Oliver Twist

The 1982 TV version of Oliver Twist, is, as far I’ve ever been concerned, the only version. It was the first I’d ever seen. In fact, I’d never heard of the story at all before. Well, not quite exactly. I had seen an ad in TV guide for the Filmation cartoon version that something of “Charles Dickens tale of a young orphan in the clutches of thieves.” I’d heard of virtually nothing by Dickens, save for Christmas Carol. Then I read of this version as a young prê-teen in an issue of Scholastic Scope, and saw the movie. Since I was severely bullied by both peers and teachers at the time, the main character was someone I could relate to. But Oliver Twist managed to be virtuous and selfless in a very dark world, something I could never have managed at the time. The face of the ash-blond wey-faced waif on the cover of the Scope and in the TV guide appeared at once anguished, starving, wretched and wise far beyond his meager years. Those huge haunting eyes went straight into my soul.

The TV guide ad proclaimed “George C. Scott stars in Oliver Twist.” I’d never even heard of George C. Scott either. I wondered if the kid on the front was George C. Scott, or if George C. Scott was the name of an adult actor.

British film director Clive Donner had originally worked on David Lean’s far more famous version. In 1982, he got to helm his own version of Dickens’ classic, and then went on to film George C. Scott once again in his version of A Christmas Carol. At the time, CBS television had a “Read More About It” series of classics going, which included Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities , Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe, Rudyard Kipling’s Kim, among many others. The three Donner-directed productions in this fine series were Oliver Twist (1982), The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982), and A Christmas Carol (1984). Some of the same actors re-occurred in these films, Richard Charles and Eleanor David in Twist and in Pimpernel, Scott in Twist and Carol. The latter two films won critical acclaim, Carol being by far the most popular. Of these three, Twist was the least popular and the least celebrated. In general, this is deserved, as it is arguably the weakest of the three films.

That is hardly to say it is a poor version of Dickens’ classic. Far from it—as Oliver Twist versions go, I would certainly count it among the best. The fact is, however, that it could have been the definitive version to date, but cannot be considered as such, given the measly two-hour time slot, and being hampered by political correctness. The latter centers almost entirely around George C. Scott’s Fagin. Most Twist productions, I’ve noticed, are judged mostly in relation to the actor who plays Fagin, the Jewish leader of the gang of young thieves. It’s almost ironic how David Lean’s version, starring Alec Guinness as Fagin, is generally considered definitive, and other versions are generally held up to it as a standard, and yet every version that I know has taken pains to make Fagin far less evil than in the book. Though John O’ Conner in his New York Times movie review, blasted him for “sanitizing “ Fagin, George C. Scott’ s watered-down performance is hardly alone in that regard. Fagin’s character was arguably anti-Semitic from the start; it was not lacking in controversy even in when the story first appeared as a serial. When Oliver first encounters Fagin in his lair, he is depicted as “a shriveled old Jew” with a mass of red hair, and toasting sausages over a fire with a fork, a vision of almost Satanic significance. In the later book edition, Dickens pruned many of the references to Fagin as “the Jew.” Alec Guiness’s performance, was, if anything, an even grosser caricature than the way Dickens originally wrote Fagin. But the fact is, his take on the character is more in keeping with Dickens than any of the latter versions.

George Scott actually had a great opportunity with Fagin, which was largely squandered. His more sympathetic take on the character, a seeming attempt to explore what is probably the most complex characters in the story is actually a good thing; it simply isn’t balanced enough. Fagin is never the terrifying presence he often is throughout the book. Oliver and the other characters are never threatened by him. He merely seems like a kindly old gentleman who was been forced by circumstances alone to life of crime, even (unsuccessfully) trying to prevent Nancy’s murder in the end. We do, however, see Fagin do evil; he (reluctantly) takes up Monks on his offer of 500 pounds to have Sikes murder Oliver, though Nancy’s presence prevents him from following through. Fagin, it seems, will at least consider doing anything so long as the price is right. He remains conscience-ridden throughout however, and at the end, seems to exihibit some genuine care for Oliver’s future as way of penance for his past sins, which is true to what Dickens wrote. All this is fine, save for the fact that we never that Fagin has any truly monstrous side. He does in the book of course, and there is even a scene following Oliver’s recapture where he viciously thrashes Oliver until Nancy intervenes. Scott’s infamous rage would have worked well for such a scene, but the filmmakers doubtless were reluctant to depict a Semitic character in so grim a light.

They had no such reservations about Tim Curry’s Bill Sikes. While some have objected that Sikes should have been more hulking and bullying, he is undoubtedly by far the most loathsome character in the film, just as in the original. Curry, no stranger to depicting evil characters (Dr. Frank N. Furter in the Rocky Horror Picture Show, the Satanic Darkness,in Ridley Scott’s Legend)told an interview for Scope magazine that he “made Sikes sort of a madman.” And it shows. Sikes appears to be virtually demented by a lifetime of villainy and alcohol adiction. It is mystery indeed why Nancy remains so loyal to him, though according to Curry, he has “some flashes of humor about him,” which might account for some of Nancy's initial attraction. We see Sikes threaten nine-year-old Oliver with his pistol.

One online poster on Curry’s website opined that “the scene where Sikes seizes Oliver by the throat and throws him against a wall (before the burglary) is pretty grim,” and that although he usually wants Curry’s character to escape his seemingly inevitable demise “this time I didn’t.” By far the most disturbing of the scenes with Sikes is Nancy’s murder; in most versions, this scene takes place off screen or behind closed doors. In this one, the scene is long and actually protracted. While in Dickens original it was bloody and excruciatingly graphic, here it seems even more extreme, with Nancy dizzy, dazed blinded, and pleading heartbreakingly for her life. The first time I saw this movie I actually skipped this scene. The second time, when a friend saw it with me, he remarked that he felt like beating the ****out of Sikes at that point and has severely disturbed. The fact that Sikes eventually gets his comeupance—another “gross scene” -- hardly compensated. Whether it’s good that this scene was done like this I’m not sure. I doubt it, really; this film was once shown on the Disney Channel (in the days when Disney actually showed movies and not endless teenage drek), and they had viewers of all ages exposed to this extreme violence. The thing is, even though this scene is very true to Dickens, much of the rest of the novel has been left out entirely. So why go overboard on this one highly disturbing scene?


I always fast-forward then it comes to this. But the scene is instructive for at least one reason: Nancy performs the most heroic sacrifice in the story. True, she does not foresee that she will be murdered; but she takes a huge chance nonetheless to save Oliver’s life. Let us hope that heaven does wait for those who would sacrifice their own life for others.



As for the story itself, it has both ends cut off it to make it fit, much like David Lynch’s adaptation of Frank Herbert’s Dune. Most of the problem with Oliver Twist has not so much to do with what is on-screen but what has been left out entirely. In this, however, it is not much different from other large and small screen versions, most of which eliminate at least as much. The Lean version, although praised as definitive, also runs two hour length, and departs equally from its source material. It totally eliminates Oliver’s aunt, the burglary at Maylies, and recasts Brownlow as Oliver’s grandfather. The 1982 version, in a move that appears to be virtually unique among Twist adaptations, goes the opposite route, and proceeds straight to the burglary, without having Oliver first rescued by Brownlow and later recaptured by the thieves. Doing so eliminates some potentially moving and memorable incidents from the novel.



For example, Mr. Fang, the corrupt magistrate who tries to sentence Oliver does appear in this version (he is scene swilling sherry and obviously drunk) when he sentences Dodger to Australia. But this appearance so brief, it is almost wasted. The drunken magistrate would have been truly seen as evil and monstrous if they included the scene where pathetic little Oliver is dragged before him.

On the other hand, I like the idea of Rose as Brownlow’s niece, and living together on the same estate out on the windswept moors, and Oliver remaining under the care of both of them. This move did manage to eliminate Mr. Grimwig, undoubtedly the most annoying character in the book, and the one character I thought to be entirely without merit. But what I consider the greatest improvement over Dickens’ original (and no, I don’t consider Dickens, as a classic author, to be above criticism), is the scene where Oliver asks for more gruel. In the novel, he is essentially forced into the act, as kids draw straws and lot falls to Oliver Twist. Screenwriter James Goldman opted instead to have Oliver takes it entirely upon himself to take up a bowl for another starving youngster. In the book, Oliver is entirely a passive figure, save for the one time he trashes the bully Noah Claypool for insulting his dead mother (that scene is done to good effect here, with Oliver laying into his tormentor like an avenging angel). In this version, Oliver is afforded a shining moment of selfless heroism. The scene is very moving, with the starved child tremblingly making his way past rows of his staring peers. The scene ends of course, with Bumble tossing Oliver and his equally starved companion into a dark cellar. This starts the twisted chain of events which eventually causes ruin to Bumble and his wife; never underestimate the power of virtue. This scene demonstrates that quality splendidly. Another thing that makes this scene noteworthy is that this version (uniquely, as far as I am aware) includes Oliver Twist’s workhouse companion, Dick Swubble (okay, his name might NOT be Swubble, the name under “S” on Bumble’s self-made list—it might have been Unwin, Vilkins, or something else. But who’s to say I’m wrong?) Goldman makes Dick the orphan whom Oliver makes his sacrifice, and whom we saw fainting from starvation in an earlier scene. He is truly pathetic in the book, described by Dickens as having limbs so thin and wasted as having the appearance of an old man. Though the movie does not bring this out, in the book Oliver’s rescuers plan to save Dick from the workhouse and adopt him as well. It doesn’t matter to them that Dick, unlike Oliver, isn’t a relative. But they find to their horror that Dick has died from starvation, a terrible, heartwrenching incident.

Oliver Twist was broadcast on CBS TV, on March 23, 1982, sponsored by ITT Theater. It was reshown as theatrical release in Britain the following year for the Royal Charity Foundation. The critical reaction to this version has been somewhat mixed, with (it seems) reviewers on the other side of the Atlantic being the less kind. From what I’ve read, some British critics commented on how version visually bore the stamp of American television. One critic referred to Oliver as “a mute, blond, blue-eyed puppet is never shown to undergo any kind of suffering whatsoever.” This is a grossly unfair and inaccurate assessment to say the least. Oliver definitely suffers and greatly, even breaking down and sobbing at one point. The fact that Richard Charles was a new and virtually unknown actor only adds to the film’s credulity. Whenever onscreen he is a virtuous, long suffering, starved orphan. He is Oliver Twist. You never once doubt it. The part the main character in this story may be a relatively undemanding role for a beginning, though talented, child actor. That said, this version’s Oliver is entirely convincing; Scott’s Fagin sorely lacks by comparison. Not that there could have been some good scnes which were never filmed, such as the time Oliver breaks down and expresses heartfelt remorse after visiting Fagin in prison, or pours out his heartfelt gratitude to the Maylies following his rescue, or his anguish when he is recaptured by the thieves. That reviewer, by the way, also mentioned that in Dickens original novel, “Brownlow’s aristocratic concern is based on his nieces romantic frustrations” which may sound sophisticated, but begs the questions as to whether he’s ever actually read Dickens’ original novel, since Dickens never established any familial relation between Brownlow and Rose.
In short, Oliver Twist is a good adaptation of Dickens’ novel which had the potential to be great, even definitive. What they really needed was a three hour extended version, or even a mini-series to allow actors like Scott and Charles to push their acting skills to their fullest potential.

NOTE: Oliver Twist has long been available on VHS, and more recently, on DVD in the UK, and some overseas markets. As it is far less popular with viewers than Pimpernel and Carol, partly because it just wasn’t as good, though mostly, I suspect, because it’s a much darker story than either, it had only one very brief release here in the U. S. This was a VHS release sometime in the mid-nineties. It was far from an ideal package. From some entirely unknown and baffling reason, the entire scene of Oliver asking for more and then going before the Board was excised. The film skips inexplicably from a flirtatious moment between Bumble and Mann to the middle of the coffin-maker sequence. This has led some viewers to conclude that this scene was never filmed for this version. NOT TRUE! Also, the blurb on the back reads like it was written by someone who never saw it or even read the book. It sounds more like the synopsis for Great Expectations! Why they elected to cut the heart out of the movie begs the question of why they bothered releasing it in the first place. The fact that even this version is no longer released (small wonder), and it has never appeared on TV for years that I’m aware, make it a ripe time to demand the release of entire on DVD in the US. There is currently an all-region Taiwanese release of the film in a deluxe package, which is quite good, which I have recently purchased. However, one that included any additional or deleted scenes would be better. At least one such scene must exist, as I’ve seen photos in Scope, and on back cover the Hungarian release showing Oliver, Rose, Brownlow and Mrs. Bedwin (the maid) out on the lawn of their estate—a scene absent from the film as we know it.


NOTE: Timothy West, who is excellent here as the gross and hypocritical Mr. Bumble, also played the part of Dickens’ own father in a PBS documentary on the life of the famous author. Phillip Davis, the actor who plays the bullying Noah Claypool, also played Joe Gargery in the 80s PBS adaption of Great Expectations which starred Graham McGrath as the young Pip. Lysette Anthony, who played Agnes Fleming, Oliver’s mother, also starred in 1982’s Ivanhoe as Lady Rowena.


Here is a page I found in Russian of a a review specifically of this film. It talks abou the role of Oliver in the film, and his noble character, unlike other reviews which larely focus on Scott's Fagin. The translation into English is somewhat difficult to read, but it's easy to get the gist of the article, even if you can't read Russiian:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.camera.minori.it/pdf/oliver_3.pdf&ei=sAveTImHO4eknAeIpenDDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Doliver%2Btwist%2B%2522ricahrd%2Bcharles%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENUS321%26prmd%3Do