Reviews

The 2015 version of Hardy's enduring rural tale is a nice film. It's pretty to look at and if you havn't read the book or seen the definitive 1967 film version, it's enjoyable with (mostly) good performances, score and cinematography. But if you have read Hardy's original or watched the John Schlesinger-directed epic, it will seem rather on the 'lite' side. The book and that 1967 film are not just pretty, they are truly beautiful.

The 2015 version simply does not have the stature. For one thing it's far too short. Clearly it doesn't have the budget, but that does not excuse it. So much is missed, so many key moments pass without sufficient fanare, too much enjoyable detail is diminished, the score is less rousing the cinematography less arresting and the casting... well the task of matching Christie, Stamp, Bates and Finch was practically impossible to begin with!. When the 1967 film was in production these were four of the hottest actors on screen. All genuine stars. When you watch that version you cannot fail to appreciate why. Julie Christie gives Bathsheba a to-die-for quality that Carey Mulligan simply cannot emulate. No criticism of Mulligan, who's a great actress and very watchable, but Julie Christie at that moment in time had something that was simply magical on screen. Similarly the new incarnation of the villainous Sergeant Troy is a very pale shadow of Terence Stamp's swaggering seductive bad-boy. Neither actor makes any effort at giving this character the local accent he should have possessed, but little matter, Stamp strides into the film every inch the red-coated sword carrying officer and commands attention throughout. That his Troy captivates Christie's Bathsheba is entirely understandable. There is electricity between them in every scene. Frankly what Mulligan's Bathsheba sees in her weedy, grumpy, pouting Troy is unfathomable. The whole crux of the story is basically lost at this point and her actions cease to make sense. What the hell is she doing? Not that the casting is entirely to blame here, the role us badly underwritten in this version, much of Troy's character development is simply left out, his motivation entirely unexplored. The character and thus one vital third of the entire story is truncated and this unbalances the whole film.

Alan Bates' 1967 portrayal of the faithful and likeable Oak is perfectly in tune with the book , he is an instantly recognisable representation of a Hardy character and the on-off interaction with Christie's Bathsheba rings true throughout . She would play him along and he would wait for her. It almost works in the new version but like every other aspect it's simply a lesser rendition, lacking in spark and depth. The 2015 Oak is just rather bland. Would he wait for her? Well...he doesn't have much else to do ... Michael Sheen give's Peter Finch a fair run for his money as the tragic Mr Boldwood but again is hampered by the pared down adaptation. Finch's version has room to brood and evolve, his social status is more subtle, his feelings for Bathsheba more faithfully observed. Sheen, a great actor, does not have enough to work with. Neither do any of the lesser characters. Every one of them has far more input into the 1967 version, each is a nicely drawn cameo, a personality. Glorious little scenes like the drunken progress of the cart drawing Fanny Robbin's coffin add a comedy and a pathos lacking in the newer version. And it's not just these vignettes that we miss, there is a distinct underplaying of many significant scenes. Oak's dog driving the sheep over the cliff , which is brilliantly directed and photographed in Schlesinger's film looks hurried and rather cheaply made in the new one. The famously seductive demonstration of swordplay, dazzling and memorable , among the most famous scenes in 1960s cinema, becomes a brief, puzzling, yet forgettable and insignificant moment. It could easily have been written out for all the good it did.

I could go on. The wedding barn-dance, the storm, Bathsheba's song at the feast , the opening of the coffin and even the climactic shooting, all so wonderfully timed and staged by Schlesinger, are somehow flunked here. The moment lost. The point being made often rather hard to see.

I'm not intentionally ripping this newer version to shreds, and I know it sound like I am, it's simply a reflection on how damned good the 1967 version was in almost every respect. It's not prefect. No film is perfect and no literary adaptation avoids corner cutting but the 2015 cuts rather too many and just does not compare. These are two different films. One is pretty but the other is truly, ravishingly beautiful.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILER. Claude Chabrol knew how to make a great movie and over a long career, proved as much again and again. But his considerable output was prone to occasional dips and miss-fires in between the successes. WHO'S GO THE BLACK BOX? / THE ROAD TO CORINTHE is perhaps one of his worst. Like many (most?) of his lesser works it's an international co-production without the elements that he used so well - there is no dysfunctional family, no large country house setting and no bourgeoisie to prod and chastise. Instead we have a very mid 60's staple of glamorous spies and cold war paranoia. But it doesn't work on any level. The plot is too convoluted to follow and the characters too flimsy to care about. There's no one to root for or worry about while the action itself never sparkles, there's no memorable chase sequence and little suspense.The promising cast look out of sorts; Maurice Ronet looks bewildered or bored most of the time and Jean Seberg simply hasn't got enough character to get her acting teeth into so remains cold and detached. She does look great however and provides the visual highlight wandering around her apartment in a tight neon green bra-slip just prior to what should have been the biggest shock in the film but that's somewhat telegraphed so that what you remember is Jean looking sexy and not what happens next... Sadly thats the whole film in a nutshell. Worth a look if you are a Chabrol fan simply to appreciate how good most of his other films are by comparison.

CONTAINS SPOILERS. Bergman has such a daunting reputation that for many of us it's perhaps a leap of faith just to even chose one of his movies. The expectation is of something deep, brooding, obscure and rather slow. Comedy sketches have been written around the silences and menacing composition that are perceived to form the backbone of his films. There's a lingering aura of Bergman being 'only for the intellectuals'. Maybe some of this is, at times, true. Maybe not.It's a personal choice for each of us but the rewards for taking that leap and staying with a Bergman movie are well worth anyone's time and effort. None more so than PERSONA which combines a few famously bizarre surrealist sequences with a phenomenal piece of claustrophobic two-handed acting by Ullman and Andersson, the like of which I cannot honestly recall elsewhere. Their beautiful faces, often shot in ultra close-up are lit to emphasis every pore and minor blemish as if to highlight that however gorgeous as they are, these are human and imperfect faces on flawed personalities. The slightest twitch or tremor is given significance, the quasi-lesbian relationship they appear to develop is treated with an intense but chaste sensuality and the turns in the story are arresting and unsettling. The fact Ullman remains mute and Andersson does all the talking sounds like a recipe for some chronic naval-gazing. Not so. Introspective it is, self absorbed too, but Andersson's character has a secret or two which her initial prim, starched appearance belies. Her graphic description of a pivotal liaison in her past is truly unexpected in a movie of this vintage. It must have seemed alarmingly candid when first shown. It still does. It's also poetic and rather beautiful. I can only recall seeing one other movie, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD,in which so much of the dialogue stems from just one of the characters and at times the direction PERSONA appears to take(or not, as the case may be)emphasises this similarity as do the striking monochrome photography and the exacting use of composition. Surrealist sequences aside, PERSONA is the more real of the two films, the least fanciful and at the denouement probably the more satisfying.

What does it all mean? Well thats the rub.As you'll see from the discussion boards on IMDb it's up for constant re-interpretation and perhaps because of this more than anything else it's a film that stays in your head long after the final credits.