User Reviews

Charles Dickens and David Lean. What a combination; a novel by one of the greats of 19th century literature brought to film by one of the 20th century's best directors. Can't miss? You're right; David Lean's "Oliver Twist" is a great movie. The casting and acting is superb, every role a standout. I'd read "Oliver Twist" years ago, and watching the movie transported me back to the Victorian London of the novel. Alec Guinness is the perfect Fagin, after seeing this version I can't think of any other actor ever playing him. Bill Sikes, Nancy, Artful Dodger, Mr. Bumble, and of course Oliver. All perfect. The direction is without peer. The sets and cinematography resemble the best of German Expressionist work from the previous generation. Buildings at odd angles, light playing havoc with the dark shadows. I'm blathering....

My recommendation is to dig this up in the classics section of the video store and treat yourself to an oldie but a goodie.

This excellent film is part of a duo of Dickens' books turned into silver screen magic by David Lean in the 1940s (Great Expectations with John Mills is the other).

Keeping to the spirit of the book (although not leaving the bleak ending intact) it allows us to follow the fortunes of young Oliver (John Howard Davies, who later gave up acting to become a big shot at the BBC), through his unhappy years at the orphanage under the watchful eye of the Beadle (the huge Francis L Sullivan, who played many similar roles throughout the decade), to his association with boy thieves under the thumb of Jewish money-dealer Fagin (Alec Guinness, in one of his career highlights).

The casting is generally superb - Kay Walsh (then Mrs David Lean) is effective as Nancy, while Robert Newton is suitably unhinged and menacing as Bill Sikes. In the undertaker's, Diana Dors is showy as Charlotte the maid; while in London, Anthony Newley makes an early scene-stealing Artful Dodger (like Jack Wild in the musical version, this Dodger isn't all bad and wants to make sure Nancy and Oliver are all right).

'Oliver Twist' is one of the greats of British cinema and does justice to a complex book. Highly recommended.

Of the five extant full-length features based on Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist (among which I include the 1968 musical), this 1948 version is often considered the yardstick against which all others are measured. It's said that comparisons are odious, but it's necessary to examine it in relation to the other four to reveal why it is so highly regarded, as well as to some extent debunk its revered status.

First, we must begin by acknowledging that Dickens's book is a great but somewhat flawed work. It may be considered bad form to even think of criticising an undisputed genius, but bear in mind that this was only his second novel, and he was a young and inexperienced writer. Oliver Twist's strength lies in its larger-than-life characters, sparkling dialogue and imaginative set-pieces, but structurally it has some huge problems. This is why, throughout all the screen versions, depictions of figures such as Mr Bumble, Fagin and Bill Sykes differ very little, key scenes such as asking for more or the handkerchief stealing game are staged similarly, but there are many variations as to the overall plot. While the versions made in 1922 and 1933 are faithful if rather pared-down adaptations, the screenplay by David Lean and Stanley Haynes was the first to do the unthinkable and rewrite Dickens.

Probably the most drastic and for me the most necessary difference between this picture and the novel is Oliver's fate after he is forced to accompany Bill Sikes on the burglary. In the novel he is wounded and taken in by the family whose house it is. However, Lean and Haynes do not show the burglary, and keep Oliver in the custody of Fagin and co. until the finale. This is a vast improvement, as it means Oliver remains in real danger throughout the last act, and adds extra motivation to the race to bring the criminals to justice. So crucial to the impact of the picture was this change that it was used again for the 1968 musical and Roman Polanski's 2005 effort, and the image of the young hero clambering over the rooftops with Sikes urging him on is now established in the public conscious.

However there is one problematic way in which the 1948 film deviates from all the other versions, and that is in the size of Nancy's role. She is introduced fairly late, after Oliver's arrest, and she gets precious little screen time before being murdered. Significantly, her fondness for Oliver is not developed; she never even speaks to him, and consequently it seems odd when suddenly steps in as his protector. She is not even portrayed especially sympathetically, and as a result her death is not the blow to the audience that it should be. To me, the character of Nancy is the key to the whole thing; she is a surrogate mother (or big sister) figure to Oliver before he finds his real family, and her brutal murder is the biggest wrench of the story. Even the 1933 version, which otherwise has all the sophistication of a school play, recognises this.

The 1948 version at least looks great thanks to superlative cinematography by Guy Green, and of course the direction of David Lean. This picture is often praised for its harsh and grimy portrayal of Victorian England's underbelly, and Lean loads every frame with tone and character. He often throws in shots with no actors, which do not contribute directly to the story but add atmosphere to the scene. This kind of shot was by and large a no-no in Hollywood at the time, and for good reason because it can be a distraction, but Lean gets away with it because he does it so well. A great example is the series of storm shots from the opening scene, the best of which is a shot of two thorny stems twitching in the wind, instantly forcing us to think of physical pain, after which we cut to Oliver's mother in agony. The effect is more powerful than would be the shot of her alone. My only complaint with Lean's direction is his tendency to over-direct the low-key scenes, such as the one of Mrs Bumble setting about her husband, which is shot in the same manner as Oliver's assault on Noah Claypole, but as a scene it deserves far less weight.

And then we come to the actors. Aficionados of classic British cinema will understand that no-one but Robert Newton could have played Sikes in this production, and he's at his eye-rolling best here, although not as scary as Oliver Reed was in 1968. Kay Walsh is passable, but isn't right for Nancy, and her casting probably has something to do with who her husband was. Alec Guinness's Fagin has been denounced as anti-Semitic; in fact it goes right through anti-Semitism and out the other side. This caricature, with the unfeasibly massive nose and beard flapping around like a bit of old carpet, is simply ridiculous. True, Fagin is supposed to be a comedy character (and to his credit Guinness does ham it up funnily), but Oliver Twist is not a farce, and that over-the-top make-up is all wrong.

Through successive stage and screen versions, the story of Oliver Twist has continued to evolve. The musical eliminates the subplot with Monks, and the 2005 picture even goes as far as to remove the coincidence of Oliver being related to Mr Brownlow. This 1948 adaptation deserves credit for making this process of refinement acceptable, which is ironic as in spite of its break with tradition (and its flaws) through its tone and character it is probably the closest in spirit to the original text.

Still the most Dickensian of all the Oliver Twist films David Lean's inspired version, never the less is much indebted in its style to the German Expressionist Cinema. It's London is more related to Fritz Lang than Victorian England but the spirit of Dickens is alive and well in the accurately drawn caricatures from the novel. Outstanding performances by Francis J. Sullivan as ridiculous Mr. Bumble, Alec Guiness's chillingly evil Fagin despite a badly judged nose job, and the eye boggling twitching Robert Newton as the ferocious Bill Sykes. Even his dog trembles at his temper, in fact the dog is a major actor in this version.

John Newton Howard is a rather angelic Oliver, with a more refined delivery than one would have expected from a workhouse background. But it all goes decidedly well thanks to Lean's superb direction, stunning images, clever editing and a sterling cast. Viewed today so many years after it was filmed it remains the most vivid and Gothic recreation of the story. Probably Charles Dickens would approve. The heroic length recent version by Roman Polanski is generally faithful to the novel but lacks the pizazz and humour that is in Dicken's writing. David Lean made only two excursions into Dickens (Oliver Twist and Great Expectations) both milestones in cinema. One can but wonder how well he may have brought Bleak House or Our Mutual Friend to the screen.

In 1835 London began reading a series of comic essays or sketches by an unknown writer - it turned out a Parliamentary reporter. He wrote these pieces in a book illustrated by Hablot Browne, who drew pictures under the nickname "Phiz". The writer of the pieces decided to supply them to the public as SKETCHES BY BOZ, to complement his illustrator. The writer was actually named Charles John Huffan Dickens. He was only 23 years old, and he found himself a minor celebrity. Mr. Dickens followed this with a full novel, originally planned like the SKETCHES, but centered on a group of wealthy Englishmen touring the whole of the British Isles. Eventually this picaresque novel centered on the leader of the group, Mr. Samuel Pickwick, and his valet, Sam Weller. THE POSTHUMOUS PAPERS OF THE PICKWICK CLUB (later renamed THE PICKWICK PAPERS) was a tremendous success, especially as in the second half of the story Dickens got serious about the legal issue of breach of promise (broken engagement) lawsuits, the corruption of British lawyers, and the horrors of debtor's prison.

He began to see a formula develop here. He was more than a one book phenomenon, and he could see that while people adored his sense of humor, they also liked the serious material. His own life had been harsh - his father had been in debtor's prison, and Dickens had to work in a blacking warehouse (a warehouse where bottles were filled and labeled) as a youth. So he put a great deal in his work of the underside of life in modern England. Compare his novels with those of the two popular "Gods" of the day: Sir Walter Scott's novels were about a heroic past, while Jane Austen concentrated on personalities in the countryside (upper middle class) who were concerned about getting married. Dickens was quite different.

But for his third novel he reversed his formula - instead of a basically comic story enlightened with dramatic moments, he made it a tragic, dramatic tale enlightened with comic highlights. It was this formula he would stick to (quite successfully) from 1837 to 1870 for the bulk of his novels and short stories.

In 1836 there had been a trial of a receiver of stolen goods named Ikey Solomon. Ikey was Jewish. He was also something of a thief trainer. Found guilty, Ikey was sent to Australia for the rest of his life. Dickens decided that he would incorporate this story into his novel.

The hero, a poor boy who was brought up in an orphanage, is mistreated by those in authority (including a pompous beadle named Mr. Bumble) and eventually runs away, but falls into a gang in London led by one Fagin. Fagin is a Jewish thief and receiver in stolen goods. He is also a trainer of pickpockets and thieves, led by one called "The Artful Dodger". He also works closely with a violent, professional burglar named Bill Sykes, who has only two close relationships: his girl, a woman named Nancy, and his pet bulldog.

Oliver in the course of the story is separated from the gang when he is arrested for picking the pocket of a gentleman named Mr. Brownlow. Brownlow tries to help Oliver - he can't place it but there seems something about the boy he likes. Sykes manages to recapture Oliver again, but the latter is reunited by accident to Brownlow after he is injured in an burglary Sykes is committing.

In the meantime Mr. Bumble and his wife (the matron of the poor house Oliver was raised in) have turned over information about Oliver's real history to a stranger named Monk. Monk has also been in contact with Fagin to make sure that Oliver is kept in the gang. But then Nancy starts showing a strong conscience about what is going on about the boy.

I won't go beyond this in terms of the plot. David Lean had made several films (including BRIEF ENCOUNTER) before this 1948 film. He did a bang up job with a great cast: John Howard Davies as Oliver, Alec Guiness as Fagin, Robert Newton as Sykes, Henry Stephenson as Mr. Brownlow, Kay Walsh as Nancy, Francis L. Sullivan as Bumble, and a young Anthony Newley as the Artful Dodger. Lean trimmed much out of the six hundred page novel (short for a Dickens novel), but left the main points. His biggest actions were concerning Alec Guiness's performance as Fagin - the character is a vicious anti-Semitic caricature by Dickens (who made fitful attempts to make up for it in later editions of the novel - showing Fagin was not a good Jew either!), and the make-up job looked like something out of Julius Streicher's Nazi publication DER STURMER of a few years before. But the makeup job on Guiness was based on the illustrations of George Cruickshank and "Phiz" in their editions of TWIST when it came out. Still, in balance to this, Fagin is shown at the conclusion to have a sense of personal dignity when confronted by a deadly mob. That touch shows that Lean could go beyond Dickens' own prejudices to somewhat balance the story. The result was a masterpiece - certainly the best film adaptation of OLIVER TWIST, possibly the best version on film of a Dickens novel.

David Lean's adaptation of Charles Dickens' most irresistible tale must rank as one of the most astounding masterpieces in all of cinema.

Every detail is wrought with the most painstaking detail and nuance. There are many scenes which stand out but none is more exhilarating as the astounding ending when it appears as if all of London has come out to rescue our hero.

My favorite aspect of this film has to be the depiction of a London in which we have all dreamed of living: gritty, lusty, ugly, beautiful, attractive, repulsive but most of all, exceptionally unique and endearing - yet with pomp and poverty existing side by side.

Oh, so much to say about this film. One runs out of words.

Every performance remains in one's memory, every image in one's heart.

After viewing over 10,000 movies, I still have the same opinion I had after I saw this movie the first time and had watched maybe a thousand films at that point: this is simply the best-looking black-and-white film I've ever seen.

On the Criterion DVD, scene after scene is just jaw-dropping. I have never seen so many incredible shots with wonderful contrasts of light and dark. Much of this is filmed dark rooms or nighttime in the cobblestone streets. Those scenes, combined with many facial closeups, great buildings, and interesting camera angles, all make this an incredible viewing experience.

All of this helps make up for watching a depressing story. It was just unappealing, at least to me, because all the people except for the little boy are unlikable. Some of them mistreat the little kid and that's difficult to watch. I'm a sucker for nice people, especially an innocent child, and to see suffer is not fun to me.

One of those bad guys, however, is memorable: Fagin, played by Alec Guiness. In this film, he has to be one of the ugliest people I've ever seen, sporting the biggest nose ever put on screen. A teenage Anthony Newley as "the artful Dodger" also stands out.

But, as someone who is into art, David Lean's direction and Guy Green's camera-work draw me back to this DVD every couple of years...and at least I always know there is a happy ending for the one nice kid in the film.

Over seventy years on and this version of 'Oliver Twist' is still garnering ecstatic reviews. There are a handful of gainsayers to be sure but their opinions are quite frankly inconsequential as this is simply film-making of the highest quality.

By all accounts it was Kay Walsh who came up with the idea for the astonishing opening scene which sets the tone for the whole film. Lean himself relates the amusing tale of how they utilised a stuffed cat in order to get the required reaction from the lethargic beast playing Bullseye during the effectively staged murder sequence. Necessity is the mother of invention! Film is of course a collaborative medium and Lean, no mean 'cutter' himself, has the services of one of the best editors in the business, Jack Harris. Behind the camera is Guy Green who had previously replaced Robert Krasker on 'Great Expectations'. This also represents the only full-length film score by Arnold Bax.

Too much of course has been made of the so-called anti-Semitic portrayal of Fagin by Alec Guinness. He and Lean both had the courage to stick to their guns by having the character resemble the original illustrations of George Cruikshank. In the immortal words of Columbia's Harry Cohn: 'the trouble is that accent and that schnozzle'. Ironically the film was banned in Israel for its anti-Semitism but banned in Egypt for showing Fagin too sympathetically! Mention must be made of the fabulous Robert Newton as Bill Sykes whose 'careful' handling is a testament to Lean's directorial skills. Henry Stephenson is perfect as Brownlow, Kay Walsh heart-rending as Nancy and Francis L. Sullivan as Mr. Bumble gets to deliver one of the author's most immortal lines: 'the Law, Sir, is a Ass'. John Howard Davies has been criticised by some for being a bit 'twee' as Oliver but the role could not have been played any better.

All of Lean's hallmarks that he was to exhibit on a far wider scale and with considerably larger budgets are in evidence here. A truly great version of a literary masterpiece is surprisingly rare in film as there seem to be so many 'compromises' but this is a glorious exception.

Having read the original novel by Charles Dickens, I would term this film a fairly good adaptation, portraying the main characters as they we would imagine them to be in real life. Casting was excellent, the actors playing Mr Bumble, Fagin and Sykes especially well-selected for their roles. Kudos to the camera job, depicting the depressing conditions of the workhouse and the deplorable streets of London in the Victorian era, and the fact that it was done in black and white emphasizes the gloomy atmosphere pervading the situations at the time. I only rate this movie a 6 due to the fact that there are a great deal of unresolved issues in the storyline, Example, how Nancy and Bill Sykes recognized Oliver in the street when he was sent on an errand by Brownlow when clearly they hadn't met him before? Also, how Edward Leeford aka Monks knew which workhouse Oliver had grown up in, as well as discover his whereabouts in London? As I am familiar with Dickens, I know how exactly the storyline went, but for those who haven't read the movel before, it could cause a bit of confusion.

When his mother just about makes it to the workhouse before giving birth then dying, Oliver Twist is born into the only world he has ever known – the workhouse and poverty. When he draws the short straw from among the children, Oliver asks for more food at dinner and promptly finds himself up for sale for £5 to any honest trader willing to take him in. Oliver is taken to work for an undertaker until a fight over his mother makes him run away to London where the masters will never find him. Taken in by Fagin's group of child pickpockets, Oliver starts to settle in, until a brush with the law starts to bring his family history to the attention of those lacking scruples.

Watching this film now (or indeed at the time of its release in the UK) it is hard to imagine that it would have sparked a riot in Berlin in its first showing in 1949 or that it was banned for two years in America on the grounds of being anti-Semitic and was only released after significant cuts (10 minutes) had been made. Of course the cynic in me would suggest that the US was making any excuse to limit British films in its cinema due to competition (they don't need to do that any more!) but I guess history is written by the winners and Hollywood is definitely winning that battle. Ironically enough the film was also banned in Israel and Egypt because of Fagin – with Israel claiming that Fagin was anti-Semetic and Egypt claiming he was too sympathetic. Any roads, regardless of the historical controversy this film is still considered by many to be the definitive version of Dickens' story and often is in top ten or so when polls for 'greatest British films' are carried out. The plot is dark and sombre as befits the source material, painting a dark world of thieves, poverty and workhouses within which the story of Oliver and his destiny are told. In essence it is a simple story but it is the atmosphere and characters that make it more interesting.

This may have been as successful as some of Lean's other films due to the daft controversies around it, but his is still a very effective job as director. The film feels Victorian and hopeless – just like the lives of those in the story, and Lean creates a real atmosphere of despair and fear that is enjoyably dark and has moments that I was surprised to see in a film of the period. The cast do well with the characters and are a big part of its working. Ignoring all the hysteria over 'bad' characters being ethnic (good to see things haven't changed that much), Guinness is good as Fagin and doesn't allow himself to be just a ethnic stereotype – he is exploitative but he is also human and we get to see him as just being somebody else's 'boy' as well as Oliver. Newton is who I see when I think of Bill Sykes and Davies is a good Oliver even if his accent is way too posh for a workhouse baby and the film tends to lose him among all the more interesting and seedy characters we come across. Support is good from the likes of Walsh, Sullivan, Newley and others, all combining to produce a colourful collection of dark characters in the seedy streets of London.

Overall this is a good story even if it loses the Oliver story halfway through for a while in favour of the other characters. The direction is great and the whole film is dark and atmospheric. The acting is roundly good and supports the wealth of seedy characters on which the film is built.

I'm not a massive fan of Dickens by and large but if I want to see a version of this story then this is the film I return to.

I really don't see why anyone has thought it necessary to produce further versions of this Charles Dickens classic after this one. John Howard Davies is the definitive Oliver, skinny just this side of malnourished, but with an inner light that shines out no matter how much dirt and grime they smear on his face. (At 12, this was near the END of his acting career. He's gone on to an impressive list of directorial and production credits.) Alec Guinness's Fagin is more evil and I believe more honest than the "psychologically informed" later portrayals, and the nose itself is a masterpiece! (I just wish I could stop expecting him at any moment to burst into song: "I'm reviewing -- bum bum bum -- the situation...") As for Sikes, Robert Newton's characterization is so scary that I felt like checking to make sure there really was a solid glass barrier between him and me. Sets, lighting, cinematography -- what can one say? Industrial Revolution cities were largely monotone and filthy: thank goodness TV's with smell sensation are still in the future!

I regard the opening sequence as one of the best ever especially enhanced by the expert cinematography in black and white. The film is a dark tale about the terrible life many endured in England in the era. Dickens wanted to demonstrate this and he did so excellently in this story. I have seen Oliver and the Polanski films, both enjoyable but squeaky clean. One does not get the same sense of evil and grime with colour and the filming used the dark gloom to great effect. Bill Sykes is evil and Robert Newton gives one of his best performances. Guiness as Fagin, long way from Obi Wan and controversial, however very true to the Dickens character. We should not look at it as anti Semitic but as a bad person who happened to be a Jew. He is based on a real character in fact.Nonetheless Guiness is brilliant and really steals the show. The rest of the characters are the usual under rated British character actors and each is excellent. Some went on to bigger things e.g. Newley, Dors and of course the wonderfully funny Hattie Jaques, who ended up with Sykes in the end, well Eric Sykes not Bill.

I think this film is fantastic, One of the all time greats, From the very beginning with the dark gothic visually impressive opening scene. The sky is bruised and wind and rain sweep across a desolate lonely moor, A young pregnant woman, Sees in the distance a light emanating from a large building, And so struggles against inhospitable terrain and unsympathetic elements until she reaches the brooding edifice and rings the bell. But what sort of building is it, All is revealed when a flash of lightening illuminates the sign above a pair of wrought iron gates, It's a workhouse home/prison of the undeserving poor. David Lean's direction coupled with Guy Green's imaginative photography make it all so unforgettable.

Alec Guiness( try to forget the ridiculous nose ) who plays fagin and Robert Newton Who plays Bill Sykes turn in strong performances, But a special mention should go to Kay Walsh who plays Nancy, The scene in the gangs hideout when Oliver tries to escape is strong in emotion, and reveals a character who after being used and manipulated by Fagin and suffering abuse from a violent partner(Sikes), finally lets it all out and turns on the people who weighed down her life with years of misery. Walsh seemed to truly feel the pain and desperation of the character she so wonderfully played, A must see.

Oliver Twist is my favourite novel. I love it to bits. It is a dark, moody, hart hitting gritty kind of story, considered to be one of the most famous and popular by Charles Dickens. And I think that I am one of the very few teenagers who love Dickens's work. This 1948 British version of the great novel still stands out as the definitive version. Directed by the great Sir David Lean (wwho in my opinion is the greatest director ever), this film has some absolute quality acting in it. It stars Robert Newton as the brutal Bill Sykes, who is just brilliant in the role. He is terrifying in the role. If you have read the book, you will realise that he is exactly how Bill Sykes should be. Robert Newton makes him a dark, scowling, psychotic, frightening man who commands your attention every time you see him. Oliver Reed, who played him in the 1968 musical version of this story, was fine as Bill Sykes but gives a much more light weight performance than Newton does. The rest of the cast was top stuff as well, Kay Walsh gave an appealing, sympathetic performance as the tragic Nancy, clearly sick of the criminal life that she is involved in. The scene where Nancy is eaten to death by Sykes could make you turn away it is that horrible (even though we don't see it, we just see the dog trying ton escape and hear her screaming). A young John Howard Davies gives a fine performance as the title role of Oliver Twist, he made you feel a lot more for him than other child actors do. He doesn't force himself upon us and that is what makes you feel for him, because he doesn't try to make you feel for him, you just do. The rest of the excellent cast is great, Anthony Newly as the Artful Dodger, creating just the right essence for him, he is a rude, imcopetent little bully, not a character you are supposed to really feel anything for. Henry Stephenson as the kindly old gentleman Mr Brownlow, Francis L Sullivan as the pompous and idiotic beadle Mr Bumble, Gibb McLaughlin as the cruel undertaker Mr Sowerberry, Ralph Truman as the fraud Mr Monks, Kathleen Harrison as the sadistic Mrs Sowerberry, Amy Veness as the kindly old Mrs Bedwin, Mary Clare as Mrs Corny/Bumble, Graveley Edwards as Mr Fang, Michael Dear as the sadistic Noah Claypole, Diana Dors (in her first major film role) as Charlotte and Peter Bull, in a cameo role as the landlord of the 'Three Criples' pub. But...(and I deliberately saved him until the end) Sir Alec Guiness's immortal performance as Fagin is the best best performance in the show. David Lean wasn't sure about whether to cast him as Fagin, but it worked brilliantly. He steals the entire film, playing the character to absolute perfection from the book. He is soft spoken but at the same time a nasty, spiteful, evil old man. Ron Moody's acting of Fagin in the musical makes him out to be a crafty, pantomime villain who everyone loves...HELLO! DICKENS WANTS YOU TO HATE THIS CHARACTER!. Everyone in this film give absolute 'star A' performances in this film, making it hugely enjoyable and truly Dickensian. Of course, can only be done properly by the British.

While this film is near perfect, it does have quite a lot of scenes left out from the book, but I don't quarrel with it here because it brings the spirit of Dickens original into it. It would have made the great author proud. Dickens would have un-doubtedly hated 'Oliver!' the musical version of this book. Please, watch this before you watch the musical, please. Then watch the musical for second choice. This film is a true British classic and deserves all the praise it gets.

Hope this was useful. Derek

After the acclaim he got in the supporting role of Herbert Pocket in Great Expectations, David Lean decided to use Alec Guinness in a starring role in his next masterpiece. Which turned out to be another Dickens story with Guinness playing Fagin in Oliver Twist.

It was not an automatic casting however, other people were considered. But according to a recent biography of Alec Guinness, he won the part by appearing in the full Fagin makeup you see on the screen with that unforgettable Cyrano like nose with a hook in it. He also spoke in that mincing lisp and Lean was sold.

The portrait of Fagin raised a great hue and cry about it being so good that it was encouraging anti-Semitism, not something the post World War II world wanted to deal with. And the lisp and the mincing walk also had a nice subtext of homophobia with Fagin and his crew of young juvenile thieves. All around it got plenty of criticism, Oliver Twist was not released in the USA until three years later and then with significant cuts in Guinness's role.

Whereas Guinness just went outrageously overboard in his acting, he was matched every step of the way by the menacing Robert Newton as Bill Sikes one of the slimiest villains in all of literature. Newton as Sikes is a totally ruthless character and scare the audience as he frightens the rest of the cast.

My favorite though is Kay Walsh as Nancy Brown, Sikes's luckless girlfriend. The only character you can compare Nancy to that comes to mind is another woman from 19th century London who fell victim to an evil man is Champagne Ivy in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

In the musical Oliver the big hit song from it is As Long As He Needs Me which is Nancy's number. She sings it about her love for her evil fellow, you can almost hear it in the background. What a payoff this poor woman gets for her love when she develops a conscience.

Charles Dickens certainly liked stories about young men who by an unseen fate first get cast down and then in the end triumph over adversity, by their own efforts, but also by events they have no control over. Oliver Twist fits right in with Great Expectations, David Copperfield, and Martin Chuzzlewit in that way.

This version still remains the definitive adaption of a classic story and you kids should see this if you don't want to wade through the book for your English class.

"Oliver Twist" has been done so many times, including versions in the last few years. I really enjoyed George C. Scott as Fagan, although the boy that played Oliver was hard to take. Then, of course, there's Ron Moody in the musical. What this one has is a period reality to Victorian England. So many of these previous efforts are so sanitized. Let's remember that this little boy was in a workhouse, probably infected with whatever was around, and at the mercy of people who had no love for him. Enter a passel of boys who are pickpockets, working for a thief who uses them. But what else does society offer them? Of course, they are going to be led by someone who can put a modicum of food in their stomachs and a roof over their heads. The bleakness of the times and the randomness of the world is at the center of this one. Not to mention stylings of David Lean, one of the greatest directors in history. It's hard to match this version of the Dickens classic.

This is generally regarded as the best screen version of the Dickens novel about an orphan who becomes involved with pickpockets in London. And it's easy to see why. The cinematography is opulent and the sets and costumes nicely evoke the period, just as one would imagine the world of Dickens to be. While it looks great, the script is muddled and the film becomes too melodramatic in the latter stages. Guinness has a field day as Fagin, but he tends to get too hammy at times, as does Newton as the singularly evil Sykes. Young Davies does well in the title role and Sykes's dog is cute. A more interesting version is the musicalized "Oliver!"

David Lean is best remembered nowadays as the director of the sweeping technicolour epics that he produced in the latter part of his career {'Lawrence of Arabia (1962)' and 'The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)' being the most well-known}. However, it was interesting to uncover a treasure-trove of "little" films from Lean's earlier years, and 'Oliver Twist (1948),' his second adaptation of a Charles Dickens novel, is the first that I've watched. The film is a morbid, expressionistic triumph of storytelling and atmosphere, with Guy Green's exquisite cinematography making the dark, shadowy back-streets of 19th century London seem overwhelmingly ominous and sinister. An impressive British cast wonderfully brings the tale to the screen, and the audience is presented with an assortment of the author's grotesque, unsavoury literary creations. Though the story is frequently very morose {occasionally you just wish that one of the characters would break into song just to lighten the mood}, it was always Dickens' intention to end on a high note, and the film's final act will leave you with a cheery smile that you've well-and-truly earned.

Though I'd previously read Charles Dicken's 1838 novel, I could hardly remember a thing about it, so I was never sure of where the story was going to lead. Young Oliver Twist (John Howard Davies) is born in a workhouse outside London, a horrible institution where he is treated poorly and given little to eat. In the film's opening sequence – an awe-inspiring, completely silent stumble through a rainstorm – we watch Oliver's mother (Josephine Stuart), on the verge of giving birth, arrive at the workhouse, dying just minutes after the delivery of her son. Nobody knows exactly who she is, nor how she came to be here; in any case, that final motherly embrace is about the only act of kindness that Oliver will experience for many, many years to come. Seriously deprived of food by his well-fed proprietors, Oliver innocently approaches the man with the gruel ladle and requests, "Please, sir, I want some more." In the ensuing uproar, Oliver is sold to a kindly undertaker, but a spat with a bullying fellow apprentice leads to his running away towards London. Once there, Oliver falls into the care of a gnarled Jewish thief named Fagin (Alec Guinness), who employs young, homeless boys to pickpocket for his own gain.

Aside from the superb photography, what makes Lean's 'Oliver Twist' such a superb Dickens adaptation are the wonderful characterisations. Alec Guinness usually receives the bulk of the praise, and not without good reason, for his portrayal of Fagin, whose grotesqueness, with his twisted grey beard and pointed nose, is almost comical. In fact, the performance proved somewhat controversial at the time of the film's release, with some considering it anti-semitic and others objecting to the "sympathetic" portrayal of a clear villain. Likewise, Robert Newton is genuinely chilling as Bill Sikes, whose paranoia continually threatens to erupt into an explosion of sadistic violence. Anthony Newley, aged seventeen years, completely nails the role of Jack Dawkins – a.k.a. the Artful Dodger – a sharp-eyed juvenile with "all the airs and manners of a man." The Dodger's entrance, as he thoughtfully appraises Oliver by the water fountain, reveals a legitimate understanding of the character. Of course, the film could never have been complete without young John Howard Davies, who brings an unrivalled element of intelligence, sincerity and independence to the role, without ever forgetting that he's playing an innocent nine-year-old orphan.

After the experience of seeing GREAT EXPECTATIONS on the big screen, I looked forward to what David Lean would do with OLIVER TWIST. I wasn't disappointed--it's possibly the best version of the Dickens tale that I've ever seen with all the Victorian-era darkness and poverty serving as a rich background to a number of interesting Dickensian characters.

ALEC GUINNESS has the role of a lifetime as Fagin, the pickpocket thief who keeps his boys on a tight reign. Among the boys--the very young ANTHONY NEWLEY as The Artful Dodger. But a standout in the film is the central performance of young JOHN HOWARD DAVIES--he's a brilliant choice to play the underfed boy in the poorhouse "who wanted more" and is eventually reunited with Mr. Brownlow (the wonderful HENRY STEPHENSON) for a happy ending.

Later musicalized and called OLIVER!, it's hard to watch the film today without recalling where the musical numbers were inserted and almost expecting them to break out in song. But the bleak atmosphere of Lean's film about the orphan waif taken in by a gang of thieves is so stark, at times, that it rules out thoughts of musical moments.

ROBERT NEWTON makes a picturesque Bill Sykes but is occasionally over the top in his characterization, but KAY WALSH makes a wonderfully compelling Nancy and FRANCIS L. SULLIVAN is wonderful as Mr. Bumble.

Summing up: Full display of the art of Guy Green's B&W cinematography to heighten the mood of the drama.

It's interesting that the BFI (British Film Institute) chose to add this and the Lionel Bart 'Oliver!' Musical to their 100 Greatest British Films Of The 20th Century, as apart from the obvious differences - The musical having a better cast and of course songs - there really isn't much difference between the two. I think I would have picked The Musical and added a different story to the list.

You can clearly see in this one, the inspiration for its remake. Alec Guinness, while in his own way very good as Fagin (If a little bit like Dr Teeth from 'The Muppets' to look at and with a slight 'Keith Lemon' twang to listen to) is quite clearly an early version of Ron Moody's Fagin. Ron wins that one though, because his performance is more polished and believable.

The other actors all generally give a good performance for 1948 and the sets, costumes et al live up to expectations, if not great, (ha ha). They were probably used again in 1968 to dress the next cast, so similar as they were and yes I do realise that both films were set at the same time, but Bumble's outfit matches almost button for button.

There are definitely different elements in this one that were omitted from its counterpart, the character of Monks for instance and he confused me for a while as I couldn't work out who he was supposed to be. I can only assume I will understand it all better when I finally get around to reading Dickens' book that has been on my shelf for what seems like a millennia. There were a couple of moments where I got a bit lost, but the story was generally easy to follow.

There is one moment here where you can almost feel Lionel getting his inspiration, as Fagin and the boys show Oliver about pick-pocketing and in those seconds it is just crying out to be a musical.

As versions of this story go, it is my second favourite, but I haven't seen Disney's 'Oliver & Company' in some time. It's done well and I believe it was probably the best it could be for the time. I don't think I need to rewatch it though, but I wouldn't turn it off if I was bored in my old age on a Saturday afternoon.