River run
The Mill on the Floss flows through PBS
by Jeffrey Gantz
THE MILL ON THE FLOSS. Adapted from the George Eliot novel by Hugh Stoddart.
Directed by Graham Theakston. With Emily Watson, Bernard Hill, Cheryl Campbell,
James Frain, Ifan Meredith, and James Weber-Brown. A BBC/WGBH production for
Masterpiece Theatre. Airs this Sunday, October 12, at 9 p.m. on Channel
2.
Now that Jane Austen's lamentably few novels are pretty much used up, the good
folks at Masterpiece Theatre are looking around anxiously for the Next
Big 19th-Century Thing. Henry James is too dense. Thomas Hardy is too
pessimistic -- or so the BBC seems to think. Emily Brontë would be a sure
thing if Wuthering Heights hadn't been done to death. So MT is
holding tryouts this fall. Anne Brontë is getting a shot for her only
novel, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, on October 26. The respectable 1995
cinematic release of Austen's Persuasion (an MT co-production)
will be airing October 19; and mystery writer Wilkie Collins, whose The
Woman in White did well a decade ago, checks in on November 2 with The
Moonstone. First up, though, is George Eliot's The Mill on the
Floss.
Eliot's Middlemarch was a reasonable MT success, but that was a
six-hour mini-series. The Mill on the Floss, which runs between 400 and
500 pages, gets crammed into 108 minutes. A rambling affair covering at least
eight years, it's really three consecutive mini-novels: a satire of provincial
small-mindedness centering on mill owner Edward Tulliver and his children Tom
and Maggie; a Romeo-and-Juliet story in which Maggie falls in love with the son
of her father's greatest enemy and incurs the wrath of Tom; and a
proto-Harlequin Romance in which Maggie is courted by sensitive hunchback
Philip (her Romeo) and conceited stud Stephen (her best friend's beau) while
still trying to get her mind off . . . Tom. All this is borne
along on the book's central metaphor, the river Floss: a flood of passion
carries Maggie and Stephen away in a rowboat (can a metaphor get more obvious?)
before a concluding deluge of Biblical proportions turns the river into a real
flood (evidently yes).
Something has to give in Hugh Stoddart's adaptation. The good news is that
Eliot's occasionally patronizing overlayer of musing and moralizing ("We learn
to restrain ourselves as we get older") has evaporated. The bad news is that
the complexity of her characterizations, particularly Maggie and Tom, has gone
with it. The settings are postcard perfect (Mr. Deane has a lawn Wimbledon
would envy), with lots of long cloaks and white horses; the romantic score
swells at crucial moments (when the Tullivers have to leave the mill; when
Maggie leaves Stephen); the acting is contained and cultivated. Too cultivated,
actually -- all these BBC productions are starting to look alike. If this one
had more wit and point, you could mistake it for Jane Austen.
Well, it doesn't. What it does have is Emily Watson (Breaking the
Waves) as Maggie and some uncommon insights into the Tulliver siblings, who
can't seem to let go of each other. Watson is worth watching in any role; here
her crinkling face and hunted-doe eyes capture Maggie's perplexing combination
of self-sacrifice and self-indulgence. Ifan Meredith's Tom looks more like a
new Baywatch recruit than Eliot's "lad with light-brown hair, cheeks of
cream and roses, full lips, indeterminate nose and eyebrows," but the
smoldering resentment in his face suggests a loveless childhood -- and an odd
sort of obsession/repulsion about his sister. Is Maggie is the victim of Tom's
domineering? Or are the two of them fixated on each other (Maggie can't bring
herself to marry Philip or Stephen; Tom never so much as looks at another
woman), like Poe's Usher twins? Eliot can't seem to decide. In the end she
makes Maggie the victim of a hypocritical patriarchal society (as Eliot herself
was), and Tom and Maggie the sacrifices designated to set that society
straight.
Bernard Hill's Mr. Tulliver starts out too affably ("I didn't raise my dam to
cause anyone trouble") but finds the right sort of choler and obtuseness
thereafter; Cheryl Campbell doesn't try for more glamor or intelligence than
her Bessy Tulliver has a right to. But James Frain's Philip and James
Weber-Brown's Stephen get reduced to stereotype; and the satirized relatives
(Bessy's three sisters and their husbands) disappear pretty much altogether. So
does any mention of religious ideas (Maggie's Thomas à Kempis-inspired
renunciation of desire, for example). What's left is a classy soap that's well
worth two hours of your Sunday evening, but I wish the BBC and 'GBH had gone
the full monty with Eliot's novel instead of reducing it to a
masterpiece-of-the-week.