The most obvious change is reflected in the Fagin group. Polanski has captured the possible shining points of each character in the book and magnified it, making this criminal group a little more humane and interesting beyond the crime. First of all, Fei Jin, the bandit leader, only profit is a bit more funny and trivial in the picture. Refer to the scene where Fei Jin counts money. The lines and demeanor show the slightly cute and paranoid insignificance of a miser. The conspiracy and calculations in Fei Jin's mouth are eliminated in the original book. Therefore, Fagin in Polanski's lens can only be counted as a nasty rapist, not a heinous, just as his relationship with Oliver is neither cruel nor merciful, but is reflected in the intimidation and temptation of the broken thoughts. Some kind of ambiguous warmth. Polanski's subordinates such as Toby Kraski's inexperienced fashion sense and out-of-date humor, "slip fast" self-righteous maturity, and even Sykes' unconditional loyalty, were sensitively captured by Polanski. So that the Fagin group still has the innocence and joy of being as innocent as a circus in the crime.
For the reasons mentioned above, and to compress the content of several hundred pages of the whole book in about two hours of a movie, Polanski mainly chose the plot from the perspective of Oliver, and completely eliminated the fact that Oliver was born. The structure of the film is greatly simplified, and it becomes a simple adventure of orphans, which promotes the preciousness of human kindness. The drastic cuts in the plot have made the film somewhat lacking in persuasiveness in some parts of the film. At the same time, the connotation of the film is greatly reduced compared with the original book. However, considering Polanski's original intentions, the above problems can be said to be not too big a problem for children's films.
The biggest problem may still be the actor Barney Clark, the actor of Oliver Test. The child's appearance is fully qualified for Oliver's delicate and beautiful appearance, and his acting skills can be justified in a simple plot. But his eyes were far less sensitive and sensible than Oliver. In other words, the child lacked the sense of suffering in Oliver and could not arouse the love that viewers should have. In addition, as a film that promotes "goodness", we should not ignore the influence and shock of Oliver's own kindness in the original book on the people around him. Unfortunately, Barney Clark also lacks Oliver's kindness and purity of "compelling" Temperament cannot but be said to be the biggest regret of the whole film. I don’t know if it’s considered preconceived. When I read books, I used the image of Freddie Highmore ("Looking for Neverland", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory") than the one of Oliver. It seemed that this kid could "stimulate" the audience more.
Among all Polanski's works, "Orphans in the Mist" is undoubtedly the one that carries the most obvious meaning. However, his handwriting as a master of the film is deeply rooted in the whole film, which is reflected in the amazing consistency of the atmosphere of the scenes in the book. In the nineteenth century, London’s markets were slightly faint and prosperous, and the dark green rots in the poor streets and alleys. The only close to true color appeared in Oliver’s escape and Brownlow’s house. It constitutes Polanski’s biggest metaphor about a child looming. Hope.
Polanski tried to use the film to convey the beautiful wishes of Dickens, and once again put this well-known masterpiece into the world's sight. Conversely speaking, it is also Dickens's novel that makes the movie version of "Orphan Twist" exceptionally approachable under Polanski's logo, and it also means that Polanski is accepted by more and less profound fans. Therefore, this can actually be regarded as the popularization of each other by the two masters over a period of two centuries.
View more about Oliver Twist reviews
