MovieChat Forums > Little Dorrit (2009) Discussion > Arthur *was* a Clennam, Amy *was* a Dorr...

Arthur was a Clennam, Amy was a Dorrit?

posted 15 years ago by daviesuk
24 replies | jump to latest

As far as I can ascertain, on first viewing, Arthur was a Clennam, because he was the illegitimate child of Mr Clennam and a dancer, whom Mrs Clennam brought up as her own child.

Amy Dorrit wasn't related to any of the Clennams, but she was born in the Marshalsea on the day that Arthur's real mother died in poverty. Grandpa Clennam, having discovered all this, was outraged at the treatment of Arthur's real mum, and left a legacy to a child born in poverty in the Marshalsea. Amy Dorrit was that child.

Mrs Clennam saw to it that Amy didn't benefit from the legacy because that would have meant everyone knowing about her husband's (and by extension her) shame.

Have I got this right?

[–] claire_louise25 15 years ago

I think you have it, unlike me who thought Arthur was a random orphan while Any was mr Clenams illegitimate child! I was confused! lol - All this is explained on the thread "Little dorrit as ended" Helped clarify it all for me :)

[–] brisc 15 years ago

I reread the last part of the book because the "confession" was incredibly confusing.

Here's what I found: Before his uncle Gilbert Clennam had bullied him into marrying Mrs. Clennam, Arthur's father had met and had fallen in love with a young singer at Mr. Frederick Dorrit's school of music and had fathered a child with her. To punish the singer as well as her husband, Mrs. Clennam took the child Arthur and raised him in fear and trembling. Mr. Clennam moved to China to be as far away from his wife as possible and the singer died miserably of a broken heart.

However, on his death bed, Uncle Gilbert Clennam repented for having treated his nephew and the singer so terribly and left the singer a 1000 guineas. He also left a 1000 guineas to the youngest daughter of her patron, Mr. Frederick Dorrit and if he didn't have a daughter, the money would go to his brother's youngest daughter i.e. Amy Dorrit. Gilbert had dictated this addition to the will to Mrs. Clennam and she repressed it all those years.

Pffff, talk about twists and turns!

Despite the weak script in this instance, Judy Parfit was marvellous to behold. What an incredibly talented lady!!

[–] xxtaratinkaxx 15 years ago

Ah thank you, that clears things up a great deal!

I thought Arthur was a random orphan child and Amy was a Clennam, then the second time I watched I thought they were brother and sister, so I'm relieved to understand it at last!

We want the finest wines available to humanity, and we want them here, and we want them now.

[–] bjkloosterboer 15 years ago

Well thank you all. We were watching this on bbciplayer and the sound was terrible. We all thought that Amy was the daughter of Mr Clennam and Arthur's real mother i,e, that Amy and Arthur were brother and sister. So we couldn't understand how they got married! So glad you cleared that up and glad that someone had the book to read!

[–] brisc 15 years ago

I'm glad I could be of help :) Like I said, the confession was ever so confusing. The people involved ought to have taken a second look at it, for it just didn't make any sense. The script really somehow managed to imply that Amy and Arthur were brother and sister. That would have been an interesting twist perhaps, but not something Dickens would have approved of. ;)

[–] minifie-1 15 years ago

I gathered all that but wondered what Tattycoram took from Miss Wade and gave to Arthur that also helped solve the mystery. ( A total psychic, that girl, since noone was seen to tell her that Arthur was in prison. Probably a throwback to her days with Doug Who.)

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lenheath1 15 years ago

All very helpful, but was Tattycoram also illegitimate and, if so, who were her parents?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] k.m.bunting 9 years ago

Tattycoram came from the Foundling Hospital, a famous London charity caring for abandoned babies, so her parents were unknown. (The Thomas Coram Foundation still exists as a children's charity but is no longer residential.)

[–] sad_antoine 15 years ago

I assumed Tattycoram gave the box to Mr Meagles, who had probably heard about Arthur's incarceration. She was heading towards the Meagles' house with the box.

Why Miss Wade had the box in the first place is also a little confusing, obviously Rigaud left it with her just before his disappearance. I never picked up how Rigaud and Miss Wade knew each other at all.

So the trajectory of the box is:
Mrs Clennam -> Flintwinch -> Flintwinch's brother -> Rigaud -> Miss Wade -> Tattycoram -> Arthur Clennam (possibly via Mr Meagles).

[–] grooveyem 15 years ago

From what I gathered Miss Wade was in love with Pet's husband (can't remember his name) years ago and he broke her heart, so she hired Rigaud to keep an eye on Pet's husband and find out if he treated Pet as badly as he had treated her, that's how they knew each other.

Not entirely sure how they met in the first place, I suppose I just assume that he happened to be someone willing to do her dodgey work and if it hadn't been him, she would have found someone else to do it.

[–] Crazy-_-Beautiful 15 years ago

^ Henry Gowan

And that's what I gathered too. I think Miss Wade explains it to Arthur in one of the later episodes (maybe the last one, even)

Fry doesn't have beer goggles. He has Madeira Pince-nez

[–] claire_louise25 15 years ago

I'm so glad that I wasn't the only one baffled by the confession scenes! I really thought Amy was a Clennam and Arthur was a random orphan or a Dorrit or something along those twisted lines! lol

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

A brief word about the Wade character - the novel very lightly implies some concern about possible lesbianism in her relation with Tatty, but it much more strongly makes quite clear that while she identified with Tatty she was also an ex-lover of Gowan who, of course, insinuates himself into the Meagles family and the love of Pet, the daughter. Wade in effect had mixed motives, but lesbianism hardly was involved in Gowan breaking her heart.

On the OP's question, the first response fits with my understanding. I have not yet seen how this adaptation handles the explanation, but clearly Arthur and Amy are not related. The nature of the relationship between the families is in the legacy to Dorrit's younger daughter by Arthur's uncle which Mrs. Clennam tries so hard to keep from coming to light.

In this respect Arthur's literal involvement in attempting to find out more about the Dorrits brings with it a corresponding search for the history and meaning of his own life.

[–] amimegan 14 years ago

~whew!~ Yes, Thank You for this description! I loved the miniseries and just started the book but that bit always confused me. Now I don't have to wade through 700 pages to figure it out - I already know and can just enjoy the story.

[–] theoraclestar 14 years ago

Thank you for the clarification. A pal loaned me her copy, and I watched this scene twice but couldn't make out what the confession meant. And, yes, upon the first viewing I, too, thought Amy and Arthur were half-brother and sister.

[–] atomicseasoning 15 years ago

Yes, that's exactly how I'd thought it was too! That Amy was Clennam's illigitimate daughter and Arthur was another orphan. iI'm just glad Amy & Arthur weren't half-siblings, or first cousins like the recent adaptation of Wuthering Heights where Tom Hardy's "Heathcliff" forced a marriage between his true love Cathy's daughter Catherine and his own son, who was Catherine's first cousin since Cathy & Heathcliff had married a brother/sister pair of siblings to spite each other 19-21 yrs before.

Then after Heathcliff's son died (the lad was too ill to ever connsumate his marriage), Catherine got with her other first cousin Hareton, her late mother's late brother's son!?!

Fanny Dorrit looks like a 1800s cabaret girl, but thats Edmund Sparkler's type of girl, apparently.

[–] JamesPeach 15 years ago

Wuthering Heights is a little tricky to compare because Emily Bronte's world was a lot more contained and isolated than Dickens' London, plus they were a lot more mental 'oop north'!

[–] KAnnD86 15 years ago

Also glad they weren't related. Although, in Wuthering Heights, it wasn't weird at all for cousins to marry during that time period. Today it's quite icky though.

After seeing the Masterpiece Classic of Wuthering Heights, I read the book, but I didn't really enjoy it. Would anyone recommend reading Little Dorrit? I liked the miniseries a lot, but I'm not sure I'd love the novel.

Tomorrow's just your future yesterday!

[–] kenny-164 15 years ago

Little Dorrit is one of my top five novels ever. But it depends what you like. I am also a fan of Hardy, Conrad, Trollope, Dostoevsky, Hawthorne, Poe and for a more recent author Updike.

LD the novel is really Dickens at what I consider his best. There is less of those characters who are deep black or bright shades of white, with more balance and real life natures to them. The word in short to describe his approach is more mature. His biting social commentary might seem particular to the time and place, but quite interestingly proves to be quite relevant today. I highly recommend reading the book.

[–] writerchick89 8 years ago

LD the novel is really Dickens at what I consider his best. There is less of those characters who are deep black or bright shades of white, with more balance and real life natures to them.

I think you could say the same about Bleak House. I haven't read the book yet, but I love the mini-series with Gillian Anderson. I've read only a few Dickens novels in my life (A Tale of Two Cities, David Copperfield, and A Christmas Carol) but have gotten to where I want to read more, thanks to some of the adaptions I've seen, including Bleak House and Great Expectations.

Fiction is a lie, and good fiction is the truth inside the lie.--Stephen King

[–] writerchick89 8 years ago

Claire-Louise25, that's exactly what I thought, and I was SO confused at the end! I thought that Amy was the child born to Mr. Clennan because that's how it sounded when she told the story, and I was thinking, wait, how did she end up with the Dorrits, then? And she said Arthur was an orphan that she stole from someone. And I thought, ok, why? Why him? And when, because as he says later in the series, he's "twice Amy's age". So apparently I'm wrong, but I was really confused & came here looking for answers because I haven't read the book.

Fiction is a lie, and good fiction is the truth inside the lie.--Stephen King

[–] CCsito 8 years ago

There were many viewers confused at the ending. Penguin Classics 2003 book version of "Little Dorrit" includes an Appendix supplement that provides the summary of events prior to the beginning of the novel, so you know the relationship of Amy and Arthur to the other characters of the story. Dickens never provided the name of Amy's and Arthur's birth mothers (and Arthur's father), so that added to the viewer's confusion.

I purchased a copy of the first edition from the 1850s from someone in England. Nicely bound leather edition that they do not make like that anymore.

Arthur *was* a Clennam, Amy *was* a Dorrit?

Arthur was a Clennam, Amy was a Dorrit?