Mark Kermode reviews Far From The Madding Crowd 

Was Matthias Schoenaerts a bit too good looking? The 3 men represent: Boldwood=Wealth, Troy=Beauty, Oak=Sturdiness, Knowledge. But Schoenaerts (to me, a heterasexual male!) was far more beautiful than the actor playing Troy making you wonder what Bathsheba saw in Troy.

I would like to see this. I like Carey Mulligan.

I love this adaptation, even though it has to omit a lot due to the shorter duration, more than 1967's. The Schlesinger's version has the grave sin of focusing on the wrong male character (eclipsing not only Gabriel, but Bathsheba herself) and having an extremely hasty ending.

loved every minutes of this movie. A new classic of romance!

This version just can't match the 1998 ITV version.

Review featuring detailed synopsis and spoilers... Far from the Madding Crowd, released in 2015, is a British-made romantic drama, and the most recent adaptation of the classic novel by Thomas Hardy. An earlier version, which most of us recall, starred Julie Christie and Terence Stamp, but this version, directed by Thomas Vinterberg, starring Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts, Michael Sheen, Tom Sturridge and Juno Temple, is, in my view, a better and far more enjoyable film. This is mainly because the players in this adaptation portray their characters with greater empathy and in such a way that we intuitively understand them as people. In the earlier version, the main character, Bathsheba Everdene, as portrayed by Christie, is a woman somewhat dour, it seems to me, in her self-reliance (whom a man might admire but not be drawn to). Having not seen the earlier version for some time, and recalling very little of it, perhaps my impressions are unfair. In any event, in this version, in her portrayal of the same character, Carey Mulligan's apparent empathy with Bathsheba results in a portrayal of a woman with whom we, as an audience, might empathise also, and in whom, despite her fierce independance, we might easily fall in love (a point which I readily confess is subjective to a male perspective - female audiences will see this differently). For me at least, her eligibility is critical, since the main thrust of the story involves the choices Bathsheba makes when presented with three ardent suiters altogether different in character. I needed to believe these men were in love with her for a reason, and Carey Mulligan makes this entirely understandable. There is a telling moment at the very beginning, in which she is seen on horseback following a path which becomes increasingly narrow and too low for a normal riding position. Anyone else would have gone another way, but not Bathsheba. Instead she reclines on her horse until she is fully on her back, arms to either side for balance, allowing the horse to carry her through, come what may. It says a lot to us about her, as it does to farmer Oak who witnesses this moment entranced by her. So would I have been. And so the game is afoot. In 1870's Victorian England, Bathsheba Everdene (Mulligan) inherits her aunt's farm in Dorset, declaring to the farm's old retainers that, in spite of being their mistress rather than their master, she intends to 'astonish them'. Earlier, Gabriel Oak (Matthias Schoenaerts), a neighbouring farmer, as mentioned earlier, has fallen in love with her from a distance. After a chance meeting during which Gabriel gains an intuitive insight into the character of the woman, Gabriel proposes, but the headstrong Bathsheba cannot accept. Revealingly, as Gabriel heads back to his farm, she runs after him, as if to lay out her stall, by saying that she wasn't rejecting him either, and that, while tempted by the notion of marriage, she would need a man to tame her and she did not believe him capable of it, assuring him that because of her stubborn independance he would only grow to despise her. Challenge laid down, we get the impression, however, that Gabriel already knows this woman far better than she knows herself, as with a knowing look he turns and walks away. Meanwhile, Gabriel's entire flock of sheep are led off a cliff by a wayward sheepdog and Gabriel is left penniless. Later Gabriel saves Bathsheba's barn from destruction in a fire and accepts Bathsheba's offer of employment. Then a neighbouring landowner, William Boldwood (Michael Sheen), who is prosperous and mature, but still a bachelor, falls in love with her, and makes a proposal of his own. Again the headstrong young woman respectfully declines a heartfelt offer. Then a young soldier, Frank Troy (Tom Sturridge), finds himself jilted at the alter by sweetheart Fanny Robin, who, as fate would have it, has gone to the wrong church. Drowning his sorrows in alcohol, Frank wanders into the woods near Bathsheba's farm, and, upon a chance encounter with the bewitching young woman, is mesmerized by her. When Bathsheba receives a third (but somewhat indecent) proposal from the caddish but otherwise gallant young officer, temptation at last gets the better of her. Her fate is sealed by a passionate encounter in the woods with the soldier, leaving her quite literally breathless and trembling (a quite stunning and atmospheric moment in the movie). Will Bathsheba give in to her own inner demons as personified by soldier Frank? Or can she choose between two other, kinder gentlemen suiters, and yet remain the independant young woman she believes herself to be? The answers are presented entertainingly, charmingly and engagingly, with all the principle players on the best of their form. In his portrayal of Gabriel Oak (for whom we are rooting from the outset, hoping the good guy might get the girl in the end), Matthias Schoenaerts is outstanding in portaying Gabriel's instinctive understanding of the woman, with measured understatement - somehow we just know that she isn't fooling him for a moment. And when he stands up to her, as no-one else can, we somehow just know that she loves him in spite of often petulant protestations. Michael Sheen is also on top form as a man of weath, position and education with everything going for him other than any ability to understand the woman he is utterly smitten by. As for Carey Mulligan, an instinctively brilliant portrayal of one of literature's most complex and conflicted female characters. Given the need for the character to exemplify feminism as was intended by Thomas Hardy in the novel, Carey Mulligan deserves credit in making Bathsheba Everdene believable as a fiercely independant woman without preventing us - or was it just me? - from falling in love with her. As good as everyone else in the movie might be, this is Carey Mulligan's movie without question. I hadn't really taken much notice of miss Mulligan before this, but now she is one of my acting heroes (and I am using that term intentionally since I do not think that concept requires gender). Possibly my all-time favourite romantic, period drama. I loved every moment of it. For me, an enchanting, perfect movie, and a 10 out of 10 unreservedly.

What I found odd was that Gabriel and Bathsheba, seemed to be so alike in their speech. Bathsheba herself says in the book that she is better educated, but you would never think that. The 1998 and 1967 Gabriel were much more like a country shepard.

not a word for the 1998 ITV production, the best of the lot

After posting my own review of 'Far From the Madding Crowd' I realised, reading comments by others, in particular those of Jenny Wang who made me think again, that I had more to say about the story and the issue of feminism as a theme. In my view, this movie is a character-driven story more than a socialogical essay, so please indulge me while I address the issue of feminism here, rather than in my main review. I wonder to what degree the character is regarded as a feminist icon retrospectively, given that the choice to be a feminist barely existed at the time. Hardy was creating, as best he could from a male perspective, a portrayal of a woman who exemplified certain qualities that might have been regarded in those days as a male prerogative and these days as ideals of feminism, but I am not sure that Bathsheba would have regarded herself as a feminist as such. In my view, she is merely an individual. In this, to me, the story is more a character piece, the main protagonist being a complex, self-willed, free-thinking and independantly-minded individual (who just happens to be a woman) of extraordinary spirit and character, also in many respects conflicted, who is more than a match for her male counterparts. She is intelligent enough to know her limitations while taking an opportunity to succeed or fail on her own terms. With all her strengths, at the same time she would not be human if she was not also vulnerable and subject to self-doubt. And so she is apt to hide behind a facade of self-assuredness to keep those around her at arms length, especially those from whom she needs help, and those who seek from her the kind of relationship that requires she relinquish control and let down her barriers. Heaven forbid anyone should see the real person behind those barriers, a person who is not as self-confident, and one who does not always know her own mind, as it seems. One person, however, does see through her: Gabriel Oak. I suspect there is much of Mulligan in Everdene, and Everdene in Mulligan, which is why in my own review I described her portaryal of the character as empathic. I suppose these days we might call Everdene a control freak. Control freaks more often than not are all too acutely aware of their failings and vulnerability, despite appearances, which is why they are obliged to be in control. Reluctantly, Bathsheba relinquishes control to Gabriel Oak, but only when she has no alternative. Then her facade is re-established. Of course, what is in direct contradiction of this, is what happens between Everdene and Soldier Frank. Why does she relinquish control all too easily to the wrong kind of person? Ultimately, I suppose, because this is a drama and something dramatic needs to happen. And a story cannot always perfectly exemplify a socialogical point of view, any more than a person can always personify it. As my wife often says to me, we are 'a little bit not perfect' and whatever ideal we aspire to we cannot always perfectly example it. As to whether or not Everdene is a model of feminism, I think that is subject to your interpretation of what feminism really is. I am happy to admit that I am wholly unqualified to offer a definition, but nor am I convinced that even among those who claim to be feminist there is any consensus. So I would offer this: in his creation of the character of Bathsheba Everdene, surely if anyone here is a feminist it is Thomas Hardy. Let us not assume that only a woman can be one.

Is it just me but this version is awful, no sense of time and place, details all wrong, and nothing to do with Hardys great characters. Hardy created characters that were utterly believable as humans because he understood people at their core, and the 1967 film was true to them. The newer film loses all that.

I just saw the film, and like many of the commenters before me, I don't think it's a film about feminism at all... I think it is very much a romantic story, about a girl who had an awful amount of pride and thought she knew what was best for herself, and all the while her heart was telling her something entirely different. The shepherd's offer came too prematurely for her, before she had even considered marriage properly and when she still had unrealistic fantasies about it. Then the soldier came along and swept her off her feet as she had always wanted, and as the shepherd never could do (the soldier 'tamed' her). And the whole time, if she had been honest with herself and had laid down her pride long enough to see it, she was waiting for Gabriel to ask her to marry him again. It has nothing to do with feminism, it's just the struggle that every young person must go through before they are ready to love and be loved.

I saw the film, however i did not understand the Seargant's love for the blond woman and why she did not show up to marry him??? anyone?

It was a good interpretation of the novel. The story is more about how Oak and Bathsheba, come together, through friendship, and having both endured great tragedy. The feminism if you want to call it that, which most people seem blind too, is clearly shown in the story of Troy's first fiancé, who he abandons and whom ends up dead in workhouse as a result. Bathsheba is in a lucky position, she is privileged and educated.

What! No clip?

The Freudian in me saw that sword waving sequence and thought, this aint exactly subtle is it?

I thought it was a poor film with very little sense of place and time. Characters are just not right, Bathsheba has none of the charisma, wit and flrtyness that as well as her beauty is what makes men take leave of their senses. Boldwood is just weird, Troy a boring dullard.

Matthias Schoenaerts and Michael Sheen were wonderful. But Carey Mulligan's Bathsheba was just wrong. The whole point of Thom Hardy's story (a serial) and the 1966 version with Julie Christie was the character arc from a vain, shallow, silly girl to a woman who has become humanized by the authentic farm life and what she endures there. Carey Mulligan starts out as a good girl and ends up as a good girl and just goes no where. Watch the 1966 version.

Couldn't disagree more, with most of this. Sheen's quiet, yet bottled-up performance was the only thing worth seeing.

The cancer of feminism creeping into Hardy and trying to make him their own .

I love Kermode for being a strong feminist. LOVE HIM!!! Can't wait to see this.