Written by acclaimed English author Charles Dickens in the 1860's, "Great Expectations" has probably been read by nearly every high school student in the western world. It's also been adapted several times for the big screen, including David Lean's Academy Award winning version from 1946. While I must admit that it's been more than two decades since I last read the novel, I do remember immensely enjoying the adventures of young Pip (the lead character) and his otherworldly experiences with several interesting characters.
Some moviegoers may be surprised, and perhaps upset, that director Alfonso Cuarón and writer Mitch Glazer haven't delivered a faithful interpretation of the classic, but instead an updated incarnation that's presumably better suited for today's viewers. Keeping the essential plot, but transplanting it from mid 19th century England to late 20th century East Coast America, and renaming all but a few of the lead characters, the filmmakers may have had their own great expectations and intentions in updating this work. What they got, however, were mixed results, and many viewers may be put off by the film's lack of cohesiveness.
The novel worked, of course, because it went into great depth about the characters, their stories and their experiences together. It was also mesmerizing for those of us who read it years after it was published -- it detailed a time and place that no longer existed. Not so with this film whose setting is relatively unimportant and often feels disjointed as if we're watching short skits instead of a cohesive piece.
While it's always the director's prerogative to adapt renowned works any way they want (such as the recent hip hop version of "Romeo and Juliet"), and this story's theme of achieving fame at the expense of betraying others and oneself is certainly timeless, this film just doesn't work as a collective whole. Cramming the story into a less than two-hour running time, the results are that the pacing is off and events often feel unrelated.
The film does have some decent stand alone scenes and sequences, such as where Finn first meets Lustig, the escaped convict. Although having Robert De Niro hiding underwater seemed a bit preposterous, especially considering that the boy is walking along through the ankle-deep water (what, is De Niro now amphibious?), the scene is wonderfully filmed and the encounter certainly grabs your attention.
Just as soon as it starts, however, that whole element is dropped and the film quickly changes gears and heads off in another direction. While the novel does the same to some extent, it's not as an abrupt change. Of course, one's also supposed to buy into the notion that Lustig, a convicted murderer who's set to be executed shortly, could escape not once, but twice, from death row. Perhaps that was possible in the 1860's, but not today. That's a small objection, but it's still troublesome.
Nonetheless, other bits of the film are nicely done as well. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (Oscar nominee for "A Little Princess") nicely contrasts the lush, humid Florida setting to the cold, stark New York skyline as Finn himself changes from innocent kid to a more worldly artist. Likewise, production designer Tony Burrough's (Oscar nominee for "Richard III") creation of Ms. Dinsmoor's dilapidated mansion, Paradiso Perduto, is perfectly representative of her dementia. With all of the wedding arrangements still in place, but nearly engulfed by Floridian tropical overgrowth, the effect is quite spooky and lends itself well to the old lady's state of mind.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that she's played by Anne Bancroft (a five-time Oscar nominee with one win for "The Miracle Worker"). Truly looking like a crazed character (with lines of eye makeup trailing off the sides of her face like tiger stripes) and nearly salivating over the young Finn, she makes one wonder if this is what really happened to Mrs. Robinson (the character she inhabited decades ago in "The Graduate"). Sufficiently hamming it up, Bancroft is perfect for the role.
The leads, played by Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow, are also decent as their respective characters. Some sparks do fly when the two get together, particularly in their early scenes. Hawke ("Gattaca," "Reality Bites") does an okay job playing the young and embarrassedly awkward young man, although at times his character has the feel of the walking dead (except for a moment when he bellows in the rain much like you'd expect an early Tom Cruise character to do).
Meanwhile, Paltrow ("Emma," "Seven") is very effective as the flirtatious, but ultimately distant and ice-cold woman. Jeremy Kissner and Raquel Beaudene are also good in their smaller roles as the leads at a much younger age. Finally, there's De Niro who plays two different aged versions of the same guy, although his first appearance as the escaped con is just a toned down Max Cady (his character in Martin Scorsese's remake of "Cape Fear").
Director Alfonso Cuarón, who made his directorial debut with "A Little Princess," certainly knows how to effectively film individual scenes. Yet, here he doesn't manage to create a cohesive piece that feels like it all works together. Separate scenes come and go, and while we understand how they fit together as we jump from one period to the next, it often feels disjointed. One certainly can't fault the original material (Dickens' version), but instead must look to screenwriter Mitch Glazer. Having already adapted another Dickens' tale, "A Christmas Carol" into the Bill Murray movie, "Scrooged," he seems to have a thing for the acclaimed novelist's works. Obviously, one can't blame him for mining some of the better written material from the past two centuries, but perhaps it's time for him to move on -- at least to another author.
Unfortunately, we're left with the antithesis of the old saying about the sum of the parts being greater than the whole. While there are some decent technical bits and some satisfactory scenes, they just don't come together very well as a solid piece of filmmaking. The end result is that one's always reminded that they're watching a film instead of being wrapped up and whisked away by the story.
Some may also be upset that the filmmakers uprooted the original plot. To be honest, though, an accurate recreation of the story's original setting and characters probably wouldn't go over that well with most of today's viewers. With the casting of young heartthrobs Hawke and Paltrow, many teens, who otherwise probably would have passed on this should it have been a faithful adaptation, may end up wanting to see this picture. While this is a decent filmmaking attempt, it's doubtful it will be remembered as one of the better adaptations of Dickens' work.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
