A Tale of Two Cities

Plot synopsis:
=== Book the First: Recalled to Life ===
Dickens's famous opening sentence introduces the universal approach of the book, the French Revolution, and the drama depicted within:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
In 1775, a man flags down the nightly mail-coach on its route from London to Dover. The man is Jerry Cruncher, an employee of Tellson's Bank in London; he carries a message for Jarvis Lorry, a passenger and one of the bank's managers. Mr. Lorry sends Jerry back to deliver a cryptic response to the bank: "Recalled to Life." The message refers to Alexandre Manette, a French physician who has been released from the Bastille after an 18-year imprisonment. Once Mr. Lorry arrives in Dover, he meets with Dr. Manette's daughter Lucie and her governess, Miss Pross. Lucie has believed her father to be dead, and faints at the news that he is alive; Mr. Lorry takes her to France to reunite with him.
In the Paris neighborhood of Saint Antoine, Dr. Manette has been given lodgings by his former servant Ernest Defarge and his wife Therese, owners of a wine shop. Mr. Lorry and Lucie find him in a small garret, where he spends much of his time making shoes—a skill he learned in prison, which he uses to distract himself from his thoughts, and which has become an obsession for him. He does not recognize Lucie at first but does eventually see the resemblance to her mother through her blue eyes and long golden hair, a strand of which he found on his sleeve when he was imprisoned. Mr. Lorry and Lucie take him back to England.
=== Book the Second: The Golden Thread ===
In 1780, French émigré Charles Darnay is on trial for treason against the British Crown. The key witnesses against him are two British spies, John Barsad and Roger Cly, who claim that Darnay gave information about British troops in North America to the French. Barsad states that he would recognize Darnay anywhere, at which point Darnay's defense counsel, Stryver, directs attention to Sydney Carton, a barrister present in the courtroom who looks almost identical to him. With Barsad's eyewitness testimony now discredited, Darnay is acquitted.
In Paris, the hated and abusive Marquis St. Evrémonde orders his carriage driven recklessly fast through the crowded streets, hitting and killing the child of a peasant, Gaspard. The Marquis throws a coin to Gaspard to compensate him for his loss, and Defarge comforts the distraught father, having observed the incident. As the Marquis's coach drives off, the coin is flung back into his coach by an unknown hand, enraging the Marquis.
Arriving at his country château, the marquis meets with his nephew and heir, Darnay. Out of disgust with his aristocratic family, Darnay has shed his real surname and adopted an anglicized version of his mother's maiden name, D'Aulnais. The following passage records the Marquis' principles of aristocratic superiority:
"Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend," observed the Marquis, "will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof," looking up to it, "shuts out the sky."
That night, Gaspard, who followed the Marquis to his château by riding on the underside of the carriage, stabs and kills him in his sleep. Gaspard leaves a note on the knife saying, "Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from JACQUES." After nearly a year on the run, he is caught and hanged above the village well.
In London, Darnay gets Dr. Manette's permission to wed Lucie; but Carton confesses his love to Lucie as well. Knowing she will not love him in return, Carton promises to "embrace any sacrifice for you and for those dear to you". Stryver, the barrister who defended Darnay and with whom Carton has a working relationship, considers proposing marriage to Lucie, but Mr. Lorry talks him out of the idea.
On the morning of the marriage, Darnay reveals his real name and family lineage to Dr. Manette, a detail he had been asked to withhold until that day. In consequence, Dr. Manette reverts to his obsessive shoemaking after the couple leave for their honeymoon. He returns to sanity before their return, and the whole incident is kept secret from Lucie. Mr. Lorry and Miss Pross destroy the shoemaking bench and tools, which Dr. Manette had brought with him from Paris.
As time passes in England, Lucie and Charles begin to raise a family, a son (who dies in childhood) and a daughter, little Lucie. Mr. Lorry finds a second home and a sort of family with the Darnays. Stryver marries a rich widow with three children and becomes even more insufferable as his ambitions begin to be realized. Carton, even though he seldom visits, is accepted as a close friend of the family and becomes a special favourite of little Lucie.
In July 1789, the Defarges help to lead the storming of the Bastille, a symbol of royal tyranny. Defarge enters Dr. Manette's former cell, "One Hundred and Five, North Tower," and searches it thoroughly. Throughout the countryside, local officials and other representatives of the aristocracy are dragged from their homes to be killed, and the St. Evrémonde château is burned to the ground.
In 1792, Mr. Lorry decides to travel to Paris to collect important documents from the Tellson's branch in that city and bring them to London for safekeeping against the chaos of the French Revolution. Darnay intercepts a letter written by Gabelle, one of his uncle's servants who has been imprisoned by the revolutionaries, pleading for the Marquis to help secure his release. Without telling his family or revealing his position as the new Marquis, Darnay sets out for Paris.
=== Book the Third: The Track of a Storm ===
Shortly after Darnay arrives in Paris, he is denounced for being an emigrated aristocrat from France and jailed in La Force Prison. Dr. Manette, Lucie, little Lucie, Jerry, and Miss Pross travel to Paris and meet Mr. Lorry to try to free Darnay. A year and three months pass, and Darnay is finally tried.
Dr. Manette, viewed as a hero for his imprisonment in the Bastille, testifies on Darnay's behalf at his trial. Darnay is released, only to be arrested again later that day. A new trial begins on the following day, under new charges brought by the Defarges and a third individual who is soon revealed as Dr. Manette. He had written an account of his imprisonment at the hands of Darnay's father and hidden it in his cell; Defarge found it while searching the cell during the storming of the Bastille.
While running errands with Jerry, Miss Pross is amazed to see her long-lost brother Solomon, but he does not want to be recognized in public. Carton suddenly steps forward from the shadows and identifies Solomon as Barsad, one of the spies who tried to frame Darnay for treason at his trial in 1780. Jerry remembers that he has seen Solomon with Cly, the other key witness at the trial and that Cly had faked his death to escape England. By threatening to denounce Solomon to the revolutionary tribunal as a Briton, Carton blackmails him into helping with a plan.
At the tribunal, Defarge identifies Darnay as the nephew of the dead Marquis St. Evrémonde and reads Dr. Manette's letter. Defarge had learned Darnay's lineage from Solomon during the latter's visit to the wine shop several years earlier. The letter describes Dr. Manette's imprisonment at the hands of Darnay's father and uncle for trying to report their crimes against a peasant family. Darnay's uncle had become infatuated with a girl, whom he had kidnapped and raped; despite Dr. Manette's attempt to save her, she died. The uncle killed her husband by working him to death, and her father died from a heart attack on being informed of what had happened. Before he died defending the family honour, the brother of the raped peasant had hidden the last member of the family, his younger sister. The Evrémonde brothers imprisoned Dr. Manette after he refused their offer of a bribe to keep quiet. He concludes his letter by condemning the Evrémondes, "them and their descendants, to the last of their race." Dr. Manette is horrified, but he is not allowed to retract his statement. Darnay is sent to the Conciergerie and sentenced to be guillotined the next day.
Carton wanders into the Defarges' wine shop, where he overhears Madame Defarge talking about her plans to have both Lucie and little Lucie condemned. Carton discovers that Madame Defarge was the surviving sister of the peasant family savaged by the Evrémondes. At night, when Dr. Manette returns, shattered after spending the day in many failed attempts to save Darnay's life, he falls into an obsessive search for his shoemaking implements. Carton urges Lorry to flee Paris with Lucie, her father, and Little Lucie, asking them to leave as soon as he joins them in the coach.
Shortly before the executions are to begin, Solomon sneaks Carton into the prison for a visit with Darnay. The two men trade clothes, and Carton drugs Darnay and has Solomon carry him out. Carton has decided to be executed in his place and has given his own identification papers to Mr. Lorry to present on Darnay's behalf. Following Carton's earlier instructions, the family and Mr. Lorry flee to England with the unconscious Darnay, but not before receiving a note from Carton which allows them to pass the France border.
Meanwhile, Madame Defarge, armed with a dagger and pistol, goes to the Manette residence, hoping to apprehend Lucie and little Lucie and bring them in for execution. However, the family is already gone and Miss Pross stays behind to confront and delay Madame Defarge. As the two women struggle, Madame Defarge's pistol discharges, killing her and causing Miss Pross to go permanently deaf from noise and shock.
The novel concludes with the guillotining of Carton. As he is waiting to board the tumbril, he is approached by a seamstress, also condemned to death, who mistakes him for Darnay (with whom she had been imprisoned earlier) but realizes the truth once she sees him at close range. Awed by his unselfish courage and sacrifice, she asks to stay close to him and he agrees. Upon their arrival at the guillotine, Carton comforts her, telling her that their ends will be quick but that there is no Time or Trouble "in the better land where ... [they] will be mercifully sheltered", and she is able to meet her death in peace. Carton's unspoken last thoughts are prophetic:
I see Barsad, and Cly, Defarge, The Vengeance [a lieutenant of Madame Defarge], the Juryman, the Judge, long ranks of the new oppressors who have risen on the destruction of the old, perishing by this retributive instrument, before it shall cease out of its present use. I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.
I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy, in that England which I shall see no more. I see Her with a child upon her bosom, who bears my name. I see her father, aged and bent, but otherwise restored, and faithful to all men in his healing office, and at peace. I see the good old man [Mr. Lorry], so long their friend, in ten years' time enriching them with all he has, and passing tranquilly to his reward.
I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. I see her, an old woman, weeping for me on the anniversary of this day. I see her and her husband, their course done, lying side by side in their last earthly bed, and I know that each was not more honoured and held sacred in the other's soul, than I was in the souls of both.
I see that child who lay upon her bosom and who bore my name, a man winning his way up in that path of life which once was mine. I see him winning it so well, that my name is made illustrious there by the light of his. I see the blots I threw upon it, faded away. I see him, fore-most of just judges and honoured men, bringing a boy of my name, with a forehead that I know and golden hair, to this place—then fair to look upon, with not a trace of this day's disfigurement—and I hear him tell the child my story, with a tender and a faltering voice.
It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.

Tags: romantic

Review:
Wonderful movie, full of emotion.
I thought this was an incredible movie, especially for being an '80's movie.
Most movies from the '80's hardly impress me, but this was an undoubtable exception.
We watched this in my history class and I was honestly shocked at the emotion and feeling put into every part and the realism represented by the film-makers.
Very historically correct, which especially impressed me.
It was a very good representation of Dickens' wonderful book, which I read last summer and plan on reading again as a result.
I was literally in tears, and in front of my history class, too!
It was very moving and aroused a feeling of sympathy in my heart.
The theme of absolute love was shown well and made a great impact.
Wonderful movie.
I thoroughly enjoyed it and was surprised just how closely it followed the book and history as well..
Convincing and very enjoyable historical fiction.
First things first: I have to say I have never read Charles Dicken's book, but after seeing this movie, I'll be stopping by the state library to pick it up.
This is a GREAT movie - enjoyable, moving, and historically convincing.
(My history teacher made us watch it to see what the French Revolution (especially the Reign of Terror) was like.)
After reuniting with her father, Dr. Manette (they had been separated from each other for many years), Lucie Manette goes back to England, where she meets a handsome stranger, Charles Darnay.
Darnay is really Charles Evremonde, a French aristocrat who disdains his vain and arrogant uncle and who runs away from France.
They fall in love and marry.
But there is an English lawyer, Sydney Carton, who also loves Lucie.
When Darnay returns to France to save his servant, he is thrown into prison and besieged by all the foolishness and speculation of the French Revolution.
I won't divulge any more of the story to you.but I have to say the ending is really, really great.
It's so moving that I can't watch it without crying at least a little.
(Yeah, I cried when we were watching it at school, and hopefully no one saw me.)For others who know the story, I can't tell you if the movie lives up to the book, but I do think the movie is a very convincing depiction of what happened during the French Revolution.
Madame DeFarge, one of the `revolutionaries' (ha!), embodies the spirit of the common people during the Revolution.
She felt it was absolutely necessary to kill a lot of nobles, even if they were innocent and had done nothing wrong.
In the court scenes, we see how unfair the French tribunals are; defendants are barely given the chance to speak and they are convicted on little evidence and a lot of speculation.
(The film compares the French court to the English court, which is infinitely more just.)  We see the so-called anti-Revolutionaries being marched to the guillotine.it's a very moving moment.
The film works very well because it doesn't lose any part of the story or the historical background.
They work very nicely together.To single out someone for acting, I have to commend the talented Chris Sarandon, who played Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay.
That must have been really hard to do, especially since Darnay gets everything he wants and Carton doesn't.
It's great acting.
However, Sarandon manages to stay on course and the results are wonderful.
He manages to combine jealousy, love, and strength all in the same gaze.
A WONDERFUL film.it gets your anger going, pulls on your heartstrings, and keeps you perfectly enraptured through the entire running time.
I loved this movie.
A very decent version.
A Tale of Two Cities is a wonderful book, ranking Dickens' works it's to me towards the top.
It is wordy with a very complicated story, but it is also very compelling and the characters especially Sydney Carton and Madame Dufarge are memorable.
This 1980 version is not the best(the 1935 film) or worst(the animated Burbank Films Australia version) of the book, but adaptation-wise and on its own it's very decent.
It is hampered by Chris Sarandon's stiff and emotionally cold Charles Darnay, a rather cheap, under-populated and lacking-in-suspense-and-urgency storming of Bastille scene and the on-the-saccharine-side romantic theme in the music score.
The adaptation could also have done a better job at differentiating between Charles and Sydney, visually especially with the hair they are never quite distinctive enough.
But the production values are generally quite decent, it does at least make an effort to be true to Dickens and the historical period it's based in and they have good colour and atmosphere if lacking somewhat in refinement.
The music serves the adaptation well, while the script is intelligently adapted and does nobly with conveying Sydney's sardonic humour, the heartfelt tragedy at the end and the dark, foreboding humanity.
The story is faithful in spirit to the book, though there are things inevitably missed out, and doesn't feel too confused.
It's solidly paced too.
With individual scenes the standout has to be the ending which is extraordinarily moving, though the final forty minutes generally is very suspenseful.
The acting is fine on the whole.
While Sarandon disappoints(to me at least) as Charles he is outstanding as Sydney- that Sydney is a far more interesting character helps-, he is humorous and sardonic while also poignant and dignified.
Alice Krige is an emotive and beautiful Lucie, Flora Robson's Miss Pross is regal and loyal and Barry Morse is rightfully hissable as Evremonde.
Billie Whitelaw is fine as a very snake-like Madame DuFarge, David Suchet characterises the conflicted character of Basard brilliantly and beautifully, Peter Cushing is perfect as Dr Manette and Kenneth More is more than competent too.
George Innes does a very good job too as Cruncher, very sly and funny, but the character could have been more prominent.
In conclusion, decent version, worth watching but for the best adaptation look to the 1935 film.
7/10 Bethany Cox. A Reasonable Adaptation.
Seeing as how this was made for television,we need to judge this particular production and the standards required for that medium.For the most part,the cast is very competent.Indeed,Peter Cushing does better as the doctor than ANYONE else that I've seen.Carton,Darnay,Lucy,and the supporting parts are all quite capable.And Kenneth More does a fine job as Mr. Lorry.(Has anyone ever commented on the fact that he's starting to sound and look like Basil Sydney?)Robson is a worthy successor to Oliver.I had trouble recognizing Suchet as Barsad.The actor playing Defarge come across as depressed and somber,and this isn't quite right.Defrage is a hulking,wounded,inarticulate animal,caught between love and loyalty to his former master,and devotion to his cause.And Madame Defarge is a fat,flabby,clumsy,nasty snake,lacking the fire of Blanche Yurka.Her scenes at the fight and fall of the Bastille were totally unconvincing.And why did they trim down the role of Jerry Cruncher?That sly, funny rogue is perfect for the talents of that splendid character actor George Innes.Still,it's a worthy effort,and a nice way to see a new slant on the story..
I thought the level of emotion was fine.
I saw it as part of his characterization that Chris Serandon didn't show very much emotion as Carton in the end.
It came across, at least to me, as trying to be strong for the sake of the other characters in the movie.
I also thought that that was a great amount of emotion displayed in Darnay's supposed final meeting with Lucie after he is condemned.
That aside though, I think I've decided I like the movie better than the book because Charlie is just a little bit too wordy for my taste.
That's what we get for paying him by the minute....
My thoughts on A Tale of Two Cities.
A Tale of Two Cities is my all time favorite book.
However, it was quite abstruse and difficult to understand some parts, but this movie clearly explained everything.
It was very romantic around the end and sad at the same time.
My favorite passage from the book is when Sydney Carton says,"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." This movie really showed the true love between Carton and the seamstress, Carton and Lucie, and Darnay and Lucie.
The director has done a tremendous job at this movie and I thank him greatly for this wonderful move that hie has made from the wonderful book that I do adore.
I do not understand why anyone wouldn't like this movie or book.
Of course the book was quite wordy, but it should be, it was written in 1859.
Duh...
Just kidding but it is a very beautiful book and presentation of the book..
A solid TV adaptation.
I wouldn't call it the definitive version nor would I, for every conceivable criticism you could give this film, vote it low for not showing them cutting everyone's hair before beheading them as a previous reviewer did.
As far as Dickens adaptations go, this is alright if you need a visualization of the novel.
The actors all do good jobs, especially Peter Cushing as Doctor Mannette, Billie Whitelaw as Madame Defarge, and especially Alice Krige as Lucie Mannette, who makes the character feel a little more real than she was in the original novel.
In the dual role of Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton, Chris Sarandon does alright.
Obviously he has more to work with playing Carton, but I would not call either performance brilliant.The sets and costumes are good; obviously the production values are not sky high, seeing as this is a TV movie.
The lighting is flat and dull, as was per usual in many TV productions during the 1970s and 1980s.
The music is passable, but not memorable.Still, even at over two and a half hours, this film feels rushed.
We never as close to the characters as we should be and Sydney's "last dream of my soul" line and most of his final speech being cut are criminal.
I think the whole production could have benefited from an extra thirty minutes.Nothing special, but a nice way to illustrate the novel for an English class or for your own enjoyment.
Just don't expect the definitive A Tale of Two Cities adaptation..
wanting to show the 1980 version in history class.
I really enjoyed this movie back in 1980.
It was a required movie to watch for my history class.
I see there are several others who enjoyed the mini-series also.
I don't remember the name of the main character.
All I really remember is that it was a Dickens' novel and that I did enjoy it.
Actually seeing the movie made me realize what the French Revolution was about and why it is such an important part of our history.
Now a teacher is wanting to show it to her world history class at school.
They are beginning to study the French Revolution.
This teacher would love to show it in class.
Does anyone know how we can get hold of a copy of the 1980 version?
Or if there's not a copy of it do you know how to have it put on TV again as mini series?
I don't really know how or where to get a copy of this so any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thank you for your help.
Characters Need MORE Emotion!.
The actor for Carton and Darnay needed more emotion, in the movie you could notice his fake and really poor English accent.
Carton towards the end should have more emotion.
He is the protagonist in the movie.
Other than that the other charecters do a good job especially the actors and actresses who play Lorry, Dr. Manette, Miss Pross, Lucie, and Mdme.
Defarge.
Also Mr. Defarge and the Marquis are too English.
Mdme Defarge played by a Englishwomen acts in the character's rude French way.
Pretty Good movie, does actually bring a tear or two..
Unconvincing Guillotine Sequence.
Yes,I know this is a TV version and therefore impressionable children may be watching, (even after the British 9pm watershed) but the final guillotine sequence was wholly unconvincing.I went with my late parents in 1965 to the Conciergerie on the Ile de Paris where they imprisoned the condemned, before their final ride in the tumbrils.There they had a room where they severely cut off the hair of the condemned because otherwise the blade would not cut through the neck cleanly.Yet again producers do not do enough technical research regarding being dispatched by "The National Razor".The 1935 version with Ronald Coleman was farcical in this respect.As he came up the stairs he had his high collar up before issuing forth with, "It is a far far better thing...." speech.In the subject 1980 TV version, you have Chris Sarandon as Sydney Carton mounting the scaffold stairs with shoulder length hair!
There are many other films which inaccurately portray the methods used in capital punishment and it was not until I saw Timothy Spall in "Pierrepoint" that we saw an accurate rendition.I know this is a bit ghoulish but I would rate the overall production as just about "adequate" and I awarded it a rating of 6/10.It was good to see Kenneth More in one of his last roles as Jarvis Laurie..
A good interpretation of the Dickens classic..
A reasonably good interpretation of the Dickens classic, which sticks to the book quite well.Some of the acting was excellent, in particular Chris Sarandon who was perfectly cast as Sydney Carton / Charles Darnay.
His portrayal of the complex Carton in particular was very clever and convincing.
Cushing also was well cast as Manette and played it perfectly, while Kenneth Moore delivered his role competently was one would expect.Unfortunately the film is marred by poor, low budget 1970s television production and art direction values.
It is mostly unconvincing in its portrayal of the revolution, especially the action scenes.
One of the problems with early television adaptations, especially those by the BBC from the 1960s and 70s, is that they think "dramatising" means simply adding pictures to text.
They assumed that if you were faithful to the events and dialog, and dressed people up in period costume, then you've done a good job.
The storming of Bastille seems like a routine amateur theatrical depiction, where the extras clearly had a minimum of choreography and direction.
There just weren't enough revolutionaries to create a convincing atmosphere of chaos and terror.
These problems were further exacerbated by the stereotyping and poorly acted roles of the key revolutionaries Monsieur and Madame Defarge.The ending has one notable and moving scene - the meeting and very brief love encounter between Carton and Seamstess before the guillotine, again made possible by the Sarandon's excellent portrayal of Carton.At the time of writing the film is currently available in a boxed set of three DVDs in the "Best British Classics" series in Sweden.
The the series is designed for Swedish audiences but the films are in English with the option of subtitles.
A quick search on the Internet on Google.se for "Best British Classics" should give you some hits.