Under the Greenwood Tree

Every role Keeley Hawes has tackled has been played to perfection and totally believable, and her performance as "Fancy Day" in "Under the Greenwood Tree" was no exception.

This terrific Ashley Pharoah adaptation brought Thomas Hardy's novel (albeit abridged) and it's wonderful characters and settings to life, and credit must go to director Nicholas Laughland for his careful control, particularly in not allowing the comedy pieces to develop into slapstick. The entire production was superbly acted by a perfectly chosen and brilliant supporting cast.

The music too must not be forgotten. It melded in beautifully at every turn.

One minor criticism I have is the choice of the filming location. Not that I wish to denigrate the island of Jersey (I've been there and it's a beautiful place), but it's not Hardy's "Wessex", but then I suppose there's very little left of England that is. However great credit must go to the production designer Dave Arrowsmith for making us believe it was. (Incidentally I agree wholeheartedly with his exception of ALStubbino's comments. The latter must have been watching a totally different film to everyone else.) The only real downside was that the whole joyous occasion was over too soon. Thankfully I taped it, for this is one to savour.

Overall I liked this film: it was visually beautiful and the story was enthralling. The one criticism I have, and it is a big one, is that Keeley Hawes is miscast as Fancy Day. She is too old and world-wise. I understand she was born in 1977, which would make her 29 when playing the part. Hardy describes Fancy as "a young girl","oscillating between courage and shyness". At times the lines around Hawes' eyes and mouth give away her age, but the main failure is that she comes across as a self-assured, mature woman rather than an uncertain girl beginning her adult life, dominated by her father and dismayed by the attentions of three suitors.

This is a gentle adaptation of one of Thomas Hardy's classic novels. The script is very well done by Ashley Pharoah, who despite his name is not an illiterate Egyptian who can't spell pharaoh properly, but a Somerset person, steeped in Hardy's country and perhaps cider as well, who knows. Keeley Hawes plays the young schoolteacher and organist named Fancy Day who gets all the local men excited by coming to town and casting her spell over them without even meaning to. There is nothing like one of those demure beauties to get Hardyesque men's hearts a flutterin'. A lot of the film was shot in Hertfordshire, which is shocking, considering how much there is of the West Country crying out for more Hardy adaptations to be made where they were meant to be. But as the Americans (WGBH) were involved as co-producers, they must have insisted on a budget which could not stretch as far as Wessex, not appreciating from their foreign perch the difference between the real thing and a substitute. Nick Laughland, primarily know as a television drama director, has done an excellent job of telling this story simply and with charm. The story also features the replacement of the church gallery orchestra with a harmonium, a theme stressed by Thomas Hardy more than once in his writings. It obviously greatly grieved Hardy that the charming old style of music in the country churches with violins and bass fiddle was suddenly eradicated by the rude intrusion of a device known as a harmonium, which is a kind of portable organ. This was one of the examples of heedless 'progress' wiping out centuries of the real thing and replacing it with something deeply inferior and humdrum. But as we are always being told by the politicians and business magnates that progress always equals improvement, who are we mere ordinary creeping creatures that we are to doubt such wisdom from on high and give way to cynicism? The portrayal of the little church orchestra here is a moving illustration of what was lost in transition. And as for the love story, well, that holds us in suspense till the end. Upon whom will Keeley Hawes bestow her heart? Will she marry for money and social position and wed the local squire? Will she wed the vicar and travel to Venice, which she has always longed to see? Or will she choose the earnest local boy who adores her? Three marriage proposals are made, but only one can succeed. Will she choose aright?

As the designer on the production I take exception to the comments displayed in the ALstubbino review of "Under the Greenwood Tree". I can tell the writer of the last review that great care and extensive research was undertaken to achieve the sets and decor on the production, down to the smallest detail. I don't know what or where or how he/she has based their negative opinion perhaps they would like to enlighten us all as to where we went wrong!!. I enjoyed the production and for a TV drama think the production value and direction excellent. Under the greenwood tree is a fine adaptation of the original Hardy novel , not the novel itself, and as a TV drama stands up well, I would recommend it to anyone as a good family film.

A simple love story on the surface, the deeper genius of "Under The Greenwood Tree" lies in the understated brilliance with which it encapsulates – in a particularly moving and emotionally evocative way – the great social revolution that underlay the 19th Century.

The young schoolmistress newly arrived in a small rural village is sought in marriage by each of the three men who fall in love with her. But in this tale nothing, not even romance, proves quite as simple as first it appears.

We discover that the woman, Fancy Day (Keeley Hawes), is herself the product of a classic misalliance. Torn between the conflicting classes and cultures of her heritage, she feels herself part of neither. Her great life challenge is finding where she belongs in the world, and this internal conflict deeply colours her struggle to choose among her three suitors.

None of the three suitors, however, is quite what he first seems either – and yet each, in his own particular way, does love this woman.

The richest man in the area, Farmer Shiner (Steve Pemberton) we learn is a self-made man of a uniquely 19th Century sort. He may be descended from the traditional English yeoman farmers who had been small freeholders since Saxon days. But the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution would increasingly benefit larger scale farms over small. Farmers who, like Mr. Shiner, had the daring and foresight to increase their holdings beyond that held by their fathers were best positioned to survive and prosper under these new economic conditions.

Parson Maybold (Ben Miles) represents traditional birth and education, as opposed to new money, in the world of this village. But even he describes himself as a 'modern man' who believes in 'Progress'. As Mr. Maybold says in his Christmas Day sermon at the film's outset, 'The world is changing, and we must change with it.' To this end, he has hired Miss Day as village schoolmistress, so that even the poorest children in the area will learn basic skills they may need to cope with the changing world. All these values would have sounded alien just a generation before.

Yet it is the man who initially appears most straightforward who ultimately proves the most complex: Dick Dewy (James Murray), whose family have been the local carters or carriers in the area since time immemorial. When we first meet young Dick he seems simple, lighthearted, and uncomplicated. But as the story progresses, the challenge he faces becomes nothing less than the great social revolution of the 19th Century: men suddenly realising that their life choices need not echo that of their fathers. The evolving relationship between Dick and his father, Reuben Dewy (Tony Haygarth) is central not just to the film but to our understanding of the whole era. Dick's response to what I shall describe only as the 'Tea Incident' subtly presents a Declaration of the Rights of Man. Dick's later victory for self-respect thus becomes, in a sense, a victory for us all.

I find it significant that in this story the gentry, or traditional ruling class, is completely absent. This would not have been possible in an earlier generation. Jane Austen, for instance, could not have written this story. But by 1840 (when our story was set), and even moreso by 1872 (when the original novel was published), the real power structures throughout the rapidly industrializing world were changing, making omission of the gentry in both book and film not only reasonable but appropriate.

This recent BBC release of "Under The Greenwood Tree" is distinguished by brilliantly nuanced performances, not just from all principal actors but an extraordinarily strong supporting cast. Special credit is due Ashley Pharaoh for a truly inspired screenplay which is both more focused and more emotionally moving than Thomas Hardy's rather rambling original novel.

Beautifully realised in every detail, this village of Mellstock exists simultaneously nowhere – and everywhere. This is a romantic idyll of a time and a place where even the village idiot, Thomas Leaf (deliciously played by Richard Leaf), could feel accepted and part of a warm and loving community … whatever deep currents disturb its deceptively still waters.

10 out of 10. Highest recommendation.