...so I rented and watched this again -- and I was every bit as bored and unimpressed as I remembered feeling after having watched it the first time!
Having read this book more than once (it is my favorite Thomas Hardy book, and one of my favorite books of all time), and having seen both filmed versions, I have to say that this version (with Alan Bates, Julie Christie and Peter Finch) cannot hold a candle to the BBC remake, released in 1998, with Nathaniel Parker, Paloma Baeza and Nigel Terry.
This Bates/Christie version was a great disappointment to me. Julie Christie was too old for the part of Bathsheba, did not fit Hardy's description of her at all, and has never impressed me as much of an actress -- an opinion which has only been substantiated by her high-school-calibre performance in this film -- a MAJOR casting faux pas! (and a slap on the hand to the makeup artist who made this supposed 19th-century character even more farcical by piling on the makeup until she looked like a Vogue cover girl, rather than the mistress of Weatherbury Farm).
Peter Finch's performance, as Boldwood, was admirable (actually the best of the film, in my opinion), but just did not elicit the strong feeling of empathy from me, as Nigel Terry did in the BBC version. In all fairness, Finch did not seem to have as much screen time, so character development was lacking.
The greatest surprise to me, in regard to this film, was that I also felt the same about Alan Bates' performance as Gabriel Oak -- he just did not convey the emotions and the quality of Oak's character, as described by Hardy in the book, and I found his portrayal to be PAINFULLY bland and boring. He seemed as though he was reading his lines straight off a teleprompter -- emotion and warmth were virtually non-existent! (a STRIKING contrast to Nathaniel Parker's sensitive, powerful, heart-wrenching portrayal of Oak in the 1998 film).
Part of the blame would have to be shared by the director of this version -- the actors APPEARED to be acting, and neither they, nor the director, seemed to have a firm grasp or understanding of the explicit emotions and personalities of the characters, which Hardy had gone to great effort and detail to describe in the book.
I highly recommend to anyone who has seen only this version -- or to anyone who has never seen either version -- that you rent or buy the 1998 BBC film, which is truer to Hardy's book (although some changes were made in that adaptation also, due to time constraints, it wasn't nearly as "choppy" as this one), and is a quality production in every way, and brilliantly acted, from the main players right down through the supporting cast.
Having read this book more than once (it is my favorite Thomas Hardy book, and one of my favorite books of all time), and having seen both filmed versions, I have to say that this version (with Alan Bates, Julie Christie and Peter Finch) cannot hold a candle to the BBC remake, released in 1998, with Nathaniel Parker, Paloma Baeza and Nigel Terry.
This Bates/Christie version was a great disappointment to me. Julie Christie was too old for the part of Bathsheba, did not fit Hardy's description of her at all, and has never impressed me as much of an actress -- an opinion which has only been substantiated by her high-school-calibre performance in this film -- a MAJOR casting faux pas! (and a slap on the hand to the makeup artist who made this supposed 19th-century character even more farcical by piling on the makeup until she looked like a Vogue cover girl, rather than the mistress of Weatherbury Farm).
Peter Finch's performance, as Boldwood, was admirable (actually the best of the film, in my opinion), but just did not elicit the strong feeling of empathy from me, as Nigel Terry did in the BBC version. In all fairness, Finch did not seem to have as much screen time, so character development was lacking.
The greatest surprise to me, in regard to this film, was that I also felt the same about Alan Bates' performance as Gabriel Oak -- he just did not convey the emotions and the quality of Oak's character, as described by Hardy in the book, and I found his portrayal to be PAINFULLY bland and boring. He seemed as though he was reading his lines straight off a teleprompter -- emotion and warmth were virtually non-existent! (a STRIKING contrast to Nathaniel Parker's sensitive, powerful, heart-wrenching portrayal of Oak in the 1998 film).
Part of the blame would have to be shared by the director of this version -- the actors APPEARED to be acting, and neither they, nor the director, seemed to have a firm grasp or understanding of the explicit emotions and personalities of the characters, which Hardy had gone to great effort and detail to describe in the book.
I highly recommend to anyone who has seen only this version -- or to anyone who has never seen either version -- that you rent or buy the 1998 BBC film, which is truer to Hardy's book (although some changes were made in that adaptation also, due to time constraints, it wasn't nearly as "choppy" as this one), and is a quality production in every way, and brilliantly acted, from the main players right down through the supporting cast.