Why should the Jane Austen Army have all fun? “Dickensian” is an actual adjective. “Austenian” is not. And yet, whenever someone invokes Charles Dickens on screen, don’t tell me, let me guess – does this have anything to do with, say, Christmas, and several ghosts that Pacman has spared for some reason?
Oh, we know full well Dickens wrote other things. And right after you break out that Hard Times or Bleak House treatment, the producer will invariably ask if you have a modern take on A Christmas Carol as if Charles Dickens wrote nothing else of value during his lifetime.
And yet, here we are with a whole Dickens movie and not a single “Bah, humbug.” Well, gosh, I suppose Dickens did indeed write some other stuff; let’s just see what he has to say.
David Copperfield (Dev Patel) isn’t exactly the original Harry Potter, but the English have a long history of championing the underdog and David is certainly that. Stating his autobiography on stage, David lets us in on his life and shows off his skills as a professional writer weaving a tale of a child born into either humble or affluent circumstance; I can’t exactly tell which. This film can’t quite make up its mind as to whether our hero is prince or a pauper, so it lets him delve in both worlds for kicks. As a child, he’s sent to sweatshop labor when his mother remarries, and yet still he grows up to enjoy prep school and attempts to woo a woman who will never work a day in her life. The former describes the lowest of the low; the latter describes a creature of high society. The screenplay lives this double life all without changing our protagonist or his circumstances. So which is it, film?
Another odd thing about this production is the complete ignorance of cultural norms. Not unlike the live remake of Lady and the Tramp, we’ve imagined a period society where racism was barely a concern. A David Copperfield of Indian descent, sure, why not? Well, I’ll tell you why not – When you show a mid-19th century London devoid of racism, you’re stating confidently that racism not only isn’t a thing, it has never been a thing. Yeah, that’s great except that American slavery existed in full bloom when the book was first published. I’m sure this film fits great into a mentality that believes critical race theory has no place in the classroom; the problem is that it’s disgustingly inaccurate and it completely
ignores the evolution of bigotry into what we have today.
Ignoring the historical whitewashing, David is a sympathetic character. He’s amiable, generous, and consistently on the right side of social justice even though he seems terribly wishy-washy at times and isn’t above invoking privilege when given a chance. But he’s generally good enough to root for. The film, however, seems to take the tack of being one of those films where noted people do goofy shit until you’re entertained: Hey, there’s Tilda Swinton preparing to disown a boy child for laughs. And there’s Peter Capaldi as the town’s good-natured debtor. And there’s Hugh Laurie as a man whose state of contentment rests entirely on a kite. Are you enjoying this yet, or do we have to get Steve Coogan to play Uriah Heep?
The Personal History of David Copperfield was middling entertainment. It might be the source material isn’t great … which, in turn, means that devoted fans of Charles Dickens might just LOVE The Personal History of David Copperfield so long as they ignore the historical rewrite.
On stage stands a man at ill ease
Orating his selected biographies
Odd Dickensian yield
An Indian Copperfield
It’s a tale of two realities
Rated PG, 119 Minutes
Director: Armando Iannucci
Writer: Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci
Genre: Are you enjoying this or does it need to be goofier?
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Are you desperate enough for a period piece to ignore reality?
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: Dickensian purists
