Jude (1996)
9/10
Ambitious and anything but tender, but wonderfully acted and well adapted
2 November 2009
Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure is a very complicated and ambitious book, and while heavy-reading it is a fine piece of literature. This 1996 film adaptation is a rock-solid adaptation, that is ambitious and realistic. I will admit some parts like the killing of the pig is anything but tender, but none of the scenes are over-sensationalised.

As an adaptation of the book, it works very well. If I had a quibble, the secondary characters could have been developed more than they were depicted. The screenplay is well crafted; the writers and the director have at least some idea how Hardy's work should work on film and stay relatively true to the book. The music both haunting and beautiful at the same time was absolutely outstanding.

The direction is very fine, never sluggish and never overdone. It was about right. The cinematography is superb, dark, fluid and sensitive. And the period detail was just as good. It was this element alone that contributed to the mood of the adaptation. The love story here which is dirty and tragic was beautifully realised, and very rarely struck a false note.

The performances were just brilliant, no overplaying or underplaying as far as I could see. Special mention must go to the two lead performances. Christopher Ecceleston is a very talented and I think under-appreciated actor, and in the title role he was perfectly cast and showed real versatility. As Sue Brideshead, the beautiful Kate Winslet is positively luminous and is true to her character. Out of the supporting performances, the best is Rachel Griffiths as Arabella, a very modest performance I must say.

Overall, has its minor flaws but a very well done adaptation of a complicated book. Always realistic and never overly-sentimental as I feared. Though the ending is heart-rending. 9/10 Bethany Cox
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed