The Mill on the Floss

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.

Mason plays the supporting role of Tom Tulliver in this adaptation of George Eliot's 'The Mill on the Floss'. Quite frankly, I didn't enjoy any of Eliot's novels so I wouldn't enjoy watching this film. Mason has a minor part, so it's not even worth watching anyway.

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.

George Eliot is widely regarded as one of the greatest novelists in the history of English literature, yet she is undiscovered country as far as the cinema- on both sides of the Atlantic- is concerned. Believe it or not, "The Mill on the Floss" is one of only two English-language feature films based upon her writing. The other is "A Simple Twist of Fate" from 1994, which took the basic plot of "Silas Marner" and transferred it from 19th century England to contemporary America. (There were several adaptations of her novels during the silent era, and a Spanish-language version of "The Mill on the Floss" was made in Mexico in 1940). This neglect of Eliot may be due to the length and complexity of her novels, making them more suitable for adaptations as television series, but length and complexity have not deterred film-makers from tackling many other 19th-century novelists. (Think how many films have been based on the work of Charles Dickens).

This website describes the story as "Romeo and Juliet in 1930s England", which is not really accurate. The film may have been made in the 1930s, but it is set around a hundred years earlier. The comparison with "Romeo and Juliet" is only partially accurate. The story may feature two lovers from feuding families, but Eliot's plot is more complex than Shakespeare's.

The "Floss" of the title is a (fictitious) river somewhere in the East Midlands. The two lovers are Maggie Tulliver, whose father Edward is the owner of the titular mill, and Philip Wakem, the son of a lawyer. The feud between the families arises when Edward Tulliver brings a lawsuit against a neighbouring landowner over water rights and Philip's father, James, acts for his opponent. After losing the lawsuit and being made bankrupt, Edward makes his family swear to have nothing to do with the Wakems, which puts Maggie in the position where she must decide between her family- her brother Tom wholeheartedly supports their father- and her lover. The complexities arise when Maggie also finds herself attracted to another man, Stephen Guest, who returns and encourages her attraction, even though he is engaged to her cousin Lucy.

Eliot's story is a good one on the printed page, but it does not really work in the context of this film, possibly because it is less than 90 minutes in length and a longer running time would have been needed to do justice to all the complexities of the novel. The film is in black-and-white- in 1936 colour was an expensive luxury- and lacks the visual attractiveness of the modern British "heritage cinema" style normally used in modern adaptations of the Victorian classics. The acting is unremarkable, with possibly the best contribution coming from a young James Mason as Tom, something of a hothead and unreasoning in his hatred of Philip, who has never done the Tulliver family any injury, but nevertheless capable and possessed of his own sense of honour and integrity. One thing the film does surprisingly well is the recreation of the great flood at the end of the story; the cinema technicians of the thirties were more skilled in the creation of special effects than we sometimes imagine. (The fire scenes in "In Old Chicago" are another example). The film, however, has little more than curiosity value for modern audiences. 5/10.

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!