Tess OTD'U film and TV adaptions

[kiki1982]

I grant you, there could have been something of a hidden symbolic meaning in a black horse for Angel, but Alec doesn't come and save Tess at that grey farm, on the contrary, as the reference to Paradise Lost denotes later when she is working on the field (almost in Hell, so to say), and Alec turns up, he is not a good influence. His reformation is a shallow one, as is apparent from how quickly he changes back to his old self. All because of Tess, as he says. Yeah right. Real rakes do not easily reform. As the PL reference lets shine through, he is there not to merely give her a little nudge into the abbyss (the rape or at least sexual encounter they had in the Chase), but to really pull her into its deepest regions (the kind of hovering spirit of the underworld she has become when Angel sees her back). From a soiled woman she can fall only deeper by becoming a mistress, after that discarded because her youth and beauty woudl fade, after which she would become a prostitute. The Victorian mind was pretty straight about that.

The sad thing in Naturalist novels is that decisions indeed don't matter. Whatever decision a character makes, his fate will be the same. I.e. Tess would have been hanged for murder (or at least died early), maybe not because she killed Alec, but because of something else. She would have been raped anyway, whether her father had known about the d'Urberviles or not.

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.)

That is a total misconception. Angel's reaction is logical and unavoidable. Hardy obviously thought that was unjust, on a human level, but still it was logical, as the priest's reaction is logical when he refuses to burry Sorrow in a consecrated grave. Unjust definitely, but unavoidable.
Hence why Tess's mother said not to tell Angel. He would not have noticed (there were ample ways to get around it, pig's blood being one). If she tells him, though, she is no longer a virgin (a matter of course), her character is not as pure as he thought it was (the only thing a woman really had to recommend her) and who is to say she would not do it again, will he be sure his children are really his?
To modern people this is unjust and cruel, but to Victorians soiled women were prostitutes, they were dirty things never to be seen. Indeed Jude features a family with several children, with two parents who love each other but can't marry. SPOILER They are eventually compelled to throw in the twoel, because that fact follows them everywhere. SPOILER OVER I think there would have been very few men who would have taken a wife who wasn't a virgin and hadn't been married before.

Tess, in her naivety that Angel loves her and has a wider look on things than a Victorian one, tells him because she wants to be straight and because he confesses to her he had a fling. She feels stronger because of that. That is her big mistake (and what her mother warned her for). Men were allowed to do this, women were not. Indeed, the only ground for divorce was if the wife cheated, and then the other man was a co-respondent. To get rid of a man, he needed to be violent and a serial womaniser with several mistresses on the go at one time, combined. And even then he mostly got the children. The point being that women were supposed to be pure and homely.

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?)

To me he is unlikable, because Angel is basically two-faced. Oh he is so aloof of everything, he's so broad-minded etc. and then when push comes to shove (his wife is not a virgin), he turns into this Victorian thing his father is, the very thing he despises. The only thing what's missing is really the fact that he would have asked for a dowry. Eventually he turns likable again, but it is too late. Still, the very fact that he is more Victorian than he wishes, that he is shaped by his father (although he wishes this were not true) and that he cannot consciously get over this, is also a sad Naturalist tragedy: whatever he does, his thoughts are unavoidable.

[Maple]

Kiki, you said, "To me he is unlikable, because Angel is basically two-faced." You're right that Angel is two faced, but most of us are. Angel, like the rest of us, is caught between the ideals he was taught and his human nature. Hardy shows Angel caught between his Victorian/Christian teachings of the ideal and his human instincts, leading us to believe the human instinct is better. But, as to villainy, much of the injustice Angel does is punishing to himself. The sleepwalking scene displays his love for Tess smoldering beneath his repressive obedience to his upbringing and acceptance of societal norms. Angel is his own victim as much as Tess is his victim.

Alec is without ideals, though he can make a pretense of observing them. He puts nothing above his human instincts, and we might think a dab of the self-repression in Angel would benefit him. Personally I doubt Hardy was interested in whether Angel or Alec was the greater villain. I think the two were meant to complement Hardy's message. Tess is the ideal--fully human, loving totally, unreservedly putting nothing above love. Alec's love is deformed and self-centered. Angel's, though repressed, ultimately overcomes his repression and his character growth expresses hopefulness.

[Wayne Jr]

That is a total misconception. Angel's reaction is logical and unavoidable. Hardy obviously thought that was unjust, on a human level, but still it was logical, as the priest's reaction is logical when he refuses to burry Sorrow in a consecrated grave. Unjust definitely, but unavoidable.
Hence why Tess's mother said not to tell Angel. He would not have noticed (there were ample ways to get around it, pig's blood being one). If she tells him, though, she is no longer a virgin (a matter of course), her character is not as pure as he thought it was (the only thing a woman really had to recommend her) and who is to say she would not do it again, will he be sure his children are really his?.

My original point of my last post was Angel's harsh judgement was NOT ONLY for just she was raped, but for her sexual discretion in her original relationship with Alec, the fact that she became his mistress after the night at the Chase.

So you are saying Angel's reaction is logical and unavoidable, even it was only rape. I still think Rape is still extreme case, and paternal uncertainty doesn't apply to rape, does it? Ignoring whether it was just rape or more than rape, I agree that not many men back then wish to marry an unvirgine, and I can understand how Angel felt at the time of the confession. I think anybody has Angel in themselves, and I had Angel in myself, too. When I was young, I met a perfect man to marry, with good morals. One day, he confessed his past, it was so sudden and I reacted, and judged him. I soon realized it wasn't a big deal, and apologized him how I reacted, but he couldn't get over the fact I judged him and didn't forgive him right away, we eventually broke up mainly because of that. What he wanted from me was just forgiveness, and that was the most important thing for him and for virtue generally.
By that experience, I think Angel's reaction was expected, but his decision of abandoning Tess was no way to be justified. Especially they were already married. He felt he was tricked or betrayed. He only thought about his feelings, and completely luck of empathy, and luck of FORGIVENESS towards Tess. If he really loved her, even he reacted, he could've overcome in time. That's why I don't think he really loved her, and he wasn't worthy of her.
By the way, for Jude, i thought they were able to marry if they wanted, since both divorce was completed, and cousins were able to marry that time, but they chose not to marry, because of Sue's idealism.

I think, Angel was the real demon. His sir mane " Clare" means " bright" in french (cliff notes). Brightest Angel is Lucifer.
He was a fallen angel. Alec dominated Tess's body, but Angel dominated Tess's mind. She worship Angel like god and believed whatever he said (Tess's fault too). He made her unbeliever. He dominated other milkmaids' minds, too, and harmed them, (Retty, Marian, and Izz). Angel already proved his worthlessness as her "guardian angel", and did nothing for her as her husband. Angel destroyed Tess's soul by abandoning her, and eventually lead Tess to final destruction, murder of Alec and her death. He most likely continues this pattern with Liza-Lu after Tess' death. History repeats itself. Angel seemed to have changed when he came back, but he most likely return to the class, because his change was not very convincing.

As for Alec, I think people are too harsh for Alec. That's how Hardy wished for, I guess, no sympathy for Alec. In fact, what he did to Tess was terrible, However, I think, he repented his past conduct and changed, and loved Tess purely and believed in her purity. People make mistakes but if they repent it, and make amends, God forgive them for that. And that's the life is all about, learning. Alec is the only one who proved it, with CHARITY. (neither Tess nor Angel showed it). He offered Tess a marriage, and he offered help for her and her husband when he found out she was already married. He never struck her back in spite of her violence towards him. He first wanted to replace her husband's place for helping her, but in the end, he really cared for Tess's well being, and her whole family, and he offered them to stay in his house in Trantridge just to make up with her without nothing in return. He is the one who made Tess realize Angel's injustice towards her. He was the her real husband for her financially and phisycally (Tess admitted it when she confronted with Angel. Hardy added in his own study copy in 1912; "He had been as husband to me: you never had!") Then, what did he get? A murder. I really wish that he had kept his faith, so his poor soul would be saved after his death.

[Wayne Jr]

The sad thing in Naturalist novels is that decisions indeed don't matter. Whatever decision a character makes, his fate will be the same. I.e. Tess would have been hanged for murder (or at least died early), maybe not because she killed Alec, but because of something else. She would have been raped anyway, whether her father had known about the d'Urberviles or not.

I see what you are saying. Fatalism, and Hardy's immanent will. Human can't control the fate. However, different decision leads different outcome, right? but all end up the same... Bull**** Hardy.

[kiki1982]

Kiki, you said, "To me he is unlikable, because Angel is basically two-faced." You're right that Angel is two faced, but most of us are. Angel, like the rest of us, is caught between the ideals he was taught and his human nature. Hardy shows Angel caught between his Victorian/Christian teachings of the ideal and his human instincts, leading us to believe the human instinct is better. But, as to villainy, much of the injustice Angel does is punishing to himself. The sleepwalking scene displays his love for Tess smoldering beneath his repressive obedience to his upbringing and acceptance of societal norms. Angel is his own victim as much as Tess is his victim.

Alec is without ideals, though he can make a pretense of observing them. He puts nothing above his human instincts, and we might think a dab of the self-repression in Angel would benefit him. Personally I doubt Hardy was interested in whether Angel or Alec was the greater villain. I think the two were meant to complement Hardy's message. Tess is the ideal--fully human, loving totally, unreservedly putting nothing above love. Alec's love is deformed and self-centered. Angel's, though repressed, ultimately overcomes his repression and his character growth expresses hopefulness.

You are right about that. Neither men are perfect. The only one who seems to be perfect and whose perfection is challenged by the imperfections of others, is Tess herself.

Indeed, Angel's change expresses hopefulness, although I don't believe that that is for a truly happy life, unless he doesn't feel obliged to Liza-Lu.

My original point of my last post was Angel's harsh judgement was NOT ONLY for just she was raped, but for her sexual discretion in her original relationship with Alec, the fact that she became his mistress after the night at the Chase.

No, maybe not. You could be right that she became his mistress for a while. Certainly the tone in which Alec speaks to her is quite familiar, not at all like a master who has had sex with her (poss. forcibly) once (unless he is vilely condescending), but the fact that she was his mistress or not is irrelevant in Victorian terms. Was she a virgin? No? Then she was tainted. As Hardy says in the very last sentences of where she is deflowered, we may say, 'An immeasurable social chasm was to divide our heroine's thereafter from that previous self of hers who stepped from her mother's door to try her fortune at Trantridge poultry-farm.' Hardy doesn't even keep it for the next chapter, where Tess leaves Trantridge and has her talk with Alec (as I said in reasonable familiarity). Hardy says it at their very first real encounter, although there have been some before, in which she was glaringly naïve.
Victorians, certainly in the evangelical sense as we see them here, are pretty simple and straightforward in these matters. Not being a virgin when you marry for the first time as a woman is immoral.

So you are saying Angel's reaction is logical and unavoidable, even it was only rape. I still think Rape is still extreme case, and paternal uncertainty doesn't apply to rape, does it?

But that's where you go wrong. There was something like a person's 'character', which involved not their personality as we consider now, but a person's conduct in society and how their conduct compared to the morals of the day. Tess is presumed to have an untainted character (from thence the pure woman), but she is tainted. A person's character went a long way. It was mainly along that road that people like Angels went in marrying others, not by love in itself. He needed a strong woman, obviously also faithful, to go to Brazil with. Hence why he rejects the school teacher from back home. She's going to be faithful, but she would be useless at farm work. When he says that 'foregiveness is not in the case', that '[she was] one person and [then] another', he exactly means that. He has married an impure woman with a tainted character, he has made a fool of himself.
Even until the '70s, a woman who got raped (if Tess was raped) had brought it on herself. There are still people who believe that now. What makes Tess innocent in this case? Of course, we all believe she is innocent, but that 's not the point.

By that experience, I think Angel's reaction was expected, but his decision of abandoning Tess was no way to be justified. Especially they were already married. He felt he was tricked or betrayed. He only thought about his feelings, and completely luck of empathy, and luck of FORGIVENESS towards Tess. If he really loved her, even he reacted, he could've overcome in time. That's why I don't think he really loved her, and he wasn't worthy of her.
By the way, for Jude, i thought they were able to marry if they wanted, since both divorce was completed, and cousins were able to marry that time, but they chose not to marry, because of Sue's idealism.

As he says it has nothing to with forgiveness. Hardy used the provocative subtitle of a pure woman for Tess, because that was exactly what she wasn't in the eyes of all true Victorians. And yet, the scene where Angel rejects her asks implicitly the question if she is not? And why Angel should be forgiven for his weakness, if you like, and she not. Are we not all equal? No, it seems. Angel's rejection is the more grinding, because unlike with him, we know what happened during those months and how Alec enticed her, how her mother was useless and how she was a bit naïve. On a human level it is sad that she will have to pay for it for the rest of her days, and yet, most poeple, if they didn't know her (and Angel doesn't really), they would condemn her like him. It asks its Victorian readers to think about those well-established double standards.

As for Alec, I think people are too harsh for Alec. That's how Hardy wished for, I guess, no sympathy for Alec. In fact, what he did to Tess was terrible, However, I think, he repented his past conduct and changed, and loved Tess purely and believed in her purity. People make mistakes but if they repent it, and make amends, God forgive them for that. And that's the life is all about, learning. Alec is the only one who proved it, with CHARITY. (neither Tess nor Angel showed it). He offered Tess a marriage, and he offered help for her and her husband when he found out she was already married. He never struck her back in spite of her violence towards him. He first wanted to replace her husband's place for helping her, but in the end, he really cared for Tess's well being, and her whole family, and he offered them to stay in his house in Trantridge just to make up with her without nothing in return. He is the one who made Tess realize Angel's injustice towards her. He was the her real husband for her financially and phisycally (Tess admitted it when she confronted with Angel. Hardy added in his own study copy in 1912; "He had been as husband to me: you never had!") Then, what did he get? A murder. I really wish that he had kept his faith, so his poor soul would be saved after his death.

He saw Tess as an easy target, though, and never meant anything serious, although he conspired from the beginning to seduce her and then throw her away like a used rag, calling her 'crummy' after their first meeting. That's totally different from another rake called Mr Rochester in Jane Eyre. Although Jane suspects him from not being serious, he clearly means it from the start. Even though she is beneath him, but he is in love. Alec has clearly no such intentions.

Alec's repentence is short-lived, as is apparent when he meets Tess again. Maybe it is her misfortune that she is already married and he can't marry her.
In making her his mistress (because there was no way out for her, poor girl), he did not help her at all. Let alone you could call it 'charity'. He gave her family charity because he knew that was how he could force her. Her mother only cared about her own material well-being and thus would have forced Tess to become his mistress. Tess was not so strong-willed as that she could reject that, also not because she had brothers and sisters to care for after the death of her feckless father. The problem there is that she is forced to degrade herself into the role of a prostitute: if Alec has enough of her after a while (maybe years, maybe twenty years, who knows, maybe even when he dies or when his money runs out; he was making quite a case for the latter), she would end up a social paria, with children probably to boot and no-one wanting to employ her (if she could support herself and her family with that, that is). Think of Fantine in Les Misérables. The only road open to her eventuually would be the one she had gone for the last years: become a prostitute, until her beauty faded and then she would even have lost that.
A loose alliance such as Tess and Alec's would not have lasted as long as you think. What does he do when Tess is emotional after sending Angel away? He scolds her at least. If that is a man who loves a woman, then I would be concerned what hate is like.

As to Jude, I thought that Sue and Jude were both married at the point where they went for it. She to his old teacher Mr Phillotson and he still to his wife, although admittedly the latter had left him for America. I suppose he could have divorced her on grounds of infidelity, but Sue could not have divorced, unless Phillotson had petitioned for one, but he is a bit inert at best. Sue had married, as Jude couldn't propose, because he was married to his wife (who had left him then already). That was her downfall.

[Wayne Jr]

I don't see where the argument is going any more...., but As for Clare's judgement, I totaly agree that it represents Victorian sexual double standard and convention, and how people judge Tess as a fallen woman, which Hardy is trying to critisize.
However, what I am trying to say is, it doesn't mean that Angel's Judgement and action are justified. Even Victorian society, there must have been some men who didn't care, like Tess's mother said that some husband didn't care or was used to the idea, and do you think men like Jude, or Giles, or even Alec (of course) ever care? Furthermore, Clare shouldn't care, because he is supposed to be a FREE THINKER and DOESN'T BELIEVE GOD (chastity is a Christian moral).

By the way, 'crumby' means ' attractive', not negative.

Oh, I posted Tess's Alternative ending that I made on the other thread. Hope you guys like it.

[kiki1982]

Crummy means not attractive (maybe with a b, but this is not with a b). It means shabby or cheap, even miserable or wretched. So Alec's intentions are clear to the reader from the start.

But you hit the spot why Angel is unlikable: he is two-faced. As Magpie and I agreed, he has to acknowledge that he is not the free thinker he thought he was. Angel's reaction to Tess's revelation is justified in a Victorian sense, although it is not just (or that is what Hardy wishes to come across).
There would have been very few educated people who thought that Tess's problem wasn't a serious one. Granted Tess's mother, but look what she made of her life, including letting her little boy wait on the stairs while his father and mother got drunk. Drunkenness was a notorious problem and disapproved of by the church. She is also a farmer's girl and these people were more acquainted with hanky panky in the hay stack. If something came about, they were usually forced to marry (and possibly be very unhappy afterwards). In the drawing rooms of the high classes, though, there was no hanky panky, or there shouldn't have been anyway. As the century drew on, it became more and more inexcusable to be unvirtuous in this respect. Tess is of that age, maybe her mother less so. This was mainly fuelled by Victoria and her hubby (and then her languishing widowhood). There would have been very few of Hardy's readers who approved of non-virgins who had never been married, for any man. That was putting your head in a hornets' nest.

[Wayne Jr]

Crummy means not attractive (maybe with a b, but this is not with a b). It means shabby or cheap, even miserable or wretched. So Alec's intentions are clear to the reader from the start.

crumby; an attractive girl.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gui...pters-5-8.html

I don't like Angel at all, not just because he is two- faced. I don't like ANYTHING about him. How he thinks, how he acts, how he treats Tess, how he thinks about Tess and other people. He is a snob, a hypocrite, an idiot, a dork, he is immature, spoiled, self-centered, cruel, he has no humor or wit, has no future perspective, and has no balls. His idealism and his denial of God are not based on anything, he is just a big mouth. His maturity level is probably 15 year old; high school kid level, not 26 years old, for sure.
He is the most unlikable fictional character I ever came across. He reminds me of Mr. Fitzpiers in Woodlanders, or Sue Bridehead; idealistic, unbeliever, cruel and the heart braker. (I like her as a New Woman, and unsexualized woman)

If I were Tess, I never ever fall for him. She fell for him mainly because other girls were into him, he was moral and opposite of Alec (turned out to be just the same, or worse), and he didn't dance with her; the rejection, the psychology (lol). Her worship for him was described as ill-omen. I was wondering, was he super handsome or something, for Tess and other milkmaids were in love with him. That I can't imagine from his personality.. If he was a handsome dude, he wouldn't act like a dork. I don't see any description about his appearance in the book anywhere. Is there any, besides he had a brown moustache and a beard?

[kiki1982]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crummy

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the first sense to which I refer is first seen in the 16th century and then further developed by 1859, where yours dates from the 18th century.
The two are possible, of course, however, I have read enough of this genre in different languages to know that Hardy meant to imply at least the two senes with that word, and not only passed Alec off as a connoisseur of beautiful women. Alec remains the villain in the beginning. In this genre, of which Hardy is more or less the only representative in English literature (excl. American), the clouds must gather before any of the characters know it. Though the reader must be able to look further than the horizon of the characters. If you take that view, it is well-nigh impossible that Alec found Tess only attractive, as you attest. Something which the definition in use at Tess's publication in 1891 suggests. His speech there must be a sign to the reader of what he is about to do and Tess, poor girl, has no idea. It must grind.
Although the addition of 'beautiful' makes the whole situation even more grinding.

It is not because Cliff Notes says something that it is true. That interpretation is a bit too simple.

It is not because you don't like a character, that he/she has to become something he was not in the original. Angel is not meant to be a villain, although he is weak.

[Wayne Jr]

You sound like you are offended, and I didn't mean to offend you, by "crummy", or maybe Alec, or Angel?
I just shared my personal opinion about the fictional characters, and you don't need to agree with me at all and I respect your opinion. (By the way, my opinions and interpretation are not based on cliff notes. I quated it because I found it.)
Pleae dont take it personally or even serious. I'll shut my mouth.

Make peace?

[kiki1982]

Not offended. I can't be offended, because it is not my novel . But at least consider that Alec is your quintessential English rake and Angel a weak-minded person. Whatever a reader thinks personally about a character (of course Angel is heartless and contemptible when he leaves his wife, even if she were free to ask his parents for money), the novel's author himself may not have wanted to express exactly that.

[Wayne Jr]

Glad to hear that. Maybe you misunderstood my original intention. I'm not defending Alec, at all. Alec and Angel are both douche bags. I already said Hardy woudn't redeem Alec, and I know that. He is the tempter, Satan in this movel.
My original intention was, in my opinion, as well as Alec, Angel also played Demon to her fate. That's all.

[kev67]

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.

About the Polanski film looking spot on, it won three Oscars in 1981 for Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction.

[kelby_lake]

About the Polanski film looking spot on, it won three Oscars in 1981 for Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction.

They were well-deserved in my opinion though ironically it wasn't Wessex countryside but Brittany countryside. I thought the strawberry scene- ooh, I love that scene- was particularly well-done.

[Wayne Jr]

Polasnski's Tess is a masterpiece. Utter perfection.
I found a good article about the film to share.

http://www.americancinemapapers.com/files/TESS.htm