In David Lean’s adaptation of the Dickens classic, we are introduced to a slightly less controversial (or more if you consider the whole Fagan debacle), and slightly less powerful critique of poverty and social class. By cutting out some details and side stories, we are left with a greater focus on the meat and potatoes of the story, and that’s what makes moments like Nancy’s death so powerful.
I want to start off by talking about John Howard Davies. I feel like Davies perfectly captures the innocence, but also what Mr. Sowerberry describes as the underlying sadness, in Oliver. Davies manages to make us sympathize with a passive, slow witted protagonist, and that’s charm.
Robert Newton is about as hateable as they come, and makes the perfect villain. He never feels very cunning, just brutish, which really helps the audience dislike him.
And Michael Dear was just ugly enough to play a character named Noah Claypool.
I think what I’m trying to say is that all of these actors are very physically interesting looking. They fit their bizarrely named counterparts all too well at some points.
It was nice to cut down on some of the characters, though I feel like Rose was a pretty important omission.
On that note, the ending was a little Walt Disney, but with the twist of somebody being hanged beforehand. I’m not sure I really liked it too much, but it did feel happy, and I guess that counts for something.
The thing that bothers me the most is that the movies feels a little too much fun at some points. Scenes like the boy dying in the workhouse were key to setting a darker tone, but the movie doesn’t seem as concerned with that. Instead we’re left with a neutered, but faithful to the characters, adaptation. But being faithful to the characters doesn’t make it faithful to the cause, and I’m afraid the message is a little bit lost in all of that.
birthofthedrool 