Classics

[DCGuy]

---

DCGuy wrote:

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

Hello, Mr. Davies (if you make it back),

DCGuy said that he did not know why Amy went to Arthur in the Marshalsea.  I assumed that she had been informed about him in the letter that she was reading as she and the others were about to 'escape' from the Merdles' house.  I was intrigued to know who had sent her the letter; we, as the audience, were allowed to use our imagination for that.  My own guess was that it was John Chivery, once again acting against his own feelings for Amy's sake.  Arthur was very ill at that time, so whoever it was who wrote the letter may have hoped that Amy would be his hope of recovery.

---

I saw a re-broadcast earlier today on TV (yes, for the third time) and I got the answer on how Amy found out that Arthur was in the Marshalsea prison.  When the doctor treated Arthur in prison, Mr. Chivery was present and the doctor told him that he wasn't sure if Arthur would recover or not.  Mr. Chivery then wrote a letter to Amy telling her about Arthur's condition (since he was aware of him being his son's rival for Amy's affections).  Amy is seen reading the letter as the Merdles are packing up.  When Arthur sees her for the first time in his prison room, she tells him that Mr. Chivery (not John) wrote to her that he was there.  So that explains how she found out.  I thought the scene with the letter reading could have altered a little to make a better impact from the storyline perspective. I think that she could have informed Fanny and Tip that she was going to go to the prison to meet Arthur.  Their reaction, of course, would be of horror since the two voiced their displeasure of him back in Italy. Amy would then confess her love for Arthur to Fanny who then realizes that marrying someone for reasons of love are more important than money and status.  She would then give her blessings for her to go to Arthur.

---

After thinking it over, my suggestion to add a scene of Amy talking to Fanny about going to see Arthur in the jail would not work with Mr. Davies script.  Mr. Davies wanted to leave the letter contents "in the dark" as far the viewers were concerned when she is reading it.  Amy later tells Arthur about the letter when she sees him.  Mr. Davies also wanted the hallucinations that Arthur was experiencing (which includes seeing Amy) to be such that the viewers would not know if he was actually seeing her there or if it was just also another hallucination.  If the script included her telling Fanny that she was going to the prison, that would have made Arthur's visions of Amy less of a possible hallucination.  So for a dramatic emphasis tradeoff, the hallucination possibility was a better choice.

One additional note - using the hallucination scene, the viewer wasn't sure when Arthur sees Amy's face telling him to sleep whether that was his last vision before he dies or if he was going to make it or not.  Very effective.

Message Edited by DCGuy on 04-30-2009 07:36 PM

[DCGuy]

I think that one thing that is missing on both the book and the movie script is that no names are provided for the following three people that would clarify this issue.

1) Arthur Clennam's real mother (dancer)
2) Amy Dorrit's mother (wife of William Dorrit?)
3) Arthur Clennam's father

Also, we don't know Mrs. Clennam's first name either.  I don't know why Dickens would make no reference to their names, but my guess is that since they were dead before the start of the storyline, their names were irrelevant.

Message Edited by DCGuy on 04-30-2009 06:18 AM

[DCGuy]

---

DCGuy wrote:

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

Hello, Mr. Davies (if you make it back),

I do now see why we had heard that people were confused at the end; I found it rather confusing myself.  When Rigaud was revealing Mrs. Clennam's story, it really did sound as if Arthur and Amy had the same mother.  I'm not sure what you really meant in the way that you wrote that scene.  Rigaud said, quite rightly, that Arthur's father had fallen for a dancer and had a baby (Arthur) with her, and that that baby had been taken by Mrs. Clennam to raise as her own.  Although I thought I remembered from the book that this romance had occurred prior to the Clennams' marriage, and here he was cheating on his wife.  But then, if I understood him, Rigaud said that Arthur's mother wrote to Gilbert Clennam from the Marshalsea and then died giving birth to Amy Dorrit.  Huh?  I know that the bequest in the novel was very convoluted and strange as to how the money was left to Amy, so I suppose it was difficult to write a scene telling the original story succinctly and clearly, but I don't quite understand what you came up with in the end, because I don't really think that you meant that Arthur and Amy were half-brother and -sister, so I must have missed something in Rigaud's story.  Amy later (after learning the truth from Mrs. Clennam) speaks to Arthur about their mothers as if they are different people, and I doubt that they would have married in the end if they were related so closely.

Thanks once again,

Denise

---

I listened very closely to Rigaud's dialogue with Mrs. Clennam as he recounted the story about how Amy, Arthur, Gilbert Clennam, Arthur's father, and his real mother were involved.  I did not hear anything that indicated that Arthur's real mother gave  birth to Amy.  Rigaud said that Gilbert Clennam changed his will after Arthur's real mother wrote to him.  So he decided to leave some money to a poor child as poor as Arthur's real mother (this child was Amy).  I believe he also said the poor dancer gave birth to an orphan child and this orphan child was Arthur.   I think Rigaud referred to Arthur as an orphan because he was not a legitimate son of Mrs. Clennam and that the child was born from parents who were not married (the term orphan may have included children born outside of a real marriage).  I think he also may have referred to Amy as an poor orphan child as well and that may be the source of the confusion.  I think he said something to the effect that one poor orphan child was given the legacy while the other one was never told the truth about his real mother.  The script may have been a little unclear due to Rigaud's use of terminology in this scene.

I will relisten to this scene several times just to be sure.

---

I relistened to the Rigaud and Mrs Clennam confrontation scene and I still do not see any indication regarding Amy as being Arthur's real mother's child.   What Rigaud says as he is telling the story to Mrs. Clennam is that the poor dancer wrote to Gilbert Clennam about what happened to her (her baby was taken away from her after birth) and he felt so grieved by her letter that he amended his will to leave a legacy to a child born as poor as she (the dancer) and on the same day that she (the dancer) died.  This new born child happened to be born in the Marshalsea prison (Amy).  Now what isn't clear is whether Gilbert Clennam knew if the dancer's baby was, in fact, his grandson Arthur.  Since the baby was taken away from its mother, I didn't think that he knew that the baby was given to his son's wife (Mrs. Clennam).  Otherwise, he might have intervened to force Mrs. Clennam to give the baby back to the dancer.  Mrs. Clennam had to block the contents of the amended will in order to protect the secret that Arthur was not her biological son.  Rigaud gave Amy two letters (one addressed to Amy and Arthur) that told both of them the entire situation regarding the will information and Arthur's family history.  The timeline is like this - Arthur's real mother had her child taken away from her.  When she died, approximately 20 years after Arthur was born, another child born from poor parents (the Dorrits) on the day of the dancer's death who was designated as a legacy recipient of Gilbert Clennam.  So, Arthur never knew that his real mother was in poverty for 20 years after he was born.  The age difference between Amy and Arthur is the actual period of how long the dancer lived after giving birth to Arthur.  Arthur's real mother did not die giving birth a new baby, but there was a baby born on the same day as the dancer's death that was as poor as she (Amy).  So, Gilbert used his money to sort of help another poor soul when he couldn't help the dancer directly.

I guess it might have been made a little more clear had they given names to the dancer and Arthur's father.  I don't recall if the script or the novel actually gave a name for these characters.

[DCGuy]

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

Hello, Mr. Davies (if you make it back),

I do now see why we had heard that people were confused at the end; I found it rather confusing myself.  When Rigaud was revealing Mrs. Clennam's story, it really did sound as if Arthur and Amy had the same mother.  I'm not sure what you really meant in the way that you wrote that scene.  Rigaud said, quite rightly, that Arthur's father had fallen for a dancer and had a baby (Arthur) with her, and that that baby had been taken by Mrs. Clennam to raise as her own.  Although I thought I remembered from the book that this romance had occurred prior to the Clennams' marriage, and here he was cheating on his wife.  But then, if I understood him, Rigaud said that Arthur's mother wrote to Gilbert Clennam from the Marshalsea and then died giving birth to Amy Dorrit.  Huh?  I know that the bequest in the novel was very convoluted and strange as to how the money was left to Amy, so I suppose it was difficult to write a scene telling the original story succinctly and clearly, but I don't quite understand what you came up with in the end, because I don't really think that you meant that Arthur and Amy were half-brother and -sister, so I must have missed something in Rigaud's story.  Amy later (after learning the truth from Mrs. Clennam) speaks to Arthur about their mothers as if they are different people, and I doubt that they would have married in the end if they were related so closely.

Thanks once again,

Denise

---

I listened very closely to Rigaud's dialogue with Mrs. Clennam as he recounted the story about how Amy, Arthur, Gilbert Clennam, Arthur's father, and his real mother were involved.  I did not hear anything that indicated that Arthur's real mother gave  birth to Amy.  Rigaud said that Gilbert Clennam changed his will after Arthur's real mother wrote to him.  So he decided to leave some money to a poor child as poor as Arthur's real mother (this child was Amy).  I believe he also said the poor dancer gave birth to an orphan child and this orphan child was Arthur.   I think Rigaud referred to Arthur as an orphan because he was not a legitimate son of Mrs. Clennam and that the child was born from parents who were not married (the term orphan may have included children born outside of a real marriage).  I think he also may have referred to Amy as an poor orphan child as well and that may be the source of the confusion.  I think he said something to the effect that one poor orphan child was given the legacy while the other one was never told the truth about his real mother.  The script may have been a little unclear due to Rigaud's use of terminology in this scene.

I will relisten to this scene several times just to be sure.

[DCGuy]

---

Andrew_Davies wrote:

---

DCGuy wrote:

---

MaryE935 wrote:

Personally, I found the ending of the film to be clearer and more believable than the ending of the book.  Although convoluted, I didn't find it to be confusing-  just a simplified version of Dickens' original.

And I must say that I loved Fanny at the end.  The way she gave Mrs. Merdle her come-uppance was sweet revenge.  And at least Fanny's character was active in her own life, I found myself admiring her more than good, little Amy or even righteous Arthur.  In a way, she reminded me of Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair.

---

I think when you read the book, beforehand, that tends to cloud your review of the TV series ending because you tend to nitpick between the scenes and book passages.  Some people indicated that they never read the book and could not follow the show's ending.  Personally, I did not have any problem following the TV ending and tried to "block out" the book's ending as much as I could.

I thought the great moment for me at the end was when Rigaud confronts Mrs. Clennam and after telling her about what he has found, she still falls back to her self-righteous attitude.  He says "Enough of your piety".  I thought, FINALLY, someone stood up to her.

---

---

DCGuy wrote:

---

MaryE935 wrote:

Personally, I found the ending of the film to be clearer and more believable than the ending of the book.  Although convoluted, I didn't find it to be confusing-  just a simplified version of Dickens' original.

And I must say that I loved Fanny at the end.  The way she gave Mrs. Merdle her come-uppance was sweet revenge.  And at least Fanny's character was active in her own life, I found myself admiring her more than good, little Amy or even righteous Arthur.  In a way, she reminded me of Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair.

---

I think when you read the book, beforehand, that tends to cloud your review of the TV series ending because you tend to nitpick between the scenes and book passages.  Some people indicated that they never read the book and could not follow the show's ending.  Personally, I did not have any problem following the TV ending and tried to "block out" the book's ending as much as I could.

I thought the great moment for me at the end was when Rigaud confronts Mrs. Clennam and after telling her about what he has found, she still falls back to her self-righteous attitude.  He says "Enough of your piety".  I thought, FINALLY, someone stood up to her.

---

Just a very breif response to thank you all for your comments - I'm delighted that they are nearly all positive! I thought I'd managed to tie up most of the loose ends - though my more important aim was to make an emotionally satisfying ending. It's great to know there are such perceptive viewers out there!

Keep reading, keep watchng!

Andrew

---

Greetings Mr. Davies,

Glad that you could reply back for one last time on this forum.  I do agree that your ending version is a more "complete" one than the novel.  The novel leaves the will question technically unresolved as far as Arthur is concerned.  In his quest for the answers about the past, he never finds out the real meaning of his father's deathbed plea.  He finds Amy instead.  The novel's ending is a bit more melodramatic than your ending.  At least from your ending, all is revealed to Arthur.  And that removes any "lingering doubts" from him.  You worked the storyline to include a more modern feel to it.  That is one reason why adapations differ from one screenwriter to another.  Thanks once again for a very rewarding viewing experience.  I wish you good health and many more screenwriting opportunities in the future.

P.S.  This one was quite a bit of an emotionally exhausting one for me.   ;-)

[Andrew_Davies]

---

DCGuy wrote:

---

MaryE935 wrote:

Personally, I found the ending of the film to be clearer and more believable than the ending of the book.  Although convoluted, I didn't find it to be confusing-  just a simplified version of Dickens' original.

And I must say that I loved Fanny at the end.  The way she gave Mrs. Merdle her come-uppance was sweet revenge.  And at least Fanny's character was active in her own life, I found myself admiring her more than good, little Amy or even righteous Arthur.  In a way, she reminded me of Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair.

---

I think when you read the book, beforehand, that tends to cloud your review of the TV series ending because you tend to nitpick between the scenes and book passages.  Some people indicated that they never read the book and could not follow the show's ending.  Personally, I did not have any problem following the TV ending and tried to "block out" the book's ending as much as I could.

I thought the great moment for me at the end was when Rigaud confronts Mrs. Clennam and after telling her about what he has found, she still falls back to her self-righteous attitude.  He says "Enough of your piety".  I thought, FINALLY, someone stood up to her.

---

---

DCGuy wrote:

---

MaryE935 wrote:

Personally, I found the ending of the film to be clearer and more believable than the ending of the book.  Although convoluted, I didn't find it to be confusing-  just a simplified version of Dickens' original.

And I must say that I loved Fanny at the end.  The way she gave Mrs. Merdle her come-uppance was sweet revenge.  And at least Fanny's character was active in her own life, I found myself admiring her more than good, little Amy or even righteous Arthur.  In a way, she reminded me of Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair.

---

I think when you read the book, beforehand, that tends to cloud your review of the TV series ending because you tend to nitpick between the scenes and book passages.  Some people indicated that they never read the book and could not follow the show's ending.  Personally, I did not have any problem following the TV ending and tried to "block out" the book's ending as much as I could.

I thought the great moment for me at the end was when Rigaud confronts Mrs. Clennam and after telling her about what he has found, she still falls back to her self-righteous attitude.  He says "Enough of your piety".  I thought, FINALLY, someone stood up to her.

---

Just a very breif response to thank you all for your comments - I'm delighted that they are nearly all positive! I thought I'd managed to tie up most of the loose ends - though my more important aim was to make an emotionally satisfying ending. It's great to know there are such perceptive viewers out there!

Keep reading, keep watchng!

Andrew

[DCGuy]

---

MaryE935 wrote:

Personally, I found the ending of the film to be clearer and more believable than the ending of the book.  Although convoluted, I didn't find it to be confusing-  just a simplified version of Dickens' original.

And I must say that I loved Fanny at the end.  The way she gave Mrs. Merdle her come-uppance was sweet revenge.  And at least Fanny's character was active in her own life, I found myself admiring her more than good, little Amy or even righteous Arthur.  In a way, she reminded me of Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair.

---

I think when you read the book, beforehand, that tends to cloud your review of the TV series ending because you tend to nitpick between the scenes and book passages.  Some people indicated that they never read the book and could not follow the show's ending.  Personally, I did not have any problem following the TV ending and tried to "block out" the book's ending as much as I could.

I thought the great moment for me at the end was when Rigaud confronts Mrs. Clennam and after telling her about what he has found, she still falls back to her self-righteous attitude.  He says "Enough of your piety".  I thought, FINALLY, someone stood up to her.

[DCGuy]

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

Hello, Mr. Davies (if you make it back),

DCGuy said that he did not know why Amy went to Arthur in the Marshalsea.  I assumed that she had been informed about him in the letter that she was reading as she and the others were about to 'escape' from the Merdles' house.  I was intrigued to know who had sent her the letter; we, as the audience, were allowed to use our imagination for that.  My own guess was that it was John Chivery, once again acting against his own feelings for Amy's sake.  Arthur was very ill at that time, so whoever it was who wrote the letter may have hoped that Amy would be his hope of recovery.

---

I saw a re-broadcast earlier today on TV (yes, for the third time) and I got the answer on how Amy found out that Arthur was in the Marshalsea prison.  When the doctor treated Arthur in prison, Mr. Chivery was present and the doctor told him that he wasn't sure if Arthur would recover or not.  Mr. Chivery then wrote a letter to Amy telling her about Arthur's condition (since he was aware of him being his son's rival for Amy's affections).  Amy is seen reading the letter as the Merdles are packing up.  When Arthur sees her for the first time in his prison room, she tells him that Mr. Chivery (not John) wrote to her that he was there.  So that explains how she found out.  I thought the scene with the letter reading could have altered a little to make a better impact from the storyline perspective. I think that she could have informed Fanny and Tip that she was going to go to the prison to meet Arthur.  Their reaction, of course, would be of horror since the two voiced their displeasure of him back in Italy. Amy would then confess her love for Arthur to Fanny who then realizes that marrying someone for reasons of love are more important than money and status.  She would then give her blessings for her to go to Arthur.

[MaryE935]

Personally, I found the ending of the film to be clearer and more believable than the ending of the book.  Although convoluted, I didn't find it to be confusing-  just a simplified version of Dickens' original.

And I must say that I loved Fanny at the end.  The way she gave Mrs. Merdle her come-uppance was sweet revenge.  And at least Fanny's character was active in her own life, I found myself admiring her more than good, little Amy or even righteous Arthur.  In a way, she reminded me of Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair.

[dulcinea3]

Hello, Mr. Davies (if you make it back),

As DCGuy stated, we got the final episode of Little Dorrit last night.  All in all, I enjoyed the whole presentation very much!  Thank you for another wonderful adaptation of a classic novel!

DCGuy said that he did not know why Amy went to Arthur in the Marshalsea.  I assumed that she had been informed about him in the letter that she was reading as she and the others were about to 'escape' from the Merdles' house.  I was intrigued to know who had sent her the letter; we, as the audience, were allowed to use our imagination for that.  My own guess was that it was John Chivery, once again acting against his own feelings for Amy's sake.  Arthur was very ill at that time, so whoever it was who wrote the letter may have hoped that Amy would be his hope of recovery.

I do now see why we had heard that people were confused at the end; I found it rather confusing myself.  When Rigaud was revealing Mrs. Clennam's story, it really did sound as if Arthur and Amy had the same mother.  I'm not sure what you really meant in the way that you wrote that scene.  Rigaud said, quite rightly, that Arthur's father had fallen for a dancer and had a baby (Arthur) with her, and that that baby had been taken by Mrs. Clennam to raise as her own.  Although I thought I remembered from the book that this romance had occurred prior to the Clennams' marriage, and here he was cheating on his wife.  But then, if I understood him, Rigaud said that Arthur's mother wrote to Gilbert Clennam from the Marshalsea and then died giving birth to Amy Dorrit.  Huh?  I know that the bequest in the novel was very convoluted and strange as to how the money was left to Amy, so I suppose it was difficult to write a scene telling the original story succinctly and clearly, but I don't quite understand what you came up with in the end, because I don't really think that you meant that Arthur and Amy were half-brother and -sister, so I must have missed something in Rigaud's story.  Amy later (after learning the truth from Mrs. Clennam) speaks to Arthur about their mothers as if they are different people, and I doubt that they would have married in the end if they were related so closely.

I always wonder about little, insignificant changes when I see adaptations, so I thought I would ask about one that I noticed last night.  In the novel, when Mr. Merdle asks for a pen-knife, he is initially given the mother-of-pearl knife, but he asks for a darker one, and is given a tortoiseshell knife.  In the series, when he asks for a darker one, Fanny says she hasn't got one, and he says that the mother-of-pearl one is fine.  Just out of curiosity, why couldn't he have a tortoiseshell knife, and why keep in that inquiry, if he couldn't?

I also liked the visions that Arthur had when he was imprisoned, and especially when he was ill, which at first made Amy seem like just another vision.  Very effective!  Much like the earlier vision he had had of a young Flora just before the mature Flora burst into the room.

Thanks once again,

Denise

[DCGuy]

---

Andrew_Davies wrote:

---

.

I will try to keep any message posts short and to the point.  Your participation will end before the broadcast of the final episode in the USA.  I am sad that I will not be able to ask any further questions before it is aired, but I guess I will just have to make do.  This is my first time to be able to get questions answered directly from someone involved with a film production.  This gave me a chance to get a more clearer picture of what the series was intended to portray and how the people involved  with the series production went about getting it all done.

Thanks again for taking the time to come online and I hope that you will be able to produce many more adaptations in the years to come.  And thanks for bringing to TV a somewhat obscure Dickens work which turned out to be quite a gem which, for me, topped some of his better known works.

---

Thank you - it's been a real pleasure reading and responding to your contributions - it is so gratifying to know that we have some viewers at least who appreciate us just as we would like to be appreciated!

I don't know quite how this works - but you could try posting your reaction to the final episode - I'd certainly like to read it - and if I'm still allowed access to the site, I'll respond to it.

But officially, this is me signing off and saying thank you to everyone for committing the time to watching such a big fat miniseries and sharing your reactions with me.

And I hope you all continue to get pleasure from Masterpiece over the years.

with my best wishes

Andrew Davies

---

Greeting Mr. Davies,

If you have the chance to respond to any questions after the final episode was aired, it would  be much appreciated.  The episode just ended tonight and I got a chance to see it a second time when the local TV station repeated the broadcast.  The last episode in the USA actually comprised Episodes 13 through 15 from the BBC broadcast.   The one thing that I did notice is that since the USA episodes were partitioned into five episodes instead of the original 15, some of the episodes from the PBS Masterpiece broadcast appeared to finish at a somewhat odd point in the storyline.  I felt that there were several important events during the storyline when the episode should have ended, but it continued instead.  I guess the USA editors had to decide on where to end the episodes.

I will try to avoid comparing your final episodes with the novel because you only had a limited amount of time (and film) to finish the storyline.  For the most part, you covered much of the final chapters in the novel for your ending.  The following are my personal observations from Episodes 13-15.

1) I felt the William Dorrit and Frederick Dorrit death scenes were not emotional enough (you probably could not extend it given the short timeframes).  But since Amy had spent many days and hours at the bedside, the eventual death was sort of a relief.

2) The addition of the confrontation scene between Amy and Arthur when he sees her for the first time back in London made for a better dramatic impact than the novel.  This change was consistent with your giving Amy a more individual and assertive personality.

3) The Merdle suicide was a bit graphic, but since people watch C.S.I. here in the USA, it should not be as shocking.

4)  I did especially like the ghosts and visions that you added to the script when Arthur is imprisoned.  You touched back to the three most tenderest and the one confrontational moment between the Amy and Arthur.

5) The appearance of Amy in Arthur's prison room is never fully explained.   I thought a good way of opening that scene would be for her to walk near the Iron Bridge (again in deep thought) and then to stop into the prison just to greet her old friends and there be told about Arthur being imprisoned there.  The novel also makes no mention on how she found out that he was there.

6) I also liked your dream sequence when he was hallucinating about people who were directly involved in the mystery (Gowan, Rigaud, Ms. Wade, Tattycoram, Amy, and his mother).

7) It appears from your screenplay, that Rigaud was playing a game with Mrs. Clennam when he disappeared.  I thought a better explanation for his disappearance was that he was a "person of interest" in the murder of Flintwich's twin brother.  Since he was seen with the victim at the bar, he would be suspected and then be linked to Mrs. Clennam since he was spotted there too.   The Rigaud scene with Mrs. Clennam made him almost appear to be like a sleuth prying out information from her.  It looked like a contrast from his earlier character to me.

8) Several people could not understand how either Amy or Arthur could be penniless (after the Merdle swindle events) when the grandfather's will left her some money.  I think I can explain why.  Mrs. Clennam probably "cashed in" on the legacy of Arthur's grandfather many years ago since it contents was never revealed when he died.   So both Amy and Arthur were then wiped out.  Now as for Mrs. Clennam's will, that is another story.

9) I liked your ending of how sympathetic figures that Flora and John became at the conclusion.  They were the two who ended up with unrequited love that was never fulfilled.

10) Again, not looking at the novel, I do not agree with a lot of criticism with many others that there were a lot of "loose strings" at the end.  While you did not provide a summary of each character's future at the end, I found the omissions irrelevant.  The story was focused on two characters.  The other ones were supplemental to the storyline.  Whether Pet Meagles and her husband had a rocky marriage or if Tattycoram finally takes off on her own are not major storyline  events.

11) Finally, you did change the conclusion by having Arthur actually get the final answers to the whole mystery.  In the novel, that was not the case.  From a viewpoint of just seeing the series without the book, that ending was a suitable one and provided a final closure to the entire story.  The novel had Amy asking him to burn the will in the fire without revealing its contents before he left prison.  Oddly, I thought the novel's ending, instead of the series, was more of a "Hollywood" type of ending which is usually the reverse.  I was curious as to why you decided to diverge from the novel in this particular case?  Did you feel that Arthur should have been given the true reason for his father's deathbed plea?

I know that you could not have possibly covered the novel's ending in those few episodes.  While some people thought it was hurried to a fast ending, I think the reason for that was because the storyline took a slower pace from Episodes 1 through 12.  Episodes 13 through 15 covered a lot of major events (more so than any of the earlier ones).  Obviously, Episodes 13 through 15 could have been expanded into even more episodes.  But that would mean that you would have to go well beyond 10 hours of filming.

I do like your interview comments about how the story affects each person on a personal level.  The questions regarding who we will spend our life with, what obligations that parents and children have with each other, and how we will live our lives are things everyone has to deal with.  The Little Dorrit storyline is one which has a more deeper meaning than most other novels that I have come across (even Dickens' other works).  It has a blend of humor, joy, sorrow, and a mystery plot embedded in a love story which allows the reader to think about themselves and have fun reading it at the same time.

To you, I say Bravo and well done!

Message Edited by DCGuy on 04-27-2009 04:46 AM

[dulcinea3]

---

Everyman wrote:

Andrew Davies wrote:  I'm always grateful for recommendations though!

If it's not to late, if you're not gone, how about Trollope's Barchester series?  Doing the whole set could make a six month mini-series!  

Message Edited by Everyman on 04-25-2009 11:35 AM

---

I would love to see an Andrew Davies treatment of Vanity Fair - I think that it is well deserving of a long-format miniseries, a la Little Dorrit and Bleak House!

[Everyman]

Andrew Davies wrote:  I'm always grateful for recommendations though!

If it's not to late, if you're not gone, how about Trollope's Barchester series?  Doing the whole set could make a six month mini-series!  

Message Edited by Everyman on 04-25-2009 11:35 AM

[Andrew_Davies]

---

DCGuy wrote:

---

---

I did "massage" the proposal a bit. In the book, she seems to reject him because she considers herself above him. (Dickens did this in Bleak House too, where the illegitimate Esther seems to thnk herself too grand for the young lawyer Guppy.) I found this rather offensive, and stressed that her refusal was on the grounds that she felt unable to return his love - implying to the audience that she had lost her heart to Arthur.

---

I never saw it as a conspiracy either.  Mr. Dorrit's fear of losing the one child who looks after him (Fanny and Tip don't) is a real fear of his.  Your scene where Amy tells him that she thinks that Mrs. Clennam needs some company and is lonely is met with "what about me?"  underscores his fear.  His acceptance of John marrying Amy is similar to arranged royal marriages in the past (you do so for alliances and for some beneficial reasons and not for love).  This still happens now (especially in Asia and the Middle East).  Mr. Dorrit's fear of being abandoned by everyone is very similar to how senior citizens would feel if they had to fend for themselves.  There were no such things as retirement communities in those days.

Regarding the marriage proposal -

I did not actually feel that her rejection of John was because she lost her heart for Arthur (I did like the button prop scenes that you added to the script).  I felt that she never really had any romantic feelings for him despite being childhood friends, regardless if she had met Arthur or not.  I think you meant to introduce an ambivalency to her situation after Arthur enters into the equation.  From my viewpoint, I don't think that your interpretation of Amy would have accepted the proposal even if she had never met Arthur (now, as for the Dickens novel character, that might be possible).

I never got the impression that she felt "above" him from the novel, but I might need to reread that part.  If you had portrayed it as such, then I thiink the Amy character would be looked upon as less sympathetic.  I will say that your "altered" scenes between Amy, John, and Arthur make a much more emotional and compelling impact than what Dickens could convey.  Your "changed" script and the acting made a much more heartfelt and moving rendition than what could be read in a book.

Message Edited by DCGuy on 04-22-2009 06:33 PM

---

I reread Chapter XVIII and there was no actual proposal of marriage by John because Amy "cut him off" before he could propose to her.  John did explain about he knew her family was far above his and that her siblings had an air of conceit when looking upon him.  Amy told him not to think like that.

Little Dorrit entreated him to disparge neither himself nor his station, and, above all things, to divest himself from any idea that she supposed hers to be superior.

She prevents him from proposing and more or less tells him to not to come looking for her in the future at that particular place.

I know it is only necessary for me to tell you so, to be quite sure that you will never come here again in search of me.  And I am  -quite sure!

Actually, I thought your script followed the novel pretty closely in this scene.  Your script does have an actual marriage proposal which isn't in the novel, but what was spoken between the two in the series was very close to the spirit of the novel, in my opinion.  I never felt that she looked down upon him at all.  Just as in the novel, the series showed her as trying to stop what she expected to come out of his mouth since she could see that he was dressed up for some reason.  From my viewpoint, what I read in the novel felt very similar to your scene in the series.  I thought that her rejection of him was based solely on her own feelings that she never wanted to be more than a close friend of his.  I thought both the book and the series conveyed that.  She was absorbed in thought before he came upon her, so the implication that she was thinking of Arthur would certainly be there

_____________________________________________________________

I reread the Chapter again and I think I found what could be considered offensive during the proposal scene and why you changed it.  After Amy tells John to stop discussing it any further, she tells him to think of her as a solitary figure (a reference to someone who will never marry) and to never to look for her at the same place again near the bridge.  I took this to mean - Don't ever come into my personal space again.  Which makes her seem to be heartless and offensive.  I think Dickens meaning on this is for the reader to think that she doesn't want him to continue to "carry the torch" for her and to stop any further thoughts on the matter.  She doesn't want him to "pine away" for her indefinitely.  While it appears mean to him, she doesn't want to leave false pretenses with him.  Otherwise, he would keep trying again in the future (which would only upset her more).

I think your use of the button prop as a replacement of this novel script is a much better way of indicating how Arthur has "clouded her mind" as of late.  The book does not exactly convey that (although she is in deep thought at the time).  It also eliminates the "offensive" attitude perception that one could attribute to Amy.

I will try to keep any message posts short and to the point.  Your participation will end before the broadcast of the final episode in the USA.  I am sad that I will not be able to ask any further questions before it is aired, but I guess I will just have to make do.  This is my first time to be able to get questions answered directly from someone involved with a film production.  This gave me a chance to get a more clearer picture of what the series was intended to portray and how the people involved  with the series production went about getting it all done.

Thanks again for taking the time to come online and I hope that you will be able to produce many more adaptations in the years to come.  And thanks for bringing to TV a somewhat obscure Dickens work which turned out to be quite a gem which, for me, topped some of his better known works.

---

Thank you - it's been a real pleasure reading and responding to your contributions - it is so gratifying to know that we have some viewers at least who appreciate us just as we would like to be appreciated!

I don't know quite how this works - but you could try posting your reaction to the final episode - I'd certainly like to read it - and if I'm still allowed access to the site, I'll respond to it.

But officially, this is me signing off and saying thank you to everyone for committing the time to watching such a big fat miniseries and sharing your reactions with me.

And I hope you all continue to get pleasure from Masterpiece over the years.

with my best wishes

Andrew Davies

[DCGuy]

Good morning Mr. Davies,

I am glad that you got some free time to make several replies to the messages posted earlier.  The final episode of Little Dorrit will be shown tomorrow in the USA.  I just wanted to ask one question about the conclusion if I may ( I hope that I don't spoil it for anyone).  Someone posted on a blog that Arthur found out about the entire will situation at the end.  From what I read in the novel, Arthur does not appear to know anything about the codicil.  Did you change this particular ending of the series adaptation?   If so, what was the reason?  I thought the way the novel ended it was sort of a justified conclusion of the entire mystery.  Again, the other blog may have been a fabrication, so I thought you might be able to clarify the ending for me.

Thanks again for a wonderful TV series.

[Andrew_Davies]

---

millernumber1 wrote:

Thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us!  I've very much enjoyed your answers, and with most of the commenters, hope very much to see more from you soon!

One last question, if you have time - what was the process of working on Bleak House like compared with that of Little Dorrit? 

---

It's been a pleasure for me too!

Very briefly, the process for Little Dorrit closely followed the process for Bleak House.  I worked out a very bare skeleton plan, dividing the book first into half, then quarters, then eights, then sixteenths. Then we (producer, script editor and I) expanded each episode outline into a couple of pages of bullet points. Then I wrote the first drafts, then I'd get notes from producer, script editor, exec producers, and write second and sometimes third drafts. When the directors joined, they would usually have suggestions which I'd try to incorporate. The actors, on the whole, did what they were told, though Tom Courtenay, who's a passionate fan of the book and Dickens in geneeral, had a lot of tiny suggestions - a word here, a phrase there - which I was happy to accommodate.

[Andrew_Davies]

---

MaryE935 wrote:

Hello Mr. Davies- 

As a professional who has spent a great amount of time studying and working with classic books, do you think that classic literature has qualities that contemporary literature is lacking?  If so, what would they be?  And could these qualities be considered strengths, weaknesses, or both?

In light of these differences, who is a contemporary author whose work you admire?

Thank you very much.  I appreciate and enjoy your creations -  turning one work of art into another work of art in a different form. 

---

I do read a lot of classic fiction for pleasure - I'm reading Edith Wharton and Henry James at the moment.  I read a lot of contemporary fiction too, and enjoy it just as much, though in a different way. The great thing about the C19 novelists is that they have all the psychological subtlety and insight into human nature, but with big intricate plots and lots of vivid characters - thus making them ideal for adaptation into miniseries. Most contemporary literary novels only have enough story for a two hour movie, if that. (An exception that comes to mind is Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections.) Of course there are the airport blockbusters - they have plenty of plot, but the stories and charaters tend to be ludicrously unbelievable.

I'm always grateful for recommendations though!

[Andrew_Davies]

---

Everyman wrote:

A bit off topic, Mr. Davies, but while you're here I had to tell you that I just watched the film of Wives and Daughters (in connection with the book being read next month in another book group here on BN), and it was marvelous.  I haven't gotten past the first chapter of the book yet, so only see that you started this book, also, with a focus on directly on Molly, but it worked wonderfully.  In some ways, not having read the story allowed me to enjoy the film entirely in its own right without having to worry about how true to the book it was.

I think there is a lot in common between Molly Gibson and Amy Dorrit, particularly as you portray them in the films   Were you thinking of their similarities as you were working on Little Dorrit?  

---

I don't think Molly Gibson was consciously in my mind when I was writing Little Dorrit - but they have a lot of similarities - both of them are incurably honest and free from pretension and both have a very intense and loving relationship with their fathers. Mr Gibson is a much more admirable character than Mr Dorrit, but his choice of a second wife sets up a very awkward situation for Molly - rather as if Mr Dorrit had gone ahead and married Mrs General! Wives and Daughters was a favourite of mine - I think the book is wonderful.

[dulcinea3]

---

Andrew_Davies wrote:

Rigaud's story: Dickens left out a lot, and I wanted to fill in some gaps. Somehow he must have got the will off Flintwinch's twin brother - so I decided that he murdered him. As for the French landlady, I wrote that scene very much as Dickens had it. Andy Serkis, who played Rigaud, suggested that R should sleep with the landlady, and that she should overhear his real name - and so he murders her! The director shot both versions, and we all decided we liked Andy's. (This is a very rare occurrence - I don't hink it's every happened before.)

I'm sorry that some people couldn't follow the story. Many people can't get it straight after reading the book! I do think that we could have done better with the end of episode 1 - really we need to see Flintwinch and his twin brother in the same shot. Also the terms of the will are very convoluted and not really very believable. But I would think that the broad sweep of the story comes through.

What does anyone else think?

I was also v interested in the earlier question - not a DC Guy one - about casting a black actress as Tattycoram - what did others think about that? And my making MIss Wade's lesbianism overt - I think that's what Dickens meant to imply, but I may be wrong.

---

Mr. Davies,

Since it looks like I still have a chance before you make your last visit, I thought I would respond to your post.

Thanks for the anecdote about the change to that scene with Rigaud and the landlady!  That is very interesting that the actor had some input as to an alternate take on it, and that in the end his version was chosen.  I had been surprised when I saw the scene, because I didn't understand why the murder had been added.  As time went on, it became apparent to me that Rigaud was much more present in the series than in the novel, and I assumed that you had just wanted to make him seem as evil as possible, and so had added that murder and the other, when he gains possession of Flintwinch's box.

As you might or might not know, we still have not seen the end of your presentation - we have one installment to go.  But what I have seen so far seems to tally very well with the story told in the novel, and has been clear to me.  I wonder if some of the people who were confused are perhaps not as familiar with Dickens in general, or are used to having a story neatly wrapped up in two hours.  A Dickens novel tends to involve dozens of characters, who disappear and reappear throughout the story, and with a longer format in which to tell it, you are able to express that twisting, turning story so much the better.  I do notice that some of the confusion among those who have seen the whole presentation seems to involve the end, and especially the relationship between Arthur and Amy, and the terms of the will, so I have yet to see those scenes.

As to the casting of Tattycoram, I have found British productions to be in general more 'colorblind' in their casting than American ones, so I tend not to notice that much.  It was interesting that you mentioned Thackeray - when I think of black characters in Victorian literature, the heiress in Vanity Fair is the first that comes to my mind.  I just read The Old Curiosity Shop, and noticed a black person in one of the original illustrations, in the background of a street scene, which I thought was interesting.

I believe it was in another thread on this board where there was some discussion of Miss Wade and her sexuality.  I tend to agree with you that it is possible, but I am not really sure.  Her description of her relationship with and feelings towards the girl in her school sounded very intense to me, and her jealousy made me think that her love might be of the romantic variety.  On the other hand, I think that in literature of that period, such talk might not actually indicate what we, with our modern sensibilities, read into it.  I wonder if it was really much different from Jane Eyre and Helen Burns, and I don't think that people generally think that Jane Eyre was a lesbian.  But I did wonder a bit when I read Miss Wade's account of her life, independently from your treatment of her, and I think it may have been Dickens' subtle intention.  In general, I think that people misunderstand Miss Wade.  I don't think that anyone was cruel to her or hurt her, making her bitter.  It seemed to me that people were in general very kind to her and tried to comfort her and help her.  It was her own sense of low self-esteem, arising from her ignorance of her identity, that caused her to think that they were actually only being condescending to her, and made her resent them.  It was only Gowan who did not try to be kind to her, and that was why she felt a connection to him.  What do you think?

Well, once again, thank you so much for your time with us!  It has been a real pleasure!

[Brassbound]

Thank you for the time you've devoted to this group.

The speed of your pacing, your effortless seques, and your use of symbols are truly masterful for a period screenplay. How did you develop these skills? Or is this your natural instinct? (For example, Margaret cradling the fishbowl in the carriage in Sense & Sensibility symbolizing a rocky new world, a new life.)

I would be thrilled to know if there's a place to purchase or find any of your screenplays.