Middlemarch

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.

To be honest, I don't think it's possible to translate the richness, depth and refinement of the book Middlemarch to the screen. A narrator gives the most beautiful comments, which is why this book is such high-class literature. The narrator was 'George Eliot', of course, and she was so wise, funny and compassionate that the story is reduced to half without her comments.

It's remarkable how George Eliot has set up Middlemarch. Usually, the narrator is on the outside of the story, and the events that take place with the characters make the story. But not in this case. The narrator is on the inside. He knows about life, psychology, philosophy, religion and spirituality, and he connects all this knowledge to the small lifes of the characters.

So, without the narrator, what's left is precisely this TV adaptation. It's the outside of the story. It shows the most beautiful clothes, gardens, coaches, china, townhouses, and music. The actors tell the story by saying the words their characters do and mimicking the feelings that go along with them. It's not bad at all. But it misses the heart, the inside.

How can we get to the inside of all the marriages without the narrator? How can we get to the personalities of all the characters without the narrator? It's simply not possible in this case. Maybe, with some class A actors we had a better chance, but that's not the case, unfortunately. So, like the characters without the narrator, we stumble through this adaption, which is remarkably fitting in a way.

If you like to see the outside of this story, watch this series. But if you want to see the whole package, please read the book.

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.

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.

Of all of George Eliot's novels, all of which are at least worth reading, Middlemarch gets my vote for personal favourite. It's an incredibly rich story in detail and emotion and the characters are human and complex, though some like Casaubon are purposefully not very likable. And what a brilliant adaptation this is, even better than 2002's Daniel Deronda and that was fabulous as well. Both share the same virtues but 1994's Middlemarch for me is superior because the ending is far more satisfying(if not as bleak as the source material). Middlemarch from a visual stand-point is of very high quality to look, the locations are just splendid, the costumes and period detail very authentic with an eye for detail and the series is wonderfully shot as well, simple but not simplistic and expressive but not overly-elaborate. The music is sensitively orchestrated and understated, not sounding out of place whatsoever. The writing is as rich and human as that in the book, the social commentary strongly emphasised without falling into the trap of swamping things. It also is delivered naturally, has a sense of structure and flow and is adapted intelligently. The adaptation is very faithful(apart from the omission of one plot-point), and the constantly riveting storytelling is layered without trying too hard or feeling bloated. It is easy for a faithful adaptation to be bogged down from being too faithful or trying to do too much, Middlemarch doesn't do that. The pacing is relatively slow and deliberate but the adaptation benefits from that. As anybody who's a fan of the book would argue for a book as detailed as Middlemarch is that that kind of pacing is needed so that it all makes sense and has time to breathe and resonate. The same can also be said for the long(around the 6-hour mark)length. The direction is controlled and subtle, doing nothing to undermine the drama within the story, and the acting is excellent from all. Robert Hardy in particular is a joy to watch, and Michael Hordern also seems to be having a ball. Juliet Aubrey plays Dorothea with strength and passion though the wild streak may take some getting used to, Douglas Hodge is appropriately dashing and idealistic and Rufus Sewell full of brooding charisma. Patrick Malahide makes for a creepy Casaubon, and Judi Dench's voice over is wonderfully sincere and makes the story comprehensible for those unfamiliar and manages to do that without feeling too obvious. To conclude, in every way this adaptation of Middlemarch is brilliant and does justice to a literary masterpiece. 10/10 Bethany Cox