Daniel Radcliffe IS SO CUITE!!!!
Dan was so little only five years old when he made this movies he was so cuite now he's really hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=)LOL
shareYes i agree. he was sooooo cute
You Can Call Me Kayla
Yeah yeah I agree he was cute, but he wasn`t 5 years old when he made this movie he was 10.
shareI hope this doesn't sound like a weird question, but I think there was a bath scene in this movie with little David Copperfield. When David was sitting in the bath, I know there was a man next to the bathtub looking at David's nails or something, but was there a woman in the scene too? (I saw a picture of the scene, but not the whole scene itself). The reason I'm asking is that I never liked the idea of a ten-year-old boy being bathed by a woman; if there was someone supervising him in the bath, I'd just like to know that it wasn't indicated that anyone, especially a person of the opposite sex, stripped him or actually washed him (aside from scrubbing his back)instead of letting him do so himself. Anyone remember? (By the way, if you read this question and think it's weird, before you insult me or jump on me, please read all the other replies after this one before you say anything and kindly do NOT try to explain to me "how things were done back then". I'm aware of how things were done in the 1800's. Please keep in mind, I'm only asking what exactly happened in the scene, NOT asking for criticism of my opinion or history lessons. No offense, I'm just sick of them) And yes, Dan was, and is, ADORABLE!:)
shareI'll have to watch again (hard task, I know..lol) but I believe both the maid and the aunt are also there supervising the bath. As for its being inappropriate, isn't it just as bad that a man is? He's not even related to little Davey, at least the other 2 are the hired help and his great aunt. I think it was neat that Maggie Smith knew Dan before HP, as did some of the others. I wonder how much Dan remembers them?
shareWhy would a man's presence during David's bath be as bad? I mean, you're absolutely right to a point; NO ONE needed to be there when he was bathing, but if someone did, at least he and David were both the same sex. If I were Davey's age, I'd only want people of my own sex in the room if I were undressed; it wouldn't matter to me if they were unrelated and it'd be WAY too weird if my great-uncle insisted on being there! I also don't think a female servant had any business there; she, by the way, wasn't related to him either and they could have had a male servant instead. Little David didn't look happy, poor thing, and I don't blame him. I guess I'll just have to assume that he was crouched down low enough so they couldn't see anything personal. Were either of the women actually washing him? As in, touching him with a cloth? (Pouring water over his head doesn't count). And they didn't watch him dress or undress, did they? As long as they couldn't exactly see him naked or weren't washing his front, I don't care. I'm sure dear Dan does remember all those people, though; he even seems to remember things his fans say to him in letters and otherwise. Such a sweetie ;)
shareWhat on earth is wrong with an aunt washing her exhausted 10 year old nephew? You are actually mad if you have nothing better to comment on than this scene which you admit you've never actually watched. It was set over 100 years ago and yes, it is a weird question.
shareAnd you've got a very weird answer. What's wrong with it? He's 10 years old, that's what's wrong with it! If I were ten I'd be upset if someone, especially of the opposite sex, tried to wash me; if he was exhausted, they could have gotten a guy to help him! He didn't look that exhausted to me anyway; he seemed quite aware of what was going on, and not very happy about it. I HAVE seen a picture of the scene, but not all of it and that's why I was asking; I'm told the aunt wasn't washing him anyway, she was watching, which I saw as also unnecessary but not as bad. If I haven't seen this movie, wouldn't it make sense that I'm asking about it? If a kid needs help, someone of his/her own sex should help. I don't appreciate being called mad and I don't think having respect for someone's modesty is madness. Maybe you should have something better to do than criticize me. If you're going to comment on what I said, you could at least answer my question rather than just insulting me.
shareYou have to consider the time/customs in which the scene/story is set. This takes place what, a hundred years ago? and in that time, things were different. David had already been shown to have had a nanny/maid help raise him, so he would be quite comfortable with the idea that the maid or help might help give him a bath, whether it be to just bring in hot water or towels or whatever. Even now, if someone has a nanny, or a relative like an older sister/aunt whoever help with bathing time, a kid thinks it is normal. They don't know otherwise. Heck, in upper circles, I think it was abnormal for the parents to really raise the kids; look at the Royal Family.
shareIt still doesn't mean that treating a kid that way's right, and it doesn't mean that all kids had people help them with their baths (at last not people of the opposite sex). David's own nanny probably stopped bathing him when he was six or so; the whole bath scene in his great-aunt's house seemed to me like it was part of her bumbling nature. She just didn't know how to raise a kid yet; remember how she was asking that man "what should we do now?" Like I said, David looked a little overwhelmed by everything and NOT particularly comfortable and I felt sorry for him. I just don't like the idea of an adult stripping an older child of the opposite sex down or watching them do so; it's intrusive and weird and no, it was NOT the "norm" back then, especially considering how paranoid adults were about kids' sexuality and modesty (I'm well informed of historical matters). Still, I don't mind if bringing in water and/or towels or just pouring water over his head was ALL the women in that scene were doing. Was it? (If you could answer that question, firehall, I'd really appreciate it. I'd love to wrap this subject up once and for all).
shareYou need to stop thinking in 2006 terms and realise that the film and novel take place in the Victorian era. Today, a boy of ten would be expected to be old enough to bath him, tired or not. But back then, it was acceptable for a child of that age to be bathed by adults without it being considered inappropriate.
Women took care of the children in those days; it was just the done thing. Men might have seen to the boys but, mostly, they worked outdoors (with the exception of the butler, who wouldn't deal with the children anyway) so there wouldn't ever be a question of men bathing girls. If you watch 'The Secret Garden' you'd see children of ten being bathed there too, including Colin being bathed by the women. It would only be when boys enter puberty (around thirteen or so) when the female servants would back-off and leave them to their own devices.
My dear quicksilver, I think it is you who needs to think in Victorian terms, because I find your idea of what was "the done thing" back then inaccurate and rather alarming. You see, Victorians were notorious prudes and extremely protective of children in regards to anything sexual, so the idea that a woman would wash a ten-year-old boy's body is ludicrous. You're telling me older children were bathed by adults-their bodies stripped and exposed before adults as if they were babies-until the adults noticed their bodies began to change? Uh, no I don't think so; any adult who paid that much attention to a child's body-looking at it naked and watching for signs of puberty-was a sicko and should be considered such, especially back then. Things were different back then, but that doesn't mean treating a kid that way was considered the norm; they were prudes, not perverts. And I have seen the Secret Garden, but the scene there was somewhat different; the woman was only helping Colin get INTO the bath; it didn't show her bathe him AND he was wearing underwear, so I had no problem with it. Besides, Colin was considered incapable and, might I add, there were men helping with his bath so it was clearly NOT just a woman's job. Also, in the beginning when Mary asked Martha the servant to dress her, Martha looked at her like she was weird and only dressed and bathed her because she insisted on it, which proves that kids were expected to take care of themselves back then; heck, the servants and parents were too busy to treat older kids like infants. Had it been any servant besides sweet Martha, Mary would probably have had a flat refusal (unless it was a lady's maid). And in regards to menservants not helping children in such matters, you're apparently unaware of a servant known as the gentleman's valet. As I said, older children, from everything I've read, were allowed to bathe themselves, but children were occasionally given either a lady's maid or a gentleman's valet, so if they did require help in such personal matters, it would be this special servant (of their own sex) who helped them. Princes, for example, only had MALE servants help them dress and bathe. So will someone please just answer my original question and tell me exactly what happens in the scene without trying to argue or explain it to me?
shareK, you seem to think that this scene is sick and wrong. Why? 100 years ago, this'd be perfectly common, just like a mother or maid bathing the child when they were 4. Like quicksilver said, once puberty hit, the kids would probably be expected to wash themselves, but 10 year-olds are still considered children.
I'm thinking perhaps the foundation of your feelings is all the rape, etc. that goes on now, but this scene is not some dark alley. It's bath time - around people that David knows and is comfortable around, for the most part.
If he looked unhappy, it might be the stereotypical portrayal of how children hate baths, for no special reason.
Hide the rum.share
Okay, I'm frusterated practically to the point of tears here. I asked a simple question in my original post: what exactly happened in the scene I'm referring to? A very simple question that I asked because I wanted an answer, NOT a debate, and yet all anyone's done is argue the point with me, particularly with this ridiculous idea that ten-year-olds were bathed like toddlers. Jumanjii, where did you get the idea that an adult bathing a perfectly capable ten-year-old would have been considered normal? "Just as if they were 4 years old"? No, that wouldn't have been normal. You think it would be normal to bathe a kid until they hit puberty and that a kid would be comfortable with that? No, adults would leave a ten-year-old boy to wash himself because he was old enough to bathe himself, period. And what is it with you and quicksilver telling me they wouldn't back off until kids were 13? I'm supposed to believe that and think it's good? Firstly, puberty hits at different ages, sometimes at ten, in fact, so the whole kids-were-bathed-until-13 stuff is nonsense, ESPECIALLY because Victorians were such prudes. Even little boys could get aroused, so the idea that an adult in a society OBSESSED with keeping kids from sexual arousal would reveal and touch a boy's body is both silly and, yes, quite sick too; do you see why now? If, in the scene, it was implied that David was pretty much left to bathe himself and the adults were only bringing in towels and stuff, I'm fine with it. But, you do NOT strip a ten-year-old naked and wash them; it is this that I find offensive and if it's implied in the scene that they did that to David, I seriously don't like it. If they let him wash himself, though, I'm cool with it, but that's why I'm asking what exactly happened. If I seem particularly upset about this, it's because I'm sick of explaining and defending myself. Besides, like I said, the scene in this movie wasn't as common a practice back then as you might think; it was common for children to have servants of their OWN sex help them dress and bathe (if they had any help at all), not adults of the opposite sex. And David looked overwhelmed to me, not simply unhappy at taking a bath. Would you be comfortable with people giving YOU a bath, even if they were people you were generally comfortable with? There's a big difference between being comfortable with people in general and being comfortable with those same people bathing you. Would someone who's seen this scene please just tell me what exactly happened in it WITHOUT arguing with me?
share[deleted]
Whitespirit - why don´t you just watch the movie? While watching this special scene noone could ever find any sexual or weird innuendos! David had just arrived to his very old aunt´s house after many days on the road. He was all dirty and ragged and Aunt Betsy decided to clean him immediately. There was nothing weird about it. Honestly!
shareBecause I can't rent it and I don't want to buy it without seeing it. I'm aware that there was nothing sexual, but I still wouldn't literally wash a kid all over; I'd let him do it himself and I'm asking if that's what happened in the movie, if Aunt Betsey had the bath prepared but let him wash himself. Is that what happened? Could someone just give a simple answer?? And please refrain from insulting me if you can; I've already heard the "you're mad, you're having a major attack over nothing" speeches from a couple of other lovely people, one of whom even insulted me after butting into my conversation on another thread concerning a completely different topic. If you must call me mad, a prude, or whatever, please do so AFTER you've answered my freakin' question. Furthermore, I don't know where some of the posters got the idea that it was normal for adults to wash ten-year-olds as if they were four. Perhaps I misunderstood them; if they meant that adults prepared the baths and maybe supervised them occasionaly, that's one thing, but if they meant that big kids were literally washed by adults like babies, I can assure you such behavior would not have been considered normal back then, especially the idea that kids were bathed until puberty. Five-year-olds? Of course, but ten-year-olds were old enough to clean themselves and know modesty, children or not. You think it'd be normal in a civilized and tight-buttoned society for an adult to strip and wash an older child's body all over, for years, until they notice the child's body developing? What would they do, say "Oh, you're growing pubic hair, I can't wash you anymore?" An adult who repeatedly exposed a child's body that way, depriving them of any modesty or privacy, would be pretty darn sick, and I can't imagine that being the "norm" in any regular society, especially one that was known for their prudishness and paranioa regarding children and sex! Propriety aside, back then parents and servants were too busy to wash older kids like that; only younger ones would need such looking after. If the kids were old enough, they'd be trusted to take care of themselves in personal matters, not only for modesty's sake but out of necessity. Sure, maids would prepare the baths and possibly bring in towels or add water, but they would hardly stay behind to wash the person in the bath unless said person requested them to (like the spoiled Mary from Secret Garden). The only exception would be for royal kids; royal children did have special servants washing them and dressing them their whole lives, but their servants would always be the same sex as they were to insure propriety.
shareOkay - I just rewatched the scene (just for you ...). Here it goes: young David is sitting in the tub, the maid takes away his dirty clothes. Mr Dick srubs Davids fingernails while Aunt Betsy pours some water over Davids head. Then she kneels down besides the tub and they start to talk about her former husband. Mr Dick says something funny about him and Aunt Betsy is a bit annoyed. She grabs the sponge out of his hands and starts scrubbing Davids back and neck with it (she does it very roughly cause she´s still annoyed at the memory of her dead husband. Aunt Betsy does not like boys cause her husband treated her cruelly - that´s why she didn´t care about David unless he desperately asked her for help.)As I said, she scrubs his back, says : "Eeewww..." ´cause he´s so dirty, then she passes him a cloth to clean himself and that´s it ... end of the bath scene.
So yeah, she scrubs his back, but(!) I think they included this scene to show that from this day on she really cares for him (she didn´t like him before). Furthermore, I think, it shows how she "washes away" the sadness and misery of his former years and helps him to start a new life.
I´d like to add something else: my own son didn´t mind me to stay in the bathroom with him when he was 10. Just one year later he said "No" and of course I accepted that! There is nothing weird about washing a 10year old´s back unless you make it weird ...
(I hope you don´t mind my bad English, cause I´m not English!)
OMG. Laroja, THANK you. Once and for all and without insulting me, you've answered my question completley and to the point; my greatest appreciation. Let me just say, I have NO problem with a mom simply sitting in the same room while her son washes himself (well, unless he's a teen) nor did I have a problem with someone washing David's back, especially since it was clear she only did it because she was mad; if she hadn't suddenly started hating men, she probably wouldn't have bothered. I just wanted them to let him undress and wash the rest of his body by himself, and that's what they did. THANK you for just answering me and confirming that once and for all. Bless you. And your English is fine, believe me :) Update: well, I finally saw the scene and while you were right, Laroja and it was clear they let him clean himself (as was only appropriate), the in-your-face feeling of the scene annoyed me a little. But(!) I realized that the only part of him she scrubbed was his back, she only did this cause she was mad (she didn't even touch him till, as you said, that man annoyed her) and she gave him a cloth to wash the rest of himself which made it clear that his privacy was respected (I know it was silly of me to fear that she would have washed him anywhere else, but I misunderstood). In the book, though, when David took the bath, it was clear that he bathed entirely by himself without anyone in the room (by jove, older kids WERE allowed to bathe themselves back then! Thank you, dear Mr. Dickens, for clarifying that most people were not perverts back then after all.) So, they apparently only added Mr. Dick and his aunt to the scene in the movie to add some dialogue (really, they could have put the dialogue somewhere else, but oh well.)
shareTo add to the original subject of this thread: I agree, Dan was and is precious! Anyone else want to fawn over him?
shareYou´re welcome, whitespirit! Did you watch the scene on YouTube? Cause I´ve just found two videos with Dan as David Copperfield which I want to share with everyone who is interested!
Here they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcCCm8LyUVY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAIrtK_KnlY
Yeah, I saw it on youtube and I'd rather not see it again simply because it brings up the old worries. Plus, even though I know now it's not bad, I still prefer the scene in the book in which David had total privacy while he bathed. Thanks again for explaining the scene and your take on it; otherwise, I might have jumped to conclusions when I saw it (actually, I did at first; then I assessed the situation, calmed down, and remembered what you said. So, thanks again.) Thanks for the second link, too, though I nearly cried at the scenes it showed.
shareI've seen the old version awhile ago, as a freshman in high school, I believe, and enjoyed it, as far as I can remember. The new version sounds great.
I saw a picture of Daniel Radcliffe in the movie, and I didn't realize until I saw the date the movie was made how young he was in it! He's so little!
I didn't know that Maggie Smith was Betsey Trotwood! I can imagine her in that role. Also, Madam Hooch - I can see Zoe Wanamaker playing a villianess, and Imelda Staunton as Mrs. Micawber, who is definitely very different than Umbridge. She also looks good for the role.
I don't know if there's a DVD. I'll have to look for it on VHS for now. :)
There is a DVD, I hear; someone else said they got it and that it was great. Enjoy!
shareAgreed...there was nothing odd about it, esp. in light of David being grateful to be around adults who were kind to him. After being beaten by his cruel stepfather and mean Creakle, I think he rather liked the bath...his aunt was very tender with him and yes, she had Mr. Dick there (probably to help with the private parts).
To me, David did NOT look unhappy at all; I think he was relieved and even a bit happy. Remember how he asked his aunt questions about her life; if he'd been uncomfortable and unhappy, he'd have been silent and been cringing.
Remember how fearful and silent poor David was around the awful Murdstones. Not to mention he'd probably have had that little frown on his brow, the one that Dan mastered so well (Dan was already getting wrinkles at that young age).
I kind of laugh in that scene because watching it now (I have the DVD), I remember how Dan had been in a bath when his dad gave him the news of his getting the part in the HP films and Dan just started to cry he was so happy.
I laugh because I imagine Dan sopping wet, coming out of the tub and just sobbing in his parents' arms, tears and bathwater running down his face.
Yes, I'm sure he WOULD have been silent and cringing if they'd really presumed on his privacy. I find how you picture Dan's reaction to getting the role rather weird, Cory, and doubt that Dan climbed out of the bath that way to his parents, lol.
shareI find how you picture Dan's reaction to getting the role rather weird, Cory, and doubt that Dan climbed out of the bath that way to his parents, lol.
He most likely wasn't stark naked, that's true, but he most likely put on a towel or robe, then got the news and started to cry. I laugh imagining him sobbing, hugging his parents, then wiping his eyes on the towel.
Also, remember he was only around eleven or twelve (he was twelve when he filmed PS) and hadn't started puberty yet. His puberty didn't start until late in his 13th year...he was fourteen when he did CoS and his voice started changing.
It's funny because in the books, Harry doesn't start puberty until midway or so in the fourth book when he's fourteen. I think if I remember correctly, book!Harry's voice doesn't change until early in his fifth year.
One should remember that David was in no position to be particular about anything. He knew he was taking a huge risk going to his aunt's in the first place - the risk that she would not want to see him. Sure enough, she tried to shoo him away - until he identified himself. She then realized she had to do something right away - "emergency first aid", if you want to call it that.
Bumbling or not, Miss Betsey showed David the first real compassion - of which the bath was the first tangible sign - he had known at least since the Micawbers left London, and probably longer. She also very quickly got an idea of what David had gone through since his mother died, and at whose hands. Her early revulsion at the Murdstones - of course, they got off on the wrong foot by riding right into the donkey trap! - deepened during their visit to the anger and disgust whose full force she so memorably vented squarely on Mr. Murdstone. In the book she went much further, calling Murdstone, right to his face, a tyrant. If anyone thinks the bath scene bordered on child porn, what the Murdstones did to David and Clara was beyond the real thing!
After shooing the Murdstones out, Miss Betsey very quickly hit her maternal stride, perhaps to her own surprise as much as anyone else's. David flourished at his new Canterbury school, Dr. Strong's; in time he became its Head Boy. Through his adult life, and especially her poverty, David stood by her. Wisely, she refused to get involved in David's problems with Dora, not wanting to be another "Murdering sister". At the very end, karma shone very brightly on her, as her near-obsessive lifelong dream was finally realized - godmother to David and Agnes's daughter, Betsey Trotwood Copperfield.
Of course the bath scene doesn't border on anything of the sort, I just hoped miss bumbling was respectful; you're always "in a position" to be particular when you're doing something private, and there's nothing maternal about being badly intrusive, which I was relieved to find I'd exaggerated in my mind. I can't imagine you saying anything in the story "went beyond" child porn, are you kidding me??
I can't imagine you saying anything in the story "went beyond" child porn, are you kidding me??
Where the Murdstones are concerned, no. IMO nothing critical that anyone cares to say about that thoroughly odious duo is exaggerated. I would go so far as the say that Dickens was chillingly farsighted in creating the Murdstones as he did. They are the "platinum standard" if anyone wants to debase platinum that way, for hard-core, incorrigible, psychopathic, sociopathic sadists - and sadism is an essential element of any pornography, child or otherwise. Granted, those terms were unknown in Dickens' day, but the Murdstones live up - or down -to all of them, to a T.
Dickens obviously wasn't the only one who didn't think much of the Murdstones; nor apparently did Trevor Eve. He speaks for himself here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQYHJeLDH6c. Basil Rathbone, who played Murdstone in the 1935 movie, reportedly apologized profusely to Freddie Bartholomew after the beating scene.
I just hoped miss bumbling was respectful
I would say yes. share
Maggie Smith was soooo lucky!!! But I think the reason she bathed him was because David had suffered terrible emotional traumas and as a result, was a tad in shock, which made it very hard for him to do routine things like bathing and even dressing and Betsey realized this and so took it upon herself to help him bathe.
In addition, David was rather weak and ill from starvation and days and days of walking and possibly had worms (remember when the maid tells Betsey Fleas, maam... as she holds up the remains of David's clothing and Betsey tells her to burn the clothes?), so that also made it hard for him to completely bathe by himself.
Remember how David fell asleep from weakness right after Betsey helped him into clean clothes?
And she does hand him the washcloth several times and David does clean his own face and neck; he's not just sitting there passively letting her do all the cleaning.
Poor David was really a complete mess by the time he arrived at Betsey's. Dan does a good job with this, esp. when he tells his aunt how unhappy he's been since his mum died, Dan does a good job breaking David's voice there and he sounds ready to cry, then collapse into a faint right there on Betsey's goat-free lawn.
[deleted]