User reviews

Veteran director Delbert Mann gives us this unusual perspective on the life of David Copperfield - Dickens' legendary orphan. For a TV film Mann's Copperfield packs an unexpected punch. Unlike the standard Copperfield interpretation, Mann's Copperfield is a depressed, brooding, haunted man,who feels responsible for all of the problems he sees around him. The story is ably rendered through a series of flashbacks, as Copperfield (nicely portrayed by a Robin Philips) broods in his later life, prior to the resolution of this part of his story (which I will not discuss here). David's flashbacks tell most of the novel's story and touch upon the major highlights in our hero's life, suggesting that he is about to either experience an epiphany of sorts or to collapse in upon himself - perhaps both. Ultimately, Dickens' wonderful story-telling ability shows through very nicely as the story winds up with most of the major arcs resolved in a few lucidly depicted paragraphs of narrative.

The movie is very well made, and quite complete despite the Herculean scope of the novel and the scalar difference between Dickens and a TV movie. It moves along at a pithy, but unhurried gait. It is also very nicely acted by a stellar British cast. Agnes (perfectly handled by Susan Hampshire) and Michael Redgrave's excellent Mr. Peggotty are easily the most sympathetic characters in the story.

The cinematography is also very good, and despite the mediocre quality of the reproduction I viewed, does not have the boxy, boring feel of the typical TV movie. The soundtrack is also a touch-above the average TV production, but still, I found it a little too repetitive at times.

Be forewarned - this is not the standard interpretation of Copperfield's character and Dickens' story. It is more emotional, cerebral and depressing than the norm. Don't go into it expecting to come out wholly unscathed - you will be disappointed. The film is definitely an accomplishment worthy of respect. My rating of 7 may seem low, but note that I have downgraded it by one point because it simply isn't as plainly entertaining as some of the more lighthearted versions of this story are. Take the warning at the top of this paragraph seriously and you won't be disappointed. Ignore it at your own peril.

Delbert Mann's version of David Copperfield is one of these lavish all star adaptations made for the network American television market. Laurence Olivier and Richard Attenborough just turn up for a few scenes.

Mann should be applauded for attempting to try a different approach to this often adapted story. It is told in flashback by an adult Copperfield who reflects in his life and relationships. It also shies away from the traumatic abuse David suffers from the Murdstones and the boarding school he attends. So credit should be given for avoiding the poverty porn which some directors would had gone full board on, although this may be part of the censorship that existed at the time in US network television.

However it is too truncated leaving me dissatisfied to a story that has been shredded. Some actors look too old for the parts they are playing such as Ron Moody as Uriah Heep and Ralph Richardson as Mr Micawber. It does not help that Robin Phillips is bit bland as the lead and comes across as a bit of a wet fish.

The version of the film I saw was of poor quality, it was in desperate need of restoration. A shame given that the film has theatrical knights/dames such as Olivier, Redgrave, Richardson, Attenborough, Hillier, Evans.

Unlike other reviewers of this film I didn't feel that it was particularly dull; if anything, the way that it seemed to skim over many aspects of the story makes it seem like the cinematic equivalent of a Readers Digest condensed version. Characters such as Oliver and Attenborough's Creakle and Tungay make little more than cameo appearances, while the flashback structure of the film means that, for the first hour or so, the narrative flow is constantly interrupted by lingering shots of a maudlin Copperfield mooching about Yarmouth beach listening to memories of people he has known echoing in his head.

The cast reads like a who's who of British acting of the 60s and before. The likes of such heavyweights as Oliver, Attenborough, Michael Redgrave, Edith Evans, Ralph Richardson, Ron Moody, Cyril Cusack, Susan Hampshire et al makes the little-known Robin Phillips in the title role seem a little bland and insipid. Nevertheless, the story is entertaining enough - even if it doesn't match up to George Cukor's 1935 version.

This film felt longer than it was. The acting and scenery were certainly enjoyable, but the story was difficult to get into. (I have not read the book.) Eventually I found it compelling enough to keep watching to the end. The characters' interactions were good and I became interested enough to wonder what Copperfield's shallow despair was all about and what would happen. On hindsight I agree with a previous reviewer that the flashback device created a character of Copperfield that was out of character with his life in flashbacks. What I really hated about the film was the awful perms on the lead and the heavy eye makeup on the beautiful women. I guessed this film had to have been made in the early 1970s. I was close. I actually felt relief when Copperfield came out of the water and his hair was plastered to his head instead of all poofed out and neatly clipped. Hardly Dickensonian.

According to IMDb, there have to date been 388 film and television adaptations of books by Charles Dickens, but the treatment of his works has been very uneven. A remarkably high proportion of those adaptations are based (sometimes very loosely) upon his novella "A Christmas Carol", which seems to inspire at least one film every festive season, and many of the others are derived from either "Oliver Twist" or "Great Expectations". Although "David Copperfield" is one of Dickens's best-known novels, it has proved less popular, at least in the cinema. (There have been a number of TV adaptations). To the best of my knowledge the 1935 version with Freddie Bartholomew and W.C. Fields, which I have never seen, remains the only feature-film version since the coming of sound. This version from 1970 is of feature-film length but was made for television.

"David Copperfield" is often described as an "autobiographical novel", and some of David's experiences, such as his time in the bottling factory and the fact that he eventually becomes a writer, do indeed reflect the author's own. Indeed, it is said that Dickens deliberately gave his hero his own initials, albeit reversed. In one important respect, however, it is not autobiographical. Dickens was 39 when his father died, and his mother only predeceased him by seven years. David's father, however, dies before he is even born, and his mother dies while he is still a boy. It is notable that a number of Dickens's other heroes, such as Oliver Twist and Pip in "Great Expectations" are also orphans. I wonder what psycho-analysts would make of this fact.

The plot is a complex one, and I will not try to summarise it in this review. The film-makers try and keep most of the main features of the novel, but even so there are some odd gaps. One minute, for example, David is a child, a penniless vagabond who has just run away from the bottling factory in search of his aunt (his last surviving relative), the next he is not only an adult but also, it would seem, a young man of some means and social standing, and it is never explained how this transformation has taken place. Although Mr Micawber (a character said to be based upon Dickens's father) appears, the episode in which he is imprisoned for debt is cut from the film, so he never comes across as the improvident spendthrift described by Dickens.

The cast includes some of the leading British actors of the period, such as Laurence Olivier, Richard Attenborough and Edith Evans, mostly in cameo roles. Michael Redgrave has a more substantial role as Daniel Peggotty, as does Ralph Richardson as Micawber. Some on this board have described Robin Phillips (an actor I have not come across in any other films) as "dull", but I thought he made David a very personable young man. There are good performances from Pamela Franklin as the beautiful but empty-headed Dora and from Redgrave's son Corin as Steerforth, but Ron Moody never makes the same impression as Uriah Heep as he had done playing another Dickensian villain, Fagin in "Oliver!" which had appeared a couple of years previously. Susan Hampshire's Agnes is rather colourless, but the fault here probably lies with the author rather than the actress. Dickens's virtuous young heroines are never his most convincing creations.

Dickens' story is a good one, which can stand a certain amount of rough treatment at the hands of film-makers, which is why I have given this version an above-average mark. It does, however, confirm my view that Dickens is not the most cinematic of authors. There is a reason why so few feature films have been based upon this and some of Dickens's other novels. They are so long and so packed with incidents and characters that there is just not room to do them justice in the traditional two-hour (or two-and-a-half-hour) slot. "Oliver Twist" and "Great Expectations" are, relatively speaking, shorter and simpler, which is why they tend to be exceptions to the rule. His longer novels tend to work better as television mini-series, and a number of very good Dickens adaptations have been made in this format, particularly by the BBC. 6/10

This was never one of my favourite Dickens stories - I always found the title character just a bit , well, wet! Anyway, the really quite mediocre Robin Phillips take the role for this adaptation, and we follow his rather brutal adventures of childhood and early adulthood that see him deal with bullying, beating, extortion and tragedy. As with the book, to which this is fairly faithful, there are quite literally heaps of curious and engaging characters he encounters along the way, most notably Sir Ralph Richardson's wonderfully over the top "Micawber", Sir Michael Redgrave's "Peggotty" desperately seeking his errant daughter "Emily" (Sinéad Cusack) and from Ron Roody as the duplicitous, downright nasty piece of work that is "Uriah Heap"! The production is pretty lacklustre. The photography offers us lots of long, moody shots of the contemplative hero on the beach - and the cameraman seems content to try out his new zoom lens just once (or thrice) too often. Malcolm Arnold provides us with an unremarkable score and the whole story irather plods along without much potency. As an introduction to the work of Dickens, it might have a purpose in diverting the viewer to the author's (and his other, better) novels, but a piece of cinema it's little better than a very well cast television movie.

As much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.

I enjoyed this introspective David Copperfield, and think Robin Phillips did an excellent job in the title role. The scenes of him walking on the beach, trying to get through both his writer's block and feelings of depression while he thinks back on his life and the people who affected it profoundly were very moving and effective. I especially liked that line about the "tinsel people" (referring to his late wife, former best friend who recently died and even his beloved mother, dead since he was a child), how they glitter and captivate you, but in the end, their lack of substance fails to please. You wonder if he is angrier with them, or with himself, for falling under their spell, at least for a time.

Pamela Franklin did a good job as Dora, David's childlike wife who sees no reason to grow up and would rather play house than have a real marriage. Susan Hampshire (better known as Glencora in "The Pallisers") plays the dear, supportive friend, whom David never suspects is in love with him. Very effective was the scene in church, after David and Dora are married, as Agnes sits there and smiles, but when by herself, the look on her face says it all.

There are familiar faces here (Laurence Olivier, Ralph Richardson, Wendy Hiller) that add to what's already an excellent story.

As usual, British productions of the classics are like taking a trip back in time.

Director Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.

Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.

I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.

The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.

The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.

Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.

The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.

My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad film.

Charles Dickens is best known by Oliver Twist & A Christmas Carol mainly, David Copperfield whereof I never read the novel, however I didn't get excited what I saw in the laconic offer on those everlasting flashbacks about is life, the presentation starts in slow pace in a boring Copperfield complains concerning his past life, a kind of adrift man looking for a meaning of his sad life, walking through in the beach meanwhile comes across his mind a fragmented piece of each phase of his misfortune life since tender age until his marriage.

The stelar casting is robust with several veteran actors/actress, I agreed with someone point out that some actors had a cameo appearance only as the funny wooden leg Mr. Tungay's Richard Attenborough character, although who steals the show quite sure the swindler Mr. Micawber's Ralph Richardson stunning performance on those poetic clever speaking, also the father Michael Redgrave's Mr. Peggotty a restless chase of his runaway daughter whenever she goes, sadly he finds her in a w.ho.rehouse, Ron Moody's Uriah Heep fraudster character on those pedant mood talking is another highlight, also Edith Evans's Auntie Betsy as well.

Condensed in almost two hours long in a complex story that doesn't have a linear storyline in some sequence the filmmakers provide two visions from different pastime, side by side, thus sounds a slight puzzled feature if the viewer didn't read the book, worst the overlong sequence of David Copperfield at seashore house is a boring offering, seems that the movie doesn't get fire properly, letting the audience a bit anxious over that, the print that I'd found on Youtube is enough good, nonetheless needs a restoration losing the impact of lack of bright colors, anyway a fair presentation over this less known Charles Dickins's novel.

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 1984 / Source: TV-Youtube / How many: 2 / Rating: 6.25.

One only has to read the cast list and credits to salivate in anticipation of this DAVID COPPERFIELD, but, alas, alas! How so much major acting and directorial talent could have turned one of literature's richest tales into such a monumental BORE, is totally beyond me. It's pretty to look at with lovely photography, particularly the Yarmouth sequences, but, JUST PLAIN DULL!!! No need to go on! Skip it and check out the Selznick or the marvelous BBC mini-series from the 1980's.

Delbert Mann's TV movie of David Copperfield is unique among film adaptations in that it tells the entire story from a series of flashbacks rather than an ongoing narrative. It works extremely well, adds to the emotional punch of the entire story, further illuminates Dickens' wonderful characters and is aided by a haunting musical score by composer Malcolm Arnold.

It also boasts a pretty fabulous cast including Dame Edith Evans, Susan Hampshire, Richard Attenborough, Ron Moody, Wendy Hiller, Lawrence Olivier and Sir Ralph Richardson; a veritable who's who of the finest British actors of the 20th century! Some have commented that Robin Phillips is bland as the title character. I couldn't disagree more. He is certainly the most cerebral, tortured David in any of the adaptations and also cuts a handsome figure in the movie. In short, he's splendid.

Now to the currently available DVD quality. I certainly agree that it is not good. The colors are a bit washed out, there is some clipped editing and a few moments of nasty film print. That being said, it is far from being unwatchable as some others have suggested. The musical soundtrack comes through fine and the dialogue is clear. And as much as I would welcome a digital restoration of the film, it's TV origins suggest that this would be unlikely.

Frankly, having the movie on DVD at a bargain price is blessing enough. I highly recommend it to those interested in an outstanding version of the story and willing to put up with technical imperfections.

This version of David Copperfield is dreadful from start to finish. I knew we were in for a wasted evening's viewing when a rather silly to the point of embarrassment Attenborough and Olivier camp it up as two baddies. It was all downhill after this. Aunt Betsy was adequate but had none of the eccentric flair she was noted for.The worst of the worst was the producer's choice for Uriah. This was the music hall version of this character, previously and admirably played by Roland Young. And what was all this self-absorbed Angst from David. Dickens must have rolled over in his grave to see his favorite child turned into a wimp weeping in his beer.

This was one time when Hollywood knew more than jolly old England.

I found this DVD at the dollar store, where it was, if you can believe it, on sale at 50 cents. You wouldn't expect much and I wasn't disappointed at what I got.

Although there are some sparkling portrayals, the movie was long, muddy, and hard to watch. Some of this had to do with the poor reproduction by the distributor, Digiview. The rest related to the fact that I hadn't read the book so the 101 story lines going off in all directions were confusing, especially when held together only by the title character walking up and down the beach, and alternately scowling and muttering.

Worth every cent ... and not a pence more.

With one of the greatest casts ever assembled, obviously plenty of funding, completely wasted on a disastrous script and director who obviously is new to film. The decision to do it all in flashbacks was a mistake. Every costume looking as though it just came out of a shop window and lit like a stage musical. The hair and make-up are bang up-to-date: for about 1965. More wigs than you get in a drag show, with comic effect, while Ms Trotwood wears a cap that could be designed for Thunderbirds puppets. As for the set, someone seems to have started filming before the carpenters had finished painting and screwing things up.

The script tries to put the narrative into characters' mouths but the mish-mash of of Dickensian phrases and twentieth century usage sounds stilted. The characters behave in every 'played by numbers scene' as though they've just met for the first time. I gave it two stars as about half the cast were struggling dutifully to deliver this witless production.

I would like to refute jhb-4's comments on the 1969 version of "David Copperfield". obviously this person has not read Dicken's novel. The movie was great, and although it skimmed over much of the book (for lack of time), it generally covered the story in full, and good detail.

Sometimes I wonder why people just don't like something, and I wonder at this person who said the movie was "dull". Far from it. The movie is a very good depiction of a great novel.

Linda Huthmaker/Torrance, Ca. I don't know what else to say on the subject, but I have lived in England, myself, and can honestly say that this movie has all the earmarks of a well-done BBC production, mainly filmed in the Northern part of England. If anyone would like to release a new production of "David Copperfield"-go for it.

Director Delbert Mann emptied out the Hollywood British colony and a great deal of the United Kingdom itself of name players to bring this production of David Copperfield into being. For that reason alone one should see this film. It ain't often that one can see so many stars in one production.

There are some telling portrayals too, these are not just walk on roles that are essayed here. And this constellation of stars swirls around young Robin Phillips who is a most winning adult David Copperfield. Phillips fits my idea and I'm betting Charles Dickens's of what his young hero is all about.

Laurence Olivier was nominated for an Emmy for playing the cruel schoolmaster Mr. Creakle. But personally I like what Ralph Richardson did with Mr. Micawber. Talk about author's conception, I think Richardson was far closer to what Dickens had in mind than W.C. Fields as entertaining as Fields was in that role. Richardson was my favorite in the cast.

Followed closely by Edith Evans as Aunt Betsy Trotwood and Ron Moody as the unctuous Uriah Heep. I've always thought of Heep as one of the great characters of literature. I'll bet there's not one of us who has not run into a wormy character like Uriah Heep in our lives, I've known several.

The women in David's life are Pamela Franklin as the beautiful, but childlike Dora Spenlow and Susan Hampshire as the second wife Agnes Wickliffe whom he finally realizes is the woman he should have been with all along. The romantic involvements of David Copperfield have a strange parallel in real life with our 26th president. Theodore Roosevelt fell in love with a weak, but beautiful Alice Hathaway Lee who died young. A few years later TR married Edith Kermit Carow who had a thing for him for years. And they lived happily ever after just like in a storybook. Franklin especially is precious as the weak and softheaded Dora.

The whole novel of David Copperfield is a flashback, but Mann adopted the technique of bringing the older Copperfield back to writing his memoirs as a way of cutting a lot of extra material away and getting to the main events in the protagonist's life. It works quite well for drama though you'd better not use it if you're studying David Copperfield in school.

The script for this production was published in the USA in advance of the broadcast. A college student at the time, I snapped it up and read it eagerly. I remember two things. One was the recurring motif of a rocking chair, which was wisely minimized in the broadcast version. The other was that we see Copperfield's eventful Dickensian life has had an effect on him. He hasn't impassively come through it all like Buster Keaton emerging without a scratch from a collapsing house. I was bowled over; I loved the idea. All the half-ridiculous characters and incidents of Dickens gained a touch of serious significance and a sense of connection from the evidence of their effect on the un-ridiculous Copperfield. I'm sorry to read that this production isn't now available for viewing at good quality; I admired it.

David Copperfield was Dickens' own favourite novel among his vast production, and together with "Great Expectations" it is a fictional autobiography - everything is invented, but still there is very much of himself in it, and perhaps even more so for being vested in fiction. Delbert Mann made many important films on classical novels and stories, and they were all generally well made and first class. Here the high level of the procuction is accentuated by the participation of a cluster of great actors, like Laurence Olivier, Michael Redgrave, Ralph Richardson, Edith Evans, Cyril Cusack, Richard Attenborough, Susan Hampshire and others, while Delbert Mann's bold venture is to reshuffle the story. Even Dickens' novel provides some flashbacks, which augment the quality of the novel by healthily giving the reader some occasional detachment to the passionate dramas, while Delbert Mann's film consist of almost only flashbacks which are not even chronological. The end result is still an entity, it is all well knitted together, and the flashbacks are never disturbing but occur at appropriate moments, one linking to another. Of all the great performances by the actors, Ralph Richardson as Wilkins Micawber crowns the show, he is the best Micawber I have seen, and second is Michael Redgrave as Daniel Peggotty. Perhaps the greatest asset of all is the beautiful music score by Malcolm Arnold. In spite of all the flashbacks and the short duration of just two hours, Delbert Mann succeeds in including the whole novel, there is not much missing, and the most important parts of the story are nicely given full range. In brief, even Dickens would have been satisfied with this TV illustration of his dearest child of a novel, while of course you would have preferred a greater screen than just TV.