Little Dorrit

This is a spoiler-free review.

Andrew Davies, adapter of many many classic period dramas writes yet another winning screenplay with only one little hiccup in the entire 8 hour run-time. I wish I could say I love how faithfully he adapted Charles Dickens' story -- and I'm thinking he probably did -- but since I haven't read it yet and can't critique any adapting choices, I can only say that the plot he wove was involving and interesting and flew by effortlessly, and was brimming with wonderfully complex and realistically flawed characters. Eight hours yet it never comes even close to tedious.

Ah -- those costumes! If I didn't know better I might think that's the only reason I like these sorts of movies.

But I mentioned a tiny hiccup.

There were seven and a half hours of pleasant, easy-going pacing, and then a rushed last half hour, resulting with very little anticlimax, and a few story lines left hanging. Since this happened at the end it is what stuck in my mind most, but is the only flaw I can remember noticing, and it's a relatively small one, and a relatively common one as well. It hindered my enjoyment only in the tiniest degree, and with a second viewing, I doubt it'll hinder at all, but an extra half-hour of run-time or some better time management wouldn't have gone amiss.

Also, it's partly my own fault, but the mystery's reveal took some work to understand. I usually pride myself on being able to understand those wordy sentences and accents, but this plot was so easy to follow at first I wasn't expecting to have to concentrate, and the result was more than a moment's confusion near the end. The scene probably could have been written more clearly, but it is something that will disappear completely upon a second view, so it's hardly a problem.

I even like the men's costumes.

The filming style felt perfectly like Dickens, with the gorgeous, dark and gritty look, and an ominous, mysterious undertone. I loved how the camera would roll to subtle angles sometimes, amplifying some of the more uncomfortable and creepier scenes. The writing and filming styles were very complementary together, giving out silent, intriguing hints to the plot and characters.

Our heroine and title character is little Amy Dorrit, played by Claire Foy. I have never seen or even heard of Foy before, and it made her embodiment of the character even more complete. She made an ideal main character for the story -- perfectly sweet, kind and gentle, but produced spirit and determination when she needed. Like a Disney Princess of Dickens' world.

And very pretty too.

You may know that I do not at all like Matthew Macfadyen's version of Mr. Darcy in the '05 Pride & Prejudice. I have, however, always disliked it to his credit, assuming that he is such a talented actor that the dull, unsavory performance was only exactly what the director wanted it to be, and that he had obliged him. I hold that opinion even more firmly after seeing his delightful performance as Mr. Clennam -- a worthy actor for a worthy hero.

I still don't think he's Mr. Darcy material, but does he need to be? Absolutely not!

In stark contrast to Amy is the rest of her family. Her father William Dorrit (Tom Courtenay) is a sad older man, more than a little touched in the head, and annoyingly pompous in spite of his situation, but besides his stupid ideas he's a mostly kind and loving father. Her sister Fanny (Emma Pierson) is stuck-up, affected and selfish, and wears the perfect makeup to match her personality -- it's awful, but I love it, and in the one scene when it's off, she seems actually human and I liked her. And Amy's brother, equal to Fanny in selfishness, plus rude and lazy to boot is Edward, played awesomely by Arthur Darvill, and is the complete opposite of Rory -- no noticeable redeeming qualities.

"Rory and the china doll."

Now the villain, Andy Serkis. Whoah-ho-ho, Andy Serkis! He's no stranger to villainous characters, but this one is uniquely impressive, firstly because it's not a motion capture job, (ha) and seriously because this villain has such a slithery dramatic flair. Rotten to the core, and a Frenchman too -- Serkis' looks are perfect, as is his accent, and the creepy factor is off the scale. It bothers me that he is often type-cast as the villain (my family can't even recall his non-sinister roles) but it doesn't help his case when he's this good.

Voila, bad guy.

This was quite the show for a game of "Name That British Actor." I gleefully recognized too many more faces to even mention them all, but they most interestingly include:

Russell Tovey -- of Sherlock and Doctor Who, and from which I could tell he's a likably intense actor, but I was still impressed with his performance of poor love-struck John. I recognized supporting man Eddie Marsan first as Lestrade in Sherlock Holmes (you may recognize his from many other assorted films) but henceforth I'll be remembering him as Mr. Pancks, because as Pancks he finally stood out, and demanded attention. Still technically a supporting character, but a memorable, finely tuned one. Freema Agyeman (yet another from Doctor Who) was a little too odd and annoying with her character; and Anton Lesser was of course, very, very good.

I'd know those ears anywhere -- Russell Tovey.

I wonder why it took me six years to finally get around to watching this fantastic "little" gem.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a certain, rather thick book sitting next to me that is long overdue in its wait for someone to begin reading it.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a rich man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife."

So begins Jane Austen's classic novel, Pride and Prejudice. What is it about? If you said it was a romance about a proud man and a prejudiced woman you wouldn't be wrong... just missing out on a few points. If you said that, I would assume that you had only watched this 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice, and liked it. And while I really can't say you're "wrong" for liking it, I can say, as before, you would be missing out.

But today I am not here to tell you about all the wonderful things you are missing if I say "Elizabeth Bennet" and you see Keira Knightley. I'm simply going to review, analyze and nit-pick this film until I am satisfied, and hope that the end result gives you a fair idea of what exactly I think of it. I think you may have a fair idea already.

If not, however, I hope that trailer set it a bit straighter for you. Yes, a deep-voiced announcer said "in a era" at the beginning. I can hardly believe it myself. But my favorite part has to be how they try to make you think Miss Darcy is Miss De Bourgh. Ha.

This film starts out very well. Beautiful cinematography paired with some equally fine music goes on pleasantly for a good while, and all is well until Knightley's poor posture and odd hair makes a bold appearance and ruins the serenity. And the nagging feeling of there being something terribly wrong never goes away. Five minutes in I get a horrible desperate feeling that the movie is going by way too fast.

Savor moments that look like this.

I'm afraid that there is very little middle ground here for me. I either think a part is surprisingly good, or intolerably bad -- and I really mean intolerably. Director Joe "Anything-But" Wright makes a large number of changes and additions. Some are blatantly disrespectful of Austen's novel, and appear to have only been made for the sole purpose of making his film obviously different from the source. Some are just plain stupid, and ALL are unnecessary.

An example, because I can't resist: After Mr. Darcy proposes to Lizzy the first time... in the rain... and they've just finished insulting each other, he steps in closer... and they nearly kiss. (Excuse me for moment whilst I give back my breakfast.) I will not insult anyone's intelligence by explaining why that is... is... inconceivably ridiculous. If you can't understand, go read the book.

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Joe Wright obviously has zero respect for Jane Austen. I could go on with this for hours, but I would only succeed in annoying myself. And, unfortunately, I have to give him some good credits too. Cinematography is his forte -- and his takes liberties in the story to show case it -- but if I judge it without bias, I can honestly say it's beautiful. And while he totally messed up casting the two leads (and skinny model and a "hunk") the supporting cast is impressive and very interesting.

Pictured from right to left: One girl soon to be famous, one amazing actress before she was famous, one girl I would not miss if she quit acting, one of the most beautiful women in the world, and one girl who is not actually ugly at all.

Fun facts time! Jena Malone has been cast as Johanna Mason in Catching Fire, which will probably get her a lot of attention. This was Carey Mulligan's first movie, and has since catapulted herself into fame, and I'm confident she will continue to grow rapidly. And do you recognize Mary? Talulah Riley may not be a very big actress, but I doubt she escaped your notice in Inception.

Talulah Riley played a blonde, played by Eames, played by Tom Hardy. A role within a role within a role!

These three girls barely got enough screen time to insure that fans would be able to tell them apart, but there are some really good and funny details to their characters that I love to see. Kitty (Mulligan) eying Mr. Wickham after he's married to Lydia; Mary, through expression, making it obvious that she would have married Mr. Collins; and Lydia's (Malone) "war of the wine glass" with Lizzy. (Inaccurate, but funny)

Rosamund Pike got a fair amount of screen time, and made the most of it by being lovely and sweet, and a very good Jane. Her suitor, Mr. Bingley, played by Simon Woods, was unfortunately ruined by script and direction. His best scene, and the only one where he doesn't act awkward or stupid, was apparently improvised. To really enjoy the actor, I recommend watching Cranford.

Another fun fact: The two actors dated before this movie. Maybe that explains Bingley's awkwardness.

I shouldn't put it off any longer. Lizzy and Darcy -- Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen -- the foundation of the story and therefore, the reason I don't like this version. I suppose it's a credit to their acting... that they're so awful... they obviously did exactly what Wright wanted them to do.

Look at them -- stopped in the middle of the set to stare each other down! Such passion.

All the wonderful complexities of these characters don't even come close to making an appearance. The only thing MacFadyen has going for him is his ability to look serious and proud, and his deep voice; Knightley's is her ability to say all the old-fashioned lines and make them (more or less) sound like they come from her head. Neither look the part, but Knightley is by far the worst of the two. She's way to skinny, way too modern and way too glamorous -- which makes her much better suited for the roles she later took in Wright films, in Atonement and Anna Karenina. (Two movie better suited to his style as well, I believe.)

I always smile in this scene, when Darcy says "you are conscious that your figures appear to best advantage when walking" because Elizabeth's figure is so pathetic compared to Miss Bingley's. The moment takes on a whole new meaning!

Speaking of Miss Bingley, I've decided that she is my favorite part of the film. So fashionable, so haughty, so jealous, and her character is not only played well by the lovely Kelly Reilly, but played as it should be. Right, not Wright. Oh, and the way she holds her mouth as they leave Netherfield is perfection.


Obviously, the director is the reason I don't like/respect/acknowledge this film as a Jane Austen adaptation. But I'm conflicted, because this is a beautifully shot film, that has some great and some practically brilliant intricacies and moments -- also the directors work. So what can I say, but that some of this movie makes me sick, and some makes me laugh out loud? I wish I could say one or the other -- be free to hate or love this movie in peace -- but, sadly, I cannot.

Now I will attempt to give a star rating to this confusing, conflicting film. It boils down to this: as a adaptation of Austen's novel, it's inaccuracies, and disrespectful changes, 1 star would be generous; disregarding all that, just as a film, I could give it 4 with no problem. So here is my compromise...

-- 3 stars.

Review #1 of this challenge!