I wasn't really sure about starting a blog on Charles Dickens, as I figure there may not be many posts for it in the near future, though I could be wrong. I'm reading two works about Dickens right now. I've read a number of his books, mostly during my college years--though with only one real exception--out side of class. Most classes, in fact, avoid reading Dickens, mainly because of the length and complexity of most of his novels. The only one we did actually read was Hard Times, a good novel so far as his harsh critic of the Victorian industrial conditions and attitudes, but hardly his most important work or his best. There was class offered every once in a blue moon which specialized in Dickens, and offered a Marxist approach to his work, but I was never able to take.
I'm familiar with a lot of Dickens' films though, especially back during the eighties era--see my Clive Donner blog for descriptions of that director's version of Oliver Twist and A Christmas Carol. Those films, along with the Chris Sanderson version of A Tale of Two Cities, were shown on CBS TV as part of their "Read More About It" program. The extravagant Royal Shakespeare company version of Nicholas Nickleby, starring Roger Rees as Nicholas (you might remember him as Scrooge's nephew Fred in George Scott's Carol) was shown on ABC. It was PBS, however, that showed the most productions, however, as part of masterpiece theater, including one biography of the author's life, called Dickens of London, which I was able to acquire only fairly recently.
Most of these were done by the BBC. It was their version of Great Expectations , first broadcast back in 1981, before I even knew anything of Dickens other than Carol, that I liked the best. Like other BBC productions Dickens, it stretched on for many episodes, in fact longer than it needed to be to encompass the richness of Dickens' writing. It was played straight, with all the significant details intact. Well, maybe not quite--I seem to recall that no mention was ever made that Compeyson, Magwitch's nemesis, also being the man who deserted Miss Havisham on her wedding night. This incident, in fact ,forms the entire basis for the plot of the story. Now, I won't exactly say that it was left out, merely not brought out, and I can't recall if it was mentioned in the recent 20011 version either. I do recall that the big-screen modernization back in the nineties, which starred Rober DeNiro, eliminated the Compeyson character altogather. This was a very significant error, as what happens in the story therefore makes little sense. The most recent adaptation of GE, initially released only in Britain, ommits Orlick, or so I've heard. This also would create problems, especially in relation to the fate of Pip's sister, but eliminating Compeyson is far more serious.
It's the 2011 version Great Expectations that concerns me here, though. What is most obvious upfront about this film, in common with quite a few other recent Dickens movies by the BBC, seems to be attempting to "modernize" Dickens text. An even more obvious example of this would be the 2007 version of Oliver Twist
with a jarringly modern soundtrack, a Fagin, played by Timothy Spall, who was nearly unrecognizable as the character Dickens created, and which recast Nancy as a Black woman. Other recent BBC productions, such as Bleak House, take a dark, almost Gothic approach. This appears to be the approach they took here. The soundtrack for GE, the atmosphere and photography, seem even to suggest a horror tale. The entire film seems pervaded by a sinister air of lurking menace which is absent from any previous version. The moment when Magwitch reveals himself as Pip's benefactor, is in particular, rife with dark import.
Whether of not this is actually a "problem" with the movie, though, I'm not sure. The original obviously contains elements of the Gothic, the most obvious being Miss Havisham, draped in her wedding shall in her decaying mansion. The fact that this gothic atmosphere has invaded the entire film, however, is a bit disconcerting. Ironically, though, the character of Orlick is a creepy bug-eyed teenager in this film. He seems more like a juvenile bully, and is far less menacing than the burly, adult Orlick from 1981. Also, significantly, the scene near the end where Orlick captures and threatens Pip with death is absent. Miss Havisham is appropriately spidery, and emaciated looking, as well as a bit younger than she is generally portrayed. The character of Bentley Drummle is arrogant, swaggering and rather handsome in this version, compared to the 1981 film when he merely smarmy and oafish. Both Drummles manage to be thoroughly despicable, though the 1981 is perhaps a bit more so. Still it's easier to see in this version why Drummle presents Pip with a serious rival.
Though this version exceeds two hours, it is shorter by far than the rambling 1981 version. Most of the significant episodes manage to remain, though many have been shortened or revamped to fit the shorter running time.
One subtle, though very significant, change from Dickens' novel takes place in during the early scene in which Pip brings food and a file to Magwitch. In the book (and the other film versions as near as I recall), Magwitch threatens the boy into bringing him both the file and food. In this version, he demands the file only. But Pip, being the good-hearted young lad that he is, brings him his tyrannical sister's Christmas cake anyway. This seemingly insignificant fact comes to light years later, after Magwitch finally reveals his identity :"the file you took because you were scared--but the cake you took because of the goodness of your heart."
This is one of the rare incidents in which I beleive the writers actually one-upped Dickens. The author seemingly intended for Pip's bringing the convict what he needed to demonstrate the boy's compassion, yet the fact that he did so out of fear undermines this. Pip's compassion is, in fact, evident, in his concern for Magwitch's alleged companion (who, in fact, he has been told is a murdering psychopath!), when he asks Magwitch if he will not share the cake with his friend. But this is merely incidental to what actually occurs in the story. Having Pip bring Magwitch the cake on his own steam not only makes of point of the boy's compassion, but also makes more sense in light of what Magwitch does for him as a return favor. It never quite made sense that the convict would go to all that trouble for a lad whom he'd merely frightened into helping him.
Like the 1982 and 2007 versions of Oliver Twist it makes the protagonist more heroic--in those versions Oliver takes his bowl up for another starving boy, unlike the book, in which the boys drew lots and Oliver lost. Oversights by Dickenss in my opinion.
Still, the Gothic atmosphere which pervades this production makes the story seem overly bleak. And in regard to "modernization" of the classics, this, in general may be a bleak sign--that the great literature of the past may be less versatile than previously thought. Otherwise, if the work be a classic, why modernize it?
