I have a more generic question, which may be more complicated to answer than you want to get involved with here, or may be a question you're so sick of hearing and answering that you just wish it would go away, but if you're inclined to discuss it I would love to hear your views.
Perhaps I already know the answer from your earlier work on Sense and Sensibility, but I'll ask anyhow.
The basic question is, do you believe that an adapter has any obligation (whether artistic, moral, or otherwise, though not legal of course) to an author to follow the author's work as closely as a conversion to the different format of the screen and the limitations of the time constraints will allow, or do you believe that the adapter should feel free to interpret the work in ways that they feel are consistent with the intent of the author but deviate significantly from the way in which the author chose to tell his or her story?
Or, put another way, what do you see as the proper relationship between the adapter and the author and book he or she is adapting?
Let me use specific examples to clarify the question, using the previous films in this Masterpiece Classics series.
The film of Tess of the Durbervilles seemed to me to present, as closely as the format and time constraints allowed, the story Hardy wrote in the way he wrote it. David Nicholls used a great deal of dialogue straight from the book, included all the major elements of the story, and from what I could see was generally as true to Hardy's story and manner of telling it as he could have been. (And, I should add, constraints of funding which made him substitute a hoeing scene for the wonderful hay cutting scene Hardy wrote. But oh well.)
In adapting Sense and Sensibility, you made a number of what I considered significant changes in the story Austen chose to tell. The opening scene frankly bothered me; Austen was never that graphic in any of her novels, and the scene being presented where it was made no sense in the context of the story, since although it referred to an earlier episode which Austen never described but only alluded to, a viewer who was not intimately familiar with the novel would have had no idea what was going on or what connection it had to the story as it was unfolding in the first hour or two. It seemed to me, frankly, to be a bit of gratuitous sex to entice (and perhaps titillate) viewers who might otherwise not have been enticed into staying with the story.
You entirely dropped poor Margaret out of the story as though she had never existed; perhaps I should not view this as a slur on Austen's manner of telling her story, but frankly I do. If she was good enough for Jane Austen, surely she was good enough for Andrew Davies? 
You or somebody -- I don't know who made the decision -- totally changed the location of Barton Cottage, which Austen placed well inland and nowhere near the sea, and also made the arrival there much bleaker and more forbidding than the house which Austen described as "comfortable," "in good repair," and where on their arrival they were "cheered by the joy of the servants" whom they had sent ahead to prepare the cottage for their residency. I'm not clear why the decision was made to make this change seem so much worse than Austen presented.
And then you added in the duel scene, which was implied by Austen, but which of course she never described in any detail at all. If she had wanted her readers to see it vividly, she could certainly have written it into the story. That she chose not to was presumably an artistic choice on her part, but one you chose not to respect.
Hmmmm -- I guess I've made my view clearer than I had intended when I started posing the question. But I'm still interested in how you would describe the role of the adapter vis-a-vis the author whose work you are adapting, and what if any obligation you feel toward the original author's choice of the content and manner of telling his or her story. Do you think that you and David Nicholls have fundamentally different approaches to adapting a book, and if so what is the basis of that difference? (I don't know whether you know him or ever discuss this with him, but I would love to get together with both of you for an evening at a friendly pub and listen to the two of you discuss the issue! I no longer travel much if at all, but I would be highly tempted to make the effort of a trip to England if such a meeting were possible.)
Greetings Mr. Davies,
Thanks for taking the time to come online and answer questions regarding the making of Little Dorrit. Let me congratulate you and all of the cast and crew members who produced this excellent rendition of one of Dicken's works. I have read some of Dicken's other works, but did not get around to reading Little Dorrit. Everyone involved with the creation of the series produced a very moving and beautiful cinematic experience. 
There were some questions raised by viewers after they viewed the series. The series has not finished its broadcasts in the USA, so the questions came from viewers in the UK. I wondered if you could answer some of these questions so that I would not be possibly befuddled at the end of viewing the series as well.
1) Was there any biological connection between Amy and Arthur? Some viewers thought they were siblings or related somehow?
2) The novel indicated that Gilbert Clennam's codicil specified that Amy was an heir. Supposedly, Gilbert Clennam is either Arthur's grandfather or uncle. I found no reference to a Gilbert Clennam character in the series. Was the will intended to be Arthur's father's will or someone else?
3) What connection did Amy have to be in the will? Some said it was because Frederick knew Arthur's father (at the dancing school). Others thought that it was from a selection of a random child born in prison on the same day when Arthur's real mother died while in prison.
My personal questions.
1) How long did it take to make a complete screenplay? Did you change it during filming or was it "set in stone" before the filming began?
2) Who decided the cast members selection? If there were conflicts, how were they resolved?
3) Can you list anything that you added to the storyline that was not in the original novel because you wanted to use your own dramatic interpretation to the storyline?
4) Did you use anything from the 1988 Little Dorrit movie version (with Alec Guiness) to your screenplay?
5) Was the selection of Tom Courtenay for the role of William Dorrit just a coincidence that both he and Alec Guiness were in Doctor Zhivago?
6) In one of your video interviews on the making of Little Dorrit, you made a comment regarding the auditions for the part of Amy and for the reader to imagine that George Clooney was Arthur. Did you consider signing up George for the part of Arthur Clennam even though he has no English accent? I recall that Kevin Costner played Robin Hood without an accent in a movie version.
Thanks for any replies that you can provide to my questions. I hope that everyone involved will continue to produce great films and have a great career in the film industry. I am looking forward to getting a DVD copy of the series along with the BBC Companion book. Please relay my compliments to all cast and crew members and I hope to see more of their works in the future.
Greetings Mr. Davies,
If I may add some additional comments regarding the Little Dorrit screenplay. The series is currently being broadcast in the USA during April and has been shown around 8 times during the week on the PBS network in my area here and is also available for online viewing as well. I viewed your video interview regarding your decision not to follow the beginning of the novel as Dickens had started it. I agree with your decision 100% not to have started the series with the French murderer and Italian smuggler in Marseilles. A viewer looking at the series with just these two characters at the start would have said "what has this got to do with a legacy and where is the Little Dorrit character?". Dickens was probably using those two characters at the start to provide the background for how they would affect the later events in the novel. Dickens titled some of his works without any of the major characters names such as Great Expectations and Hard Times. What would you think that an alternative title to this novel would be? Maybe "Unfulfilled Legacy"?
Not to compare apples and oranges, the 1988 movie version of Little Dorrit was a two part movie sequence which was filmed from two different people's point of view (first Arthur and then Amy). I know that you decided to just start right away with getting the Amy character into the storyline. The other version also did not include the Rigaud character at all. I was very surprised to read about this. It would be like having Othello without the Iago character. Just out of curiosity, was the screenplay totally dictated by you or did anyone else have any feedback to it?
I know that you also mentioned that this novel had its many lighter moments and you most certainly used that to a great measure in your screenplay. I thought I was watching a comedy-drama and my reaction went from utter hilarity to near tears. The numerous comic relief moments in the series were priceless. I could name a few - Pancks with his "Rent Day" screams throughout the city, Mrs. Merdle's look as Mrs. Gowan moved to sit right next to her when she expected her to sit across from her, the loony Mr. F's Aunt who shot up when Arthur touched her, and Flintwinch's mumbles to himself when Mrs. Clennam would cry out for him.
When you sent the scripts out to each actor/actress, does it have the entire script or was it just the one character that they would portray?
I am sure that any screen adaptation of any novel is going to get some form of criticism from readers of that novel (such as you did not follow the book concisely). I am sure that you had to decide to take what you felt were essential events from the novel and to omit or change other passages as you saw fit. You and the cast and crew are making a series that tries to grab the public viewer's attention and not to follow the novel storyline exactly. As an example, when I was in college, I was given the assignment of reading "Jaws" by Peter Benchley and to compare it to the film version. As I sat in the theater watching the movie, I kept saying to myself, "this movie almost leaves out much of the non-shark events from the book". There was a great deal of human interaction completely left out from the movie. The goal of that movie was to generate sheer terror being out in the open seas, not to follow the book storyline to the letter. Seeing something on the video screen does not translate exactly to written literature. What I mean from this statement is that, in my opinion, reading a passage from a book could result in an image in one's own mind that differs from how it is filmed on screen (which is based on another's person image of that passage). I am sure that you will get many "cries of foul" from any screen adaptation. But, since this is about catching the viewers' attention and not necessarily "going by the book", that is how most series are created and filmed. Do you agree?
Thanks for taking the time from your schedule to come online. And thanks for creating a very nice film version of this Dickens novel. I can see that a lot of work had to be done to create the series. It also is so nice to be able to see all of the detail in high definition on TV that was not possible back when I first saw movies as a child. And again, also kudos to everyone who acted in the series. The timeless message that what really matters in life is not money, status, or power resonates from the novel and your series.
Greetings Mr. Davies,
I just viewed the fourth installment of the series on TV tonight which covers the time from the 5th to 6 1/2 hours of the series. There were fewer comic relief moments as the series approaches its conclusion. I wanted to ask about a particular part of the show that I saw tonight. Can you explain the rationale of why William Dorrit would go to see Mrs. Clennam regarding the disappearance of Rigaud? He met Rigaud while in Italy, but the chance meeting did not seem to show that the two were well acquainted with each other. I did not understand why William Dorrit would attempt to get more information about the missing Frenchman when the two were not intimately acquainted. I can see Flora Finching volunteering to help out because she was still smitten with Arthur. But, I did not see the logic of why William Dorrit would inquire about the missing Frenchman. Also, William kept telling Amy that they need to not associate with Arthur Clennam since he reminded them of their past. So after his meeting with Flora Finching regarding Rigaud, I did not understand his interest in finding out more about the Frenchman. Can you explain this part of the story? Was it added to make it contribute to William Dorrit's eventual breakdown? I didn't see any reason for his going to Mrs. Clennam's residence for someone who was just a chance meeting on his travels.
I also viewed some of the video interviews with the crew concerning changes to the script to make the dialogue more contemporary. I think I saw one example from the previews of the final installment. There is a scene where Amy rebukes Arthur for continuing to call her Little Dorrit. In the novel, Arthur keeps using the term Little Dorrit all the way to the end of the story. I think Dickens was continuing to use it as a term of endearment all the way to the very end. I think the rebuke scene was added to make Amy appear a bit more independent and "feminist". In today's world, an adult referring to another adult as "little" could be considered insulting. Was this change made to make her character a bit more contemporary?
I am glad that you were able to incorporate as many major characters from the novel into the series (one missing character that I did notice is Mrs. Chivery). As I mentioned earlier, adapting the book into a movie rarely produces an exact storyline that mirrors the book. If you attempted to do that for this novel, the series would run for a year or more. 
I expect the final installment (especially the last hour) to become a bit more somber as the earlier generation characters pass on. 
Thanks again for taking the time to come online to answer questions regarding the series screenplay. Just as a matter of personal opinion, I could see you in the role of William Dorrit if you should be so inclined to do some acting yourself.
Hello Mr. Davies,
If you can indulge me in one additional screenplay topic. With the final installment coming up next week, I would like to attempt to "guess" what will happen in the final part of the series. Even though I have read the ending of the Little Dorrit novel, that doesn't mean that you will follow that ending exactly. I haven't viewed the UK online episodes, so the USA webpages don't add the episodes on the Internet until after they have been broadcast on TV here. Here is what I think will happen between Amy and Arthur at the end.
1) The scene where she rebukes him for still calling her Little Dorrit is the result of the impact that the legacy that was discovered with the help of Arthur had on her family. She says that she wishes that she never met him.
2) Merdle's bank collapses and Arthur is jailed.
3) Mrs. Clennam finally reveals the will contents to Amy and she adds two and two together and she realizes that Arthur's drive to learn more about his past was a noble one.
4) Being incarcerated, he no longer wishes for her to see him anymore.
5) Doyce arrives back from St. Petersburg and gets him out of jail.
6) Arthur hooks up with Flora and Amy with John (just kidding) 
Am I far off from your script?
P.S. What would you think of a Tale of Two Cities screenplay where Sydney Carton escapes from the gallows and makes his way back to England at the end of the novel? Readers will say "He didn't follow the book's ending. Off with his head!
