For the first part of JUDE, I thought to myself, "Y'know, period pieces with foreign actors pretty much can do no wrong." They can be brilliantly wonderful or, at worse, dull but well-acted and nice to look at.

JUDE, based on Thomas Hardy's novel "Jude the Obscure" is certainly well-acted. The title character is played by Christopher Eccleston, who won acclaim for SHALLOW GRAVE and LET HIM HAVE IT. Opposite him is Kate Winslet who amazed me in both HEAVENLY CREATURES and SENSE & SENSIBILITY.

JUDE is also a lovely looking film. 19th-century Britain, stark fields, warm rooms, cold streets, dark churches and dusty stoneyards. At times I thought I could feel the snow beneath my feet or smell the woolen clothes drying beside the fireplace. Literally. Even the disemboweling of a pig had strong visual beauty. And the music was as beautiful and haunting as the images.

But did I think JUDE brilliant? At first, no. It had all the elements of a terrific movie, but it lacked a driven plot and strong emotional kick. I was involved wth the characters, but not bonded to them. I kept thinking about HOWARDS END and what a thrill ride that was. Watching JUDE, I felt I was being pulled along in a wagon. An enjoyable ride, but nothing comparable.

Until...

Until about three-quarters through the movie. There's a sudden turn in events that struck the entire audience through the bosom. You who know the novel know what I'm talking about here. At that point I realized my wagon had been pulled up a hill and flung over a precipice. It was devastating. The resolution that followed accentuated all the wonderful things about JUDE, and there JUDE became brilliant.

Even though I'm dying to relate the plot, I really shouldn't. Those who have read "Jude the Obscure" will know the story already. Those who haven't will be best served by knowing nothing of what lies before them. I will tell you this: considering some of its bleak depictions of marriage, child-bearing and family life, JUDE doesn't make for a good "date movie." If anyone wants to discuss the plot or its structure, e-mail me.

Director Michael Winterbottom has done five or so movies before JUDE, none of which are familiar to me. I'm confident, though, that I will remember him for this one. JUDE is filled with visual directorial logic, which I love. For example, when Jude first marries, we see him romping in bed with his wife and the camera pans to a close-up on his back. The next shot is of barren hills covered with snow, the curve of which match the curve of Jude's back. With that one cut, Winterbottom has taken us instantly to the end of the relationship. When we see Jude and his wife struggling with each other in the following scenes, we need not ask how it came to pass, we just know it did. Some people might be troubled that the plot makes such giant leaps with so little explanation. But with devices like this and others, I think Winterbottom holds the story together.

Winterbottom also carefully controls the use of color. The movie begins in black and white, but it isn't the black and white of, say, SCHINDLER'S LIST. In that movie, you had the feeling that the world *really* was black and white. In JUDE, it seems everything is black and white because Jude is not mature enough to see the world in all its color. When color finally does break into the film, it does so in muted blues and dusty grey which extend the feel of black and white. From then on the scenes will appear with the full sumptuousness of a summer field or the flatness of an industrial tenement, depending on Jude's emotional state and his prospects.

Oh! And there's this fantastic scene - a 10 second shot, really - where Jude is lying in bed after having read a letter. The camera looks down upon him writhing in a sort of fetal position while we hear from outside the clanging of some monotonous work. It perfectly evoked his frustration; I identified with him completely. (Truth be told, it was rather easy for me to identify with Jude since I think we physically look a good deal alike. But despite that, it was a really great shot!)

I have to say a few words more about Kate Winslet. This is the third movie I've seen her in and again her character is something of a free spirit. Yet Kate is not at all typecast. Her Sue in JUDE is totally different from Maryanne in SENSE & SENSIBILITY and "Deborah" in HEAVENLY CREATURES. Those performances were akin to gymnastic displays; this one is more like a marathon. Not showy, but rather mature, difficult, measured and thoroughly convincing. She really does have the stuff.

JUDE runs for two hours, but it felt like I'd spent a lifetime in the theater. Which isn't a bad thing, because it is in part true - I had lived through Jude's life. Novels often create this effect; movies rarely do. Off the top of my head, only THE LAST EMPEROR and FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE match JUDE in conveying the sense that you have lived through someone else's life.

If you are looking for a fast-paced, uplifting film, don't go to JUDE. But if you can handle spending one night of the week depressed, by all means go. JUDE starts slowly, but the payoff is worth it.

previous | subscribe | movies | next

Mike's Midnight Movie Reviews
© copyright 1995-1998 Michael J. Doyle