced concerning this tale and view it afresh. Put away any cynical prejudgement and consciously assume that the film's understated acting is fully intended as such. Then I believe your experience and enjoyment of this film will improve no end.

The director was no doubt under immense pressure to make this tale more paced and juicy. I, for one, fully commend him for resisting this and producing a magnificently restrained U film, a truly English shared countryside, domestic and subtly romantic experience - at least for anyone allowing it the space to embrace them. VNP.

Giles (Rufus Sewell) is the right-hand man to a successful, rural logger. A handsome gent, he and the business owner's daughter, Grace (Emily Woof) grew up together and became very attached. But, the logger always had a chip on his shoulder that he was not refined so he sent his only child to a finishing school for some years. Now, Grace is coming home and Giles is eager to re-establish a relationship with her. But, alas, the beautiful young lady, although quite kind, is hoping to make a better match, having her head filled with bookish nonsense. This stuns Giles but, he keeps on keeping on. Even when he loses his home to a local woman's pettiness, the handsome man stays true to Gracie and his community. As bad luck would have it, there is a new doctor in town and once Gracie meets him, she sets her sights on him and the interest is mutual, resulting in marriage. How can this be, when clearly the doctor is a somewhat pompous and flawed individual and Giles is such a handsome, true-to-you kind of male? This is a complicated tale from the great writer, Thomas Hardy, of 19th century England. Hardy excelled in penning books about ordinary, country folks who sometimes had terrible exchanges with the wealthier, more powerful classes. Tragedy was often the result and the story here is much of the same. Admirably, this film is never melodramatic or forced but tells the complicated story very well. Also, the cast is quite wonderful, all of them, even though Sewell or Polly Walker are the only known actors. Then, too, the setting in the English countryside is very lovely and authentic, showing the beauty and the rustic nature of the existence in another time, another place. Costumes, too, are sensational, the productions values are very fine, and the script and direction are most competent. If you adore the classics, romance, or historical tales, you would do well to search for the Woodlanders. It is a powerful story that would spark a most animated discussion, even as it entertains.

The Woodlanders is a complex but beautiful book, apparently Thomas Hardy's personal favourite of his work and you can see why(with me though it's Tess of the D'Urbevilles and Far from the Madding Crowd). Any adaptation of any book by any author deserves to be judged in some way on their own. Compared to the book this 1997 film adaptation of The Woodlanders does fall short, but it still has a lot of great things about it. The most underwhelming aspect was the ending, which was far too frantic- the adaptation also takes too much time to set up, so there were a couple of pacing issues here and there- and sudden, anti-climatic too. It would have been more powerful if Marty South's declaration of undying love was kept intact and if there was a sense of Hardy's depiction of how devastating and too-late-to-change coincidences can be. The film does feel too short, which might be a reason for why the ending was as it was and the lack of depth(too much of skimming-the-surface-but-not-enough-meat quality to it) and why characters like Mrs Charmond and Marty South seemed too briefly introduced and underused. The production values however are exquisite, especially the rustic and colourful scenery and cinematography that is sensitive and shimmering that strikes the right balance between not being too cinematic or too TV bound. The interiors are appropriately atmospheric(in a gloomy sort of way). The costumes and period detail are evocative, with little over-bleakness or too-cleanliness about them. And the lighting visually appeals- making long shots/scenes even more interesting than they already are- and matches the moods of each scene.

George Fenton's music score has a lot of beautiful sweep and passion, underlying the tragedy of the story convincingly but not obviously, unsurprising seeing as Fenton's music has always had that effect, while the script is literate and true in spirit to Hardy's prose. The story may lack the depth of the book and the beginning and end have pacing lulls, however it is still told beautifully and compellingly with faultless mood contrasts, and deserves further credit for matching the slow but spacious pacing of the book, handling the romance subtly, the rural if at times gloomy atmosphere it evokes and for how well it makes an effort to convey how the characters would interact, speak and behave. Phil Agland does a solid job directing, really not bad for a feature film debut. Rufus Sewell is a smouldering and affecting Giles, the character we feel the most for. Emily Woof's Gracie is luminous and strong-willed as well as equally touching, it's a different character for her and she acquits herself very well. Cal Macaninch is suitably sly and snobbish, while Polly Walker makes a sinister impact, Jodhi May is a sympathetic Marty South(more so than in the book) and Tony Haygarth makes for a very ideal father-figure, of the firm yet warm and well-intended kind. All in all, falls short but it is well made and earnestly done. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I found this very involving and affecting in a way that I've not found other Hardy adaptations or the books themselves. As a film it has an unusual combination of modesty of style - no great acting showiness - and of the characters themselves, allied to an inspired and faultless control of light and mood.

It has an immense integrity - the recreations of the woodlander's homes and workplaces, as mentioned earlier the superb faultless control of the quality of light (longish scenes shot just after dawn, at dusk etc etc), the authentic period behaviour and manners, the unforced pace mirroring the mood. It is full of traditional understated virtues both the story itself and in the way it wears its technical virtuosity.

If Titanic (mentioned by an earlier reviewer) was a great clanking iron CGI mechanical monster, heavy handed in all departments, this is all living and breathing humanity on a human scale - an increasingly rare treat.

Don't go in expecting a great deal of fun, romance or a happy ever after, as this is quintessential Thomas Hardy: dour, gloomy and glum. One of the best elements of THE WOODLANDERS is the setting: it takes place in a wooded village in a rural little corner of England, sometime in the 19th century. Such locales are bound to have plenty of atmosphere, and THE WOODLANDERS possesses it in spades. It's just a shame the story is so unappealing and determined to be depressing.

Rufus Sewell, in an early role, brings warmth and life to the film as humble woodsman Giles. He's in love with Emily Woof, who ends up betrothed to another man entirely (local doctor Cal Macaninch). Fleshing out the cast are Tony Haygarth (extremely typecast as a gruff but lovable type, but so good at it) and ROME's Polly Walker, vamping it up as the sinister Mrs Charmond.

This adaptation is well shot and, dare I say it, authentic. The main problem is that the cold characters are so hard to like, and that even includes heroine Emily Woof, who doesn't seem to see what's right under her nose. The only appealing character of the bunch is Sewell and he gets only a little screen time. Yes, this production is moving in places and the themes are engaging, so it's not all bad, but I would have preferred something with a little more drama and oomph.