Nicholas Nickleby (1912) User Reviews

Nicholas Nickleby review

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 25 June 2020]

An early adaptation of Dickens' novel from the Thanhouser studio that manages to condense his mammoth work into just half-an-hour while retaining at least some of the period flavour and the quirkiness of the characters.

One of the first films to capture the spirit of Dickens

[DPMay · 8/10 · 11 February 2007]

First let's get the obvious stuff out of the way - the film was made a long long time ago when movie-making techniques were still been refined. A lot has changed since then so OF COURSE the film is very dated now. And, condensing the plot of Nicholas Nickleby down to a mere 20 minutes, OF COURSE it's not going to be perfect.

However, by the standards of 1912, this is a really good production. The story flows well with minimal intrusion from captions, the characters are clearly defined, the sets are quite lavish for the time (not a painted backdrop in sight)and the direction is quite good, albeit primitive by modern standards - for instance the camera is static in every shot - normal at the time but it wouldn't happen now.

What really struck me about this film is the casting - the actors have clearly been chosen carefully and don't just play their roles but LOOK the part too. We're used to seeing odd-looking Dickens characters on the screen now but this must be one of the first-ever films to really make his characters stand out visually.

The good news is that this film is available on DVD in the British Film Institute's compendium release "Dickens Before Sound" along with many other silent film versions of the great man's works.

Never Was Such a Movie Since the World Began

[boblipton · 10/10 · 1 September 2006]

You've probably never heard of the Thanhouser Company, nor any of the cast of this film, and if you've heard of the director, George Nichols, it was because a couple of years later he directed several of Chaplin's early movies. But in its heyday, the Thanhouser company was a major force in the advance of the arts of movie making, and this two-reel version of Dickens' novel is not only an exemplar of their art, it is a highly watchable and understandable version of the Dickens novel that is usually presented as a sprawling mini-series or an eight-hour stage show. The sets are elaborate, the costumes perfect, the actors interesting and the titles work absolutely correctly to link together the scenes into a satisfying whole.

Thanhouser had a rocky history. Within a year its founder was kicked out and the company absorbed into the Mutual conglomerate that absorbed Ince, Griffith and Sennett. Its methods were too expensive, its techniques too advanced to make it quite the moneymaker that more conservative methods might have. But the results can be seen: compare this with the "Famous Players in Famous Plays" that were being done at the same time: little more than filmed, stage-bound highlights of theater performances. This is a movie that, more than 90 years later can be watched with enjoyment. What more can you ask?

Shot in Corners

[Cineanalyst · 24 September 2009]

Honestly, this isn't good even for 1912. I'd rank it as a rather average production for its time: better than just filming a stage performance such as "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Richard III" films (1911 and 1912), for example, but certainly far short of "The Cameraman's Revenge" (Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora) or "Desdemona" (For Åbent Tæppe), both of which remain intelligently conceived despite having been made in 1912. Nor does this "Nicholas Nickleby" demonstrate anything close to the advanced film technique of D.W. Griffith, whose 1912 output included "The Musketeers of Pig Alley" and "An Unseen Enemy". Indeed, average seems to be a fair remark.

To fit Dickens' long novel into 20 minutes on screen, obviously there is a lot of condensing. In this respect, the filmmakers here do well to construct a coherent, if dull, narrative. Moreover, if this had been a feature-length production, as there were a few being made by 1912 (although not so many in the US), the film probably would be rather intolerably boring based on its dated production values and acting and severely limited role for the camera. Every indoor scene here takes place in a two-walled corner from a fixed, long view camera position—a very confining space, for which the purpose was surely to keep set construction costs low. The stage performance scene is the worst.

So clear has the producer made the story of Nicholas Nickleby that every child can understand it

[deickemeyer · 30 September 2016]

The Thanhouser David Copperfield created a new standard in the filming of Dickens and this standard alone can serve as a basis of comparison for Nicholas Nickleby. To tell the story of Nicholas Nickleby in two thousand feet of film and tell it entertainingly, with no loss of its humor and pathos and to give that swiftness of action so necessary to the successful photoplay seemed plainly and simply impossible. The Dickens wizards of New Rochelle have, however, achieved the seemingly impossible and in these days of features have placed a wonderful production in the hands of the independent exhibitor. Through the medium of these pictures millions, who have never read a line of Dickens, will shake with laughter and feel the dint of pity, even to the shedding of the "gracious drops." Is Squeers in the picture and do we see the Squeers pupils? Yes to both questions. The boys get their "brimstone and treacle" treatment in full view of the audience. The opulent meal of Squeers, consumed before the popping eyes of the "scholars" is there, likewise the tankard of ale, likewise the cup of water for the boys. Fanny Squeers? Yes, yes, she is there, even to "the remarkable expression of her right eye." Her flirting with young Nickleby would get a laugh from a set of graven images in a Chinese temple. Mrs. Squeers and Wackford are there, too, the "Thanhouser Kid" as Wackford. What can I say to do justice to the Thanhouser characterization of young Nickleby, of Crummles "en famille" and of the dear chubby Cherrybles. The sister of Nickleby is taken by an exceedingly clever artist. Gride is simply startling in point of appearance, acts superbly, and leaves a profound impression. Newman Noggs is just what Dickens meant him to be, while the Thanhouser Ralph Nickleby lives up to the description of the book in every inch of his personality and every bit of his acting. I must not forget "Smike," he too helps to sustain the general standard of excellence. Little will the spectators of this great feature realize what special art was required to give them such a delightful performance. While they cannot help feeling that these pictures are very different indeed from the ordinary production they can have no idea of the difficulty of the Thanhouser task. Dickens is just full of pitfalls for the film maker. The desire to bring in all that appeals to a lover of Dickens is fatal, for it begets confusion and bewilderment. Take for example the figure of Mrs. Nickleby. In the picture she is changed somewhat and justly relegated to the rear. The ghastly features, such as the end of Gride and Ralph Nickleby, have been omitted entirely, with great wisdom. The same Dickens eye, that created the characters, selected the scenic settings and superintended every little detail from coach and whip to the old fashioned knocker on the door. The very first scene carries us into Dickens land, where we pleasantly sojourn for something like three quarters of an hour. So clear has the producer made the story of Nicholas Nickleby that every child can understand it even if every subtitle were taken out. Emphatic praise, I know, but well deserved in this instance. I hope they will never lose the magic key, with which, in the Thanhouser studio, they unlock with such ease the door to the temple of Dickens fiction. - The Moving Picture World, March 9, 1912