Benefit
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,193
Directed by Roman Polanski on the heels of The Pianist, the newest version of Oliver Twist was released in 2005. It's good.
19th century Victorian London was recreated using Dure's engravings as a template; I assumed they would model their set design on the work of George Cruikshank, the illustrator for Oliver Twist who also illustrated many of Dickens' other novels and thus contributed to our common perception of Dickensian London. In any event, the set design is phenomenal. One thing that has always seemed strange to me about ambitious and exquisitely detailed sets like the ones used in this movie is that no one will ever see the depth of detail employed in creating them. The detail involved in crafting those London exteriors is extraordinary; handcrafted signs and advertisements posted on walls, etc., things no one will ever see. It's remarkable, and at the same time frustrating because as a film viewer you only catch a brief, glimpse of this world from the outside and can't ever walk around in it. Costuming also deserves a nod here; it is very good period costuming.
Polanski used all English actors for this project, an excellent move on his part. Ben Kingsley is very good as Fagin. Other than Sir Ben, most Americans won't recognize these actors which proves you don't need big name (American) stars to make a good film; however, they will help you generate revenue. It's a balancing act. Fortunately, Polanski has the clout these days to get his films independently financed. The Pianist and Oliver Twist were both independent productions where he had full control; not surprisingly, they are two of his best films. Interestingly, he also claims he had full creative control over Chinatown which would mean 3 of his best films were made without interference from the studio. Any surprise there?
The characters are very colorful and will grab your attention. I thought the Artful Dodger was portrayed particularly well, and many of the old men at the parish are more caricature than anything else. Polanski is successful in capturing the humor of Dickens while Polanskifying them at the same time; the way many of the characters are given a surreal, fantastical glow recalls the neighbors from one of his most underhyped films, The Tenant.
The DVD has about 50 minutes of pretty decent documentary-style footage. Worth a look. The movie stays very faithful to the spirit of Dickens, while trimming a lot of the fat. And believe me, with Dickens there is a lot of fat that can be trimmed. This is probably the best adaptation of Dickens I've seen yet, but to be fair, A Christmas Carol and even Oliver Twist have been remade so many times it would take me a while to go through them all and make a true comparison.
19th century Victorian London was recreated using Dure's engravings as a template; I assumed they would model their set design on the work of George Cruikshank, the illustrator for Oliver Twist who also illustrated many of Dickens' other novels and thus contributed to our common perception of Dickensian London. In any event, the set design is phenomenal. One thing that has always seemed strange to me about ambitious and exquisitely detailed sets like the ones used in this movie is that no one will ever see the depth of detail employed in creating them. The detail involved in crafting those London exteriors is extraordinary; handcrafted signs and advertisements posted on walls, etc., things no one will ever see. It's remarkable, and at the same time frustrating because as a film viewer you only catch a brief, glimpse of this world from the outside and can't ever walk around in it. Costuming also deserves a nod here; it is very good period costuming.
Polanski used all English actors for this project, an excellent move on his part. Ben Kingsley is very good as Fagin. Other than Sir Ben, most Americans won't recognize these actors which proves you don't need big name (American) stars to make a good film; however, they will help you generate revenue. It's a balancing act. Fortunately, Polanski has the clout these days to get his films independently financed. The Pianist and Oliver Twist were both independent productions where he had full control; not surprisingly, they are two of his best films. Interestingly, he also claims he had full creative control over Chinatown which would mean 3 of his best films were made without interference from the studio. Any surprise there?
The characters are very colorful and will grab your attention. I thought the Artful Dodger was portrayed particularly well, and many of the old men at the parish are more caricature than anything else. Polanski is successful in capturing the humor of Dickens while Polanskifying them at the same time; the way many of the characters are given a surreal, fantastical glow recalls the neighbors from one of his most underhyped films, The Tenant.
The DVD has about 50 minutes of pretty decent documentary-style footage. Worth a look. The movie stays very faithful to the spirit of Dickens, while trimming a lot of the fat. And believe me, with Dickens there is a lot of fat that can be trimmed. This is probably the best adaptation of Dickens I've seen yet, but to be fair, A Christmas Carol and even Oliver Twist have been remade so many times it would take me a while to go through them all and make a true comparison.