This is How Movies Should Be Made

Sadly Over-hyped

Good concept, poorly executed.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Watch it for the story but characterisation lets film down.SPOILER ALERT If there were more scenes like that of the killing of Nancy it would have been a great movie. Director Lean stopped and showed Robert Newton just sitting and contemplating what he'd just done and it was peaceful, even beautiful. We should have had a scene like this with Oliver, alone and lonely. An equivalent scene to "Where Is Love?" in the musical. Or even a scene like the magnificent opening one showing his pregnant mother struggling alone against the storm. I can't think of a scene in which Oliver is ever alone. We need that to see his misery and to know him better. Many of the scenes are too cluttered and unrelievingly dark. Maybe Victorian England was like that. Whenever Newton and the wonderful Anthony Newly (Artful Dodger) are on-screen the movie picks up, but truly I felt more for Sykes' dog than for most of the humans! Anti-Semitic depiction of Fagin would not be tolerated today.

Really enjoyed the 1948 film of "Oliver Twist", and to my mind the definitive version of the story. I saw the 1968 musical which was good, but was inflated to 150 minutes with musical numbers and almost came to a stop in some parts. It won an Oscar for Best Picture, but the '48 film was better in several respects.First off, the acting was superior in the Lean picture. Clive Revill was a pale imitation Alec Guinness as Fagin, and Francis L. Sullivan, while not a singer, was a much better actor than Harry Secombe. And, last but not least, Robert Newton's interpretation of Bill Sykes was far superior to Oliver Reed's. Reed's Sykes was a bully while Newton imbued the character with a psychopathic element missing from Reed's. It was also remarkable to note the resemblance between John Howard Davies and Mark Lester, the two child actors who seemed like twins.The earlier version also conveyed the overarching feeling of hopelessness and the grinding poverty of the lower classes, as much a tribute to the art director as to the intelligent script, written by Lean himself. Musical director on that version was Muir Mathieson, and it doesn't get better than Mathieson. "Oliver Twist" is one of the best adaptations of literature to the screen as has ever been done.

Of the five extant full-length features based on Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist (among which I include the 1968 musical), this 1948 version is often considered the yardstick against which all others are measured. It's said that comparisons are odious, but it's necessary to examine it in relation to the other four to reveal why it is so highly regarded, as well as to some extent debunk its revered status.First, we must begin by acknowledging that Dickens's book is a great but somewhat flawed work. It may be considered bad form to even think of criticising an undisputed genius, but bear in mind that this was only his second novel, and he was a young and inexperienced writer. Oliver Twist's strength lies in its larger-than-life characters, sparkling dialogue and imaginative set-pieces, but structurally it has some huge problems. This is why, throughout all the screen versions, depictions of figures such as Mr Bumble, Fagin and Bill Sykes differ very little, key scenes such as asking for more or the handkerchief stealing game are staged similarly, but there are many variations as to the overall plot. While the versions made in 1922 and 1933 are faithful if rather pared-down adaptations, the screenplay by David Lean and Stanley Haynes was the first to do the unthinkable and rewrite Dickens.Probably the most drastic and for me the most necessary difference between this picture and the novel is Oliver's fate after he is forced to accompany Bill Sikes on the burglary. In the novel he is wounded and taken in by the family whose house it is. However, Lean and Haynes do not show the burglary, and keep Oliver in the custody of Fagin and co. until the finale. This is a vast improvement, as it means Oliver remains in real danger throughout the last act, and adds extra motivation to the race to bring the criminals to justice. So crucial to the impact of the picture was this change that it was used again for the 1968 musical and Roman Polanski's 2005 effort, and the image of the young hero clambering over the rooftops with Sikes urging him on is now established in the public conscious.However there is one problematic way in which the 1948 film deviates from all the other versions, and that is in the size of Nancy's role. She is introduced fairly late, after Oliver's arrest, and she gets precious little screen time before being murdered. Significantly, her fondness for Oliver is not developed; she never even speaks to him, and consequently it seems odd when suddenly steps in as his protector. She is not even portrayed especially sympathetically, and as a result her death is not the blow to the audience that it should be. To me, the character of Nancy is the key to the whole thing; she is a surrogate mother (or big sister) figure to Oliver before he finds his real family, and her brutal murder is the biggest wrench of the story. Even the 1933 version, which otherwise has all the sophistication of a school play, recognises this.The 1948 version at least looks great thanks to superlative cinematography by Guy Green, and of course the direction of David Lean. This picture is often praised for its harsh and grimy portrayal of Victorian England's underbelly, and Lean loads every frame with tone and character. He often throws in shots with no actors, which do not contribute directly to the story but add atmosphere to the scene. This kind of shot was by and large a no-no in Hollywood at the time, and for good reason because it can be a distraction, but Lean gets away with it because he does it so well. A great example is the series of storm shots from the opening scene, the best of which is a shot of two thorny stems twitching in the wind, instantly forcing us to think of physical pain, after which we cut to Oliver's mother in agony. The effect is more powerful than would be the shot of her alone. My only complaint with Lean's direction is his tendency to over-direct the low-key scenes, such as the one of Mrs Bumble setting about her husband, which is shot in the same manner as Oliver's assault on Noah Claypole, but as a scene it deserves far less weight.And then we come to the actors. Aficionados of classic British cinema will understand that no-one but Robert Newton could have played Sikes in this production, and he's at his eye-rolling best here, although not as scary as Oliver Reed was in 1968. Kay Walsh is passable, but isn't right for Nancy, and her casting probably has something to do with who her husband was. Alec Guinness's Fagin has been denounced as anti-Semitic; in fact it goes right through anti-Semitism and out the other side. This caricature, with the unfeasibly massive nose and beard flapping around like a bit of old carpet, is simply ridiculous. True, Fagin is supposed to be a comedy character (and to his credit Guinness does ham it up funnily), but Oliver Twist is not a farce, and that over-the-top make-up is all wrong.Through successive stage and screen versions, the story of Oliver Twist has continued to evolve. The musical eliminates the subplot with Monks, and the 2005 picture even goes as far as to remove the coincidence of Oliver being related to Mr Brownlow. This 1948 adaptation deserves credit for making this process of refinement acceptable, which is ironic as in spite of its break with tradition (and its flaws) through its tone and character it is probably the closest in spirit to the original text.

David Lean's version of Charles Dickens book, "Oliver Twist" is the best Dickens adaption. Right from the brilliant opening, when a storm erupts as Olivers mother desperately runs to a workhouse to give birth, to the excellently executed climax, it certainly far better than Lean's earlier Dickens adaption, "Great Expectations" (1946). Most of the cast return from the earlier movie, including the wonderful Francis L. Sullivan as "Mr. Bumble". Alec Guinness as "Fagin" is the best one yet, even if Ben Kingsley comes a close second. The screenplay whisks through the events quickly, but competently. The only let-down is some rather to obvious painted backdrops. Otherwise the film is a dream.