I watched the Christine Edzard film of Little Dorrit aged fourteen and was so enthused by it that I ended up doing work experience on her next film. For this reason I resisted watching this version for a long time. I relented recently having just read the book, but I was right to be wary. Watching this version reminded me how good the 1988 Edzard films were. This version has good production values and some very strong performances (although I still find Matthew McFadyen annoyingly wooden), but it lacks much of the book's depth and subtlety, while ironing many of his characters (who are always larger than life) into shadows of their written selves. The story has been 'distilled' and the stakes raised so that it has become a quest story, rather than a social satire with a quest element. Everyone seems about ten years too young for the parts they play, except Clare Foy, who is altogether too tall, too old and too knowing for Little Dorrit. They are also far too clean, as is London, and William Dorrit's room in the Marshalsea is so enormous it might qualify for the status of 'suite' when in fact the rooms in the Marshalsea were shared and less than ten feet square. Plus the language is far too modern and some of the details anachronistic (Clennam would NEVER have kissed his mother hello in 1826, even if she hadn't been a fearful old battle-axe). Most annoying of all, this version explains and signposts through scenes that have no place in the book, while cutting others (like the wonderful introduction of Flora Finching) back to the bone.
The Edzard version takes a more consistent approach to the point of view issue by telling the story twice, once from Clennam's point of view and then again from Little Dorrit's (and in a sense this version, with its shifting perspectives, is truer to the book). The camera-work is far more engaging in this version; Edzard's camera is static, a cool observer, whereas this version employs a liquid, flowing approach that gives the geography of the city greater life and a more sinister edge. Nonetheless the film is far better cast and its use of the original dialogue is more authentic.
The summary of Episode One in the DVD set describes Amy as an 'enterprising young woman'. This misses the point. She is a girl under pressure, a child, like so many in the developing world today, whose responsibilities are far greater than they should have to bear. It's Dickens's exploration of exploitation and imprisonment, in all its forms, that forms the essence of Little Dorrit. And I'm not sure this version does justice to any of these themes.
The Edzard version takes a more consistent approach to the point of view issue by telling the story twice, once from Clennam's point of view and then again from Little Dorrit's (and in a sense this version, with its shifting perspectives, is truer to the book). The camera-work is far more engaging in this version; Edzard's camera is static, a cool observer, whereas this version employs a liquid, flowing approach that gives the geography of the city greater life and a more sinister edge. Nonetheless the film is far better cast and its use of the original dialogue is more authentic.
The summary of Episode One in the DVD set describes Amy as an 'enterprising young woman'. This misses the point. She is a girl under pressure, a child, like so many in the developing world today, whose responsibilities are far greater than they should have to bear. It's Dickens's exploration of exploitation and imprisonment, in all its forms, that forms the essence of Little Dorrit. And I'm not sure this version does justice to any of these themes.