The Personal History of David Copperfield

IN BRIEF: Overrated period comedy that looks right but is all wrong.

JIM'S REVIEW: (MILDLY RECOMMENDED) Well, I did like the costumes. And the production design, a mishmash of vibrant colors and patterns, was also a delight. (Kudos to Suzie Harman and Robert Worley's unlikely period wardrobe and Cristina Casali's stylish sets) But the film, The Personal History of David Copperfield, was all useless energy and pure nonsense. The film tries to impress with its quirkiness, lavish settings, and hyperactive performances. Figures whose names might seem familiar... Uriah Heep, Mr. Micawber, Betsey Trotwood, Mr. Dick...are strange hybrids of Charles Dicken's more famous characters from his novel. Here, they are thrown together to chronicle the story of the fictional David Copperfield's life. Like a Dicken's novel, characters intersect our hero's coming-of-age journey and add to the pomp although the circumstances are dubious. Unlike a Dicken's novel, in this odd film adaptation, they are shallow, silly, and overstay their welcome.

The film is unevenly directed by Armando Iannucci, who also wrote the screenplay with Simon Blackwell. His movie takes on a surreal quality which impresses in its visual splendor. (Many times while watching this film, I was reminded of Terry Gilliam's dud, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, and we know how that one went.) But script-wise, it's a mess. The plot is contrived, a CliffNotes summary of the book which misses Dicken's clever prose. In this re-imagined film version, everyone plays their roles like live action cartoons without any restraint or comic timing. They become wind-up dolls dressed to the Victorian nines gone amok.

A good cast belabors the comedy. And Mr. Iannucci does assemble many of England's best actors for his movie such as Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Tilda Swinton, and Hugh Laurie; only the latter two performers hit their marks most of the time with their outlandish interpretations. He waste their time and talents. As the title character, Dev Petel is completely engaging, but he and the integrated ensemble deserve better material. While the casting may be color-blind, the overall vision lacks focus too. The concept of creating Victorian England with a contemporary attitude is intriguing, but never quite gels.

Critics worldwide have raved about this film. And I waited nearly a year with high hopes, only to be disappointed by the end results. The film looks authentic and, production-wise, has many admirable traits, but it is all surface treatment and sleight-of-hand trickery. A earnest effort, I would agree, but the reality is that The Personal History of David Copperfield is epic, as in failure. It's a farce without any laughs that exhausts rather than thrills. Be careful what you wish for. (GRADE: C)

Some profoundly eccentric characters but the performances seemed a little forced and the connection you need to carry them over the line was missing for the most part.

I finally finished the novel today, after months of hiding from the trailer for this film, and I was thrilled to watch. I understand that a lot of things are going to be changed and condensed from a 900 page novel into a 2 hour movie but boy, they made nearly all of the opposite decisions I would've made on what to keep and what to throw away. Mr. Dick must've gotten 10 times the screen time as Peggotty and Mr. Peggotty who were two of my favourite characters in the novel. In the beginning, I really enjoyed the whimsical nature, however, the whimsy seems to have disappeared after the first half, leaving me to wonder why it was added at all? I loved the diversity in the cast, and what a cast it was, but wow.. just a really disappointing adaptation of a beautiful novel.

I saw this film at the HOME arts centre in Manchester on 26th January. I would first like to say to all the reviewers who have a problem with the multi ethnic casting - lighten up and catch up. It might not be too common yet in period films but this kind of colour blind casting is hardly unheard of on 21st century TV, and as the director pointed out in an interview on the Today programme this morning (Radio 4, 28th January) it has been used in theatre for the past 10-15 years. The director explained his choice of actors as, he had always thought Dev Patel would be ideal for the role of David Copperfield because he portrays the right combination of naivety, strength and intelligence for the character. Following that he wanted to cast the significant roles in the film equally well and to give it a slightly modern feel, and that meant looking at actors of all ethnic backgrounds. The BAME actors who play the significant supporting roles of Ham, Markham, Mrs Steerforth, Dr Chillip, Mr Wickfield and Agnes Wickfield are exactly right for those roles and I found nothing jarring in it their presence at all. Likewise the Caucasian actors (let's not forget them) who play Dora, Mr Dick, Mr and Mrs Micawber, Aunt Betsy Trotwood, are perfectly cast. It is inevitable that a film adaptation is going to miss out some of what is in the original novel. Film is a different medium and isn't going to have space for all the subplots or all of the characters. But this adaptation is faithful to Dickens's main characters and plot developments, and it brings out all the comic elements in both. To take a familiar example, there is something hilariously absurd in Betsy Trotwood's obsession with keeping people from riding donkeys over her lawn. This makes the film a delight to watch, and if it skates over the more tragic elements of the story, this isn't a fault. It is also visually enjoyable due to the imaginative direction. This draws the audience in from the start. The opening scene has David Copperfield starting to read his own story on stage in front of an audience, and soon after he begins, he turns and walks through the backdrop into the real Norfolk countryside and walks the viewer to the house where he is being born. There are several such surreal scene changes throughout, which are both unexpected and pleasing to watch. This isn't a classic film but it is a respectful adaptation, very funny and entertaining, and well worth watching.

'The Personal History Of David Copperfield (2019)' feels, quite significantly, like a clip-show, closer to a series of interconnected skits than a traditionally cinematic narrative. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. It gives the piece - which does, of course, have an overarching story - a unique feel. It's also an apt way to condense a lifetime into two hours, featuring only the most significant moments of its eponymous character's life. It all seems a little surreal, especially when it begins to visualise its narration in the middle of select scenes. The experience starts off a little slow but it soon picks up the pace, moving towards its low-key finale with a fair bit of momentum. Most of it is presented rather farcically, its eccentric characters flailing their arms or speaking in eloquent metaphor. There are a fair few moments that provoke a chuckle or two, but the flick still retains some resonance. It isn't all overtly comedic; some of its more sobering stuff does, indeed, sting. It comes so close to having something to say about class, but this aspect remains distinctly subtextual and always comes second to the more straightforward story. This isn't a huge issue, though. Perhaps the movie's biggest asset is its ensemble cast. Patel, who perfectly portrays the adult version of the whimsical protagonist, is a real stand-out. As are Capaldi and Laurie, who play eccentric but endearing middle-aged men. Each and every cast member is decidedly good, though, doing exactly what they need to with apparent joy. Overall, the film is entertaining and well-made. It's fun, energetic and, in general, just a good time. 7/10