So I thought I knew the Dickensian tale of Oliver Twist and his misadventures in London, turns out I didn't. I guess I should have read the book instead of relying on one film.
The one film I refer to is of course the British 1968 Carol Reed directed 'Oliver Twist'. I grew up with this classic 68 version and I always thought the film's plot was accurate. So I was quite surprised to discover that, low and behold, that film's plot does actually remove some important parts, mostly an entire character named 'Monks'.
The character of Monks was Twist's half-brother, and with Fagin's help, he wanted to get rid of the boy so he could get his hands on Mr Brownlow's (his father) entire inheritance. In this classic 1948 David Lean directed version, Brownlow is Twist's grandfather (for some reason) which makes things a bit more complicated. I also found it somewhat odd how Monks is able to find Twist after his birth, seeing as I'm guessing Twist's mother ran away to the workhouse (?). How did he know where she went? And when Twist ran away to London, how did Monks find him? Was Monks always in cahoots with Fagin prior to all this? The book may fill these blanks in but in this 48 film these things aren't explained.
The introduction of Monks definitely got me reaching for good old Wiki that's for sure. As for the rest of the plot, it's pretty much as you would expect or know of. There are the odd inclusions that you don't get in the classic 68 stage adaptation such as Twist's mother reaching the workhouse and giving birth. Brownlow and Mr. Grimwig debating whether or not Twist will return from the bookshop. The arrest of Fagin and the murder of Nancy etc...
It is actually quite amusing how the well-regarded Reed version plays out almost identically to this earlier Lean version, comparing the two side by side (seeing as I know the 68 version very well). On the visual side of things the 48 film is, as you would expect, top dollar. Whilst many of the locations are quite obviously sets with large painted backdrops, very nice sets they are indeed. The attention to detail is astonishing from the brickwork right down to all the muck and grime. Although it is a little amusing watching the characters march up and down the same street in front of St. Paul's multiple times (they got their money's worth outta that!). Everything is beautifully atmospheric and really pops off the screen with the depth and contrast that only black and white film can offer. The dark foreboding alleys of London look creepier. The dirt looks grittier. The skies look angrier. Overall everything has a greater sense of importance and weight that really engages you, you feel the dark cold lashing rain as Twist's mother staggers towards the workhouse though thick mud.
Naturally the acting and casting are fantastic despite the fact I barely know any of the stars. Obviously I know and love Robert Newton and I can literally not think of another person that could play Sikes better, other than Oliver Reed of course ( that guy was darn intimidating!). Hearing Newton speak instantly reminded me of his role in 'Treasure Island', yes his dialect and tone are amusingly similar. The rest of the cast is superb even if slightly more lowkey than the 68 version. I didn't really get much sense of urgency or danger with this version's casting (typical of older movies). Even Newton was relatively calm as Sikes. It's all the background players that impress. Everyone looks and sounds so authentic, any lines are clear, and the old fat rich blokes look just that. Call out to Peter Bull and his enormous head and facial features. Also, another shout out to Anthony Newley as Dodger, a costar alongside Peter Bull in the 1967 'Doctor Dolittle'.
I have to admit I didn't really like the visual representation of Fagin (Alec Guinness almost unrecognisable) here. Doing some research I can see they actually made Fagin out to look almost exactly the same as the character does in an old 1889 drawing. Alas, this representation is somewhat of an offensive caricature of an elderly Jewish man on one hand. On the other hand the makeup effects used on Guinness are really quite nasty and ugly, his lips looked all wrong to me. I don't think this was deliberately trying to make the caricature worse, I just think it was bad makeup, they tried too hard and went over the top. Whilst Guinness does the job very well, the character almost comes across like a monster, a troll or goblin, whereas Ron Moody's portrayal was more of a lighthearted goofy peasant, jester, or trickster. I'm sure the 48 version is more accurate but I personally enjoyed the 68 portrayal.
Take a drink every time I mention the 68 version. Yeah it's hard not to compare these two excellent films, especially seeing as both are virtually identical. The grand finale is also exceedingly similar right down to the quite bizarre way half of London seems to join in on the hunt for Sikes. I always found that somewhat ridiculous. There's a murder, everyone hears about it and apparently knows Fagin, they all follow Bullseye, and suddenly there's a massive lynch mob stomping down the narrow cobbled streets baying for justice (or blood). The haunting end for Sikes is much darker if you ask me, you don't actually see anything, but you hear it, more is less.
My final thoughts? What happened to Fagin and his boys?? Obviously one can find out in the actual book but in this film we don't find out. Fagin is arrested, as is Monks (thanks to Nancy), and both are presumably sent to jail; but all of Fagin's boys just disappear, presumably to carry on in their thieving ways. It's nice to see what happened to Bumble and his other half in this version. All that aside I really enjoyed this somewhat grim and dismal, yet lighthearted approach to Dicken's classic. Apparently this version essentially influenced everything else that followed and you can definitely see that. Is this the best version though? Well that's a tough question. This film is certainly more faithful to the original source material but it does lack some dramatic oof at times. The 68 musical is leaner (eh eh) on accuracy yet much more impactful and emotional at times. Both have their pros and cons but for me the eerie black and white might just pip the musical at the finish line. Photo finish though.
9/10
No comments:
Post a Comment