Latest news with #LittleDorrit
Daily Record
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
BBC period drama fans rave about fantastically cast 'unrecognisable' The Crown star
The BBC adaption of Charles Dickens' novel may have been released over a decade ago, but it is still being enjoyed today by fans who are rediscovering the series Viewers are rekindling their love for a 2008 costume drama that has brilliantly encapsulated a classic Dickensian narrative, led by a "fantastic cast", which includes an actress whose transformation is spellbinding. 'Little Dorrit', a BBC miniseries, dives into Charles Dickens's lesser-celebrated eponymous novel set in the 1850s. The plot tracks the peculiar existence of Amy Dorrit who, for twenty-one years, lived within the confines of a debtors' prison with her father. The tale takes a turn when Amy encounters Arthur Clennam, who, in pursuit of his family's elusive legacy, discovers it to be mysteriously connected to the Dorrit family. In seeking answers, Clennam is introduced to diverse individuals through Amy's gentle spirit, from the extraordinarily wealthy to those barely scraping by. Set amidst the class disparities of Victorian England, Dickens's signature commentary on social inequities underpins the series. However, viewers have found 'Little Dorrit' to have an engaging charm despite the sombre undertones. Praise for the show also appears on Rotten Tomatoes, stating: "This is a great BBC mini-series; though most of their mini-series are really good. The story has so many characters and smaller plots going on that one really must pay attention to everything. The casting was also brilliant.", reports Surrey Live. "Matthew Macfadyen and Claire Foy gave their characters such life and had so many subtleties. Andy Serkis, who played Rigaud, was also amazing; you had your eyes on him in every scene he was in." While another viewer added: "I absolutely loved this movie. I think it may have even surpassed the BBC's marvellous representation of Pride and my opinion." British actress Claire Foy takes on the role of Amy Dorrit in the series, a stark contrast to her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in The Crown, making her almost unrecognisable. This early part was crucial for Foy, marking her emergence well before she reached the pinnacle of fame with roles in Season of the Witch, The Girl in the Spider's Web, and Unsane. She is joined by a stellar lineup of British talent, including Matthew Macfadyen as Arthur Clennam and Andy Serkis, better known for his work in Lord of The Rings, as Rigaud. Screen legends Tom Courtenay and Sue Johnston are also amongst the cast enriching the BBC adaptation. One critique says: "This mini-series is almost perfect. Great costumes and sets. Great camera work. Fantastic acting all around. Everyone inhabits their characters completely. A good amount of humour too amongst the Dickensian bleakness. However, I don't think all the loose ends were tied up very well.." Another viewer wrote: "I don't know how this compares to the book, but this series is engaging and has a touch of mystery to it that keeps you eagerly watching to see how all the varied parties are interconnected in the end. Wonderful acting as well. A worthy period drama." The overlooked gem of a period drama, Little Dorrit, can be streamed on BBC iPlayer.
Daily Record
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
Period drama fans have just days to watch 'emotional' film before it's axed
The British biographical drama film stars Felicity Jones, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Tom Hollander A highly praised period drama directed by and featuring Ralph Fiennes is ready to depart from BBC iPlayer soon. The biographic film, The Invisible Woman (2013), is set in the Victorian era and centres around an important cultural figure. Adapted from a 1990 novel bearing the same title, it unfolds the tale of Charles Dickens's clandestine affair with Nelly Ternan, played out over 13 years with a budding young actress. Haunted by memories, an older Nelly, now a teacher and a wife, grapples with her concealed past involving the illustrious author, as flashbacks unravel their complex connection. The movie delves into Charles Dickens's mental landscape, the societal dilemmas presented by their relationship, and Nelly's trials following their separation. It provides insight into the difficulties faced by someone entangled with a renowned personality through the lens of Nelly, as the drama investigates themes of love, individuality, and the ramifications of keeping secrets, reports the Express. Regarding his dual role as actor and director for the piece, Fiennes confessed his initial unfamiliarity with Charles Dickens' body of work to Vulture, stating: "I was ignorant. "I had only read Little Dorrit. I knew his obvious ones - Nicholas Nickleby, Oliver Twist, Great Expectations - through adaptations. And Christmas Carol. I didn't know much about the man." Nevertheless, Fiennes's portrayal earned widespread acclaim, with many reviews commending his and Felicity Jones's acting prowess. The film has garnered a positive consensus on Rotten Tomatoes, where it boasts a rating of 76%, reflecting the viewers' commendations. Critics have praised the film, with one saying: "This is everything a period drama almost never is: underplayed, witty, poignant and, above all, real". Another reviewer simply put: "Beautiful to watch. Acting perfect. Based on truth". Other viewers have also shared their thoughts, with one commenting: "This is a slow and emotional watch, ideal for fans of period drama. I found it quite engrossing and intriguing to get to know Charles' love interest at the time its set." The cast's performances have also been commended, with one viewer noting: "The cast do well giving good performances and the dialogue was quite thoughtful at times, although at other times it's more a case of what isn't said, than what is. "And indeed I enjoyed the dialogue-free scenes as they had an almost dream-like quality to them and allowed the viewer to contemplate what the characters on screen may be thinking." Upon its release in 2013, The Invisible Woman was not only well-received by critics but also achieved box office success, grossing £2,380,130.78 worldwide. The Invisible Woman (2013) will no longer be available on BBC iPlayer after June 7.
The Guardian
02-03-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Who is better, Dickens or Shakespeare? We asked nine prominent writers
Professor of Shakespeare Studies at Hertford College Oxford and author of This Is Shakespeare It's a brilliantly preposterous thesis that Peter sets out but I disagree. What's great about Dickens is the maximalist, chock-a-block, teeming sense you get of that world. His work is like an extraordinary baroque cathedral that you could spend your life looking at, absorbed in the detail. By contrast, Shakespeare is more like a black box. There's a huge amount of potential to do these plays in very different worlds with very different outcomes. So what's great about Dickens is it's all there. But what's completely indispensable about Shakespeare is it's waiting for us to combine with it to make something new. I don't think rereading Dickens makes a new Dickens, but rereading or reperforming Shakespeare does make a new Shakespeare. Adapted Bleak House and Little Dorrit for TV and is currently writing a book about Dickens's life Shakespeare was just so extraordinary, so clever about so many things, that he has to be the greatest writer. He had such insight into what made people human. However, Dickens is much funnier than Shakespeare, whose comedies don't wear awfully well, and he's scary at the same time. He had this gift of retaining a childlike view of the world so that he could create these extraordinary grotesques that were larger and stranger than life, but also recognisably true. I have to say that Dickens was pretty hopeless on women, both in his life and in his work, whereas Shakespeare clearly understood women much better and was extraordinarily perceptive on what love can do to human beings. Author of Shakespeare Is Hard, But So Is Life and other books Shakespeare means more to me than Dickens for several reasons. First, Dickens is rooted in a very specific world, of mid-19th-century England, whereas Shakespeare is the opposite – he couldn't, for safety reasons, write about the England of his time. He had to invent other worlds and write in such a way that the plays become adaptable to almost any circumstance. Second, Dickens is brilliant at using words, whereas with Shakespeare it feels like he's inventing language itself all the time. Also, Shakespeare takes us into psychological terrain that I don't think Dickens approaches. Dickens gives us a world in which there are good people and bad people and we know the distinction between them. But with Shakespeare, there isn't that distinction. Heroes do really horrific things – Hamlet is a thug. From moment to moment, we don't know where we stand. The characters feel like they're being invented second by second, word by word. It's just a profoundly different kind of aesthetic experience. Author of The Essex Serpent and Enlightenment When you compare them, I don't see that Dickens is lesser at all, and in some ways could be considered superior. The main thing is that he has moral courage. Shakespeare's work doesn't lack the scrutiny of individual morals, but he was a sort of court stooge – so much of his work was designed to endear him to the establishment. Whereas Dickens was anti-establishment and a political radical – he was instrumental in the ending of public hanging in the UK. His social justice conscience has not aged five minutes. If you read Hard Times, you think of Gove and the Gradgrindian policies in our education system. And so that's where Dickens is more radiantly necessary, because that radical spirit he had never ages. Also, his prose was so strange. What's magical about his work is how on earth he managed to get away with gritty social commentary absolutely latched to the conditions of the day, but also being completely surreal. It's a sleight of hand that's almost impossible to pull off, or even to see how he pulls it off. It leaves me completely agog. Just look at the opening of A Christmas Carol: 'Marley was dead: to begin with.' Our modern prose seems so pedestrian in comparison. Author of Sankofa and, most recently, Mayowa and the Sea of Words I roll my eyes when I hear someone arguing that a certain author challenges Shakespeare's 'crown'. It is very British, very Eurocentric. To say all of literature is contained in Shakespeare or Dickens, it's like, which literature? Is Chinua Achebe there as well? Wole Soyinka? Is oral literature there? I don't even think many people would say Dickens is the greatest novelist of all time. Tolstoy would be my preference. But it's not a competition. Between the two, I do think Dickens's language is more accessible to a modern reader, but Shakespeare is more open to reinvention. There have been so many reinventions of Shakespeare that people don't even realise, such as The Lion King (a reinvention of Hamlet) or West Side Story (Romeo and Juliet). Shakespeare is not so bound to his place and his time, whereas it's very difficult to divorce Dickens from Victorian England. Author of I Heard What You Said and co-host of BBC Radio 4's Add to Playlist What's interesting to me is their differences. Shakespeare gives us archetypal characters that are very relatable whatever context you put them in, and that's why he persists. The problem with that, if you want to call it a problem, is that the characters themselves are almost digital in a way, in that they can be wiped clean and transferred. Dickens, on the other hand, gives us a real analogue grittiness to his characters that's very of its time. So it depends on what you like. I like Shakespeare's universality and his exploration of the human condition. But if you like a real exploration of character in context to understand Victorian England, then you can't get better than Dickens. Author of Julia, The Heavens and other novels Of the two, I have a greater affinity for Shakespeare. I see him as a professional who was writing plays that he intended to be popular, and writing them at speed, and so he was using the talents he had and glossing over the bits that were difficult for him. I love him for his flaws, such as writing ridiculously stupid plots. Dickens's flaws seem much more like they came from him, rather than from not finishing the job on time. I think he was a sentimentalist whose idea of psychology could be frighteningly acute or frighteningly obtuse depending on what he was looking at. The obtuseness is just as sincere, it comes from a genuine Dickensian point of view, whereas when Shakespeare's being obtuse, he's just simply not working hard enough. Author of There Are Rivers in the Sky and other novels In order to compare Shakespeare and Dickens better, I focused on their female characters. While both are quite sympathetic when it comes to understanding the complexity of being a woman in a patriarchal world, Shakespeare is far ahead in terms of portraying unruly female characters. There's more depth and darkness there. I love the way Peter finished his article, but I want to add a twist. If Shakespeare was far ahead in terms of depicting human emotions, and Dickens when it comes to social injustice, there's one author who brings the two together and that's Virginia Woolf. They both need to move over and make room for her. Author of The Confessions of Frannie Langton Is Dickens a greater writer than Shakespeare? Perhaps not. But is he a more enjoyable writer to read? I could agree with that. Dickens is the author from whom you're more likely to get the immersive reading experience I look for in a good novel. But then Shakespeare wasn't a novelist so it's a bit like comparing an apple with an orange. What I will say is that each aspired to give us all of humanity in their work, and clearly they succeeded, which is why their work endures. However, while we're pitting them against each other, we have to make sure we're also creating space for something new, for the masters of the future. That kind of reverence shouldn't dominate the landscape.
