MovieChat Forums > Little Dorrit (2009) Discussion > Comparison with 1988 version?

Comparison with 1988 version?


How does this one compare with the version starring Derek Jacobi and Alec Guinness?

reply

You are going to get a wide ranging difference of opinion about which version is better. Here are some comments posted on IMDB.COM about them.

"I received my copy of the Jacobi "Little Dorrit" the same week they began to show the new BBC mini-series here in Australia ... my verdict ... both are excellent ... the movie version leaves out huge chunks of plot, but the performances are wonderful, as is the "look" ... the BBC version is much more complete, also with very fine acting. It is hard to choose between Alec Guinness and Tom Courtenay in the role of Mr Dorrit ... they are both brilliant."

Some comments on the 1988 movie version.

"If I hadn't recently read the book, I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on simply because it was impossible to understand or even hear what was being said much of the time. This is because of poorly recorded whispering, mumbling, and babbling, further complicated by loud background noise that renders dialogue inaudible in many scenes. In addition, Arthur of the novel is not nearly such a meek sad sack as Jacobi makes him. Then there's the omission of several prominent characters (one extremely important), which results in jarring alterations to the plot. Blah!"

"I agree that this version is a disappointment. LD is one of my favorite novels, but this adaptation is simply dreadful."

You can read up on the many reviews posted on the two versions on AMAZON.COM.

I've seen both versions and read the novel. The beginning and ending between the two versions don't come out the same (and both don't match the novel either). The portrayal of Little Dorrit is more closer to the novel in the 1988 movie. My biggest gripe against the movie is the first person point of view used to depict the movie. I found this leaving me with a lot of unanswered questions with events that went on outside of the first person's point of view. The 2008 miniseries followed the omniscient (third person) point of view like the novel. The 1988 movie shortened the plot by removing several characters from the screenplay. I also found the movie's Verdi background music a little annoying. As for the William Dorrit character, I thought both Alec and Tom gave good performances. As for the Arthur Clennam role, Derek looked a bit too old for Little Dorrit while Matthew may have come across a bit too young. The John Chivery portrayal is very different between the two versions - the movie has him very timid with no personality unlike the miniseries. The list of comparisons between the two would take up a lot of pages.

reply

Little Dorrit is one of the least familiar Dickens novels to me. One of the two I have never read. I just saw the 1988 version and look forward to see the newer version soon.

THE most apt critical point of what you posted, to me, was the overwhelming background noises that drowned the conversations. It was bad enough that with my lack of familiarity with the story, the sheer number of characters to keep track of, and their heavy accents I had to struggle for at least the first 2+ hours to keep up. The annoying background noises made that almost an impossible task. I almost threw my hands up and gave up. But since I love Alec Guinness and Derek Jacobi I stayed with it. I'm glad I did because for me things came into focus mostly in the second half. The pleasant surprise for me was the subdued acting of the mousy innocent looking actress who played Amy. I fell in love with her character's innocence. When finally she got her chance to say the magic "I love you" it was done with brilliant matter-of-factness. Any other way would have been cheesy.

I just hope the newer version will not disappoint me. I hope the sound work is better and the actress in the role of Amy comes close to the standard set by the first one. The former I expect. The latter, I'm fear, will be very difficult.

Please tell me I will be pleasantly surprised ON BOTH COUNTS.

reply

Little Dorrit is not one of Dickens' better known novels because of several reasons. Its length (over 800 pages) being a major one. I had thought that the story involved a circus based character (after having read Hard Times). The story when it first published was more popular than his previous works.

The 1988 movie has some of the portrayals a bit more closer to the novel than the TV miniseries. The decrepit atmosphere of the prison room was emphasized a bit better too (with the flies in the lamp scene). The music, for me, was a bit jarring and sometimes did not fit the scene. The first person point of view also was a negative for me because the camera stayed on only two characters all of the time for the two parts of the movie leaving out many events and scenes without the two.

I have to warn you that the representation of Amy in the miniseries is more "modernized" and does not resemble the one in the movie. The audio is very clear in the TV miniseries and the music was nominated in the 2009 Emmy awards (but did not win). You will probably not be pleased with how the timid character is portrayed in the miniseries, but the screenwriter wanted to alter some of the ways of the characters and plot to suit the more modern audience. The miniseries has a better plot alignment with the novel (with Miss Wade, Tattycoram, Mrs. General, Rigaud, and Cavalletto characters). So if you do read the novel, the miniseries is closer to it than the movie. But, both versions do not exactly match the novel if that is important to you (for example, the final scene involving Mrs. Clennam does match between either the novel, movie, nor miniseries).

reply

Thank you CCsito for taking the time to answer my question in detail. It sounds like the new version is not to be missed. I AM a bit of a fan of Matthew Macfadyen anyway. My only little disappointment is what you said about the characterization of Amy and how she's meant to appeal to the "modern" audience.

Thanks again.

reply

You are welcome ffattahi. Matthew Macfadyen was selected for the Arthur Clennam role very early in the casting. The role of Amy went to a newcomer who was surprised that she got the role. The screenwriter did change the personality of Amy in the TV miniseries because he felt that the way that she was depicted in the novel was a bit too timid and weak. If you read the novel, Amy never asserts herself during the entire story. She sort of comes across like someone who has very low self esteem. The movie also depicted Amy in this manner. The miniseries has several scenes with Amy that some viewers did object to when she showed a more assertive attitude in them. In the novel, she keeps deferring to others (except for the prostitute scene) while in the TV miniseries, there are several scenes where she gets annoyed and nearly "blows her top". So you may along with the other viewers might protest when you see the scenes. The TV miniseries is shown in the third person point of view unlike the movie. The first person point of view presented major plot continuity issues for me as I saw the movie especially without reading the book.

reply

Maybe if I had seen the miniseries first that would be my preferred Amy. But my wife and I really felt that Amy of the movie was magical in her outward timidness and inner strength. That contrast worked very well in our opinion. It seems today's audience needs to be visibly shown that she is actually a strong girl. It was great that in the older movie that analysis/discovery was left up to the viewers rather than spoon fed to us.

reply

In the novel, while Amy does not "sound off" to anyone, you do have the indication that she is just keeping her feelings all to herself. The Amy character to Dickens may have been his "ideal woman" of sorts. Women of the 19th century were less of the assertive type unlike later times. Showing Amy totally meek might have the viewers thinking they were watching a girl from the third world (such like a second class citizen figure). I think with modern drama presentations, acting without outward emotions or speech by a character might leave the viewer wondering what the character really was feeling. You could add a third person narrator to provide the "hidden feelings" in a scene, but I think that would detract a lot on the program.

One character that is missing from the movie and miniseries is Bob, the resident turnkey of the prison and Amy's godfather. In the novel, the Chiverys are non-resident turnkeys.

reply

Thanks. Good post.

reply

One character that is missing from the movie and miniseries is Bob, the resident turnkey of the prison and Amy's godfather. In the novel, the Chiverys are non-resident turnkeys.


No, Bob does feature in Part 2 of the film when Amy is a young child. She later refers to his having died, and Chivery senior takes over as head turnkey. Also, in Mr Dorrit's speech at the dinner party. he begins by calling to Amy "Will you see if Bob is on the lock?"

I dearly love the film even though some major characters are left out. Many scenes look just like Victorian photographs come to life. However, the TV version is set in the correct period, the 1820s, and makes a better effort at reproducing the grotesque appearance of both Maggy and Mr F's Aunt as described in the book.

reply

[deleted]