On D List of Movie Reviews

(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)


David Copperfield (1935)

Rate: 3
Viewed: 9/18

DavidC
9/18: David Copperfield took me ten days to complete because it was shallow and boring.

According to TCM: "Producer David O. Selznick had spearheaded the production, over the objections of his father-in-law and boss, MGM studio chief Louis B. Mayer. Conventional Hollywood wisdom held that the classics were not suitable for the screen."

I read Charles Dickens' novel many, many years ago and thought it was one of the best in English literature. The trouble with the film is that it's too episodic. What made the novel work was the large number of words to create feelings in order for the romance to blossom in the long run. Therefore, two hours of film isn't enough to do it justice.

The casting department made a serious mistake by giving the role of David Copperfield to a ten-year-old kid named Freddie Bartholomew. Then again, it couldn't find anybody else suitable enough. Freddie Bartholomew is no actor, preferring to fake his way in many scenes while failing to emote appropriately. Hence, I grew tired of seeing him for so long and wanted to move on to the next phase of the titular character's life. Unfortunately, his adult counterpart, who's basically a Leslie Howard clone, is no better, either.

All in all, overly dramatic and old-fashioned, David Copperfield pales in comparison to numerous Merchant-Ivory pictures.