Middlemarch

Andrew Davies has had a very good career adapting classic novs for TV, on the back of the BBC's classic 1995 Pride and Prejudice. But Austen's book was already written almost like a film script - all he had to do was copy out the words. He tried the same trick slightly earlier in this version of perhaps the greatest English novel, but it doesn't work nearly so well.

The book depends so much on the author telling us about the characters' inner lives - something which can't just be transferred wholesale to a narrator. It seems simple but is actually almost as difficult to adapt as things like Ulysses or The Steppenwolf, and this version no more than scratches the surface. I suspect it must seem dull to those who don't know the book, certainly it didn't make anything like the splash of P&P. It must be a bit embarrassing to put on such a lavish production and get only one BAFTA nomination, for the music.

The cast is good and two in particular are perfect: Patrick Malahide as Casaubon and Rufus Sewell in his breakthrough role as Ladislaw - he has never suited any other part quite so well. Juliet Aubrey, sadly, comes nowhere near doing justice to Dorothea, one of the most attractive heroines in literature; she has the earnestness but not the luminousness.

It was originally a BBC production, but I gather from these reviews that Masterpiece Theater added a voiceover for the benefit of you dumb Yanks, eh? :)

TeeVee miniseries exist because of strange economic wrinkles. The nature of the medium is so episodic, so finely grained that it is forced to satisfy the needs created by the sameness and thinness. Its why MacDonalds' sells chicken.

So just as the main fare is perverted in a cartoonish simple sense, so is the antidote extreme in the other.

To feed this beast, you need to have stories that only have scope in the larger context and you must (a rule) be able to get that context only by watching more than one chunk, what in TeeVee land is called an episode. Its a strange term that belies its odd requirements.

Into this niche have long come soap operas, shaped by emotional bumpings and worries of extreme characters. And for a few decades the rich uncle of soap operas have flourished as well. These have to be lush, set in a romantic era. And if they come from a respected novel, so very much the better.

Its better because viewers think they are doing something intelligent, and also because writers don't have to thrash out the essential mechanics. But in reality it doesn't matter what the source material, these all go through more or less the same refining process and come out the other end much the same. Its a matter of market need.

If you actually read the books behind these you'll find a bewildering variety that isn't apparent in their small screen translations. Where Austen (for example) was all about the appearance, Eliot was about the internal holding of bonds. Where Austen was all about attaining a position, Eliot, writing in the next generation, was about the challenges of holding those positions.

In a way, Eliot's innovation was get inside, under the appearance. It doesn't matter what the doctor's house or service look like, only that some nitwit thinks the appearance is important. Its a bit scandalous that as we consume this product, what attracts us, at root, is the appearance of the thing. We are the enemy she writes about.

If you just glanced at this, you'd find it indistinguishable from any of the other such pretty things it is classified with. Its a true insult to the book. An absolute scandal. The creative team should be driven out of the village. Cinematic heathens!

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Middlemarch is widely considered one of the greatest English-language novels, the equal of Moby Dick and Ulysses. It is not plot and characters that make masterpieces; those essentials ultimately matter less than use of language and the quality of the thought, two things that cannot be fully equalled on screen. But this Middlemarch is about as good as it ever gets.

Consider this sentence from Eliot, about a vain young girl in the presence of a man she wants: "Every nerve and muscle in Rosamond was adjusted to the consciousness that she was being looked at." Reading that, you feel it. Or this, about blind love: "Strange, that some of us, with quick alternate vision, see beyond our infatuations, and even while we rave on the heights, behold the wide plain where our persistent self pauses and awaits us." I could open Middlemarch at random, to any of its 800+ pages, and find sublime observations like those.

Andrew Davis (writer) and Anthony Page (director) obviously cherish Eliot's book. The tone, the pace, the mise-en-scène in England and in Rome-- all of it is superb. The principal actors, Juliet Aubrey, Rufus Sewell, Douglas Hodge, and especially Patrick Malahide bring it all to life, aided by an ensemble of British actors, most of whom were known to me because of their distinguished careers. (There are weaknesses, of course, including two young actresses, Trevyn McDowell and Rachel Power, who are just good enough).

I've read Middlemarch three times, and watched this series twice, between readings. Perhaps the greatest compliment I can give it is that the praiseworthy incarnation of Eliot's characters actually served to enhance the 2nd and 3rd reading of her remarkable novel.

Just loved this series. As a lover of British period drama this is one of my favourites. Some fabulous acting to boot. Can't believe someone said the actors were too old, Rufus Sewell being 40 when this was made. Not true, he was 27. Quite an exaggeration considering it was made 28 years ago. I would much rather some great acting by established actors than more age appropriate cause it fits the narrative more. Definitely not old by any means. So many wonderful characters in this, that it's hard to pick a favourite but I do really like Dorothea who the series is based on. Quite a fan of George Eliots novels. Can't fault this production.

I'm reading MM for about the 5th time - agreeing with whoever it was who said it's one of the really great 'grown-up' novels.

I looked up the TV movie as well (first time since it was released) and it holds up wonderfully well - mainly because it sticks to well to the text - or at least to a stripped-down version of the text. Almost all the characterization is first-rate.

The only thing that gave me pause was Patrick Malahide. A fine actor, but he struck me as both too young and too 'human' for Casaubon; in fact rather 'acting' the part of an older man and a monster of egotism. Can one imagine him writing that truly appalling letter of proposal to Dorothea? I don't think so.