What on earth was that?


I knew ITV would cock it up!

Good points:

The mood, tone and atmosphere right - more or less (disappointed at the lack of humour).

The best Quilp (although that's not saying much).


The bad:

Bad casting for Nell and Kit - passive and a bunch of ciphers, the lot of them.

Kit's storyline completely cut; his mum, his brothers, his employment, and his relationship with Nell (reduced the dramatic impact of the death scene) and Barbara.

Nell and Grandfather's long trek cut.

The visit to industrial Birmingham; the squalor, poverty and child imprisonment all squashed into a 5 second shot.

One of Dickens' most ballsy women, Sally Brass, reduced to whimpering, crying and willing to act upon any order!

Richard Swiveller's presence reduced to a few minutes here and there, his relationship (or lack thereof) with the Marchioness sped up and then comically marries her straight after we witness Nell's death! We don't even find out who the Marchioness' parents were!

The schoolteacher storyline and his relationship with the dying schoolboy and Nell nowhere to be seen!

That devastatingly harrowing ordeal Nell undertakes in following the two sisters doesn't make it in.

The passages of Nell wandering the graveyard and the church and her meeting with the widow, cut (so many great lines that could've been used ).

I can't believe they had grandfather pushing Nell into the street, growling at her: "If you love me, then find me money!".

The death sequence was badly handled: where was the lead up? (she dies because she begged in the rain and followed grandfather in the snow?) How on earth did the lodger become her father? The most infamous death scene in Victorian literature reduced to "I'm your father" and "I love you too".

Very disappointed. I feel as though I've watched an hour long trailer instead of a fully fledged adaptation; ITV gave it no room to breath: it felt rushed and badly edited; as usual the BBC do these things better.







reply

I can't believe they had grandfather pushing Nell into the street, growling at her: "If you love me, then find me money!".
The writers evidently wished to muddy the moral waters, making it entirely clear - quoting Thomas Sutcliffe of The Indie - that grandfather's "criminal self-indulgence was the main reason she was dead." That seems a valid decision, and went some way towards preventing an overly simplistic goodie v. baddie scenario.

However, I have to make two confessions: (1) I'm not terribly familiar with the original novel, and (2) I only saw the second half. (I switched over from Ballet Shoes.) I am perhaps, therefore, not in a strong position to judge.

PS: What would Boxing Day be without cold ham? Josie Lawrence should be sliced thinly and served with chutney and chips. She gave a ridiculous performance, with an insanely outlandlish (as opposed to English) accent. Yet again, a performance that would be unthinkable out of Dickensian drag. And she wasn't alone. (Stand up, Mr Godley.) Are directors allowed to slap actors these days? No? Pity.


Call me Ishmael...

reply

The writers evidently wished to muddy the moral waters, making it entirely clear - quoting Thomas Sutcliffe of The Indie - that grandfather's "criminal self-indulgence was the main reason she was dead." That seems a valid decision, and went some way towards preventing an overly simplistic goodie v. baddie scenario.
Is that so? Well, I have to say they've achieved what they set out not to do, in that case. Nell's death was gradual; as soon as she leaves the shop with her grandfather the sands of time have begun to run out for her; but this adaptation makes it so that grandfather appears cold hearted, violent (not as bad as Sir Peter Ustinov's version) and cruel, and as a result is directly responsible for her death - not very three dimensional at all.

(I switched over from Ballet Shoes.)
How was it? I watched the first few minutes of this; hopefully it'll be available on the BBC's iPlayer.

reply

this adaptation makes it so that grandfather appears cold hearted, violent ... and cruel, and as a result is directly responsible for her death - not very three dimensional at all.
From the little I saw, I would say that the writer was trying to show the grandfather as a gambling addict, and so a victim of his own addiction, rather than an intentionally wicked or cruel man. Whether they were successful is something you are in a better position to judge than I. Seems not.

Ballet Shoes was not at all a success; not for me at any rate. It was overly sweet, dramatically flat, lacked any grit at all, and suffered from uneven acting. I watched it because Heidi Thomas had done such a good job on Cranford (perhaps an impossible act to follow) but I'm afraid this wasn't in the same league.


Call me Ishmael...

reply

A double disappointment for me. I recorded it and watched the first five minutes. It was all looking so good at that point. Brilliant sets and atmosphere and Derek Jacobi just revving up.

But instead of plunging us deep into the Victorian London so carefully recreated in the sets, we went skating over the surface in the ensuing 115 minutes and like coldwindtovalhalla, I can't work out where, in two hours, all the missing plot went. You can't do Dickens at this speed. Getting it right in an adaptation obviously doesn't mean getting the whole 500 pages on the screen but it does involve getting the chemistry of detail and pace right, as the recent Bleak House serialisation did.

None of the central relationships really came to life, with the possible exception of the brass siblings and even Quilp was a bit of a pale Nemesis compared to Philip Davis' Smallweed, much less Charles Dance's Tulkinghorn.

I'll watch it again to make sure I'm not still recovering from Cranford, but I'm not sure I'm being unfair.

Turning over to Ballet Shoes, however, in the absence of a VCR, would have been a good decision in my book. I quite enjoyed that.

reply

I'm extremely relieved that the BBC are adapting Little Dorrit - it'll get the respect and time over there.

reply

I'm afraid Ballet Shoes didn't do it for me at all. But perhaps I am still recovering from Cranford. Is there, in fact, a cure?

...and even Quilp was a bit of a pale Nemesis...
Again, without seeing the whole thing it was difficult for me to judge. But from what I saw, though satisfyingly repugnant in his manner, I didn't get a sense of deep dastardly malevolence. Just a bit of a bad sort.

A propos of dastards, do you remember The Barchester Chronicles of 1982?


Call me Ishmael...

reply

Ballet Shoes was perfect Christmas fare. Sticky and sweet with just enough citric acid to stop you throwing up.

I have a only a faint memory of the Barchester Chronicles because I was living abroad at the time. Good was it?

reply

Good then, certainly. Not sure how it would play now, though, twenty-five years later. Probably studio bound and terribly slow, but I do remember Alan Rickman being beautifully oleaginous, Nigel Hawthorne being charming and... and I can't actually remember whether Geraldine McEwan was giving a nicely judged performance or a totally demented one. Barbara Flynn was, of course, perfectly poised as ever.

Hope you had a good Christmas, by the way.


Call me Ishmael...

reply

>Hope you had a good Christmas, by the way.

Great, thanks. And compliments of the season to you and all the other period dram fans hereabouts.

reply

I loved The Barchester Chronicles and found the video set in a charity shop for £1. I too am interested to see how it plays all these years later...

O that blue, blue shirt of yours

reply

From the little I saw, I would say that the writer was trying to show the grandfather as a gambling addict, and so a victim of his own addiction, rather than an intentionally wicked or cruel man. Whether they were successful is something you are in a better position to judge than I. Seems not.
I thought the writer's effort was clumsy and blunt; the book made it a gradual decline, and as a result it showed on both man and granddaughter as the narrative drew to a close. In this adaptation, grandfather was almost schizophrenic: changing mood like the weather; it didn't help that Sophie Vavasseur's Nell was given lines like (paraphrase): "Yes, grandfather", "No, Grandfather", "Yes, grandfather", "No, Grandfather", "Yes, sir" "No, sir", "Yes, Ma'am" "No, Ma'am" etc.

Whether they were successful is something you are in a better position to judge than I. Seems not.
I don't necessarily think that's the case; even a non-reader of the book can tell that this was badly rushed and edited, there was no character development and where it tried to attempt it (like the shocking "find me money" scene) it seemed highly incongruous, and as a result, felt more than a little contrived and manipulative.

I watched it because Heidi Thomas had done such a good job on Cranford
You have to get a hold of Lilies - a criminally underrated series that was cut short in its prime.

reply

I meant that I was in no position to judge whether there had been any character development because I hadn't seen the beginning, only the end. Thinking about it, I watched it as if I was watching the last episode of a much longer piece, rather than half of the thing. (Well, I say I saw the second half, but it was probably only the last 40 odd minutes). Everything that seemed unexplained and odd I ascribed to something I missed in the first half.

But I agree, even so, it was clearly inadequate. Very thin indeed.


Call me Ishmael...

reply

I just saw this. I'd wanted to watch it when it aired but I decided to wait until I'd finished reading the book. I'm a very slow reader and I only finished the other night. The book, whilst not my favourite Dickens, was filled with so many poignant, tender, funny, moving moments. The adaptation? Flat as a pancake. Of course, suppressing such a novel down to an hour and a half always means it's going to lack, but they missed out so much - and not just that, but completely changed a lot of things as well. I have no idea why they had to make the single gentleman Nell's father - besideswhich, it's clearly stated that her grandfather dotes on her because she reminds him of her mother (his daughter!) and of his wife in turn.

Leaving out the Garlands and most of all Barbara was truly a crime. I love Kit, he was absolutely my favourite character in the entire thing, so missing out most of his plot is unforgiveable. The same with Dick Swiveller - he was pathetic! And they missed out all of the Marchioness' devotion to him - not to mention that Sally referred to her as 'workhouse' implying that's where she'd come from, which is a total load of lies seeing as she was supposedly her own daughter. And Sally herself was truly awful, they didn't make her one bit hard enough. And I'd have loved to see her in one of her infamous terrible hats.

Then there's Nell. She became a non-entity, and they left out every little scrap of humanity there was in one of the most beloved characters in 19th century literature. She may as well have been her grandfather's maid, instead of the one person who kept him alive all those months. Leaving out the schoolmaster also, and the village and the church where she ends her life. Not to mention the death (or not) scene that was completely altered.

And then there's the end. I found it so poignant that Nell's grandfather died on her grave, if I remember correctly. But the ITV version has him playing chess with his non-existant son in the Old Curiosity Shop.

I've left out a lot that I wanted to say simply because I can't remember all the quibbles I had with it but this is definitely not one I'm going to be seeing again.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Dramatic death scene?! I'm 100 pages from the end so, ak. Does Nell die then? That's a rhetorical answer question, please don't answer lol.

She's a bit annoying anyway.

reply

Stay out of this thread until you've finished the book, laura!

Happy New Year, by the way!

reply

lol I flicked to the end and I know she dies now, I just don't know how. :P Aww despite what I said it is sad. :(

At least Quilp dies too. >:)

reply

I wholeheartedly agree that the film's content, when compared to the book, is a dreadful disappointment because of the sweeping omissions, but when one separates the book from the film, the film stands strongly on its own as an interesting curio.

The little nugget of a film brilliantly captured the quiddity of the book and Dickens' overall worldview that you mentioned on other thread:

The world is full of curiosities, all grotesque and malevolent; Dickens wanted to surround something pure and innocent amidst all this dark matter: he created Nell, a type of martyr, if you will. She witnesses grim and abject poverty, want and complete and utter destitution, the soot, smog and squalor of industrial England; she was surrounded by characters of questionable moral fibre; paedophiles/ephebophiles; domestic violence and its many ugly faces; addiction, greed and avarice. All the grotesque and hideous inanimate curiosities can easily be interchangeable with the shop that is England/the world and its equally grotesque and hideous inhabitants.
Despite a few shakes of the fist while watching this, I quickly separated the book from the film and even re-watched it, and relished the experience, especially that blissfully hopeful ending (yes I know it's different from the novel, but the film is separate from the novel).

The acting of Jones was ferociously volcanic; except for Vavasseur, the entire cast was excellent, even though the characters they were portraying onscreen were distinctly different from Dickens' original characterization.

I personally wanted to see how the director was going to choreograph the Quilp-Tom Scott relationship, and I was looking for the blackening factory scene with the stranger blackened with ash, who provides them temporary shelter within the factory. I also expected to see, during Nell and her grandfather's journey, long wayside stretches of dilapidated coal-dusted windowless and roofless houses, sickly blighted vegetation, mounds of ashes, and I expected to hear a screech or two of industrial machines belching black plaguey funnels of smoke. Hesford should have more vividly fleshed out the book's most important theme, Dickens' perpetual leitmotif - all the despicable behaviours and inhumanities that occur in the world, especially the exploitation of females and children, are the consequences of industrialization.

But the film still stands strongly on its own, despite not fully satisfying readers of the book.

reply

Hi TemporaryOne, appreciated reading your post, but I have to politely disagree.

This 'adaptation' is by far the worst television production I have ever seen; completely disjointed, badly acted (Toby Jones was very good, though), characters spliced and and stripped of real meaning and soul, and as a result the narrative lacks any sort of message whatsoever - I'd been following the production for a while prior to airing and was looking forward to it and, well, to say I was sorely disappointed would be an understatement.

To be fair to the scriptwriter of this adap: I don't like Andrew Davies; he, too, takes far too many liberties with adaptations, and is a cocky git with his head up his arse, but he has more than 90 mins to work with. ITV haven't done the makers of this adap any favours and as a result they have vomited out the worst tv production in a while. Gutted.

reply


I'm wondering why people are saying this was two hours. The length on IMDB is listed as 93 minutes (I don't know if that's accurate). And on PBS, which of course cuts out a great deal, it ran about 83 minutes.
.

reply

I have to agree with James because this adaptation has its good points and its bad points, and also agree with Angel because it does run on and seems longer than it goes, and agree with whoever says that it could use some good comic relief, but Derek is great in it even though we need to see him lifted up a lot more than his character is because he really has a long string of bad days there, and we all know how that goes, but please send something good his way, and our way, for that matter, and for whoever has to last 83 minutes with this downtrodden program because yes, it does contain Derek and some other nice looking gents, but still we need something good to happen here.

reply