‘LITTLE DORRIT’ (1987)

Please feel free to comment on my review.

The 1987 Two-Part Six-Hour Film Adaptation of ‘Little Dorrit’

You might want to spend two days watching this film adaptation of a Charles Dickens classic. 🙂

In November 2011, I purchased the 1987 film adaptation of ‘Little Dorrit’ from Amazon.co.uk for my parents to have for Christmas in that year. It’s taken us 11 years in 2022 to check out the film, but thankfully we’ve been able to see it. It’s certainly an interesting film adaptation of the Dickens book.

Charles Dickens originally wrote ‘Little Dorrit’ in serial form between 1855 to 1857. The actual book was published in 1857. I’ve not read ‘Little Dorrit’ myself, but I can imagine it being a giant-sized book. I would’ve liked to have read the book and studied it at school for my GCSE English Literature.

The story features Amy Dorrit, who is the youngest child of her family, born and raised in the Marshalsea prison for debtors in London. The story also features Arthur Clennam, who returns home from a 20-year absence and he meets Amy Dorrit when he’s about to begin his new life in London. 🙂

The book itself satirised the shortcomings of both government and society, including the institution of debtors’ prisons. Dickens also criticised the bureaucracy of the British government in the book, which is in the form of the fictional ‘Circumlocution Office’. He also satirises the British class system.

It was interesting to discover these aspects of Dicken’s ‘Little Dorrit’ dramatised in the 1987 film adaptation as well as the BBC 2008 TV adaptation, which I’ve enjoyed. A lot of these themes are also in other Dickensian stories like ‘The Pickwick Papers’, ‘Martin Chuzzlewit’ and ‘Our Mutual Friend’. 🙂

In terms of checking out the 1987 film adaptation of ‘Little Dorrit’, I didn’t know what to expect when watching it on DVD. I knew what the story was about, as I’d seen the BBC 2008 TV adaptation beforehand. I must admit, I’ve been spoilt by the 2008 version when watching the 1987 film version.

That’s not to say the 1987 film adaptation is awful. On the contrary, it seems to be a well-put together drama film in terms of production values, especially in the period costumes and the period set design. But it wasn’t as inspiring as I would’ve liked it to have been compared to the 2008 TV version.

A reason for why that might be is because the film is divided into two parts with each part being 3 hours long, which makes it a 6-hour long movie in total – 343 minutes to be exact. I appreciate the film crammed in a lot of story and characters from the book, just as much as the 2008 TV version did.

But the problem I have with this film in its two parts is that it tends to drag quite a bit in certain scenes. There’s a lot of talking between characters and a lot of plot exposition is being given. The 1987 film adaptation is also tamer in terms of its direction compared to how 2008 version did things.

And I know the 2008 version very likely took liberties when adapting from the source material into TV, just as the 1987 film version is likely to have done so. But at least I found the 2008 version more energetic compared to the 1987 film and I was able to be engrossed with the story and the characters. 🙂

The 1987 film version was written and directed by Christine Edzard. Apparently, she ran the production company Sands Films which produced the 1987 film. Her husband Richard B. Goodwin is one of the film’s producers. In fact, the film was produced by John Brabourne and Richard B. Goodwin. 🙂

If you don’t recognise those names, well, they actually produced the four Agatha Christie films ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ in 1974, ‘Death on the Nile’ in 1978, ‘The Mirror Crack’d’ in 1980 and ‘Evil Under the Sea’ in 1982. The gents also produced the 1968 film adaptation of ‘Romeo and Juliet’.

Apparently, ‘Little Dorrit’ was the last film John Brabourne produced with Richard B. Goodwin. It’s fascinating that they made this film adaptation of ‘Little Dorrit’ as a 6-hour piece. Rarely do I come across a film that’s 6 hours in length. I can imagine how tough it’d be to sit through one at a cinema.

It’s just as well that the film was divided into two parts so that an intermission can be provided for audiences who watched this film at the cinema back in 1987. I’ve only had one experience of an intermission for quite a long film at a cinema and that was ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End’.

The two parts of the 1987 ‘Little Dorrit’ film are presented in unique ways. ‘Part One’ is taken from Arthur Clennam’s point of view whilst ‘Part Two’ is taken from Amy Dorrit’s. Now this is a good idea for a film, as we get to see what the story is like from two points of view and how it comes together.

Mind you, it’s also a bad idea, especially when each of the two parts of the film are 3 hours in length and you’re having to keep track of everything and everybody in the story. Having each part be 2 hours instead would’ve been better and more enjoyable. Each part being 3 hours stretches it a bit. 😐

I also prefer the 2008 TV version’s way of telling the story in ‘Little Dorrit’, since everything is told in a linear manner and you don’t have a problem of trying to remember who’s who when watching Amy’s story after watching Arthur’s story. At least I had a fair idea of what was going on in each part.

And that comes from watching the 2008 TV version first before the 1987 film version. Also, a bit of a minor complaint here, but each of the two parts have titles in the film. ‘Part One’ is called ‘Nobody’s Fault’ and ‘Part Two’ is called ‘Little Dorrit’s Story’. I would’ve named the titles a bit differently here.

For ‘Part One’, I would’ve called it ‘Arthur’s Story’ and for ‘Part Two’, I would’ve called it ‘Amy’s Story’. I get the title for ‘Part One’ called ‘Nobody’s Fault’ is an allusion to one of Dickens’ proposed titles for the original novel, but it would’ve been quite confusing to understand what the title meant.

I know it’s to do with Arthur’s misfortune at the end of ‘Part One’ when he’s lost money and he ends up in the debtor’s prison, but I feel calling each of the film’s two parts as ‘Arthur’s Story’ and ‘Amy’s Story’ would’ve been better. Those titles clearly tell you the story is taken from two character perspectives.

Anyway, let’s talk about the cast featured in this two-part film. There’s Derek Jacobi as Arthur Clennam. Derek Jacobi wasn’t knighted by that point, as he would be by Queen Elizabeth II in 1994. For me, Derek Jacobi plays the War Master in ‘Doctor Who’, both on TV and in the Big Finish audios.

He’s also been in many films I’ve seen with him such as Disney‘s 2015 ‘Cinderella’ film, the 2017 ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ film and the 2019 film ‘Tolkien’. I enjoyed his performance as Arthur Clennam in the 1987 two-part ‘Little Dorrit’ film, though he seems older in playing the part of Arthur Clennam.

I’m not sure if it’s closer to the book to have Arthur look older when played by Derek Jacobi compared to when Matthew Macfadyen played him as a young man in the BBC 2008 TV version. Speaking personally, I prefer Matthew Macfadyen’s version, as he is more relatable as a young man.

That’s not to say Derek Jacobi’s interpretation of Arthur is awful. Far from it. Derek Jacobi always delivers an excellent performance in anything he’s in. It’s just with so much plot exposition going on and the film tending to drag at times, I didn’t feel the emotional investment that I would have liked.

Meanwhile, Sarah Pickering plays Little Amy Dorrit in the film. Apparently, ‘Little Dorrit’ is Sarah’s solo screen acting role to date. I assume she did theatre before and after ‘Little Dorrit’. I guess TV and film is for some actors and it’s not for others, which is a shame as Sarah Pickering is very good. 🙂

I like how she put across the gentle, kind-hearted manner of Amy Dorrit when looking after her father in the debtor’s prison; when she’s around her brother and sister, who tended to be awful a lot of the time; and when she meets and interacts with Arthur. It’s a sweet, underrated performance. 🙂

It was interesting to see how Little Dorrit’s story was presented in ‘Part Two’ of the film, especially when we start off with her being born, growing up in the debtor’s prison and eventually becoming a woman before she meets Arthur. It’s intriguing Arthur didn’t get that same treatment like she did. 😐

I’d argue that the romance between Amy and Arthur isn’t that well-developed in the 1987 film, especially when they were so far apart from each other. Then again, romances in 19th century Britain were handled rather differently compared to how romances are being handled in modern, secular times.

Sir Alec Guinness plays William Dorrit, Amy’s father in the film. And he’s certainly one with the Force here. 😀 Yes, Sir Alec Guinness is perhaps well-known for playing Obi-Wan Kenobi in the original ‘Star Wars’ trilogy. He was also in the 1955 film ‘The Ladykillers’, which I did enjoy when I saw it on VHS. 🙂

It was interesting to see how Sir Alec Guinness played William Dorrit in the 1987 film. In ‘Part One’, he comes across as a kind and accommodating gentleman, who has had a run of bad luck in his life with being in the Marshalsea prison for a pretty long time. His scenes in ‘Part One’ are rather limited.

‘Part Two’ is where we get to know more about his character, especially when Amy interacts with him and looks after him. When in the Marshalsea prison, he’s highly respected and favoured. Once he’s out of the prison, having earned his new wealth and status, he becomes a very changed person.

William Dorrit seems to disregard his old life in the prison quite quickly, whereas Amy is more used to the prison life, having been brought up in it as a little girl. There’s a scene where Mr. Dorrit is angered by young John Chivery visiting his house in London. Mr. Dorrit sadly dies by the film’s conclusion.

The film also features Joan Greenwood as Mrs. Clennam, Arthur’s mother (supposedly). I think it’s established at some point in the film that Mrs. Clennam may not turn out to be Arthur’s mother at all in the story, but I don’t think it’s made clear enough, especially with a lot of exposition to listen to.

There’s also Max Wall as Jeremiah Flintwinch, Patricia Hayes as Affery Flintwinch, Cyril Cusack as Frederick Dorrit, Amelda Brown as Fanny Dorrit and Daniel Chatto as Tip Dorrit. There’s Miriam Margolyes as Flora Finching, who I did feel was a little over-the-top when she played her character in this.

I know she won the LA Critics Circle Award for Best Supporting Actress in the film, but I felt it was a bit too much the way she made Flora Finching rather silly as a character. Honestly, I prefer it when she’s playing Mother Mildred in ‘Call the Midwife’, as her performance balances comedy and drama.

There’s Robert Morley as Lord Decimus Barnacle, Bill Fraser as Mr. Casby, Roshan Seth as Mr. Pancks, John McEnery as Captain Hopkins, Marilyn Milgrom as Mrs. Hopkins, Mollie Maureen as Mr. F.’s aunt, Diana Malin as Mr. Casby’s maid and pre-‘David Copperfield’ Pauline Quirke plays Maggy. 🙂

There are minor character roles in the film. A lot of them I didn’t get to register much when watching the film. There’s Luke Duckett as young Arthur, Roger Hammond as Mr. Magles, Sophie Ward as Minnie Meagles, Kathy Staff as a Mrs. Tickit, Pip Torrens as Henry Gowan and Julia Lang as his mother.

There’s also Graham Seed as William Barnacle, Beth Ellis as Mrs. William Barnacle, Ian Gelder as Reverend Samuel Barnacle, Nadia Chambers as Agnes, John Savident as Tite Barnacle, Brian Pettifer as Clarence Barnacle, Edward Burnham as Daniel Doyce and Harold Innocent as legal advisor Rugg. 🙂

There’s John Quarmby as the Circumlocution Office Porter, David Thewlis as George Braddle, Gerald Campion as Mr. Teterby, Rita Treisman as Mrs. Tetterby, Liz Smith as Mrs. Bangham the midwife, Arthur Blake as Herbert Smangle and veteran Dalek operator John Scott Martin plays a ‘faded insolvent’.

Tony Jay is a doctor, Robert Putt is Mr. Chivery, Richard Stirling is John Chivery, Heathcote Williams is Dr. Haggage, John Warner is a bootmaker, and Peter Miles (who’s been in a number of ‘Doctor Who’ stories on TV and radio – I’m pretty shocked that I didn’t see much of him in this film) as Mr. Dubbin.

There’s Eleanor Bron as Mrs. Merdle and Michael Elphick as Mr. Merdle. There’s Ian Hogg as a butler, Brenda Bruce as a duchess, Jonathan Cecil as a magnate from the bench, Malcolm Tierney as Bar, Betty Marsden as Phoebe Barnacle, Rosalie Crutchley as a wife, and Arthur Hewlet as a physician. 🙂

There’s also Christopher Hancock as a customer in a coffee house and there’s Arthur Cox as a stage carpenter. I do feel that many of these characters aren’t well-developed enough in the film and some actors have fleeting appearances, despite many of the cast’s performances being good in this.

The DVD special features are as follows. On Disc 1 containing ‘Part One’ of the film, there’s a theatrical trailer of the film and cast interviews with Joan Greenwood, Patricia Hayes, Derek Jacobi and Max Wall. On Disc 2 containing ‘Part Two’ of the film, there’s a photograph gallery and cast interviews with Cyril Cusack, Sir Alec Guinness, Miriam Margolyes and Sarah Pickering.

The two-part 1987 ‘Little Dorrit’ film has been an enjoyable and intriguing experience to sit through. With that said, I prefer BBC 2008 TV version of the story compared to this film. This is especially when the two parts of the film tend to be too long. They often drag with lots of talking between characters.

With that said, the performances of the cast are good, including the likes of Derek Jacobi, Sir Alec Guinness and Sarah Pickering. At this point, I hope to review the BBC TV version someday to share more on my thoughts about the story and how I feel the 2008 adaptation works far better for me. 🙂

‘Little Dorrit’ (1987) rating – 7/10

---

Return to The World of Charles Dickens

Return to Drama