The Mill on the Floss

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.

I am somewhat surprised that 2 out of the 6 reviews of this film were by people who hadn't even seen the film.I would count them as extremely lucky as this is a really dull affair,which at times doesn't even make sense.At the beginning the source of the feud is discussed and the law action started.Mason et al are all young children.We then go forward a few years ,it seems like 20 when Mson et all are adults and it appears that the law case over the mill has just been resolved.Well the wheels of justice may grind exceedingly slow but not that slow.One can only think that the producers were trying to replicate the success of David Copperfield,well it has to be said that they failed miserably.It is an effort to try and keep working out what is going on.At least Mason and Fitzgerald would go on to better things.

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.

This 1937 adaption of George Elliot's The Mill On The Floss gave film audiences James Mason's first starring role as Tom Tulliver, son of Sam Livesey who has a running feud over the water rights over a mill that Livesey owns on the river Floss. This feud over the water rights where it is determined that Felix Aylmer owns permeates the lives of the families involved.

Mason is an earnest and devoted son to Livesey and something of a lout. He ratchets up the feud several notches until that's just about all he lives for. But that's not how Mason's sister Geraldine Fitzgerald feels nor is it how Aylmer's son Frank Lawton feels. They carry on a Romeo and Juliet like romance despite the feelings of their respective families. And since you know where Elliot got her inspiration from, you also can probably deduce things end rather badly.

This film version could probably use a restoration since it is a key film in the career of James Mason. The streamed version I saw on Amazon looks like it hasn't stood the test of time. The Napoleonic and post Napoleonic era in the United Kingdom is well captured on the film, but the pace is slow and sluggish. The film should also be restored because of the climatic sequence of the flood which destroys some lives and the mill that was the cause of the great feud. It was probably a well staged disaster that I would have liked a better view of, it was pretty dark on my computer.

The Mill On The Floss is sluggish and considerably condensed from the Elliott novel, but still earnestly done by its cast.

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!