Tess OTD'U film and TV adaptions

[kev67]

Which are the good film and TV adaptions?

I once saw the first 25 mins of the Roman Polanski film. The acting was good but some of the accents set my teeth on edge. I could only cope with 25 mins because I could see what was coming next.

The recent BBC adaption with Gemma Arterton looks quite good from the little I've seen. It looks like a good cast, although Gemma Arterton is maybe a tad strapping. She looks like a tennis player. Eddie Redmayne must have had a job lugging her about.

There was another BBC adaption in 1998. I haven't seen that one neither, but I notice it starred Justine Waddell, who by hardy any coincidence to anyone but me, also played Estella in the previous book I read, Great Expectations.

BTW, I enjoyed looking through this tumblr webpage.

[kelby_lake]

I enjoyed the Polanski one- visually it looks spot on.

The Gemma Arterton one is probably the best I've seen so far. Tess is meant to have a womanly figure and Gemma Arteton is suitably beautiful. My only problem is that Eddie Redmayne looks too weedy to be a farmer.

I haven't seen the 1996 TV movie but will check it out.

[Wayne Jr]

Hi there!

I'm new here. I love Hardy and Tess of the d'Urberville is one of my favorite.

I watched all the three adaptations.

I think Polanski's Tess is all over the best one. I think this one interpreted the novel very well, even this is the shortest one, and missing key elements, like Prince's death, and Alec's conversion. This captured novel's eroticism, and sexual tension between Tess and Alec. Of course all the scenes at Slopes are lavish and has sexual undertone, but the scene Tess says to Alec after she hit him, " punish me, whip me, crush me", is so erotic, is it just me? Nastassja Kinski possesses deadly attraction that drive any man crazy, and she portrayed Tess's passiveness, vulnerability, and sexuality. Alec and Angel are both good, I thought. Lawson appears a little too old for Alec, ( I thought he was more like 40's in the film, but he was actually 34), but has upper class elegance and tall, athletic good look, also portrayed class power, sensuality and arrogance very well. Firth (Angel) captured his hypocrisy and coldness, and made me hate him so much, however his rugged look didn't match Gorgeous Kinski at all.

1998 TV series is actually the most faithful one, but a bit cheap, and acting wasn't very good. Justine Waddel wasn't convincing for Tess, not attractive enough, and her acting sometimes bothered me. Jason Flemying(Alec)'s acting was over the top and too creepy, even repulsive. Milburn was too nice and pretty for Angel, and drew too much sympathy. I didnt like the way Tess was portrayed after she murdered Alec, she appeared out of mind and insane, but she was supposed to be sane. The Strawberry scene (how Tess ate the strawberry, and how Alec looked at her) was too creepy and almost disgusting. Needless to say, the rape scene was almost unbearable....

2008 BBC series is an over all good production, beautiful filmography, good acting, actors are beautiful, good supportive characters, and has some touchy moments, however it was not Hardy's Tess. This has own interpretation. This adaptation made what happened between Tess and Alec in the Chase a clear cut rape (for your record, in other two, Tess was also raped) and totally removed the time she spent there as his lover. This is the bad example of removeing the ambiguousness of the novel. Even with the best effort to change dialogue to fit in throughout the film, it made Tess and Alec's relationship too AWKWARD, and most of the time made no sence. This production focused on Tess's purity and romance between Tess and Angel, but their courtship is too rushed and no chemistry at all. To achieve that, they made Angel a little bit more sympathetic, and Alec more diabolical and vile. Tess is portraid by Gemma Arterton, who has tall, skinny, model type of body, and pretty, inoccent look. She screamed a lot and her voice was annoying sometimes. Angel was played by Eddy Redmayne, who impressed me in the pillars of the earth, but not this time, looked too young and thin, even sometimes dorky and ugly, often looked lost, but portrayed Angel's immature and weak charactor well. Alec was however not a mustache twirling villain this time, portrayed by Hans Matheson, the handsome but arrogant Earl of Essex in Virgin Queen. He was too GORGEOUS to be harshly rejected by Tess ( I actually felt bad for him). This production also focus on the idea of the chance of happiness, what if they had danced and fell in love when they first met? Which I though is totally absurd. There was no way he would have noticed her and fell in love with her, before she visited d'Urberville's estate. This production changed the dialogue a lot and cut a lot of critical words, which made me mad. Tess didn't even say," I shall not live for you to despise me" at Stonehenge, which shows Tess's realization that Angel will never able to forgive her...... It's critical! One more thing, I got a impression that Joan basically sold Tess to Alec at d'Urberville's family vault in this film......this tells you how jerk her mother and Alec were presented in this....it was totally unnecessary ..(screenwriter was trying to defend Tess's purity? Perhaps)

Each has own flaws, but if you like Tess, all three are worth to watch.

[kev67]

Interesting post, Wayne Jr.

Hi there!

This production also focus on the idea of the chance of happiness, what if they had danced and fell in love when they first met? Which I though is totally absurd. There was no way he would have noticed her and fell in love with her, before she visited d'Urberville's estate. This production changed the dialogue a lot and cut a lot of critical words, which makes me mad. Tess even didn't say," I shall not live for you to despise me" at Stone Henge, which shows Tess's realization that Angel will never able to forgive her...... It's critical!

Each has own flaws, but if you like Tess, all three are worth to watch.

I seem to remember this was a theme in the book: if only Angel had danced with Tess that first time.

[Wayne Jr]

Interesting post, Wayne Jr.



I seem to remember this was a theme in the book: if only Angel had danced with Tess that first time.

Kev67, thanks for your reply.

As for a chance of happiness, Yes, it was presented. If they ever had a chance of happiness, it must have been the time they first met. Hardy made Angel meet Tess before Alec did. He gave Angel a chance to fall in love with her before Alec laid his eyes on her, but he didn't use it. He didn't even choose her to dance. Was it just a misfortune, or bad luck? If he had happened to dance with her, did he fall in love? My answer is No. I think it was meant to be. That was fate.

There was two reasons. He didn't recognize Tess when they fist met. She was not distinguishable from others back then. She showed significant difference, after she came home from d'Urbervilles estate. Her experience and suffering changed her from "simple girl to complex woman", she became "a fine creature". Hardy calls her experience " a liberal education" . Angel was obviously attracted to ( lusting after) her womanliness and sexuality. It might suggest that Angel could have never fell in love with Virginal Tess.

The other is her class. He probably didn't marry to lower class woman(that was obviously a obstacle for him). His passion for her made him overcome this obstacle.

Angel was Tess's absent 'guardian angel', who was supposed to protect her in her critical times, but he was never around nor protect her, and sadly that was meant to be.

That's what I was trying to say in last post. Does it make any sense?

[kev67]

Kev67, thanks for your reply.

As for a chance of happiness, Yes, it was presented. If they ever had a chance of happiness, it must have been the time they first met. Hardy made Angel meet Tess before Alec did. He gave Angel a chance to fall in love with her before Alec laid his eyes on her, but he didn't use it. He didn't even choose her to dance. Was it just a misfortune, or bad luck? If he had happened to dance with her, did he fall in love? My answer is No. I think it was meant to be. That was fate.

I think you are right there. There was a lot of bad timing in the story. Angel could not dance with Tess because his brothers were in a hurry. Tess could not explain her past to Angel till just after the wedding. Tess arrived at Angel's parents house when they were at church and then had to listen to Angel's brother discuss how Angel had made a mess of his life by marrying her. Eventually Angel did decide to come back and forgive her, but it was too late. Because of her family's desperate straits, she had started living with Alec again. I think in the end she realised that fate had conspired against her.

There was two reasons. He didn't recognize Tess when they fist met. She was not distinguishable from others back then. She showed significant difference, after she came home from d'Urbervilles estate. Her experience and suffering changed her from "simple girl to complex woman", she became "a fine creature". Hardy calls her experience " a liberal education" . Angel was obviously attracted to ( lusting after) her womanliness and sexuality. It might suggest that Angel could have never fell in love with Virginal Tess.

Possibly, but they were both very attractive people. Tess seems to think Angel prefers simple girls to 'complex women' because she tells Angel to take up with her little sister, the unsullied Liza-Lu when she's gone.

The other is her class. He probably didn't marry to lower class woman(that was obviously a obstacle for him). His passion for her made him overcome this obstacle.

Angel was Tess's absent 'guardian angel', who was supposed to protect her in her critical times, but he was never around nor protect her, and sadly that was meant to be.

That's what I was trying to say in last post. Does it make any sense?

The class thing is interesting. All four Victorian books I read last year were in part about marriages between people from different classes. Three of them went horrendously wrong: Great Expectations, Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Wuthering Heights. Only one of them eventually came good, but only after overcoming significant obstacles: Jane Eyre. It seems to be a recurring theme.

I don't think Angel was quite so class conscious as the rest of his family. He obviously did not like the middle class woman his parents wanted him to marry, Mercy Chant. He had decided to become a farmer, a relatively prosperous one no doubt, but one who worked with his hands. He may have been rationalizing, but he said that a farm girl like Tess would make a better wife for his chosen line of work than a woman like Mercy Chant. Also, he was happy to dance with the country girls, unlike his brothers.

I wondered about about Hardy's decision to call his character Angel. It is obviously intended to be ironic. I am not sure I like that obvious signalling. Authors from that era seemed to do that sometimes.

[Wayne Jr]

The class thing is interesting. All four Victorian books I read last year were in part about marriages between people from different classes. Three of them went horrendously wrong: Great Expectations, Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Wuthering Heights. Only one of them eventually came good, but only after overcoming significant obstacles: Jane Eyre. It seems to be a recurring theme.

I don't think Angel was quite so class conscious as the rest of his family. He obviously did not like the middle class woman his parents wanted him to marry, Mercy Chant. He had decided to become a farmer, a relatively prosperous one no doubt, but one who worked with his hands. He may have been rationalizing, but he said that a farm girl like Tess would make a better wife for his chosen line of work than a woman like Mercy Chant. Also, he was happy to dance with the country girls, unlike his brothers.

I wondered about about Hardy's decision to call his character Angel. It is obviously intended to be ironic. I am not sure I like that obvious signalling. Authors from that era seemed to do that sometimes.

Angel mingles with cottage girls at Marlot (only male among a bunch of maidens). He also works with farmers at Crick's (only young man among a bunch of girls again), but he sits separately from them to create a distance. He claims he hates old families, but when he finds out that Tess came from a noble family, he thinks it will please his mother. He says he prefers to marry a woman who can milk cowes, but he tries to educate her. After they are estranged on their honey moon, when she says that it happens all the time, he answers, " Don’t,Tess; don’t argue. Different societies, different manners. You almost make me say you are an unapprehending peasant woman, who have never been initiated in to the proportions of social things", " by giving up all ambition to own a wife with social standing, with fortune, with knowledge of the world, I should secure rustic innocence assurely as I should secure pink cheeks." So he is basically saying, Tess' case is not acceptable in his middle class society, and if she is not a virgin, she isn't worthy for him. He choses to be a Farmer, but he has a middle class mind set, based on the mores and standards of his Clerical family. If he wanted to marry a virgin, he could've chosen Mercy Chant or other milk maids, who are all virtuous, however, ironically he falls for Tess, who has a past, for her good looks and her tormented spirit. He makes himself believe her as a virgin, but how ridiculous it sounds to believe the SEXIEST woman in the whole country as a VIRGIN. Agree? He is an absolutely naive and self-contradictory man.

I think the inter- class marriage and it's failure is one of the theme in this novel. Tess' mother believes the fortune teller's prediction that Tess will marry a gentleman. The novel also alludes to some Fairy Tales, (such as Sleeping Beauty, Grimm's a girl without hands, and Rossetti's Goblin Market). Their horse 'Prince ' and his death represent the failure of marrying a prince (marrying a gentleman), and she fails, with BOTH of her lovers. She comes home twice without marrying a gentleman, (one is a failed marriage). With Alec, she comes home unmarried and knocked up, realizing that he would only treat her as a "mistress/ kept woman" and he has no intension to marry her. With her situation (being an attractive girl, poor, working class, and a false kin), that's more likely what she can get (actually, being a rich man's kept woman is probably better than being a poor man's only wife? in some culture for sure) Then, with Angel, it ends up with a failed marriage, rejected by his narrow-mindness of middle class mindset, double standard, unforgiveness, and hypocrisy...


The names are symbolic, and obvious, like you pointed out, Angel is very ironical. Alec is obviously Alexander the conquerer. And again, Prince, the horse.

[kev67]

I don't think Angel was the only man at Talbothay's dairy. It's just the dairymaids were not interested in any of the others. Later in the book, one of the dairymen called Amby Seedling tells Izz Huett that he had been in love with her for two years but that she hardly answered him.

There's a quote on the cover of my copy of Tess that says:
'She looked absolutely pure. Nature, in her fantastic trickery, had set such a seal of maidenhead upon Tess's countenance that he gazed at her with a stupefied air: "Tess - say it is not true! No, it is not true!"

I don't think Angel is alone in assuming Tess is a virgin. Dairyman Crick calls her 'Maidy' iirc. When Angel takes Tess to another town just before their wedding, two men come into the inn. One of them remarks what a pretty maid Tess is. The other one, who recognises her from Trantridge tells him she is no maid. Angel comes in at that point and punches him. Tess seems like a very picky girl. She doesn't like being 'clipsed and colled'.

I didn't know Alec was named after Alexander the Conqueror.

[kelby_lake]

I seem to remember this was a theme in the book: if only Angel had danced with Tess that first time.

Co-incidences and fateful meetings are a big part of Hardy. Tess is particular is full of "What if?"'s

[kelby_lake]

I get the sense that Alec was named after Alexander the Great as well

[kiki1982]

Co-incidences and fateful meetings are a big part of Hardy. Tess is particular is full of "What if?"'s

Naturalism is full of it. Stories like that often depict a chain of events with the very first one often dertermining the woes that will follow (what would have happened had the d'Urbervilles not learnt that they were of old noble stock? They would probably not have sent their daughter away, she would not have got to know Alec, etc., etc.).

About the BBC adaptation. I think the accents were good (as far as I could tell, that is), the images were great, the only thing was that they completely missed the point that Tess is not a mere tragedy, it's a downright butchery of a naïve girl. It was too soft.
Also total disregard for commonplace imagery in horses did not help. At some point at the end, when Tess is working there on that harsh farm in that desolate and industrialised spot of Devon (?), Alec trots in on a white horse. I mean, he's not her romantic prince. I grant you, the horse worked well in the grey and black background, but it wasn't ideal. Just a detail, but it was full of this stuff. The compelling scene with a reference to Paradise Lost with the burning stacks of weeds was toned down to a sunny day with a little bit of burning stuff on the foreground. Someone clearly missed the point that this story is not about decisions, it is about what happens to you regardless. What is in fate's or God's plan for you will happen. If not tomorrow, then a little later, whatever you do about it.
It was a bit sad, because the BBC always does so well on an image level.

[Wayne Jr]

Naturalism is full of it. Stories like that often depict a chain of events with the very first one often dertermining the woes that will follow (what would have happened had the d'Urbervilles not learnt that they were of old noble stock? They would probably not have sent their daughter away, she would not have got to know Alec, etc., etc.).

About the BBC adaptation. I think the accents were good (as far as I could tell, that is), the images were great, the only thing was that they completely missed the point that Tess is not a mere tragedy, it's a downright butchery of a naïve girl. It was too soft.
Also total disregard for commonplace imagery in horses did not help. At some point at the end, when Tess is working there on that harsh farm in that desolate and industrialised spot of Devon (?), Alec trots in on a white horse. I mean, he's not her romantic prince. I grant you, the horse worked well in the grey and black background, but it wasn't ideal. Just a detail, but it was full of this stuff. The compelling scene with a reference to Paradise Lost with the burning stacks of weeds was toned down to a sunny day with a little bit of burning stuff on the foreground. Someone clearly missed the point that this story is not about decisions, it is about what happens to you regardless. What is in fate's or God's plan for you will happen. If not tomorrow, then a little later, whatever you do about it.
It was a bit sad, because the BBC always does so well on an image level.

Hi, there!

Regarding white horse Alec rides like a prince, and dark horse Angel rides, I took it as a kind of mixed symbols or irony the filmmaker intended. Both men have good and bad qualities, not black and white. Angel is supposed to be Tess’ salvation and turns out not, and Alec comes back as a reformed rake who actually helps her.

This adaptation portrays Tess as a passive object, and a mere victim of cruelty of men, circumstances, and society. The filmmaker intentionally strips off decisions/choices she makes in the novel, for instance, her return to Alec as his mistress the second time was her choice in the novel, but in the movie she was forced by Alec and Tess’ mother, Joan. And rape. It completely cancels Tess' sexual autonomy implied in ambiguity of the narrative.

I don’t quite agree with you on that “this story is not about decisions”. In the novel, I thought this is about decisions as well as circumstances. Tess was very passive and most of the time she needed to be forced or pushed to make decisions, but she still made her own decisions. The decisions and choices she made actually contributed to doom her to a tragedy. For example, she didn't tell Angel her past till too late (circumstance worked as well). She gave up on Angel (I don't blame on her for this, it was too long) and got back with Alec, even she had a choice of asking Clares for help ( she herself even said to Alec that she could ask her husband’s parents for money so she doesn't need his. Also, Angel thought she might have gotten hold of her jewelry and sold it to get money when he found her staying at the expensive boarding house like the Herons, so I assume there were more ways available for her to get money); if she had waited longer there would be no problem. And the murder of Alec.

In this adaptation, Alec’s and Angel’s character are both misinterpreted; Angel is too good and more sympathetic while Alec as total jerk and despicable more than he is in the novel. The main reason for Alec’s is the writer’s decision to depict what happened between Tess and Alec in the Chase as clear cut rape. By removing ambiguity in the novel and making it rape, they are forced to portray Alec as a jerk more than he is in the novel. The filmmaker most likely intended to defend Tess’ purity and to justify her extreme action- the murder of Alec, by making him a ruthless rapist; so that the audience feels that he actually deserves it and no sympathy for him. In the making of Tess on DVD, the screen writer David Nicholls said he wanted to portray Angel as sympathetic as possible, to make the film more love story. (I was surprised David Nicholls was actually a fan of Hardy, I thought he never read the book, for making “Tess of the d'Urberville” like this.) The result is that they actually succeed in drawing more sympathy for Tess, than Hardy’s novel. However, this is not Hardy’s Tess.

Hans Matheson's (who played Alec) comments in the interview was interesting, he said something like, the thing that attracted him the most is the psychology (particularly in this adaptation, not the novel), the victim and the perpetrator, this is actually a study, need each other to feed the drama.

[kev67]

In this adaptation, Alec’s and Angel’s character are both misinterpreted; Angel is too good and more sympathetic while Alec as total jerk and despicable more than he is in the novel. The main reason for Alec’s is the writer’s decision to depict what happened between Tess and Alec in the Chase as clear cut rape. By removing ambiguity in the novel and making it rape, they are forced to portray Alec as a jerk more than he is in the novel. The filmmaker most likely intended to defend Tess’ purity and to justify her extreme action- the murder of Alec, by making him a ruthless rapist; so that the audience feels that he actually deserves it and no sympathy for him. In the making of Tess on DVD, the screen writer David Nicholls said he wanted to portray Angel as sympathetic as possible, to make the film more love story. (I was surprised David Nicholls was actually a fan of Hardy, I thought he never read the book, for making “Tess of the d'Urberville” like this.) The result is that they actually succeed in drawing more sympathy for Tess, than Hardy’s novel. However, this is not Hardy’s Tess.

That sounds interesting. I have not watched this adaption. although what you say makes sense. Alec may have raped her, although I doubt he used violence or even the threat of violence. He may have took advantage while she was sleeping. I don't know how that happens, at least when the woman is not incapacitated by drink or drugs, and I wouldn't want to start speculating on that on an internet forum. It could be what Alec did was just short of rape. Maybe he caught her at a weak moment. Maybe he did rape her but she had sex with him on further occasions, possibly in return for a horse to replace Prince. In an earlier draft of the story, Alec tricked Tess by marrying her in a sham wedding. However, whatever happened, Angel has to have some reason to object to Tess's sexual history. He cannot really hold having been raped against her. That would make him less sympathetic, not more sympathetic.

[Wayne Jr]

kev67,

You are right. If Tess was raped and it was only one time thing, Angel’s judgment is absolutely unjust and cruel, so he wouldn't be sympathetic at all in that matter.(If I were him, I would be more supportive for her trauma for rape.)

In the film, Tess’ confession itself is not shown, but after the confession, those conversation is exchanged, which is not in the novel.
Angel: He took you by force. Tess: I was compelled. Angel: You allowed yourself to be seduced. Your virtue was his reward. Tess: Not like that, you are twisting my word. (That’s what I remember.) She never said a word rape, and gave Angel a reason to reject her. I don’t get the reason for Tess saying it, but that’s what filmmaker did. Angel was over all portrayed nice, you will see. I don’t think it is not necessarily bad, because in the book, at least for me, Angel is absolutely unlikable. (Redmayne who played Angel basically called Angel a villain in the interview.) If Angel were more likable or deserved Tess, I would feel sympathy for Tess a little bit more. (Here is my problem, why did Hardy make him so jerk?)

I don’t know what happened between Tess and Alec in the woods of the Chase, since it is not described, and I am not going to get into that topic right now, but I perceived that they became lovers afterwards, didn't they? They had an affair for some several weeks until she decided to leave him, and I thought it was clearly implied.

[Maple]

Seems to me no film of Tess does Hardy's story justice. Hardy made of point of intensifying his stories' scenes and experiences. In spite of the challenge Hardy made his intensified representations seem more real than life. As an example, he takes the dance scene that precedes the Chase scene so real and pulsating with sweat, sound and emotion that it defies a film maker to represent it. It's as if life is an inadequate representation of Hardy's full, intensified description of life. And, he knows how to intensify the moment by leaving it alone. In the last chapter readers can't help but imagine Tess in her cell and placing themselves in her thoughts. It's pure torture to think about. Imagine her stepping forward to the gallows platform and having the noose drawn against her neck. It seems so wrong as to be impossible, and yet we don't doubt it. We might wonder what Angel, Lisa-Lu and Tess said to each at their final meeting in the prison, and yet it doesn't matter. Tess is gone and Wintoncester goes on as though she'd never lived. Tess who to some readers comes so central, pure and essential has been totally erased. Pleasing and profitable movies can be made of this novel, but for me none can merit the story as Hardy wrote it.