Before someone says "read it and find out yourself" I do not have the time, or the interest. I would just like a summaraization. For example, someone said Arthur never proposed to Pet. Why not? What was that scene like in the book?
What was changed the most about characters, in dialogue and in personality or attention given to them?
What were some events that were changed, added, or you think are unduly missing?
this is when I really hate the imdb's trimming team - I can't find my posts on the Pet-Arthur relationship!! All that typing for nothing!
*Arthur is 40, world weary, weather-beaten and suntanned from his years in China; imagine the surprise when Matthew Macfadyen was cast (he did well with what he had) - you might say, 'but hold on, does it make a difference?' -- Well, yes it does because:
* Arthur feels he is too old for love
* He thinks Pet truly loves Henry Gowan
* Pet's looking for any sort of interference from a seemingly passive Arthur in her equally seemingly inevitable wedding to Henry; she's looking for a word, a glance, any action or gesture - a sign for hope to flourish and bloom out of the quagmire of hopelessness
* Arthur relinquishes his love for Pet as a sort of sacrifice (that rose in the water passage left out! )
* Arthur does NOT propose to Pet, because of the reasons above
the reason he is blind to love, is due to his belief that he has not the capacity or gift of youth to return love. He is tired and lost.
So, as a result:
* it boggles the mind how Andrew Davies puts a little of the emo (perhaps the apotheosis of this would be her constant pining over Arthur's button! ) into Amy and spunks her up for a modern audience, who now think her actions to border on the bitchy and representative of 'that marble headed monster': Ingratitude (thank you W. Shakespeare!)
it confuses the viewer because we do not understand how such a youthful looking and sprightly Arthur with a sparkle in his voice can ever be tired of love and life. It also hinders our believing for a moment that Arthur cannot see Amy's gaze or love towards him.
a bit more:
* Pet is spoilt, but not a frolicking idiot as portrayed in the first half of this adap - this is not a slight on the talented actress playing her, as she improved greatly during the second half, when we see much more of Dickens' intention with her
* Tattycoram is not black and is not a *beep* character, she serves as a counterbalance to other women in the book, most notably Amy; both girls' sense of duty is compared and contrasted.
* Miss Wade is young, ice-cool and beautiful - one of Dickens' finest women; she has one of the most touching, if unreliable, back stories in literature, and again she's not a *beep* character as portrayed in this adap
there's loads more (I'm sure many much more familiar with the novel can elucidate), but I don't mind trivial changes, like Pancks' appearance, because that doesn't change the dynamic and flow of the narrative and characters' motivations and actions.
As a result this adap is only decent and has mucked up the chance to capture a definitive as possible version of the classic novel. The Edzard version lacks a lot of material from the book, but it has considerably less time to work with, and at least it stands up as independent from the novel - it flows much better.
Finally, my apologies if this post is in any way incoherent - I've just come in and it is very late!
Hi Yegorushka, thanks a lot for the info, very interesting. I have to admit, although this movie sounds like Andrew Davies took some large liberties in the changes, I liked it a lot. I'm curious though, if you dislike him so much, why do you bother watching his adaptations?
sharehi rosetherese, what I've typed makes it seem as if I hated this production - I didn't, it was a decent adap, but only that; I am sorely disappointed because of what could've been. I believe it is my right, not only as a Dickens' fan, but as a licence-payer to voice my grievances (constructively) if need be - I won't be silenced.
I always give an adaptation the benefit of the doubt and a chance -
I did like certain parts of this adap, mostly the second half, post-Marshalsea. This is what I enjoyed from the adap (thankfully saved from my review wot imdb cut):
*The cast! (excluding Tatty and Miss Wade - God, it pains me to write that!) What a showing from Tom Courtenay (stand out performance), James Fleet, Claire Foy, Judy Parfitt, Eddie Marsan et al.
And say what I will about the additions, they were all (again, excluding Tatty and Miss Wade) brought to life well by the actors. Well done to all!
*The music - beautiful! John Lunn's done it again! The BBC have to release an album! The intro and recurring score reminds me so much of the wonderful Summer 78 by Yann Tiersen from the equally wonderful Goodbye Lenin!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrI2ttkM-U&feature=related
*Cinematography - the grim and grey squalor of London (even though it was so unnaturally clean) contrasting so heavily, and to great effect, with the splendour, and beauty of Venice. What a Grand Tour we were given! Canaletto would've been proud!
*Costumes - again, a study of contrast!
*The second half of this production was very strong and it did flow much better that the stuttering first. The last 15-20 minutes felt rushed and aside from a few horrific Andrew Davies additions that made me cringe, this half was very good.
6.5/10
The differences between the novel and the 1988 and 2008 movie versions are too numerous to list. All three end on a different note in regards to Arthur's past at the conclusion of the storyline. The novel has many scenes that were either reworded, changed, or even had different characters in certain scenes shown in the two movie versions. The person who bails out Arthur from prison at the end of the story is not the same between the novel and the two movie versions. The 1988 movie left out quite a few characters (such as Rigaud and Tattycoram). The 2008 movie also left out a few minor characters (such as Mrs. Chivery and John Nandy). I viewed the 2008 miniseries before reading the book so that I would not keep yelling out during the show with the words, "hey that wasn't in the novel!".
The differences between the novel and two movie versions would fill up several pages. But the central core plot between all three are technically the same. A man, Gilbert Clennam decides to leave some money after he dies to a poor young child, Amy Dorrit. This legacy is suppressed by the wife of his descendant who is embittered at her husband's adultery. The wife's actual stepson starts to snoop around trying to find answers to his past and in the process upsets his stepmother's secret and changes the destiny of the Dorrit family.
Thanks for responding. Although not too detailed, it was nice to read a review that isn't so biased.
Based on the 2008 mini series, it seems as though Rigaud is a key character - how could that not be in the 1988 version?
I'm going on a perfectly innocent ride with my kids, whom I love. Is that clock correct?
I tried not to say "which version was best", whether it was the novel or one of the movie versions. Each has its merits and bad points. I didn't want to provide a detailed response because the differences between the novel and two movie versions are quite extensive. The problem is that the total number of characters is not the same between the three versions. Scenes were changed from the novel (such as time of day, place, people in a scene). The 1988 movie decided to ignore Rigaud, Miss Wade, Tattycoram so Flintwinch became the main villain. And this version began the story with Arthur sitting in a restaurant eating and talking to another customer about his overseas travel and completely skipped any reference to Marseilles. At the end, the house collapses partially and only kills Flintwinch (Mrs. Clennam does not die). Amy is the one who bails out Arthur at the end of this movie version. The novel leaves Arthur's knowledge of the will unfulfilled. Amy is told by Mrs. Clennam not to let him know about the will until after she dies (she does not die immediately after the house collapse). The novel doesn't say who bails Arthur out of jail other than he gets out.
The beginning of the story is completely different between the three. The novel begins in a jail cell in Marseilles. The 1988 movie version in a restaurant in London with Arthur. The 2008 version begins with the birth of Amy Dorrit and her morning departure from the jail 21 years later. They all do end with the marriage scene (which is one common scene between all three).
So in your *personal* opinion, which movie version did you like best? (I'm sure the book is always best).
I'm going on a perfectly innocent ride with my kids, whom I love. Is that clock correct?
For a subjective answer to your question, I liked the 2008 version best because of several points. Even though the Amy character was better depicted in the 1988 movie version, the other aspects of the 2008 version were, in my opinion, better overall. I saw the 1988 movie as an afterthought after seeing the 2008 version and reading the novel. The one thing that the novel has that cannot be shown properly in any movie version is the inner thoughts of each character. The novel's description is very extensive and would require a third person narrator in a movie to even attempt to satisfy that aspect. Many of the descriptions of the sites in Italy and how it impacted Amy cannot be shown in a movie. The letters written by Amy to Arthur were not adequately represented in either movie version.
My view of the 1988 movie is that it left out many characters from the novel (the screenwriter was probably trying to condense the storyline into 6 hours of film), so characters like Rigaud, Miss Wade, Tattycoram went to the chopping block. The character representation of Amy was more closer to the novel (a rather timid and withdrawn little woman). The actress playing Pet Meagles was very attractive and you could see someone easily falling for her. The prison set did not for me look like a prison at all. It appeared as if you were entering an apartment building. I did not like the music of this movie. It used musical pieces composed by Verdi. This movie had a habit of increasing the volume of the music just when a "climactic" scene came about. I felt it was a bit annoying. The ending of this movie version was a bit too abrupt without a proper conclusion to what happened to the other characters than Amy and Arthur. The two actors playing Amy and Arthur were very much apart in terms of age. Quite like a May/December romance. Personally, had I seen this movie first back in 1988, I would have just probably ignored any later versions of this novel. Some people were enthralled by this movie. I was not.
I liked the 2008 version because of several points. It focused the story at Amy Dorrit from beginning to end. I liked the way that different emotions were blended into the presentation. The musical pieces were nicely matched to the action on the movie. I felt a more direct connection to the main characters in this movie version unlike the earlier version. The earlier version had more extensive set designs, but I don't place that aspect higher than the impact of the characters' portrayal. The portrayal of certain characters in the earlier movie version were not to my liking. Tip Dorrit really looked like a unkept slimy character. John Chivery looked like a stalker. When William Dorrit (Alec Guiness) was told about his new fortune, he took the news as if he was reading a newspaper. Utterly lacking in emotion in some scenes. And the scene when Amy goes to the jail to visit Arthur. He is taking a nap and she enters his room. He slowly wakes up and just tells her that he is ruined. She gazes at him and kisses him and tells him that she loves him. She then goes to Mrs. Clennam to ask for help to bail him out. Flintwinch tells Mrs. Clennam not to give Amy any money. He then goes downstairs for the will and then Mrs. Clennam suddenly gets out of her wheelchair and follows Amy downstairs. The house collapses only on him and Mrs. Clennam gives Amy the money and the information about her legacy. Amy goes to the jail, pays off Arthur's debts, and they go to get married. End of story. The 2008 version had a better ending (even though it did seem rushed).
Now THAT'S more detailed . Thanks for writing that up, it was very interesting. The older version does sound a bit weird, but I had no desire really to see it in the first place. I read a quick excerpt of Little Dorrit, a letter which Amy was writing to Arthur. It was very LONG and minutely detailed (though I didn't read the whole thing). So I can understand why they cut a bit of the letters out, although it may have been nice to have some more letters in the movie.
I'm going on a perfectly innocent ride with my kids, whom I love. Is that clock correct?
This is only my opinion, but I felt that any movie could not convey the inner feelings of Amy in any movie version of depicting the letter's message. I felt that they neglected that aspect of how Amy was feeling while in Italy. The novel also has many rather long winded descriptions of certain scenes and would take up too much of any movie's production costs. The 1988 movie version was shown in theaters, so the casting director had to sign up well known actors/actresses to the movie cast. Since the 2008 movie version was a BBC/WGBH TV production, they could gamble on selecting a relative unknown for the central character of the movie.
The core plot involving the suppression of the will and Arthur's snooping around is the same between the novel and all of the movie versions. However, they all three diverge in the total number of characters, character representation, selection of scenes, beginning of the story, ending of the story (not referring to the marriage), and everything else in between. A lot has to do with how much money and time can be expended for a movie. When you have to look at the pocketbook, you end up being forced to cut out scenes and characters. And of course, each screenwriter has his/her own focus on how to convey the story which can sometimes differ from the original author.
As for skipping the 1988 movie version, there are some viewers who say to forget the 2008 version and to see the 1988 version instead. So, there are differing opinions on the movies. Who knows, maybe you might like that version better since there is no Miss Wade (and any lesbian allusions)? There was one scene that sort of "shocked" me near the end of the 1988 movie. Amy is in her room putting on her clothes before she goes to the prison to see Arthur. I thought to myself, why are they showing a woman dressing herself? Is this a pre-Victorian tease of some kind? No one is shown in their undergarments in the 2008 version (other than bedroom related scenes).
Yes, sometimes I think showing women in their undergarments in these period movies is just a way to sneak in some skin, although the director may say it's to show a scene without the characters being under their "frills" and more open.
I'm going on a perfectly innocent ride with my kids, whom I love. Is that clock correct?
I think the hidden message behind the Amy putting on her clothes scene was to show that she was now a "grown woman" who decided to go after Arthur in the prison to profess her love for him. When she was in Italy, she kept thinking about Arthur (especially when she was writing a letter to him). In one scene in the 1988 movie, she is shown starting to write a letter and then keeps repeating, Dear Mr. Clennam. Dear Mr. Clennam, Dear Mr. Clennam... So at the point before she went to the jail to see him, she was now no longer the reserved, timid woman.
share