London in the early nineteenth century was in the midst of the rapid development of the industrial revolution. During the period, industrial pollution and certain climatic conditions made London frequent foggy weather, so it got the nickname of Fog City. Today's Shanghai is also a major financial city, with layers of fog. Besides calling it the magic capital, has it also begun to mean something foggy?
Previous interpretations of this literary work or film will always lead to There are some ideological elements in it, which are peculiar to capitalist society, and that capitalists exploit ordinary people, even children, in order to maximize their profits. This is revealed by the work, revealing that it is possible for us to know the truth. In that corrupt and depraved environment, the passive Oliver maintained his own innocence; when everyone else succumbed, he hated sin and used a In the style of a fairy tale, Oliver is rewarded in the end - living a peaceful life in the country, surrounded by benevolent friends. In his march towards reunion, Dickens also explored the lives and possible landscapes of street children and orphans in London in the 1830s.
After watching the movie, I seem to understand why Dickens' novels are regarded as literary classics. Its power is not only in the skills of words, but in the ability to show human nature through stories. There are good, evil, fear, and strength in human nature; there are classes, prejudice, help, and mutual trust between people. . Dickens did not write these words directly, but meticulously collected the connotation of human nature in the story.
The difference between Dickens's original book and the film adaptation is not my concern. Every adaptation is an artistic re-creation. What I care about is whether in the 19th century and today in the 21st century, apart from the possible similarity of the weather, the human world was still so ruthless, even inhumane, and tragic. I think such stories are still happening today. It is undeniable that the times are progressing and the overall level of human civilization is improving, but the dark side of human nature can never be completely exposed to the sun, so Dickens is always in his works. Trying to mix hard reality with ruthless irony to wake people up.
Another question that puzzles me is why Polanski chose to shoot this film. Compared with the original book, the deletion is still relatively large, and even deliberately avoided some sensitive topics, such as Dickens' anti-Semitic stance, this question. He had to avoid it because he himself was born into a Jewish family.
Polanski once said in an interview about adapting novels into movies, "The reason why I like adapting novels into movies must be moved by the novel. So in the adaptation, the biggest thing I do is Be faithful to the original as much as possible. After the adaptation, the most important thing is to fully express the story within a limited time. When I was a child, when I was reading this novel Tess, I was thinking if I could make it into a movie , how should I do it. But many times, the result of the adaptation is not satisfactory. The main reason is that the adapted movie and the novel are thousands of miles apart. Many of the characters I like are missing, and even more exaggerated, some characters that are not in the novel at all. It appeared. In my experience, what I learned is how to be faithful to the original work and keep the originality of the original work, rather than play it randomly."
I think I found the answer from this passage. The answer is Dickens's work "The Fog" The realistic and compassionate brushstrokes and silent accusations of All Orphans deeply moved Polanski, which gave Polanski the urge to put the novel on the screen.
For someone like me who likes both famous novels and movies, Oliver Twist must be said to be a top-level work. It not only gave me a visual impact on my senses, but also inspired my thinking. Impressed.
View more about Oliver Twist reviews
