Is this version better? - The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (2002) Discussion

[–] concorde008 17 years ago

This one, in everything except the girl Nicholas falls in love with. I suppose it's intentional that she's so helpless, but I find her extremely irritating. Though the Kate in the other one was believable, shame they cut her role short.
And Gregor Fisher! Does anyone else see Rab C. Nesbitt mannerisms? He's supposed to be disgusting and he is, but he's also hilarious. And isn't the daughter disgusting?!

reply

[–] concorde008 17 years ago

Does anyone else find Nicholas and Kate's mother irritating? It's quite understandable that their uncle (Charles Dance) despises her.

reply

[–] brokenjukebox 17 years ago

I like this version much more, although I did see this one first.

Overall, I thought the 2002 one was OK, but nowhere near as good as this version. Some of the casting in the 2002 one was a bit strange. Charlie Hunnam was out of his depth, and I thought he was a bit too much of a 'himbo', for want of a better word.Most of the other performances were alright in the film, but I preferred how they were played in this version. Jim Broadbent is one of my favourite actors, but I thought his version of Squeers was too likeable. I liked how utterly horrible the Gregor Fisher one was. Romola Garai was OK as Kate, but I liked Sophia Myles' take on it more. She seemed to play Kate as a strong woman making the best of what society would let her. Jamie Bell was good as Smike, but I thought Lee Ingleby was excellent.

The main things I liked about the 2002 one were that they had more fun with the theatre scenes, and despite her accent slipping occasionally I preferred Anne Hathaway as Madeline. Christopher Plummer was brilliant as Ralph Nickleby. But there were a lot of great scenes included in this version that weren't seen in the 2002 one, so I have to say I like this version better.

reply

[–] WalterX 17 years ago

to answer your first question: yes

Sapere Aude!

reply

[–] catjoescreed 16 years ago

This version is better on so many levels. I've seen this one, the Charlie Hunnam (2002) and the truly wonderful nine-hour RSC adaptation with Roger Rees and David Threlfall, as well as read the book. Of course the nine-hour version sticks closest to the story, but this four-hour adaptation is so moving and stirring, compared to the rather anemic 2002 theatrical release.

Of course, as a few people here have already pointed out, a lot comes down to Lee Ingleby's sensitive and informed portrayal of Smike. Now, granted, a lot of that surely has to do with a strong, intelligent director. One of the things I've always found a bit amusing is just comparing the nature and the profundity of Smike's handicap in the different versions. In David Threlfall's portrayal, Smike seems to be crippled up with a genetic handicap - you get the feeling he has cerebral palsy, from the crabbed way he scuts about the stage. His speech is halting and unclear as well, leading you to suppose a mental deficiency. He is terribly sympathetic, but it's difficult to get "inside" him as a character.

In Lee Ingleby's portrayal, the physical handicaps and the speech impediment argue more for the tough and brutal beatings he's endured all his life. He is slow of speech, with a heartbreaking stutter, and as we see Squeers and Mrs. Squeers taking hits at him when he tries to express himself we can imagine that fear and long misuse have led to his difficulties speaking. Indeed, once he begins to "emerge" in the warmth of the Nicklebys' friendship, his speech becomes much less labored.

When we get to the Jamie Bell version at last, Smike is no longer crippled but merely has a bit of a limp. He stutters, but we don't get the feeling that he is suffering especially. Don't get me wrong - I love Jamie Bell. I just don't feel that his director pulled enough credibility from him for this one. In fact, I've often said that with each new version of Nicholas Nickleby, Smike seems to get healthier and stronger. If they make the movie again any time soon, it'll be Smike carrying Nicholas on his back up the road to Devonshire.

Anyway, all this is preparatory to saying that Lee Ingleby rules! <grin>

The Haunted Man, by Dori Davis: Sometimes it's the living who torment the dead
Amazon.com

reply

[–] dabrauer 15 years ago

I think each version has its strengths. I think this version is much stronger with some of the casting choices. I can't stand Anne Hathaway in the other one. However, I do appreciate Romola Garai's role in the 2002 version, as well as Christopher Plummer's. I also like the fact that in the 2002 version, Kate isn't actually sexually assaulted as explicitly. I think this version went a bit overboard there.

reply

[–] threeoranges 15 years ago

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think James D'Arcy was particularly expressive in this role. Charlie Hunnam got more into the "let's emote, this is Victorian melodrama!" spirit.

Overall, I think the film version scored better in terms of pacing and transitions (so many scenes in the TV version ended abruptly, almost clumsily) and look/style (lots of money obviously thrown at it). The script was sharper and the comic scenes were mostly more successful.

The TV version was less slick and looked like it had been made on a shoestring but had overall better performances/more convincing relationships, and scored highly for pathos.

So I suppose it all depends on whether you prefer your Dickens light (go for the film) or earnest (go for the TV series). I have room for both in my life.

reply

[–] redbrian3655 14 years ago

2002 is far more interesting from the standpoint of music and lighting. It is far more pleasing on the eyes, and cuts to the quick of the story. I prefer that more. My opinion.

reply

[–] CCsito 12 years ago

I saw the 2002 version last year and just finished watching the 1977 and 2001 versions this week. In terms of covering as many scenes as the novel, the 1977 version is the best because of its length (over 5 hours). Scenes were given enough play time to fully provide a logical flow. However, this version appears "stagey". The 2001 version ran just over 3 hours and the scenery was much better, but the scene transitions were a bit abrupt for me and certain scenes were too short. There were two scenes, in particular, that were different than the 1977 version and I could not understand why the screenwriter changed them from the novel. The first was right after Nicholas struck back as Squeers was beating on Smike. This version showed him just calmly packing his belongings and leaving after he hit Squeers. No further commotions after the attack. The second was when Nicholas confronted Sir Mulberry Hawk out in the streets. Nicholas is the one who ends up getting hurt even though that is not how it was in the novel. In the novel and 1977 version, Sir Mulberry Hawk was the one who was injured in the confrontation which provided the reason for his quest for revenge against Nicholas later. The 2002 version also had to shorten the story due to run time. If you prefer a more thorough coverage of the novel, I would recommend the 1977 version. I also thought the Smike character in the 1977 version was the better performance of the three (he really looked downtrodden). But, if you prefer just seeing a shorter rendition, the later versions would also be OK.

reply

[–] vertigothic70 11 years ago

Your post is over a year old, but I'd like to thank you for clarifying that bit about Hawk. It was puzzling to me why he sought revenge after he was the one who struck Nicholas down - Hawk was portrayed as a rascal for whom that kind of confrontation probably wouldn't be unusual, and who wouldn't give it another thought. If in the novel he was injured by Nicholas, that makes sense.

clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...

reply

[–] paul-743-899114 11 years ago

Definitely this one. Charles Dance is so good in the part that's it's obvious why he played a similarly evil role in Bleak House.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1558) 3 years ago

The 2002 is the chocolate box version. This one, 2001, is grittier, which makes much more sense given it’s a Dickens piece.

That said, I can always find something to appreciate about every version of every story — even the horrible Reese Witherspoon bersion of Vanity Fair (although, in the case of VF, very little!)

reply