Today is the 206th birthday of Charles Dickens and I know you’re all celebrating; maybe not by reading one of his novels or stories (after all, they can be very long), but by watching one of the dozens of films made based on his works. So I decided to figure out which ones were the best; which films adapted their stories the most loyally, were closest in spirit, and were just the most skilfully made. It must be made clear though that many of the more well-known Dickens adaptations are miniseries, because the British love making miniseries’ out of every successful book in English literature. Thus you’ll find no mention of the acclaimed BBC versions of Nicholas Nickleby or Little Dorrit on here (though I will highly recommend 2005’s incredible Bleak House series). With that, here are the Top Ten Dickens Movies:
 |
| photo courtesy of IMDB |
10. Oliver Twist (2005) -I’m not going to pretend that Roman Polanski’s 2005 rendition of the Parish Boy’s Progress isn’t riddled with problems -not the least of which is the fact that Roman Polanski made it. The movie not only cut the typical story elements, such as the Monks character and Noah Claypole’s reappearance, but added a couple dumb plot points and motivations too, such as Fagin now conspiring to murder Oliver for no good reason. However the atmosphere is refreshingly close to Dickens’ second novel. This was the first major film adaptation of this particular story since Oliver! and it does a good job of correcting that film’s complete betrayal of tone. This is a grim and dirty movie, with heavy shadows and a colour scheme of brown and sickly greens, evoking the dingy side of 1838 London that’s on full display in the book. It does a surprisingly good job of immersing you in its world, emphasizing the harsh and dark elements. The performances are also a strong point. Sure, Jamie Foreman and Leanne Rowe aren’t anything special as Sikes and Nancy, but Ben Kingsley, though over-the-top in some sequences, ultimately makes for a pretty good Fagin. He looks the part as well as Ron Moody, is devious and despicable, but also pathetic. This film’s scene of him in the prison cell at the end might be my favourite version. Also, these are the best child actors in any Oliver Twist movie. Both Barney Clark and Harry Eden, who play Oliver and the Dodger respectively, are believable and interesting, and get to the heart of their characters. Far from perfect and with some notable structural flaws, it’s still a movie worth seeing if you’re fan of Dickens and especially if you want a reinvigorated version of this famous story.
 |
| photo courtesy of IMDB |
9. Great Expectations (2012) -Mike Newell’s update on Great Expectations came and went without much fanfare. Probably the most notable thing about the movie is it had a high density of Harry Potter actors cast in it, which isn’t a surprise considering Newell directed Goblet of Fire. But this movie is a lot better than that. It’s a very competent film that’s loyal to the story, full of good performances, and nails the tone and visual aesthetic of the original novel. It emphasizes the grimness of Pip’s life, his manipulation at the hands of Miss Havisham, and the uncertainty of his life as a gentleman in London. The movie plays like a tragedy, which the story is, and there’s mystery imbued all throughout the framing. Jeremy Irvine is quite a good Pip with Holliday Grainger as a fitting Estella. Ralph Fiennes is of course exemplary as Magwitch despite sharing almost no physical traits with his book counterpart, while Helena Bonham Carter is decent as Miss Havisham. Robbie Coltrane is probably my favourite version of Jaggers, Ewen Bremner is a great Wemmick, Jason Flemying and Sally Hawkins play Mr and Mrs. Joe very well, Olly Alexander is a serviceable Herbert Pocket, and David Walliams is a delightfully pompous Pumblechook. The movies’ biggest problem, and the reason no doubt why it never left an impression is for the most part it doesn’t take any chances. Great Expectations is one of the most frequently adapted Dickens stories, possibly only behind A Christmas Carol. There have been numerous movies but only a couple are remembered, and they’re the ones that take a few more risks. Even a failed experiment like Alfonso Cuaron’s 1998 modern re-imagining still stands out for its different take. This movie is very well made and well acted though, and captures the essence of the story while understanding its themes. It’s not all that unique, but there’s nothing really bad in it, and that’s enough to earn this entry
 |
| photo courtesy of IMDB |
8. Nicholas Nickleby (2002) -Despite the premise of a young man having to suddenly support his mother and sister in the wake of his fathers’ death and protect them from his cruel uncle, Nicholas Nickleby is actually a relatively light-hearted story. And that’s exactly the tone that’s captured in this film from director Douglas McGrath. Starring a young Charlie Hunnam as Nicholas, this film maintains the episodic nature and sense of humour of the story, supported by an exuberant production and an ensemble cast of British and American stars. The authenticity issue in this isn’t much a problem though, because narrated as it is by Nathan Lane’s perfectly hammy Vincent Crummles, it almost feels like this is intentionally a presentation of Nicholas Nickleby, akin to a stage show or radio play put on by a company not unlike Crummles’ own theatre troupe. That impression goes a long way to imparting a sense of earnestness. Among its large and varied cast are Tom Courtenay as a naturally endearing Newman Noggs, Jamie Bell fresh off of Billy Elliott as Smike, Romola Garai as Kate Nickleby, Timothy Spall as Charles Cheeryble, Edward Fox as Sir Mulberry Hawk, Anne Hathaway as Madeline Bray (with David Bradley as her father), Kevin McKidd as John Browdie, Alan Cumming as Folair, and Barry Humphries as Dame Edna as Mrs. Crummles. The major stand-outs though are Jim Broadbent as a repulsive, devilish and cartoonish Wackford Squeers, the sadistic Yorkshire schoolmaster, and the great Christopher Plummer as the selfish, scheming, and all round villainous Ralph Nickleby. It streamlines a lot of parts, like much of Kate’s story in London (the Mantalinis being completely left out); but those kind of omissions in this kind of story don’t negatively impact the plot much at all. Overall it’s a charming, entertaining, and thoroughly likeable movie.
 |
| photo courtesy of IMDB |
7. The Pickwick Papers (1952) -Another very light-hearted one; in fact as far as Dickens novels go The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club is his most overtly absurd. Back when he published his debut novel it was the biggest hit, only for it to eventually be dwarfed by his greater richer works to follow. And so this 1952 movie from Wizard of Oz screenwriter Noel Langley is just as inconsequential and absurd. Being mostly a series of misadventures without much significant interconnection or direction, The Pickwick Papers is a difficult adaptation to do. But luckily this film manages to make it just sensible enough, including most of the best scenes and characters. In fact some of the comedy, the slapstick especially, works better in the visual medium rather than in mere descriptions and illustrations. There’s a genuine love for the source material here, its colourful characters, and the social satire that dominates the story. James Hayter leads the cast as a terrific Samuel Pickwick. This titular buffoon is one of the most recognizable of Dickens’ characters and whether they made up Hayter to look the part or he just naturally fit the bill, I can’t tell, but it works. Harry Fowler likewise is a very good Sam Weller, Pickwick’s more cunning foil, who took the world by storm in 1837. James Donald from Bridge on the River Kwai plays Nathaniel Winkle, one of the major Pickwickians (the others being Augustus Snodgrass and Tracy Tuppman), Nigel Patrick is the entertaining con artist Alfred Jingle, and it’s great when Hermione Baddeley shows up in movies like this, here playing Mrs. Bardell the housekeeper (actually she’s played a lot of those hasn’t she?). If you’re not into movies that are light on narrative or prefer Dickens’ more dramatic stories, this movie won’t appeal to you. But it’s decently funny and clever, and with the source material, is probably the best Pickwick Papers could ever be on film.
 |
| photo courtesy of IMDB |
6. Oliver Twist (1948) -It was a given that at some point on this list I would get to David Lean. And his version of Oliver Twist is probably the best movie adaptation of that classic tale. It sticks closer to the book than most (this one actually does include the Monks subplot –though I still miss the Dodger’s trial) and is among the best made Dickens movies. It maintains most of the grittiness of the story, is suspenseful, but hopeful in the right moments. And the way some of the scenes play out are the best they’ve ever been done. For example, Sikes’ murder of Nancy has never been better staged than when the camera remains in the room but stays fixed on the dog scratching at the door desperate to escape over the sounds of the brutal act. And by the way, Robert Newton is amazing as Sykes, conveying the unpredictable nature of this intimidating brute. He’s not quite as subtly terrifying as Oliver Reed, but he’s fearful enough. Kay Walsh, Lean’s wife at the time, played Nancy (a questionable choice for a director to cast their spouse as a famous murdered prostitute). And though I stand by that Barney Clark in the 2005 film is the better performer, this movies’ John Howard Davies looks the part of the pale, meagre, malnourished orphan boy better than any other interpretation. But the elephant in the room when talking about this movie is Alec Guinness’ offensive portrayal of Fagin. Firstly, Guinness is one of my favourite actors, but at 34 he was too young for this part. Secondly, the character of Fagin has always had some anti-Semitic connotations, which any adaptation has to deal with. Choosing to give the actor nose and eyebrow prosthetics a mere three years after the end of the Holocaust not only exacerbates the issue, but is in incredibly bad taste. This portrayal hasn’t aged well at all and is the one major flaw in an otherwise pretty great movie. But if you can reconcile that flaw (which I understand if you can’t), it’s definitely well worth finding and watching.
 |
| photo courtesy of IMDB |
5. David Copperfield (1935) -George Cukor opens his Hollywood adaptation of David Copperfield with a quote from Dickens declaring it his favourite book, as though boasting to other Dickens movies that this made their movie the best. And while that arrogance is a touch presumptuous, this movie is generally very well done. David Copperfield is indeed one of Dickens’ most important books -the reason he preferred it is probably because it’s far and away his most personal story. Dickens enthusiasts are thus very attached to it, and so help you if you get it wrong. This movie related it with a lot of heart and spirit, as much as any movie made during that time could. It captures a lot of images well, and specific scenes from Phiz’s illustrations. It’s probably most well-known for W.C. Fields’ performance as Mr. Micawber (which is quite good, though maybe a little heavy on the improv), and for being the debut of Freddie Bartholamew, a popular child actor of the time, here playing the young David. And he is quite impressive. Frank Lawton as the adult is less so, but not awful. Basil Rathbone is a wonderfully hateable Murdstone, Edna May Oliver plays up the comedy but also captures the heart of Betsy Trotwood, and Lionel Barrymore makes for a great Dan Peggotty. There are a few surprises in the cast too, like Maureen O’Sullivan as David’s wet blanket wife Dora Spenlow, and in the minor role of the Micawbers’ maid, none other than Elsa Lanchester, who that same year made cinema history as the Bride of Frankenstein. The movie’s flaw is that it does feel rushed at times, but I’d cut it some slack because a lot happens in David Copperfield. They still manage to include every major point of David’s life, except for his time at Salem House -which makes the character set-up of Steerforth later very clumsy. Regardless, it’s a good telling of the story if you don’t have the patience for the classic itself.
4. Little Dorrit (1987) -This movie is definitely not going to be for everyone. The first big turn-off for most is the fact that it’s six hours long! In fact it was released as two three-hour parts and is mostly for the audience who would watch the Dickens miniseries’. However, Christine Edzard’s detailed dramatization of Dickens’ social commentary on the English government and the prison system is actually very interesting and impeccably executed. This is owing to a few factors, including the tremendous writing and production design (the narrow, dank halls of Mrs. Clenham’s house, the Circumlocution office, and the otherworldly aura of Marshalsea Prison); but mostly it’s because of the actors. Derek Jacobi plays an endearing Arthur Clenham, but it’s Alec Guinness who’s particularly great and tragic as William Dorrit, even earning an Oscar nomination for it. These two would be enough to hold your attention, but the film found the absolute perfect “Little” Amy Dorrit in Sarah Pickering, who often inactive though she may be, performs admirably every emotion and conviction. It’s a real shame she never acted again. The cast of a promoted 300 players also features secondary and cameo roles from the likes of Miriam Margolyes, Joan Greenwood, Pauline Quirke, Robert Morley, Patricia Hayes, Eleanor Bron, Kathy Staff, Max Wall, and Tony Jay. The films’ execution is really fascinating too, with the first part telling most of the novel’s story, apart from the ending, from Arthur Clenham’s point of view; while the second switches gears and tells the life of Little Dorrit herself up until that same point, and then concluding the story. Because of this, the two films intertwine and we see some of the same moments from alternative viewpoints. But Edzard never recycles shots, she finds new ways of showing the repeated scenes. This might be the most comprehensive Dickens movie ever made, and while it certainly has pacing issues, I’d highly recommend it to that class of Dickens fans who would have the patience for it.
3. A Christmas Carol (1984) -Of all the versions of A Christmas Carol that have been made over the years, why this one? It’s liberal with the story’s iconic dialogue, altering it on purpose on many occasions, and the characterization of Scrooge is starkly distinct from his book counterpart. Plot-wise it’s loyal to the book, but only about as much as most other versions, cutting out the usual stuff like Scrooge’s visit to the mines and the lighthouse, and the reprieved young couple freed by the death of their creditor. So what is it that makes this interpretation from director Clive Donner, better than all the rest? Well a few things. This movie has by far the best atmosphere of any Christmas Carol: the closest to the eerie, moody, and mysterious undercurrent of much of the novella. It’s also got a number of truly astounding visuals and creative renderings of certain scenes and figures: the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come being the best example. Somehow while being a fairly cheap production, it gets so much leverage out of what it CAN do, using fog effects for example to heighten a sense of otherworldliness or foreboding. The final sticking point is an excellent cast led by George C. Scott as a Scrooge who’s completely his own yet still embodies the spirit of Dickens’ miser. He’s the best movie Scrooge, as I've stated before, and he’s supported by the best Jacob Marley (Frank Finlay), Ghost of Christmas Present (Edward Woodward), and Bob Cratchit (David Warner) -not to downplay Angela Pleasence, Susannah York, Roger Rees, and Lucy Gutteridge by any means. It’s ultimately as joyful as any Christmas Carol movie can be, but on its own terms, while still being very clearly Dickens’ story. No film will ever be able to perfectly capture the magic of Dickens’ masterpiece, but this is the one I think makes the greatest attempt.
 |
| photo courtesy of IMDB |
2. Great Expectations (1946) -Considered one of the greatest British films, and from the basis of a great British story, David Lean’s first foray into Dickens is very great and very British. We’re again dealing with a loyal adaptation of Great Expectations (which isn’t hard -it’s one of Dickens’ shortest books), but also one that thoroughly brings the story and characters to life in a way that hadn’t been done before. The Marsh on which the scene is first set has never been so empty and despondent; Satis House has never been so dreary, dark, and decrepit. Miss Havisham’s room, curtained up and cobwebbed from ceiling to floor is over-the-top, but nonetheless an evocative visual. I mentioned how Cukor adapted a number of Phiz’s illustrations directly for David Copperfield, but Lean prefers to create his own. Several stills from this movie I recognize from before I saw it. In fact, the first version of the story I read had a front-cover reproduction of the scene where Miss Havisham whispers to Pip about Estella framed elegantly in the foreground. To this day it’s probably the best-made Dickens movie in terms shot composition, editing, and the use of lighting and shadow. Martita Hunt is the greatest Miss Havisham, Dickens himself couldn’t have cast her better, and the same could almost be said about Finlay Currie’s Magwitch. Francis L. Sullivan rises to the occasion as Jaggers, and a staggeringly young Alec Guinness (who you’ve noticed has turned up in a lot of these) is a terrific Herbert Pocket in his first credited film role! And of course the marvellous Jean Simmons shines as the young Estella, rightfully stealing each scene. However John Mills, as much as he’s trying, never quite works as Pip because of the obvious reason that he’s way too old to be playing a twenty-one year old character. That and an altered ending where Estella isn’t married to Bentley Drummle, making her romance with Pip more likely, are quite annoying. But they don’t hurt the movie on its own, nor do the other absences from the novel (I mean I love the book, but Orlick is pretty pointless). It’s just a really great film, and for good reason, one of the best Dickens movies ever made!
1. A Tale of Two Cities (1935) -There are some who see Dickens’ 1859 tale of the French Revolution as the “least-Dickensian” of his works, which I vehemently disagree with. Dickens’ stories were never really about their setting in history (how many adapters do Oliver Twist as though it were in the 1880s instead of the 1830s?). A Tale of Two Cities has just as many unforgettable characters, as thrilling a story, and as important issues as any of his other novels. And no movie related those better than this 1935 film directed by Jack Conway. Featuring a lot of the same cast as David Copperfield (Basil Rathbone, Edna May Oliver, Elizabeth Allen), this was a grand-scale movie for its time that’s not often remembered. It did the smaller drama, the love triangle well too; but this movie impressively recreated the Storming of the Bastille with a grand set and thousands of extras. As would be expected with Hollywood movies early into the age of the talkies, it borrows plenty of elements from silent film, some of which (like the visuals) are really interesting, while others (like a wee too much exposition text on screen) are slightly awkward. But this movie would be good with all of that -what propels it to the top for me may be one singular performance: Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton. This is a mesmerizing portrayal and character to watch. Sydney Carton, Dickens’ most noble character, is already one of my favourite figures in his entire oeuvre, and Colman clearly has similar feelings, because he plays him with passion so solemnly morose. You’re forced to recognize every hidden emotion of this cynical, alcoholic, yet talented man who feels he’s squandered his life, without needing the dialogue to affirm this. But when he does speak, he’s immediately charming. My favourite scenes are a possibly anachronistic Christmas service where he watches Lucie Manette at prayer and contemplates; and of course his lead-up of emotional scenes before the guillotine with the Seamstress learning of his ultimate sacrifice. Like in the book his fate wholeheartedly comes off as a release, earning the story’s iconic final lines. The other performances are good (maybe excepting Donald Woods’ dull Charles Darnay), with Reginald Owen’s pompous Stryver, and Blanche Yurka’s venomously formidable Madame Defarge standing out. Lucille La Verne plays the Marchioness, and if you don’t know her other famous role, you will the moment she laughs (on a more awkward note is the fact that virtuous Dr. Manette is played by the Klan leader from Birth of a Nation). This is neither the most accurate nor best made Dickens movie, but it is a brilliant demonstration of how cinema can tell Dickens in both grand and nuanced ways, whether it’s through an astounding set-piece or one truly phenomenal performance. It’s the kind of effort, loyalty, and spirit I want to see out of great Dickens movies to come!
Comments
Post a Comment