Review: Hard Times (novel)

Some of Charles Dickens' novels are rightly regarded as masterpieces. Others are more obscure. This is one of his little-known works, and for good reason.

Hard Times is Charles Dickens' tenth novel, first published in 1854. It's the shortest novel he ever wrote, with a conspicuous lack of the many subplots and colourful characters he's known for. It's been adapted into a silent film, two miniseries, and at least one stage version.

In some ways the story is reminiscent of North and South. It's set in a grim manufacturing town, and features trade unions, mill owners, and the misery of people who work in the mills. But it's also a harsh criticism of the sort of schooling that relies entirely on facts, with disastrous consequences.

My opinion of the book is divided between loving some of it and being bored by the rest. Sissy is the only character I truly like. Louisa frequently infuriates me -- especially when she married Bounderby. She hated him and no one forced her to marry him, so why accept his proposal?! 😒 On the other hand, the scene where she confronts her father and calls him out for his terrible parenting is my favourite part of the book. All the other characters are either boring or despicable. Tom manages the extraordinary feat of being both.

For such a short novel, Hard Times is relentlessly depressing. Everyone suffers whether they deserve it or not. Even the ending is bittersweet at best. It's easy to see why this book is largely forgotten. I'd recommend it only for people who are already Dickens fans and/or don't mind books full of endless misery.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: A Christmas Carol (novel)

🎵We wish you a merry Christmas, we wish you a merry Christmas, we wish you a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.🎵 What better work to review today than this one?

A Christmas Carol is an 1843 novella by Charles Dickens. It's one of his best-known works and has been endlessly adapted into every sort of media imaginable.

Everyone knows the plot: cruel, miserly Ebeneezer Scrooge meets three ghosts at Christmastime and becomes a much better person. If you're like me you probably knew it long before you heard of Charles Dickens or even realised where the story came from. No matter where you look at Christmas you'll see yet another new version of it. And that's why it's my second-least-favourite Dickens work. (My least favourite is Oliver Twist, if you're wondering. But that's a review for another time.)

In many ways this novella is nothing like the rest of Dickens' work. It's so short that there are no subplots and surprisingly few characters. Instead of a main character who's honest and decent from the start, Scrooge starts out a complete jerk. And then there are the ghosts. For some reason Dickens' short stories often have ghosts, while his longer ones never do except in stories the characters tell.

But the main reason I dislike this story is its sheer ubiquity. Maybe "dislike" isn't the right word. I'm just tired of it. It's everywhere, even in places it has no business being and where you'd never expect to see it. (The Muppet Christmas Carol, anyone?) By the time I read the book I already knew the whole plot. Most disappointing of all, there were no really surprising twists in the book. The story everyone knows is more or less the book's story. I was left feeling like I'd wasted my time and hadn't read anything new for my trouble.

There's nothing wrong with this book. I would like it more if there was a break between adaptations and references to it. Please, filmmakers, seriesmakers, etc. Stop adapting the same story again and again. Something more original would be appreciated.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 4/10.

Review: The Signal-Man

Happy Halloween in advance! Today I'll review one of Charles Dickens' lesser-known short stories, which is very suitable for this time of year.

The Signal-Man is a short story by Charles Dickens, first published in 1866. It's been adapted into at least one film and several radio dramas. Andrew Lloyd Webber made two attempts to make it into a musical/opera. Neither was successful (possibly a good thing).

The story's about a signal-man who sees a ghostly figure before disasters on the railway. He tells the narrator about the times he sees it, and the tragedies that followed. It's a lot more frightening than that description makes it sound. The end is especially chilling 😨

Dickens is so well-known for his loooong novels that it's hard to believe he wrote short stories. Not only that, but a story with only one plot, no subplots, and amazingly few characters. This story is so unlike his usual works that it hardly seems like Dickens at all. Yet considering its genre, the shortness and lack of subplots work in its favour. From start to finish it's incredibly eerie. The ending is easy to see coming, but no less terrifying because of it.

If you want a ghost story to read on Halloween, try this one! It might not be one of Dickens' more famous stories, but it's certainly one of his eeriest.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg in a collection of other Dickens ghost stories.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: David Copperfield (novel)

Finally I finished this novel, so obviously it's time to review it 😄

While looking for a photo to put here I discovered possibly the most disturbing piece of cover art ever put on a classic novel: this. Apparently someone thought this is a horror novel about a headless ghost. If I wake up screaming tonight, I'll know what to blame.

David Copperfield is Charles Dickens' eighth novel, first published in 1850. It's the most autobiographical of his novels. Even while it was still being serialised it was adapted into several stage plays. Since then it's inspired at least four miniseries, two cartoons, seven films, and a number of audiobooks or radio dramas.

The already-reviewed 1999 miniseries sticks fairly close to the book, with only a few exceptions. (And a lot removed. Can't adapt the entire thing into only two episodes, after all!) This lead to the curious situation of comparing the book to the adaptation instead of the other way round 😄 

The main character, obviously, is David Copperfield. (It's very easy to forget that at times.) It doesn't have an immediately-identifiable plot; instead it's the story of David's life, starting with his birth and ending with him as a successful author. Along the way he meets many characters who are frankly more interesting than him, from his, ahem, eccentric Aunt Betsey Trotwood to the loathsome Uriah Heep.

For approximately the first half of the book David is definitely the main character; the story revolves around his evil stepfather, his awful school, and the turn for the better his life takes when he goes to his aunt for help. But then he becomes little more than a bystander as dozens of other characters take over the story. There were times when I thought the second half of the book should be renamed "The Micawbers, the Peggottys, and the Downfall of Uriah Heep, narrated by David Copperfield". Since this is a Dickens novel, all these other characters are so entertaining and distinctive that I don't mind them taking over the story. (Frankly they're much more interesting than David is!)

The main thing I disliked about the book is how utterly unmemorable David is. Everyone else has at least one instantly identifiable trait: Aunt Betsey hates donkeys, Mr. Micawber is obsessed with writing letters, Mrs. Gummidge is almost constantly complaining... Even Dora, imbecile though she is, has a distinct character. When I try to think about David, all that comes to mind is his terrible judge of character (as shown when he befriends Steerforth and marries Dora). David might as well be a plot device for all the impact he has on some subplots. When he proposes to Agnes I'm left wondering how such a sensible woman could ever like him enough to marry him.

Another thing I disliked was how the Murdstones get no comeuppance. They drive David's mother to her death, then Mr. Murdstone marries another woman and they start it all over again. When they're last mentioned, he's married yet another woman and is doing the exact same thing 😨 Steerforth dies, Uriah Heep goes to prison, but two of the vilest characters in the book are still at large and ruining lives. Why didn't Dickens kill them off?!

On the bright side, I love the rest of the characters (Aunt Betsey, Peggotty and Miss Mowcher especially) so much that I can overlook how dull David is 😄 This isn't my favourite Dickens book, but it's in the top five.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Our Mutual Friend (novel)

Just when you think no Charles Dickens novel could possibly be as complicated as Bleak House...

Our Mutual Friend is Charles Dickens' last completed novel, first published as a book in 1865. Even by Dickens' standards it's an incredibly grim, depressing book. It's been adapted into two silent films, three miniseries, and two radio dramas.

There are so many interconnected plots it's hard to tell which is the main one. Then there are subplots that aren't connected to one part of the story but are connected to another, and more characters than are in some entire series. One plot revolves around Lizzie Hexam, who goes into hiding to escape both of the men pursuing her. Another plot is about Mr. and Mrs. Boffin, who've just inherited a fortune after the death of John Harmon. Connected with this plot is Bella Wilfer, who's only interested in getting money, and who doesn't like John Rokesmith, the Boffins' secretary. Yet another plot, largely unconnected with any of the above, is about Lizzie's friends Jenny Wren and Mr. Riah, who get involved in the schemes of the loathsome Mr. Fledgeby. And that's not even mentioning Eugene Wrayburn, or Riderhood, or the Lammles, or Mr. Wegg and Mr. Venus...

Some books are so complicated you need to either read them quickly or keep a chart of who's who. (Or watch an adaptation first, so you have a general idea of the plot. Not the 1998 series, though; you'd better know at least the main plots to watch it.) I managed to read this book in less than two weeks, and even then I forgot things that had happened earlier. (How on earth did people cope when it was originally being serialised?)

Our Mutual Friend has some of Dickens' most biting satire. But after reading it twice I can't help feeling that he could have shortened the novel by at least fifty pages if he hadn't created whole characters and subplots for the purpose of satire. The Veneerings in general and the Parliament chapters in particular have little effect on the plot. The 1998 series cut them out almost entirely without losing much. Even their eventual downfall happens off-screen, after the book ends. Same goes for Fledgeby, though at least we see him get his comeuppance.

Mr. Boffin's apparent descent into miserliness isn't a bad plot in theory. Neither is the discovery he was acting. But in practice, it has so little foreshadowing that it left me blinking in confusion and wondering what just happened. (Not to mention the fact Mr. Boffin never struck me as the sort of character who could convincingly play a part for so long.) Bella's switch from a money-obsessed brat to a more admirable character is much better written.

On the bright side, Lizzie and Bella are two of my favourite Dickens heroines. Mr. Venus is one of my favourite minor characters ever, with his wonderfully morbid "art" and the black comedy it brings. (To paraphrase Pride and Prejudice: "Teeth in the teacup? Happy thought indeed." 😆) Eugene spends most of the book as a jerk, but he changes for the better towards the end. And John Rokesmith is one of those characters who I simultaneously want to hug and want to yell at them to just tell the truth already! Seriously, half the plots would have been resolved chapters earlier if he had admitted his identity and explained what really happened.

If you want to read this book you'd better be prepared for a loooooong, often confusing, and almost constantly depressing story. I enjoyed it in spite of that, but other people might not.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: The Old Curiosity Shop (novel)

Even great authors have their not-so-good books. Usually those books are their early works. This novel proves even Charles Dickens wasn't immune to that problem.

The Old Curiosity Shop was Charles Dickens' fourth novel, first published as a book in 1841. Although it's not one of his more popular books, it's been adapted into at least four films, an opera, a musical, and two radio dramas.

The story revolves around Nell Trent, a young girl who lives with her grandfather in the shop the book is named after. The two of them run away from Quilp, an evil moneylender who takes over their shop, and spend the rest of the book avoiding his attempts to catch them. Also involved in the plot are Kit, Nell's friend who becomes one of Quilp's targets; Dick Swiveller, the not-entirely willing accomplice of Nell's scheming brother; Sampson and Sally Brass, the vile lawyer and his equally vile sister who work for Quilp; the Marchioness, the Brasses' abused servant; and the mysterious single gentleman who lodges above the Brasses. And that's not even mentioning the hundreds of background characters who appear for only a few scenes but leave a lasting impression.

From a modern point of view Nell is a Mary Sue, an impossibly perfect character with no obvious flaws. She's always good, always kind, always trying to keep herself and her grandfather safe on their journey. If you're used to Victorian heroines you probably won't mind her, but if you're not you'll almost certainly dislike her and think her dull. As for her grandfather, the only things I remember clearly about him are his selfishness and his love of gambling.

Luckily there are many characters who are much more interesting than Nell and her grandfather. Some of them are good, like Kit and the Garlands. Some are more ambiguous but turn out to be good, like Dick Swiveller and the single gentleman. And then there are the villains. Dickens excelled at villains, and this is no exception.

Daniel Quilp is possibly the most evil character Dickens ever created. Abusive to everyone, deriving a sadistic pleasure from tormenting people, capable of doing things that ordinary people would find dangerous or impossible, described in ways that make him sound like barely human... oh yes, and all but outright stated to be lusting after Nell, a thirteen-year-old girl. He's right up there with Fagin and Bill Sykes on the list of "Dickens' vilest characters". And unlike many other villains, there's nothing remotely humourous about him. The Squeers and the Smallweeds were the source of darkly comic moments, but not so Quilp. Every time he appears you know something horrible's going to happen to someone. It was a downright relief when he finally died.

Sampson and Sally Brass, Quilp's lackeys, aren't quite as monstrous as their employer. That doesn't mean they aren't repulsive in their own way. But unlike Quilp, the reader can laugh at them. Especially Sally; Dickens' skill for sarcasm is in full force every time she appears 😆

All of Dickens' works were serialised before being published in book form. It's especially obvious in this story. The first few chapters are narrated by an unnamed character who never learns the real plot and disappears never to be heard from again. Some of the scene changes are clumsily-handled, giving the impression Dickens had only just remembered to go back to one of the many subplots. Because of this I was never quite able to completely suspend my disbelief when I was reading. But if you can ignore that, you'll probably enjoy this book quite well.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Nicholas Nickleby (novel)

I'm back, my computer's fixed, and posting will be back to normal (I hope). So I'm going to start with a review of one of the books I reread while my computer wasn't working.

The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby, more commonly called Nicholas Nickleby, is Charles Dickens' third novel. It was first published as a book in 1839. It's been adapted into at least two films, four series, and a stage version.

WARNING! Spoilers ahead!

As the title indicates, it's about Nicholas Nickleby. But not just about Nicholas. It's also about his sister Kate, his cousin Smike, his employers the Cheerybles, and a host of other characters.

The already-reviewed 2001 version is pretty faithful to the book, so there's no need to talk too much about the plot. Instead I'll talk about the characters. Nicholas and Kate are rather flat characters, who don't change much throughout the book, but for once that's not really a bad thing. They're likable as they are, and I don't think I would have enjoyed the story as much if they'd changed by the end. Smike is utterly heartbreaking. I came close to throwing the book at the wall when he died. As it was I had to put it down for a while until I stopped crying. Why, Dickens? Why did he have to die?

On the other end of the spectrum are the Squeerses. These fine specimens of filth are some of the most comically monstrous villains Charles Dickens invented. Fanny Squeers' "love" for Nicholas provides the only humour while he's at Dotheboys Hall. The whole family is loathsome and utterly horrifying, in spite of or maybe because of their ludicrousness, and their ultimate downfall is one of the most satisfying scenes I've read.

Less comical but just as despicable are Ralph Nickleby and Sir Mulberry Hawk. In some ways Ralph Nickleby is a foreshadowing of Ebeneezer Scrooge, but without the redemption and change of heart. From beginning to end he's a cruel miser who, among other things, tries to force Madeline to marry his decrepit co-conspirator so they can steal her money. Not even the circumstances leading up to his death can make him at all sympathetic. As for Sir Mulberry... ugh. That's all I can say about him. Thank goodness he dies at the end, though I really wish he had died sooner.

Believe it or not, this is actually one of Dickens' lightest novels. It has plenty of humour, long scenes that have virtually nothing to do with the plot (the story-tellers on the coach and the theatre stand out), and more genuinely decent people than can be found in Oliver Twist, the book that preceded it, or The Old Curiosity Shop, the book that followed it.

Nicholas Nickleby's main flaw is that Dickens was still a very young author, with less skill than he'd develop later, and it shows. The aforementioned long scenes unconnected to the plot are the main example of this. I'm sorry to say I found them boring, and hurried on to the more interesting parts of the story. But in spite of that, I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: Nicholas Nickleby (2002)

Tomorrow I'll be faced with the start of the dreadful ordeal known as Camp NaNoWriMo. I can sum up my feelings about this in two words: horrified screaming. But meanwhile, here's another review!

I really don't know what to think of this film. On the one hand, it sticks fairly close to the book. On the other... well, more about that later.

Side note: The theme music isn't as memorable as the series', and it's much more jolly. It's all right, but it doesn't make much impression.

Nicholas Nickleby is a 2002 film adaptation of Charles Dickens' third novel. This version was released a year after the 2001 miniseries -- the first miniseries I ever reviewed, and which I personally prefer to the film.

Recognisable actors:
Charlie Hunnam (Alan in Crimson Peak) as Nicholas
Jim Broadbent (Professor Kirke in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe 2005) as Wackford Squeers
Christopher Plummer (Captain von Trapp in The Sound of Music) as Ralph Nickleby
Jamie Bell (voice in Tintin in The Adventures of Tintin) as Smike
Anne Hathaway (Fantine in Les Misérables 2012) as Madeline
Timothy Spall (Mr. Venus in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Charles Cheeryble
Tom Courtenay (Mr. Dorrit in Little Dorrit) as Newman Noggs
Romola Garai (Emma in Emma 2009) as Kate
David Bradley (Riderhood in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Madeline's father
Phil Davis (Smallweed in Bleak House 2005) as Brooker
Nathan Lane (voice of Timon in The Lion King) as Crummles
Edward Fox (Mr. Brownlow in Oliver Twist 2007) as Sir Mulberry
Alan Cumming (voice of Black Beauty in Black Beauty 1994) as Mr. Folair

...And I'm sure I've missed someone, but that's a long enough list!

Unlike the series or the book, the film is narrated by Mr. Crummles. I'm not sure what I think of this decision. On the one hand, it gives Mr. Crummles more to do. On the other, he's a minor character with no real plot significance, and the book manages just fine without him narrating it.

The opening credits are shown on a sort of puppet-stage-thing. I prefer the series' beginning, but this fits the film's more theatrical interpretation of the story.

In the first few minutes there's a completely unnecessary scene which I always skip. Come to think of it, you can skip the whole opening narration without missing anything. The story proper only begins when the Nicklebys arrive in London.

In this version Mrs. Nickleby and her children visit Ralph, instead of him visiting them. Why bother making such a minor change? Did the director just want to show those creepy stuffed birds in Ralph's house? Madeleine Bray also makes her first appearance here. I'm pretty sure in the book she never even met Ralph until he tried to force her to marry that snake Gride (who's conspicuous by his absence in the film).

Nicholas, Kate and Mrs. Nickleby, with Newman Noggs in the background.

Ralph Nickleby

Film!Ralph doesn't make such an immediately villainous impression as series!Ralph. It might be because I can't help thinking of The Sound of Music when I see film!Ralph, while series!Ralph only makes me think of Mr. Tulkinghorn. Actually, no one makes much impression at first. Mrs. Nickleby isn't as whiny and silly as her book counterpart, while Nicholas and Kate fade into the background until they speak.

Squeers's first appearance was another disappointment. I was expecting someone as vile, repulsive and barely human as book-and-series!Squeers. Instead, film!Squeers looks almost normal... except for his eye. That's as hideous as in the series.

Squeers and Nicholas

The film's music was just average at first, but it improves later on. I was surprised to find I quite liked it after a while.

This adaptation is very... sanitised might be the best word. The book and the series were pretty grim. Dotheboys Hall and the Squeers were absolutely revolting. In the film, they're still evil and disgusting, but the sheer brutality, horror and soul-crushing misery of the school -- to say nothing of the nausea induced by the Squeerses -- is considerably lessened.

Mrs. Squeers in the series could induce "AAAAAHHHHH! KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!" reactions in viewers simply by appearing. Here her first appearance only made me grimace. Likewise, Fanny Squeers actually looks like a person and not a walking barrel of lard.

Poor Smike is as tragic here as in the series 😭 My heart broke at the moment when Nicholas reaches for a book and Smike jumps back as if he expects to be hit 😭

Smike. Poor, poor Smike 😭😭

I don't remember Nicholas and Smike reading together in the series, but that's a change I absolutely approve of. Unfortunately that heartwarming moment quickly becomes heartbreaking when Squeers finds them and nearly throttles Smike.

Aww... and oww 😢

Nicholas beating Squeers is as awesome in the film as in the book and series. In this version Nicholas agrees to take Smike with him at once. I think I like that interpretation more than his initial hesitation in the series. (Yes, I did just say I like something in the film more than in the series. Should I hand out smelling salts in case the shock is too much for someone?)

Nicholas: "From this night forward the world shall deal by you as it does by me."

Me: *bursts into tears*

Kate's job at the Mantolinis is mentioned only in passing. Her first appearance since Nicholas left London is when Ralph introduces her to the vile Sir Mulberry Hawk. This scene is gross and horrifying in the book and series, where Hawk and his friends are roughly the same age as Kate, but the film adds a whole new level of ickiness by making Hawk as old as Ralph *shudders*

Nicholas and Smike meet the Crummles and their theatre. For some incomprehensible reason, Mrs. Crummles is played by a man. Why? Did the director think it would be funnier? After a brief stay with the theatre Nicholas learns Kate is in trouble, so he and Smike set off for London.

I cheered when Nicholas confronts Ralph. Whatever else can be said of the film, it gets the awesome moments right!

When Brooker appeared for the first time I did a double take. Surely that wasn't-- Could it be-- I checked the credits, and it was! Smallweed has apparently been "shake me up"ed so much that he's been shaken right into another of Dickens' works!

Brooker, who surprisingly never calls anyone a brimstone beast.

(People who haven't seen Bleak House must be wondering what I'm talking about. All I can say is, watch Bleak House.)

The Cheeryble brothers are the latest characters who aren't as good as their series counterparts. There's nothing wrong with them, but they just aren't as jolly and, well, cheery as I expected.

The Cheerybles

Arthur Gride is nowhere to be seen in the film. Instead Hawk tries to force Madeline to marry him. Why? Did the director want to cut down on the number of characters? Meanwhile, poor Smike is very ill 😢

Madeline

Smike's death is always heartrending 😭 I cried so much I had to stop the film because I couldn't see through the tears 😭

Why, Dickens? Why did you kill Smike?

Thank goodness Ralph gets his comeuppance! This Nicholas's behaviour in this scene is much more gleeful than series!Nicholas. I can understand his wish to repay his uncle's cruelty, but he's just lost his friend. Wouldn't he be more depressed when revealing the truth about Smike's identity? He is in the series; I can't remember how he acted in the book.

Why, of all the ways to end the film, did the director decide to bring back Crummles and his theatre? And have Crummles speak directly to the audience? That was just weird. On the bright side, Nicholas marries Madeline and Kate marries Frank (who barely appears in the film and left so little impression I didn't even remember his existence until the wedding!), and they get a happy ending in spite of all the earlier misery 😄

Nicholas and Madeline at Smike's grave 😢

As a general rule miniseries based on classic novels are better than film adaptations. Miniseries have more time to include more subplots and generally stay closer to the book. Films tend to be rushed, with an awful lot removed. I had low expectations when I started this film. I'm pleased to say it isn't as bad as I feared.

As far as Dickens adaptations go, this film is just average. Not as good as the series, but not a complete disaster.

Is it available online?: I don't think so

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Great Expectations (2012)

Would you believe this is the fiftieth review on this blog? (Counting reviews split into two parts as one review, that is.)

For some reason someone decided to make a film of Great Expectations a year after a miniseries was made of it. What's stranger is the BBC was involved in making both versions.

I vastly prefer the 2011 series' opening to this one. This picture looks like the cover of a thriller novel, not an adaptation of a classic.

Adapting Charles Dickens' novels into films rarely works. They're so long and complicated that you have to cut practically everything except the main plot. So I knew before I watched this that a lot of the book would be missing.

I watched it immediately after the 2011 miniseries, so -- bizarrely -- I found I kept comparing this adaptation to that one instead of to the book. Like my review of the miniseries, this will mostly be a rambling list of things I did or didn't like.

Recognisable actors include:
Helena Bonham Carter (the Fairy Godmother in Cinderella 2015) as Miss Haversham
Holliday Grainger (Anastasia in Cinderella 2015) as Estella
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in Harry Potter) as Magwitch
Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid in Harry Potter) as Jaggers
Jason Flemyng (Azazel in X-Men: First Class) as Joe
Jessie Cave (Lavender Brown in Harry Potter) as Biddy

Like all versions of Great Expectations, the story starts with Pip meeting Magwitch. Then he goes to visit Miss Haversham and meets Estella... and Herbert. I don't remember Herbert finding Pip hiding under a carriage in the book, but it makes their fight a little bit more understandable than Herbert just demanding to fight Pip.

Miss Haversham

Young Estella and young Pip

The film includes Biddy! I was disappointed the series left her out. And it shows her grandmother's "school", and her teaching Pip to read!

Mr. Jaggers' introduction is odd. Why was he lurking in the shadows watching Estella and Pip? He's supposed to be mysterious and menacing, but not that creepy!

Estella teaching Pip to dance is unexpected, but surprisingly cute for these two. Naturally Miss Haversham decides to ruin everything by telling Pip not to visit any more.

The story jumps forward several years to Jaggers' visit and Pip learning about his great expectations. So off he goes to London. The film depicts London as much dirtier and more chaotic than the series does, with more butchers cutting up pieces of meat and more animal blood (at least, I hope that's animal blood) on the ground.

Like the series, the film shows the crowds of people waiting to see Jaggers. Pip and Wemmick's conversation about the casts of criminals' faces and the criminals' property is both close to the book and a fine example of black comedy.

Pip meets Herbert again, and becomes more and more arrogant now he has his fortune.

Pip

Herbert

Pip is still convinced that Miss Haversham is his benefactor, so he asks Herbert for more information about her. In this version we get a flashback to Miss Haversham's ill-fated wedding, and how she learnt Compeyson had jilted her. I'm not a fan of the way this scene is filmed. It's so blurry and distorted that the characters look like they're seen through a funhouse mirror. Why does "flashback" equate to "blurry" in so many directors' minds? It defeats the purpose if the viewers can't see things clearly.

There's a rather odd scene of Pip and Herbert going to a club where the members are... having a food fight? I don't remember anything like that in the book. But the film atones for that weirdness by including Wemmick's Aged Parent, and their habit of firing a cannon.

Pip visits Miss Haversham and meets Estella, who's now going to London. Why on earth did they have Estella walking on top of barrels? While in a long dress? I spent that whole scene expecting her to trip and fall.

Estella

My favourite line in the film is Mr. Jaggers' remark when he sees the amount of bills Pip has run up. "I suspected you would go wrong, Pip, but really, you are excelling yourself." That perfectly describes Pip's behaviour in London.

Estella gets engaged to Drummle, in spite of Pip's attempts to make her see reason. His "what do you think you're doing?" speech to her in the garden is the only time in the film he's shown any common sense. But Estella -- who has seen how Drummle behaves towards her -- doesn't listen. What an idiot.

After this Pip goes home -- to a house that's much grander in the film than in the book -- to find Magwitch. This scene is surprisingly eerie, even more than in the book. Pip doesn't cope well with learning the truth about his benefactor.

Pip and Magwitch

Miss Haversham's death is gruesome in all versions, but this one goes further and shows us glimpses of the aftermath *shudders*

Pip and Herbert try to get Magwitch out of England. Unfortunately, Compeyson and the police follow them. The film has a frightening scene of the steamship wheel running over Magwitch and Compeyson, and smashing the boat that Pip is in. Then there's Magwitch's death, which is just as sad here as in the series.

The film includes Joe paying Pip's debts and staying with him while he's ill! It improves on the series in that, at least. And then there's the final conversation between Pip and Estella. I'm still far from convinced that they would be happy if they married, but I get the impression that the film's version of them wouldn't be completely unhappy. That's probably the closest Great Expectations will ever get to a relatively cheerful ending.

The surprisingly sweet ending to a surprisingly good film.

Overall, the film is a pretty decent adaptation that in some ways is more faithful to the book than the series. But at the same time it's still rushed and trying to adapt a reallllly long book into two hours. It has its good moments and it has its flaws, but overall I think the good moments outnumber the flaws.

Is it available online?: No, I don't think so.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Great Expectations (2011)

Great Expectations has never been one of my favourite Dickens novels, as you'll know if you've read my review of the book. But BBC period dramas are generally good (Bleak House, Pride and Prejudice 1995, Our Mutual Friend...), so I decided to watch this adaptation.

This is a three-episode miniseries adaptation of the novel. I'd like to know who thought adapting a Dickens novel into three episodes was a good idea. Nicholas Nickleby (2001) just about gets away with two episodes, but all Dickens' works post-Barnaby Rudge are too long and too complicated to fit into anything less than five episodes. Remember how Our Mutual Friend (1998) had to remove subplots and characters to squeeze the story into four episodes? Filmmakers (and series-makers) should really have learnt by now that Dickens adaptations need to be long, or a whole lot ends up cut.

Because there are only three episodes, I decided it wasn't worth splitting this review. So expect a long, rambling review full of remarks on things I liked, didn't like, or just noticed particularly.

I only recognised a few actors:

Gillian Anderson (Lady Dedlock in Bleak House 2005, and Lily in The House of Mirth 2000) as Miss Haversham

Ray Winstone (voice of Mr. Beaver in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and Mac in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) as Magwitch

Vanessa Kirby (Princess Margaret in The Crown) as Estella

David Suchet (Melmotte in The Way We Live Now) as Jaggers

Harry Lloyd (Young Steerforth in David Copperfield 1999) as Herbert

From the opening scene it's obvious that visually, as well as thematically, this is going to be one of the darkest BBC period dramas. At first I wondered if it was in black-and-white. Nope, it's in colour, but it manages to make Little Dorrit look cheerful and brightly-coloured in comparison.

At first it looks like it's going to start the same way as the book: Magwitch finding Pip in the churchyard. But instead Pip leaves the churchyard, and Magwitch... jumps out at him from under a bridge? What? Then there's an unexpectedly violent scene of Magwitch trying to drown Compeyson in the marsh. This doesn't happen in the book, so its presence here serves no purpose beyond making the series even darker.

Young Pip and Magwitch

Anyway, Pip meets Magwitch and steals a file for him, then the soldiers recapture Magwitch and Compeyson, another escaped convict. Then Pip is invited to visit Satis House, where the mysterious Miss Haversham and Estella live.

Miss Haversham

Young Estella

What on earth is up with that cabinet of butterflies? I don't remember anything in the book about Miss Haversham's brother collecting butterflies. It feels like a heavy-handed attempt at symbolism, especially Miss Haversham's remarks about "stabbing beauty in the heart". And then there's Estella calling Miss Haversham "Mother". Umm... I'm pretty sure that never happened in the book. Estella is Miss Haversham's ward, which isn't quite the same as an adopted daughter, and she wasn't raised as her daughter.

The interiors of Satis House are very well done. Extremely creepy, covered in cobwebs, falling apart, exactly like in the book. Of course, in the book there were more wedding decorations and fewer stabbed butterflies, but I'll try to overlook that. We do eventually see the wedding decorations, so at least they didn't forget them entirely.

Some of the interiors, including the decaying wedding decorations.

Pip keeps visiting Miss Haversham, to the annoyance of her relatives, the Pockets. While at Satis House he meets Jaggers, Miss Haversham's lawyer, and Herbert, his future best friend. And, of course, he's starting to fall in love with Estella.

One of the weirdest scenes in the series is Miss Haversham's... tantrum? I really don't know what else to call it. She goes from speaking calmly like she always does to almost crying and then to screaming about her relatives like an angry teenager. When did that happen in the book?

After this Miss Haversham tells Pip not to visit any more and arranges for him to become his uncle Joe's apprentice. We get two unnerving scenes in fairly quick succession, and neither was in the book. One is between Pip's sister and Orlick, foreshadowing Orlick's murder attempt, and the other is between Miss Haversham and Estella, showing plainly how Miss Haversham is manipulating and emotionally abusing Estella. Then Joe and Pip go home... to find Pip's sister has almost been murdered.

Years pass. Pip, now grown up, goes to visit Miss Haversham again. He meets Estella, also grown up, and -- idiot that he is -- falls in love with her. Episode one ends when Jaggers arrives to tell Pip about his mysterious benefactor and his great expectations. So off Pip goes to London, thinking Miss Haversham is his benefactor.

Pip and Estella as adults

Episode two starts with Pip in London, meeting Mr. Jaggers again. A lot of this is lifted straight from the book -- the crowds waiting to see Jaggers and the gruesome heads on the wall especially. Then Pip moves into his new lodgings and meets Herbert again. I don't remember Herbert teaching Pip to dance in the book, but it's one of the few funny and relatively light-hearted scenes in this series, so I don't mind too much.

Jaggers

Herbert

In this version Herbert has been kicked out of his family because of the girl he loves. Er... what? When did this happen in the book? The Pocket family don't really have much to do with the plot, but if the director didn't want to include them, he could have just left them out. 

Pip gets to demonstrate how his new wealth is changing him for the worse. Joe comes to visit him, and Pip is ashamed and embarrassed to see him. Great way to repay the man who helped raise you and who was always kind to you, Pip! 😠 Then shortly afterwards, Pip decides to do something good with his money and arranges for Herbert to get a job. So nice of you to care about your friend and not your uncle, Pip!

Miss Haversham asks Pip to escort Estella to where she'll be staying in Richmond. At the house in Richmond Pip and Estella meet the coarse, brutish Bentley Drummle. There's a certain scene and some crude dialogue that isn't in the book, and therefore has no business being in the series.

Drummle and Estella.

(I keep thinking that's a blood-stain on Estella's dress. Perhaps that's what the costume designer intended.)

This Miss Haversham is much more... short-tempered? Prone to mood-swings? -- than her book counterpart. In addition to her earlier tantrum, there's a scene where she goes from asking Estella about her life in London to yelling at Pip. It shows how mentally unstable she is, but I was expecting her to be coldly arrogant like in the book, so at first I didn't know what to make of this behaviour. I still don't know, actually.

Almost forgot to mention that equally odd scene where Pip and Estella kiss while standing in a river. Huh? Setting aside the sheer weirdness of that scene, this series is set in a time when ladies never showed their legs in front of men. Ever.

Magwitch reappears, in very odd circumstances. Instead of Pip seeing him on the stairs and letting him in the door, he lets himself in while Pip is sleeping. And then he empties a sack of paper all over the carpet, while saying it's Pip's fortune and he's his benefactor? Who thought this was an improvement on the book's version of this scene?

Magwitch and Pip

In episode three, Pip tries to cope with Magwitch's revelation. At first he refuses to believe it, in spite of Herbert's protestations. Then he goes to confront Miss Haversham... and learns Estella is engaged to Drummle. Estella's decision makes even less sense here than in the book. She's seen what a jerk Drummle is, she has no need to get married to anyone, and Miss Haversham raised her specifically to break men's hearts which would be harder to do when she's married. So why on earth did Estella choose to marry him, and why did Miss Haversham go along with this? 😕

A reward is offered for Magwitch's recapture. Pip reluctantly agrees to help get him out of the country. Like in the book, this is the most interesting part of the story.

Estella has married Drummle, meanwhile, in spite of her own objections. Her husband won't let her answer Miss Haversham's letters. The scene of Miss Haversham crying and shouting Estella's name reminds me a lot of a similar scene in Bleak House (the novel, not the series). This scene wasn't in the book, if I recall, so maybe that was an intentional reference?

In this version we see Orlick and Compeyson plotting together. For some reason the director changed Molly's backstory. Instead of murdering a woman she hated, Compeyson tried to rape her and he framed her for attempted murder after she escaped. I'm not sure what to think about this change. On the one hand it makes Molly more sympathetic, but on the other, I tend to take a dim view of unnecessary differences from the book.

Orlick and Compeyson. Ugh.

Miss Haversham's death is slightly different here, and it makes her look like an absolute idiot. Who throws burning paper on the floor when they're wearing a long dress? And who just stands there after they catch fire and don't even try to beat it out?

A disaster waiting to happen. (I spent this whole scene shouting "Move away from the fire, you idiot!")

Pip tries to get Magwitch to safety. The plan fails, and like in the book it ends with Compeyson and Magwitch both dead. Good riddance to Compeyson, but I cried at Magwitch's death.

😭

Pip and Wemmick at Magwitch's grave.

The series doesn't include Pip falling ill and Joe nursing him back to health. (Guess they were running out of time 🤷) It does include Joe paying Pip's debts, though, so I can sort of forgive them for this omission.

Estella's husband has died, so she returns to Satis House. Pip goes to visit her. The series ends with a surprisingly sweet scene of the two of them.

So, what's my overall opinion? ...Good question. It changed with almost every scene. I like Joe and Herbert in most versions, and I like this version of Magwitch, Wemmick, and Miss Haversham (once I got used to Gillian Anderson's acting choices). Pip swings between being more likeable than his book counterpart, and a spoilt brat who sets my teeth on edge. Estella is... well, she didn't leave much of an impression, but at least she didn't drive me up the wall quite as much as book!Estella. In this version we get to see how miserable she is in her marriage instead of hearing about it second-hand, which made me feel more sorry for her than I did when I read the book.

One thing this adaptation does really well is visuals. The marshes are as gloomy and depressing as in the book, and Satis House is shown in all its decaying glory.

I suppose it's best described as "a decent, if rushed, adaptation with some very good moments".

Is it available online?: Yes, on Dailymotion. The link goes to episode 1, but the other episodes are available there too.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Great Expectations (novel)

As a child I once sat through an incredibly boring black-and-white film, with a plot I didn't understand and could barely follow. So it's really not surprising that it took years before I decided to read the book that film was based on.

Great Expectations is Charles Dickens' thirteenth novel, published in 1861. It revolves around Pip as he grows up and finds that an anonymous benefactor has given him money.

This is one of Dickens' best-known, most-read novels. Oddly, it's one of his least Dickensian works. Pip, instead of being a good-hearted, decent character like Nicholas Nickleby or Amy Dorrit, grows up to be a selfish, arrogant jerk who doesn't want anything to do with his poor but kind uncle Joe. Estella, instead of being a typical Dickens love interest, is a cold and cruel brat who makes men fall in love with her then breaks their hearts. There is a revelation about a character being secretly related to two other characters, but it has virtually nothing to do with the plot, and only one of the characters involved ever learns the truth.

Most people are of the opinion this is one of Dickens' best works. I'm afraid I disagree. All of his novels have dark moments, but this one is unrelentingly dark from the opening scene in a graveyard to the misty, late-night (and decidedly ambiguous) epilogue. Maybe it's an after-effect of trying to watch the 1946 film at the age of about five, but Great Expectations has never been on my list of "Dickens novels I love".

That's not to say I hate it. It's a fascinating and depressing look at how riches corrupt, and there are some moments of humour (mostly black humour, but that's par for the course with Dickens). There are even some likable characters. The problem is, they aren't the main characters.

The main characters are among the most infuriating people I've ever read about. Estella has virtually no personality beyond constantly tormenting men who fall in love with her, and Pip is one of the many characters I really want to punch. Seriously, Pip? You abandoned Joe and Biddy, who had always been kind to you, for who you thought was Miss Haversham, who never saw you as anything but a way to annoy her relatives? And then you fell in love with Estella, when common sense and even Estella herself warned you this was a terrible idea? What sort of idiot are you? 😒

Luckily, once Magwitch appears on the scene (again) the story stops being about just Pip and Estella, and becomes much more interesting. And unbelievable though it seems, Pip becomes less obnoxious and I was actually able to sympathise with him. My heart was in my mouth during the attempted escape-by-boat, and I cried when Magwitch died 😢 After this, Pip finally realises how horrible he's been and he tries to make amends. That leads us to one of the most vague and unsatisfying endings Dickens ever wrote.

Why on earth do Pip and Estella just happen to visit the same place at the same time after not seeing each other for eleven years? All right, so it isn't the most unbelievable coincidence in a Dickens novel, but still! And are we supposed to assume they get married afterwards? I have strong doubts about how happy they'd be together. Dickens' original ending, where Pip learns Estella is happily remarried, would have been more depressing but probably more fitting.

Overall, Great Expectations is one of Dickens' grimmest novels, with some of the least likable characters he ever wrote. But plenty of people enjoy it despite that, and it does have some very good moments.

Is it available online?: Yes, on Gutenberg.

Rating: 7/10.