Here it is, Roman Polanski's adaptation of Charles Dickens' timeless classic. There have been many movies dealing with Oliver's adventures in 19th century London, and each has its qualities as well as its flaws. Polanski's version is not entirely satisfying, but decent and a visual revelation. It is a solid 8 in my eyes, and I will outline my reasoning.
Every adaptation of Oliver Twist primarily depends on the performance of its main protagonist. Here we have Barney Clark as Oliver. His performance is solid and decent, but throughout the entire story he is somehow emotionally idle. There is nothing to be complained about his appearance and his performance as a whole, but does he really live up to the leading part of his character? Is Barney Clark a bad Oliver Twist? Definitely not. Could he have done better? Definitely yes. I had the impression that Barney never really connected to the story on a genuine emotional level he somehow drifts through the different locations and settings but never really wakes up. There is a constant melancholy surrounding him and his face is almost all the time slightly depressed. While on the one hand this drifting appearance of Oliver complies with the general very subtle tone of the movie, it does on the other hand hamper real identification with the story's hero. It seems as if Barney himself feels a bit indifferent, and so will the audience. He is not a persuasive and emotionally captivating Oliver, but Polanski probably created his part deliberately so. Alex Trench in the 1997 TV version did a more vivid and compelling job in portraying Oliver, while Barney Clark adds a blue edge and a stronger sensibility to his character. Oliver Twist is a rascal and needs to take the floor, which Barney Clark never really does. I hardly ever connected to him on an emotional level.
The rest of the cast lives up to the premise of the story. Ben Kingsley is a good Fagin and manages to revive this awkward and ambivalent character almost to perfection. Harry Eden is a credible and decent Artful Dodger, definitely better suited than Elijah Wood in the 1997 version. Eden has already appeared in many movies (Pure, Peter Pan) and knows how to act sincerely without overdoing and exaggerating things.
By leaving the characters and taking a closer look at the story itself, I have to acknowledge the visual accomplishments of Polanski's adaptation. The images of the Victorian Age are stunning, the use of light and wide-angle shots together with partly gloomy, partly colorful close-ups and the contemporary London skyline creature a visually intriguing and convincing setting that very much lives up to Dickens' perception of those days. The visuals add substantial authenticity in terms of reviving the cultural features of London and the Victorian society. The pace of story developments is very subtle and sometimes too slow, the dramatic developments could have been made more straightforward, with more captivating climaxes and less pauses between them.
Oliver Twist has never really been a children's story in its most common sense, and Polanski's version is also not necessarily suited for the faint-hearted. It is the story of one boy torn between two cultural strata, between the expectation of living a decent life and the danger of getting caught in the sinister world of murder and deceit. There have been comical adaptations, but this one is very sincere and does not shun portraying all the vices and depravities of the society and its people.
Polanski has all in all done a decent job. He has found his own interpretation and still managed to preserve Dickens' basic premise. The camera work and the visuals are very persuasive, the settings are authentic and detailed; all that lacks to make Oliver Twist a masterpiece is a too indifferent performance by Barney Clark and an occasionally too slow pace of dramatic developments. It had the scope and the means of becoming a smashing movie, but it did not make use of its full potential.
Every adaptation of Oliver Twist primarily depends on the performance of its main protagonist. Here we have Barney Clark as Oliver. His performance is solid and decent, but throughout the entire story he is somehow emotionally idle. There is nothing to be complained about his appearance and his performance as a whole, but does he really live up to the leading part of his character? Is Barney Clark a bad Oliver Twist? Definitely not. Could he have done better? Definitely yes. I had the impression that Barney never really connected to the story on a genuine emotional level he somehow drifts through the different locations and settings but never really wakes up. There is a constant melancholy surrounding him and his face is almost all the time slightly depressed. While on the one hand this drifting appearance of Oliver complies with the general very subtle tone of the movie, it does on the other hand hamper real identification with the story's hero. It seems as if Barney himself feels a bit indifferent, and so will the audience. He is not a persuasive and emotionally captivating Oliver, but Polanski probably created his part deliberately so. Alex Trench in the 1997 TV version did a more vivid and compelling job in portraying Oliver, while Barney Clark adds a blue edge and a stronger sensibility to his character. Oliver Twist is a rascal and needs to take the floor, which Barney Clark never really does. I hardly ever connected to him on an emotional level.
The rest of the cast lives up to the premise of the story. Ben Kingsley is a good Fagin and manages to revive this awkward and ambivalent character almost to perfection. Harry Eden is a credible and decent Artful Dodger, definitely better suited than Elijah Wood in the 1997 version. Eden has already appeared in many movies (Pure, Peter Pan) and knows how to act sincerely without overdoing and exaggerating things.
By leaving the characters and taking a closer look at the story itself, I have to acknowledge the visual accomplishments of Polanski's adaptation. The images of the Victorian Age are stunning, the use of light and wide-angle shots together with partly gloomy, partly colorful close-ups and the contemporary London skyline creature a visually intriguing and convincing setting that very much lives up to Dickens' perception of those days. The visuals add substantial authenticity in terms of reviving the cultural features of London and the Victorian society. The pace of story developments is very subtle and sometimes too slow, the dramatic developments could have been made more straightforward, with more captivating climaxes and less pauses between them.
Oliver Twist has never really been a children's story in its most common sense, and Polanski's version is also not necessarily suited for the faint-hearted. It is the story of one boy torn between two cultural strata, between the expectation of living a decent life and the danger of getting caught in the sinister world of murder and deceit. There have been comical adaptations, but this one is very sincere and does not shun portraying all the vices and depravities of the society and its people.
Polanski has all in all done a decent job. He has found his own interpretation and still managed to preserve Dickens' basic premise. The camera work and the visuals are very persuasive, the settings are authentic and detailed; all that lacks to make Oliver Twist a masterpiece is a too indifferent performance by Barney Clark and an occasionally too slow pace of dramatic developments. It had the scope and the means of becoming a smashing movie, but it did not make use of its full potential.