How do Other Versions of Oliver Twist Compare with Donner's Verson?

Way back in 1982, Newsday critic Harriet Van Horne wrote, "why, when TV has access to a vast treasury of literature that has never been dramatized, why another go-round with "Oliver Twist"? And if Dickens is called for, why not his last brooding tale, "The Mystery of Edwin Drood"? It's just possible that audiences have had their fill of plucky little Oliver and his bowl of gruel."

    The original article may be found here:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19820319&id=CYdTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=roYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5628,1741921&hl=en

    She goes on to write how "most of us cherish memories of the 1948 Oliver, and we're still singing tunes from the Lionel Bart musical."

   And, of course, she had a point bout Edwin Drood, and still does, in spite of a fairly recent BBC adaptation.

    But back then, then I never even new the story at all. I'd say I'd never heard of Oliver Twist, back in the eighth grade in 1982, save for small advertisement for a cartoon version the previous year. Technically, was not the movie itself that I was aware of: it was the teleplay in Scholastic Scope, a mag for Junior High (now Middle School) age kids that I was introduced to it, one week before it aired.


    I never even knew there were other versions, let alone a musical! A musical based on such a story as this, about a ill-treated starving waif was difficult even to imagine when I first heard it. I'd heard strains from "Consider Yourself" back in sixth grade choir, and "Food, Glorious Food!", but I never knew what they were from.

    This version, was of course THE version. But nowadays, with a whole other generation growing up, there are likely fans of the story out there who have their own, more recent, cinematic Olivers, and for them, 1982's Twist (AND the ones proceeding it) just don't register that much.

   That's right, if 1982's Oliver Twist seemed like an unnecessary re-hash to the older generation of OT fans back then, what do they think now? It wasn't just this single critic that voiced the opinion, it question of whether a new Oliver was necessary was even discussed and defended by the filmmaker's themselves. Producer William F. Storke came to the film's defense, saying "I don't think once every thirty-five years is too much. When the 10th version of Oliver Twist shows up in 2017, it'll have a long way to go to beat what we saw in 1982."

    I agree. As I type this, we're not quite there yet, but once again irony rears its head. Storke, director Clive Donner, and screenwriter James Goldman, the three men who made 1982's Twist what it was, have sadly passed away. But Oliver Twist has already been filmed a total of a total of five times since then, and that's not even counting the animated versions and one pastiche.


     OT is the second favorite Dickens tale for filmmakers after A Christmas Carol, and actually I am indeed curious as to why, as the story itself does not seem to be gaining popularity. Scrooge's story will, I'm certain remain timeless. With Oliver, I'm a bit less certain. But I digress. Here are the adaptations, not counting the stage versions and other obscurities before the advent of film.

    There were some earlier silent versions, most or all featuring girls in the role of Oliver, but I've never seen any of them, which makes the first one...


1922

This version, featuring Jackie Coogan as Oliver and Lon Channey as Fagin is actually quite a bit more true to the source material than the much heralded 1948 version. Unlike most versions to follow, the entire plot of the novel is intact, including both Oliver's early rescue by Brownlow from the magistrate Fang, and the burglary at Maylie's. Reportedly, the young actor was frightened by Lon Chaney's appearance in make-up, and ran screaming!

1933

This version is not a favorite with critic or fans, and frankly, I don't much care for it myself. Oliver is too young, the Artful Dodger is too old, and they totally eliminate the Sowerberry incident, and Oliver's fight with Noah Claypole.

1948

This is the version, starring Alec Guiness as Fagin, John Howard Davies as Oliver, directed by David Lean, that is most often believed to be definitive of all versions, before or since. I don't really see why.

It was infamously banned in Germany following protests by Jewish groups; watching the film itself; Guiness's overly stereotypically facial makeup make him a virtually a racial caricature--much, sad to say, the way Dickens himself wrote him in the first place. And they leave in the scene in which Fagin infamously thrashes Oliver. Most subsequent version eliminate it, and also try to "correct" the stereotype perpetuated by both Dickens original and Lean's version.

But that's not why I can't see it as definitive. Lean's version totally eliminates the burglary scene, and thus the Maylie family and Oliver's aunt, along with many very important scenes.

He also includes a climactic scene (for better or worse), in which the fleeing Bill Sikes kidnaps Oliver and uses him as a hostage. This fabricated incident has shown up in subsequent versions. It seems to me that if anyone threatens Oliver at the end, it should be Monks, albeit for very different reasons.

Probably the film's greatest asset is that John Howard Davies actually resembles a child who has been starved half his life. His face just naturally has an emaciated look; this is in marked contrast to the other onscreen Olivers, most of whom look too healthy for a boy raised in a workhouse on watery gruel.

1962





This little-known and hardly recognized version ran on the BBC in 1962, reportedly shot in black and white, and is possibly the version that is most true to the  book, far more so than the much heralded 1948 version. I've never seen it, but recently a petition ran to release this on DVD, which sadly didn't seem to have garnered enough votes.

 https://www.change.org/p/british-broadcasting-corporation-bbc-release-the-1962-serialisation-of-oliver-twist-onto-dvd

Leaves no characters out? This one would be well worth seeing. Strangely enough, Bruce Prochnik, the boy who plays Oliver in this, was also the title role for the original Broadway production of Oliver! Hard to believe, but it seems to be true.



Oliver! (1968)

Lionel Bart's 1968 muscial version seems to the one most people are familiar with, often the first they encountered the story. This film was released some years following the Broadway production, the first showing in London's West End, and the show has been reproduced many times since. It is a huge, rollicking production, vibrant with music and song, which also means it isn't very true to the book. Emphasis is given to the Artful Dodger's rogueish charm, and Ron Moody truned fagin into a lovable old coot. Dickens wanted to get away with the glamorization of crime, which was prevelent in the popular novels of Jack Sheppard, a real life "heroic" rogue. While most of OT's baddies are intentionally morally repugnant, Dodger, it must be said has a bit of charisma lacking in the rest, which has made him a popular character ever since, possibly more so because of this film. Dickens may have realized that Dodger was problematic in this since, and that may be why he essentially wrote him out of the story, and concentrated on the more evil characters. And since Dickens essentially left has character's story untold, pastiche writers have enjoyed specualting on what adventures he might have had.

That's fine and good if you're a fan of the Dodger. But as for the movie Oliver!, it goes almost in exactly the opposite direction then the book, so far as emphasizing the ugly reality of London's underworld. The movie follows Lean's version in having Brownlow turn out to be Oliver's grandfather, and eliminating Oliver's aunt. But unlike in that film, Monks is entirely absent, strange since he's such an important part of the story.


1982 


Somehow, I think











Clive Donner, who directed 1982's Oliver Twist , also happened to have been assistant director to Lean's 1948 version. When it came to filming his own version, he told reporter's that, "I didn't worry about the impression that filmgoers may have retained from David Lean's production. What I had to fight was the more recent memory of the musical version of Oliver." Donner said the musical had a "Christmas card look," and that "I purposefully chose to film many scenes in browns and mudcolors. The tale is a dark one, and I had to preserve the mood if the tale was going to work with proper impact."

    Donner also told the press that there were other areas of the film that Lean's version did not touch, and that his new film set out to explore. That's all true, but at the same time Donner's film suffered from the same mishap as had Lean's: it was shoehorned into a measly two-hour space. While Lean's supposedly definitive version eliminates the burglary at Maylie's, Donner's version goes almost the opposite route, and eliminates entirely Oliver's rescue by Mr. Brownlow, and his recapture by the thieves. As it is, the protagonist's adventures are cut almost in half. But while the plot remains significantly wanting, this version is spot-on when it comes to the darkness of Dickens' original vision.

   The script, written by James Goldman (who also penned the scripts for Nicholas and Alexandra and The Lion in Winter) also has Brownlow and Rose sharing the same estate, a trend that would be followed in subsequent versions, and makes Rose Brownlow's niece, thus by implication, Brownlow is Oliver's great uncle. The role of Monks is actually emphasized in this version. The murder of Nancy by Sikes is graphic and heart-rending, nearly as much as the novle itself. This is reportedly also true of the near-mythic 1962 version, though with most versions, this scene takes place behind closed doors.

      "Oliver is a rebel," said Donner. "He stands up for what he believes is right despite the consequences." Unlike in the book, and other previous versions, Goldman's script has Oliver willfully asking for more gruel for another starving boy, rather than the boys drawing straws and Oliver losing. This is very notable, making 1982's Oliver a creation of Donner of Goldman, based on Dickens's original character; the book's Oliver demonstrated passive resistance, but strident rebellion, as he does in this poignant scene. Producer William F. Storke, opined that actor Richard Charles had the "sickly and saintly" look that he was was searching for. I can't argue with that. 





1985
 
 It's notable that a mere three years following Donner's adaptation, another version appeared, once again by the BBC. It's also noteworthy for the only version to have two actors playing both a younger, and slighter older Oliver. I was already used to 1982's version when this first aired, but it must be said that it is meticulously true to the plot of the book, even to excess, are almost all BBC versions. John O'Conner, critic of the New York Times observed, accurately, that this was a closer to Dickens version than most, and that Fagin, portrayed here by Eric Porter, is "more or less as Dickens wrote him: Fagin is Jewish and he's a villain."

You can read that review here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/07/arts/a-closer-to-dickens-oliver-twist.html

O'Conner had previously criticized 1982's Oliver, mainly focusing on George C. Scott's Fagin, whom he called "sanitized." The more sympathetic Fagin played by Scott was recently defended in "Please Sir, i Want Some More: Clive Donner's Marxist Verison of Oliver Twist."

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2193255371/please-sir-i-want-some-more-clive-donner-s-marxist
  
It it also worthy of note that Lysette Anthony played Agnes Fleming, Oliver's mother in the opening sequences of both 1982 and 1985 versions!

 

1997






  
Back in the good old early days of the Disney, they broadcast a number of excellent movies, like Dune (the extended cut), My Fair Lady, and such Dickens-inspired tales as The Whipping Boy and Wolves of Willoughby Chase, and the 1982 version of Oliver Twist with George C. Scott and Richard Charles. This last certainly went well with the mix, even though it seemed too dark for the Disney channel, especially the death of Nancy. Oddly enough, none of these films were Disney, but heck, I watched them all, and nothing at all on Disney interested me after they changed to what might be accurately titled "Teen Central."
   But in 1997, Disney made their own official version of Twist, and, rather predictably, it's considerably less dark than most previous versions or its source material. Deviations from the book abound. Most striking early on is the absence of Bumble, the only such absence I'm aware of. The Sowerberry incident is (as I recall) left out as well. As with 1982, Brownlow and Rose share the same estate, though in this case both Oliver's recapture and the burglary are there, though this time the burglary is successful. Fagin is adaquely played by Richard Dreyfess, though he's certainly less evil than in the book. he also survives until the end, and Oliver even gives him a grateful hug. Strangely, though the scene in which Fagin beats Oliver after his recapture is left in. This version has an overall lighthearted feel to it, almost like the musical, with Dodger telling Oliver about the fun, rollicking life as as a theif, even refering to Newgate as "the institution of higher learning."
     Another deviation is having Oliver "stealing" his mother's locket from the workhouse matron; one might consider that a strike against Oliver's moral character, but I disagree. It's the workhouse matron who's the real thief; Oliver is merely taking back what's rightfully his.

1999

The 1999 version is distinctive for first providing a back story, in which we actually get to see Oliver's mother, and how she met and fell in love by Leeford, later to be betrayed. Its good that we get to see this background firsthand, but not so good, in that for those not yet familiar with the story, there's no mystery to solve as far as Oliver's parentage is concerned. A relationship between Monks and his mother is introduced to the plot, something a bit unnecessary, which has led some to complain that this version ought to be called "monks and his mother." Fagin is portrayed as a East European conjurur, which if he were of Eastern European Jewish origin, he might well have been.

2005







This version, Filmed by Roman Polanski, and staring Barney Clark as Oliver, was the first version to be shown on the big screen since 1968's Oliver! , at least in the US (1982's version was shown in the UK in London's West End and then in Europe). This version includes both Oliver's rescue and recpature, and the later burglary at Maylie's. It was shot in Romania, which the director reportedly thought resembled Dickens' London than modern London did. Somehow I get the notion that the Dodger has led a troubled life in this one, and his character is better for it.
 
Surprisingly, this version includes Toby Crackit, Bill Sikes' s partner in crime during the burglary, a character that seldom seems to make it on screen.



2007
 

















This is yet another BBC production of OT, this one deviating from the book far more than the others. The recent trend at the BBC is make their Dickens adaptations egy and almost modern. The soundtrack to this quite jarring and doesn't fit the story very well. Fagin is played by Timothy Spall (most know as Wormtail from the Harry Potter movies), who briefly appeared as a constable at Dodger's trial back in 1982! His is quite possibly the least Fagin-like Fagins to come down the pike. This is mostly in his appearance; George Scott was a large healthy man, unlike Dickens's "old shriveled Jew." Spall is positively rotund. If Scott made Fagin more sympathetic than Dickens had, Spall''s take on the character is even more so. His Jewishness is emphasized, including his religous aversion to pork. At Fagin's trial, he is even bribed by judge Fang into converting to Christianity, which he refuses. This film aslo features the films first ethnic Nancy. The director has said the she is seeing White actors in these roles, so this casting seems done far more out of fairness than accuracy. It is possible, that Nancy could have been a black woman in Victorian London; it just isn't very likely.
    But the greatest deviation here is the character of Monks, who is portrayed as the grandson of Brownlow, and probably the most oily, hypocritical, and loathsome version of the character to date. Brownlow's character suffers as a result, as Monks is shown to have gotten hold of the old man's ear, and manipulating him into distrusting Oliver, and forcing Rose to marry him. This is a far cry from the book, and certainly Micheal Hordern's portrayal, in which Brownlow serves as the sleuth who deciphers Oliver's parentage and brings Monks to justice.
    This version also follows the trend set in 1982, with Rose as Brownlow's niece. Also like Donner's version, Oliver asks for more on his own gumption. In fact, this Oliver is even more defiant; you can tell in the "more" scene, that he is actively making a protest. When taken before the workhouse board, Oliver actually chastizes Limpkins and other board members, who are shown stuffing themselves. This is one gutsy Oliver! I'll submit that 1982's Oliver was actually the most heroic, in that you could see that he was terrified when he took his friend's bowl up---but he forced himself to do it anyway. But then, again, I'm biased. Oliver's defiance of Limpkins in 2007 was arguably better than 1982, as Oliver is basically passive in that scene.

Animated Versions

There's been a number of these, most of them fairly cheap, nothing on par with the best of Disney, unless you count Oliver and Company, which I don't. Here are those that I've actually seen.


Unknown, Australian Company


This is a version that was par of a series of animated Charles Dickens tales, produced in Australia and also included A Christmas Carol,Nicholas Nicholby, and Great Expectations. It was made in 1982 or around the time, so note the resmeblence on the cover to 1982's Oliver. It's the same (Ithink) as one that's been released on DVD more recently.

 Filmation


This is the one that holds a special place in my memory because it is the literally the very first time I ever knew of the story's existence or the name "Oliver Twist" at all. One day I just happened to chance on this ad in TV guide back in April of 1981. Uncanny, a bit, that the confused looking, wide-eyed waif in the picture should somewhat resemble the lad holding out a soup-bowl on the cover of Scholastic Scope, nearly a year later. Before then, virtually all I associated with the name 'Charles Dickens' was Scrooge, and I sometimes wondered if he'd written anything besides. I'd read the scope issue on A Tale of Two Cities just a month of so earlier, and seen part of the TV movie. "A brave orphan caught in the clutches of thieves?" I'd never heard of that before. Now I knew of three stories he wrote. I never saw the cartoon, curiously enough, since I had so much else on my mind in those days, until much later.
   Filmation was best known back then for producing kid's shows for Saturday morning, before the advent of cable channels. The company was second only to Hanna Barbera in output. Their take on Oliver was a muscical, but it featured all-new numbers totally different from Oliver! These were sung by Larry Storch and Davey Jones, popular musicians of the 60s and 70s. The story is true enough to the source material, but like Lean's Oliver which seems to have set a trend, it leaves Rose maylie, Oliver's aunt, totally out (though it does include a botched burglary--Sikes leaves Oliver in a ditch after he's shot, and Nancy rescues him). Since Filmation had a way of including cute animal sidekicks, Oliver has a pet toad he calls squeaker, who he rescues and they become fast friends.

Saban's Oliver Twist 

This was an animated Oliver series made in the early nineties around the time I was in college. It took place in an alternate animated London populated by both anthropomorphic animals and humans. Oliver is a puppy, Dodger is a rabbit (or hare), Charley Bates is a gluttonous pig (literally), Fagin a wise old fox. Nancy is also a fox (as in the animal). I can't recall what Bill Sykes was, as he appeared very infrequently. I never paid this show much attention back then, though I vaguely knew it existed. I've since seen some of the episodes on youtube. The animation is pretty cheesy--no surprise. Since it's a series, it can't really follow the story, though the premier episode does have Oliver asking for more. Fagin's gang are Oliver's pals and mentors, pretty much. Also, in this version Oliver's mother is still alive, and most of the episodes involve his and the gang's efforts to find her.


Pastiche Versions

There have been a number of Oliver Twist pastiches, almost all of which feature the Dodger as a main character, a few of which are film versions.




Oliver and the Artful Dodger (1972)


This Hanna-Barbera produced animated pastiche originally aired in 1972, as an entry of The ABC Saturday Superstar Movie, a show that featured a different special cartoon every week (some of which were try-outs for series). There was the premiere for Filmation's Brady Kids, a Banana Splits cartoon/liveaction feature by HB, an animated  Lost in Space , an animated Munsters, and more. I didn't actually hear of or see this until much later. The show has a number of things going for it. The plot has Mr. Brownlow dying, and his wicked nephew, Mr. Sniperly (a good Dickensian name!) seeking to claim Brownlow's will (and Oliver's inheretence) for his own. It's up to a reformed Dodger, and his gang of urchins to recover the will, which is hidden in the drawer of a piece of furniture. That's an intriguing plot, but it bothered me how untrue to the canon it is. Throughout is the implication that Oliver will be sent back to the workhouse if the will is not recovered. Why wouldn't Oliver just go live with his aunt? There was no way they could send him back, once they knew who he really was. This seems to be more of a sequel to the musical than to anything else, and that version, like some others, eliminates Oliver's aunt entirely. Oliver wasn't just a foundling that Brownlow happened to take in, and this story seems to assume this. Also, like the musical, there are songs throughout, though I didn't find them very memorable, unlike both Oliver! and the Filmation cartoon.


The Further Adventures of Oliver Twist (1981)





This is an obscure TV serial made back in 1981. It has never been released on VHS or DVD, though some Brit kids remember it airing as a kind of after school special back then. I did however, mange to get the book on ebay some years ago. It's not bad. Dodger escapes being sent to the colonies, and somehow ends up at the same public school to which Oliver has been sent by his guardian, Mr. Brownlow, run by a Wackford Squeer-like headmaster. Monks and Noah Claypole both return to make trouble for Oliver. The writers are taking some liberty here, because Monks was sent to prison in the original, and later left for America. Oliver iand Dodger find themselves on the streets once again, and eventually meet up with Fagin, who we learn has managed to escape the gallows. Oliver regains his fortune, and the villains are put in their place. The story has a rather satisfying fate for Claypole in particualr, who ends up getting thrown in a cell with a criminal he has peached on. I always thought that Dickens let Claypole off too easily. Oliver does break his nose in an earlier scene, but the Sowerberrys and Bumble take his side, and he eventually gains a fairly satisfying life as an informer.


Escape Of The Artful Dodger 

 
 This pastiche goes the other route by following Dodger's adventures in Australia (how many readers have wondered about that?), only Oliver is sent to learn a trade on the same ship transporting Dodger by Mr. Brownlow. There is some Dickens mash-up going on in this, as two characters from David Copperfield turn up, Mr. Micawber and (an older than he should be) Uriah Heep. Fagin turns up in Australia as well, and this time, I'm not sure there's a credible explanation for him being alive. Early on, Dodger runs across a man who seems to be a young Charles Dickens. Some liberties have indeed been taken, as Brownlow is Oliver's grandfather, a noncanonical trend starting back with David Lean's version and the musical. New characters are introduced, including female members of an Australian gang of street children.


    And that's about it, so far as screen versions of Oliver Twist are concerned.

   Has there ever truly been a definitive version? Possibly not. I'd like to defend 1982's Twist as being such, but it isn't, really. No so much because of George C. Scott's overly sweet and Amercanized Fagin (where most critics seem to place the blame), but because so much of the story is left out.

   If Oliver Twist is indeed ever made again, whether in 2017 or afterward, what approach should they take? Well, as far as Fagin (the role that gets talked about most), they should have no problem with him being a bad guy; his Jewishness need not be overemphasized. As others have pointed out, Monks and Sikes are far worse, not only in subsequent film versions, but in the original as well.

   More problematic is (or should be) finding a new boy to play Oliver. An actor with a heart-wrenching expression that outdoes that of  1982's Oliver would be very hard to find, I imagine. As far as acting skill, an ideal Oliver should be able to vocalize his actual lines in the text. To date, no on screen Oliver has vocalized the character's pathos, though that's likely the fault of the script than the actual children playing Oliver. For example compare the following:

1982's Oliver: (Sikes is about to put him through the window): "Oh please don't make me do this Mr. Sikes! Please don't!"


Oliver from the Book:"Oh! for God's sake let me go!" cried Oliver; "let me run away and die in the fields. I will never come near London; never, never! Oh! pray have mercy on me, and do not make me steal. For the love of all the bright Angels that rest in Heaven, have mercy upon me!"


   Find an actor who can recite the above with that degree of Shakespearean pathos,  in a heartrending soprano voice, and also be terribly believable,  and a real definitive version of the tale just might be a possibility.

God Bless Us Everyone!

 
The lyrics to the theme of George C. Scott's A Christmas Carol were composed by Tony Bicat, and composed by Nick Bicat. They did the soundtracks for all of the the Donner films described in the other posts. "God Bless Us Everyone," could easily have been an authentic carol of the Victorian era, it's that good. By the way, another newly crafted carol of the exact name was composed by Andrea Bucelli for the far more recent Jim Carrey version of the tale. It, too, was very good, though not quite the equal of this one.

"God Bless Us Everyone"(the Bicats' version) can be heard heard being sung by carolers throughout the film and in its' entirety as the closing credits roll. The background music can by heard in the opening of the film, and Scrooge even has an alarm clock that plays its theme!

Here are the lyrics:

The past of man is cold as ice:
He would not mend his ways.
He strove for silver in his heart
And gold in all his days.
His reason weak, his anger sharp,
And sorrow all his pay,
He went to church but once a year,
And that was Christmas Day.
So grant us all a change of heart,
Rejoice for Mary’s son;
Pray, Peace on earth to all mankind,
God bless us everyone!
The present man is full of flame:
He rushes here and there.
He turns away the orphan child,
The widow in her chair.
He takes from them he merely meets,
Forgets how brief his stay,
And stands a-jingling of his coins
In church on Christmas Day.
So grant us all a change of heart,
Rejoice for Mary’s son;
Pray, Peace on earth to all mankind,
God bless us everyone!
The man to come we do not know:
May he make peace on earth,
And live the glory of the Word,
The message of the birth,
And gather all the children in
To banish their dismay,
Lift up his heart among the bells
In church on Christmas Day.
So grant us all a change of heart,
Rejoice for Mary’s son;
Pray, Peace on earth to all mankind,
God bless us everyone!

Clive Donner Obituary

I just learned that Clive Donner passed away on September 6, 2010. Here is his obituary and list of contributions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/sep/07/clive-donner-obituary

A Christmas Carol

George C. Scott’s version of A Christmas Carol is considered by many to be the definitive version of Dickens’ tale. It is by far the most popular and most often shown of Donner’s three classic films produced for CBS TV’s “Read More About It” series. Carol was first shown during the Christmas season of 1984, and it was shown as an annual holiday event for at least six years afterward. And an event it was. I still have the movie I taped in 1986, complete with the holiday-themed IBM commercials that came with it. A Christmas Carol was broadcast as a CBS Special Presentation, not just a “movie of the week", and it remained so for many seasons, until sometime in the early nineties, when it fell to “movie of the week” status, with some of the lesser scenes pruned and the special commercials gone. Oliver Twist, too, was originally broadcast as rousing "Special Presentation," and was sponsored by ITT theater, but lost its “special” format the second (and I believe only) time CBS elected to rebroadcast it, with some unfortunately pruned snippets. While Carol has long ceased to be shown regularly on CBS (though you can catch at least SOME station showing it during the season), it remains a classic it is widely available on DVD in the U.S. as well as abroad. I watch this movie every year, complete with its well-worn commercials, along with other holidays favorites from the same era, The Box of Delights, and A Gift of Love: A Christmas Story.

Although it sported no cast of hundreds, or any complex, labyrinthine plot, and was published as thin volume one week before Christmas day (it sold out in short order) Dickens' original novella instantly became his most popular and celebrated classic, as it remains so to this day. Carol has an absolutely unique storyline, and simultaneously carries the classic theme of Fall and Redemption that probes deep into the collective human psyche. It is the same mythic theme which occurs throughout pagan folklore and is represented so strongly in the Christian story. Carol has been filmed countless times, both in life-action and animated form (most recently in CGI).

Compared with his previous outing as Fagin, Scott’s interpretation of Ebenezer Scrooge is tons better. With Scrooge, Scott is dealing this time with an even more complex individual, but without the troublesome anti-Semetic baggage. Scott does not hold back this time, and pours all of his vast talent into the role. Scott already has sort of a “Scroogish” cast to his face, and this only adds to his believability in this role. Scott manages to be equally believable as the flint-hearted miser at the beginning of the tale, and as the reformed man he becomes by end. Through Scott, we are able to recognize and even identify with the lonely and tormented man that Scrooge is. It is made clear that the man Scrooge is at the story's opening has been created by a tragic past. It is a lesser known fact that Dickens wrote part of himself into the character, not Scrooge the selfish, unfeeling adult, but Scrooge the sensitive child who seeks refuge in reading. A point is made of Scrooge's stern and overbearing father,whom we learn unjustly blamed young Ebenezer for his mother’s death (“she died in childbirth, his birth). Scrooge is at first resistant to change his outlook on life, but gradually through revisiting his tragically marred past, he develops second thoughts.

In the scenes that belong to the Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge begins to consider more than himself and begins to open up to the cares and drudgery of others. It becomes plain that he is a formerly sensitive and caring individual who has shut himself out from all human sympathy, which he neither gives nor asks for. According to Dr. Paul Davis,author of The Life and Times of Ebenezer Scrooge, Scott’s character is a man who, because of his past, “has to decided to take on the world in his own terms.” We see the formerly sensitive person, long buried beneath years of bitterness, begin to assert himself once again while Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas Present observe the Crachit’s meager Christmas feast. Scrooge mutters a barely audible “Amen” at the end of the family prayer. Though he quickly denies it, his obvious concern over the possible fate of Tiny Tim Crachit speaks louder than words. When the Ghost later shows him a scene of wretched Victorian underclass squalor, including a homeless family living under a bridge and forced to survive on scraps, Scrooge visibly reacts in abject horror, in particularly in light of his former words “if they would rather die, then perhaps they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population!” An even more harrowing scene occurs immediately following, when Scrooge recoils in horror at the sight of the wretched twin waifs Ignorance and Want.



By the time the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come appears, Scrooge is ready and willing to change. The Reaper-like Ghost of the Future is by far the most terrifying of any of the spirits, including Marley. The wraith-like phantom appears to represent Death, and embodies humankind’s collective fear of the future and the unknown. Little wonder Scrooge fears him most of all! Scrooge’s own future becomes well apparent to him to the end, and he is truly shaken to the depths of his soul. Metaphorically, he has descended into the depths of a Plutonian underworld (in some versions, this is more literal, with the miser experiencing the taste of a hellish afterlife). Scrooge sobs out his heart to the spirit, and though he is clearly shaken to his core from fear, the remorse over the life he has led until this moment is heart-wrenchingly genuine. “I will keep Christmas in my heart, and the spirits of all three will strive within me!” Scrooge tearfully recounts upon waking up to find himself safely back in his own room. You can practically taste the swelling joy the reformed Scrooge experiences when Christmas morning arrives. Scott manages to be almost comically jubilant as, bursting with joy, he kicks off his shoes and bounces on his bed like schoolboy.

This version remains the most faithful to Dickens’ original tale shown up until the time it was made. The only alteration that is of note at all, in fact, is Scrooge’s visit to the stock exchange, where he shows his ruthless nature as a business man, and where he encounters the two charity-workers. In the book, the two gentlemen visit Scrooge at his counting house. Scrooge does not visit the Crachit house, as he does in some versions, allowing him to give Bob Crachit the surprise of his life when he arrives late the next day.


Frank Finnly is harrowing as Marely, wrapped in ponderous chains and covered in bluish, corpse-like makeup. Edward Woodward, better known for his role as The Equalizer, is flamboyantly righteous is the Spirit of Christmas Present. Angela Plesence plays the Ghost of Christmas past as an elderly woman, though the book describes a more childlike spirit. David Warner, who had more of a reputation for acting the parts of villains at the time, fits well into the role of Bob Crachit. As young Timothy Crachit, Anthony Walters is heart-achingly feeble and pathetic. Scrooge’s nephew Fred is played by Roger Rees, famous for his role as Nicholas Nichelby, in the celebrated Royal Shakespeare Company production of that novel, which was in fact shown on ABC two years before.
The music for Carol was written by Nick Bicat, who also wrote the scores for the two other Donner productions, the rousing score for Pimpernel, and the melancholy theme for Twist. This included "God Bless Us Everyone," written by Nick and Anthony Bicat, a freshly invented Christmas carol composed specially for this production. It is a wonderful holiday number, which, as one other writer online has observed, could stand with some of the finest Victorian Carols—and that’s no mean compliment! This is not to be confused with another also very good carol with the same title, composed and performed by Andrea Bocelli for the CGI version starring Jim Carry.

One other thing--IBM came out with A Christmas Carol Christmas Book, with glossy photos from the movie, a year after the movie aired. I was hopin' they'd do an edition for the film at the time, and voila! I was annoyed at first that they charged extra for it, on account of there being so many extras in the book itself, such as Victorian holiday recipes, games and customs, along with a history of the British Christmas, including Cromwellian times, and more. But all of these are as good as they sound and very interesting, so the money my parents paid for it for my Christmas gift was well worth it. The first section is an abreviated version of Dickens' Carol, with photos from Scott's movie. The last section is Dickens' Carol in its original and complete form. The book is crammed with such goodies as a recepie for Dickens homemade punch, and details on the origianl publishing history of Carol. I still have my copy, though the jacket is worn at the edges. You can still find copies on ebay and elsewhere.

The Scarlet Pimpernel

British film director Clive Donner’s spectacular 1982 adaptation of Baroness Orczy’s The Scarlet Pimpernel is considered by many to be by far the definitive version. I can’t argue with that. It is the most sumptuously produced of the three classic Donner directed films, the other two being Oliver Twist (1982) and A Christmas Carol (1984). While Carol is the most popular film of the three (partially of being a holiday movie, not to mention the second greatest Christmas story outside of the birth of Jesus), Pimpernel is arguably the superior of all three films. It is the also the longest, running three hours while the other two films only ran two. It was first broadcast in November of 1982 on CBS, but, sadly, I didn’t catch it until several years later.

While the basic plots of the two Dickens films are fairly well-known, I may have to recap the story of Pimpernel. The Scarlet Pimpernel novels were written by Baroness Orczy,an Austrian noblewoman around the turn of the previous century. The first novel, The Scarlet Pimpernel, was not critically a success, but proved was wildly popular. It was first adapted into a play. With the success of her first novel, Orczy wrote an entire series of Pimpernel sequels. They followed the adventures of Sir Percival Blakeney, an English baronet who rescues condemned nobles from the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror. Blakeney poses as a foppish, empty-headed fashion-obsessed dandy whom no one even vaguely suspects is the mastermind behind the rescues.


His adversary is the ruthlessly power-seeking Armand Chauvelin, chief agent of Robespierre’s National Security, who is in charge of the arrest and execution of France’s former ruling class. In the beginning, not even Percy’s wife, the beautiful actress Marguerite, suspects his true identity. The story involves Chauvelin blackmailing Marguerite into spying for him to learn the Scarlet Pimpernel’s identity. In doing so, she learns that her husband is man Chauvelin seeks, and that she has inadvertently betrayed him. Marguerite travels to France in an effort to save Percy, but ends up captured by Chauvelin. The story climaxes on the cliffs of the French coast, where Percy evades capture by posing as a despised Jew. The movie actually combines this story with one of the later novels, Eldorado, which centers around Percy’s rescue of the poor, wretched dauphin (the French Crown Prince), Louis XVII. The plot of Eldorado involves an intriguing moral setup, as it involves the Baron DeBatz, an Austrian nobleman who seeks to rescue the boy for purely political (which in this case translates into selfish) reasons, which contrasts with Sir Percy, who rescues the dauphin for reasons that are entirely altruistic.


In addition to intertwining the two tales, the movie makes a few alterations, a minor one being the change of Chauvelin’s first name from Armand to Paul. This is perhaps to avoid confusion with Marguerite’ s brother, who’s name is also Armand. Another, and far more influential change from the books is the love triangle between Percy, Marguerite, and Chauvelin. In the book, Percy and Marguerite are already married when the story opens. In the movie, Marguerite is a French actress and a Revolutionary, and partial love-interest to Chauvelin. Percy rescues her brother (from some thugs sent to punish him from wooing an aristocrat’s daughter), and eventually wins her over. As in the book, Marguerite is entirely unaware of Percy’s secret identity.

As in the book she is blackmailed into spying for Chauvelin, and too late discovers who the Pimpernel is. Unlike either book however, the movie supplies a twist ending worthy of any of the ones written by Orczy. I won’t spoil it, but there occurs near the end a scene where it looks like Percy could not possibly have survived. This is followed by the climactic sword battle between Percy and Chauvelin. The film is crammed with perils and hair-breadth escapes, some invented for the film, others lifted directly from the books.


By today’s standards, Pimpernel doesn’t quite meet the standards of prevailing political correctness. While most critics I’ve read recognize the film’s merit, some few have blasted the movie taking the side of formerly powerful and privileged aristos. I remember one who charged the film with cheering the nobles and booing the masses. Actually, that’s not accurate. The villains in Pimpernel are hardly “the masses” but the Revolutionary leaders who have become drunk on their own power. Tragic as it was, many of the victims of the Reign of Terror truly were innocents. Maximillian Robspeirre was one of the historical personas who promoted the false idea that a new era of freedom and prosperity would be ushered in once “authority” was done away with. The Communist Revolutionaries of over a century later proclaimed the same thing. Each time, tyranny merely reasserted itself in a new form. Louis XVI was actually a man who saw and favored the need for change, but who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. His son Louis Capet XVII was merely a victim; the real dauphin died of abuse and neglect in the Temple Prison. While there remained some speculation that the boy actually might have been rescued (giving rise to rumors of an actual Sir Percy or equivalent thereof), DNA evidence has now confirmed the contrary. Ditto with the Tsarevich Alexis and one of his sisters, both child-victims of Russia’s Communist revolution, whose bodies were long unaccounted for. The idea that there are no true innocents among the tribe one hates (“show me one artisto who is innocent and you can spit in my face!”)has always been part of the human condition, and, unfortunately still persists among us still.
It is true, of course, that Orczy slanted her novels, and her position as a member of the aristocracy had everything to do with this. A more thorough exploration of the insidious nature of evil is to be found in Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, which shows monstrous acts committed by both aristocrats and obsessed revolutionaries, not to mention what is perhaps the most heroic sacrifice found in literature.


Orczy described her hero as very tall, blond and blue eyed. Anthony Andrews, who plays Sir Percy, is Hazel-eyed and doesn’t fit that description exactly. Still, it’s hard to imagine a better actor for the role. Andrews starred in a similarly heroic role earlier the same year as the title role in Ivanhoe. It seems that the last few times I’ve seen him though, it’s been as villains such as the evil Murdstone in the most recent TV version of David Copperfield, which shows his versitality.


Margarite is played by actress Jane Seymour. Seymour played numerous roles around the same time, and I’d read she’d even been slated to play Queen Marie Antoinette, in a dramatization the Revolution, with her own child as the French dauphin (“because he’s the spitting image of Louis VII”)though whether this materialized or not, I do not know. UPDATE: this movie is real; it’s called simply The French Revolution (1989). Ian McKellan, who plays Chauvelin, is an incredibly versatile actor, who has played Tsar Nicholas in HBO’s version of Rasputin (starring Allen Rickman as the mad monk), Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, Iorek Byrnison (the voice), the noble polar bear king in The Golden Compass, among a vast many others. McKellen is a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company, and has starred in villainous roles as Richard the Third and Macbeth. The part he plays in Pimpernel also bears some resemblance to these Shakespearean villains, a ruthless power-seeker willing to eliminate anyone who he identifies as a rival or obstacle to his goals. McKellen is excellent in his portrayal of power-seeking disguised as social concern.

The dauphin Louis-Charles Capet is played by the “Oliver Twist” boy himself, Richard Charles, and Eleanor David, who played Oliver’s aunt in that same production, plays Louise Longe, Armand St. Just’s love interest.

NOTE: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive the following observation is true. In none of the Pimpernel novels authored by Orczy (at least, the ones I've read), does Sir Percy ever utter his famous catch-prhase "Sink me!" (a corruption of "Think me!"). There was one Pimpernel story where the line "Sink me!" did occur, but it was a Pimernel pastiche written after the 1982 movie! Similar to the known fact that Sherlock Holmes never says, "Elementary, my dear Watson!" in any of the original Holmes stories written by Conan Doyle.


LINKS:






http://www.erasofelegance.com/entertainment/movies/scarlet/scarlet.html

http://pargoletta.livejournal.com/75310.html

http://www.blakeneymanor.com/index1.html

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