"LOVE AND WAR" (1984) Book Review

 

LOVE AND WAR (1984) Book Review

I have stumbled across my share of "Best Civil War Novels" lists on the Internet. I have yet to come across a list that includes John Jakes' 1984 novel, "LOVE AND WAR".

Back in the 1980s, Jakes created his second major literary series, a trilogy about two wealthy American families during a period of thirty years during the 19th century. The first novel, "NORTH AND SOUTH" (1982) focused on the experiences of the Hazards of Pennsylvania and the Mains of South Carolina between the years 1842 and 1861. "HEAVEN AND HELL" (1987), the third novel, is set between 1865 and 1877. But the second novel, "LOVE AND WAR" focused on the two families' experiences during the Civil War.

The trilogy began when George Hazard, the son of a wealthy iron industrialist; and Orry Main, the son of a South Carolina rice planter; first met on their way to West Point in the late spring of 1842. The pair quickly became life-long friends, as they survived four years at the military academy, the Mexican-American War, and nearly a decade-and-a-half of political strife over the issue of slavery. Due to George and Orry's friendship, their two families became very close over the years. By the end of "NORTH AND SOUTH", George's younger brother Billy had married Orry's younger sister, Brett. Orry and the love his life, Madeline Fabray LaMotte, finally reconciled after years of clandestine meetings, when Madeline left her venal husband Justin Lamotte, after seventeen years of marriage.

However, following the outbreak of the Civil War, the friendship and familial connection between the Hazards and the Mains became tested when the Civil War begins. "LOVE AND WAR" began two weeks after "NORTH AND SOUTH" ended - in late April 1861. By the beginning of "LOVE AND WAR", the two families consist of:

The Hazards
*George Hazard - one of the protagonists, who is a former Army officer and like his father, an iron industrialist
*Constance Flynn Hazard - George's Irish-born wife and an abolitionist
*Stanley Hazard - George's older brother, who left the iron trade to become a politician
*Isobel Truscott Hazard - Stanley's shrewish and social-climbing wife
*Virgilia Hazard - George's only sister and die-hard abolitionist
*Billy Hazard - George's younger brother and Army officer
*Brett Main Hazard - Orry's youngest sister and Bily's new bride

The Mains
*Orry Main - one of the protagonists, who is a former Army officer and like his father, a rice planter
*Madeline Fabray LaMotte Main - Orry's wife and widow of Justin LaMotte
*Cooper Main - Orry's older brother and owner of a shipping company
*Ashton Main Huntoon - Orry's younger sister and die-hard secessionist
*Charles Main - Orry's young cousin, who had resigned from the U.S. Army to join the Confederacy Army
*Judith Stafford Main - Cooper's wife, who also happens to be an abolitionist
*James Huntoon - Ashton's husband, who is also a secessionist and attorney
*Clarissa Brett Main - Orry's ailing mother

The novel not only featured the viewpoints of the Hazards and Mains, but also their friends, lovers, slaves and one Elkhannah Bent, an Ohio-born Army officer who had become an enemy of George and Orry during their years at West Point. Bent even became an enemy of Charles Main, when the two had served together on the Texas frontier in the late 1850s. the outbreak and chaos of war, along with Bent's determination to survive, failed to put a damper on his desire to strike back at George, Orry, Charles and the other members of the two families.

I noticed that most of "LOVE AND WAR" focused on the Civil War's Eastern Theater. Aside from taking readers to the political offices, salons and the military hospitals of Washington D.C. and Union Army camps; the novel also explored the Union and Confederate home fronts in Lehigh Station, Pennsylvania - the Hazards' hometown; and the Mains' plantation, Mont Royal, in the South Carolina low country. Jakesk also explored various historical and violent incidents on the homefront through his characters - especially the Southern bread riot that broke out in 1862 Richmond, and the 1863 New York City draft riots. Although both George and Orry become military officers again after thirteen-to-fourteen years as civilians, their wartime experiences as military bureaucrats prove to be sources of great frustration for both of them. Stanley Hazard's role as a political aide with the War Department gave readers a look into the politics of wartime Washington D.C. Readers learn about politics in wartime Richmond via the eyes of Ashton Main Huntoon, who also happened to be a politician's wife. Through Virgilia Hazard, readers not only discover what countless number of women - including a future famous author - experienced as a wartime nurse. Cooper Main joined the Confederate's Navy Department at the beginning of the war and through him, readers learned about the Confederates' efforts to construct new warships in Great Britain's shipyards. Through characters like Charles Main and Billy Hazard, readers explored the horrors of Civil War combat and prison camps in Maryland, Pennsylvania and especially Northern Virginia. Only through the Elkhannah Bent character were readers able to experience the war's Western theater via the Battle of Shiloh and Union occupied New Orleans.

If I must be honest, I am rather surprised that Jakes' trilogy, especially "LOVE AND WAR", became major bestsellers. From the recent comments and reviews I have read on the Internet, I came away with the feeling that many found "LOVE AND WAR" difficult to read. In fact, many readers have complained that the novel featured too many characters. I found this complaint rather odd, considering that novels with several major characters have been the norm during the 20th century. And when did the number of characters suddenly became a detriment to a good novel? Following my recent reading of "LOVE AND WAR", I must admit that I find this opinion hard to accept. And then there is the matter of the novel's content. I have discovered that a good number of critics seem unwilling to accept Jakes' mixture of historical drama and melodrama. And so, I found myself scratching my head at another criticism. Melodrama and history in a novel? These two elements have been the norm in many historical dramas - including the still highly rated "GONE WITH THE WIND" and the "POLDARK" series. When did the mixture of history and melodrama become unacceptable?

When it comes to the mixture of history and melodrama, I believe John Jakes has proven to be one of the few novelists who did it best. In "LOVE AND WAR", I thought he did an excellent job in conveying both the personal and historic experiences of his major characters - especially during a highly charged period in American history like the Civil War. Not only did the author explore his characters' desires, loves, fears, personal tragedy and ambition; he did so while exploring the historical background of the novel's setting. I just realized that aside from a handful of history books and documentaries, I managed to learn a great deal about the United States' Antebellum period, the Civil War and the post-war era from the NORTH AND SOUTH Trilogy, due to Jakes' meticulous research and skillful writing. And about human nature.

Four of the most interesting aspects of "LOVE AND WAR" proved to be the wartime experiences of Billy Hazard, Brett Main Hazard, a former slave named Jane and Charles Main. Being an Army engineer, Billy Hazard did not participate in any battles, although he did witness a good deal of danger. Billy started out the novel as an Army officer loyal to the Union cause, but lacking any sympathy toward abolition or African-Americans - unlike Virgilia, Constance or George. Despite spending the first half of the war maintaining this attitude, it took capture by Confederate forces and a harrowing period as a prisoner of war inside Libby Prison for Billy to even understand what it means to be treated cruelly, let alone be under the complete control of another. And it took his experiences with black troops during the war's last year to make him view them more than just subhuman, children or victims.

Ironically, his wife, Brett Main Hazard, went through a similar metamorphosis on the home front. Being the daughter and later, the sister of a South Carolina planter, Brett had difficulty adjusting to life in the North and the resentment of the Hazards' neighbors. Throughout the novel, Brett's encounter with several people during the war forced her to question her own priviledged Southern upbring through a series of stages. First, she helped her impoverished sister-in-law, the hardcore abolitionist Virgilia Hazard, regain some kind of physical attraction. George and Constance Hazard's sponsorship of a local orphanage for Southern black children displaced by the war led Brett to develop compassion for them - something she had failed to do with her family's slaves back at Mont Royal. The orphanage also led to a surprising friendship with the orphanage's founder, a New England-born black man named Arthur Scipio Brown.

Another interesting character proved to be a young African-American woman named Jane, who found herself living at Mont Royal during the war. Jane was never owned by the Mains. She was introduced as a recently emancipated slave, who was accompanying her aunt, an elderly free black woman named Aunt Belle Nin, to the Union lines. Due to Aunt Belle's illness, the pair sought brief refuge at Mont Royal, due to the elderly woman's friendship with Madeline Main. Following Aunt Belle's death, Madeline asked Jane to remain at Mont Royal and educate the plantation's slaves in preparation for the end of the war. Madeline, who was biracial, foresaw the end of slavery and wanted the slaves to be prepared for the chaos of a post-war South. Through Jane's eyes, readers saw how the institution of slavery affected her fellow African-Americans throughout generations. What made Jane's role in the novel so interesting is that readers were given a closer and more personal look at the slaves as human beings than he ever did in the trilogy's first novel, "NORTH AND SOUTH".

Charles Main's wartime experiences did not bring about a social and political metamorphisis as it did his cousin and best friend, Brett and Billy Hazard. Even as a child, he never really shared his family's racism or dismiss the ugliness of slavery. On the other hand, readers were granted an exploration of life within the ranks of the Confederate Army through his eyes. Looking back, I realized that Charles' experiences pretty much served as a metaphor for the novel's title. Charles had began the story as a man who had already gained experience as a military officer during his four years at West Point and another four years as a U.S. Army officer on the Texas frontier. He spent his early months of the war not only trying (and sometimes failing) to instill a sense of professionalism to the Confederate soldiers who served under him. Charles' sense of professionalism also included a belief that soldiers had no business getting involved in a serious romance. As far as Charles was concerned, serious romance prevented a soldier from being distracted and doing his job. This belief was immediately challenged after meeting a young and witty Virginia widow named Augusta Barclay, who owned a farm in Northern Virginia. Despite his efforts to maintain an emotional distance from Augusta, Charles' feelings for her deepened. And as the war began to take an emotional toll upon him, Charles began to question the logic of continuing his romance with Augusta. If anything, Charles' professional and personal experiences during the war proved to be a prime example of Jakes' ability to skillfully weave both history and melodrama together.

I do have a few complaints about "LOVE AND WAR". One, most of the novel's setting seemed to be focused solely on the war's Eastern Theater - with scenes and chapters set along the Eastern Seabord. Villain Elkhanah Bent's participation in the Battle of Shiloh and his assignment in New Orleans gaves readers a view of the war's Western theater. Also, at least three characters ended up in the New Mexico Territory by the end of the war. But a part of me wished that Jakes had allowed more scenes away from the East - as he had done in "NORTH AND SOUTH".

But my complaint about setting is minor in compare to another issue - namely the novel's villains. I will give Jakes kudos for managing to portray them with the same kind of complexity as he did his protagonists. I suspect that he may have somewhat succeed with Elkhannah Bent, Ashton Huntoon and Stanley Hazard. The author went further in revealing their desires, fears and ways of dealing with their personal demons and crisis. However, both Bent and Ashton still seemed less rounded than in compare to the protagonists. James Huntoon had been portrayed as a minor villain in the 1982 novel. But once his marriage fell apart, thanks to Ashton's love affair with a smuggler and political conspirator named Lamar Powell and his career within the Confederate government stalled, Huntoon ceased to be a villain and Jakes portrayed him with a lot more sympathy.

Jakes' portrayal of the Mont Royal slave named Cuffey began with some level of complexity, as the character expressed his anger over being considered the Mains' property. But not much time had passed before Jakes had reduced Cuffey to a one-note thug and bully. I look back at Forest Whitaker's portrayal of the character in the 1986 miniseries, "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" and found myself wishing that the literary version of the character had been portrayed in a similar manner. Jakes' portrayal of Isabel Truscott Hazard remained as static as ever. Although Jakes seemed willing to portray Stanley with more complexity, he kept Isabel as the one-note vindictive shrew throughout the novel - with the exception of one poignant scene in which she had discovered Stanley's affair with a tawdry actress. As for the Lamar Powell character, he struck me as a one-dimensional rogue with a cruel and controlling streak. Granted, Jakes did allow one sequence featuring Powell's point-of-view. But that could not save the character for me.

I cannot say the same about George's older brother, Stanley Hazard. Jakes seemed a lot more sympathetic toward Stanley in "LOVE AND WAR" than he was in the preceeding novel. Stanley did not become a better person. His views of his brother George remained as resentful as ever, despite his own success in politics. And his support of the Radical Republicans and their pro-abolitionist views was at best, a hoax on his part in order to further his career. And yet, Jakes seemed more than willing to portray Stanley with a bit more sympathy and more complexity.

On the other hand, I found it odd that Jakes was willing to be more flexible with Stanley's character, but he could not do the same for the character's only sister, Virgilia Hazard. Unlike other fans of Jakes' saga, I have never regarded Virgilia as a villain and I never will. I do not regard her as perfect. And she is guilty of killing a wounded Confederate officer who had the bad luck to share the same name as her former lover, a fugitive slave named Grady who had been killed during John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. But I can never regard Virgilia as a villain. One, I share her political views . . . very strongly. Two, I find her family's unwillingness to allow Virgilia to be herself rather frustrating. I suspect that their dismissal of her politics - due to their own conservatism and her gender - had a negative effect on her character. And three, I have noticed that Jakes' negative portrayal of Virgilia seemed to have spread toward those historic figures that share her politics - namely the Radical Republicans.

I realize that the Radical Republicans were not perfect. But not all of them were not as bad as Jakes had portrayed them. Not once have I ever sensed the author's willingness to portray them with any kind of sympathy or understanding. He seemed willing to criticize their behavior and policies, yet he avoids criticizing moderates such as President Lincoln like the plague. In once scene, Brett Hazrard had learned from her brother-in-law Stanley about the Republican Party's plans to exploit the freed slaves' gratitude over being emancipated after the war. I can only wonder if Jakes was accusing all of the Radical Republicans (including men like Thaddeus Stevens) for this willingness to exploit former slaves or fake abolitionists like Stanley and Isabel Hazard. Were all Radical Republicans - save for Virgilia - fake abolitionists? And was he trying to convey to readers that Virgilia was blind to the machinations of the Radical Republicans? Or was Virgilia simply a victim of Jakes' overall negative attitude toward the Radical Republicans? Judging from what I have read, I can only conclude the latter.

In regard to historical accuracy, I can only account for one major example in the novel. It features an assassination plot hatched by Lamar Powell, along with the Huntoons and a few others against Confederacy president Jefferson Davis. Needless to say, this never happened. However, dislike and/or hatred of Davis did exist within the Confederacy. But aside from this story arc, Jakes painted a realistic portrait of the Civil War.

"LOVE AND WAR" is probably one of the finest Civil War novels I have ever read. The novel really gives readers a wide range view of war through the eyes of the Hazard and Main families and those with close connections to them. More importantly, Jakes managed to provide readers with a realistic portrait of the Civil War filled with a good deal of personal drama, humor, brutality, euphoria and tragedy. It is a shame that this novel is so underrated by book readers and critics today, because I thought it was simply superb, despite the few flaws it might possess. Who knows? Perhaps one day it will be universally appreciated again.

"JACK REACHER: NEVER GO BACK" (2016) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "JACK REACHER: NEVER GO BACK", the 2016 adaptation of "Never Go Back", Lee Childs' 2013 novel. Directed by Edward Zwick, the movie stars Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher:



"JACK REACHER: NEVER GO BACK" (2016) Photo Gallery

"EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1992) Review

 

"EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS" (1992) Review

I honestly do not know what to say about "EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS". I had heard so much about this adaptation of Emily Brontë's 1847 novel. Yet, I have never seen it in the movie theaters. In fact, it took me a long time to finally come around viewing it. When I finally saw it, the movie produced a reaction I did not expect to experience. 

Unlike the more famous 1939 William Wyler film, "EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS" proved to be an adaptation of Brontë's entire novel. Unlike the famous Wyler film or the 1847 novel, this movie was set during the second half of the eighteenth century. Directed by Peter Kosminsky, the movie began with the arrival of a gentleman named Lockwood, who seeks to rent a Yorkshire estate called Thrushcross Grange from its owner - a middle-aged man named Heathcliff. The latter lives at another local estate called Wuthering Heights. While visiting Wuthering Heights, Lockwood has an encounter with what he believes is a ghost . . . the ghost of a woman named Cathy. This drives Heathcliff racing out of the manor house and housekeeper Nelly Dean to recount to Lockwood on what drove Heathcliff to behave in that manner.

The story jumps back to some twenty to thirty years later in which an earlier owner of Wuthering Heights, Thomas Earnshaw, returns from a trip to Liverpool with a young boy who or who might not be a gypsy in tow named Heathcliff. The latter manages to befriend Earnshaw's daughter Catherine "Cathy". However, Earnshaw's son Hindley develops a deep dislike of the newcomer. He fears that Heathcliff has replaced him in his father's affections. Several years later, Earnshaw dies. Hindley marries a woman named Frances and becomes the new owner of Wuthering Heights. He allows Heathcliff to remain at Wuthering Heights . . . but only as a servant. The one bright spot in Heathcliff's life is his friendship with Cathy, which has developed into a romance between the pair. When Cathy and Heathcliff discover the Earnshaws' neighbors, the Lintons, giving a party at Thrushcross Grange, Cathy is attacked by a dog when she and Heathcliff climb the garden wall. The Lintons take Cathy in to care for her and order Heathcliff to leave the Grange. Cathy becomes entranced by Edgar Linton, along his wealth and glamour; while Edgar falls in love with her. Edgar's marriage proposal to Cathy and her acceptance leads to a major fallout between her and Heathcliff. The latter disappears without a trace for several years. And his return leads to jealousy, obsession and in the end, tragedy for him, the Earnshaws and the Lintons.

"EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS" proved to be rather popular with moviegoers. Ralph Fiennes' portrayal of the brooding Heathcliff and the film's adaptation of the entire novel left this film highly regarded by fans of period dramas. On the other hand, the majority of films critics were not impressed with this movie. Why they felt this way about the movie? I have no idea. I have yet to read a single review written by a professional film critics. I am simply aware that "EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS" was not that popular with them. While many movie fans are inclined to quickly accept the views of film critics, I decided to see the movie for myself and form my own judgement.

When I first saw this film, I was surprised that it was set during the late 1700s and around the beginning of the 1800s. James Acheson, who had designed the Oscar winning costume designs for 1988's "DANGEROUS LIAISONS", created the costumes for "WUTHERING HEIGHTS". And frankly, I believe he did a marvelous job in re-creating the fashions for the movie's setting as shown in the images below:

  

Another aspect of "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" that impressed me proved to be the performances. I do not know what led Peter Kominsky and the Casting Department to choose Ralph Fiennes for the role of Heathcliff, but I believe that fate or something divine led them to select the right actor for this role. Honestly, he did a fantastic job in portraying such an emotionally and morally chaotic character like Heathcliff. Some people were a bit put off by Juliette Binoche as both Cathy Henshaw and Catherine Linton. They had a trouble with her slight French accent. I have to be honest . . . I could barely notice her accent. But I thought she did an excellent job in portraying Cathy's vain and capricious personality, along with daughter Catherine's no-nonsense, yet compassionate nature. The movie also featured some excellent performances from Sophie Ward as Isabella Linton, Simon Shepherd as Edgar Linton, Janet McTeer as Nelly Dean, Jeremy Northam as Hindley Earnshaw, Jason Riddington as Hareton Earnshaw, and Jonathan Firth as Linton Heathcliff. Overall, I thought the cast was pretty solid.

And yet . . . I must confess that I am not a fan of this adaptation of Brontë's 1847 novel. I honestly do not care that the movie was a faithful adaptation that covered not only Heathcliff and Cathy's generation, but that of the younger generation. I am not a fan. One of my problems with this film was Kominsky's direction. He did a fine job in directing the actors. But I found his overall direction of the film rather problematic. Quite frankly, I thought the entire movie seemed like a rush job. Perhaps he was hampered by Anne Devlin's screenplay. The latter tried to shove Brontë's entire narrative into a movie with a running time of one hour and forty-five minutes. I am sorry, but that did not work. Watching this film, I finally understood why William Wyler only shot the novel's first half back in 1939.

Another major problem I had with the film is Brontë's novel . . . or the second half. I am not a major fan of the 1847 novel. But if it had ended liked Wyler's movie, I would have been satisfied. Personally, I have always found the second half of the novel rather boring; especially with Heathcliff running around like some damn mustache-twirling villain. And the taint of borderline incest certainly did not help, considering that Catherine Linton spent most of her screen time being torn between two men that happened to be her first cousins.

My final problems with "EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS" are rather aesthetic. As much as I enjoyed James Acheson's costumes, I cannot say the same about the hairstyles worn by the cast. Exactly who was in charge of the film's hairstyles? Because that person seemed unable to surmise that the film was set in the late 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. Some of the cast had modern hairstyles. And a good deal of the women cast members looked as if they were wearing rather bouffant wigs. One last problem I had with "WUTHERING HEIGHTS" was Mike Southon's cinematography. I suppose the 1990s ushered in the age of naturalistic lighting for period dramas. The problem is that I could barely see a damn thing! Especially in the movie's interior shots. I find it rather difficult to enjoy a movie or television production in which the lighting is so dark that I found myself depending more on the dialogue than the images on the screen. Worse, even some of the exterior shots seemed a little darker than usual. Was this a case of Southon adding to the film's Gothic setting? I have no idea. And honestly, I do not care, considering that . . . again, I could barely see a damn thing. 

I wish I could say that I enjoyed "EMILY BRONTE'S WUTHERING HEIGHTS". I really do. There were some aspects of the film that I liked - namely James Acheson's costumes and some first-rate performances from a cast led by Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes. But I found the movie's running time too short for an effective adaptation of Emily Brontë's novel. Either the film should have been longer . . . or it should have followed the example of the 1939 film and only adapt the novel's first half. Overall, I found this movie rather disappointing.

"SILAS MARNER" (1985) Review

 

"SILAS MARNER" (1985) Review

I have seen a handful of television and movie adaptations of novels written by George Eliot. But the very first adaptation I ever saw was "SILAS MARNER", the 1985 version of Eliot's third novel published back in 1861. My recent viewing of the production led me to reasses it.

"SILAS MARNER" begins with an English weaver living with a small Calvinist congregation in Lantern Yard, a slum street in a Northern England city. His life falls apart when he is framed for stealing the church's funds, while watching over the congregation's ill deacon. Worse, his fiancee leaves him for his so-called best friend, the very man who may have framed him. Shattered and embittered, Silas leaves Lantern Yard and arrives at a rural village in the Midlands called Raveloe. Although he resumes his trade as a weaver, Silas' traumatized past leads him to achieve a reputation as a miser and a loner in the community.

Silas' move to Raveloe eventually leads him to cross paths with the community's leading citizens, the Cass family. The head of the latter is the elderly Squire Cass who has two sons - Godfrey and Dunstan. Godfrey, who is the squire's heir is secretly married to one Molly Farren, a lower-class woman and opium addict from another town, who has given birth to his young daughter. Godfrey is also engaged to a young middle-class woman named Nancy Lammeter. Dunstan is a dissolute wastrel who constantly loses money via excessive gambling. One night, a drunken Dunstan breaks into Silas' cottage, steals the gold coins that the latter has been hoarding and disappears. Through a series of events, Molly plots to expose her marriage to Godfrey and their child during the Cass family's New Year party, but dies in the snow before she can reach it. Silas, who is emotionally upset over the loss of his coins, finds both the dead Molly and the child. Although he informs the partygoers of Molly's death and the child, he assumes guardianship of the latter (renamed Hephzibah "Eppie"), much to the relief of Godfrey, who can now legally marry Nancy. All goes well until Godfrey and Nancy's failure to have children threaten Silas' newfound happiness as Eppie's father years later.

What can I say about "SILAS MARNER"? I can honestly say that it was not one of the best adaptations of a George Eliot novel. Then again, I do not consider the 1861 novel to be one of her best works. I realized that Eliot had set the story either around the end of the 18th century or around the beginning of the 19th century. It was her prerogative. But both the novel and the movie seemed to reek of Victorian melodrama that I found myself feeling that Eliot or any adaptation could have set the story around the time it was originally written and published - the mid 19th century. The story is, at best, a good old-fashioned Victorian melodrama. I would never consider it as particularly original in compare to the likes of "MIDDLEMARCH" or "DANIEL DERONDA".

"SILAS MARNER" tries its best to be profound on the same level as the other two Eliot stories I had mentioned. But I had a few problems with the narrative. What was the point behind Dunstan Cass' disappearance and theft? Yes, he stole Silas' hard earned money before he disappeared. I got the feeling that the stolen coins seemed to serve as a prelude to Silas' emotional attachment to Eppie. But why have Dunstan take it? How else did his disappearance serve the story . . . even after his dead remains were found close by, years later? In Eliot's novel, the discovery of Dunstan led brother Godfrey to form a guilty conscience over his own secret regarding young Eppie and confess to his wife. But in the movie, it was Godfrey and Nancy's inability to conceive a child that seemed to finally force the former to confess. Unless my memories have played me wrong. Frankly, Dunstan struck me as a wasted character. Anyone else could have stolen Silas' money.

I also noticed that Giles Foster, who had served as both screenwriter and director for this production, left out a few things from Eliot's novel. I have never expect a movie or television to be an accurate adaptation of its literary source. But I wish Foster had shown how Eppie's presence in Silas' life had allowed him to socially connect with Raveloe's villagers. Eliot did this by allowing her to lead him outside, beyond the confines of his cottage. The only person with whom Silas managed to connect was neighbor Dolly Winthrop, who visited his cottage to deliver him food or give advice on how to raise Eppie. I also noticed that in the movie, Silas had never apologized to another villager named Jem Rodney for his false accusation of theft. And Jem had never demanded it. How odd. I also wish that Foster could have included the segment in which Silas had revisited his former neighborhood, Lantern Yard. In the novel, Silas' visit revealed how the neighborhood had transformed into a site for a factory and its citizens scattered to other parts. Silas' visit to his old neighborhood served as a reminder of how his life had improved in Raveloe and it is a pity that audiences never saw this on their television screens.

Yes, I have a few quibbles regarding "SILAS MARNER". But if I must be really honest, I still managed to enjoy it very much. Eliot had written a very emotional and poignant tale in which a lonely and embittered man finds a new lease on life through his connection with a child. Thanks to George Eliot's pen and Giles Foster's typewriter, this story was perfectly set up by showing how Silas Marner's life fell into a social and emotional nadir, thanks to the betrayal of a "friend" and the easily manipulated emotions of his neighbors.

Once Silas moved to Raveloe, the television movie did an excellent, if not perfect, job of conveying how he re-connected with the world. It was simply not a case of Silas stumbling across a foundling and taking her in. Even though he had formed a minor friendship with Mrs. Winthrop, having Eppie in his life managed to strengthen their friendship considerably. The movie's narrative also took its time in utilizing how the Cass family dynamics played such an important role in Silas' life in Raveloe. After all, Godfrey' secret marriage to Molly Farren brought Eppie into his life. And Dunstan's theft of his funds led Silas to re-direct his attention from his missing coins to the lost Eppie. And both Godfrey and Nancy Cass proved to be a threat to Silas and Eppie's future relationship.

The production values for "SILAS MARNER" proved to be solid. But if I must be honest, I did not find any of it - the cinematography, production designs and costume designs - particularly memorable. The performances in the movie was another matter. "SILAS MARNER" featured solid performances from the likes of Rosemary Martin, Jim Broadbent (before he became famous), Nick Brimble, Frederick Treves, Donald Eccles, Rosemary Greenwood; and even Elizabeth Hoyle and Melinda White who were both charming as younger versions of Eppie Marner.

Angela Pleasence certainly gave a memorable performance as Eppie's drug addicted mother, Molly Farren. Patsy Kensit not only gave a charming performance as the adolescent Eppie, I thought she was excellent in one particular scene in which Eppie emotionally found herself torn between Silas and the Casses. Freddie Jones gave his usual competent performance as the emotional Squire Cass, father of both Godfrey and Dunstan. I was especially impressed by Jonathan Coy's portrayal of the dissolute Dunstan Cass. In fact, I was so impressed that it seemed a pity that his character was only seen in the movie's first half.

I initially found the portrayal of Nancy Lammeter Cass rather limited, thanks to Eliot's novel and Foster's screenplay. Fortunately, Nancy became more of a central character in the film's second half and Jenny Agutter did a skillful job in conveying Nancy's growing despair of her inability to have children and her desperation to adopt Eppie. I thought Patrick Ryecart gave one of the two best performances in "SILAS MARNER". He did an excellent job of conveying Godfrey Cass' moral ambiguity - his secrecy over his marriage to Molly Farren, the passive-aggressive manner in which he "took care" of Eppie through Silas and his willingness to use Eppie as a substitute for his and Nancy's failure to have children. Ryecart made it clear that Godfrey was basically a decent man . . . decent, but flawed. The other best performance in "SILAS MARNER" came from leading man Ben Kingsley, who portrayed the title character. Kingsley did a superb job of conveying Silas' emotional journey. And it was quite a journey - from the self-satisfied weaver who found himself shunned from one community, to the embittered man who stayed away from his new neighbors, to a man experiencing the joys and fears of fatherhood for the first time, and finally the loving man who had finally learned to re-connect with others.

Overall, "SILAS MARNER" is more than a solid adaptation of George Eliot's novel. I did not find its production designs particularly overwhelming. I did enjoy Eliot's narrative, along with Giles Foster's adaptation rather enjoyable . . . if not perfect. But I cannot deny that what really made this movie work for me were the first-rate performances from a cast led by the always talented Ben Kingsley. Victorian melodrama or not, I can honestly say that I have yet to grow weary of "SILAS MARNER".

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set During the 1500s

 

Below is a list of my favorite movies set during the 1500s:

TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES SET DURING THE 1500s




1. "The Sea Hawk" (1940) - Errol Flynn starred in this exciting, but loose adaptation of Rafael Sabatini's 1915 novel about an Elizabethan privateer. Directed by Michael Curtiz, the movie starred Brenda Marshall and Henry Daniell.





2. "Shakespeare in Love" (1998) - John Madden directed this Best Picture winner about how an imaginary love affair between playwright William Shakespeare and a wealthy merchant's daughter that led to his creation of "Romeo and Juliet". Joseph Fiennes and Oscar winner Gwyneth Paltrow starred.





3. "Anne of the Thousand Days" (1969) - Richard Burton and Oscar nominee Geneviève Bujold starred in this historical drama about Anne Boleyn's relationship with King Henry VIII of England. Charles Jarrott directed.





4. "A Man for All Seasons" (1966) - Oscar winner Fred Zinnemann directed this Best Picture winner, an adaptation of Robert Bolt's play about the final years of Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII's Lord Chancellor. Oscar winner Paul Scofield starred.





5. "Captain From Castile" (1947) - Tyrone Power starred in this adaptation of Samuel Shellabarger's 1945 novel about a Spanish nobleman's experiences during the Spanish Inquisition and Hernan Cortez's conquest of the Aztecs in Mexico. Directed by Henry King, the movie co-starred Jean Peters and Cesar Romero.





6. "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" (1939) - Bette Davis, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland starred in this adaptation of Maxwell Anderson's 1930 Broadway play, "Elizabeth the Queen", a fictionalized account of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and the 2nd Earl of Essex. Michael Curtiz directed.





7. "Elizabeth" (1998) - Golden Globe winner Cate Blanchett starred in this highly fictionalized account of the early years of Elizabeth I's reign. Directed by Shekhar Kapur, the movie co-starred Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes and Richard Attenborough.





8. "Ever After" (1998) - Drew Barrymore starred in this loose adaptation of "Cinderella". Directed by Andy Tennant, the movie co-starred Anjelica Houston and Dougray Scott.





9. "Mary, Queen of Scotland" (1971) - Vanessa Redgrave starred in this biopic about the life of Queen Mary of Scotland. Directed by Charles Jarrott, the movie co-starred Timothy Dalton, Nigel Davenport and Glenda Jackson.





10. "Anonymous" (2011) - Roland Emmerich directed this interesting and highly fictionalized biopic about Elizabethan courtier, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The movie starred Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson and David Thewlis.