When Dickens wrote NICHOLAS NICKLEBY, his third novel, he was recognized as one of the leading writers of the age, but he was still learning his trade. PICKWICK was a comic masterpiece, but a picaresque novel. It had episodes that were actually short stories that could be taken out of the novel and published separately. He also tried to get some social criticism into the story, in the breach of promise suit and the debtor's prison sequences. But it remained comic (the trial sequences are hysterically funny).
OLIVER TWIST was totally reversed. Comedy was at a minimum (Mr. Bumble and his commentary on the law is a nice touch), but mostly it is a tale of poverty and crime, culminating in the murder of Nancy, and the death of Sykes and Fagin's trial and execution. TWIST was a good crime novel, and it's discussion of poverty causing crime affected the public.
NICHOLAS NICKLEBY was again tackling social issues: the existence of fourth rate "private schools" which were meant to hide the illegitimate offspring of wealthy men, or the legitimate offspring of remarried women whose new husbands didn't want them around. NICKLEBY, however, was Dickens attempt at a structured novel - something he never fully mastered. All of his novels had tangents and extra plots that were meant for public enjoyment in the magazines, but took away his creative concentration from the main plot. So at the start of NICKLEBY he puts in two extra stories that are told at an inn to entertain Nicholas and Mr. Squeers. Later he adds a storyline about Crummles and his theatrical troop. But he gradually concentrates on the main plot - Ralph against Nicholas regarding first Kate and then Madeleine Bray. Even here, however, extra plots are created and jettisoned.
It doesn't hurt the whole novel. It is a good read, and there are bits and pieces about Vincent Crummles and his company, the Mantalinis, Madeleine Bray and her father and Arthur Gride, that are well worth reading. But he throws in so much that parts of the novel are never really developed well: Sir Mulberry Hawk plans to deflower Kate, but finds that Lord Verisopht takes a protectors interest in her. George Orwell (in his essay on Dickens) feels Lord Verisopht is a fool, and he does die a fool's death (Kate never realizes his sacrifice). But he does sacrifice himself for her. This should have been explained better, and had Dickens written the novel ten or twenty years later it would have been better explained.
Albert Cavalcanti is best recalled for his "Ventriloquist" segment of DEAD OF NIGHT, with Michael Redgrave. He directed this film. As pointed out by some of the comments on this thread, his fine work directing this version of NICKLEBY was overshadowed in the late 1940s by David Lean's twin successes of OLIVER TWIST and GREAT EXPECTATIONS. He holds his own well. He trims out plot threads (such as Gride and the "romance" of Nicholas' mother and a madman). He also gives that fine actor, Cedric Hardwicke, the one real central role in his career. He is wonderful as Ralph, a malevolent moneylender, who ruins his own life without realizing it. The one moment in the novel when he is sympathetic (Ralph feels bad for Kate momentarily, when Hawk bothers her), is not in the film, which is a wise move. He should be totally hateful.
The other performers are good. Bernard Miles, a forgotten journeyman actor of his period (best recalled for the villain in the remake of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) does well as Noggs, the clerk of Ralph (they mutually dislike each other - this is not Scrooge and Cratchit). He eventually unravels the secret that destroys Ralph. Stanley Holloway, about to make PASSPORT TO PIMLICO and THE LAVENDER HILL MOB as well as the station master in BRIEF ENCOUNTER, is the grandiloquent impresario, Vincent Crummles. He is good as Crummles, but Nathan Lane's performance in the role was funnier and sharper. James Hayter, who would be Samuel Pickwick a few years later plays the Cheeryble twins, but there is little for him to do but be generous. It is an entertaining film, held together by Hardwicke's portrayal and Cavalcati's direction. I would recommend it to the viewer.
OLIVER TWIST was totally reversed. Comedy was at a minimum (Mr. Bumble and his commentary on the law is a nice touch), but mostly it is a tale of poverty and crime, culminating in the murder of Nancy, and the death of Sykes and Fagin's trial and execution. TWIST was a good crime novel, and it's discussion of poverty causing crime affected the public.
NICHOLAS NICKLEBY was again tackling social issues: the existence of fourth rate "private schools" which were meant to hide the illegitimate offspring of wealthy men, or the legitimate offspring of remarried women whose new husbands didn't want them around. NICKLEBY, however, was Dickens attempt at a structured novel - something he never fully mastered. All of his novels had tangents and extra plots that were meant for public enjoyment in the magazines, but took away his creative concentration from the main plot. So at the start of NICKLEBY he puts in two extra stories that are told at an inn to entertain Nicholas and Mr. Squeers. Later he adds a storyline about Crummles and his theatrical troop. But he gradually concentrates on the main plot - Ralph against Nicholas regarding first Kate and then Madeleine Bray. Even here, however, extra plots are created and jettisoned.
It doesn't hurt the whole novel. It is a good read, and there are bits and pieces about Vincent Crummles and his company, the Mantalinis, Madeleine Bray and her father and Arthur Gride, that are well worth reading. But he throws in so much that parts of the novel are never really developed well: Sir Mulberry Hawk plans to deflower Kate, but finds that Lord Verisopht takes a protectors interest in her. George Orwell (in his essay on Dickens) feels Lord Verisopht is a fool, and he does die a fool's death (Kate never realizes his sacrifice). But he does sacrifice himself for her. This should have been explained better, and had Dickens written the novel ten or twenty years later it would have been better explained.
Albert Cavalcanti is best recalled for his "Ventriloquist" segment of DEAD OF NIGHT, with Michael Redgrave. He directed this film. As pointed out by some of the comments on this thread, his fine work directing this version of NICKLEBY was overshadowed in the late 1940s by David Lean's twin successes of OLIVER TWIST and GREAT EXPECTATIONS. He holds his own well. He trims out plot threads (such as Gride and the "romance" of Nicholas' mother and a madman). He also gives that fine actor, Cedric Hardwicke, the one real central role in his career. He is wonderful as Ralph, a malevolent moneylender, who ruins his own life without realizing it. The one moment in the novel when he is sympathetic (Ralph feels bad for Kate momentarily, when Hawk bothers her), is not in the film, which is a wise move. He should be totally hateful.
The other performers are good. Bernard Miles, a forgotten journeyman actor of his period (best recalled for the villain in the remake of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) does well as Noggs, the clerk of Ralph (they mutually dislike each other - this is not Scrooge and Cratchit). He eventually unravels the secret that destroys Ralph. Stanley Holloway, about to make PASSPORT TO PIMLICO and THE LAVENDER HILL MOB as well as the station master in BRIEF ENCOUNTER, is the grandiloquent impresario, Vincent Crummles. He is good as Crummles, but Nathan Lane's performance in the role was funnier and sharper. James Hayter, who would be Samuel Pickwick a few years later plays the Cheeryble twins, but there is little for him to do but be generous. It is an entertaining film, held together by Hardwicke's portrayal and Cavalcati's direction. I would recommend it to the viewer.