with the exception of George Cukor's 1930-ish movie, every version of David Copperfield has been a little-seen TV film. Perhaps it is because whenever people think of "David Copperfield" today, they think of the magician.
David Copperfield is Dickens' masterpiece, after all. Some great filmmaker in Hollywood should retell it and introduce this story to a whole new generation, without having to show them the TV versions.
But this TV version is good, you know, and as long as we have access to a good cinematic portrayal, it's not as though the story's ignored.
shareAlong with most other Dickens novels, I think David Copperfield works better as a TV series, as it gives more room to the subplots and minor characters to breathe, that would be lost in a 2 to 2 and a half hour film.
John
[deleted]
This one's good enough by itself. Little angel Dan wasn't wooden at all.
shareNo, Dan wasn't...he was excellent...which is very rare in such a young actor. That vivid, animated face of his...he had it at that young an age (and pre-wrinkles forming between his brows by eight). Not something you see in young children.
shareYeah, people need to start leaving classics alone.
share
God forbid.
Hie thee hither, that I may pour my spirits in thine ear.
This version is far superior to anything that Hollywood would do to David Copperfield. British author, story and characters. Only the British can do well with film/TV versions of David Copperfield.
share[deleted]
Yeah, they should release it on the big screen...but not film it in Hollywood; it should be filmed in England, so it's authentic. It wouldn't make sense for a story that took place in 1900's old England to be filmed in the wild west desert coast of the US of A. And DEFINITELY not have American actors playing the characters unless they can do a REAL British accent.
share