Does anyone have any insights about the scene in which Amy and Arthur meet right after Amy's father has died and she has returned to England? Why is she so angry at Arthur? Why does she tell him she doesn't want to see him? If she hadn't been so unfriendly, might not this have been the chance for them to be finally united?
shareI've thought about this scene as well. I think Amy was exhausted from what had happened in her life up to that point. She wanted very badly to be with Arthur, but he kept saying "aren't we still friends?" and she wanted more. It seemed she was frustrated with everything that had happened since they got their inheritence, and then seeing Arthur just caused her heartache.
Does that make sense?
It's another Davies moment. Amy is Angry with Arthur because Arthur cannot see Amy as anything other than Little Dorrit. All that subtlety in the book flung away for an emo moment cellotaped together by the 'king' of BBC adaptations.
shareOr maybe a simpler explanation -- if they talked it out, the story would be over at that point. Just like if Arthur's father had told him the whole story before he died, there wouldn't be a book/movie.
It's a pretty common dramatic device to have the story driven by miscommunication or lack of communication between characters.
[deleted]
It was Arthur who helped finding out the wealth and position of Dorrit. Somehow she now wanted to be back in the old situation, rather than where she was now. Poor, in Debtor's Prison, and happy.
She says so in so many words.
Thus she *almost* wished he'd never visited them.
Because Little Dorrit rarely shows her negative emotions, her nagging at him was a way to show discontent with her life. I think that this scene is for the purpose of making the audience more aware of how Amy was feeling at that stage.
That was not in the book, so it is always a bit out of character in this adaptation when Amy is telling someone off. I suppose Davies wanted to make her more rebellious, but the whole point of her character is that she is not, she is serene and slow-tempered. I kind of wish this scene wasn't thrown in, because I like the idea of her reappearing in England as her former self, in the Marshalsea, as though all that time had no effect on her steady character.
If you're a US viewer who watched Little Dorrit on PBS' Masterpiece Classic, you might recall Laura Linney's commentary before each broadcast. Some of her comments included discussion about how the character of Amy is loosely based on Dickens' sister-in-law, Georgina Hogarth, the petite, youngest sister of his wife, Catherine.
Linney discussed how Dickens became disenchanted with his marriage and his wife because of their ten children (thus she was the blame for his financial problems and the demands on his time-- poor him! His life wasn't perfect!).
After having so many children, Catherine Dickens had grown fat (Flora Finching references). Dickens admired Georgina for her petite frame; she had come into their home (as had her elder sister, Mary, before her) to assist Catherine in keeping house and caring for the children.
http://www.charles-dickens.ws/dickens_marriedlife.asp
http://www.perryweb.com/Dickens/life_marry.shtml
As Dickens became more and more unhappy with his wife, he became more convinced that Georgina was the perfect mother/caregiver figure, rather like Conventry Patmore's "Angel in the House."
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/angel.html
I recall watching some clips on PBS's website of Davies speaking about his script for Little Dorrit. He mentioned that he did want to make Amy less docile, and stick up for herself (unlike the character in Dickens' novel).
but the whole point of her character is that she is not, she is serene and slow-tempered. I kind of wish this scene wasn't thrown in, because I like the idea of her reappearing in England as her former self, in the Marshalsea, as though all that time had no effect on her steady character.
I can see why you feel that way; I usually prefer script writers to stick with the facts in the novel, too. I think Davies' point, though, is that people aren't really that perfect. I guess he thought Amy would be more realistic like this.
Davies intentionally changed some of the character aspects of Little Dorrit for his screenplay. Davies thought that Dickens' attitude toward younger woman was a "bit creepy". Dickens had a very young mistress who replaced Catherine in the latter part of his life. Davies did not follow the novel strictly along the storyline provided by Dickens. In the novel, Amy doesn't see Arthur in London on her return until he has been locked up in the Marshalsea. When she goes to his room, she wears the same old dress just as he saw her before she left for Italy. Arthur's first comment when he saw her in his jail room was that she came to him dressed the same way. You also have to be aware that the novel and both movie versions (1988 and 2008) all end the story differently with regards to Arthur's knowledge about the will and release from prison. The confrontation scene between Amy and Arthur was inserted just to make Amy a bit more independent and less docile and meek. Screenwriters can modify the plot to provide their own vision of the story. In order to be a strict rendition of the novel, the screenwriter would have absolutely no say in how the movie was shot or what lines to to put down for the script. You almost need to have the original author do the screenplay for a perfect movie version of the novel.
People have different opinions and ways to shoot a particular scene or develop a storyline. Arthur Davies was probably scripting the plot to target an audience that was not familiar with the novel. He made some changes to make it more "attractive" to a modern audience. Most people who make movies don't expect the viewers to read the original novel and then make comparisons. And even if they did (as in my case), I didn't expect the miniseries to cover every scene or follow the storyline exactly as the novel.
I had a college English class assignment to compare the movie "Jaws" with the Peter Benchley novel. The movie at the theaters really "butchered" the storyline of the novel. The shark was just about the only thing in common between them. Just a thought.