The Woodlanders (1997) User Reviews

Gloomy Thomas Hardy adaptation

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 27 September 2011]

Don't go in expecting a great deal of fun, romance or a happy ever after, as this is quintessential Thomas Hardy: dour, gloomy and glum. One of the best elements of THE WOODLANDERS is the setting: it takes place in a wooded village in a rural little corner of England, sometime in the 19th century. Such locales are bound to have plenty of atmosphere, and THE WOODLANDERS possesses it in spades. It's just a shame the story is so unappealing and determined to be depressing.

Rufus Sewell, in an early role, brings warmth and life to the film as humble woodsman Giles. He's in love with Emily Woof, who ends up betrothed to another man entirely (local doctor Cal Macaninch). Fleshing out the cast are Tony Haygarth (extremely typecast as a gruff but lovable type, but so good at it) and ROME's Polly Walker, vamping it up as the sinister Mrs Charmond.

This adaptation is well shot and, dare I say it, authentic. The main problem is that the cold characters are so hard to like, and that even includes heroine Emily Woof, who doesn't seem to see what's right under her nose. The only appealing character of the bunch is Sewell and he gets only a little screen time. Yes, this production is moving in places and the themes are engaging, so it's not all bad, but I would have preferred something with a little more drama and oomph.

Old-fashioned Hardy weepie

[miss_lady_ice-853-608700 · 7/10 · 14 May 2013]

There's something beautifully quaint about this film, based on a Thomas Hardy novel. It was made in 1997 but there's none of the sexing-up you'd expect in a modern film.

The Woodlanders are the inhabitants of a small village. Country folk Grace Melbury (Emily Woof) and Giles Winterborne (Rufus Sewell) were childhood sweethearts but when Grace comes back from boarding school, she finds herself unable to mix with Giles and the other villagers. Her father (Tony Haygarth) encourages her to marry new doctor Eldred Fitzpiers (Cal Macaninch) who is more befitting of her new educated self. However Fitzpiers cannot cope with mixing with the woodlanders, and Grace's heart pangs for Giles once more.

There are two things Thomas Hardy is famous for: gloomy fate and Wessex, a fictional version of South West England. The third thing that he should be famous for is romance. The film is achingly romantic as everybody pines for the person that they cannot have. There's a secondary character who is also in love with Giles- odd reclusive Marty South (Jodhi May), who shares Giles' passion for nature. I would like to have seen more of her character but maybe that would just add to the aching tragedy of it all.

Apart from the tragic finale, the gloomiest moment has to be when Giles' house gets demolished and Mrs Charmond (Polly Walker), a wealthy patient with her eye on Fitzpiers, complains that his house is blocking the road- cue a shot of a rotting pile of wood.

In a sense, the film is a bit like Marty South: odd, obscure, slow and innocent. The slow pace works in a sense as you soak up all the beautiful cinematography and the gorgeously tragic score. Characters never have massive rages of passion- in that sense, it's a little bit like Chekhov. Life, miserable as it is, goes on.

All of the characters are sympathetic, even Dr Fitzpiers. Macaninch's performance is enigmatic: on one hand, Fitzpiers is a cruel and adulterous snob; on the other, he's a man of science who just doesn't understand the old-fashioned ways of the country people. Grace's father does her the most harm, forcing her to better herself because of his own feelings of inferiority, and yet Haygarth gives a warm and touching performance.

As the leads, Woof is adorably childlike as Grace and Sewell makes for a nice simple countryman. The film- I don't know the novel- is all about simplicity and innocence. The world of sexual desire is not present here, making the intrusion of Mrs Charmond all the more unpleasant. Her garish red dress is completely out of place in the charming pastel attire of the villagers and one longs for her and Fitzpiers to leave so we can hang forever in that wonderful idyll.

My criticism would be that they could have fitted more in. The film seems to touch on the novel rather than portray it, and maybe a more conventional dramatic pace might have helped there. Maybe more probing of the social issues would have been good- really, just more of everything.

This is definitely a Sunday afternoon film- a slow languid weepy, just like the good old days, that you can watch with anyone of any age. But to be honest, it's the perfect film to watch on your own as you allow it to wash over you.

A Loves B Loves C Loves D Loves E

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 7 March 2014]

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

The Hardy Way

[Marcio Cuzziol · 10 May 2002]

Typical British drama based on a novel by Thomas Hardy, the author of "Jude the Obscure", "Tess of the d'Urbevilles" and "Far from the Madding Crowd". As usual in Hardy's stories, it is set on British countryside and focuses on the ordinary lives of its local people. As usual in this kind of movie, it is really well-made and extremely well-acted, but also bureaucratically directed.

Hardy's characters are quite human, they are always looking for happiness in the wrong places, making bad choices, missing the best opportunities. Here is not different. Marty loves Giles who loves Grace who loves him no more. She is unsure about her feelings since she returned from a period of studies in the town. The small village where she grew up doesn't look much attractive now, neither Giles does. She dreams about going abroad with Mrs. Charmond, the rich landowner widow, while she flirts with the newcomer young doctor - he also came from the town. Soon all of them will be facing the unavoidable fate.

The woodworker Giles (Rufus Sewell) reminds me the shepherd Gabriel from "Far from the Madding Crowd": both are honest, hard-working, heartbroken men. Emily Woof is just perfect as Grace; she looks like Cate Blanchett and she can even play like her. Unfortunately Jodhi May has just a small role as Marty the poor girl who sells her beautiful long hair to survive, a very sympathetic character. Tony Haygarth is also excellent as Grace's father, a well-intentioned man who wishes only the best for his daughter, but practically manipulates her life. I usually see Haygarth playing weird roles, like Renfield in "Dracula" (1979) or the Mad Hatter from Alice's Wonderland in "Dreamchild", so it is refreshing to see him playing normal types. Good film, good story, but not recommended for people looking for something light.

Earnest, well-made and atmospheric, a decent film that falls short

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 14 November 2013]

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

like pulling teeth

[MacyMay · 1/10 · 29 August 2007]

I'm a huge fan of period films including those from Thomas Hardy's works, e.g., Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Far From the Madding Crowd, The Mayor of Casterbridge, Under the Greenwood Tree, etc. I've enjoyed them all…and, yes, I've read a few, too!

I just recently rented the DVD, The Woodlanders, mainly for Rufus Sewell (exquisitely beautiful, as in Dangerous Beauty and A Knight's Tale, etc.) Though I've not finished the film in its entirety, I am, thus far, somewhat disappointed by the pace. It seems rather tired and incomplete, with all too brief and random character inserts; e.g., Polly Walker as Mrs. Charmond and Jodhi May as Marty South.

I'm not enthralled by the acting, either. Emily Woof as Grace gives a thoroughly uninspiring performance. Perhaps the direction is at fault, although it's apparently won some awards in that category.

Perhaps the fact that I just finished watching the totally captivating Dangerous Beauty; albeit, not a T.H. writing, casts an unfair comparison on this rather bleak and subdued setting.

I may get back to you with an improved impression later. _____ Sorry. No improvement. This movie could kill a passion for Rufus, too.

Again, the acting was so dull, so tedious, so lackluster and boring throughout, I feared I might expire before Giles did.

There's absolutely no chance that I would intentionally subject myself to the task of reading the book. No missing details from the written word could ever entice me.

What happened to fixate you so in misery, Mr. Hardy, that you should mire your writings in page after page of insufferable longing, sadness, and despair. Was it some sick pleasure you enjoyed to encumber your characters with ream after ream of unbearable and torturous quandary; and why do we come back for more!

(Saving Rufus, I might have liked the film better with a different cast or a different director: either one, for certain, might have saved it for me. Tsk. What a shame.)

Very good adaptation of Thomas Hardy's favourite novel

[barnabyrudge · 8/10 · 28 January 2003]

Thomas Hardy wrote such classics as Tess of the D'Urbervilles and The Mayor of Casterbridge, yet he always maintained that his best work was the often overlooked The Woodlanders. This film version is first-rate. I saw it a week after I saw the mega-budget Titanic, and I actually found this film more moving and more engaging that the costly James Cameron epic.

The story is faithful to the book, but omits some of the peripheral details. It's about a young woman who returns to a close knit woodland community after several years away. In that time, she has become an educated lady, and she finds it quite difficult to relate to the people she once grew up with, having experienced wider and more varied cultures. Her childhood sweetheart is a simple woodcutter, and she feels that she is now too "good" for him, so she forsakes her fondness for him and marries a wealthy and educated doctor, with tragic consequences.

The film was filmed in the New Forest (a gorgeous area of England) and it is a visual treat from first frame to last. The scenery is simply ravishing. Furthermore, the performances are very thoughtful and persuasive, complementing the sharp and carefully worked out script. This is definitely one of the best adaptations of a Thomas Hardy novel, and it can stand alongside Polanski's Tess and Schlesinger's Far From the Madding Crowd with its head held high.

Rather wonderful

[trimmerb1234 · 8/10 · 7 December 2007]

I found this very involving and affecting in a way that I've not found other Hardy adaptations or the books themselves. As a film it has an unusual combination of modesty of style - no great acting showiness - and of the characters themselves, allied to an inspired and faultless control of light and mood.

It has an immense integrity - the recreations of the woodlander's homes and workplaces, as mentioned earlier the superb faultless control of the quality of light (longish scenes shot just after dawn, at dusk etc etc), the authentic period behaviour and manners, the unforced pace mirroring the mood. It is full of traditional understated virtues both the story itself and in the way it wears its technical virtuosity.

If Titanic (mentioned by an earlier reviewer) was a great clanking iron CGI mechanical monster, heavy handed in all departments, this is all living and breathing humanity on a human scale - an increasingly rare treat.

Wonderful interpretation of Hardy's complicated classic; beautiful stars, beautiful scenery, too

[inkblot11 · 8/10 · 20 October 2009]

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.

brooding Hardy

[didi-5 · 14 April 2004]

'The Woodlanders' was one of Thomas Hardy's most involving novels, a key novel in his Wessex series concerning the land and the people who struggle with conscience and passion within it. This movie by Phil Agland takes the pace of the book but doesn't necessarily serve it well as a film.

Performance-wise the cast is well-chosen, with gorgeous Rufus Sewell in the lead role as the brooding woodman Giles, who keeps his feelings for the now-better-than-he Grace (Emily Woof) to himself; as Fitzpiers, Cal Macaninch makes the character just as unsympathetic as he was in print (a close cousin to the Brontes' Edgar Linton is this starchy doctor). Jodhi May completes the mix as Marty, the village girl who remains doggedly devoted to Giles.

The countryside is photographed well but the momentum lacks the cinematic scope which would have made this a truly interesting film.

Don't underestimate this special film - give it the time it deserves.

[vnpns · 9/10 · 18 August 2006]

I haven't the slightest idea what a spoiler is and I doubt whether many folks who are not film buffs will know either, so I'll just have to hope that my comments don't enter that category and request that you use a non-jargon word in order that us ordinary punters can understand.

I cannot agree with comments made concerning the scenes dragging or the film itself lacking cinematic scope. Some critics have taken this view but I believe this is rather an indication of how susceptible critics can be to saying what they think people will expect them to say (whilst conveying the distinct impression that they are the most bravely objective critics in the world).

No, this is a film which refuses to go at the pace expected of it but, rather, courageously moves at the precise pace demanded of it by the overall direction and approach. I am glad I haven't read the book because it might have tempted me to try to make a like-for-like comparison and thereby go on to make erroneous deductions.

The two mediums, film and literature, demand different approaches and, to me anyway, this thoughtfully filmed tale is at ease with itself and that is all we can ask of it. It is not trying to be Gone With The Wind or even Pride and Pejudice, nor should it make the attempt.

Like Bleak House, it will completely glide past the attention span of the viewer who is anxious for untimely progression or who is not mentally prepared for its purposely ponderous and understated theme. What I would suggest, most humbly, is that anyone with doubts set aside a whole evening with nothing else planned and no interruptions possible. Then forget anything you have previously experienced concerning this tale and view it afresh. Put away any cynical prejudgement and consciously assume that the film's understated acting is fully intended as such. Then I believe your experience and enjoyment of this film will improve no end.

The director was no doubt under immense pressure to make this tale more paced and juicy. I, for one, fully commend him for resisting this and producing a magnificently restrained U film, a truly English shared countryside, domestic and subtly romantic experience - at least for anyone allowing it the space to embrace them. VNP.

A Wonderful Thomas Hardy discovery

[kijii · 8/10 · 1 November 2016]

I have really discovered Thomas Hardy through wonderful movies like Tess (Tess of the d'Urbervilles) (1979), Far from the Madding Crowd (1967 & 2015) and the 1978 TV mini-series of The Mayor of Casterbridge as well as the 1971 TV mini-series , Jude the Obscure (1971).

This is also a wonderful discovery for those of us who have come to love movie versions of Thomas Hardy novels (or stories). It tells the story of a young woman who has been sent off to finishing school by her father so that she can rise above the level she has grown up in: the lower- class timber workers of the deep woods in 19th-century rural England.

Though she and a local woodlander had had an agreement to marry when they came of age, her father wants something better for her and encourages her to marry a local doctor who lives and practices in the village. She agrees to marry the doctor, but soon learns that he cannot stand the crude rustic manners of the local people.

This sets up a series of conflicts between her and her father as well as the way she feels about the life she had been raised in and the life that her father wants for her. I love the way the story unfolds as well as the dark (and often wet) sylvan atmosphere that it so capably captures and inhabits.

Superb

[ianmabb · 10/10 · 23 June 2018]

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!