David Copperfield

As much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.

Delbert Mann's version of David Copperfield is one of these lavish all star adaptations made for the network American television market. Laurence Olivier and Richard Attenborough just turn up for a few scenes.

Mann should be applauded for attempting to try a different approach to this often adapted story. It is told in flashback by an adult Copperfield who reflects in his life and relationships. It also shies away from the traumatic abuse David suffers from the Murdstones and the boarding school he attends. So credit should be given for avoiding the poverty porn which some directors would had gone full board on, although this may be part of the censorship that existed at the time in US network television.

However it is too truncated leaving me dissatisfied to a story that has been shredded. Some actors look too old for the parts they are playing such as Ron Moody as Uriah Heep and Ralph Richardson as Mr Micawber. It does not help that Robin Phillips is bit bland as the lead and comes across as a bit of a wet fish.

The version of the film I saw was of poor quality, it was in desperate need of restoration. A shame given that the film has theatrical knights/dames such as Olivier, Redgrave, Richardson, Attenborough, Hillier, Evans.

Veteran director Delbert Mann gives us this unusual perspective on the life of David Copperfield - Dickens' legendary orphan. For a TV film Mann's Copperfield packs an unexpected punch. Unlike the standard Copperfield interpretation, Mann's Copperfield is a depressed, brooding, haunted man,who feels responsible for all of the problems he sees around him. The story is ably rendered through a series of flashbacks, as Copperfield (nicely portrayed by a Robin Philips) broods in his later life, prior to the resolution of this part of his story (which I will not discuss here). David's flashbacks tell most of the novel's story and touch upon the major highlights in our hero's life, suggesting that he is about to either experience an epiphany of sorts or to collapse in upon himself - perhaps both. Ultimately, Dickens' wonderful story-telling ability shows through very nicely as the story winds up with most of the major arcs resolved in a few lucidly depicted paragraphs of narrative.

The movie is very well made, and quite complete despite the Herculean scope of the novel and the scalar difference between Dickens and a TV movie. It moves along at a pithy, but unhurried gait. It is also very nicely acted by a stellar British cast. Agnes (perfectly handled by Susan Hampshire) and Michael Redgrave's excellent Mr. Peggotty are easily the most sympathetic characters in the story.

The cinematography is also very good, and despite the mediocre quality of the reproduction I viewed, does not have the boxy, boring feel of the typical TV movie. The soundtrack is also a touch-above the average TV production, but still, I found it a little too repetitive at times.

Be forewarned - this is not the standard interpretation of Copperfield's character and Dickens' story. It is more emotional, cerebral and depressing than the norm. Don't go into it expecting to come out wholly unscathed - you will be disappointed. The film is definitely an accomplishment worthy of respect. My rating of 7 may seem low, but note that I have downgraded it by one point because it simply isn't as plainly entertaining as some of the more lighthearted versions of this story are. Take the warning at the top of this paragraph seriously and you won't be disappointed. Ignore it at your own peril.

This film felt longer than it was. The acting and scenery were certainly enjoyable, but the story was difficult to get into. (I have not read the book.) Eventually I found it compelling enough to keep watching to the end. The characters' interactions were good and I became interested enough to wonder what Copperfield's shallow despair was all about and what would happen. On hindsight I agree with a previous reviewer that the flashback device created a character of Copperfield that was out of character with his life in flashbacks. What I really hated about the film was the awful perms on the lead and the heavy eye makeup on the beautiful women. I guessed this film had to have been made in the early 1970s. I was close. I actually felt relief when Copperfield came out of the water and his hair was plastered to his head instead of all poofed out and neatly clipped. Hardly Dickensonian.

Director Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.

Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.

I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.

The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.

The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.

Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.

The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.

My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad film.