Far from the Madding Crowd

This is a wonderful adaption of the great Thomas Hardy novel. Though the 1960's version (starring Julie Christie, Alan Bates,and Terrance Stamp) is gorgeous, this film is not so dated and the performances are in keeping with the original intent of the novelist. All the principles are strong but especially impressive is Nigel Terry's performance as doomed Mr. Boldwood whose love for Bathsheba drives him from hope and new-found happiness to despair and frenzy.

The locations are beautiful - almost another character in the story. The dialects of the locals may be difficult to understand at first but my ear learned to listen. The video version allows for playback of difficult to understand dialog.

Definately worth the 4 hour investment. It made me re-read the novel and enjoy it all over again.

Having read this book more than once (it is my favorite Thomas Hardy book, and one of my favorite books of all time), and having seen both filmed versions, I have to say that the original version (with Alan Bates, Julie Christie and Peter Finch) cannot hold a candle to the second (with Nathaniel Parker, Paloma Baeza and Nigel Terry).

The original version was a great disappointment to me -- Julie Christie was, as another reviewer pointed out, too old for the part of Bathsheba, did not fit Hardy's description of her at all, and has never impressed me as much of an actress -- a major casting faux pas, in my opinion. Peter Finch, as Boldwood, did not elicit the strong feeling of empathy from me, as Nigel Terry did in his portrayal of the character. The greatest surprise to me, in regard to the first version, was that I also felt the same about Alan Bates' performance as Gabriel Oak -- he did not convey the emotions and the quality of Oak's character, as described by Hardy in the book, and I found his portrayal to be bland, boring, and, at times, overacted. Part of the blame would have to be shared by the director of that version -- the actors appeared to be acting, and neither they, nor the director, seemed to have a firm grasp or understanding of the explicit emotions and personalities of the characters, which Hardy had gone to great effort and detail to describe in the book.

After having seen Nathaniel Parker's interpretation of Gabriel Oak, I cannot imagine anyone else playing the part -- it was the first time I had seen Mr. Parker in any performance, and he ripped my heart out with his portrayal of this noble, dignified, aggrieved and tormented soul. He and Ms. Baeza, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Firth (Sergeant Troy), seemed to have a thorough comprehension of, and sensitivity toward, the characters as they were intended by Thomas Hardy -- they appeared to have walked straight out of the pages of the book! In addition, the sensitive and intuitive direction by Nicholas Renton drew powerful performances from all, including a superior supporting cast. The accurate period costumes, and beautiful sets and cinematography, serve to round out a production of true quality.

I highly recommend to anyone interested in this story, that he or she consider reading the book first. Although this screenplay remains true to the book, some of the detail which enhances understanding and feeling for the characters, the time period, and the plot, was edited due to time constraints, as is common with filmed productions of great pieces of literature.

I didn't think it was possible. I'd always loved the 1967 Julie Christie version with Alan Bates as the upright shephard Gabriel Oak. But having seen this version, then reading the book (amazingly readable) and re-watching the 1967 version, I definitely give my vote to Nathaniel Parker as my favorite Gabriel. (OK, so he's even cuter than Alan Bates circa 1967, so that part's a no-brainer!)

Seriously, comparing the two versions and the book (which is more Gabriel Oak's story), it is obvious how the Alan Bates part in the 1967 version was butchered to create more screentime for Terrance Stamp and Peter Finch as well as Julie Christie. It also became apparent to me that Julie Christie was too old for the part. Paloma Baeza is much more realistic (and likeable) as the headstrong, impetuous Bathsheba. I also liked the fact that there seemed to be more passion seething just beneath Gabriel Oak's surface veneer than in the 1967 version. The final scenes where she accepts his proposal and post-wedding are a lot more passionate (still without a single kiss, alas!) than the cool (dispassionate) ending of the 1967 version.

This is a beautifully realized adaptation. Producers took a risk in using the rural dialect, and it works. That's just another touch that makes the story and the characters more real than the Hollywood version. Baeza is a treat, and Parker has never been better. Writing, directing and performance wring out every heartbreaking and humorous emotion of the Hardy novel. My one quibble is that often the rural scenery seemed "too" green for the harvest time of year, but that's a wee mark.

I sometimes think that a film based on a Hardy novel should be shot at Stonehenge; the emotions brought out by his stories seem to be pre-Christian, the plot points seem to come from some dark corner of the human soul that Dickens and George Eliot never troubled to explore. I enjoyed this production while always remembering my dislike for Hardy's methods. Gabriel Oak is a wonderful creation and Nathaniel Parker is very effective in the part, I liked him more than Alan Bates, as good as Bates was.

Nigel Terry as Boldwood was the outstanding performance; his bull-like determination to have Bathsheba's hand, combined with his insecurities made a great impression. Jonathan Firth's part is a boy-toy basically; he doesn't have the substance to affect the viewer in any way. Paloma Baeza leaves an impression of not having thought out her character much, maybe she was a last-minute addition to the cast. She moves the story along well enough but the intellectual grasp of character is not there. It's the detail that makes the interest, the viewer keeps watching for the sheep-shearing and other aspects of rural life.