Oscars Retrospective: Oliver! (41st Academy Awards Review)
.jpg)
Overture/Main Titles~Lionel Bart - Oliver!
With the exception of A Christmas Carol (1843), Oliver Twist (1839) was arguably the most famous novel of early 19th century British writer, Charles Dickens, and is usually the story that first springs into mind when the adjective “Dickensian” is used. Dickens’ stories and their Dickensianism have always been a ripe subject for film adaptations. But while A Christmas Carol has a new film adaptation about every 10 years, and it’s very debatable which is the best one, film adaptations of Oliver Twist are much more rare and the one that is almost universally regarded as the most definitive, iconic and beloved interpretation of the story was the 1968 musical film (originally a play released in 1960). In some ways, this movie could also be considered the last hurrah of the British Invasion as this was the last British film to win Best Picture after several victories in a row and pop culture would refocus back to America as the Hollywood New Wave got underway.
The story revolves around young Oliver Twist (Mark Lester), an orphan who works at what used to be called a workhouse (basically a factory for orphans to live and work in) who has the audacity to ask the overseer (Harry Secombe) for an extra helping of food. This does not end well and leads to Oliver getting evicted from the workhouse and shopped around to some other taskmasters. Through a series of events, Oliver manages to escape from his master and ends up on the lam. Before long, he meets another young street urchin known as the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild), who runs in a gang of other children who engage in illegal activities (mainly pickpocketing). They let Oliver join their ranks and the rest of the movie is their dynamic with the three adults who run/basically traffic the gang: their adopted father and pickpocketing teacher Fagin (Ron Moody), Fagin’s partner-in-crime Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed) and Sikes’ girlfriend Nancy (Shani Wallis).
What defined Oliver Twist as one of the most important stories of Victorian English literature is that there is a very classist dynamic to the story. Oliver is deliberately written to be as vulnerable and cute as possible to show how he’s impacted and put in danger by the various societal elements of England. We see how he interacts with the working class, the criminal class and, eventually, the upper class. Each class leaves its mark and the story does draw deliberate parallels between the greed and cruelty of Bill Sikes and the overseer versus the more benevolent Nancy and an upper-class London gentleman named Mr. Brownlow (Joseph O’Conor). The children in Fagin’s gang are written off by society, leaving them little choice but to steal.
What’s interesting and makes this more of a product of its decade than it may first seem is that the criminal element is treated with a lot less menace than in the original story, particularly the character of Fagin, who is clearly the fan-favorite character. In the original novel, Fagin is essentially the co-villain, being the more cowardly and underhanded brains of the gang to contrast with the brutal Bill Sikes. In this movie, he comes off as a lot more lovable and is neither a hero nor a villain yet is still arguably the co-protagonist of the film. Instead he’s the film’s comic relief and moral gradient, feeling like he wants to go straight but because he’s spent so long being a thief, he feels that he’s too far gone to ever have a normal life.
The story revolves around young Oliver Twist (Mark Lester), an orphan who works at what used to be called a workhouse (basically a factory for orphans to live and work in) who has the audacity to ask the overseer (Harry Secombe) for an extra helping of food. This does not end well and leads to Oliver getting evicted from the workhouse and shopped around to some other taskmasters. Through a series of events, Oliver manages to escape from his master and ends up on the lam. Before long, he meets another young street urchin known as the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild), who runs in a gang of other children who engage in illegal activities (mainly pickpocketing). They let Oliver join their ranks and the rest of the movie is their dynamic with the three adults who run/basically traffic the gang: their adopted father and pickpocketing teacher Fagin (Ron Moody), Fagin’s partner-in-crime Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed) and Sikes’ girlfriend Nancy (Shani Wallis).
What defined Oliver Twist as one of the most important stories of Victorian English literature is that there is a very classist dynamic to the story. Oliver is deliberately written to be as vulnerable and cute as possible to show how he’s impacted and put in danger by the various societal elements of England. We see how he interacts with the working class, the criminal class and, eventually, the upper class. Each class leaves its mark and the story does draw deliberate parallels between the greed and cruelty of Bill Sikes and the overseer versus the more benevolent Nancy and an upper-class London gentleman named Mr. Brownlow (Joseph O’Conor). The children in Fagin’s gang are written off by society, leaving them little choice but to steal.
What’s interesting and makes this more of a product of its decade than it may first seem is that the criminal element is treated with a lot less menace than in the original story, particularly the character of Fagin, who is clearly the fan-favorite character. In the original novel, Fagin is essentially the co-villain, being the more cowardly and underhanded brains of the gang to contrast with the brutal Bill Sikes. In this movie, he comes off as a lot more lovable and is neither a hero nor a villain yet is still arguably the co-protagonist of the film. Instead he’s the film’s comic relief and moral gradient, feeling like he wants to go straight but because he’s spent so long being a thief, he feels that he’s too far gone to ever have a normal life.
The character in the original novel was referred to as Fagin the Jew and considered by scholars of Victorian literature to be an anti-Semitic stereotype. That aspect was, needless to say, completely left out of the movie.
This is a pretty fascinating take on how adapting an original story can work. This interpretation of Fagin is so wildly different from what Dickens was trying to say with the character yet he ends up being an interesting foil to Oliver. Whereas Oliver is still young enough to get away from crime, Fagin has been steeped in it so long that it’s possible he might never get out. Yet, he doesn’t necessarily wallow in self-pity about it. He has a makeshift family, he enjoys the work he does, he clearly has a lot of fun being a pickpocket. But every now and then he realizes that this is not a lifestyle that can go on forever.
Similar to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady (1964), Ron Moody had moved laterally into playing the role from Broadway so he could probably play Fagin in his sleep by the time he did this movie and the result is one of musical cinema’s great characters. This is one of those famous movie characters who is so distinctive that you see the look of him or hear one of his songs, you’ll immediately know that it’s him. He also in turn pioneers a whole new archetype of movie characters: the noble thief who, despite his criminality, still has his own code of honor.
The other characters are pretty great too. Nancy has a nice motherly side to her (which is especially interesting since if you read between the lines, the character is clearly a prostitute) but still has a pretty fun wit. Jack Wild is also great as the Artful Dodger, being another distinctive Dickensian character with his desperately trying to act older than he is (Wild was so beloved that he was this movie’s nominee for the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor). Also, despite not being in the movie for very long, the workhouse overseer is probably the most iconic part in the movie. You can tell that that actor must’ve been having so much fun playing this guy.
The only character who’s a little weak is admittedly Oliver Twist himself. Compared to the rest of these characters, Oliver is quite boring. Now to be fair, he is supposed to be more of an everyman, just an ordinary kid who’s sucked into this criminal underworld. The problem is that he’s a very Hollywoodified idea of what an ordinary kid is and he was clearly hired more for how cute and innocent he looks than how well he can act. Especially when you pit him against the Artful Dodger, you can practically watch Jack Wild act circles around his co-star. In total fairness, though, I have seen far worse and Oliver isn’t really annoying or unlikable which, for a movie from this time period, is quite an accomplishment. Plus, when he looks scared, he does look genuinely scared and the film does succeed at making us feel sorry for him; it just gets to be a little manipulative at times with how gosh darn pwecious he is.
Most of the other side-characters and corrupt authority figures are good too but, to me, the most memorable performance is Oliver Reed as the evil Bill Sikes, who is one of the greatest villains in cinematic history. Sikes is a brutal and wicked thug who will do anything to get his way. He steals, he threatens violence, he murders, he kidnaps children, you name a bad deed and this man has done it. Oliver Reed does great at giving him this thousand-yard stare that makes him seem like he’s truly dead inside.
While thuggish brutes weren’t a new archetype in movies, what makes the performance especially great is how well he plays off of the other characters. For starters, it’s hard to imagine a more terrifying boogeyman for a little kid like Oliver. For another, he’s the only main character who never sings or dances which makes him feel a lot more real than the other characters who tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves. It’s a fun cognitive dissonance with how every other member of Fagin’s gang are upbeat little street urchins and then have to encounter the sort of real, actual psychopaths that actually inhabit the criminal underworld.
Speaking of music, that’s clearly the biggest attraction here and it is wonderful. Along with West Side Story (1961) and The Sound of Music (1965), this is one of the most iconic and definitive of all movie musicals. While I don’t think Oliver! quite broke ground or pushed the envelope in the same way those movies did, you can tell the director took those movies as a chief influence. The film alternates between monologuing songs and big dance numbers without much variety in-between although the songs all do provide quite a bit of depth.
“Food, Glorious Food” is the opening number that shows the despondency of the orphans in the poorhouses whose terrible food is their only solace of the day. “Reviewing the Situation” is Fagin’s big stand-out number that really captures the difficulty of the character while also being funny. “Oom-Pah-Pah” sounds like a silly, dirty joke though it’s actually a clever number about Nancy staging a party to save Oliver from Bill Sikes. Probably the most famous one where there isn’t some subtler commentary is “Consider Yourself” though it makes up for it by being the best and most elaborate musical number in the movie. As much as we make fun of classic Hollywood musicals here, this is one of those times they pay off. This must have taken weeks, if not months, to choreograph and shoot and is simply wonderful to see and is the type of filmmaking style that we may never see again.
Most of the other side-characters and corrupt authority figures are good too but, to me, the most memorable performance is Oliver Reed as the evil Bill Sikes, who is one of the greatest villains in cinematic history. Sikes is a brutal and wicked thug who will do anything to get his way. He steals, he threatens violence, he murders, he kidnaps children, you name a bad deed and this man has done it. Oliver Reed does great at giving him this thousand-yard stare that makes him seem like he’s truly dead inside.
While thuggish brutes weren’t a new archetype in movies, what makes the performance especially great is how well he plays off of the other characters. For starters, it’s hard to imagine a more terrifying boogeyman for a little kid like Oliver. For another, he’s the only main character who never sings or dances which makes him feel a lot more real than the other characters who tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves. It’s a fun cognitive dissonance with how every other member of Fagin’s gang are upbeat little street urchins and then have to encounter the sort of real, actual psychopaths that actually inhabit the criminal underworld.
Speaking of music, that’s clearly the biggest attraction here and it is wonderful. Along with West Side Story (1961) and The Sound of Music (1965), this is one of the most iconic and definitive of all movie musicals. While I don’t think Oliver! quite broke ground or pushed the envelope in the same way those movies did, you can tell the director took those movies as a chief influence. The film alternates between monologuing songs and big dance numbers without much variety in-between although the songs all do provide quite a bit of depth.
“Food, Glorious Food” is the opening number that shows the despondency of the orphans in the poorhouses whose terrible food is their only solace of the day. “Reviewing the Situation” is Fagin’s big stand-out number that really captures the difficulty of the character while also being funny. “Oom-Pah-Pah” sounds like a silly, dirty joke though it’s actually a clever number about Nancy staging a party to save Oliver from Bill Sikes. Probably the most famous one where there isn’t some subtler commentary is “Consider Yourself” though it makes up for it by being the best and most elaborate musical number in the movie. As much as we make fun of classic Hollywood musicals here, this is one of those times they pay off. This must have taken weeks, if not months, to choreograph and shoot and is simply wonderful to see and is the type of filmmaking style that we may never see again.
We discussed last time how the musical genre basically imploded in the late 60s under its own weight, with the bulk of it being focused on the production catastrophe that was Doctor Dolittle (1967). Oliver! shows that just because some of these movies were terrible, that doesn’t automatically mean the genre as a whole was intrinsically wrong. This is a musical done right. The scale, the production design, the music, the acting and especially the pacing are all very well-done. This is not a short movie either but, watching it, you’ll be shocked by how quickly it blazes by.
In terms of flaws, there aren’t very many, aside from Mark Lester’s sub-par acting. Some may criticize it for undermining some of Dickens’ original points by making some of the criminal characters more sympathetic than I think he fully intended. Yet, I think that this is actually an example of adapting and updating the story for modern times. There are degrees to criminality and those degrees do matter. Though I’d be lying if I said that this was the overt reason why the movie won the Academy Award for Best Picture as that might require more introspection on law-and-order than the Academy would probably really want to do. The cynical truth is that they liked musicals and this was a good one.
There’s not a whole lot else to say about Oliver! as it’s a movie where what you see is what you get. It probably didn’t catch the zeitgeist of culture quite as well as West Side Story admittedly but, in terms of sheer competence, this is one of the best musicals of the 60s. It’s fun, it’s interesting, the acting is great, it’s shot well, the musical numbers are all memorable and, ultimately, it feels good when you see where most of the characters end up by the end of the movie. It’s often ranked as one of the greatest musical movies of all time and deservedly so, showcasing a fitting swan song for this filmmaking style (that Hollywood, of course, would keep desperately trying to cling onto well past its expiration date). If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth watching.
In terms of flaws, there aren’t very many, aside from Mark Lester’s sub-par acting. Some may criticize it for undermining some of Dickens’ original points by making some of the criminal characters more sympathetic than I think he fully intended. Yet, I think that this is actually an example of adapting and updating the story for modern times. There are degrees to criminality and those degrees do matter. Though I’d be lying if I said that this was the overt reason why the movie won the Academy Award for Best Picture as that might require more introspection on law-and-order than the Academy would probably really want to do. The cynical truth is that they liked musicals and this was a good one.
There’s not a whole lot else to say about Oliver! as it’s a movie where what you see is what you get. It probably didn’t catch the zeitgeist of culture quite as well as West Side Story admittedly but, in terms of sheer competence, this is one of the best musicals of the 60s. It’s fun, it’s interesting, the acting is great, it’s shot well, the musical numbers are all memorable and, ultimately, it feels good when you see where most of the characters end up by the end of the movie. It’s often ranked as one of the greatest musical movies of all time and deservedly so, showcasing a fitting swan song for this filmmaking style (that Hollywood, of course, would keep desperately trying to cling onto well past its expiration date). If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s worth watching.
But did it deserve to be called movie of the year?
In case you missed it:
Comments
Post a Comment