Some thoughts on 'Copperfield'

First of all, happy New Year, fellow Dickensians!

Second of all -- I feel like the last person on the planet to have seen The Personal History of David Copperfield! But now that I have seen it at last, if you can stand hearing a few more thoughts on it, here are mine.

The great value of this film is the lightness and freshness it brings to the material -- an atmosphere that reminds us of all the wonder and whimsy of Dickens's original book, especially as seen through David's innocent eyes. And I see now why Dev Patel was Armando Iannucci's first and choice for the lead role -- Patel is absolutely perfect at conveying wide-eyed wonder and unquenchable hope, even in a world that's mistreated his character. From the sun-drenched landscapes to Christopher Willis's lush score to the special effects, which were used just enough and not too much, this is a bright, beautiful, non-dark-and-foggy side of Dickens's world that we don't get to see nearly enough. 

The casting is, for the most part, spot on. I've already mentioned Patel; besides him, Hugh Laurie was the most perfect fit for his role. His Mr. Dick was charming and wistful and showed more depth than I could have supposed Mr. Dick capable of, though no doubt Aunt Betsey would bite my head off for ever doubting his capabilities. Speaking of Aunt Betsey, Tilda Swinton was one performer who, to my mind, was not quite a perfect fit. Obviously she's an incredibly talented actress, but we didn't really see her grow and soften with the years. Her Aunt Betsey was who she was always going to be, pretty much from the start. We don't get enough of Rosalind Eleazar's Agnes, but she did some nice things with the role, making the character somewhat less constrained but still morally grounded, and I would have liked to see more of her. 

David's growth into a writer, which of course reflects Dickens's growth into a writer, feels very real and very well-done, though I felt it was a mistake not to see him getting at least some education in childhood. I also deeply felt the loss of Traddles. (Sorry, but making him into a friend of Mr. Dick's, mentioned once in passing, is not at all sufficient!) And I feel we missed out by not seeing young Steerforth and learning how he became so morally bankrupt. Of course a great deal of condensing had to be done, and it was interesting and instructive to see how it was done -- giving Mr. Micawber the Mr. Mell storyline, for instance. Every version has to emphasize some things, combine others, and leave out still others, and again, this film's choices allowed it to focus on the lighter side as much as possible. (I'll put a spoiler related to this in the comments.) Incidentally, I liked that it also played with the way that so many people call David by different names and asked what that might mean to him. I always found this tendency fascinating and enjoyed the film's take on it.

Because of some of the things that were left out here, I wouldn't want this to be the only adaptation of David Copperfield. But on the other hand, I think this adaptation filled a certain need -- a need for a version that brought out the joy and the childlike spirit that's so often found in Dickens -- and for that reason, I now consider it one of the essential adaptations.

Comments

[Gina]

SPOILER ALERT
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

I begin this comment with apologies to Cody Quanbeck, who in his guest review (https://dickensblog.typepad.com/dickensblog/2020/09/david-copperfield-an-iannuccian-dickens-movie-or-a-dickensian-iannucci-movie-.html) wanted to discuss the fact that Dora doesn't die, but instead releases David from their engagement. I understand why he wanted to talk about this, but I didn't want to reveal this major change to readers without warning, so I convinced him that we had to leave it out of his review. I left it out of mine as well. But here, I will give you his paragraph that I took out, and then give you my own opinion.

Cody originally wrote: "Then there’s Dora Spenlow (wonderful Morfydd Clark who also plays David’s mother) realizing her incompatibility with David and breaking their engagement before any marriage. A movie would not have had time, with all the other plots, to do full justice to their marriage from the book, and the literary resolution of having Dora die is rather ridiculously convenient. This adaptation decision probably makes David Copperfield a better movie. But I can’t quite reconcile myself to it. David and Dora’s marriage in the book is almost unprecedented in Dickens, and arguably in literature in general, in that it’s portrayed as a bad idea but neither of the people in it is vilified and both are committed to each other and to making the best of a bad situation. Without it, the movie’s story isn’t really David Copperfield."

I understand this point, and sympathize to a degree. But when I saw the scene for myself, I actually felt it was done in a way that fit the tone and style of the film very well and made me more reconciled to such a big change than I thought I would be. Dora asks David to write her out of their story, which feels organic to a film that's all about David the developing writer learning to create his own life and narrative. We still get Dora's moral development in recognizing her own shortcomings and her graciousness in wanting David to have a happy future, and the film accomplishes this without the marriage and death. This is another reason why I would not want this to be the only adaptation, because we do lose something without seeing these two characters go through great suffering and loss, but for this particular adaptation I felt that they hit on an adequate solution for how to separate them without making things too dark and gloomy.

[Marion Ake]

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing the Patel adaptation yet, though I feel as if I've been looking forward to it for far too long. I did watch the old version with W.C.Fields as Micawber recently and was appalled that Traddles and Rosa had been completely ignored. I'm sorry to know that Traddles has been left out of this new version, also. He is the heart of the novel.

[Cody]

" Speaking of Aunt Betsey, Tilda Swinton was one performer who, to my mind, was not quite a perfect fit. Obviously she's an incredibly talented actress, but we didn't really see her grow and soften with the years. Her Aunt Betsey was who she was always going to be, pretty much from the start."

That's how I feel about Edna Mae Olivier's Betsey Trotwood in the 1935 movie (though I found her performance more fun than Tilda Swinton's.) She captured the character's personality at one point of the story better than any other actress but she didn't show any of her character development. Actually, that's kind of the 1935 movie in a nutshell. It captures the characters at specific points more vividly than any other adaptation but it doesn't show any of their arcs, except for David Copperfield, Dora and maybe Micawber. (I do really enjoy it in spite of that BTW.)

[Gina]

Now I think about it, I believe Traddles has gotten left out of most if not all adaptations. It's such a shame -- he's a wonderful character. (Those skeletons alone!)