"Great Expectations" (BBC1, 2011)

[DracoM]

But in the book, the fire was spectacular, far more tragic and heart-wrenching and more extensive and much more all-engulfing. Pip was involved in trying to rescue her - a visual sequence I would have thought most producers would have found hard to resist - but this production team apparently and heroically failed to see the potential, Hmm.

Jaggers was hardly in this version, money for old rope for Suchet. He can do that sort of thing in his sleep. And Herbert Pocket and Wemmick were IMO the closest of all the major actors to the Dickens original - always including Young Pip. Joe actor totally wasted - major part in the tale, virtually chucked.

BBC's tag/ slogan for the Dickens 200? SOAPSRUS.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I seem to be in the minority in thinking this was an inspired production. The characters were believable, unlike the 2-dimensional ones we often get in Dickens.
And it was good to have a Pip who looked young, rather than a 38-year old John Mills trying to look young.

[Norfolk Born]

Oh, I think it was inspired .. probably by the need to satisfy potential export markets. IMHO it reflected the same mindset that offered 'Frozen Planet' for sale without the final episode. There's nothing wrong per se in attempting a fresh 'take' on Dickens (cf. upcoming 'Mumbai Chuzzlewit', or the brilliant 'Bleak Expectations') unless, as here - again IMHO - the result is visually unexciting and dramatically uninspiring. And the acting was SO uneven, with much of the best talent relegated to what had become minor roles.

[austin]

Says it all......
'Having entered the pupa of adolescence as a scowling urchin (Oscar Kennedy), he emerged as an androgynous heart-throb with a boy-band fringe, exquisitely shaped eyebrows, and skin of aftershave-advert purity.'

http://tinyurl.com/cqv2umt

[aeolium]

I agree with Draco and others who think this was a travesty of an adaptation. What irked more than the many alterations and some ludicrous inventions by the screenwriter was the almost complete absence of any of Dickens' language (apart from, IIRC, Wemmick's 'portable property' and a couple of phrases from Estella). Characters that have the same names as those in the book and roughly similar experiences lose much of their Dickensian identity if they speak in a manufactured dialogue that veers between imagined C19 and modern soap opera. The old Lean film beat this production hands down in almost every respect.

If this is going to be the template for the other Dickens adaptations during 2012 then it is going to be a long year indeed. The BBC now seems to think that if you dress up pretty actors and actresses in old clothes with suitably antique backdrops you don't need to bother with the dialogue too much, or indeed whether the behaviour of the protagonists has much to do with anything in the book - as long as you can get those overseas sales for a tale of Olde Englande that's what matters.

[DracoM]

Following aeolium's last para above above, the parallel with what has happened to R3 is too soberingly apparent.

How did that production / script get past the planners? Its illiteracy, its total ignorance of some of the most memorable lines in the book, the radical change of Joe Gargery, no Biddy, its CASTING.........I could go on and on. A desecration, and a needless one too.

[Anna]

I spoke to a neighbour this morning, she thought it was marvellous. However, upon further questioning she admitted she hadn't read the book since she was at school, nearly 50 years ago and confessed she had absolutely no recollection of Biddy, Aged Parent and even (unbelieveably) Wot Larks. I imagine she speaks for the majority of viewers.

[DracoM]

And her amnesia or ignorance shared by the programme commissioners too, judging by what turned up.
I bet the BBC are fervently hoping that your neighbour is the majority of their audience. Presumably they merely discount those listeners who know what a shabby mess that whole venture was as 'the wrong kind of listeners'?

[french frank]

I suspect that "Dickens" simply equates to "moneyspinner"; they look through the list of productions of the past and pick on the titles they know. The adapter will be someone who has had success writing scripts for Show X and is given carte blanche to do their thing with a Dickens novel. The BBC ticks its box for high profile 'culture'.

Those who criticise are 'serial moaners' and the only people at the BBC who understand the concept behind the criticisms have to keep their mouths shut or not get their contract renewed.

Though not having watched GE, perhaps I'm being unfair and biased

[vinteuil]

... well, I liked the opening photography of the marshes. The actor who played young Pip was impressive. I understand the actor who played adult Pip was previously a male model for Burberry, a post for which I feel sure he was well suited: he certainly had nice eyebrows. I was surprised that they had selected such a plain person for the 'unattainable' Estella...

But all this is by-the-by [ bye-the bye? ]

What was - i n e x c u s a b l e - was that they didn't capture the comic elements in this - even the most cursory read shows what a funny book this is - everything : his sister Gargery - Pumblechook - Wemmick - Aged P - Trabb's Boy - Jaggers - Herbert Pocket - are subjects of mirth - something this didn't get at alll...

[Bryn]

According to MovieMail, the rightly lauded 9 hour RSC production is due for re-release on DVD at the end of February next. The 'pre-order' price they are quoting is but £11.99! However, despite claiming it to be the 9 hour version, they also give a running time of but 107 minutes. A certain level of circumspection is called for before placing an order, I think:

http://www.moviemail-online.co.uk/film/dvd/The-Life-and-Adventures-of-Nicholas-Nickleby/?utm_source=fr1

Oops, got distracted by the parallel discussion over at r3ok. It's the 9 hour Nic Nic that is claimed to be due for a re-release. Would that Great Expectation were to get an equivalent production.

[Anna]

I suspect that "Dickens" simply equates to "moneyspinner"; they look through the list of productions of the past and pick on the titles they know. The adapter will be someone who has had success writing scripts for Show X and is given carte blanche to do their thing with a Dickens novel. The BBC ticks its box for high profile 'culture'.

The adaptation was done by a scriptwriter of Holby and East Enders

Totally agree with vinteuil, photography, sets, were brilliant but no humour whatsoever. It is a very funny book. I feel let down by the BBC as I had been eagerly anticipating it for months. We shall have to see what they've done to Edwin Drood (Jan 10th) Unsure if any more Dickens is in the pipeline

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/charles-dickens/8982962/Charles-Dickens-good-on-paper-great-on-screen.html

[Richard Tarleton]

I was surprised that they had selected such a plain person for the 'unattainable' Estella...

Sticking with the bye-the-bye for a moment, I thought she bore a striking resemblance to the young Jenny Agutter.

[Anna]

Sticking with the bye-the-bye for a moment, I thought she bore a striking resemblance to the young Jenny Agutter.

Yes, I think she did now you mention it. The adaptation was still a travesty of a brilliant novel.

Tonight 21:00 BBC2, Sue Perkins on Mrs. Dickens' Christmas. According to the RT, Dickens was egotistical, fickle and who saw women as virgins or frumps and couldn't cope with anything between the two.

RT also says It's got plenty of laughs