Customer Reviews

David Copperfield (BBC)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have seen quite a few versions of David Copperfield and, in my opinion, this one is the best. The actors are outstanding, with a special nod to Anthony Andrews who plays a chilling Steerforth, and the locations and script are excellent also. I highly recommend this production. I have been waiting for it to come to DVD for a long time, and I'm so happy it finally has. It is definitely worth seeing.

If the BBC can devote 26 episodes to the Forsyte Saga (an excellent movie), surely they can devote 12 episodes to the greatest novel in the English language. Or to put it another way, if the BBC can devote five hours to an inferior novel like "The Buccaneers", surely they can devote twice that number to David Copperfield.

The 1974 version of the book is 5 hours long, the longest version so far. It includes all the important events of the novel, but only touches on these events and the many characters and does not have time to make the events as effective as they could be. The script is creditable except a few times where it ducked a dramatic scene, breaking before and coming in afterward, including the scene which Tolstoy called the greatest in all of world literature--the storm at sea. It is also a low budget film.

The casting is inferior with weak performances of almost all the actors (the exceptions being Anthony Andrews as Steerforth, the actress who played Aunt Betsy and the actor who played Heap, who gave us the best Uriah of any of the movie versions). Outstanding examples of bad casting were (1) David's mother, who should have been young and dainty instead of 40 and rugged, and (2) Dora, who should have been 16 and petite instead of late 30s and tall and sturdy. Also, the actor played Macawber too seriously without the touch of comic absurdity which the book has and which the part required. The actor who played the grown-up David did not look half so bad as the picture on the cover and played his part adequately.

The 1935 version with its stark black and white resembles the Cruikshank drawings in the book, and many of the performances are definitive: Freddy Bartholomew as young David, Edna Mae Oliver as Aunt Betsy, Basil Rathbone as Murdstone, Lionel Barrymore as Mr. Peggoty, as well as the people who played David's mother, little Emily, and most of the minor characters. The settings are a joke, cardboard, painted backdrops and the arid landscape of California filling in for the lush green English countryside. Still, it is an effective and indelible movie, marred only by having to leave so much out (2 hours 10 minutes) and by the horrendously inappropriate casting of W.C. Fields as Macawber (the most laconic actor in the movies to play the most loquacious character in all literature?!) His laboring to get the words out is painful to watch. The director, George Cukor, wanted Charles Laughton. Louis B. Mayer overruled him. But the filmmaker knew how to make movies, and the screenwriter knew how to write screenplays. The same cannot be said for the other film versions.

The 1970 version is a joke. Some smart-aleck screenwriter thought it would be clever to chop the story up into bits, toss them in the air, pick them up randomly and show them to the audience. All the moving events are thus rendered totally ineffective. This version is useful only as a lesson in how to ruin a great story.

The 1999 version is only three hours long and has more elaborate sets, some location shooting, and background music, but suffers from poor or inappropriate casting. Maggie Smith chose to play Aunt Betsy as a straight serious role, depriving the character of the comic touches which make Aunt Betsy such a cherished character. Bob Hoskins' performance bears no relation to Macawber, thus depriving us of one of the most colorful characters in all literature. Incredibly, the actor chosen to play Murdstone looks almost identical to Hoskins! Imelda Staunton portrays Mrs. Macawber very well, and the boy does well enough as young David, but the rest of the cast is lamentable. And the omission of Traddles is a loss. The script is hit and miss. But the most serious problems are the introduction of a narrator who is constantly narrating and keeping the audience at one remove from the events, and the actor who played the grown-up David, who constantly smiled and smirked, sometimes even in the tragic scenes. He seemed to have no other facial expression.

Bottom line: If you can only afford one version, the 1974 version is your best bet. Alas.

This 1974 production, while not perfect, is still far and away the best David Copperfield I have seen. It is written and acted by people who seem to know the novel. It is very well cast. I always thought Edna Mae Oliver and Maggie Smith were fine in the role of Aunt Betsey, but Patience Collier's Aunt Betsey is, in my opinion, definitive. Her performance is simply outstanding.
This is the only adaptation I know of which has David's friend Traddles, and he really is much more vital to the story than one might think.
A previous reviewer called Anthony Andrews' Steerforth chilling and he certainly is.
Others have commented on David himself being the least interesting character of the book, and in other versions of the story the portrayals of the adult David have been bland. David Yelland's title character is a vulnerable and sometimes naive hero and is quite likeable.
The sparse use of soundtrack music actually works very well with this production and it is refreshing to watch performances which are dramatic but never over the top or artificial.
For what it is worth, I think Mr. Tungay, one of the teachers at David's boyhood school, looks a lot like Beetlejuice, from the movie of the same name.

I highly recommend this version of David Copperfield.

This is my favorite David Copperfield color adaptation. Its main competitor is the Daniel Radcliffe/Maggie Smith Masterpiece Theatre adaptation from the 1999. Unfortunately, at 185 minutes, the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation fails to really convey the intricacies of Dickens' 600 plus page novel. Now, I am not slandering the 1999 adaptation. I am just saying I do not believe it is nearly as powerful as the 1974 BBC adaptation, especially if you are a Victorian loyalist. (If you are just want to watch a David Copperfield adaptation with a good picture quality, the 1999 Masterpiece will certainly suffice. It is a good story and relatively loyal, although the acting leaves something to be desired.)

However, enough about the 1999 adaptation. This is a review of the 1974 adaptation.

What I liked about this 1974 adaptation:

- Develops the plot well. Of course, a number of subplots are omitted. However, the main plots of the story remain, including Traddles' character, who receives considerable air-time. [Traddles' character is omitted from the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation.] Additionally, Dora Spenlow's character is really well-developed in this adaptation.

- Keeps a large amount of Dickens' dialogue, which any Victorian scholars knows, is quite distinct from other writers. This dialogue is especially significant in developing Wilkins Micawber's character.


What some might dislike about this 1974 adaptation:

- Is very stage-like. Certainly because of Dickens' language is kept (although true loyalists will say not enough), it requires concentration to follow what the characters are saying, at time. Therefore, individuals who just want to know the skeleton of the story (i.e. pleasure viewing), might be disappointed at the length of the film - 5 minutes of dialogue shot in the same room, which looks a little like a stage.

- Some people believe this adaptation maintains too unbelievable characters. Of course, Dickens' characters were always caricatures, especially in his early novels, yet even in the later ones. Therefore, some people might take offense as how 'stupid' Dora Spenlow is portayed or how cruel Rosa Dartle's character is portrayed. Many adaptations (I believe the 1999 included, omit Rosa's character.)


In short:

This film is wonderful for Charles Dickens' enthusiasts, who might even question whether it is loyal enough. It is certainly not like a 21st century American cinema production. The language is complex in terms of sentence structure. Many times, characters are portrayed too much like in the novel, and it makes people angry. However, if you want the most loyal adaptation, I believe this is it.


Note about other adaptations:

I have not mentioned anything about the 1986 BBC adaptation at 300 minutes starring Colin Hurley as David Copperfield because I have not viewed the adaptation. While I probably would be able to find a copy somewhere if one is available (through college connections), because the 1986 adaptation is not currently readily available on amazon, I do not want to mention anything more about it. You can find stills on-line by typing 'David Copperfield 1986.'

As for the Hallmark 2000 adaptation, I am familiar with it. It is available on that wonderful site that commences with 'y' and contains many films, although I do not believe it is readily available on amazon under region 1. It is available under region 2. However, the Hallmark adaptation is 4:3 aspect ratio and really does not tell the story much better than the 1999 adaptation starring Maggie Smith and Daniel Radcliffe. At 180 minutes, the Hallmark adaptation is about as long as the 1999 Masterpiece adaptation. Therefore, I really have nothing I can say to recommend the 2000 Hallmark over the 1999 Masterpiece.

However, both adaptations are interesting and take a different view of the Copperfield story. It would be interesting to watch the 1999 adaptation and then the 2000 adaptation because they are both very similar in many aspects.

Well written, well designed, well acted, and well directed, this solidly produced BBC mini-series merits praise all around.

Mr. Dickens' novel is not easily truncated for television, even in six installments, but the scenarists here have done such an admirable job of distilling the essential story points and characterizations, that viewers are afforded a well rounded treatment.

At first, David Yelland seems an odd choice for the title role, given that his physiognomy does not especially match with the youngster who plays the child David in the early chapters. Mr. Yelland is further hampered by a peculiar (and anachronistic) fringed bang hairdo, that looks like nothing so much as a Beatle wig. Despite these handicaps, however, he more than justifies his selection by his excellent performance.

Not only does he manage the emotional depth required in the stories later chapters, upon the betrayal of Steerforth etc,. but manages a comedy scene (a disastrous dinner party with wife Dora) with expert understated finesse.

Indeed, space precludes individual acting citations, since the players are down to the smallest bit, all outstanding in characterization, appearance and deportment. This is truly superlative ensemble acting.

Particular mention must be accorded Patricia Routledge, in her hilarious turn as Mrs. Micawber, Arthur Lowe as Mr. Micawber, Patience Collier as Betsy Trotwood, Anthony Andrews, (both chilling and attractive) as Steerforth, and perhaps most memorably, Jacqueline Pearce, (of Hammer horror fame) as Rosa Dartle and Sheila Keith as Mrs. Steerforth.

Indeed, the scenes between Misses Pearce and Keith, rife with bitter and hidden anguish, are shot with a tension and blood freezing quality, you'll not soon forget! (all the better to offset the sentimentality elsewhere).

Production design in both settings and costumes is apt, and the production team are to be commended on the way they cleverly fused outdoor footage with studio sets in seamless fashion.

Recommended.

There have already been excellent critiques, and I wouldn't dare to put mine up against those. What I would like to do is compare for a moment hours spent on David Copperfield as compared the hours I would normally spend watching several dramatic TV shows with the same plots over and over again. Nobody needs to describe the plots. They are all pretty much the same, and I've found myself watching them just because they are there.

I decided to spend more time with some of the movie versions of classics I've always loved, but I wondered if they would be as addictive as those evening soaps. I'm pleased to say that they are. I didn't know if stories such as David Copperfield were capable of holding my attention or making me care about the characters as I did when I read the book. They are even more so.

David Copperfield was completely what I had imagined him to be, and much more handsome. Agnes was even better than I had envisioned her. Dora was so lovable that I could see why David fell in love with her, and her last request to Agnes was handled so sensitively in this presentation. I could go on and on, but others have said it much better than I would.

What a great improvement in my usual viewing habits. I don't think I want to go back to the weak plots we have offered to us today.

This production follows what C Dickens wanted and did say in his book "David Copperfield." I think Mr Dickens would have been happy and gave it his approval. We are Dickens fans and usually see major plots are left out of the film, but not here. Do not look for Hollywood glizt here. Buy this BBC master.

Koch Vision and BBC present "David Copperfield" (1974) - David Yelland (325 mins/Color) (Dolby Digital) --- Under Julian Aymes (Director), John McRae (Producer), Charles Dickens (Book Author), Hugh Whitmore (Screenwriter) ----- the cast includes David Yelland (David Copperfield), Patience Collier (Betsey Trotwood), Collette O'Neill (Clara Copperfield), Ian Hogg (Mr. Peggotty), Martin Jarvis (Uriah Heep), Patricia Routledge (Mrs. Micawber), Arthur Lowe (Mr. Micawber) . . . . . our story is simply superb with David Yelland in the title role as David Copperfield in this 1974 BBC mini-series ... follow young Copperfield as he's taken from his Mother and loving maid by his stepfather who is as bad as they get ... will David be dumped into a boarding school and given his lessons through a hickory stick ... this bittersweet story has all the ear marks of another Dickens classic with magical direction, wonderful cast and outstanding production --- "My school-days! The silent gliding on of my existence - the unseen, unfelt progress of my life - from childhood up to youth! Let me think, as I look back upon that flowing water, now a dry channel overgrown with leaves, whether there are any marks along its course, by which I can remember how it ran" --- these and other quotes are waiting for you in this marvelous mini-series of David Copperfield by Dickens.

Great job by Koch Vision for releasing "David Copperfield" (1974) - David Yelland, the digital transfere with a clean, clear and crisp print...looking forward to more high quality releases from the BBC mini-series film market...order your copy now from Amazon or Koch Vision where there are plenty of copies available on DVD, stay tuned once again for top notch drama mixed with an outstanding cast and director --- just the way we like 'em

Total Time: 325 mins on DVD ~ Koch Vision KOCV6382 ~ (4/04/2006)

I love this movie. It's long but so close to the book and the acting is fun.

THIS WAS A GREAT SERIES THAT THE BBC DID, IT'S TOO BAD THEY DON'T DO MORE THINGS LIKE THIS TODAY, ALL THEY DO NOW IS ONLY FIT FOR THE GARBAGE CAN.

BUT THIS WAS A GREAT DAVID COPPERFIELD STORY !