Great Expectations (2011): The Miniseries

 

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

While my experience with Charles Dickens' Great Expectations is only through the various adaptations, I think I am safe in saying that this is one of his bleaker novels. Even by those standards however, I was surprised at how bleak and despairing the 2011 BBC adaption was. While in some ways sumptuous, in other ways dull, Great Expectations has some good performances but one awful one in the midst of it that brings the project down.

Young Philip Pirrip better known as Pip is forced to help escaped convict Abel Magwitch (Ray Winstone). Magwitch may be a criminal, but he curiously is nicer than either Pip's sister or Orlick (Jack Roth), the apprentice blacksmith to his uncle Joe (Shaun Dooley), the only kind person in Pip's life. Pip's life however takes a few strange turns.

First is when he is called to serve at Satis House, home of the wealthy recluse Miss Havisham (Gillian Anderson). Havisham is haunted by her jilting at the altar to where she still wears her wedding dress and keeps the rotting wedding feast intact. Pip is made the playmate of Estella, Havisham's adopted daughter, but this is part of Havisham's crazed revenge plot.

A second turn is when seven years later, the adult Pip (Douglas Booth), now apprentice to Joe, is made heir to a great fortune by a mysterious benefactor who wishes him to "live as a young fellow of great expectations". Now off to London to live the lush life, he becomes friends with Herbert Pocket (Harry Lloyd), Havisham's nephew whom as a child he once punched. Their purse strings are controlled by Jaggers (David Suchet), an efficient lawyer who deals with young men of privilege. 

Pip pursues Estella (Vanessa Kirby) now that he is a gentleman, but she has been trained to be cold towards men. Her coldness is perfect for wealthy Bentley Drummle (Tom Burke), who cares nothing for her but only for her future fortune. Once Pip discovers whom his secret benefactor is, things go full speed as he tries to sort out his own life while attempting to help Herbert and his secret benefactor. As much as both Havisham and others attempt to thwart out pair, circumstances bring Pip and Estella together over all their obstacles.

In some respects, this Great Expectations has a wealth of great acting. At the top of the list is Suchet as Jaggers. Cold but efficient, blunt but aware, his Jaggers is frightening in how he makes sense even as he appears coldhearted. He does not tolerate fools and executes his clients wishes with efficiency, and Suchet dominates everyone who shares the screen with him.

Anderson, the only American in the cast, takes a different tact with her Miss Havisham. She has a singsong style to her delivery, childlike that makes her version more sympathetic. Anderson still makes Miss Havisham into a totally creepy figure, but we see the haunted woman behind the cray-cray. Her Miss Havisham does not appear to be the bitter jilted spinster of lore. Instead, she appears more haunted and lost, a broken woman suspended in a living death. Her first appearance makes her look like a literal ghost, giving her a haunted quality. It is as if she were a walking corpse.

She is also more manipulative, fixated on bringing misery to others as vengeance for having misery visited upon her long before Estella or Pip were born. It is an exceptionally strong performance that is to be commended.

Another standout is Harry Lloyd's Herbert Pocket. He is somewhat diminished in this adaptation, but Lloyd makes Pocket into a good man, reformed from his youthful arrogance into someone who is motivated to do good and love well. Cheerful but serious when needed, one wishes for a Herbert Pocket spinoff where we see him and his wife in Cairo.

What sinks Great Expectations a great deal is the central character. It is not Douglas Booth's fault that he is exceptionally pretty. It is his fault that he cannot act, at least not in Great Expectations. One already finds it laughable that such a delicate looking, almost porcelain like figure such as Booth would plausibly be an apprentice blacksmith. He in actuality looks like he's never done a single day's worth of manual labor in his life, let alone something as labor intensive as a blacksmith. 

Booth's delicate features and elegant manners are already difficult to overlook to be seen as a working-class hero. It is his total blankness as Pip that dooms him and Great Expectations. No matter what the situation, Booth gives the same disengaged expression. He is like many people who have film/television careers based more on their looks than their acting prowess. His lack of reaction when his benefactor reveals himself should elicit howls of laughter. It does not matter whether he is trying to con an old hand like Jaggers, express ardor to Estella or feverishly work to save Herbert. Booth gives the audience the same facial expression throughout Great Expectations.

I once commented that Jaime Dornan's performance in Wild Mountain Thyme was more that of a good- looking man who can speak than of someone who could actually act. As a side note, I still feel this way about Dornan regardless of the praise he's gotten for Belfast. When it comes to Booth's performance in Great Expectations, I'm not sure he could even get past the speaking part. It is just so blank and empty. Worse, it makes Pip look less naive and more eternally stupid.

Perhaps Booth's weakness as an actor is why Kirby seemed to match him in the blankness of her own performance. While not as bad as Booth, Kirby looked neither like the cold woman or the simmering woman underneath. 

Great Expectations also, I think, went overboard in its Gothic trappings. The miniseries is dominated by endless shades of grey to where you wonder if sunlight even exists. It is as if the production wanted to encase you permanently in Satis House. Such dour looks and heavy greys work when we venture into Miss Havisham's ruined home, but why do so when entering the magic world of cosmopolitan London? 

Despite having more time to develop the Dickens story than other versions, this Great Expectations seems almost rushed. The heaviness of the production and Douglas Booth's lack of performance pushes the project down. It has the saving grace of strong performances from others (Suchet and Anderson in particular) but I found it a terrible disappointment. My expectations were not met.

5/10 

David Copperfield (1935): A Review

 

DAVID COPPERFIELD

It is a credit to the studio system that on occasion, it could create genuine pieces of art that make one interested in reading the source material. David Copperfield is one such film: a sweet, delightful and lavish adaptation that has excellent performances and an exceptional debut.

Young David Copperfield (Freddie Bartholomew) lives a happy life with his mother (Elizabeth Allan) and his nurse Peggoty (Jessie Ralph). That is until the Widow Copperfield marries Edward Murdstone (Basil Rathbone). He is a cold figure, though his sister Jane (Violet Kemble Cooper) is worse. 

After his mother's death, David is sent to work in a wine bottling plant, watched over by the kindly if irresponsible Mr. Micawber (W.C. Fields). David then runs away rather than go back to Murdstone when the Micawber family is forced to relocate due to Mr. Micawber's time in debtors' prison. David finds refuge with his distant Aunt Betsey (Edna May Oliver) and her cousin Mr. Dick (Lennox Pawle). 

As he grows up to become a man (Frank Lawton), he is loved by Agnes Wickfield (Madge Evans) and loves the addled-brained Dora Spenlow (Maureen O'Sullivan). Their marriage is ended by her sudden death, but David discovers his love for Agnes before the villainous Uriah Heep (Roland Young) can take even more advantage of the Wickfield family. With David and Agnes united at last, David Copperfield's life story ends happily.

David Copperfield is an absolute triumph of a film, beautiful and delightful. At the center of its triumph is the collection of performances, with an all-star cast and a star-making turn. David Copperfield marked the American debut of child star Freddie Bartholomew, and I do not think we will ever have as perfect a characterization of Charles Dickens' title character as his.

Bartholomew has an angelic face that goes well with David's wide-eyed innocence. However, he has more than sweetness to offer the audience. Bartholomew's acting is superb. You would be hard-pressed not to be emotionally moved by David's nighttime prayer when he finally arrives at Aunt Betsey's home after an over 70 miles walk. As he wanders off in his prayer, exhausted from his long journey, he apologizes to God. It's a beautiful moment. Bartholomew makes you feel David's horror and pain when Murdstone brutally beats him (or beats him as brutally as the Production Code would allow). His expressive eyes and excellent diction enhance his performance.

Almost everyone in David Copperfield is simply astonishing acting-wise. This is, to my mind, the only W.C. Fields performance where he plays it straight, and his Mr. Micawber is extraordinary from his first scene, when he's walking over rooftops to avoid creditors. Fields shows a softer, kinder side as Micawber, and even gets a chance to work in a little Uriah Heep impersonation that fits into the characterization of a kind yet bumbling man. 

Ralph's loving nurse/maid Peggoty is sweetness itself; Rathbone is at his sneering best as the cruel Murdstone, and Oliver's bossy, pompous, eccentric but ultimately caring Aunt Betsey balances comedy and drama. My only issue is with Roland Young's Uriah Heep, who seemed even for the character too exaggerated as the allegedly humble man. However, given how Heep is meant to be overwhelming in his insincerity, I am cutting a little slack. 

Director George Cukor, who had brilliantly brought Little Women to the screen, does equally well with a British novel as he did with the American literary classic. He directed the actors to their very best, some of them to the best performances of their careers. In other aspects, Cukor did wonders with his directing. The editing of when David is overwhelmed at Murdstone's brutal teaching methods is remarkably tense, the suspense and fear building to an almost unbearable climax. A scene where David's friend Steerforth (Hugh Williams) and the young sailor's niece Emily (Florine McKinney) requires only their eyes to show how she will jilt her old love for a new one.

The only real flaw, if that, is that you do eventually feel the movie's running time, but that is a minor quibble.

David Copperfield is a deeply moving film, anchored by excellent performances all around. Freddie Bartholomew is a revelation as the young David to where you wish the movie did not have to have him grow up. W. C. Fields showed himself a genuine actor versus a persona. David Copperfield is an enchanting film, and to my mind the standard that future adaptions should be measured by. The film shows that when the best people are working in front and behind the camera, backed up by the poshest studio production standards around, even something as "literature" can become not just art but a true thing of beauty.

DECISION: A-  

The Personal History of David Copperfield: A Review

THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF DAVID COPPERFIELD

It would have been too simple to call the film plain David Copperfield. No, director/co-writer Armando Iannucci had to go with the more flamboyant The Personal History of David Copperfield. That should signal how cutesy this Charles Dickens adaptation is meant to be seen. Meant being the operative word, for while David Copperfield has some strong qualities, it simply is too self-aware and rapid to be what it aims at.

Our titled hero David Copperfield (Dev Patel) rushes through life with a cheerful optimism as the narrator of his own adventures. We steamroll through all the major events of his life up to the time of his writing. There is his birth, followed by his mother's remarriage to the abusive Edward Murdstone (Darren Boyd), his exile to a bottling factory, his mother's death, and salvation with his Aunt Betsy (Tilda Swinton) and her bonkers cousin Mr. Dick (Hugh Laurie). 

There's his school days where he encounters the seemingly subservient Uriah Heep (Ben Whishaw) and re-encounters the kind but perpetually broke Mr. Micawber (Peter Capaldi) masquerading as a schoolteacher. David also makes friends with young and wealthy Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard), whom David introduces to the family of his former nanny. More wild romances for Steerforth and David come but not without David's fortunes rising and falling and rising again until all is well.

This is the second Iannucci film I've seen, and now I find that his style is simply not to my liking. I was one of the few dissenting voices on The Death of Stalin, my major issue being the same that I have with The Personal History of David Copperfield: it is simply too aware that it is a "comedy". I'm not averse to a little winking at the audience, but both The Death of Stalin and The Personal History of David Copperfield simply held that they were funny by default and everyone behaved as such. I'm of the belief that comedy should flow naturally from the situations, which I did not find in David Copperfield.

The real problem for David Copperfield is that everything was far too frenetic and frantic, going so fast through what I imagine is a massive novel that more than once I wondered "who are these people and why should we care?" Take for example when Mr. Micawber appears in David's classroom much to his horror. 

He had already told his friends all about his adventures with Mr. Micawber when he appears, and in what appears to be the fastest hiring and firing in school history our hapless but endearing miscreant is let go within maybe ten minutes of entering the school when Steerforth exposes him to the whole class. The audience gets a series of whiplashes as David Copperfield races from scene to scene to where at times you become, not lost but more puzzled at to who is who and what is what.

In his time at the bottling company we are introduced to two characters whom I called "Whisperer" and "Repeater" because I don't think we ever got their names and these were their only defining characteristics. I figure the fact that one whispered and the other repeated what was said was meant to be funny. It wasn't at least to me.

It was however, the major issue with David Copperfield: we had to rush past so much that there wasn't time to develop anything close to interest, let alone a grounding as to the characters. A major element of David's persona is that his eyesight goes blurry whenever he's asked to read something in public. Perhaps in the novel this is important, but in the film version it seems so much filler.

David Copperfield's big claim to fame is its color-blind casting, and I'm of two minds of it. To its credit you do forget that David is an Indian or that the very white Steerforth's mother is black (Nikki Amuka-Bird). It's an interesting experiment that doesn't work completely: I did wonder why not cast an Far East Asian actress to play Agnes, the daughter to Mr. Wickfield (Benedict Wong) versus casting a black actress (Rosalind Eliazar) for the role. 

It's a simultaneously good and bad step: good in that allows a wider variety of actors to play roles, bad in that the casting at times seems haphazard with no real rhyme or reason other than to have a diverse casting. It also doesn't help that because everything is so rushed we can't appreciate the skills of much of the minority actors save for Wong, who was quite delightful as our inebriated Wickfield. Amuka-Bird appears at most in three scenes, and she appeared so overtly broad in the snobbish "comedy" that it gave the viewer no insight into her skills.

As a side note, I am puzzled as to why when we, I think correctly, celebrate color-blind casting in film we are simultaneously told that there can be no color-blind casting in animation. Perhaps wiser people can explain why only black actors can voice black cartoon characters at the same time black actors can play non-black live-action characters (as I figure Dickens did not picture Agnes Wickfield as black). 

Patel was pleasant enough as the wide-eyed David, though he ended up being a bit boring to where one wonders why anyone would care about his life story. Capaldi, Laurie and Swinton were standouts in their varied whacked-out characters even if at times they were a bit broad for my tastes. Whishaw was somewhat comically creepy as Uriah Heep (and yes, the band was the first thing that came to mind) but I wasn't overwhelmed by him, again most likely due to the rushed nature of the film. I was never sure if I should take him seriously or not as the villain, especially as he became the villain quickly versus gradually.

The Personal History of David Copperfield certainly thinks it's clever as it speeds through its story, but despite never having read the novel I imagine the book is much deeper and richer than this adaptation. The film is too fast to be a good adaptation, rushing through things and at times almost forgetting where it is. It is also too broad and self-aware for my tastes...but the costumes were nice.   

DECISION: D- 

Oliver! (1968): A Review

OLIVER!

I confess to thinking a story that involves virtual child slavery, child abuse, domestic violence and murder is not the stuff of beloved children's musicals, but that is the reputation Oliver! has. Oliver! is a very interesting film in that while many people know the songs from it, few actually know the source of said songs, let alone the film adaptation itself. Long, a bit clunky but not without some charm, Oliver! is a very curious experience.

Following the plot of Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, we find young orphan Oliver (Mark Lester) longing for Food Glorious Food, then having the temerity to ask for more.  Not so promptly sold to an undertaker, Oliver endures taunts and abuse until he runs away to London.

There, he makes friendship with Jack Dawkins, better known as The Artful Dodger (Jack Wild). The Artful Dodger not only tells him to Consider Yourself one of the family, but takes him to another 'home for boys', this one run by Fagin (Ron Moody), who advises our young lad You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two.

Fagin is a fence, using the kids to steal but making the big bucks from working with Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed), a menacing criminal. Bill runs around with busty Nancy (Shani Walls), who insists that It's A Fine Life despite being beaten by Bill.

Oliver's first efforts in pickpocket training goes disastrously wrong: merely watching The Artful Dodger somehow lands him on the dock in front of The Magistrate (Hugh Griffin).  The victim, Mr. Brownlow (Joseph O'Connor) finds that Oliver is innocent, and decides to informally adopt him.

You'd think this would solve all of Oliver's problems, but they are just beginning.  Despite finding himself so well-off that he wonders Who Will Buy this wonderful feeling, Bill Sikes is concerned that Oliver will spill the beans on their criminal enterprise.  Busty Nancy insists that they leave him alone and that Oliver by this point won't care, with Fagin in the middle.  Bill decides that Oliver must be abducted and forces Nancy to lure him away.

Unbeknownst to any of them, Mr. Brownlow discovers that Oliver is really his long-lost grandnephew, he being the illegitimate child of Brownlow's niece Emily, who ran away in disgrace after getting knocked up by her fiancee who jilted her and died in childbirth.

Dickens is rather fond of extraordinary coincidences, jilted brides and illegitimate births isn't he?

Fagin is now concerned about how things are going, and he decides here that it requires Reviewing the Situation.  Ultimately, he opts to think it over once again.  Bill decides to make use of Oliver by having him help him break into homes.  Busty Nancy decides to help Oliver escape, something she's never thought to do herself, since she decides that As Long As He Needs Me, she take take Bill punching her left right and center.

Oliver proves just an inept a burglar as he was a pickpocket, and a mad chase to both catch Bill and rescue Oliver begins.  It leads to both Bill and busty Nancy's deaths, the urchins running all over London, and Fagin losing his secret retirement fund.  Fagin at first is going to turn over a new leaf, but finding himself with The Artful Dodger and his mad skills decides both should be Reviewing the Situation once again.

Oliver reunites with Mr. Brownlow and now he can truly be told to Consider Yourself at home.

Oliver! is a cute enough film given some remarkably dark material.   Part of its appeal is due to the fact that it is child-centered, with exceptionally cute songs.

Director Carol Reed (coincidentally Oliver Reed's uncle) stages some wonderful musical numbers.  Out of all the songs in Oliver!, I would say Who Will Buy?, the first number in the second section of the film, is a bravura showcase.  Even now, I would say Who Will Buy? is one of the best musical numbers in a musical film, close to but not quite on the same level as the ballet scene in An American in Paris or the title number from Singin' in the Rain.

Slowly building from one melody (Who will buy my sweet red roses?), then slowly introducing other melodies that serve as counterpoint until building to one, Who Will Buy? then keeps on building and building with more dancing and singing until by the end of the eight minute long number, you are almost in thrall of the overwhelming visuals.

While I would say Who Will Buy? is the highlight of Oliver!, it is also probably the longest musical number that is just one song, and here is where things start slipping.  As massive, impressive and joyful as Who Will Buy? is, some other numbers fall flat or leave you simultaneously underwhelmed and exhausted.

I would point to Consider Yourself for example.  Like many of the songs, Consider Yourself is a great song that has slipped into the popular consciousness. However, it also runs seven minutes, and while it features more wonderful dancing which earned choreographer Onna White a well-earned Honorary Oscar, the number seems too long.

Another issue is that Oliver! sometimes comes across as more opera than musical.  From Food Glorious Food (also well-staged) to Where Is Love?, there doesn't seem to be much rest between them. Sometimes the gap between songs is surprisingly brief: the space between I'd Do Anything (a cute 'love song' from the urchins to busty Nancy) to Be Back Soon (when Fagin sends the boys to do a day's 'work') is just two minutes. There is just four minutes separating the opulent Who Will Buy? and As Long As He Needs Me.

Other songs seem if not superfluous at least a bit out of place.  Chief among them for me is As Long As He Needs Me.  I know it is another popular song with many covers, but somehow this paean to the joys of domestic abuse has never sat well with me. For some reason, I found that every song involving busty Nancy seemed to get in the way: As Long As He Needs Me, Oom-Pah-Pah (which I hated), I'd Do Anything, It's A Fine Life.  Don't know why, but they did.

I also wasn't crazy about Where Is Love? and don't understand why that song is seen as brilliant.

It might be because Lester was not particularly good as Oliver. I noticed that Oliver really did not do much.  He seemed rather to merely look on as things happened. His is a weak performance, having little to do apart from look scared or confused.  I also understand that Lester did not do his own singing for Oliver!, but the idea to have a girl sing his part (Kathe Green, daughter of musical arranger Johnny Green) is downright bizarre. It's one thing to quickly see Lester is dubbed, but quite another to hear a totally unnatural sound coming from his lip syncing.

Perhaps the best performance is from Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. He is from the get-go quietly menacing without saying anything, his eyes showing a malevolence carried well when he does speak.  Ron Moody, recreating his original stage performance, has a very light comical touch as Fagin.

I remember David Lean's Oliver Twist and being concerned that Alec Guinness' performance, while masterful, could be perceived as falling into Jewish stereotypes in both manner and appearance.  I never got that sense from Moody's performance in Oliver!, for not once did I consider Moody's Fagin to be either evil or anti-Semitic. I think it is because Moody played Fagin more for laughs, as a bit of a bumbler who was actually a very nice person if he gave himself the chance.

It also helps that at least in this regard, Oliver! changes Dickens' work to have Fagin and The Artful Dodger happily dancing off into the sunset to continue their life of crime, versus Lean's rather sad fate for Fagin.

Wild, who like Moody earned an Oscar nomination for his work, was quite charming as The Artful Dodger, keeping to the light nature of the film.  Walls' busty Nancy did good work but I have my concern that Nancy essentially liked to be beaten. In essentially a cameo, Griffin brings a bit of comedy as The Magistrate as poor Lester does nothing but cry and cry.

Oliver! to my mind is the weakest musical to win Best Picture.  It's actually also to my mind one of the weakest Best Picture winners.  It's cute enough, charming, good for a long afternoon, with songs that many of us will know if not know came from the musical itself.

Overall, there isn't really much wrong with Oliver! but there also isn't much to make it a film that will last the ages.  Great soundtrack, decent enough adaptation.     

DECISION: C-

1969 Best Picture: Midnight Cowboy

The Man Who Invented Christmas: A Review

THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS

Every year, I write a review of a Christmas-related film for the holiday.  This year, I have opted for two reviews: one on Christmas Eve, one on Christmas Day.  This is motivated by the fact that Christmas-related films are released around this time, and rather than separate a regular review from the Annual Christmas film review, why not have the best of both?

The Man Who Invented Christmas is the first Christmas-related film I've reviewed that is also a biopic, as it is the story of Charles Dickens' artistic crisis as he attempts to get back into the public's good graces with A Christmas Carol.  What is now a perennial holiday event, done countless times on film, television and radio started out as Dickens' comeback.  The Man Who Invented Christmas never makes the case for its lofty title (especially given that Jesus Christ probably 'invented Christmas', but why quibble).  It's an unbalanced affair, drawing on other films and story ideas while failing to tell a potentially good story.

It has been a year and four months since Charles Dickens (Dan Stevens) has come from a wildly successful American tour (where he was greeted with wild cheers and the playing of Yankee Doodle Dandy, never mind that George M. Cohan hadn't actually written the song until 1904, a good sixty two years after Dickens' tour, but again, why quibble).  His last three books after Oliver Twist have all flopped, leaving Dickens in dire financial straits, not that his spending has slowed down any.

He not only has the financial burden of keeping up appearances, his growing family, and household staff, but he also is sending money to his parents.  However, it isn't charity or love that motivates Dickens: it's a desire to keep his irresponsible father John (Jonathan Pryce) out of Charlie's luxurious hair.  John, for reasons of his own, has no problem selling his son's autograph to make more money, and the appearance of him and Charlie's mother at their house for Christmas isn't particularly welcome.

Charles is desperate for money and for a hit book, and with only his agent Foster (Justin Edwards) by his side, Charles has to endure many indignities, including Charles' frenemy William Makepeace Thackeray (Miles Jupp).  Talk about Vanity Fair.

Overhearing a new Irish maid, Tara (Anna Murphy) tell the Dickens children ghost stories soon starts Charles' creativity flowing.  A new story, a short novel comes to him.  It is to be titled Humbug: A Miser's Lament.  Little bits come to him: an overheard conversation, an accidental visit to a solitary funeral, the sight of street urchin hiding under coats.  We see a brief visit from Charles' sister, who has a sickly little son who needs a crutch or his father's broad shoulders to move about.

Soon, the character of Ebenezer Scrooge (Christopher Plummer) emerges in all his irascibility and selfishness and greed.  It isn't long before other characters from Humbug: A Miser's Lament start popping up, and at certain points even mocking Dickens.  If the indignity of Mrs. Fezziwigg laughing at him isn't enough, Charlie still has to deal with his father's irresponsibility, Charles' own haunted memories of his time working at Warren's Boot factory gluing labels as a child, and the pressures of getting this Christmas book out by Christmas.

Eventually, after coming to terms with his own haunted past, he can give Scrooge that bit of redemption and hope, and finish the newly-retitled A Christmas Carol, which is published on December 19, 1943 and is an instant hit.

I have not read Les Standiford's nonfiction work on Dickens and his creation of A Christmas Carol, but the film adaptation of The Man Who Invented Christmas by Susan Coyne makes it look like a very offbeat comedy.  As such, I figure that Standiford's book must be a laugh-riot and not a serious tome on the creative process of an author who is on the low end of his career.

Coyne, intentional or not, has crafted a variation of things we've already seen before.  As I watched The Man Who Invented Christmas, and did my best to stay awake through it, I could not help flashing back to Shakespeare in Love.  The Man Who Invented Christmas is at the very least 'inspired' by that film in terms of structure: a well-regarded writer facing a writing crisis comes up with a new idea and an awful title to go along with it.  In Shakespeare in Love, our dear Will was embarking on Romeo & Ethel, The Pirate's Daughter.  In The Man Who Invented Christmas, our dear Charlie was embarking on Humbug: A Miser's Lament.

Both films also have our author pick up bits of dialogue and scenes that would find their way into the future and classic Romeo & Juliet and A Christmas Carol respectively.

They even end with hints of more works drawn from real-life.  In Shakespeare in Love, it is Queen Elizabeth I's command for something lighter for Twelfth Night.  In The Man Who Invented Christmas, a cop who tried to arrest Charlie only to not when he saw who he was introduced himself as "Copperfield". 

At that point, I wanted to all but strangle almost everyone involved in this work.  Copperfield?

As of Coyne and director Bharat Nalluri weren't satisfied to do a variation of Shakespeare in Love in all but name, they went one further and appeared to draw bits from Six Characters in Search of an Author, as the various characters wait around for Charlie to get back to them, at one point I think even going on strike until he sorts things out.  Now, a film where we follow Scrooge and Tiny Tim as they wait out their resolution would have been good.  A film that dealt more with how Dickens came up with his ideas and changed them would have been good.  A film that had him interact more with his characters might have been good.

The Man Who Invented Christmas was none of those things.  Yes, sometimes they did touch on them (a scene where Tara insists Tiny Tim cannot die to a disbelieving Dickens was good), but for the most part I think the film thought it was a comedy.  Many moments were meant for laughs that were actually groan-inducing (such as Dickens trying to hide from Thackeray by hiding behind a newspaper with "CHARLES DICKENS" in super-bold print).  Adding to that, why exactly was Thackeray so gleeful at Dickens' 'Hard Times'?  Such aspects the film has no interest in building to.

Mychael Danna's score more often than not played with The Man Who Invented Christmas being a bad comedy, often making the music cutesy.  Dan Stevens' performance did not help matters: his Charles Dickens (which makes one sing 'There was a little girl, who had a little curl, right in the middle of her forehead...') was a lot of mugging and exasperation.  I'll give him credit that when he did have some drama, such as when he confronts his genial but irresponsible and slightly tottering father, he did well.  However, more often than not Stevens made Dickens less a literary genius and more a slightly befuddled and irresponsible lucky man. 

When Dickens went to his solicitor, at one point after he asked for more money, I expected him to tell him, "Please sir, I want some more!"

Bless Christopher Plummer, who apparently decided he was in a different movie altogether and played it so.  His Scrooge was excellent: sinister, difficult, caustic, but in the end fearful, regretful, and on the verge of total panic.  Pryce too was far more interesting as John Dickens, charming and caring but irresponsible, than his forever flustered and rushed-about son.

I think a major flaw in The Man Who Invented Christmas is that because we already know the final story, there is no real suspense of what will happen.  The comedic take the film starts with then tries to shift to a more serious drama, and it fails to be either.  Stevens is directed to play a lot of things for laughs, so by the time he is more dramatic, a lot of the seriousness is lost.

It isn't as if there isn't a story to be made out of how Dickens came to create a story that is now ingrained in the Yuletide tradition.  However, The Man Who Invented Christmas ends up diminishing his genius: his creation of A Christmas Carol happening, not because he came up with the ideas and characters, but because he happened to overhear and see things that he just slipped into the story.  At times, the creative element is good but it's a bit too self-satisfied, as if they were playing a 'spot the reference' game.

Look: Charles' nephew has a crutch.
Look: some man tells Charlie, "Aren't there workhouses?"
Look: there's an old man named 'Marley'.
Look: a man struggles with a giant moneybox.

It becomes tiresome and worse, a terrible disappointment. 

The forces, internal and external, that shaped both Dickens and the creation of A Christmas Carol deserve a much better version than The Man Who Invented Christmas.

2012: Arthur Christmas
2013: A Christmas Carol (1951)
2014: Prancer
2015: A Madea Christmas
2016: Batman Returns
2017 Part 1: Miracle on 34th Street (1994)

1812-1870

DECISION: D+

Great Expectations (2013): A Review (Review #885)

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

My curiosity with Great Expectations began when posters for the 2013 version began showing up at my local theater in El Paso, Texas.  I was intrigued by what looked like an elaborate, sumptuous feature.  Yet, despite mass promotion, Great Expectations never actually played here.  I was puzzled by that, and as I waited, I began my exploration of this story.  Now, we've come full circle. 

After the original, Oscar-winning adaptation of Great Expectations, and the 'updated' version that set our oft-told tale of a young man's total education to current times, we go back to the source for our third adaptation of the Dickens masterwork.  Great Expectations is steady, respectable, beautifully filmed.  Why then is it yet another bungled adaptation?

This version sticks very close to the original novel (or at least the parts I remember, seeing as I have never been able to get through it despite three times trying).  Pip (Toby Irvine as a child, his older brother Jeremy as the adult) is caught by an escaped convict who terrifies the child into bringing him food and a file from his uncle, the local blacksmith.  Said criminal is caught and sent up the river, but he doesn't forget Pip's kindness.

A few years later, Pip is summoned to Satis House, the home of recluse Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter).  She has locked herself away since she was jilted on her wedding day, still wearing her wedding gown and leaving everything untouched since that fateful day, her wedding feast rotting away.  She has Pip be a playmate to her adopted daughter, the beautiful but haughty and cold-hearted Estella.

Some time later, after Pip decides he would be happier as apprentice to his kindly but dimwitted Uncle Joe (Jason Flemyng), the lawyer Mr. Jaggers (Robbie Coltrane) arrives to tell Pip that he has a strange inheritance from a mysterious benefactor.  It's off to London for young Pip, who indulges in being a gentleman and all that entails: membership in a club for spoiled men, racking up debts, dressing well, and sharing rooms with Herbert Pocket (Olly Alexander), whom he met years before at Satis House and with whom he becomes friends with.

Over the rest of Great Expectations, Pip's story is intertwined with others, particularly Estella (Holliday Grainger), who has grown beautiful but cold.  She toys with him, rebuffing him and yet dangling him.  Pip learns that his benefactor is not Miss Havisham, as he believes, but that same criminal from long ago, Abel Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes).  Despite the dangers of his returning to England, where he will be returned to prison, he wants to see if his unofficial wards 'great expectations' were met.

In those coincidences that Dickens so loves, in short order we find that Magwitch was part of the conspiracy to defraud Miss Havisham (and which involved leaving her at the altar), that Estella was the daughter Magwitch thought dead and whose adoption was arranged by Jaggers, that Estella's mother was Jaggers' maid, and that the man whom Magwitch wants to kill was the same one who destroyed both his and Havisham's lives.

Eventually, Pip finds that life at the top isn't what it's cracked up to be, and Joe, kindly as ever, has paid off all his debts.  With what little he has, Pip gives it to Herbert in secret, who then employs him as a clerk.  At the end, Pip and Estella reunite after she becomes a widow, sad at how her life is.  Poor Miss Havisham died years earlier when she accidentally set herself on fire after realizing what she'd done to Pip.  Whether Pip and Estella can truly be together, we know not...

As I said, this version of  Great Expectations is a straightforward version, sticking very close, if not slavishly close, to the original text.  That, I think, is the main problem.  David Nicholls' adaptation is very proper, but very dry.  The characters, for all their eccentricity, their tragedy, their education, never come across as actual people.  It is all very dry, very proper, but like Estella herself, very remote.

It's almost as if director Mike Newell and screenwriter Nicholls decided that Great Expectations should combined the ossified world of Miss Havisham with the coldness and aloof nature of Estella.  As such, the film suffers from a variety of ailments.  It is very slow, it is very mannered, and in some cases, it is very forced.

There are three good performances in this version.  Fiennes is better than the material as Magwitch, his strange nature hiding a great tragedy, the mixture of revenge and desire to do good being interesting to watch.  The best performance is that of Coltrane, whose shifty lawyer is the master puppeteer, forever pulling strings and knowing more than he lets on.  Not far behind is Alexander's Herbert, who is the only one who has any sense of joy and doesn't behave on screen if THIS IS ALL SERIOUS.

Curiously, I thought Bonham Carter would have been better as Miss Havisham, one of the most legendary of characters.  I found her a bit mannered and theatrical as this sad, bitter recluse, forever tortured by her heartbreak. 

It's the leads that are leaden and dull.  Granted, Jeremy Irvine is particularly beautiful to look at, as is Grainger, but Irvine is never able to bring any emotion to Pip, and it was curious that when Pip is supposed to show snobbery towards Joe's more country manners, he looked as if he were trying too hard to make him snobbish.  It was very forced, and Grainger was very mannered in her performance (showing she really was adopted by Bonham Carter).

It's one thing to portray a woman with a cold heart.  It's another to show virtually no emotion.

I can't complain about the sets and costumes and cinematography, all beautiful and elegant and posh.  I also give credit to Nicholls in making the various twists of Dickens (which I have found a bit too convenient whenever I think of the novel) more plausible and making things a bit more clear for me.  That is good.

There's nothing horrible in it, but there's nothing in it that makes it anything more than a good companion piece to the end of a reading assignment to Dickens' novel. I think on the whole though, this version of Great Expectations is a bit empty and hollow, nice looking but mummified...like Miss Havisham's wedding feast. 

DECISION: C-

Great Expectations (1998): A Review

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Estella Dullus...

There was a time, not too long ago, when 'classic' novels/plays were getting the 'Update Treatment'.  The general thought was that teens, generally either too bored or too stupid to bother reading these hallmarks of English/American literature (let alone understand them), needed to have these stories placed in contemporary settings and brought from the dusty and rarified air into bright, shining versions.  These versions were hip and cool and most importantly, flashy.

They had to be flashy because as we all know, reading or hearing Shakespeare's or Charles Dickens' words is simply too difficult for today's audiences.  The MTV Generation demanded things be brought down to their level, because they sure weren't going to raise their standards for some books by a bunch of dead people.

On occasion, these updates can breath new life into these classics and even be entertaining (Clueless for example was a funny and clever update of Jane Austen's Emma).  They can be quite pleasant (the updating of The Taming of the Shrew into 10 Things I Hate About You was a delight).  Then, there are other cases. 

The contemporary version of Dickens' Great Expectations is not the nadir of this 'literature for the youth market' craze.  I still think Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet is a horror and an abomination of my beloved Shakespeare (though I concede many teens STILL are enthralled with it, though I've no idea why).  However, this Great Expectations suffers from many flaws to make it interesting, let alone worthy of being in the same category as the 1947 version.

Finnegan "Finn" Bell (Ethan Hawke) is going to tell us this story, in his own words, "not the way it happened, but the way I remember it".  Thanks for the 'unreliable narrator' update. He is a young man in Florida, living with his sister Maggie (Kim Dickens) and her husband, Joe (Chris Cooper).  One day, he finds an escaped convict who holds him and threatens him and his family, demanding food in exchange for Finn's life.  Finn complies, and later the convict tries to run off to Mexico with Finn as some kind of hostage.  The convict is caught and returned to prison.

Shortly after, Joe and Finn are called to the home of reclusive Miss Nora Driggers Dinsmoor (Anne Bancroft), a Miss Havisham-type who is more Norma Desmond living at "Paraiso Perduto" (that's Paradise Lost in case the symbolism isn't already testing your patience).  Miss Dinsmoor has a beautiful niece, Estella, who catches Finn's eye.  In turn, Estella plays hot and cold with our hero, and even draws the taunts of Miss Dinsmoor, who tells him he will fall in love with Estella...only to have his heart broken.

Finn has fallen in love, but his hopes are dashed when Estella leaves, and now seven years have passed.  Finn has gone to New York to pursue his art dreams, when a lawyer comes to offer patronage on behalf of a mysterious figure.  To Finn's surprise, another figure comes his way: Estella (Gwyneth Paltrow).  She continues her game of teasing Finn, taking him to the edge and pulling back, even doing this in front of her fiancée Walter (Hank Azaria) and her posh friends.  Eventually, Finn tires of this and gets on with his life.

With continued patronage, Finn becomes a success, but his personal life continues to be a mess.  Joe shows up for Finn's debut, embarrassing him with his rustic manners.  The mysterious benefactor reappears: it's that same criminal, Lustig (Robert De Niro), who takes Finn on a wild run from thugs in the New York City subway.  Even Miss Dinsmoor pops up earlier, taunting him with how Estella has gone off to Paris to marry Walter.

And I think all this was that same night.

Eventually, after Lustig's death Finn becomes an artist without his patron, and he makes a sentimental return to Paraiso Perduto.  He finds a young girl and imagines it's Estella, but it's really Estella's daughter.  Now divorced from Walter, she begs forgiveness for her past actions, and she and Finn reconcile, with a chance that perhaps they can be together at last.

It is a bit sad that Great Expectations came to us courtesy of Alfonso Cuaron, who has gone on to bigger and better things.  Great Expectations suffers from a whole series of bad performances by people who really should know better, so while we can fault some of the actors for being bad, they had to have been guided by someone who couldn't get them to do better when they obviously can (four Oscar winners and one two-time acting nominee). 

Worse among the performances are the elders in our group.  I won't go so far as to say that Bancroft was doing some form of drag queen impersonation, but Miss Dinsmoor was so broad and unintentionally comical that she came across not as menacing or bitter or even crazy but as a joke that she wasn't in on.  Cuaron's decision to have her always wear green as opposed to her wedding dress made her look like Poison Ivy's slightly bonkers grandmother.

As a side note, I wonder why the film opted out of both naming her Miss Havisham (too British, I imagine) and having her not wear her wedding dress (I imagine the Gen Xers the film was appealing too would have found that too ludicrous).

Ultimately though, Bancroft was just a dead man in a pool away from telling Mr. DeMille she was ready for her close-up.

Great Expectations also allowed De Niro to go into his worst traits.  His Lustig was pretty much bonkers too, more raging lunatic than a sober-minded man who was rewarding a kindness.

As both played by Paltrow and written by Mitch Glazer, Estella isn't an obscure object of desire but as a morose, bored person with no personality.  It's a wonder as to why Finn or even Walter (weak as he was) would care for or about Estella.  She never made Estella an interesting person, let alone a fascinating and/or erotic one.  Whether it's due to Glazer's script or Paltrow's stilted performance or both is up to the viewer.

Hawke wasn't breaking new ground as an actor here, playing a variation of the confused young man he had done before.  Maybe it's because he was at that period of his life where his role as the symbol of Gen X male confusion was what sold him, but while I won't say he was horrible I won't say he was good either.

Azaria does fine as the plain Walter Plane (which makes me wonder if Glazer was going for overtness by naming our dull character "Plane".  I figure he must have, otherwise it was a remarkable coincidence).  I mean 'does fine' if Walter was meant to be dull, so if that was the case Azaria did a fine job.

I imagine the reason I didn't totally hate Great Expectations has to do with the fact that it is a beautiful looking film.  The sets are quite exotic (even the dilapidated Paraiso Perduto), and Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography still top-notch.  Truth be told, I wasn't crazy over Patrick Doyle's score (and he is one of my favorites) but I don't remember hating it, so there's that.

Great Expectations is all pretty, the type of film where I can imagine the MC from Cabaret saying that 'even the orchestra is beautiful'.  Beauty, however, goes only so far, and Great Expectations does not live up to them.        

DECISION: D+

Great Expectations (1946): A Review (Review #590)

GREAT EXPECTATIONS (1946)

Life Is Not A Pip For Pip...

I tried to read Great Expectations, but truth be told I found it exceptionally boring (and this from someone who loves Charles Dickens).  My friend Fidel Gomez, Jr. (who may or may not be dead) suggested I read Great Expectations a chapter a day rather than reading continuously, since it reads better as a series of adventures rather than a straight book. 

Perhaps.

I do know enough of the plot to plunge into the first adaptation of Great Expectations.  David Lean created a brilliant adaptation, mixing the moody visuals with a story that keeps one interested (albeit moving a bit slowly for my tastes).

In voice-over, Pip (John Mills) narrates our tale.  He starts out as a young orphan, taken in by his unpleasant sister named "Mrs. Joe" (Freda Jackson) and her kindly blacksmith husband (Bernard Miles).  While going to visit his parent's graves, Pip is accosted by an escaped criminal, demanding food and drink and threatening to have his fellow escapee kill Pip and his family.  A terrified Pip does as he's told, going so far as to steal the bullying Mrs. Joe's pork pie.  Before he is discovered though, the criminals are caught, and the one that bullied him, Magwitch (Finlay Currie) takes the fall for the pie.

Some time later, the wealthy but reclusive Miss Havisham (Martita Hunt) requests Pip come visit her and her ward, Estella (Jean Simmons).  Miss Havisham is a truly bizarre figure: jilted on her wedding day, she continues to wear the bridal gown she had on before news of her runaway groom came to her, the wedding feast still laid out, with only the rats to delight in the mummified cake.  She wants a playmate for Estella, but in really she is training her to take revenge on all men by having them fall in love with her only for Estella to later reject them.  Pip does indeed fall in love with Estella, though she is terribly cold with him. 

More time passes in this odd game, and Pip discovers that he has a mysterious benefactor, one who wishes 'great expectations' for him.  He now abandons his apprenticeship with Joe and goes to London to become a gentleman, where the benefactor's lawyer Mr. Jaggers (Francis L. Sullivan) and his selected roommate Herbert Pocket (Alec Guinness) will handle his finances and show him how to be a gentleman. 

As is the case in life, mo' money mo' problems.  Estella (Valerie Hobson) has indeed grown beautiful and cold, turning from Pip to the dull Bentley Drummle (Torin Thatcher) whom she cares nothing for.  All this time Pip suspects that the mysterious benefactor is Miss Havisham, but we find that it is Magwitch himself, grateful for Pip's kindness and never having forgotten it.  Magwitch has made a fortune in Australia, but returning to Britain puts him in danger of getting locked up again.

Jaggers, ever loyal to the employer his shrewd legal mind won't recognize, tells Pip, "Take nothing on its looks; everything on evidence.  There is not better rule."  Why did he think Miss Havisham was his benefactress?  Why was Estella so cold?  What of Estella's parentage...how is Magwitch related to that question? 

Pip, having met his 'great expectations' and found them lacking, confronts the cold Miss Havisham and colder Estella.  Havisham, having seen the extent that her vengeance has wrecked so many lives, attempts to call Pip back, but her gown catches fire and she is killed.  The truth comes out at last: Magwitch is caught attempting to escape with Pip and Pocket's help but is killed in the process, and when Drummle discovers Estella's true past he abandons her.  Estella appears to be repeating the mistakes of her patroness, but Pip forces the window curtains open, and now perhaps Pip and Estella can enter the world with hope.

Great Expectation has all those Dickensian coincidences that I have come to see are Chuck's modus operandi.  What ARE the odds that Magwitch (the criminal Pip meets) would be Estella's father (who was taken in by Miss Havisham, who knows of Pip)?  What ARE the odds that Mr. Jaggers would be the lawyer to BOTH Miss Havisham AND Magwitch (thus giving the impression of who was helping Pip)? In Charles Dickens' novels I find that coincidence plays a major role: the relationship between the  Evremondes and the Mannettes in A Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist being the long-lost nephew of the family that rescued him.  Great Expectations does not stray from these aspects (though again, never having gotten through the novel I cannot say how close it is to the original). 

However, Lean creates this creepy, moody world where Pip finds himself going from the gentleness and sincerity of Joe's lower-class to the rarified world of wealth only to find that money cannot bring happiness.  Think of those characters that have money: Miss Havisham and her greedy relatives waiting for her to die, Magwitch running from the law.  They are not happy at all, and Pip learns that those 'great expectations' are fraught with falsehoods.

Among Great Expectations brilliant moments come from the visuals.  The spooky moor and graveyard, the decayed opulence of Havisham's heartless mansion, the genteel squalor of Pip and Pocket's digs: they themselves tell us as much of the story and characters as the spoken dialogue.  If anything, Great Expectations is a beautiful film visually.

In terms of performances there is some extraordinary acting in the film.  Hunt's Miss Havisham is a cold, cruel being who by the end finds that she has been wrong.  While we don't actually see her burn (and she certainly deserves to burn) we do feel empathy for her.  Simmons, only a child at the time, is brilliant as the cold and heartless Estella.  In a smaller role, Jackson's Mrs. Joe inspires total hatred for how mean and bullying she is.

However, we can't leave out Mills' Pip, who goes from a gentleman to a man, as well as Guinness' light turn as the comic Pocket, eager to help in any way he can.

If I were to find any faults in Great Expectations, is that it feels terribly long (and this is after Lean, along with Ronald Neame, Anthony Havelock-Allan, as well as Kay Walsh and Cecil McGivern, streamlined the novel).   It just felt as if the film is so long that it starts to drag.  However, this is a minor complaint. 

Great Expectations is a strong adaptation of a book I found a bit dull.  Minus the sometimes slow movement I found it to be well-made, well-acted, and well worth the time, particularly if you love the book. 

DECISION: A-