Little Dorrit

Plot synopsis:
The novel begins in Marseilles "thirty years ago" (i.e., c. 1826), with the notorious murderer Rigaud telling his cell mate how he killed his wife. Arthur Clennam is returning to London to see his mother after the death of his father, with whom he had lived for twenty years in China. On his deathbed, his father had given him a mysterious watch murmuring "Your mother," which Arthur naturally assumed was intended for Mrs. Clennam, whom he and everyone else believed to be his mother.
Inside the watch casing was an old silk paper with the initials DNF (Do Not Forget) worked into it in beads. It was a message, but when Arthur showed it to the harsh and implacable Mrs Clennam, a religious fanatic, she refused to tell him what it meant and the two become estranged.
In London, William Dorrit, imprisoned as a debtor, has been a resident of Marshalsea debtors' prison for so long that his three children – snobbish Fanny, idle Edward (known as Tip) and Amy (known as Little Dorrit) — have all grown up there, although they are free to pass in and out of the prison as they please. Little Dorrit, devoted to her father, has been supporting them both through her sewing.
Once in London, Arthur is reacquainted with his former fiancée Flora Finching, who is now overweight and simpering. His supposed mother, Mrs Clennam, though arthritic and wheelchair-bound, still runs the family business with the help of her servant Jeremiah Flintwinch and his downtrodden wife Affery. When Arthur learns that Mrs Clennam has employed Little Dorrit as a seamstress, showing her unusual kindness, he wonders whether the young girl might be connected with the mystery of the watch. Suspecting his mother was partially responsible for the misfortunes of the Dorrits, Arthur follows the girl to the Marshalsea. He vainly tries to inquire about William Dorrit's debt in the poorly run Circumlocution Office, assuming the role of benefactor towards Little Dorrit, her father, and her brother. While at the Circumlocution Office he meets the struggling inventor Daniel Doyce, whom he decides to help by going into business with him. The grateful Little Dorrit falls in love with Arthur, but Arthur fails to recognise Little Dorrit's interest. At last, aided by the indefatigable rent-collector Pancks, Arthur discovers that William Dorrit is the lost heir to a large fortune, finally enabling him to pay his way out of prison.
The newly freed Dorrit decides that they should tour Europe as a newly respectable family. They travel over the Alps and take up residence for a time in Venice, and finally in Rome, displaying an air of conceit over their new-found wealth (except for Little Dorrit). Eventually, after a spell of delirium, William Dorrit dies as does his distraught brother Frederick, a kind-hearted musician who has always stood by him. Little Dorrit, left alone, returns to London to stay with newly married Fanny and her husband, the foppish Edmund Sparkler.
The fraudulent dealings (similar to a Ponzi scheme) of Edmund Sparkler's stepfather, Mr. Merdle, end with Merdle's suicide and the collapse of his bank business, and with it the savings of both the Dorrits and Arthur Clennam. Clennam is now himself imprisoned in the Marshalsea, where he becomes ill and is nursed back to health by Amy. The French villain Rigaud, now in London, discovers that Mrs. Clennam has been hiding the fact that Arthur is not her real son, and tries to blackmail her. Arthur's biological mother was a beautiful young singer with whom his father had gone through some sort of non-legal marital ceremony, before being pressured by his wealthy uncle to marry the present Mrs. Clennam. The latter insisted on bringing up little Arthur and denying his mother the right to see him. Arthur's real mother died of grief at being separated from Arthur and his father; but Mr. Clennam's wealthy uncle, stung by remorse, had left a bequest to Arthur's biological mother and to "the youngest daughter of her patron," a kindly musician who had taught and befriended Arthur's real mother– and who happened to be Little Dorrit's paternal uncle, Frederick. As Frederick Dorrit had no daughter, the inheritance was to go to the youngest daughter of Frederick's younger brother, William; that is, to Little Dorrit.
Mrs. Clennam has been withholding her knowledge that Little Dorrit is the heiress to an enormous fortune and estate. Overcome by remorse, the old woman rises from her chair and totters out of her house to reveal the secret to Little Dorrit and beg her forgiveness, which the kind-hearted girl freely grants. Mrs. Clennam then falls in the street, never to recover the use of her speech or limbs, as the house of Clennam literally collapses before her eyes, killing Rigaud. Rather than hurt Arthur, Little Dorrit chooses not to reveal what she has learned even though this means forfeiting her legacy.
When Arthur's business partner Daniel Doyce returns from Russia a wealthy man, Arthur is released with his fortunes revived, and Arthur and Little Dorrit are married.

Tags: romantic, melodrama

Review:
Little Dorrit is thought by many critics to be Dickens most important book, a blistering attack on the evils of the Victorian world in which he lived.
Dickens' father had spent some time in the Marshalsea debtors prison, and several of the corrupt landlords and incompetent officials of the book were based on prominent real people.
As a pair of 3-hour films that are best viewed in a single day (with a break), nobody could figure how to handle it commercially.
Maybe someday the Critereon Collection will issue a DVD, but I'm not holding my breath.Nonetheless, it was one of Alec Guinness's very best performances, and, if you love - or even just like - Dickens, the whole 6 hour total-immersion experience is magical.Roger Ebert's review from 1988, which is online several places, really captures how special "Little Dorrit" is..
This sprawling movie can take a lot of discipline to watch in its entirety, but it is worth seeing just for the performances of Derek Jacobi in the first half and Alec Guinness in the second.
Jacobi has a great actor's ability to tell a story without saying a word, as when he gently drops Minnie's roses into the river and watches them float away, and we realize he is saying goodbye to love.
Once again, without a word, Jacobi is able to portray his anguish and the chaos of memories and ideas that suddenly assail him, until he is almost suffocating, trapped and helpless in his little cell in the Marshalsea.The second half of the movie suffers from the absence of Jacobi, and I found myself eagerly looking forward to every chance appearance of his, but Alec Guinness also gives a fine performance as the indigent William Dorrit, whose sudden acquisition of a legacy not only frees him from debtor's prison, but also turns him into a heartless snob and social climber.
Among the other performances in this film worth noting, is that of Miriam Margolyse as the aging coquette, Flora Finching, a kindly, ridiculous scatterbrain, talking nonstop while taking little nips out of the medicine bottle to keep up her spirits..
A few observations...I understand that the novel is very complex, that the plot turns in a number of layers, and that the film is already of great length.
But these things aside, it is still a favourite movie which I've watched (on VHS) many times.
The colourful characters are marvelously Dickensian as portrayed by the cast, most notably Guinness, Greenwood, Max Wall, Roshan Seth, and Jacobi.
This would hardly be possible with works of cinema where very rarely are there more than two versions, the first invariably the winner as a movie can only be that good to tempt a remake.
How about a collective "Building a Library" - film versions of Dickens, say, - now that would be a real challenge.
Earlier still was Cavalcanti's version of "Nicholas Nickleby" for Ealing, some good sets and the scene where wicked Uncle Ralph gets his desserts wonderfully atmospheric, but so much to cram into a film of moderate feature length that scenes scarcely have time to breathe.
The oddball in this little collection is undoubtedly a 1988 Portugese version of "Hard Times" set in modern day Lisbon by Joao Botelho, well worth seeing as a curiosity but hardly to be compared with my remaining four choices, each very special in its own right.
(Just occasionally a more recent version is better!) The reason I admire the BBC version so much is the wonderful casting with Maggie Smith, Pauline Quirke and Nicholas Lyndhurst playing roles they were just born for.
These are the marvellous David Lean '40s adaptations of "Great Expectations" and "Oliver Twist" and most recently Christine Edzard's "Little Dorrit".
For a long time "Oliver Twist" was my favourite of the Lean pair, oodles of atmosphere, wonderful art direction and camera-work and a rooftop climax to take the breath away, but I suppose "Great Expectations" has it for libretto, late as opposed to early Dickens and Lean an ever faithful interpreter of the novel's range and subtleties.
She cleverly tells the same story from the different perspective of the two main protagonists, Arthur Clennem and Amy Dorrit, this "Rashomon" like approach dominating the first half of each film.
The casting is faultless with marvellous swansongs from Joan Greenwood and Max Wall and Alec Guinness possibly at his finest as William Dorrit, a superb portrayal of a shallow man with delusions of grandeur.
It is not a film that moves and excites as much while one is watching it, until, that is, the final half hour.
When it reaches the tragedy of William Dorrit's mental confusion at a society banquet followed by the terrible scene leading up to the suicide of Merdle where he visits his son and daughter-in-law to borrow a knife we have the realisation that to search for an adaptation that more perfectly realises Dickens's intentions would be an impossibility..
The recent TV adaptation of Little Dorrit sent me out in search of this movie version, which I hadn't seen since its original release.This mammoth project was written and directed by Christine Edzard and is the closest that cinema has come to capturing the richness of a Dickens novel.
I enjoyed seeing it again on DVD, but I was disappointed to find it was not nearly as good as I had remembered it.The performances are variable, as you would expect with such a massive cast.
However, the leads are generally pretty good.Derek Jacobi's melancholy is always arresting (and sorely missed in the TV version) but his performance overall lacked some light and shade.Alec Guinness effortlessly conveys the patrician pretensions of the imprisoned Mr Dorrit (better than Tom Courtney) but we don't get enough of his underlying anxiety when he is released, so his mental breakdown is sprung on us without adequate preparation.Sarah Pickering is steered through the picture without mishap and is an acceptable Amy, but is clearly not an experienced actor and this appears to be her only screen credit.In accordance with a long-established tradition a number of the minor characters are played by comics and comic actors.
This movie is no different.Patricia Hayes is a good character actor, but for British viewers she carries too much baggage.
This comic persona is not quite right for the bogus Casby, but the problem here is not Frazer's performance but the strangely truncated part.Max Wall was a master of physical comedy who became the darling of 'intellectuals' but he was not an actor and his Fintwinch is not a performance.Flora was based on a woman Dickens actually knew and his depiction of her was rather cruel.
Miriam Margolyes's comic monster may be faithful to Dickens but misses the opportunity to suggest an underlying sadness in Flora.Of the comics, Pauline Quirke fares best and gives a lovely performance as the mentally-arrested Maggy.However, my main reservations concern Edzard's screenplay and direction.She took an unusual approach to this long book.
Instead of just breaking it in half, she extracted two parallel story lines and gave us two overlapping first person narratives: Arthur is in every scene in the first movie and Amy is in every scene in the second one.
His complex plots are told through a wide range of characters, spanning the whole social spectrum, and the story moves forward on a broad front.
In this book there is too much going on outside the direct experience of Arthur and Amy for a coherent story to be told entirely from their perspectives.
However, it also means the whole of the first movie becomes a teaser - but it is a three-hour teaser!I also feel that Ezard is too indulgent with Dickens's dialogue.
It is so manifestly a clunky piece of film-making that I am at a loss to understand the rapturous praise it has received from other IMDb reviewers.However, I appear to be in a minority of one, so I suppose I must expect to get slaughtered if anyone ever gets round to reading my own comments..
Sadly, I don't think anyone under the age of 40 will have the patience - or interest - to view this work of art.I just watched this film on the "This TV" channel; curious title, but when I saw it was based on a work by Charles Dickens I decided it was definitively worth a try.Dickens presents us with timeless lessons (very relevant to our present lives) in this film about the human condition - a tale about hard work, perseverance, humility, greed, hate, compassion, love (unrequited and rediscovered), devotion and so much more.The film unfolded clumsily and I nearly dismissed it; so glad I didn't.A tapestry unfolds of increasing richness and complexity.
But, I celebrate this masterpiece which offers us so very much.There is treasure in Little Dorrit - for all times - for those willing to discover it.Thank you Charles Dickens - for all your masterful works; the golden threads that unite us all..
"Little Dorrit" is hands-down the best movie I've ever seen.
One of the best things about it is that it is two movies telling different sides of the same story.
In "Nobody's Fault", when Amy comes to visit Clennam in the Marshalsea, he sees her wearing the flowered shawl that she always wore when she was poor; when we see the same scene in the second film, she is wearing a black shawl bought when she was wealthy.The acting is top-notch.
The production worked hard to match the original drawings that accompanied the Dickens novel.
Have you ever wondered what they meant when they said "Debtor's Prison?" This line as pretty common place in British Films, however none more so than in The Movie "SCROOGE", with the excellent Alistair Sims.
Well since that time I have always wondered about "Debtor's Prison" and just what does this place do and so on.
This then is what Little Dorrit is based upon, life in Debtor's Prison.
Alec Guinness was absolutely Brilliant as Mr. William Dorrit, whom after having fallen on hard times, tried to maintain an air of Aristocracy, Class and Distinction even if he was in Debtor's Prison.
We Watch Little Dorrit come into the world in this place and discover hat there are others who are just as bad off, yet all maintain themselves as best as they can.
We see Little Dorrit grow into a fine young lady and we see what it must have been like, living in the Victorian age, of Pomposity, and Airs of Superiority and Aristocracy.
This is a rather slow paced film, which only serves to add to the impression of the time.
To me, this film is the ultimate look into what it must have been like to live in wretched poverty, in Debtor's prison all the while maintaining one's position in life and one's sense of integrity.
Get out the popcorn, get all the drinks ready and anything else that you could want and when your ready, step into the magnificent world of 18th century England and live a little in a place called Debtor's prison, for about 1 and 1/2 Hrs. The cast are absolutely excellent in their individual roles.
Having just seen the 2008 BBC version of "Little Dorrit," I was delighted that Turner Classic Movies was showing this 1988 version.
The individual scenes never come to life.Sarah Pickering as Little Dorrit never engages one's interest.
And while Derek Jacobi's Arthur Clennam may be closer to the book's description than Matthew Macfadyen from the BBC version, he and Sarah Pickering have no romantic chemistry.All in all, not an entertaining presentation..
Not terrible by all means, but I did find myself underwhelmed watching this Little Dorrit.
The book is such a mammoth book, an insightful and blistering piece of literature, but like a lot of Dickens' work very difficult to adapt.
Previously I had seen the 2008 BBC version, which I absolutely loved, finding the performances outstanding(especially Tom Courtenay and Andy Serkis) and the whole production rich in detail.I can definitely understand why some would have a lot of affection for the 1988 Little Dorrit.
And Alec Guinness, whose heart-wrenching performance as William Dorrit makes for one of his finest screen performances.But I can also see why others mayn't like this version too much.
Of the acting, I was disappointed in the Flintwitch of Max Wall, he is a good physical actor but saying his lines is another story, I felt he did overdo it.
And if I hadn't read the book or seen the 2008 mini-series, I don't think I would have been confused by what was going on in this adaptation.
I didn't like that it was in two 3-hour parts focusing mainly on either Arthur or Amy and making other characters come and go without elaborating on much(such as Casby being called a hypocrite and the rise and fall of Mr Merdle for examples), as well omitting Tattycoram and one of Dickens' best ever characters Rigaud.All in all, has some good stuff like the period detail and three outstanding performances, but pace and story-wise this Little Dorrit was disappointing.
That isn't original...it is a description of these movies by a popular Dickens blog to describe this unwieldy mess.
Great acting is wasted in this rambling tale that strays so far from the novel and eliminates so many characters that the story is almost incomprehensible.
Granted, the age difference between the central figures in the love story is emphasized in the novel, but in this movie its uncomfortable, unrealistic and kinda creepy.
I discovered a video version of the 1988 film after my second viewing of the 2008 TV drama and found it to be bitterly disappointing in comparison.
All I remember in 1988 is that I thought the film was wonderful; I now think that the TV drama was sublime!
To be self indulgent I would compare the performances of the actors in the main characters as follows: Amy Dorrit - about equal; William Dorrit about equal, but Alec Guiness is sooo good; Fanny Dorrit - TV; Mrs Murdle - film; Alfred Dorrit - film; Flora Finching - TV (but only because Miriam M is made to over-act); Arthur Clennam - equal; Mrs Clennam - TV; Flintwinch - TV (again, because Max Wall is allowed to overdo it).
When I first saw the cast list of the two movie 1988 Little Dorrit, I was really excited and expecting a sumptuous feast of Dickens.
Dreadful, dreadful acting in some places that even the likes of Alec Guinness cannot rise above.
The lead character of Sarah Pickering playing Little Dorrit could not act if her head was on fire.
It is amateur hour really and a very expensive waste of great actors like Jacobi and Guinness.
In addition to describing the progression of my regard for this film as I watched it, these are the names of the last three chapters of the book, a book which, as usual (with Dickens adaptations), the writers of this film had not read - or at least had not read recently enough.Most of the performances were fine.
Alec Guinness was spot on, and the little woman playing Amy was perfect.
But all in all, the acting was acceptable.Where this film failed, and failed completely, was in the telling of the story: in the writing, directing and editing.
Anyone who has read even the cheat notes for Little Dorrit must have wondered and been dismayed at the absence of numerous important characters.
It is through this colorful and evil character, "with his nose coming down over his mustache, and his mustache going up under his nose," who is blackmailing Mrs Clennam, with the help of Flintwich, that Mrs. Clennam's secret is revealed, and his involvement is essential to the building suspense surrounding this secret - of which suspense, as a consequence of Rigaud's absence, there was not a trace in this film.
Rigaud is also an important evil element among the Dorrits abroad, where he teams up with the dissipated Henry Gowan - who is also, sadly, never seen again in this film after he marries Pet.So little is made of the Meagles family, a major omission in itself, that I suppose it is no surprise that there is no Tattycoram, and since there is no Tatty, there is no Mrs. Wade: more great losses for the audience, since their highly charged and emotional subplot helps to define and humanize the characters of the Meagles family and of Arthur.
Mrs. Wade of course also plays an important part in the Rigaud - Flintwich - Mrs. Clennam story.The Murdles are so overlooked in this telling, that one may wonder, when Mr Murdle shows up at Fanny and Sparkler's apartment to ask for a pen knife (with which he later commits suicide), who he is and where he came from at that point.
Among other hard-felt losses stemming from this neglect, is the missed opportunity to engage in some of the fun that best exemplifies Dickens' sense of humour and satire.
Dickens version of the story behind Mrs. Clennam's secret is, of course, quite complex, but certainly worth accurately telling, since it is the motivation for the entire plot!
Now we are expected to accept the story that there is money in the house that Frederick had sent for Amy, and that Mrs. Clennam had held back?
Yes, complicated, but not if it's told right.As much as this film was brutalized and its audience cheated by the cruel omissions and alterations in this story, which I have only highlighted here; it must also be noted that by dint of scandalously flawed directing and editing, what remained of the story managed to drag on miserably, with inordinately long pauses between lines, painfully slow pans to make small points,and long, lingering scenes in which nothing actually occurs.My recommendation: do not waste six hours watching this.
Will no one ever properly adapt a Dickens novel to film?