Ahhhhh, now it makes sense! Thank you both very much for answering so depth - it is interesting to see the differences between the film and the novel, and I can see why Mr. Davies had to cut it all down now. Even though it is convoluted as he presented it, it sounds like the original would've been much harder to portray. (Though it is one of the reasons I like Dickens' work - everything is always interconnectable!)
Anyway, thank you both for your help in the matter! My parents will be glad to finally understand what exactly the whole relationship was - besides confusing, that is. 
MadamedeChevreuse wrote:Ahhhhh, now it makes sense! Thank you both very much for answering so depth - it is interesting to see the differences between the film and the novel, and I can see why Mr. Davies had to cut it all down now. Even though it is convoluted as he presented it, it sounds like the original would've been much harder to portray. (Though it is one of the reasons I like Dickens' work - everything is always interconnectable!)
Anyway, thank you both for your help in the matter! My parents will be glad to finally understand what exactly the whole relationship was - besides confusing, that is.
You are very welcome. If you read one of the other message boards where Mr. Davies responded to questions on the screenplay, he did alter the ending of the TV series when compared to the book. In the TV show, Arthur finds out everything about his past (real mother, the reason for his father's deathbed plea, etc.). In the novel, he doesn't get all of the actual answers and even burns a piece of paper given to him by Amy just before he leaves prison. The piece of paper appears to have contained the legacy information. He thought it was superstitious request from her. Mr. Davies said that he changed the ending to make for a more emotionally satisfying ending to the storyline. It gave Arthur final closure to the entire mystery. The novel, from my viewpoint, appears to have left the mystery unresolved from his perspective. But, since he was being released from prison and was going to marry Amy, the original quest for answers was no longer important.
Some made a remark that there was some confusion about Amy and Arthur being possible half-siblings making their marriage carry incestuous overtones. I don't think Dickens nor Mr. Davies would imply that in the storyline. The confusion on this appears to stem from the confrontation scene between Rigaud and Mrs. Clennam. I will relook that scene to see if I can find the source of this confusion.
DCGuy wrote:
MadamedeChevreuse wrote:Ahhhhh, now it makes sense! Thank you both very much for answering so depth - it is interesting to see the differences between the film and the novel, and I can see why Mr. Davies had to cut it all down now. Even though it is convoluted as he presented it, it sounds like the original would've been much harder to portray. (Though it is one of the reasons I like Dickens' work - everything is always interconnectable!)
Anyway, thank you both for your help in the matter! My parents will be glad to finally understand what exactly the whole relationship was - besides confusing, that is.
You are very welcome. If you read one of the other message boards where Mr. Davies responded to questions on the screenplay, he did alter the ending of the TV series when compared to the book. In the TV show, Arthur finds out everything about his past (real mother, the reason for his father's deathbed plea, etc.). In the novel, he doesn't get all of the actual answers and even burns a piece of paper given to him by Amy just before he leaves prison. The piece of paper appears to have contained the legacy information. He thought it was superstitious request from her. Mr. Davies said that he changed the ending to make for a more emotionally satisfying ending to the storyline. It gave Arthur final closure to the entire mystery. The novel, from my viewpoint, appears to have left the mystery unresolved from his perspective. But, since he was being released from prison and was going to marry Amy, the original quest for answers was no longer important.
Some made a remark that there was some confusion about Amy and Arthur being possible half-siblings making their marriage carry incestuous overtones. I don't think Dickens nor Mr. Davies would imply that in the storyline. The confusion on this appears to stem from the confrontation scene between Rigaud and Mrs. Clennam. I will relook that scene to see if I can find the source of this confusion.
Please read my other post regarding the confusion on Amy and Arthur being half-siblings on the other subject message forum for Andrew Davies -Screenwriter for Little Dorrit. Hopefully, I covered all of the bases in my explanation there.
FYI. If anyone is interested in purchasing the video of Little Dorrit (or anything else from Barnes and Noble), they can get a 20% discount off all online orders if you use the coupon code of H4E7B3W during the checkout process. I don't know how long this coupon code will last, so place your order before the code expires. Please note that the discount is applied before sales tax.
Melissa_W
In case anyone missed an episode or wanted to see Little Dorrit again, PBS is streaming all episodes of the miniseries until 9/30. Go to www.pbs.org
