Oliver Twist: Twisting the Tale through Film - Essay Example

?Amanda Corday Novels & Movies Abigail Bloom 6/30/12 Oliver Twist: Twisting the Tale Through Film The story of Oliver Twist is relatively well-known.It was written by Charles Dickens as a form of entertainment and social commentary in 1838 and published as Oliver Twist or The Parish Boy's Progress. 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, 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 social commentary, 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 as his struggle to survive is described. "The fact is, that there was considerable difficulty in inducing Oliver to take upon himself the office of respiration ... for some time he lay gasping on a little flock mattress, rather unequally poised between this world and the next: the balance being decidedly in favour of the latter" (Ch. 1). This establishes Oliver's character as a weak and innocent creature in need of protection. In the film, though, the story starts with Oliver already working at the workhouse, playing the role of a mill-horse along with a number of other exhausted boys until the dinner bell rings. Their exhaustion is evident in the way they drag their feet, but the only thing that distinguishes Oliver from any of the other boys is his luck in drawing the long straw. When he gets in trouble for asking for more food, the film gives no information about what is said among the governors about him, only revealing their greed in eating luxurious foods while the boys are given porridge. This is in spite of the book demonstrating their harshly dismissive attitude and then locking him away as an example of bad character. "As for exercise, it was nice cold weather, and he was allowed to perform his ablutions, every morning under the pump, in a stone yard ... As for society, he was carried every other day into the hall where the boys dined, and there sociably flogged as a public warning and example" (Ch. 2). The irony of this is entirely lost in the film as is the book's criticism of the ruling class. In the book, Oliver's apprenticeship means the workhouse governors pay someone else to take Oliver off their hands, giving incentive to unsavory characters such as the chimney sweep to make a bid for him. In the film, though, there is an extensive search as Oliver and Bumble wander the streets, trying to find anyone willing to buy the boy. Again, this illustrates how the film ignores the social commentary intended in the book. Another difference discovered between the film and the book is the matter of the locket and the clues to Oliver's background. In both the book and the film, the locket is proof of Oliver's identity but that proof is used very differently within the two media. In the film, Mr. Brownlow offers a reward for information about Oliver and Mr. Bumble brings his wife to show the locket and prove who Oliver really is - the locket was given to Oliver's mother as a birthday gift from Mr. Brownlow. In the book, though, the locket is brought to a character that doesn't even appear in the film, Monks, a mysterious crook who has been plotting with Fagin to involve Oliver in criminal activity. When the Bumbles provide Monks with the locket and a ring that Oliver's mother had, Monks immediately recognizes it as evidenced by his answer to Mrs. Bumble that the locket was what he was expecting her to provide (Ch. 38). Nancy overhears Monks' plans to recapture Oliver in order to preserve Monks' inheritance and tells Mr. Brownlow and the Maylies, another family that helped Oliver after he is shot. The entire episode with the Maylies is completely cut out of the film though, eliminating his backstory almost completely and again eliminating social commentary, this time Dickens' attempt to emphasize the value of living an ethical life. In the film, Oliver is forced to accompany Sikes on a botched burglary, but the audience has no idea of this part of Oliver's adventures or the close personal relationship he develops with the family or the true blood relationship he has with them. The absence of Monks in the film also forces the directors to make Fagin seem more evil than he is since his only reason to hold onto Oliver is to keep him from talking but there is not enough character development around Fagin to make this change believable. Without the Maylies or Monks, the ethical message of the story is never delivered, especially as Fagin and the Dodger dance into the sunrise rather than be hung or deported as in the book. 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 while Mr. Brownlow was attempting to find out more regarding Oliver's family. When he is told the story, he is instrumental in securing Oliver's rightful claims (Ch. 42). After he is shot in the attempted robbery, Oliver remains physically safe through the rest of the book even though the thieves are still attempting to discredit him. The rest of his story is discovered by Mr. Brownlow as he corners Monks and forces him to confess Oliver's lineage by telling the story of Oliver's family. It is this history that finally fills in the motivations of everything - why such a gentle boy would be born in a workhouse, why the criminals had chased after him so fiercely (Ch. 50). This also reinforces Dickens' social commentary of the book in his suggestion that the refinement of the upper classes is inborn. The film ignores all of this development and creates a different, physical danger. Instead of getting shot during the burglary and rescued by the family, the film Oliver makes it back to the pub with Sikes, who won't let Oliver out of his sight. It is up to Nancy to create a diversion to get Oliver to the London Bridge to meet with Mr. Brownlow, but Sikes follows them and beats Nancy to death before Oliver is returned. When Sikes flees the scene of Nancy's murder, something he also does in the book, he drags Oliver with him. Although the end of Sikes occurs much the same between the book and the film, including his attempt to kill Bullseye, Bullseye leading the mob to Sikes and Sikes accidentally hanging from a rope, having Oliver present through these scenes really highlights a major change between the novel and the film. Instead of Oliver's soul, as a symbol of the civilized culture of which England was proud, being in serious ethical and moral danger as it is presented in the book, Oliver's danger in the film is strictly physical and his symbolic stature is erased. While both the novel and the film tell the same basic story, the film leaves out a great deal of detail and meaning 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 and Dickens' social commentary is lost. The thieves continue to say they need Oliver back because he might tell someone about them, but this is a very flimsy excuse and eliminates the character of Monks altogether. Without Monks' motivation to keep the entire inheritance, Fagin's interest in Oliver is inexplicable and unbelievable. Meanwhile, Oliver's character and symbolism is also destroyed as his family background is cut to time. 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. Characters such as Fagin seem flat, reduced to caricatures in spite of their songs and dancing. The story as told in the film is an entertaining way to spend a few hours as it tells the story of an orphan who discovers he's a prince. The story as told in the book is a strong critique of social issues then taking place in England through the creation of symbolic characters with deep motivations. 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