Andrew reviews and compares the two versions of Far from the Madding Crowd.
Typically
when a film is currently remade, there’s a good chance the original, previously
long unavailable on DVD or Blu-Ray, will get a re-release. Such is the case with Midnight Cowboy director John Schlesinger’s 1967 adaptation of
Thomas Hardy’s (no relation to Mad Max)
1874 Victorian novel, Far from the
Madding Crowd. A stark as well as
intimate period drama set in the desolate region of Dorset, England, Far from the Madding Crown tells the
quiet tale of Bathsheba Everdene (Julie Christie), a farm woman caught in a
love triangle involving three different men: a sheep farmer, a dashing Sergeant
and an elderly wealthy bachelor. A
social critique of behaviorisms of the time exacerbated by the isolated
location as well as a down to Earth story of a headstrong business woman who
can’t decide between who she wants and who she ought to settle down with. A sumptuous Oscar contender in the vein of Gone with the Wind if there ever was
one, the sprawling epic full of magnificent vistas was almost completely
forgotten by cinemagoers for decades until Danish Dogme 95 co-founder Thomas Vinterberg (best known for The Celebration and most recently The Hunt with Mads Mikkelsen) announced
he would be remaking the film with Carey Mulligan as Bathsheba. While there have been several adaptations of Far from the Madding Crowd in both
theater and film, the Schlesinger and Vinterberg renditions remain the most
prominent and accomplished. With this,
the Movie Sleuth takes a concerted look at both of these solid romantic period
dramas in an effort to conclude which of the two adaptations we feel is
superior to the other.
The Original: 1967
 |
| Original: "I don't need to wear protection. I have this awesome suit." |
Intended
by Schlesinger and his leading lady Julie Christie (fresh from David Lean’s Doctor Zhivago) to be their ticket to
the Oscars, the director’s overblown yet visually magnificent take on Thomas
Hardy’s novel is something of a flawed yet beautiful epic. Spanning three hours with an overture and
intermission, Far from the Madding Crowd is
best remembered for its expansive rural vistas of the beige fields and deserted
grasslands overlooking cliffs and ocean fog.
Lensed by future Don’t Look Now
and The Man Who Fell to Earth
director Nicolas Roeg, this is a film so staggeringly beautiful you honestly
don’t mind the leisurely pacing and lengthy wide shots of herds of sheep
corralled about the plateau. Closest to
films like Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon
with a hint of David Lean’s adaptation of Great Expectations, Schlesinger’s adaptation also benefits greatly
from its superb casting. Alan Bates
brings humility and warmth to the impoverished but street smart sheep farmer
who makes up for his simpler role in life with dedicated loyalty. Terence Stamp nearly steals the show in a
role he was born to play with Frank, part time honorable Sergeant, full time
gambling freeloader whose serpentine charms woo the film’s heroine if only for
a while. Giving the cast just the right
touch is the late but always great Peter Finch (best known for Sidney Lumet’s Network) as William, a wealthy but socially awkward elderly bachelor,
imbuing the old figure with fascination and poignancy.
Distinctively
British in dialect with particular attention to both the grandiosity of the
locations as well as the costume and set design key to the period, Far from the Madding Crowd intends to
transport the viewer back in time while focusing on a modern love
triangle. Unlike the schmaltz of lovey
dovey period dramas, Schlesinger’s adaptation of Hardy’s tale is surprisingly
unsentimental with a certain degree of detachment. Keeping us at arm’s length from Bathsheba,
played with complexity and conviction by Julie Christie, Schlesinger uses the
vastness of the open mountains and plains to evoke a sense of desolation both
in a figurative and literal sense. It
isn’t so much the men in Bathsheba’s life define her as the region defines
everyone’s actions, offering escape and imprisonment in equal measure.
While
effective and probably accurate, Schlesinger’s colder approach also makes it
somewhat difficult for the audience to empathize with Bathsheba’s actions. Much of the time, we can’t help but throw our
arms up in frustration over the unapologetic foolishness of Bathsheba’s
decision making. Roger Ebert correctly
asserted in his somewhat dismissive review Schlesinger missed the mark by
withholding understanding of her plight.
Though we spend three hours with this woman and manage to oversee every
aspect of her life, we still emerge feeling like we’re on the outside looking
in, never really getting inside the character.
On the one hand you have to laud Schlesinger’s lack of compromise by
making Bathsheba an open book even if we’re often in disagreement with
her. On the other hand, that openness also
makes it somewhat difficult to invest in emotionally. Overall Schlesinger’s period drama is a
sincere effort with many glorious images overpowering the screen. It doesn’t get everything right but you can’t
fault him for trying. Ultimately neither
Christie nor Schlesinger achieved the critical or commercial acclaim they hoped
they would with Far from the Madding
Crowd, but to Schlesinger’s credit he did make the Best Picture winning X
rated feature Midnight Cowboy immediately
afterwards.
The Remake: 2015
Over
the years Hardy’s novel found itself readapted for the stage and television
scene. Circa forty eight years later,
now here is the latest full-fledged cinematic adaptation of Hardy’s novel, this
time starring Drive muse Carey
Mulligan in the role of Bathsheba.
Directed by Thomas Vinterberg, better known as the other half of Lars
Von Trier, this understated newly released adaptation utilizes all the same
high points of the novel, including locations, set pieces and similar shot
arrangements from the 1967 version.
Although you can’t change how the region appears on camera, I was
surprised just how much the remake followed in the footsteps of the original in
terms of set pieces. Besides running at
a tighter length of just under an hour and a half, what sets apart this newer
version is Mulligan and Vinterberg’s take on Bathsheba. If there’s one thing Schlesinger’s adaptation
didn’t do, it was provide empathy for its central protagonist, something the remake
does surprisingly well despite connecting all the same dots as its
predecessor. In short, I liked and
understood Mulligan’s Bathsheba far better than Christie’s. It also says something to tell the same story
greater by taking out the sprawl of the original in favor of a more grounded,
minimalist approach. Where the first film was all about the high notes, the new
film deliberately goes for lower ones and in so doing achieves a wisdom about
the material not present in the first.
 |
| Remake: "I forgot to bring protection. I'll just use this awesome suit." |
For
instance, Mulligan and Christie’s take on Bathsheba comes across as headstrong
but Mulligan gets extra plaudits for allowing Bathsheba collected composure
instead of leaping from one knee jerk emotion to the next. When Bathsheba gets more involved than she
soon realizes she should have with the dashing Sergeant, she expresses regret
here where Christie is either oblivious or refuses to admit it to herself. Other little bits that are subtle in
execution but significant in context help to soup up Bathsheba’s reputation, such
as including scenes of her actually helping in the physical work of the farm as
opposed to the carefree frolicking of Julie Christie. In a pivotal scene where a herd of dying
sheep forces her to overcome her misjudgment of Gabriel (Matthias Schoenaerts)
and renew his position of employment, Mulligan’s Bathsheba actually goes to
retrieve him herself as opposed to just passing the task onto one of her
servants. Mulligan’s emotional control
of the character also creates a greater degree of respect for Bathsheba, who
was an emotional basket case when played by Christie.
The
only area that’s somewhat lacking involve her other two suitors, Frank (Tom
Sturridge) and William (Michael Sheen).
While good, Tom Sturridge doesn’t hold a candle to Terence Stamp in
terms of how arresting his sergeant is to Bathsheba. We still gather he’s a freeloading schmuck
but when you’ve got Terence Stamp as that guy, he’s understandably a bit harder
for women to resist. And then there’s the
age difference between Bathsheba and William, downplayed here by Michael Sheen
who also makes him far more sociable than Peter Finch did. The age difference felt greater with Peter
Finch and thus made Bathsheba’s indecision with whether or not to wed her elder
a bit easier to understand. On a visual
scale, Vinterberg’s film lies somewhere between honoring Schlesinger’s images
before applying his own Dogme 95 style to certain scenes, notably with Frank’s
seduction of Bathsheba. While nowhere
near the operatic grandeur of Schlesinger’s images, Vinterberg’s take on Hardy
actually surpasses the original for allowing viewers to warm up to Bathsheba,
making her a smarter, worldlier woman than the 1967 film ever did.
The Verdict
Though
I much prefer the almost David Lean-esque scope of John Schlesinger’s version,
The Movie Sleuth has to go with the most recent 2015 adaptation by Thomas
Vinterberg for simply giving viewers a better Bathsheba as well as tightening
the belt. While the original was never
boring or tedious, it could have used a bit more editing in some areas that
tend to meander. Vinterberg manages to
tell the identical story as Schlesinger did but with greater brevity and
clarity. The splendor of Schlesinger’s
vision is as undeniable as it is overwhelming, but we’re not always sure of
what he thinks about the material. With
Vinterberg, he declares himself by making Bathsheba a multi-dimensional
character with reserve and composure. Don’t
get me wrong, I love the cast of Schlesinger’s version and might actually prefer
it to the Vinterberg version.
Objectively speaking though, I felt detached from Bathsheba in the
original where in contrast I was engaged by her in the remake. In the newer version, you actually came away
feeling as if you knew Bathsheba and could manage to relate to her actions
however naïve they may overtly seem.
-Andrew Kotwicki