Responses to this message:
I am going to do something that seems strange here: I am actually going to write down my thoughts on this film without attempting to be cute, cool or totally self-involved. I am just curious if others agree with me or not. If this is not the usual way on this site, pleasure excuse me.
I bought the DVD of this film yesterday and watched it last night. Today I have been schlepping all over the 'net seeing what others have thought. I am amazed to read some of their thoughts. One critic thought McGrath should have cut out the entire acting sequence. I disagree strongly. SOMETHING of Dickens should be left!
Much-most of the film was wonderfully done. There was admirable attention paid to the costumes, the sets and the actors' accents, most of whom really got into being denizens of 1850 (sorry, Mr Cranky, not 1880). Among the actors, Christopher Plummer was truly fantastic (no surprise there). What a great villain he plays! Tom Courtenay was superb, and Romola Garai was also exceptionally good, despite having an odd face. I loved Nathan Lane and Barry Humphries' scenes, although the latter is much better doing his own work. His Dame Edna is a lot better than his Mrs Crummles. Anne Hathaway (could that be the real name of an actress?) sounds genuinely English, and she uses her somewhat ungainly face beautifully. Heather Goldenhersh looks completely different, as she should, utterly common and scheming. The Squeerses are really wonderful as well.
So, who is left? Ah yes, the Nicholas! I have read an incredible amount of chauvinistic and idiotic nonsense about Mr Hunnan that it's enough to help me lose my lunch. Yes, he is rather nice looking; he smiles nicely and weeps convincingly. What he does not do well is speak. He himself says in the special features section that he comes from the North of England, and the characters in this novel are from the south and therefore speak differently. He indicates that he has had to work hard with his dialogue coach. In my opinion, he should have worked a lot harder. When I watched him in the British version of "Queer as Folk", I could barely understand a word he said, but he was still a lot more convincing as a willful kid from the North than he was as a Dickensian hero. His delivery is as wooden as his posture, and his coaches should definitely caught his unappropriate emphases of consonants ("I shall noTTTTT go." Even Dickens never pronounced it like that!). Mr Hunnan is a talented young man who needs some guidance (in the special features he appears to have gone out of his way to make himself as unattractive as he can - and he has succeeded). He definitely needs a lot more training as an actor if he is going to attempt more "classical" roles. He did not ruin the film for me, but it was close.
For those who really like this film, may I suggest they see the 1982 mini-series (all 8 and a half hours of it!) with Roger Rees in the title role. This is how it should be done.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread
And check this out: The Top Posters' Page