Oliver Twist

In Victorian England, young "Oliver Twist" is born in poverty. His mother dies and his father is unaccounted for (assuming you know the story, this version drops hints). The innocent kid grows into Jackie Coogan (as Oliver Twist). A sprightly waif, young Coogan is sent to a workhouse and gets in trouble for requesting more gruel. Running away from abusive conditions, Coogan heads for "polluted" London. He meets "The Artful Dodger" Edouard Trebaol (as Jack Dawkins) and joins a gang of boy pick-pockets led by the crafty old Lon Chaney (as Fagin). The shriveled scoundrel's henchman George Siegmann (as Bill Sikes) and his woman Gladys Brockwell (as Nancy) come to play an important part in Coogan's life...

Sol Lesser and the Coogan family correctly saw Charles Dickens' classic story as an excellent vehicle for their young star, who adds a touch of his own personality to the character. This major production was found and restored in the 1970s. Another famed version, Paramount's 1916 "Oliver Twist" starring Marie Doro is presently unavailable. Although Ms. Doro is miscast for more than one reason, it would be nice to see her "Oliver" in circulation. That "all-star" version featured a cast even more acclaimed (for the time) than this one; notwithstanding the presence of Mr. Chaney, of course. Carl Stockdale (as Monks) plays his role in both. This film is a great one to see if you're not familiar with "silent" films, but know the Dickens.

******** Oliver Twist (10/30/22) Frank Lloyd ~ Jackie Coogan, Lon Chaney, George Siegmann, Gladys Brockwell

Oliver Twist, the novel by Charles Dickens, has had a long and unusual relationship with the cinema. Adapted numerous times (this 1922 feature was already at least the fifth), incorporating some major changes along the way which have since become accepted in future versions. Viewers today may be familiar the 1948 David Lean movie and the Lionel Bart musical, but these contain several key differences from the novel. You see, Oliver Twist was an early work by a young author, and its plotting is not perfect. This faithful adaptation reveals those shortcomings, reproducing all the far-fetched coincidence and convergence, and removing any sense of danger from the finale by having Oliver safe and sound rather than recaptured by the criminal gang.

Oliver Twist is a lengthy book and anyone wishing to adapt it has a lot of source material to pick and choose from. However for this version screenwriters (Walter Anthony and director Frank Lloyd) have attempted to cram in just about every subplot and minor character, quite a feat for a 74-minute runtime. As such there are a lot of title cards quickly glossing over some point, with characters popping up and disappearing without really being introduced. Because leading lad Jackie Coogan had found fame co-starring with Charlie Chaplin, there has been some attempt to comedy the picture up, and some half-hearted slapstick routines are the only real departures from Dickens. There's also a fair bit of en vogue cross-cutting, for example between the scene of Oliver play-acting with Mrs Bedwin and Brownlow's conversation with his friend over Oliver's character. It doesn't add much.

More promise lies in the look of the picture. The production design is fabulous with sets and costumes conjuring up the dilapidation and inequality of the era. It is especially appropriate for Dickens, rich with visual detail just as the author's work is rich with description of place and person. Director Frank Lloyd is one of the unsung heroes of this era, a great aesthetic shot composer with a painterly eye. At a time when it was really becoming commonplace to have the camera pan and tilt to follow the actors, Lloyd liked to explore the psychological effect having a character disappear off screen while the camera remained still. A fine example here is when Sykes pushes Nancy to the floor, shoving her out of the shot, revealing Fagin's concerned face in the spot where she stood. Some have dismissed Frank Lloyd as a conservative for the lack of movement in his pictures, but here we can see he uses a lot of point-of-view shots, before they really became standard. He is also pretty imaginative with his inserts, such as the one of Bullseye the dog scrabbling at the door, which was copied in a few later version of Oliver Twist. Meanwhile a lively editing pattern keeps things moving.

These days, many an adaptation of Oliver Twist is judged more than anything else on the strength of its Fagin. In this case, it was an early make-up part for horror king Lon Chaney. Chaney did his own make-up, and he has sensibly resisted making Fagin too grotesque or stereotypically Jewish (compare Alec Guinness in 1948, and cringe). Apart from the occasional shift of the eyes, this is largely a physical performance, with Chaney conveying great presence and character in his body language. As he would with many of his characters he brings out the forlornness over the overtly evil, beginning a tradition of increasingly sympathetic Fagins in successive screen versions. Chaney is unfortunately one of the few delights of the cast however. Jackie Coogan was the first major child star, but he is a disappointment here, with Lloyd failing to conjure up any of that magic that Chaplin found in him. I'm normally impressed by ubiquitous every-villain George Siegmann, but frankly his appearance as Bill Sykes is just lazy typecasting, and his performance is lacklustre. One saving grace is that, by the standards of the day, the acting is quite natural and restrained. Gladys Brockwell (Nancy) is very good in this respect, emoting well, although sadly her part is underused here.

This 1922 version of Oliver Twist is a mixed bag. On the one hand it's visually impressive with some truly memorable set-pieces such as Sykes's rooftop fall or Fagin alone in his cell. On the other it is structurally rather chaotic, full of hasty plot lines that don't get the development they require. This problem is something future adaptations would address. It's intriguing though how the looks of characters and the unfolding of key scenes are remarkably similar from one movie version to another. And this is where the talent of Charles Dickens shines through – the bold twists, catchy dialogue, and larger-than-life figures that have made his work such a source of inspiration for the screen.

I expected a little more from this film than it delivered. It was not imaginative visually and the excellent cast was often not given the opportunity to explore their characters. This was especially true of Lon Chaney, whose Fagin does very little. Of course he looks great and the shot of him in prison toward the end is unforgettable.

I suspect the film-makers were more concerned with making this a Jackie Coogan picture rather than a Charles Dickens one - and this is where the film loses its narrative drive and character development. Mind you Coogan is excellent, but they really turn Oliver into the Kid, he even wears the same hat. I was impressed by Gladys Brockwell as Nancy, and the death of Bill Sykes is pretty special, but overall the film falls a little flat. Of course the hideous music on the Madacy tape I saw didn't help - nor the horrible flickering of the EP recording.

While not the best film version to me(the David Lean film), it is a very interesting one for reasons other than and as well as being silent. At 74 minutes though, I did think it was too short, and because it is such a lengthy and complicated novel with a lot going on, what was translated on screen, which was as much as possible seemingly, came across as too rushed with some characters disappearing before we even get to know them. However, it is absolutely great visually, the production design and lighting look wonderful and the atmosphere is beautifully evoked. The film is very well directed by Frank Lloyd, who manages to stage scenes, crucial or not, with much impact. Sykes' fall and Fagin alone in the cell were really well done, but the standout was Sykes pushing Nancy to the floor, a fine example I agree of where a character disappears replaced by another, in this case Fagin. The cast are fine. Most of the cast I am not as familiar as familiar with as the two big names, but they do their job well. George Siegmann seemed like typecasting to me but it is a job that he does well. Gladys Brockwell is a vulnerable and suitably brash Nancy, and the children are well cast. But this Oliver Twist is most memorable for Jackie Coogan and Lon Chaney. Coogan, who broke my heart in The Kid the previous year, is a sweet and innocent Oliver, while Chaney, looking great, gives a largely physical(relying a lot on gestures, facial expressions and mannerisms) yet commanding account of Fagin while avoiding the trap of making the character stereotypical. All in all, impressive visuals and a memorable Oliver and Fagin makes this an interesting and well-done if not definitive Oliver Twist. 8/10 Bethany Cox

With a good cast headed by Jackie Coogan and Lon Chaney, plus decent atmosphere that conjures up the sights of Dickens' world, this version of "Oliver Twist" works well. The Dickens story makes wonderful movie material, but it is also quite melodramatic, and for a film version to succeed requires convincing characters and a believable recreation of the world of the novel. Coogan, Chaney, and director Frank Lloyd all get the job done.

Coogan was of course the best and obvious choice in his day to play Oliver. But Chaney, although much more limited in his screen time, is even more memorable. Fagin is the kind of role that Chaney most excelled at. His make-up, mannerisms, and gestures are all impressive, and it is amazing the way that without dialogue he can so quickly and efficiently define his character's relationships with the other characters. The rest of the cast are mostly lesser-known names, but they all do a good job of establishing their characters, too. The settings are a bit plain at times, but are always consistent with the story, and they do the job of showing us the varied places where Oliver lived the different stages of his young life.

There have many versions of the Oliver story, and the terrific David Lean version from the 40's is still the one by which all others should be measured. But this is a good adaptation, and it has almost everything you could ask for in a silent version of the story.