User Reviews

"Oliver!" is a vast improvement over the marvelous Broadway stage version, opening up the scenes with the ability to expand the range of the material and still remain faithful to the Dickens story. Brimming with unforgettable songs and dances (that choreography by Onna White is timeless), it is so well cast--down to the smallest roles--and so faithful to the spirit of Dickens' work that you can no longer imagine that classic without the songs.

Fagin is played to perfection by Ron Moody. His "You Gotta Pick A Pocket Or Two" is just one of the highlights incorporating clever lyrics and great choreography. The boys who kidnap Oliver are a rowdy lot, looking every bit the ruffians they're supposed to be. The best of the lot is Jack Wild's Artful Dodger, leading the gang in "Consider Yourself".

But not all is light and cheery. The darker aspects of the story are sometimes a little too graphic for my taste, although all of the performances are extremely well played, including Oliver Reed as Bill Sykes. The scenes involving his demise are so melodramatic they seem to belong to another film.

Whatever the faults may be, including a rather extended running time, there is scarcely a dull moment. With songs like "Who Will Buy?" and "Where Is Love?" -- not to mention "Food, Glorious Food" -- you will find yourself falling under the spell of this great musical. Highly recommended and fully deserving of its Best Picture Oscar.

This is a musical adaptation of Dicken's "Oliver Twist". For the most part, the original story has been maintained, though for the flow of the film certain subplots (such as the summer he spent recuperating and the half-brother) are omitted. The biggest difference in the film and the story is that by the end of the book, Fagin is hanged--an ending very different from this musical film.

This is a one of a kind musical--one whose style and scope really hasn't been matched before or since. Not only are the songs often quite singable and memorable, but the choreography of the film is a sight to behold. Whereas in most musicals a few people or perhaps even a small group are choreographed dancing, here the numbers often run into the hundreds or perhaps more. It's truly a sight to see and I was fortunate enough to have seen it in the theater when it debuted and is one of my earliest childhood memories. Having just seen it again a few moments ago, I would have to say that the film only got better over time. Great sets, wonderful acting and singing--this is a special treat that is hard not to love.

By the way, when I saw the film again tonight, I was surprised by just how high and feminine Mark Lester's singing was for the film. Well, according to IMDb, his singing was dubbed by a girl and this would definitely account for his voice.

OLIVER TWIST was to have controversy as well as success following it after Dickens published it in 1837. His picture of life in the urban ghettos was something shocking and new, and his making the central figures of the novel include criminals was another innovation.

One day he was walking in London and passed a young woman he had been friendly with. He said hello, but she was rather stiff with him. He could not understand this. A few days later they met again, and he asked what he had done to upset her. "Well, if you must know, I did not like your last novel.", she said. "Really, everyone else thinks highly of it." He was puzzled: "What's wrong with it?" "Oh, Charles," she said, "I'm Jewish. How could you make up such a character like Fagin?!" He had not expected this: "Well...you know that trial last year of Ikey Solomon, the thief trainer. He's a model for Fagin and he was Jewish."

Dickens found that did not settle things. "Yes," she replied, "He got what he deserved. But Charles, they did not call him "Solomon the Jew" like you call Fagin "the Jew"! Moreover, Solomon did not plan a murder. Fagin does." Dickens had to admit that he might have gotten carried away. He left thinking about what she said.

Oliver Twist was published in several editions. Dickens tried to improve on Fagin a bit. Then he got an idea. He reworked the chapter called "Fagin's Last Night Alive", showing the fears in the man as he faced hanging. He also added some additional details.

He let his female friend know about his resolve to change Fagin. A day or so later he met her at a friend's house. She looked at him as though he was crazy. "Didn't you like the changes?", he asked. "Charles, what changes - he's still a vile villain called "the Jew"!", she replied. "Yes, I did keep those in, but didn't you see how frightened he was in the death cell in prison." The young woman had noticed this, but felt that he was so vile he deserved to be suffering such fears. "Ah...then I was right about that...and did you see the little details I added?", he asked. "What details?", she replied. "When you first see Fagin now he is cooking himself dinner...you read that?", Dickens looked at her expecting a sign of recognition. Instead the lady looked confused. "I read he was at the fireplace, but I must have skimmed the passage." Dickens smiled as though he was brilliant, "He is cooking a pork sausage for his dinner." "A what!"she exclaimed. "He's eating pork, my dear...see - he's not a good Jew!" His friend looked at him, shook her head, and to his dismay left their friend's house. She didn't speak to him for years.

Dickens never totally shook off his own bigotries, but the situation did lead to a partial attempt at amends in his last completed novel. In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND (1865) he has a minor character, Mr. Riah, who is used by an unscrupulous landlord to collect high rents from poor tenants. The landlord figures that Mr. Riah will be blamed because he is Jewish.

But Mr. Riah is a good man. He is a very good man. He is a very, very, very, very good man - so good as to be unbelievable. If Fagin saw Mr. Riah in action he'd probably chase him away with a stick.

The anti-Semitic image of Fagin lingers to this day. It is a measure of Dickens' genius as a writer that the novel overcomes it. However, in presenting the story on film it still causes problems for screenplay writers and directors: how, after the Holocaust, can one do a film treatment of a worthy novel without inflaming bigotry? David Lean showed how by having Alec Guiness appear in one or two scenes showing a human side and in confronting a mob at the end with true dignity. Sir Carol Reed, in his musical version of the novel did it better yet, due to a rewrite in the original musical's script.

OLIVER had been made into a West End musical hit in the middle 1960s, and then taken to Broadway where it was again a hit. With a wonderful score by Lionel Bart, including "Food Glorious Food", "I Am Reviewing the Situation", "Consider Yourself", "Boy For Sale", "Who Will Buy", "As Long As He Needs Me", it deserved it's success. Reed did well in his casting the roles, including his nephew Oliver Reed as Sykes, Ron Moody as Fagin, Mark Lester as Oliver, Jack Wild as the Dodger, Shani Wallis as Nancy, and Harry Secombe as Mr. Bumble. There had been no big musical successes in Hollywood for a decade - the last musical to win the Best Picture Oscar had been GIGI in 1958. OLIVER won it in 1968.

And Fagin - how to handle the eternal problem of the caricature? Well in the musical Fagin is not captured, tried and executed for the murder that is committed. After all, even Lean showed Fagin tried to control his confederate in his actions. But here Fagin realizes that he is getting too old to depend on this kind of chancy life. Although he loses his treasures (those stolen items he kept because he knew their value, and admired their beauty), he decides he can reform. He is allowed to do so, accompanied by his faithful acolyte, the Artful Dodger. I don't think Dickens would have appreciated the change (his female friend might have), but a modern audience certainly accepts it as fitting.

This is one musical I enjoyed very much. It had wonderful music, it was well sung, the acting was also incredibly good (loved the Artful Dodger and of course, Finigan). Unlike most musicals, all stuff and fluff and all happy and joyful, this one has its dark side, and contains two murders, or killings. There is emotional depth, even in the music. I have to admit, when I see everyone burst into song (and everyone in the town seems to know all the words, tune, and etc) it makes me laugh inside, for certainly this would never happen in real life. But, hey, this is a musical. One thing this movie was not afraid of doing was allowing the sentimental and touching parts of the story to be well reflected in what we saw, the acting, and the singing. There is great seriousness in this story. Like, Les Miserables, it isn't about lovely people, but the "scum of the earth" who strive mercilessly to live in a world that sees them as worthless. And amid all the joyful rollicking, one is never allowed to forget the people and what they suffer. And yes, this ends with a happy ending, as all musicals should (or at least did in those days). This is a long movie, yes, it is, but that doesn't make it a boring movie. I am one who loves music completely, but can be bored silly during musicals that simply do nothing. I need a strong plot, good and well-defined characterization, a reason behind why the songs occur, and to have things moving forward constantly. They need not rush forward, but they must be moving forward drawing me to the climax and then resolving into the hopeful end. Oliver did this for me. It was filled with well-defined characters whose motives were extremely clear. It had believable situations where the characters had to face things, even unpleasant things, and it never shied away from showing the bad, even when Oliver was hoping for the best. Did it follow perfectly Dicken's book? NO! But then, what movie has? And after all, this is musical comedy, so it won't even consider the more horribly cruel and ugly parts of English life in those days. However, it did cover enough of the struggles so as not to fully whitewash out the sorrows of the plot.

I personally loved the musical. I never saw the stage play, but was well familiar with the music from learning much of it in school. I loved how they captured the times (though the dirty people of the lower class could still have been dirtier, grubbier, and well, really stinky; same with the orphans in the workhouse, they were all just a touch too clean). I do recommend this for all people, and all ages. For those who think the deaths in the movie are too much for children to see, believe me, they see far worse in most TV shows today, and in all their alien movies, or transformer movies, that are out there now. Excepting the death of Bill Sikes, nothing else is seen at all, only implied.

As a lifelong fan of Dickens, I have invariably been disappointed by adaptations of his novels.

Although his works presented an extremely accurate re-telling of human life at every level in Victorian Britain, throughout them all was a pervasive thread of humour that could be both playful or sarcastic as the narrative dictated. In a way, he was a literary caricaturist and cartoonist. He could be serious and hilarious in the same sentence. He pricked pride, lampooned arrogance, celebrated modesty, and empathised with loneliness and poverty. It may be a cliché, but he was a people's writer.

And it is the comedy that is so often missing from his interpretations. At the time of writing, Oliver Twist is being dramatised in serial form on BBC television. All of the misery and cruelty is their, but non of the humour, irony, and savage lampoonery. The result is just a dark, dismal experience: the story penned by a journalist rather than a novelist. It's not really Dickens at all.

'Oliver!', on the other hand, is much closer to the mark. The mockery of officialdom is perfectly interpreted, from the blustering beadle to the drunken magistrate. The classic stand-off between the beadle and Mr Brownlow, in which the law is described as 'a ass, a idiot' couldn't have been better done. Harry Secombe is an ideal choice.

But the blinding cruelty is also there, the callous indifference of the state, the cold, hunger, poverty and loneliness are all presented just as surely as The Master would have wished.

And then there is crime. Ron Moody is a treasure as the sleazy Jewish fence, whilst Oliver Reid has Bill Sykes to perfection.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Lionel Bart - himself a Jew from London's east-end - takes a liberty with Fagin by re-interpreting him as a much more benign fellow than was Dicken's original. In the novel, he was utterly ruthless, sending some of his own boys to the gallows in order to protect himself (though he was also caught and hanged). Whereas in the movie, he is presented as something of a wayward father-figure, a sort of charitable thief rather than a corrupter of children, the latter being a long-standing anti-semitic sentiment. Otherwise, very few liberties are taken with Dickens's original. All of the most memorable elements are included. Just enough menace and violence is retained to ensure narrative fidelity whilst at the same time allowing for children' sensibilities. Nancy is still beaten to death, Bullseye narrowly escapes drowning, and Bill Sykes gets a faithfully graphic come-uppance.

Every song is excellent, though they do incline towards schmaltz. Mark Lester mimes his wonderfully. Both his and my favourite scene is the one in which the world comes alive to 'who will buy'. It's schmaltzy, but it's Dickens through and through.

I could go on. I could commend the wonderful set-pieces, the contrast of the rich and poor. There is top-quality acting from more British regulars than you could shake a stick at.

I ought to give it 10 points, but I'm feeling more like Scrooge today. Soak it up with your Christmas dinner. No original has been better realised.

British film studios have not been known for turning out large numbers of first-rate musicals. But "Oliver" is a HUGE exception.

The 1968 version of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist," based generally although not slavishly on his original story, absolutely sparkles with great music, very fine acting, and some lessons about life, and people, that many of us may not notice the first or second time we see the film. Which is a good reason to watch it several times -- as I have, over the years.

Oliver Twist is a little boy in a British orphanage, where the unfortunate youths are forced to perform hard manual labor all day, and are fed almost solely on thin gruel by the miserly managers of the place. Emboldened by his mates to tell the head whip-cracker, "Please, sir, I want some more!", poor Oliver is expelled from the orphanage and sold ("Payment upon liking," says his new "owner," a skinflint undertaker) as a virtual slave.

Events enable Oliver to escape the undertaker's cellar, where he has been cast down for "misbehavior," and he winds up in London, where a vagrant boy about his age, The Artful Dodger, introduces him to the "orphanage," so to speak, run by a criminal named Fagin, who teaches "his" boys to pickpocket, and fences goods stolen by a burglar named Bill Sikes.

It is worth noting that, while Fagin exercises strict control over the young boys living with him, he appears to feed them better, and to treat them with more respect, than the establishment orphanage bosses.

Oscar becomes the favorite boy of Sikes' beautiful live-in girlfriend, Nancy, and that eventually leads him into trouble. Sikes' first appearance in the film comes at a crowded pub, late at night, after he has pulled a very profitable burglary. Preceded by his large, ominous-looking shadow as he walks in, he is a tall, unsmiling thug -- someone who "you wouldn't want to mess with," as we would say in the U. S.

Sikes is good at bullying and intimidating elderly men (Fagin), women (Nancy) and boys (Fagin's wards at his evil orphanage). But in the disturbing climactic scene, as he attempts to escape the London bobbies and outraged citizens after killing Nancy, while holding Oliver as hostage, a policeman's gun proves to him that all bullies and thugs, eventually come to a bad end.

The music, and the dancing, in "Oliver," are absolutely superb. One extended music and dancing scene, which takes place in a circular plaza in an upper-class neighborhood, was so good that it caused me goosebumps.

Ron Moody as Fagin; Shani Wallis, as Nancy; Oliver Reed, as Bill Sikes; Mark Lester, as Oliver; and Jack Wild as The Artful Dodger, play their parts to absolute perfection. This film won five Academy Awards, and in my opinion, should have received more. If you're a Dickens fan, and you want to see a really great musical with a different accent than the usual Hollywood kind, go see "Oliver."

I like musicals but as a Dickens fan I HATE this one. **MILD SPOILERS** Starving boys who have enough energy to sing and dance in the workhouse? The poor of London coming out to sing? Fagin and Dodger walking off into the sunset? Not exactly faithful to the novel. As I recall, Dodger was publicly hanged and Fagin went crazy in prison. **END OF SPOILERS**

Oliver Reed is very weak as Sykes, doing little more than growling to indicate his evil. Worst however, is Mark Lester as Oliver, who often comes across so awkward and passive you wonder if he's really the main character. His portrayal is in no way helped by the fact that the best they could do when he sings is dub in the voice of a girl. Guess they didn't realize that boy trebles can be found in almost every church in England.

Self-respecting Dickens fans: stick to David Lean's amazing 1948 film or the BBC 6-hour adaptation from the mid-80's. Avoid this bloated whitewash of a musical.