Oliver !

I know that “Oliver!” (don’t forget that exclamation point!!!!) is a well-regarded musical in most sets but I have the same problem with it that I do with the films of “Oklahoma” “Camelot,” and “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers,” viz. what should be fast and light becomes slow and heavy.

When I was at University (as they say in England) and active in the theater department c. the mid-1960s, I got a brief job with some other drama friends when the Broadway touring company of Oliver! came to town. For helping a few hours with set-up and strike, we were paid union hourly wages and a free ticket to the show. Almost right after, I bought the Original Cast album and practically memorized it. Thus, the movie got off on the wrong foot with me because of the dirge-like pace that the should-be toe-tapping “Food, Glorious Food” number took. That sour note stayed with me throughout the rest of the film.

I’ll give you a hint about who I saw as Fagin way back then. We all know that “On The Town” is a musical abut three sailors on leave in New York City. I think everybody can name Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra as two of the sailors – but who played the third? That was the actor I saw as Fagin.

For a decade following its release, the film was all I had to go by where Oliver! was concerned. I was charmed by its delights, but it does suffer from the unevenness and languor so often afflicting stage musicals "opened up" for - and translated to the realism required by - film. In the spring of 1979, I saw a production (in which Shani Wallis* recreated her screen role) that combined the best aspects of what I recalled from the film with the energy and tightness so important to a stage incarnation, and the experience redefined my conception of the entire enterprise. It's a cherished memory.

*A word or two about Shani Wallis. I saw the show on both opening and closing nights (my squeeze at the time was one of the dancers), and she and her husband Bernie hosted a party at their hillside home after the final performance for the entire cast, along with their spouses, steadies and friends. Two warmer and more lovely and welcoming people I've never met. As the evening transitioned to the wee hours of the morning and the crowd thinned, my squeeze signaled that we needed to go, and they insisted on seeing us to the door. As we stepped out, Shani asked if we couldn't stay just a bit longer, and we saw that tears were welling in her eyes. We couldn't resist. When we did leave shortly before the sun rose, those tears had been replaced by a beaming smile.

Small pleasures, small pleasures; who would deny us these?
     

Ditto from me.

I consider Oliver! the movie to be my mate. 


Charles Dickens famous novel of an orphan boy, Oliver Twist, who escapes from his poor life to seek his fame and fortune in London, is adapted as a glossy musical.

Who would have thought that a story from the brilliant Dickens could be so sweet and endearing? So it be with Carol Reed's (Best Director Winner) unforgettable 1968 Best Picture Winner. Yes it's some way away from the essence of the source, those in need of that should be seeking out David Lean's fabulous 1948 version, but with an array of wonderful tunes and choreography, this Oliver is a treat for all the family. The cast are uniformly strong, notably Ron Moody (Fagin), Oliver Reed (who as Bill Sykes is probably playing himself!), Mark Lester (Oliver) and the fabulous Jack Wild (The Artful Dodger). While Lionel Bart's songs are as timeless as they are engaging.

The 60s was a tough decade for cinematic musicals, with many of them turning out to be bloated exercises in tedium. But Oliver! is one of the shining lights in the genre, a true uplifter guaranteed to have the feet a tapping and the smile firmly implanted on ones face. So if you have yet to see and be charmed by it? Come on in, join our number and consider yourself one of us. 8/10

OLIVER TWIST 1948 suffers from an unfocused plot (the first 20 minutes could've easily been cut) and performances that range from bland to hilariously exaggerated. Why are title cards used?! This isn't a silent movie! And why are they only used a few times?! It's inconsistent! After the title character (an orphan) meets a pickpocket named The Artful Dodger, there's a shot of them walking through a bridge(?). Why does Arnold Bax's score become epic all of the sudden? Because it's a wide shot of the city? Even if the background didn't look fake, the context wouldn't justify this music.

3/10


The plot in OLIVER! is more focused, but some of the musical numbers are longer than necessary and they make the story drag. Speaking of, musical numbers performed by all the residents of an area only work if all those characters are thinking about and/or feeling whatever the lyrics are about. CONSIDER YOURSELF is about The Dodger telling Oliver that he's now part of the "family." It makes no sense to see the whole neighborhood join them. While this and some of the other songs are catchy, none are truly memorable, and the actors aren't great singers. The Dodger and Fagin (the man who taught him how to steal) get a grand ending (they sing while dancing towards the sunset). Why doesn't the protagonist get one too?

5/10


OLIVER AND COMPANY clearly should've been longer than 75 minutes. The development of the story, of all the characters and of the relationships (of every kind) is too rushed for me to get invested. The book OLIVER TWIST was a critique of London during the 1800s, but that's because that's the time and place Charles Dickens was living in. Those issues didn't just happen in that century and location. Therefore, a movie version that changes the setting (in this case, New York in the 1980s) isn't automatically a bad idea. No, this fails as an adaptation because Fagin was written as a buffoon (who luckily manages to be likable) and his larger-than-life presence was transferred to The Dodger. In the previous installments, Oliver was upstaged by other characters, because they were colorful people and he was mostly an observer. However, now it's gotten out of control. He has around 3 lines every 10 minutes! The only scene he's by himself is the beginning. It was a good opportunity to have him sing a solo. Instead, a non-diegetic song plays, making him the only character in this musical who doesn't sing. Can he even be classified as a protagonist then? They actually add a new character named Jenny who honestly feels like she's filling out Oliver's role. I love ONCE UPON A TIME IN NEW YORK CITY. I also love STREETS OF GOLD and I like WHY SHOULD I WORRY?, even though the lyrics in these 2 songs are essentially about the same thing.
3/10


OLIVER TWIST 2005 is a pointless adaptation that doesn't bring anything new to the table. Ben Kingsley doesn't project his voice and doesn't use his body language as much as Alec Guinness or Ron Moody and, yet, his performance feels more cartoony. However, it's not his fault. It seems like that's what Roman Polanski and screenwriter Ronald Harwood were going for, so any other actor would've done the same thing.

3/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.