Tess of the D'Urbervilles Review
2008 Adaptation of Thomas Hardy’s Tragic Novel Falls Flat
Jan 13, 2009
The BBC has always been adept at turning out classic, yet fresh costume dramas, so one might ask why, with the plethora of literary works available to them, would they choose to redo Tess of the D’Urbervilles (first produced in 1998) only ten years after the original, and after the first was so brilliantly adapted for the screen.
Thomas Hardy’s haunting tale of a pure woman who becomes tainted in the eyes of society when she is seduced by a man she trusted is a story that resonates as clearly now, in a third wave feminist era, as it did when it was first published (Hardy fought hard to have the story published without censure, and it subsequently created quite a stir over it’s racy subject matter). However, writer David Nicholls and director David Blair of this 2008 adaptation seem to have removed all ambiguity from the story, coddling the audience by spelling out their view of events instead of letting us come to our own conclusions as to whether Tess was raped or coerced by Alec D’Urberville. This removes the central point of the story, which is to juxtapose the different views over what constitutes rape, and whether Tess should truly be seen as impure.
Screenwriter David Nicholls leaves nothing up to the audience to figure out, hinting at the danger Alec imposes the minute he appears on screen. And unlike the 1998 version Tess does not hold a secret infatuation for him. This all makes it very easy for us to hate Alec and side with Tess, but misses the point that was made in the novel, which is that society pressures Tess to feel that she chose her path, and her feelings of shame and self-loathing are ingrained in her by every man and woman around her, making her descent inevitable.
The central cast poses further problems as all of them unfortunately resemble catwalk models rather than humble country folk. Though Gemma Arterton does alright in the title role, she seems much too young to wrestle with the kind of internal struggle needed in the character of Tess, and accordingly every emotion is very surfaced. She has a childish innocence that works well in the first half, but she carries it all the way through, and in the last two hours ends up looking like a doe in the headlights rather than a once innocent woman who has been dealt severe blows in punishment of her naivety.
Eddie Redmayne plays Angel with overflowing sincerity and virtue, so that when he turns of Tess it seems strangely false. When compared with Oliver Milburn in the 1998 adaptation, who’s Angel was sweet yet viewed Tess with a strange intoxication bordering on obsession, and whose betrayal seemed like a broken spell, rather than a sudden turn of character, Redmayne’s performance seems immature.
The strongest casting came in the minor roles of Tess’ family and the milk maids who dote upon Angel.Emily Beecham, Jodie Wittaker, and Rebekah Staton especially, bring some much needed levity to their episodes, but next to these three capable actors Arterton cannot hold her own, and her acting appears unnecessarily exaggerated.
Hans Matheson is malevolent enough as Alec D’Urberville, and shows some skill in the scene where he tries to persuade Tess to stay at the house of her ancestors after he has taken advantage of her. He manages to keep his character’s motives relatively ambiguous, despite the transparency of the script, giving the audience a glimpse of the heart that beats inside the cad.
When compared to other wonderful BBC costume drama’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles falls flat; a pretty cast and picturesque landscape cannot make up for the lack of depth and intelligence. And when set beside the 1998 version with the accomplished Justine Waddell in the title role, Gemma Arterton looks like Keira Knightly next to Meryl Streep.
Instead of dumbing down a previous series for a generation that values beauty before talent, the BBC should be doing what has made the network a formidable force; producing new material that challenges the audience with actors who can deliver their lines with subtlety rather than sex appeal.
