Aside from the wonderful musical "Oliver!", this is probably the best version of "Oliver Twist" you can find. "Oliver!" is a bit light-hearted--while this 1948 version is clearly more vivid in its portrayal of evil. Both are very well worth your time.
As for the story, I won't bother recounting it--it's such a familiar story. Instead, I want to briefly focus on how it's different from some other versions. Although Oliver Twist is clearly the star of the film, this version de-emphasizes the boy--and focuses a lot more energy on the evil surrounding him--such as the Beadle and, more importantly, on the horrid Bill Sykes. You won't find a more vivid portrayal of Sykes (Robert Newton)--and at times it's a bit hard to watch the guy--it's very rough stuff for the time and even today. For instance, while the camera doesn't show all of his brutal beating he inflicts, it is loud and vicious--and the way the camera focuses on the panic-stricken dog is brilliant and VERY disturbing. It's also amazing to see Newton's face as he sits there looking at the corpse hours later--as if HE is horrified by his actions! You also see death in the eyes of the animal and in its body language--and is one of the most amazing scenes I can recall from the era. I wonder how they elicited that reaction...I sure hope they didn't do anything horrid to the dog to make it do that.
Another portrait in evil that is quite good is Alec Guinness as Fagin. While you might not recognize him under all that makeup, it's him in one of his earliest films. An interesting note is that Israel banned the film for its antisemitic portrait, though at least unlike the original editions of "Oliver Twist" at least Fagin isn't constantly referred to as 'the Jew'! I really don't think the portrayal is, in itself, antisemitic BUT it does feed into a common stereotype of the era--of the wicked and money-hungry Jew. In fact, Dickens himself apparently came to regret how he described Fagin and de-emphasized this in later editions (removing most of the Jewish references). I would say that Guinness' character was less Jewish and more a subhuman troll! He is cruel and vicious--and little like the funny Fagin in "Oliver!".
Apart from the VERY vivid portraits of evil, the biggest star of the film is the great cinematography. There are wonderful shots--with unusual angles and lighting. And, because of this, the film appears very similar to some American film noir pictures. Lovingly shot, that's for sure. Overall, a terrific picture--one of the best of the era. And, well worth seeing.
As for the story, I won't bother recounting it--it's such a familiar story. Instead, I want to briefly focus on how it's different from some other versions. Although Oliver Twist is clearly the star of the film, this version de-emphasizes the boy--and focuses a lot more energy on the evil surrounding him--such as the Beadle and, more importantly, on the horrid Bill Sykes. You won't find a more vivid portrayal of Sykes (Robert Newton)--and at times it's a bit hard to watch the guy--it's very rough stuff for the time and even today. For instance, while the camera doesn't show all of his brutal beating he inflicts, it is loud and vicious--and the way the camera focuses on the panic-stricken dog is brilliant and VERY disturbing. It's also amazing to see Newton's face as he sits there looking at the corpse hours later--as if HE is horrified by his actions! You also see death in the eyes of the animal and in its body language--and is one of the most amazing scenes I can recall from the era. I wonder how they elicited that reaction...I sure hope they didn't do anything horrid to the dog to make it do that.
Another portrait in evil that is quite good is Alec Guinness as Fagin. While you might not recognize him under all that makeup, it's him in one of his earliest films. An interesting note is that Israel banned the film for its antisemitic portrait, though at least unlike the original editions of "Oliver Twist" at least Fagin isn't constantly referred to as 'the Jew'! I really don't think the portrayal is, in itself, antisemitic BUT it does feed into a common stereotype of the era--of the wicked and money-hungry Jew. In fact, Dickens himself apparently came to regret how he described Fagin and de-emphasized this in later editions (removing most of the Jewish references). I would say that Guinness' character was less Jewish and more a subhuman troll! He is cruel and vicious--and little like the funny Fagin in "Oliver!".
Apart from the VERY vivid portraits of evil, the biggest star of the film is the great cinematography. There are wonderful shots--with unusual angles and lighting. And, because of this, the film appears very similar to some American film noir pictures. Lovingly shot, that's for sure. Overall, a terrific picture--one of the best of the era. And, well worth seeing.