The Pickwick Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
General Archives
>
In which Dickens Goes to Hollywood
message 1:
by
S
(new)
May 08, 2013 03:44PM
What is your favorite Dickens film? I have to go with David Lean's Great Expectations (also my favorite Dickens book) and the first half of George Cukor's David Copperfield. The second half is weaker, but the same can be said about the novel.
reply
|
flag
Mod
Mod
Adam, did you mean to say "which meets my great expectations"? (Pun intended, of course!)
The George Cukor version of COPPERFIELD is the 1935 version, Sorry for not making that clear.
Adam, have you seen the 1948 David Lean version of "Twist"?. It's generally considered the best, although the 2005 Roman Polanski version is pretty good too. I also like the 1947 and 2002 films of "Nicholas Nickleby" and the 1935 "Tale of Two Cities", with Ronald Colman.
Mod
The one I have is part of a Classics Collection and the film was made in the 70s, I remember that much. I don't like how this one was done. There was so much stuff left out that it was hardly recognizable as David Copperfield. It began with him as an adult and reflecting back on his youth recounting some of the events of the first few chapters of the book. But, it went over everything so quickly that it kind of left my head spinning wondering what the hell was going on.
As far as I am concerned, filmed versions of Dickens rarely really find favour with me, which is probably because most of Dickens's characters are so much larger than life that it is difficult for an actor to really live up to what a reader might have imagined a particular character to be like. Another difficulty lies in the complexity of most of Dickens's novels, which can only be partially done justice to by a 90- or even 120-minute movie.However, there are quite some good mini-series. I think I have already mentioned the one on Great Expectations, starring, amongst others, Jean Simmons as Miss Havisham and Anthony Hopkins as Magwitch. Then there is a very good (and recent) mini-series on Bleak House with Gillian Anderson as Lady Dedlock.
All in all, Dickens is probably more difficult to transfer into film that, let's say, a more realistic author like Trollope, or George Eliot.
Mod
Or, action-packed thrillers, like Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo. These stories are of a much more visual nature and there are a lot of stuff that happens. In Dickens' novels, there are not always a lot of exciting events which Hollywood has inundated us with the years coaxing us into expecting.
Jonathan wrote: " These stories are of a much more visual nature"To my mind, Dickens is even more visual than Dumas, and this is, paradoxically, why his stories do not lend themselves to the screen so readily. Dickens I find more visual, maybe partly because of the vivid illustrations by Phiz, Cruikshank and others, in that his characters and places are of dreamlike grotesqueness (if there is such a word). This atmosphere is difficult to visualize - I think that Polanski managed quite well in his Oliver Twist, but then on the other hand he left out the whole story about Monks.
Dickens was a master at putting you in a scene so well that you feel the fog, smell the flowers, hear the voices across the water. I want to savor those scenes in his books. No speed reading of his words for me. :) Most movie-goers want more action and theaters give them what they want. When the most recent version of Jane Eyre came out it was never shown in either if the 2 large cities near which I live, one of which is the state capital.
I think the art of film has strongly deteriorated with the advent of blockbusters. I have more than 1400 films at home, most of them, however, from Hollywood's Golden Era because I hardly take interest in contemporary films at all, there being just few directors left - like the Coens, Scorsese, Eastwood - who manage to put up a good narrative and at the same time to create a dense atmosphere. Give me a John Ford, an Anthony Mann, a Billy Wilder, and I am happy ;-)What you say about Dickens is absolutely true in my opinion. I actually enjoy reading his descriptions loud, e.g. the opening in Bleak House or Pip's journey down the river in Great Expectations, or Riderhood and Headstone's deadly fight in Our Mutual Friend. Reading this aloud really shows you what a powerful writer the Inimitable was!
Trivia note-Jean Simmons played the young Estella in the 1946 GREAT EXPECTATIONS film and Miss Havisham in the 1989 miniseries version.
Mod
I strongly agree. I have yet to find the movie that has done justice to a classic novel, and it is just getting worse.
I admit I've been to a few cartoons in the last few years ... mostly due to grandchildren. I did see The Lion King in 3D with my son his girlfriend at the time. They are both developmentally disabled. That said, when my boys were young I took them to many cartoon movies. Finally, I'd had enough ... it was The Dark Crystal that was the final straw. I was so bored and could barely stay awake. They all remember loving it. Boys! I'm with Tristam in loving the older films. I love mysteries so have many from the noir era. I rarely watch contemporary movies ... we gave up movie channels on Dish years ago b/c we never watched them. LOL I prefer to buy the DVDs so I can take them with me when we travel in the RV.
Movies doing justice to classic novels would probably be extremely rare; I, for my part, would be at a loss if I had to give one good example.I'm also a fan of the film noir, especially of the ones made by Anthony Mann. With "The Black Book" aka "Reign of Terror" he even made a film noir set in the days of the French Revolution. The best Mann noir, however, is "Raw Deal" in my opinion. But I also love "Double Indemnity", "The Killers", etc. etc.
If I now started to ramble on about my infatuation with the western, the classical one, not the Italian, this would definitely be quite off-topic.
I think the last cartoon I saw was "Ratatouille." Before that, I can't remember. Something from the 70s.Possibly "The Rescuers," come to think of it.
I think I know Ratatouille by heart. We were so glad when he stopped wanting to watch it non-stop. I spent my youth at the Saturday double feature at the local theater. I still love Rory Calhoun and Randolph Scott among others. I'll have to check out the Mann movies. I'm not remembering the names except for Double Indemnity which I've seen.
The best "cartoons" are often among the best films of the year, period. Of course, most of them are poor, but most of everything is poor. Today's animated films are far, far better than they were in the 70's or 80's.
Unfortunately, so many of today's films basically are cartoons even if they're not billed as such. Films featuring tons of CGI, like Star Trek. That's not neccessarliy a bad thing, but it's notable. But to get back to the original topic, of course no film based on a book can replace the book. However, some of them work very well AS FILMS, even if they're not faithful to the novel , like the Olivier version of "Wuthering Heights".
I'm reminded of a book about "history at the movies," where the historian looking at the movies (there have been many) about one Western topic (think it was Bat Masterson?) recommends seeing the John Ford movie, because they're all inaccurate, and the John Ford movie is, well, a John Ford movie.
Well, as it was said in Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "when legend becomes fact, print the legend".
Yep, this was "if they're all historically not accurate, please go watch the Ford, it's a great movie."
For my money, truth is way more than facts, and John Ford's movies are one great example to prove this. They may not always be correct as to every detail, but there's a lot of truth in them, especially in The Searchers.Apart from that I like to think that there are lots of similarities between Dickens and John Ford, both of them being masters at creating little universes. Just think of all the vignettes Ford built into his movies, e.g. all the minor characters, esp. the Irish ones, in Fort Apache, which swing us from one mood into quite another. Plus as with Dickens, there is also in Ford's oeuvre a tendency to move from the light-heartedness of earlier works to a more disillusioned and sombre mood in the later pieces.
Do you guys really watch movies that are based on books? I have never seen one (except A Christmas Carol, but I'm kind of expected to see everything Christmas). But I've never seen Pride & Prejudice or Oliver Twist or The Count of Monte Cristo, etc. you get the idea. I've never had any interest to see the movies, the books have to be better.This past Christmas people kept asking me if I liked Les Miserables, and when I would reply yes it was wonderful (totally confused because I didn't think anyone in my family would know what that was) and then they would say "wasn't the music wonderful"? and I would realize they were not talking about the Victor Hugo book.:}
I can whole-heartedly recommend the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird.
I must say I have a tendency of being disappointed with most film versions of Dickens's novels - except maybe for some mini-series -, and I think this is due to two things:1)Dickens's novels are usually full of side-plots and excursions, and any film version will have to severely cut down on these, which, for my money, takes away the Victorian flavour. - I may feel this way because usually I am a friend of prolixity and roundaboutness of style. I was probably somewhere in this group that I said that a good book should be like floating down the Mississippi on a raft.
2) Dickens's characters are often so extremely peculiar that mosts attempts at having real-life actors play them result in, at least mild or partial, disillusionment.
All in all, I keep clear off Dickens movies, but in general I quite like movies based on films, simply because I love movies, i.e. the old ones, not those soulless blockbusters that are showing now. Especially in my two most favourite genres - the Western, and the film noir - many an outstanding film is based on a book. And yes, Susanna, I would like to join you in recommending "To Kill a Mockingbird".
Mod
I love P&P with Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle. It's the 95 mini-series version. I usually don't care for the 2 hr movies as they seem so rushed. I do love good dramas & comedies, but I agree that the books are almost always better. My one exception is the Twilight book. I am NOT a Twilight/Stephanie Meyers fan. I forced myself to finish the 4 books in that series, but it became almost torture toward the end. LOL
I also prefer the mini-series of P&P to the movie with Keira Knightley (but then I am far from a fan of the actress in question).
floating down the Mississippi on a raft?? Ugh, sounds awful, riding in a sleigh over snow covered fields would be much better!Tristram wrote: "I must say I have a tendency of being disappointed with most film versions of Dickens's novels - except maybe for some mini-series -, and I think this is due to two things:
1)Dickens's novels are ..."
Kim wrote: "floating down the Mississippi on a raft?? Ugh, sounds awful, riding in a sleigh over snow covered fields would be much better!Tristram wrote: "I must say I have a tendency of being disappointed wi..."
Well, living in a country that often has its fair share of snow, ice and cold and having done many a sleigh-ride over snow-covered fields, I gladly stick with my Mississippi metaphor, if you indulge me, since it also includes warmth, the sound and brilliance of water, a pipeful of good tobacco and the promise of cataracts further down the way.
As to films vs books, I honestly don't know how I could decide myself. There are a lot of movies that are works of art in their own right and still a lot more that keep your imagination and your mind going. Somewhere in one of our discussions John Ford was already mentioned. I think he is definitely on a par with a writer like Dickens, all the more so in that I can see quite a lot of similarities in their works [edit: cf. message 23, where I already mentioned this]. So I think books and films in general cannot be played off against each other.
Mod
Jonathan wrote: "This is what I don't like about film adaptations. The Poetic License belongs to Dickens not to a film-maker who comes along 100 years later hoping to make a quick buck."I couldn't agree more. I deeply resent film makers taking the work of a writer, taking advantage of that artist's name and reputation for their profit, and then deciding that they know better how the story should have gone than the person who created it did.
Yes, Shakespeare freely based his work on the work of others before him, but he put his own name on his work and didn't claim that it was the work of Ovid, or whomever he was borrowing from.
End of rant.
Hi Jonathan and Everyman,on this point I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with you as I consider film a form of art in its own right. Since a film is more than the story it tells - there are the actors, the music, mise-en-scène, the editing etc. that each add another dimension to the plot -, I would find it very wrong to demand of a director that he simply retell the story derived from the book as faithfully as he possibly can. If films were limited to that kind of thing, then turning literature into films would be a mug's game because everyone could simply read the book.
I think you are referring to David Lean's 1948 version of Oliver Twist, which I have not watched for a long time so that I cannot really use it as an example, but there is Polanski's version from 2005 as well, and he also leaves out the whole Monks story and even cuts out a lot of Mr. Bumble's scenes and all of his wife. The result is, to my taste, brilliant in that Fagin and Sikes come out as even more menacing. Oliver Twist without Mr. Bumble?, you may think, but it definitely works since Polanski makes the story a lot darker and more serious than the original. I think making this film was for him a way of coming to terms with his traumatizing childhood experience in the Krakow ghetto during World War II.
Leaving out Monks and, as far as I remember, Oliver's genteel origins, also added more credibility to the story - for my money, at least.
So I would not at all say that directors should slavishly turn the book 1:1 into a film, because in that case I'd always stick to the book. What makes a screen adaptation of a novel interesting is the director's way of interpreting it, of re-discovering it for the present, and a good director would surely do this without violating the book as such.
Dear fellow-Pickwickians, I rest my case ...
Mod
Jonathan wrote: "You sir are a humbug, respectfully of course, and only in a Pickwickian sense, naturally. Unless the author is alive to approve or disapprove of the adaptation, I think that the story should be lef..."Sir, I respectfully and most vehemently deny being a humbug, hurling this Pickwickian claim back to your own person - with all due politeness and good-naturedness, let it be said, of course - on the following grounds:
If your demand that a Dickens novel be not altered in any basic way were binding to a director, there would be hardly any Dickens adaptations at all, because Dickens's universe is so complex that you cannot make it faithfully into a film. Just think of all the side-episodes that a filming of Nicholas Nickleby would have to include.
In the case of Oliver Twist our discussions showed that we found certain coincidences hard to take, among these all the interrelations between Brownlow and the Maylie family. So maybe the director thought he would simplify matters - for the sake of filmic compatibility - and at the same time make matters more believable. Maybe to a certain extent this is saying, "Hey Dickens! I can do a better job!" - but then we Pickwickians know that for anyone to claim this would be equivalent to writing I AM A HUMBUG across their foreheads.
I see your point that making changes may also lead to distorting - I may even say: bastardizing - a novel, and that this might lead to false impressions with anyone who has not read the novel. But this is exactly the point: Watching an adaptation of a novel is only fulfilling to those who have read the novel - and who may then come to their own appreciation of the film against the background knowledge of the novel. A film can never replace a novel, and I'll even go so far as to say it can hardly ever surpass a novel.
In the case of Dickens, it can never ever surpass the novel because Dickens's imagination is far too vivid to be adequately visualized. Trollope, the Brontes and others are far better candidates for film adaptations, but then Dickens is so fascinating that directors will always try their hands at him.
Tristram wrote: "Hi Jonathan and Everyman,on this point I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with you as I consider film a form of art in its own right."
I very much agree with you on that.
My conclusion, though, is different from yours. That is, that since film and literature are indeed such different forms of art, it's a mistake period to try to convert one to the other. I would be quite happy not to have any books every converted into film, since as you duly note the two are so different that the book must of necessity be distorted to fit it into the film form of art.
IMO, film should indeed be seen as a separate and distinct art form, and should rely on original screenwriting without any attempt to turn a work of literature into something it was never intended to be, any more than I think it makes sense to try to turn a statute into a ballet.
Tristram wrote: "If your demand that a Dickens novel be not altered in any basic way were binding to a director, there would be hardly any Dickens adaptations at all, because Dickens's universe is so complex that you cannot make it faithfully into a film. "Good. Then don't even have them try. What you have said is that it is impossible to put Dickens on the screen and have it still be Dickens. I agree totally. Utterly. Completely. You are absolutely and totally right. On that we are in complete agreement.
Our only disagreement is whether it is acceptable for the filmmakers to present dishonest, inaccurate, and irresponsible products seeking to profit off of Dickens's name and reputation, or whether they should just say, we cannot create an honest film of Dickens, we should be honest people, and therefore we won't even try.
Mod
I am going to withold my judgment on the Never Turn a Novel into a Movie verdict, until I actually see The Count of Monte Cristo. I am about halfway through the book, then I can watch it.
I will say this, though. The Pride & Prejudice version with Keira Knightley in it, which I just recently saw, I absolutely loved. It was an almost completely faithful reproduction. There were a few changes in the setting in which certain conversations between Darcy and Elizabeth took place. This, of course, was superfluous, having, as it were, no logical reason for the changes. Notwithstanding, I absolutely loved the film, almost as much as I first loved the book.
Mod
on this point I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with you as I consider film a form of art in its own right."
I very much agree with you on that.
..."
To me, it makes great sense to turn a play into a movie. That is what a play is actually designed for, if we can accept the fact that the silver screen is The New Stage. If they use the play as the script, then the final product will be just as faithful of a reproduction as if a theatre company was putting the play on.
The problem, for me anyways, with adapting a novel is that you end up missing out on the characters' thoughts and feelings in the cases that the author has described them. That is a huge gaping hole. Obviously, adapting a play does not have this problem.
Secondly, you miss out on the author's commentary. I think we can all agree that one of the most entertaining aspects of reading an author like Dickens is getting his satirical comments on the stupid, and sometimes cruel things, which the characters do. In fact, one can make a case that the only reason the characters are doing anything in the first place is to give the author a soapbox to stand on. He is not writing the novel, in most cases, so that his characters will do interesting things. He makes the characters do the interesting things they do, so that he can get his point across and sometimes this involves some color commentary, which we don't get in a movie (for the most part). Unless we are talking about an episode of the Dukes of Hazzard, which comes complete with its own narrator.
Mod
So, I liked it, but here's the problem. Without the advantage of the book, there is no way I would ever remember the names of the characters; I couldn't identify who was Pride and who was Prejudice; I couldn't ever know what Elizabeth's actual prejudices were, because she rarely if ever displayed them in her conversation to others.
Here is a perfect example. Having been hopelessly disappointed in a few movie-adaptations (an old Jane Eyre; an older Anna Karenina), which I had recently sampled, I was feeling at the time, very much in line with Everyman's sentiment, and thinking Congress should pass a bill outlawing the turning of books into movies. So, I was reading Vanity Fair about a week after my mother had watched the movie. So, I thought I would try an experiment, so that I would have some weightier evidence when I testified before Congress. I asked her why Becky threw the book out of the window when she left the school, and if there was a scene at the actual fair. She said she didn't remember the book throwing incident and that no, there was no Fair. Then, how did they know what the book was about? That's my question and that's my problem. The best thing about Thackeray's so-called masterpiece is the introduction, which is a description of Vanity Fair. Without showing this in some way, shape, or form, I cannot see how the movie's audience could even tell you where the film got its name. Not to mention the fact, but I am mentioning it, here, that you miss all of Thackeray's satirical remarks about Vanity Fair, which are so prevalent throughout the otherwise tiresome book. That's not quite Fair to the movie audience; rather, it is just plain Vanity.
Hello Jonathan and Everyman,your statements and arguments are so numerous that I hardly know where to start, and lest I am misunderstood I had perhaps better make it clear that generally I avoid film adaptations of classic Victorian novels since they almost always tend to disappoint me. So maybe we are not so far apart after all. This is one thing I wanted to point out first.
Another thing I'd like to say is that if something should be forbidden it is turning books like Les Misérables into musicals, which is full-fledged heresy. But then I have never understood why there should be musicals at all.
The world would be, however, much poorer if it were not for some films that are based on literature and that are, maybe, even better than the respective novel. To quote just a few by one of my favourite directors, John Ford:
The Grapes of Wrath,
The Searchers,
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,
How Green Was My Valley,
Fort Apache.
Or think of the Coens' No Country for Old Men, which is a nearly faithful adaptation of the novel. Then think of a classic like Blade Runner, one of the finest films I've ever seen. And, last not least, think of all the films noirs that are based on pulp novels. And what about Rebecca, which is such a masterful film, or The Birds?
So one ought to make a disctinction between classic novels and non-classic novels, which need not necessarily be inferior.
Apart from that, a director is not always driven by the wish to cash in on a big name. A studio boss may be, and inferior pop-art directors like Tarantino, too, but John Ford, for instance, agreed to make The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance on a very slim budget because he wanted to make the film for artistic and personal reasons. There were some sujets Ford was so interested in that he made the film for no personal gain at all. [You may have noticed that here is a Ford aficionado speaking.] So what I actually want to say is that we should not reduce a director's motives to purely pecuniary ones; a lot of these men and women are artists like writers.
Neither would I say that a director creates a dishonest, inaccurate and irresponsible bastardization of a novel unless he puts it 1:1 on the screen. Take Polanski's Oliver Twist, for instance: I find it very honest and moving because one senses that the director tries to tell of his own personal experiences through the story. Why is a classic a classic? Because it tells us of a conflict, a problem that still is of concern to modern audiences. In Oliver Twist it may be the sufferings of innocent children in a cruel and callous world, and this is the idea you also get when you watch Polanski's film version of the novel. It actually wins through the director's decision not to make Oliver the heir to a property and a genteel name, because this decision makes it more universal.
Pheeew, this is all for now ;-)
Just saw the 1969 film of David Copperfield. Geez, what a botch. The 1934 film version is much better.
Mod
Not surprising. I think I have the '69 version. Is that the one where DC is walking along the beach in the beginning?
Yes. All that flashbacking and forwarding is thoroughly unneccessary. I guess in the 69 film, you know that something bad is going to happen to Dora and Steerforth, you just don't know what.
Mod
The film Nicholas Nickleby is very good.
I have a film question. The BBC versions of Dickens are on the whole well done. The oddest thing I've found though is the portrayal of Jenny Wren that was done for Our Mutual Friend. She's one of Dickens great secondary characters ... why portray a child as a middle aged woman who's slow in the head? That adaptation of Our Mutual Friend was a good one...except for that choice. It was wierd. Like having Tiny Tim being portrayed as a middle aged guy with a drinking problem. It doesn't compute.
Besides the various Christmas Carols and Nicholas Nickelby, I also really liked the Roman Polanski Oliver Twist. I know it really streamlined the plot, but I never liked the Rose Maylie/other characters subplot, and I thought Sir Ben Kingsley's performance as Fagin was extraordinary - I actually felt sympathy for him. In the BBC miniseries, I thought Timothy Spall's Fagin was more crude and off-putting. It's my personal belief that Dickens is best done in miniseries format, and I think the BBC has an ironclad monopoly on such productions. The newest "Bleak House" is my absolute favorite miniseries of all-time, apart from HBO's "John Adams." I just recently rented the newest "Little Dorrit" and will try to make time for that. Anybody like that one?
BTW, my favorite Christmas Carol adaptations are the black-and-white one with Alastair Sim and the 1980s one with George C. Scott.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
