ianmabb Saw this at our wonderful new local cinema just a mile or so from where most of the film was shot. We were even lucky enough to have a Q and A with the cinematographer who worked on the film after. He lives locally, by the name of Ashley Rowe. I absolutely loved the film, and what a terrific chap! He rounded off a fab night with extremely interesting information about the shooting of the film and his role in it. Thank you so much to him for attending, despite having to leave for the shooting of a new film it London tomorrow at some ridiculously ungodly hour! A special thank you to the Regal volunteer Barry Robbins, who helps run our fab new cinema. You are doing an amazing job Barry! A terrific evening for me, which as a keen Thomas Hardy fan it is hard to top. If Mr Rowe should happen to read this - do watch Schalcken the Painter. It was actually 1979 (not 1982) , but the link re the point re treatment of light, I think, is a valid one. Plus - please try and make Under the Greenwood Tree!

James Hitchcock Despite his prominent position in the canon of English literature, Thomas Hardy has never really been a mainstay of the cinema in the way that, say, Dickens or (at least in recent years) Jane Austen have been. Although there have been occasional excellent Hardy adaptations, such as Schlesinger's "Far from the Madding Crowd" or Polanski's "Tess", a number of his novels have never been the subject of a feature film. There were, however, television adaptations of two of his novels in the mid-nineties, "The Return of the Native" in 1994 and "The Woodlanders" three years later. I deliberately watched the two films over the same weekend for the purposes of comparison. The two novels have basically similar plots, both being organised around a "love pentagon" along the lines of "A loves B, who loves C, who loves D, who loves E", although in "The Return of the Native" things are complicated by the fact that D (Eustacia) still has feelings for C (Wildeve) despite her marriage to E (Clym). In "The Return" the pentagon involves three men and two women; in "The Woodlanders" it is the other way round. A is Marty South, a young peasant girl who is in love with the woodsman Giles Winterborne (B), but he is in love with his childhood sweetheart, Grace Melbury (C). Grace, however, rejects Giles's proposal of marriage under pressure from her nouveau-riche father, who regards him as being not good enough for his daughter. She eventually marries the well-born young doctor Edred Fitzpiers (D), but the marriage is not a happy one and he begins an affair with a rich widow named Mrs. Charmond (E). Hardy regarded "The Woodlanders" as one of his best novels, and many contemporary reviewers agreed with that assessment, but twentieth and twenty-first century critics have not always followed suit. Certainly, as a film this version is not anywhere near as good as "The Return of the Native" which contained some excellent acting performances, especially from the young, pre-stardom Catherine Zeta Jones. The main weakness is the casting of Rufus Sewell as Giles. Giles Winterborne is reminiscent of some of Hardy's other characters, notably Gabriel Oak in "Far from the Madding Crowd" and Diggory Venn in "The Return of the Native". All three are plain and simple countrymen, decent and uncomplaining, who patiently and faithfully continue to love a woman despite an initial rejection. The difference is that Giles is the tragic hero of "The Woodlanders", whereas Gabriel and Diggory are eventually rewarded for their patience. (In those two novels the full force of the tragedy falls upon others). Sewell, however, seems to mistake Giles's patient stoicism for stolidity and lack of emotion, and plays him throughout as a dull, unresponsive fellow, wearing virtually the same expression, one of hangdog resignation, in every scene. I was surprised to see him smile briefly at one point, but presumably he needed to keep a second expression in reserve, just in case the first one should get worn out through overuse. None of the other acting contributions stand out, and Emily Woof makes a bland and forgettable Grace. The most memorable thing about her is her odd surname; I had to see it in print several times before the penny finally dropped and I realised that she was not called "Emily Woolf". (Just as it took me a long time to realise that Uma Thurman really was called "Uma" and not "Una"). As with most British "heritage cinema" productions the costumes and period detail are well done, and the woodland scenery is attractive, but this is far from being the best historical drama of recent years. 6/10

TheLittleSongbird The Woodlanders is a complex but beautiful book, apparently Thomas Hardy's personal favourite of his work and you can see why(with me though it's Tess of the D'Urbevilles and Far from the Madding Crowd). Any adaptation of any book by any author deserves to be judged in some way on their own. Compared to the book this 1997 film adaptation of The Woodlanders does fall short, but it still has a lot of great things about it. The most underwhelming aspect was the ending, which was far too frantic- the adaptation also takes too much time to set up, so there were a couple of pacing issues here and there- and sudden, anti-climatic too. It would have been more powerful if Marty South's declaration of undying love was kept intact and if there was a sense of Hardy's depiction of how devastating and too-late-to-change coincidences can be. The film does feel too short, which might be a reason for why the ending was as it was and the lack of depth(too much of skimming-the-surface-but-not-enough-meat quality to it) and why characters like Mrs Charmond and Marty South seemed too briefly introduced and underused. The production values however are exquisite, especially the rustic and colourful scenery and cinematography that is sensitive and shimmering that strikes the right balance between not being too cinematic or too TV bound. The interiors are appropriately atmospheric(in a gloomy sort of way). The costumes and period detail are evocative, with little over-bleakness or too-cleanliness about them. And the lighting visually appeals- making long shots/scenes even more interesting than they already are- and matches the moods of each scene. George Fenton's music score has a lot of beautiful sweep and passion, underlying the tragedy of the story convincingly but not obviously, unsurprising seeing as Fenton's music has always had that effect, while the script is literate and true in spirit to Hardy's prose. The story may lack the depth of the book and the beginning and end have pacing lulls, however it is still told beautifully and compellingly with faultless mood contrasts, and deserves further credit for matching the slow but spacious pacing of the book, handling the romance subtly, the rural if at times gloomy atmosphere it evokes and for how well it makes an effort to convey how the characters would interact, speak and behave. Phil Agland does a solid job directing, really not bad for a feature film debut. Rufus Sewell is a smouldering and affecting Giles, the character we feel the most for. Emily Woof's Gracie is luminous and strong-willed as well as equally touching, it's a different character for her and she acquits herself very well. Cal Macaninch is suitably sly and snobbish, while Polly Walker makes a sinister impact, Jodhi May is a sympathetic Marty South(more so than in the book) and Tony Haygarth makes for a very ideal father-figure, of the firm yet warm and well-intended kind. All in all, falls short but it is well made and earnestly done. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Amy Adler Giles (Rufus Sewell) is the right-hand man to a successful, rural logger. A handsome gent, he and the business owner's daughter, Grace (Emily Woof) grew up together and became very attached. But, the logger always had a chip on his shoulder that he was not refined so he sent his only child to a finishing school for some years. Now, Grace is coming home and Giles is eager to re-establish a relationship with her. But, alas, the beautiful young lady, although quite kind, is hoping to make a better match, having her head filled with bookish nonsense. This stuns Giles but, he keeps on keeping on. Even when he loses his home to a local woman's pettiness, the handsome man stays true to Gracie and his community. As bad luck would have it, there is a new doctor in town and once Gracie meets him, she sets her sights on him and the interest is mutual, resulting in marriage. How can this be, when clearly the doctor is a somewhat pompous and flawed individual and Giles is such a handsome, true-to-you kind of male? This is a complicated tale from the great writer, Thomas Hardy, of 19th century England. Hardy excelled in penning books about ordinary, country folks who sometimes had terrible exchanges with the wealthier, more powerful classes. Tragedy was often the result and the story here is much of the same. Admirably, this film is never melodramatic or forced but tells the complicated story very well. Also, the cast is quite wonderful, all of them, even though Sewell or Polly Walker are the only known actors. Then, too, the setting in the English countryside is very lovely and authentic, showing the beauty and the rustic nature of the existence in another time, another place. Costumes, too, are sensational, the productions values are very fine, and the script and direction are most competent. If you adore the classics, romance, or historical tales, you would do well to search for the Woodlanders. It is a powerful story that would spark a most animated discussion, even as it entertains.