3/31/2023 0 Comments Twistit urban street entertainment![]() While, in other words, the section dealing with events before Oliver’s arrival in London works as a sort of prologue, similar beginnings and similar endings become clearly visible: the happy conclusion of Oliver’s adventures is announced and enacted at the conclusion of the first part, when Oliver is received with open arms in Brownlow’s house, and the beginning of the second part plays again on the same birth motif stressed at the beginning of the first. ![]() Obviously, the division of the film in two parts is first and foremost signaled by an interval, but this makes it all the more clear that a more nuanced division exists, one that surfaces when the structural parallelism between the two parts is taken into account. The two parts of Oliver! are linked by parallelisms that underscore a crucial theme: the enthusiastic exploration of the urban world-an exploration which, optimistically, culminates in a happy ending. The most evident change is the division of the film into two parts, which derives not only from the influence of well-established cinematic conventions, but also from self-evident aesthetic and thematic needs. Significantly, Reed did not incorporate Fagin’s imprisonment and trial, chiefly because they were not in line with the moral atmosphere that pervades his film, bent on reducing the weight of guilt on Fagin’s and his gang’s side.Ĥ Structural transformations include both the addition of new sections and major organizational changes. Since the songs inevitably slow down the action, Reed was obliged to reduce or suppress various sections, such as the description of Oliver’s birth, the references to Monks, and the Maylies subplot. Columbia invested no less than eight million dollars, which went also into financing the so-called ‘Box’s army,’ that is the masons that set out to recreate Victorian London with 350 tons of asphalt, 10,000 cobblestones, and 4,000 liters of paint.ģ Before focusing on the material aspect of film production, it is useful to discuss the way in which Oliver! alters or elides parts of the original plot. Entirely produced in England, it was immensely successful and earned six Oscars. 6 Furthermore, among the musicals drawn from Dickens’s works, Reed’s is undoubtedly the most accomplished. Moreover, two-thirds of the story-the worst two-thirds, one might add-have been scrapped.’ 5 Indeed, for the first time after twenty years, Oliver! tried to challenge the high standard set by Lean’s Oliver Twist (1948). Manchester: Manchester (.)Ģ In spite of Vincent Canby’s trenchant remark, that in Oliver! the main character ‘gets flattened out, almost lost,’ 4 a positive introduction to the film is provided by Robert Moss, who states that ‘the maudlin melodrama that runs through the center of the work is vastly more palatable in Reed’s stylized interpretation. 6 For a detailed analysis see Grahame Smith, Dickens and the Dream of Cinema.5 Robert Moss, The Films of Carol Reed.4 Vincent Canby, ‘Oliver!’, The New York Times, 12 December 1968.Yet both films are musicals, and in both one of the key notes of Dickens’s poetics, namely his pioneering exploration of the city, is prominent at the same time, they share a vision of the urban milieu that eludes its more problematic and disquieting aspects which are so striking in the text. The two films differ in that the first, based on the roaring theatrical version by Lionel Bart (1960) is played by human actors, while the second is a classic Disney cartoon. 3 This paper will focus on two of the less faithful transpositions: Oliver!, directed by Carol Reed (1968) and the Walt Disney Oliver & Company, directed by George Scribner (1988). 2 Given their number, it is not surprising that some of these films, whose length ranges from a few minutes to about two hours, should be more ‘twisted’ than others. Not only is Oliver Twist the first novel by Dickens that was turned into film, 1 it is also-apart from A Christmas Carol -the one that has inspired the highest number of transpositions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, filmmakers tried to elevate the new art by drawing on literary sources. 3 My title refers to two burlesque films: Oliver Twist Sadly Twisted, Superba Film Company (1915), an (.)ġ The relation between Dickens’s novels and cinema dates from the early days of the cinematic medium.2 Michael Pointer, Charles Dickens on the Screen.1 The Death of Nancy Sykes (American Mutoscope Company) dates back to 1897. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |