MovieChat Forums > Nicholas Nickleby (2003) Discussion > Damn, Smike was shortchanged by the auth...

Damn, Smike was shortchanged by the author ....

posted 9 years ago by shipagan
3 replies | jump to latest

So here I am some 175 years too late to complain about how young Smike was used as a literary device ! ;-)

No, I have not just discovered Nicholas Nickleby.
But I watched the 2002 film lately and the unfairness of it stroke me.

I understand that Dickens wanted to inform about the abuses a lot of children had to endure during those days. It is even realistic that a frail young man who has been through so much will have health issues and won't have the chance to evolve as an adult for a very long time.

But it's the way it hapens!!!

It seems that Smike has to die for 2 reasons :

1. As a device to punish the dastardly Ralph N. He lost his son. The guilt and tragedy!

2. Nicholas and Kate are ready to marry (seperately) and move on with their lives. Can't spend their days anymore caring for poor Smike. That phase in their lives is done. So Smike is left behing and the author has no use for him.

Call me very very naive ( I know that's how I'm calling myself right now!) but, damn! It could have been interesting to see how a character like that could evolve and overcome an unauspicious beginning in life.

I know, I should send my letter to a certain Mr. Dickens in 1839. Oh well. I thought I'd come here and share my dismay with you.

Anybody feels the same ?

By the way, I did enjoy Jamie Bell's interpretation of the character. Very touching.
It's interesting that this actor later evolved as a tougher cookie. Just a few years later, his Esca in The Eagle had it rough, but didn't beg for mercy and remained wary for a very longtime of so-called saviors.

[–] jacksflicks 9 years ago

I agree. Dickens used Smike as a romantic device. I felt shortchanged, too. Having Smike play the sad puppy only to die in the end was laying it on a bit thick.

Actually, I think the director pandered too much to 19th-century sentimentalism -- the cocked heads and longing looks. It seemed like everyone was posed...most annoying.

David Lean, with Great Expectations, cut through the treacle.

[–] sueb1863 9 years ago

Smike was a secondary urchin-like character in a Victorian novel with a tragic backstory. He never stood a chance!

That sort of literary trope was very common in Victorian fiction. If Smike had lived past the end of the story that would have actially been bucking the trend of the time.

I don't think him surviving would necessarily have meant a happy ending for him, though. It never looked like Nicholas had any problem with the idea of caring for Smike as long as he lived (he says several times in the novel that he has no intention of ever parting from Smike), but there are other issues he'd have to deal with.

If Smike lived that would probably mean Ralph would survive too, and if Ralph lived *and* knew Smike was his son, he'd simply claim Smike as he rightful guardian and then ship him right back to Dotheboys or some other school. And even if Ralph ended up going to jail, Smike has other enemies who are still at liberty, such as Mrs. Squeers. I don't think Ralph would have any problem orchestrating some mischief from jail.

Ralph's main interest in Smike was to use him to wound Nicholas. In the book, upon learning that Smike is his son, he's most angry about the fact that a man he desperately hated, Nicholas, was the one that rescued his son and earned his love, when he would rather have had Smike and Nicholas be mortal enemies "and hating each other to the last". If Smike was still alive, and so was Ralph, I imagine Ralph would work pretty hard towards that end, taking Smike back into his guardianship and working to turn him against Nicholas, knowing that that would hurt his nephew most of all.

Plus Smike would have to live with the fact that the woman he loved, Kate, is in love with Frank Cheeryble, and Smike is fully aware that he has no hope of being a viable suitor. Not a pleasant thing to have to live with.

[–] agister 8 years ago

There is a lot of tragedy in Dickens, part of his aim was to highlight injustice, poverty, the harshness of life for the poor etc. I've read a few, and some parts are genuinely depressing! There's also great comedy, touching kindness of strangers etc that his fans love. But they don't easily translate into films for modern audiences. I love a happy ending as much as the next bloke!