James Hitchcock
"Oliver Twist" is the second of David Lean's two film adaptations of Charles Dickens novels, following "Great Expectations" from two years earlier. As in the earlier film, Lean keeps fairly closely to Dickens' plot, although there are some simplifications- the Rose Maylie sub-plot is omitted- and a few changes, such as making Mr. Brownlow Oliver's grandfather. Lean does, however, keep the character of Monks, omitted in some adaptations such as the 1968 musical version "Oliver!" and Polanski's recent film.The film has a couple of faults, but these are generally those of the novel itself. Oliver, as played by the young John Howard Davies, is just a bit too idealised to be true, but then so is Oliver as written by Dickens. I also thought it might have been more realistic if Oliver had spoken with a working-class Midlands accent- his home town is supposed to be around a hundred miles north of London- rather than a posh Home Counties one. (In later life, Davies was to become an influential BBC producer responsible for, among other things, "Monty Python's Flying Circus").More importantly, Dickens' blatant anti-Semitism makes "Oliver Twist" his most problematic novel for modern readers; indeed, it was problematic even for nineteenth-century readers, and towards the end of his life Dickens himself came to recognise that he had wronged the Jewish people in his portrait of Fagin. (He tried to make amends by creating the virtuous Jewish character of Riah in "Our Mutual Friend"). This is a difficult problem to overcome in stage, television or cinema adaptations of the story; when writing his musical Lionel Bart sidestepped it by making Fagin a lovable old rogue, which is certainly not how Dickens saw him.Lean, however, does not even seem to have realised that the problem exists, because in this version Fagin appears with a huge hooked nose. This was presumably done to make him resemble George Cruikshank's illustrations in the first edition of the novel, but in 1948, only three years after the end of the war, audiences might have been reminded not of Cruikshank but of the hateful anti-Semitic caricatures from "Der Stuermer". The British Board of Film Censors do not appear to have been troubled by this aspect of the film, but it aroused considerable controversy in America where the film was not released until 1951, and then only in an expurgated version. Bizarrely, the film was banned both in Israel, on the grounds of anti-Semitism, and in Egypt, on the grounds that Lean had made Fagin too sympathetic.And yet, despite this flaw, this is a superbly-made film. If it shares its faults with the novel, it also shares many of that work's great qualities, such as its characterisation. The acting is uniformly excellent. There are too many first-rate performances for me to single them all out, although I must mention Alec Guinness as Fagin, Francis L. Sullivan as the beadle Mr. Bumble, the young Anthony Newley (later to become, among other things, the second Mr Joan Collins) as the Artful Dodger and Robert Newton as Fagin's vicious partner-in-crime Bill Sikes. (Newton seemed to specialise in flamboyant villains; his best-known screen role was Long John Silver, whom he played several times).Lean is also able to reproduce in cinematic form another great Dickensian characteristic, the ability to blend various elements- humour, social concern and drama- into a seamless whole. Dickens' gift for satire means the humour and social concern are often combined, particularly in the scenes involving Bumble. His pomposity and his mangling of the English language make him, in both book and film, a superbly comic character, yet as we laugh at him we are always well aware that he is not just a figure of fun but also the callous and hypocritical representative of the hated Poor Law and the inhuman workhouse system which Dickens detested."Oliver Twist" contains some of Dickens' most dramatic scenes, which Lean transfers brilliantly to the screen. The two which particularly stood out were the opening scene, in which Oliver's mother makes her way through the storm to the workhouse where she will die in childbirth, and the closing one where Sikes tries desperately to escape across the rooftops with a captive Oliver.I have always regarded Lean's Dickens adaptations as his first two great films; some might make that claim for "Brief Encounter" from 1945, but in my view that film, despite some brilliant directorial touches, suffers from an indifferent script and some indifferent acting. With "Great Expectations", despite some unorthodox casting, everything- direction, script and acting- came together to produce a masterpiece, and in "Oliver Twist" Lean, if possible, excelled even the high standards he had set in the earlier film. But for the flaw I mentioned earlier, this would have been one of my few examples of a "perfect 10". These two films are the greatest Dickens adaptations I have seen and, together with the likes of the Laurence Olivier/Greer Garson "Pride and Prejudice" and Schlesinger's "Far from the Madding Crowd", among the greatest adaptations of any classic British novels. 9/10
TheLittleSongbird
David Lean is a brilliant director, directing classics such as Lawrence of Arabia, Brief Encounter and Great Expectations. Oliver Twist is superior to all of these expect fot Lawrence of Arabia of course. Not only that, but this is definitely the best adaptation of the Charles Dickens book. I haven't seen the version yet with George C. Scott as Fagin, and although the Roman Polanski version was good, it felt bloated. I have one question, why isn't this in the top 250? I have no problem with Great Expectations and Brief Encounter being there, but this so deserves to be in the top 250 also, and I will dedicate the rest of this review to explain why. First of all, it had gorgeous cinematography, the beginning reminding me very much so of Great Expectations, with the howling wind and everything. The music was gorgeous and suited the film to perfection. But it was the quality of the acting and direction that made this film, Lean directing with his usual artistic flair and temperament, that make all his films so compelling. The best aspect of the film was the outstanding performance of Alec Guinness. I couldn't believe he was only 34 when he did this, you could never tell. Now this was condemned on release as anti-semitic, but Dickens is to be blamed for that, not Guinness, because Ron Moody in the musical had exactly the same criticism. Also, dickens was anti-semitic, and every one of his books conveyed the reality of living in the Victorian Era. Guinness's portrayal of Fagin was closest to that of Fagin in the book, oily, manipulative and somewhat charming. Ben Kingsley disappointed me, but I had no problem with Ron Moody in the musical. Speaking of the book, in the chapter "Fatal Consequences", Dickens likened Fagin to a predatory animal, and you'd think me a bit of a wimp, but Dicken's description of Fagin in that chapter frightened me a lot. Also Fagin is more of a villain than Sikes, because he manipulates Sikes into killing Nancy, knowing the extreme nature of his violence. Sikes says something like "I'll push a waggon over his head" and Fagin ironically says "You would" and deliberately doesn't tell Sikes that Nancy betrayed him, until Sikes swears he'll kill his betrayer, and when he says that, he means it. Anyway back on target. Guinness was also surrounded by ham Robert Newton as a genuinely frightening Bill Sikes, Kay Walsh as a more sympathetic Nancy (Nancy's death was brutal enough to make you cover your eyes, it was so brutal and what makes it more sad is that she offers Bill a way out, and Sikes shields his hand so he doesn't see what's he's done)and newcomer John Howard Davies as Oliver, plus if there was an Oscar for animals the dog should've got one. All in all, a magnificent film, that is a 10/10 from me. Bethany Cox.
