Oliver Twist

Oliver Twist is a journalist's novel. The principal character has only one real purpose- as a foil for a range of villainous or inadequate or officious or bungling adults. He barely utters a thousand words in the novel, in the film he is never silent. In this version, the novel has not merely been arranged - it has been totally re-written by someone who has completely missed Dicken's intention: to show us the effects of utilitarian government in late Georgian society. Instead of using the huge range of ideas and the profound commentary- a story which contains enough for several films, the writer rifles the ideas and tries to modernise the language, at once destroying the authority of Dickens' voice and destroying some of his most memorable effects. Dickens is not so far away from us that his language needs translation and most people are literate enough to follow his ideas and arguments. The issues of the novel are as relevant today as they were then - the abuses of authority, attitudes to the destitute, exploitation of the young. Instead, Brownlow shares his sitting room with his housekeeper and asks for 'a large brandy' as though in a saloon rather than his home - this is just sheer ignorance. Fagin is politically corrected - a circus conjurer rather than Dickens' child exploiter and murderer by proxy. Fagin is based on a real person. A real moderniser might have wanted to develop those aspects of Ikey Solomons that Dickens couldn't put in print in 1836. Meanwhile, the novel is trimmed so that characters who are dead before the novel opens are brought incompetently to life and occupy large chunks of time. There is soap-opera violence instead of the real thuggery of public hangings and casual murder. Unlike David Lean, this team seem to be unable to capture Dickens' burning indignation, his contempt for self-serving officialdom. The glaring parallel between the effects of the 'respectable gentlemen' of 'the board' and of the 'merry old gentleman', Fagin on unprotected and unwanted children is missed.

This film has no more relevance to Dickens work than the Lionel Bart musical - an excellent cast and a lot of money completely wasted!

I am a huge fan of the book, and while there hasn't been a completely faithful adaptation, quite a few have captured the spirit and have been excellent on its own terms. David Lean's magnificent film is one, the 1968 musical is another and this one was also excellent. The book itself is magnificent, but I can also understand why there hasn't been a 100% faithful version. The story is very complicated and there are so many characters to flesh out so it needs a mini-series of this length to do justice. Lean's film did manage to do it justice because of Lean's usual masterly storytelling and the impeccable performances, and the musical had the wonderful music and Ron Moody.

Back to this 1999 mini-series, I cannot believe I haven't seen this before. Not only is it a solid adaptation but it is wonderful on its own terms even with its minor quibbles. It does take a few liberties, but Dickens' feel and spirit is there. The story is very well told, and the changes actually worked mostly because they were developed well. While there is the odd occasion where the odd bit of dialogue might jar with the period, the writing is very good, and the whole mini-series is beautifully directed consistently.

Also impressive are the period detail and music. The period detail is quite evocative, with the scenery and sets excellent and the costumes authentic. The photography was nice and fluid too. The music is beautifully composed, and did well to enhance the drama of every scene. The pace is not too fast or slow but comfortably in between. There are many effective scenes especially the I want some more scene and Nancy's death which is quite brutal. In fact, the only real disappointment is Sikes's death, the build up to it is quite intense but the actual death itself came across as rather goofy and rushed.

That said, the acting is wonderful. Julie Walters doesn't disappoint, while Alex Crowley is a spirited Dodger. Nancy is also made very vulnerable and quite heart-breaking, while Michael Kitchen(who I recognised immediately from Foyle's War) is a splendid Mr Brownlow. Sam Smith is good as Oliver, I loved his angelic face and the mutterings under his breath, but there were one or two scenes such as in the courtroom when you had to turn the volume up to hear what he was saying. Even better though was Marc Warren, who to me is the best Monks I've seen, it was a hilarious, poignant, creepy and altogether wonderful performance. Robert Lindsey is perfect as Fagin, very oily, vile, manipulative and grotesque with a great judgement of lines, while Andy Serkis's Sikes is brutal and genuinely frightening.

All in all, a solid and wonderful mini-series, and one of the better adaptations of the book. 9/10 Bethany Cox

The Oliver re-make cycle can stop now that we have this amazing version. I saw it when it first played on Itv back in 1999. After seeing the downfall that was Oliver Twist (2005) I made it my business to find this version so i was able to see an amazing, moving and thrilling story.This four part series is directed beautifully and magically enough it includes something that the Roman Polanski version forgot Emotion! The story of Oliver Twist runs on emotion and great characters! Through-out this version the audience are invited to follow and believe the story about the poor boy that asked for more. With great direction and performances (Julie Walters, Robert Lindsay, David Ross, Andy Serkis and Sam Smith as Oliver) along side stunning lighting and costume this mini series will provide high entertainment. If you were unimpressed by the Polanski version I highly recommend this one!

In some ways, it's good to see some of the subplots that have to be snipped for time in shorter renditions. Unfortunately, what remains is twisted Dickens. Dickens wrote for serial, and sometimes wrote himself into corners. He didn't plan Oliver Twist out from the start, so characters like "Monks" wormed into later installments to help iron out a conclusion. OLIVER TWIST the book is therefore not to be read or judged like a modern novel, but rather a sprawling (though not so sprawling as the nearly contemporary, episodic, and wonderful PICKWICK PAPERS) epic view of Oliver's world, where many extraneous activities take place. Unfortunately, the writers of this "Oliver Twist" have manipulated Dickens to try to tie together all the extraneous material. They've also done unforgivable things to the characters. The way the "Artful Dodger" picked Mr. Brownlow's pockets and the aftermath was shocking. Fagin, a wonderful character in all his many incarnations, has been transformed from a man who teaches boys to pick pockets to a magician of sorts, so he comes off more like a thwarted music hall prestidigitator than a corrupter of morals. And the end of Bill Sykes, as written here, is perverted. Some margin of liberty should be granted movie adaptations. Because of time constraints, and the fact that Dickens' wonderful language cannot be easily transferred to the screen. But this version takes too many liberties and warps too many characters. It's a shame, because it has a nice look to it, and Robert Lindsay, a fine actor, might've been a great Fagin. The worst part of the movie is the backstory. Dickens shoves all of the tale of Oliver's parentage into the final pages of his tale, and much that was inexplicable is there explained. These people have expanded upon that to make a full two-hour stand-alone episode! This not only gives a fraudulent view of how OLIVER TWIST the story is constructed, it undercuts what mystery the book possesses. If you want a solid (if truncated) version of the book, David Lean's 1948 adaptation is still powerful; for an even easier to digest version, the Oscar-winning musical has a true Dickensian look and the characters are all true (Ron Moody, Oliver Reed, and Harry Secombe being standouts) and several tuneful songs. If you want a version where Fagin comes out a figure of persecution, try the one where Fagin is portrayed by George C. Scott. If you're a Dickens purist, give this version a miss; if you never intend to read Dickens, or have tried and don't like Dickens, you might like this version after all.

I understood that Mr. Bleasdale was a Dickens' director when, in GBH (1991), I saw an news hound being gored with the point of a gamp while he was peering through the slot of a letter box.

Here In Australia, where, according to the Leeford succubus, our natives are too plucky, we have only seen the first episode, and I should just like to agree with Mr. Underwood and the mysterious Dennis-77 that Mark Warren's performance as the scorbutic Edwin Leeford is exceptionally fine.

Apart from James Whale's Borris Karlof make up, it is a flawless piece of comic acting.

Thank you England for sending us Uriah Heap, Mr. Micawber, Abel Magwitch and Mark Warren.