Oliver Twist: Twisting the Tale Through Film - Essay Example

 Oliver Twist: Twisting the Tale Through Film The story of Oliver Twist is relatively well-known. It was written by Charles Dickens in 1838 and published as Oliver Twist or The Parish Boy's Progress. The basics of the story follow the tale of a young orphan. When he is nine years old, he is deemed a troublemaker so the workhouse that has been raising him apprentices him out to an undertaker. After a fight with another worker at the undertaker's house, Oliver is told he will be sent back to the workhouse and runs away instead, eventually making his way to London. In London, he meets the Artful Dodger, a child pickpocket and member of a gang of thieves. They try to recruit Oliver into their ranks, but Oliver, who is innocent and morally good, continues to escape from them. He is almost always in trouble of some kind, though rarely through his own fault, but he is also able to quickly win friends who are willing and able to help him. Eventually his true identity is revealed and he is able to find a happy, fulfilling home where he is loved and cared for. The reason the story is so well-known today is because it was made into a relatively popular movie which has been remade again many times. Perhaps the most popular film version of Oliver Twist is the musical Oliver! directed by Carol Reed and produced by John Woolf. However, in translating a novel to film, there are often many parts that must be cut. This is true even when converting today's novels to film, but Dickens' original classic was quite long by today's standards. By comparing the book to the film, it is possible to see that film is only able to provide the most basic elements of the story while deeper elements of character development and motive are typically lost, hidden within the pages of the book. One significant difference between the book and this film is the beginning elements of the story. In the novel, the audience is brought into the room where Oliver's mother has just given birth to a sickly baby. The mother is so weak, she simply requests that she see the baby before she dies, gives him a kiss and then passes away. Thus, the audience is aware that Oliver was born in the workhouse and of how the infant was sent out to a different house for a while until he reached the age of nine, when he was recalled back to the main workhouse and expected to earn his keep. With this information in hand, it is easy for the audience to understand how or why Oliver may not be completely aware of the rules of the workhouse and it is possible to see why the caretakers at the workhouse would not already be aware of Oliver's generally good character. The narrator carefully explains changes in the system that left children in the workhouse starving, causing them to elect one of their number to request more food - a job that falls to Oliver upon drawing the long straw. In the film, though, the story starts with Oliver working at the workhouse, playing the role of a mill-horse along with a number of other exhausted boys until the dinner bell rings. Nothing is mentioned of his status until later, when it just barely mentioned by the housekeeper. As a result, no one knows that Oliver grew up in a different house until very recently and that he is still trying to adapt to new rules. When he gets in trouble for asking for more food, the film gives no information about what is said among the governors about him even though the book shows them considering his character, locking him away, using him as an example of how not to behave and putting him up for apprenticeship somewhere. In the book, Oliver's apprenticeship means the workhouse governors pay someone else to take Oliver off their hands, but they are not willing to sell to just anyone. The chimney sweep who attempts to buy Oliver is sent away when Oliver clearly doesn't want to go with him. In the film, though, he is sold to the undertaker out of the street and the chimney sweep is never mentioned. Another difference discovered between the film and the book is the matter of the locket. In the book, the locket was in the possession of Ms. Corney who was in attendance on Oliver's mother when he was born. Ms. Corney never seems to mention the locket until years later when she is married to Mr. Bumble and the couple is offered money for information about Oliver. In the film, the person offering this money is Mr. Brownlow in London as he attempts to relocate Oliver after Oliver has been kidnapped by Sikes and Nancy. In the book, though, this person is Monks, a mysterious crook who has been plotting with Fagin to involve Oliver in criminal activity. Monks meets Bumble in a pub back in the town where Oliver came from and offers Bumble money for more information. When the Bumbles provide him with the locket and a ring that Oliver's mother had, Monks arranges for them to meet with him in London, where he drops this evidence of Oliver's parentage into the river. However, Nancy hears their arrangements and goes to tell Mr. Brownlow and the Maylies, another family that has helped Oliver after Fagin, Sikes, and Monks force Oliver to accompany them on a burglary and Oliver is shot when the burglars are discovered. The entire episode with the Maylies is completely cut out of the film although Oliver is forced to accompany Sikes on a botched burglary. The audience has no idea of this part of Oliver's adventures or the close relationship he develops with the Maylie women. Although these people help to fill in a large part of Oliver's history, the fact that they don't appear at all in the film significantly reduces the story to a very shallow connection between Brownlow and Oliver. The absence of Monks also makes Fagin seem more evil than he is since he seems to want to hold onto Oliver for no other reason than he might talk; however, this doesn't seem to have been an issue for him with any of the other boys. In the film, the locket that is brought to Mr. Brownlow is one that he recognizes as one that he had once given to his niece. This is the only connection we get regarding Oliver's identity. This leads to another difference between the novel and the film. In the novel, Oliver is reunited with Mr. Brownlow through his relationship with Mrs. Maylie and Miss Rose, who have protected Oliver, with Nancy's help, from falling back into the hands of Fagin, Monks, and Sikes. After he is shot in the attempted robbery, he remains physically safe through the rest of the story even though the thieves are still after him. By taking the Maylies out of the film entirely, it was impossible to put Oliver back into safe hands easily. The film highlights his danger by making sure he remains in physical danger almost until the end. Instead of getting shot during the burglary, Oliver makes it back to the pub with Sikes, but Sikes won't let Oliver out of his sight when Nancy offers to take him off to bed. Nancy has to create a diversion to get Oliver out of the pub and to the London Bridge where she already set up a meeting with Mr. Brownlow, but Sikes follows them and beats Nancy to death before Oliver can get up on the bridge to Brownlow. When he flees the scene with Brownlow and a crowd already gathering over the still-twitching Nancy, he drags Oliver with him. Like the book, Sikes threatens to kill his dog Bullseye, knowing the dog can be used to find him and Bullseye runs away, only to lead the crowd to Sikes. Through the whole mob scene with Sikes, Oliver is present and under threat of immediate physical harm. This difference really highlights a major change between the novel and the film. In the book, Oliver's story is told mostly through the other characters with Oliver being the link that ties them all together. The narrator sometimes completely ignores Oliver in order to tell the story of another character or two, such as in telling the story of Rose and Harry. In the film, though, Oliver is the main character. The camera follows him around almost exclusively. When it isn't focused on Oliver, it's simply to provide a tiny glimpse into the thoughts or feelings of another character as they sing one of the songs written for the movie. These small interludes have nowhere near the same kind of depth of story as those told in the novel. The only time this type of interruption adds to the story of other characters is at the end when Fagin and the Dodger decide to go into business together following their collapse and go dancing off into the sunset. In the novel, both of these characters are caught and convicted, Dodger to be sent to Australia and Fagin is to hang the morning after Oliver goes to see him. While both the novel and the film tell the same basic story, the film leaves out a great deal of detail in the changes that were made to fit within an acceptable timeframe. Watching the film, you are never able to understand just why the thieves seem so intensely attached to the idea of destroying Oliver. They continue to say it's because he might tell someone about them, but this is a very flimsy excuse since they watch Brownlow's house for several days before Oliver comes out alone and no one has come looking for them in all that time. Without Monks' interest, there is no reason for them to believe Oliver would lead police to them and the time they spend watching the house is time they're not spending engaging in their actual profession. Yet, because none of the rest of the backstory involving Monks and Oliver's true family is included in the film, the role of Sikes is inflated and the corrupt nature of Fagin is compromised. Fagin is characterized in the film as being somewhat soft on his young thieves in training. He plays with them, seems to have a relatively decent if self-serving relationship with them, and makes sure they have a safe place to stay at night. His attitude regarding Oliver is out of character, though, as he seems to actively goad Sikes into obsessing about the boy. Nancy points out this idiocy several times, which only serves to make it more obvious that the thieves really don't have a reason to pick on Oliver the way they do. Through this type of comparison, it is impossible not to realize the much greater depth and richness of story that can be received by reading the novel rather than relying on the film version. Works Cited Dickens, Charles. Oliver Twist or The Parish Boy's Progress. New York: Tor Classics, 1998 [1838]. Print. Oliver! Dir. Carol Reed. Perf. Mark Lester, Jack Wild, Shani Wallis, Ron Moody, and Oliver Reed. Columbia Pictures, 1968. Film. Read More