Plot Holes


Just some issues to raise regarding the screen adaptation of Dickens' classic novel.

Firstly, how did Nancy and Sykes recognize Oliver in the street while he was sent on an errand to the bookseller, when they haven't met him beforehand and would have no idea what he looked like? Clearly in that scene they met him by chance and weren't sent to spy on him living at Brownlow's house.

Also, how did Monks know where to find Oliver? For that matter, how did he know the exact workhouse where Oliver's mother died? There would have been a great many of these institutions at the time, and women dying in childbirth in them would have been a dime a dozen. He must have been a very diligent and resourceful individual to go to such lengths to locate the precise spot, considering that Oliver's mother didn't give her name before she passed away. And how would he have known that Oliver went to London, and that he was in Fagin's band of child pickpockets?

And lastly, how did Brownlow realize that Oliver was his long-lost grandson?

All these questions would have been answered in the book, but unless one has read it (and I have), the above issues will remain unresolved.

reply

Nancy had seen Oliver before because she had gone to the magistrates court at the behest of Bill Sikes to see if Oliver said anything to the detriment of Sikes or Fagin.

When, later in the film, Oliver was carrying the books and was spotted by Nancy and Sikes, it was Nancy who called out to him, not Sikes.

reply

Brownlow realized Oliver was his longlost grandson because he saw the locket that Mrs. Bumble had brought. The picture in that locket looked like the one in Brownlow's home.

reply

Why are you calling these plot holes when it's obvious you weren't paying attention whatsoever while watching the film. All of these "plot holes" were clearly explained or shown:

For starters, Nancy got a very good look at Oliver, much earlier, during his trial in court for being a pickpocket. It was the scene where he was carried out of the court after collapsing because he was ill - she was looking right at his face. Nancy was the one who called out his name when she saw him later & that's why he turned; she then played up the part that she was his sister and was fetching him because he had run away & Sikes joined in to keep up the pretense.

reply

Maybe you weren't paying attention. The OP raised about 5 questions. You only managed to answer the one because the rest have absolutely no answer solely in the context of the film. Nice of you to post "for starters." Why not post the rest?

I agree with the OP about the rest of the items. I was watching it (without having read the book) and had no idea who Monks was, why he was on his mission, how he even knew where to look, etc... until it's revealed nearly at the end. I also have no idea how Brownlow knows Oliver is his grandson. I'm not buying the flimsy "I just have a strange feeling" angle the film seemed to be selling. I think some crucial splices must have ended up on the editing room floor.

reply

No, I was paying full attention.

I have no intention of clearing up any more of the "plot holes" to either you or the original poster. Go back and watch the film again and stop expecting others to explain everything to you. My use of "for starters" is exactly what it means - it's a start, nothing more; meaning if you want to know the rest make an effort on your own part.

Also, had you been paying attention, you'd have noticed that two posters before me gave their versions of answers to some of the other "plot holes" - the rest are clearly explained in the film.











You've done some bad things, sweetie.

reply

No need to get your panties in a twist. Of the two posters before you, one gave an answer that was identical to yours. No help there. Another one gave an answer that was incorrect. He said Brownlow realized Oliver was his longlost grandson because he saw the locket that Mrs. Bumble had brought. Obviously incorrect in the context of the movie since Monks purchased the locket so Mrs. Bumble no longer had it. He also referred to Oliver as his grandson to Monks before he even sees the Bumbles.

I watched it again and some of the "plot holes" were clearer on a second viewing.

1. Nancy recognized Oliver because she saw him at the police court. We already established this one.

2. Monks mentioned to Fagin on their second meeting that he began his search at the workhouse. How he knew Oliver's mother went there isn't discussed. I wouldn't call it a plot hole exactly because Monks DOES mention he tracked Oliver's mother to that workhouse. How he did is a mystery since she never told anyone her name, but he says he tracked her there so that's enough for me. Perhaps she left a note, told someone roughly the area she was traveling to, etc... A quick line I missed the first time around.

3. The largest plot hole I see is related to #2. He manages to make the jump from workhouse to Fagin's band in London. Absolutely nobody knew Oliver went to London, did they? He did not give his name in Police Court. No one at the Workhouse or at his Apprenticeship knew he was running away to London. There was virtually no way for Monks to know Oliver would be with Fagin in London. I don't think Fagin would be advertising the names of all of his "boys" to everyone. Perhaps the book makes it clear, but it seems to be a plot hole in the movie.

4. I was also confused how Brownlow realizes Oliver is his grandson. On a second viewing, with the Monks scenes not continually confusing me (as you strangely don't know who he is or what he's doing until his very last scene in the film) it becomes clearer. Brownlow only has a strange feeling that he wants to help Oliver. He mentions this before he sends Oliver to return the books. So he obviously doesn't know who he is at this point. Nancy overhears Monk/Fagin's conversation regarding Oliver. She learns about Monk's plot and tells Brownlow in their meeting. The reason this is unclear to myself the first time and the OP and perhaps others is because you don't know Monk's plot in the movie until AFTER this fact. So it's a bit vague what Nancy tells Brownlow at their meeting since at this point you're still playing a guessing game with Monks motives.

You'll notice that Monks' role is confusing to people who haven't read the book. Some film adaptations remove or alter his character because of this, don't they? So is it unreasonable for a viewer to be confused by him? Note that most of the "plot holes" posted by the original poster involve him.

So I made an effort, but I still don't have an answer to #3. I still view #3 as a plothole and would appreciate if a reader of the book could explain that one as it's probably explained better in the book. If you expect me to watch it a third time, you're crazy. Lol

reply

I've gotten to where I scan messages before I read them. Whenever they end up being page-long diatribes, such as yours, I don't even bother reading them. So, good luck with someone else helping you out with whatever you're foaming at the mouth about, as I just don't have the time. I have a life & in case you've never heard that popular expression "it's just a *beep* movie" and not a search for the Holy Grail, it might help you calm down....lol

Couldn't help but see the first line of your post and I think it's more like you and the OP who have gotten your panties in an uproar...LOL Considering that there isn't such a thing as a "perfect" film, someone is always going to find "plot holes" or some other thing they'd rather focus on rather than enjoying the overall accomplishments of a great film. You two have been really busy....finding 5 of them and then ranting about them here. Makes me wonder if you over-analyze everything else in life and very likely bore the living daylights out of those around you, in the process.

Do a Google search for something like "plot holes in 1948 Oliver Twist" you might be surprised at what you'll find and maybe even calm down. It's the least I can do to help you stop losing sleep over this. It's now a closed topic for me - wasted too much time here already.




You've done some bad things, sweetie.

reply

My post was only about twice as long as yours, yet it was informative and useful because it answered many of the OP's questions as opposed to your previous offering of but one answer. Your post was just useless garbage (especially considering I took your advice, did exactly as you asked, and simply reported my findings for everyone else's benefit).

So basically, I respond to the OP and answer all of his questions (pretty nice of me, I think) and am berated for it. Well aren't you nice. I also like how you claim you didn't read more than one line of post and yet you have a rather lengthy response to it. Responding at length to something you haven't even read? Do I need more evidence to show your words are empty and meaningless and that you are completely foolish?

reply

How on earth is the first victim of Twist's theft, his own long lost grandfather, in a city like London? Gosh, that was convenient.

reply

----------
Gosh, that was convenient.
----------

Dickensian, even.

reply

Nancy had seen Oliver before, when they brought him out of the courtroom after he fainted.

Monks had presumably been tracking Oliver all his life. Dickens doesn't really explain that either. (I've read the book.)

It's not clear in this film version, but the woman in the portrait at Brownlow's house looks just like Oliver. It's clearer in the movie musical "Oliver!", where you see the portrait up close, and the woman looks just like Mark Lester, the boy who played Oliver in that movie.

reply

Surely the larger plot hole is how Nancy knew to write to Brownlow (possible answer is she spoke with Oliver who told her about his "other" life, but that's speculation).

An interesting aside on that is when the Dodger follows her, she meets Brownlow and takes him down steps to the waterside, magically the Dodger is on the other side of the wall closer to the water - just how did he manage that with them between him and the water?






Come on lads, bags of swank!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm afraid one plot hole you have about Oliver's origin and his mother is the one located in your head for not taking more care of yourself, your eyes, etc. just like how important it is to know an enemy. Oliver happens to represent the one boy who falls into place just like the "chosen one" the dark angel finds to have a baby every thousand years. You can also call it the resonance cascade depicted in Half-Life, the video game. Oliver Twist came along in a system primed for someone in just of his tastes. That very system is the same one that has been practiced for milleniums: lots of *beep* esp. in desperation for change and sudden happiness. In other words, with lots of regrets, there is much for peace; a chosen sin to undo others. Oliver's placement comes much more easily in our reality where we have came and went among hundreds of other parents oblivious of others like themselves.

Oliver Twist may have been a blessing from generations of *beep* so to speak, or else there wouldn't be many orphans to pass along and make way as we picks out the shortest piece of string, but he came along like Christine in The End of Days. That would be the very reason why he was the one who got the shortest string. However, Oliver had the last name "Twist," like a bet from the ones who raised him for much of his childhood. Especially from older folks, Oliver was blessed with a lot of love before his grandmother died, right? He had to. His rare existence came from people who happened to choose to thrive for him instead of letting him go free into a working society; possibly monstrous, deeply fearsome. For example, notice how keen Dodger was about moving fast through the alleyways full of lost souls. They were in a century, or decade, where too many are born for a sympathetic regard to a greater city in the future. This is how the thieves happened to be young boys under the care of a clever thief leader: poverty-wary women subside to second and third-thoughts to take place of the ramping sex appeal, which still goes on today, of course for that very freedom so inspiring.

That all being said, the only plot-holes are neglected things to be done about the writing, casting, acting, and setting that couldn't be done in a money-thriving society that gives opportunity to speed. If they had more time to work on the movie, vaguely never to be released, the plots would be constantly be replaced. Instead, you got very poor directors (not poor and in unprofessional, but rather burdened) who simply don't have enough time to make one film as universally rich as it possibly could be. The rest of the "plot-holes" are things an education is required for. Otherwise, you'd be a dog who would be lucky to have an owner help him find joy in watching a movie with little education! Think of Halloween. The plot is understood that there are tons of wonders of the brains we have and feel without ever needing a scientist to tell us how much of a mystery the brain still is! So Michael Myers exists in a paranormal reality developed from his childhood enraged by a small room to keep him from the world his murders placed him. Those things are understood, esp. by A+ students in school. They are older now and probably forgot those feelings once-felt. You all have a chance to renew them... with education.

reply