Departures from the book?


I haven't read the book for ages, but it seems to me that there are quite a few departures from the original story - director's choice or something. For example, is Uriah Heep deported to Australia in the book? And also the treatment of Steerforth's sister ? / sweetheart and his mother. That in the book?

This is a superb series but the one with Lawrence Olivier and Ralph Richardson is even greater. The music in that movie kills me. It's a beautiful and haunting film.

D.
Toronto
Canada


reply

The departures are necessary. David Copperfield is a BIG, LONG book. The movie does not have the luxury of being complete, so composite characters and changes in the storyline to speed things up inevitably occur.

For this reason, I believe that the best of the BBC series I have seen is Bleak House and Martin Chuzzlewit, which both get longer play (over six hours). Even so, stuff HAD to be left out (Most of Hortense in Bleak House, almost the whole American sequence in Chuzzlewit). Curiosity Shoppe was also longer but the acting was not there, and it had a cheap look to it. I have yet to see Pickwick Papers, which can easily be edited without problem.

reply

I agree with you re: Bleak House and Martin C. This version of D. Copperfield was fine until the last 30 minutes, when it dragged and became too silly.

Only 6.5 from me: there are much better versions.

reply

also I don't recall DC being a clerk and meeting Dora as the daughter of his boss at the firm -- DC went right into writing, and met Dora when he & Steerforth went out to the theatre one night. it is quite a big chnage; and they managed to be fairly complete in the old WC Fields adaptation in the 30's (although that was really overly sentimental...)

reply

But this is exactly in line with the original book: Aunt Betsy articled DC to Spenlow, and DC met Dora at his house. It was Agnes that DC and Steerforth met at the theatre.

reply

And Dora's "Confidential Friend" was none other than "that Murdering sister of a woman" - Miss Murdstone! Only the 2000 film shows that tidbit.

reply

It's been many years since I read David Copperfield, but wasn't the Peggotty's house-boat upside down in the book? One thing I remember very clearly in the book: Dicken's vivid description of how cold and clammy Uriah Heep's hands were, and although they tried hard to enact that in the film, I don't think any film version could convey what the book did. I thought Uriah Heep got off easy in this film, my memory of him from the book was far slimier.

reply

Yes, the house/boat was upside down in the book.

Regarding Uriah Heep's hands, I did notice that when young David shakes his hand for the first time, he wipes his hand on his coat after Heep turns away. It's a subtle move, but it gets the point across.

I don't think he is transported to Australia in the book, but it does tie things up nicely (and quickly) by showing him embarking (in chains) the same ship that is taking the Peggoty's to a new life.

There had to be some adjustments to make it fit the 3-hour timeframe. If you want something with fewer changes from the original I must recommend the 6-hour (6 1-hour episodes) version from 1974. I saw it on Masterpiece Theatre and finally read the book afterward. You need the time for a story of this lenght.

reply

Yes, as you said, the Dan'l Peggoty's house was an upside-down boat. Also, in the book, Uriah Heep's hands are described as being cold and clammy, and one of the things that made my skin crawl as I read the novel -- both times.

Uriah Heep is not transported in the book. Dan'l Peggoty, Mrs. Gummidge, and Li'l Em'ly all voluntarily emmigrate to Australia, mostly so that Em'ly can have a new start in a world where no one will know that she was a cast-off mistress (she was used by David's friend, Steerforth). Heep, however, was exposed as a villain and was sent to prison. That is where one sees him last in the novel.

Spin

reply

David's friend, Tom Traddles, is missing... this guy serves as David's less glamourous but true friend when Steerforth is gone, and plays a major part in bringing down Uriah Heep.

Littimer, the man-servant that Steerforth's family had, is also very played down. He is supposed to be portrayed as a slick devil with no sense of decency or right or wrong, but with an impeccable manner that puts on an aura of respectability upon himself. He gets thrown in the prison with Uriah Heep later on.

And the cruel schoolmaster Creakle is also supposed to appear at the end, trying to chum up with David and showing Littimer and Uriah Heep, who are inmates in his prison.

The whole sub-plot with 'the Doctor' (the schoolmaster of David's second school), his wife Annie, and her family are also missing. The story goes that the young and beautiful Annie marries the good but not so glamourous Doctor for money, leaving her childhood sweetheart and cousin (YUK!) Jack behind. So her whole family freeloads on the Doctor... but the Doctor learns the truth about Annie's affair with Jack (which is revealed by Uriah Heep) and becomes very sad but forgives her. And Annie, realizing this, in turn begs for forgiveness and they start off fresh in their marriage.

I personally felt that the movie only got across half of what the book portrayed.. but I guess it was a bit inevitable.

reply

Yeah, I kept waiting for Traddles to show up. If I remember correctly, it is Traddles who David brings in to analyze and expose Uriah's treachery.

reply

Thanks for the missing bits. I still love the movie, especially the score. Since they knew they could not cover the book in the time length of a movie, they'd go for the feel, atmosphere and character of the piece. Those close ups of the faces, etc. Very effective with the underscoring music.

My accountant says, "1 + 1, 40% of the time, equals divorce".

reply

I think this is one of the greatest books ever written, and so far, this is the best movie version of it that I have seen. It is VERY true to the book. Yes, obviously things are cut in order to fit the whole story into a movie. However, the most important scenes are all here and done fabulously.
Though she is pretty enough, I don't like the Agnes in the original movie. She is blond. Wrong. She is the 2nd most important person in the movie, so that is a key. And this version gets the climactic scene between David and Agnes done perfectly. WAY better than the hack-job that the most recent movie version did.

reply