Oliver Twist

Of the five extant full-length features based on Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist (among which I include the 1968 musical), this 1948 version is often considered the yardstick against which all others are measured. It's said that comparisons are odious, but it's necessary to examine it in relation to the other four to reveal why it is so highly regarded, as well as to some extent debunk its revered status.

First, we must begin by acknowledging that Dickens's book is a great but somewhat flawed work. It may be considered bad form to even think of criticising an undisputed genius, but bear in mind that this was only his second novel, and he was a young and inexperienced writer. Oliver Twist's strength lies in its larger-than-life characters, sparkling dialogue and imaginative set-pieces, but structurally it has some huge problems. This is why, throughout all the screen versions, depictions of figures such as Mr Bumble, Fagin and Bill Sykes differ very little, key scenes such as asking for more or the handkerchief stealing game are staged similarly, but there are many variations as to the overall plot. While the versions made in 1922 and 1933 are faithful if rather pared-down adaptations, the screenplay by David Lean and Stanley Haynes was the first to do the unthinkable and rewrite Dickens.

Probably the most drastic and for me the most necessary difference between this picture and the novel is Oliver's fate after he is forced to accompany Bill Sikes on the burglary. In the novel he is wounded and taken in by the family whose house it is. However, Lean and Haynes do not show the burglary, and keep Oliver in the custody of Fagin and co. until the finale. This is a vast improvement, as it means Oliver remains in real danger throughout the last act, and adds extra motivation to the race to bring the criminals to justice. So crucial to the impact of the picture was this change that it was used again for the 1968 musical and Roman Polanski's 2005 effort, and the image of the young hero clambering over the rooftops with Sikes urging him on is now established in the public conscious.

However there is one problematic way in which the 1948 film deviates from all the other versions, and that is in the size of Nancy's role. She is introduced fairly late, after Oliver's arrest, and she gets precious little screen time before being murdered. Significantly, her fondness for Oliver is not developed; she never even speaks to him, and consequently it seems odd when suddenly steps in as his protector. She is not even portrayed especially sympathetically, and as a result her death is not the blow to the audience that it should be. To me, the character of Nancy is the key to the whole thing; she is a surrogate mother (or big sister) figure to Oliver before he finds his real family, and her brutal murder is the biggest wrench of the story. Even the 1933 version, which otherwise has all the sophistication of a school play, recognises this.

The 1948 version at least looks great thanks to superlative cinematography by Guy Green, and of course the direction of David Lean. This picture is often praised for its harsh and grimy portrayal of Victorian England's underbelly, and Lean loads every frame with tone and character. He often throws in shots with no actors, which do not contribute directly to the story but add atmosphere to the scene. This kind of shot was by and large a no-no in Hollywood at the time, and for good reason because it can be a distraction, but Lean gets away with it because he does it so well. A great example is the series of storm shots from the opening scene, the best of which is a shot of two thorny stems twitching in the wind, instantly forcing us to think of physical pain, after which we cut to Oliver's mother in agony. The effect is more powerful than would be the shot of her alone. My only complaint with Lean's direction is his tendency to over-direct the low-key scenes, such as the one of Mrs Bumble setting about her husband, which is shot in the same manner as Oliver's assault on Noah Claypole, but as a scene it deserves far less weight.

And then we come to the actors. Aficionados of classic British cinema will understand that no-one but Robert Newton could have played Sikes in this production, and he's at his eye-rolling best here, although not as scary as Oliver Reed was in 1968. Kay Walsh is passable, but isn't right for Nancy, and her casting probably has something to do with who her husband was. Alec Guinness's Fagin has been denounced as anti-Semitic; in fact it goes right through anti-Semitism and out the other side. This caricature, with the unfeasibly massive nose and beard flapping around like a bit of old carpet, is simply ridiculous. True, Fagin is supposed to be a comedy character (and to his credit Guinness does ham it up funnily), but Oliver Twist is not a farce, and that over-the-top make-up is all wrong.

Through successive stage and screen versions, the story of Oliver Twist has continued to evolve. The musical eliminates the subplot with Monks, and the 2005 picture even goes as far as to remove the coincidence of Oliver being related to Mr Brownlow. This 1948 adaptation deserves credit for making this process of refinement acceptable, which is ironic as in spite of its break with tradition (and its flaws) through its tone and character it is probably the closest in spirit to the original text.

When his mother just about makes it to the workhouse before giving birth then dying, Oliver Twist is born into the only world he has ever known – the workhouse and poverty. When he draws the short straw from among the children, Oliver asks for more food at dinner and promptly finds himself up for sale for £5 to any honest trader willing to take him in. Oliver is taken to work for an undertaker until a fight over his mother makes him run away to London where the masters will never find him. Taken in by Fagin's group of child pickpockets, Oliver starts to settle in, until a brush with the law starts to bring his family history to the attention of those lacking scruples.

Watching this film now (or indeed at the time of its release in the UK) it is hard to imagine that it would have sparked a riot in Berlin in its first showing in 1949 or that it was banned for two years in America on the grounds of being anti-Semitic and was only released after significant cuts (10 minutes) had been made. Of course the cynic in me would suggest that the US was making any excuse to limit British films in its cinema due to competition (they don't need to do that any more!) but I guess history is written by the winners and Hollywood is definitely winning that battle. Ironically enough the film was also banned in Israel and Egypt because of Fagin – with Israel claiming that Fagin was anti-Semetic and Egypt claiming he was too sympathetic. Any roads, regardless of the historical controversy this film is still considered by many to be the definitive version of Dickens' story and often is in top ten or so when polls for 'greatest British films' are carried out. The plot is dark and sombre as befits the source material, painting a dark world of thieves, poverty and workhouses within which the story of Oliver and his destiny are told. In essence it is a simple story but it is the atmosphere and characters that make it more interesting.

This may have been as successful as some of Lean's other films due to the daft controversies around it, but his is still a very effective job as director. The film feels Victorian and hopeless – just like the lives of those in the story, and Lean creates a real atmosphere of despair and fear that is enjoyably dark and has moments that I was surprised to see in a film of the period. The cast do well with the characters and are a big part of its working. Ignoring all the hysteria over 'bad' characters being ethnic (good to see things haven't changed that much), Guinness is good as Fagin and doesn't allow himself to be just a ethnic stereotype – he is exploitative but he is also human and we get to see him as just being somebody else's 'boy' as well as Oliver. Newton is who I see when I think of Bill Sykes and Davies is a good Oliver even if his accent is way too posh for a workhouse baby and the film tends to lose him among all the more interesting and seedy characters we come across. Support is good from the likes of Walsh, Sullivan, Newley and others, all combining to produce a colourful collection of dark characters in the seedy streets of London.

Overall this is a good story even if it loses the Oliver story halfway through for a while in favour of the other characters. The direction is great and the whole film is dark and atmospheric. The acting is roundly good and supports the wealth of seedy characters on which the film is built.

I'm not a massive fan of Dickens by and large but if I want to see a version of this story then this is the film I return to.

This excellent film is part of a duo of Dickens' books turned into silver screen magic by David Lean in the 1940s (Great Expectations with John Mills is the other).

Keeping to the spirit of the book (although not leaving the bleak ending intact) it allows us to follow the fortunes of young Oliver (John Howard Davies, who later gave up acting to become a big shot at the BBC), through his unhappy years at the orphanage under the watchful eye of the Beadle (the huge Francis L Sullivan, who played many similar roles throughout the decade), to his association with boy thieves under the thumb of Jewish money-dealer Fagin (Alec Guinness, in one of his career highlights).

The casting is generally superb - Kay Walsh (then Mrs David Lean) is effective as Nancy, while Robert Newton is suitably unhinged and menacing as Bill Sikes. In the undertaker's, Diana Dors is showy as Charlotte the maid; while in London, Anthony Newley makes an early scene-stealing Artful Dodger (like Jack Wild in the musical version, this Dodger isn't all bad and wants to make sure Nancy and Oliver are all right).

'Oliver Twist' is one of the greats of British cinema and does justice to a complex book. Highly recommended.

In 1835 London began reading a series of comic essays or sketches by an unknown writer - it turned out a Parliamentary reporter. He wrote these pieces in a book illustrated by Hablot Browne, who drew pictures under the nickname "Phiz". The writer of the pieces decided to supply them to the public as SKETCHES BY BOZ, to complement his illustrator. The writer was actually named Charles John Huffan Dickens. He was only 23 years old, and he found himself a minor celebrity. Mr. Dickens followed this with a full novel, originally planned like the SKETCHES, but centered on a group of wealthy Englishmen touring the whole of the British Isles. Eventually this picaresque novel centered on the leader of the group, Mr. Samuel Pickwick, and his valet, Sam Weller. THE POSTHUMOUS PAPERS OF THE PICKWICK CLUB (later renamed THE PICKWICK PAPERS) was a tremendous success, especially as in the second half of the story Dickens got serious about the legal issue of breach of promise (broken engagement) lawsuits, the corruption of British lawyers, and the horrors of debtor's prison.

He began to see a formula develop here. He was more than a one book phenomenon, and he could see that while people adored his sense of humor, they also liked the serious material. His own life had been harsh - his father had been in debtor's prison, and Dickens had to work in a blacking warehouse (a warehouse where bottles were filled and labeled) as a youth. So he put a great deal in his work of the underside of life in modern England. Compare his novels with those of the two popular "Gods" of the day: Sir Walter Scott's novels were about a heroic past, while Jane Austen concentrated on personalities in the countryside (upper middle class) who were concerned about getting married. Dickens was quite different.

But for his third novel he reversed his formula - instead of a basically comic story enlightened with dramatic moments, he made it a tragic, dramatic tale enlightened with comic highlights. It was this formula he would stick to (quite successfully) from 1837 to 1870 for the bulk of his novels and short stories.

In 1836 there had been a trial of a receiver of stolen goods named Ikey Solomon. Ikey was Jewish. He was also something of a thief trainer. Found guilty, Ikey was sent to Australia for the rest of his life. Dickens decided that he would incorporate this story into his novel.

The hero, a poor boy who was brought up in an orphanage, is mistreated by those in authority (including a pompous beadle named Mr. Bumble) and eventually runs away, but falls into a gang in London led by one Fagin. Fagin is a Jewish thief and receiver in stolen goods. He is also a trainer of pickpockets and thieves, led by one called "The Artful Dodger". He also works closely with a violent, professional burglar named Bill Sykes, who has only two close relationships: his girl, a woman named Nancy, and his pet bulldog.

Oliver in the course of the story is separated from the gang when he is arrested for picking the pocket of a gentleman named Mr. Brownlow. Brownlow tries to help Oliver - he can't place it but there seems something about the boy he likes. Sykes manages to recapture Oliver again, but the latter is reunited by accident to Brownlow after he is injured in an burglary Sykes is committing.

In the meantime Mr. Bumble and his wife (the matron of the poor house Oliver was raised in) have turned over information about Oliver's real history to a stranger named Monk. Monk has also been in contact with Fagin to make sure that Oliver is kept in the gang. But then Nancy starts showing a strong conscience about what is going on about the boy.

I won't go beyond this in terms of the plot. David Lean had made several films (including BRIEF ENCOUNTER) before this 1948 film. He did a bang up job with a great cast: John Howard Davies as Oliver, Alec Guiness as Fagin, Robert Newton as Sykes, Henry Stephenson as Mr. Brownlow, Kay Walsh as Nancy, Francis L. Sullivan as Bumble, and a young Anthony Newley as the Artful Dodger. Lean trimmed much out of the six hundred page novel (short for a Dickens novel), but left the main points. His biggest actions were concerning Alec Guiness's performance as Fagin - the character is a vicious anti-Semitic caricature by Dickens (who made fitful attempts to make up for it in later editions of the novel - showing Fagin was not a good Jew either!), and the make-up job looked like something out of Julius Streicher's Nazi publication DER STURMER of a few years before. But the makeup job on Guiness was based on the illustrations of George Cruickshank and "Phiz" in their editions of TWIST when it came out. Still, in balance to this, Fagin is shown at the conclusion to have a sense of personal dignity when confronted by a deadly mob. That touch shows that Lean could go beyond Dickens' own prejudices to somewhat balance the story. The result was a masterpiece - certainly the best film adaptation of OLIVER TWIST, possibly the best version on film of a Dickens novel.

David Lean's adaptation of Charles Dickens' most irresistible tale must rank as one of the most astounding masterpieces in all of cinema.

Every detail is wrought with the most painstaking detail and nuance. There are many scenes which stand out but none is more exhilarating as the astounding ending when it appears as if all of London has come out to rescue our hero.

My favorite aspect of this film has to be the depiction of a London in which we have all dreamed of living: gritty, lusty, ugly, beautiful, attractive, repulsive but most of all, exceptionally unique and endearing - yet with pomp and poverty existing side by side.

Oh, so much to say about this film. One runs out of words.

Every performance remains in one's memory, every image in one's heart.