Dickens wrote Nicholas Nickleby for serial publication so its disjointed episodic nature was acceptable. In book form however the change of scene as Nicholas and Smike transit from the grim realism of Dotheboys Hall to the utterly frothy and comic Crummles travelling theatre troupe just does not work satisfactorily. The film instead very cleverly unifies the entire story by making it theatrical throughout. We see this over-arching theatrical intention in the opening titles (a dolls theatre) and the finale with Crummles acting as MC and narrator. We see it again in the free rein given to the highly gifted Tom Courtney's rather over the top comic performance as Newman Noggs. And the ghastly Wackford Squeers and his even worse better half (played with convincing severity by the lovely Juliette Stevenson) are of pantomime awfulness where of course, in a theatre both would be hissed at by the audience. The overall impression of pantomime is reinforced by the casting of the Mother (and father) of all pantomime dames, Barry Humphreys. We are entertained by a succession of scenes ranging from highly melodramatic villainy to the fluffiest of comic tomfoolery. The comic and visual richness of the scenes of the Crummles troupe (shot in Wiltons Music Hall in East London) again confirm that this is intended as theatrical entertainment. Indeed the entire story in this films interpretation might have been performed by the Crummles troupe to tumultuous applause. The film is a thorough and thoroughly Victorian entertainment keeping close to the book and close to Victorian tastes for melodrama - and frankly exposed death both just and unjust (there were at the time immensely popular public hangings in London at which, as Dickens himself witnessed, comfortable family parties would hire rooms to take tea and cake whilst viewing). Very exceptionally the film stays entirely in period character and true to Dickens' intentions in this and many other respects.
Missing unfortunately is the wonderful Mr Mantilinni, serial suicide - he of the poison bottle and very small spoon. Missing too unfortunately is the death of Mulberry Hawk, killed in a duel by Lord Verisoft. The villainous seducer Hawk thus evades the justice which Dickens had arranged for him. The passage in the book was written in almost cinematic terms - a shame that space could not be found for it.
Christopher Plummer's performance as the "tormenter of children" is rather curious - his appearance and voice suggest a far softer character than in the book and make his hounding of Nicholas and treatment of his sister incongruous. Was it that the canny Plummer saw that this ensured a residual compassion for him at the really quite dreadful judgement fate - and his own hand - brings upon him at the end?
Our eponymous handsome hero, played by Charles Hunnam, is made to completely follow Dickens thoroughly Victorian version, sometimes tearful, sometimes (in this cynical age) rather mawkish. Some reviewers claimed to have laughed at the death of Smike. In the film it is played absolutely by the book. The complete innocence of Nicholas - and the love interests of his same age - which was of course taken for granted in those days is necessary to the drama particularly in establishing the full loathsomeness of the very unwelcome attentions of Mulberry Hawk. To have made Nicholas and his circle knowing, smart-mouthed and modern would have ruined the production.
The direction was assured - nearly every moment of high drama or low comedy hits its intended mark. The scene where a cheque is proffered to Squeers is masterfully handled. The end of Ralph is a considerable shock.
It takes a great deal of brains and talent not to interfere with the work of a genius. The film pays great respect to the illustrious author - and in doing so the production - and the audience - are greatly rewarded.
But the book is a work of genius. Arguably film can never approach the art of the written word. Did it compare with the best of Dickens' film adaptations: David Lean's "Oliver Twist"? It lacked the towering character acting and brilliant cinematography.
Missing unfortunately is the wonderful Mr Mantilinni, serial suicide - he of the poison bottle and very small spoon. Missing too unfortunately is the death of Mulberry Hawk, killed in a duel by Lord Verisoft. The villainous seducer Hawk thus evades the justice which Dickens had arranged for him. The passage in the book was written in almost cinematic terms - a shame that space could not be found for it.
Christopher Plummer's performance as the "tormenter of children" is rather curious - his appearance and voice suggest a far softer character than in the book and make his hounding of Nicholas and treatment of his sister incongruous. Was it that the canny Plummer saw that this ensured a residual compassion for him at the really quite dreadful judgement fate - and his own hand - brings upon him at the end?
Our eponymous handsome hero, played by Charles Hunnam, is made to completely follow Dickens thoroughly Victorian version, sometimes tearful, sometimes (in this cynical age) rather mawkish. Some reviewers claimed to have laughed at the death of Smike. In the film it is played absolutely by the book. The complete innocence of Nicholas - and the love interests of his same age - which was of course taken for granted in those days is necessary to the drama particularly in establishing the full loathsomeness of the very unwelcome attentions of Mulberry Hawk. To have made Nicholas and his circle knowing, smart-mouthed and modern would have ruined the production.
The direction was assured - nearly every moment of high drama or low comedy hits its intended mark. The scene where a cheque is proffered to Squeers is masterfully handled. The end of Ralph is a considerable shock.
It takes a great deal of brains and talent not to interfere with the work of a genius. The film pays great respect to the illustrious author - and in doing so the production - and the audience - are greatly rewarded.
But the book is a work of genius. Arguably film can never approach the art of the written word. Did it compare with the best of Dickens' film adaptations: David Lean's "Oliver Twist"? It lacked the towering character acting and brilliant cinematography.