Figure 1.--Mark Lester and Jack Wild in their costumes from "O;iver!" are used here as the cover for a paperback edition of Charles Dicken's book.

Lovely musical version of Oliver Twist. Staring a young Mark Lester who was superb in the role. The acting was first rate, but the costumes were disappointing. Jack Wild played Dodger. Sir Carol Reed produced "Oliver!", a musical version of the Dickens' classic. The book had been done several times before: Jackie Coogan played Oliver in 1922, Dickie Moore played the part touchingly in 1933, and John Howard Davis appeared in the 1948 production that featured Alec Guinness' marvelous interpretation of the sly Fagin. Sir Carol needed to find a child that could sing and dance as well as act. About 2,000 boys applied and 250 actually auditioned. Clayton recommended Mark to Sir Carol and he was offered the role soon after his audition. "Oliver!" emerged as one of the colossal productions of the 1960s. It was the version thay I have been most impressed with. I was impressed with Mark's lovely performance. Some believe that his performance was lost in the competition with the strong cast. One reviewer wrote "The focus of the movie is so wide, and the logistics of the production is so heavy, that Oliver himself, dutifully played by 9-year old Mark Lester, gets flattened out and almost lost, as if he had been run over by a studio bulldozer." I think, however, that Mark's performance was superb. He played a boy completely adrift, totally incapable of controlling his situation and swept along by events and the people he comes into contact with. The feeling of powerlessness and vulnerability were critical to the part and perfectly executed. I rather agree with a New York Times reviewer who wrote "Young Mark Lester as Oliver has a kind of golden innocence, untainted by self-conscious adorability of the typical child actor, and a marvelous pure boy soprano voice. He is shy, yet game and a perfect foil for Jack Wild's Artful Dogger." Gene Shalit noted "Mark is an ideal Oliver; angelic and sweet voice..." The film was a huge financial success, grossing over $16.8 million (an impressive amount in 1969) in the U.S. and Canada alone and won the 1969 Oscar as the Best Picture.

Filmology

Lovely musical version of Oliver Twist. It was produced by Romulus Productions in Shepperton Studios in London, England. Sir Carol Reed produced "Oliver!", a musical version of the Dickens' classic. Sir Carol needed to find a child that could sing and dance as well as act. The film was a huge financial success, grossing over $16.8 million (an impressive amount in 1969) in the U.S. and Canada alone and won the 1969 Oscar as the Best Picture.

The Book

The film is of course based on Charles Dickens' book . The book was first available to the public on newspaper serial form (1837-38). Oliver Twist may not be Dicken's best novel nor is his portarait of Oliver the most finely crafted of his boy characters. It is probably Oliver, however, that is the most widely recognized. Perhaps it was the first of his great successes. Perhaps it is Oliver's truiumphs over all of life's obscalcles. Perhaps it is his plucky, most British spirit that makes Oliver such an engaging chracter to this day.

Visit to the Set

The film was shot in England at the Shepperton studio. A HBC reader writes, "I met Mark Lester once during the filming of Oliver. He was with his mum or someone who was looking after him. The other boys were a bit wild but when Carol Reed said 'quiet ' you could have heard a pin drop. Here is the story of my visit to the Oliver film set in July 1967."

Cast

'Oliver!' had a strong cast. It starred a young Mark Lester who was superb in the role.

Mark Lester

About 2,000 boys applied and 250 actually auditioned. Clayton recommended Mark to Sir Carol and he was offered the role soon after his audition. "Oliver!" emerged as one of the colossal productions of the 1960s. It was the version thay I have been most impressed with. I was impressed with Mark's lovely performance. Some believe that his performance was lost in the competition with the strong cast. One reviewer wrote "The focus of the movie is so wide, and the logistics of the production is so heavy, that Oliver himself, dutifully played by 9-year old Mark Lester, gets flattened out and almost lost, as if he had been run over by a studio bulldozer." I think, however, that Mark's performance was superb. He played a boy completely adrift, totally incapable of controlling his situation and swept along by events and the people he comes into contact with. The feeling of powerlessness and vulnerability were critical to the part and perfectly executed. In fact Mark had some fine moments. I rather agree with a New York Times reviewer who wrote "Young Mark Lester as Oliver has a kind of golden innocence, untainted by self-conscious adorability of the typical child actor, and a marvelous pure boy soprano voice. He is shy, yet game and a perfect foil for Jack Wild's Artful Dogger." Gene Shalit noted "Mark is an ideal Oliver; angelic and sweet voice..."

Jack Wild

Jack Wild played the artful Dodger.

Other cast members

Music

One of the strong points of the film was the lovely score. The musical interludes, "Where is Love?". "Who Will Buy?", and "I'd Do Anything" were sung with an almost angelic quality. The most touching is 'Where Is Love?'. Mark did not sing the songs in the movie, he lipsynched it to another boy's voice. A reader writes, "I have been researching Lionel Bart's musical of "Oliver!" for many years now and Im working towards producing a book of the show and film and I felt obliged to inform you that Mark Lester did not sing in the 1968 musical but was dubbed by one of the technicians children, whose voice was used. I interviewed Mark last year and he confirmed that he mimed for the film and that it was not his voice on screen. [Megson]

Other Film Productions

The book had been done several times before: Jackie Coogan played Oliver in 1922, Dickie Moore played the part touchingly in 1933, and John Howard Davis appeared in the 1948 production that featured Alec Guinness' marvelous interpretation of the sly Fagin.

Plot

The film begins with Oliver in an orphanage. His mother has died and ge was left there. He is sold off by the orphanage when he dares to ask for more food. This is probably a slight misrepresentation, but orphanages and poor houses did contract out the labor of children under their care, condemning them to virtual slavery. In Oliver's case he is sold out to a funeral parlor. At the time children were dressed up as mourners to create an impression at furnerals. Oliver runs away and is taken in by an older boy, Dogger, who brings him to Fagan, a crook employing abandoned boys. Oliver gets arrested, but is saved by a kindly man who in a typically Dicksonian twist so to speak proves to be his grandfather. Oliver watches a Punch and Judy show on his way home after visiting a book shop to buy books for his guardian. Nancy and Bill Sykes plan to kidnap Oliver so they can rob his rich grandfther

Scenes

There are several notable scenes in Oliver! which pertain to costuming or other interesting depictions of period costuming. The costuming and social enviroment is reasonably true to the period. The one exception is the school group pictured at the end. And mpre of a critique of Dickens book than the film, there is no any mention of hpw the industrial revolution was beginning to expand the suze and influnce of the middle-class abd the Great Reform Act that had begun to change Britain, slowly but steadily.

More gruel

'Oliver!' begins in an orphanage. The industrial revolution cused social change on a massive scale. There had been some facilities that took care of orphans on a small scale. Mos orphabs before the 19th century were taken in by family or other individuals. The industrial revolution was, however, on such a large scale and away from communities where people had estanlished roots that new facilities had to be created. Theindustrial revilution generated great wealyj. There were also loosers. And many of the peole who flooded into the cities seeking jobs in the new factories did not suceed. Women who had few joc prospecrs compared to men and their children were endanger. Having children out of wed;ock was a social disgrace. And often women could not take care of childern. Abandoned babies were called foudlings. An Oliver was a Foundling. The movie bgins in one of the new orphnages. 'Olicer!' begins with a haunting scene of Oliver asking for another bowl of gruel in the orphanage. "Please, Sir, I want some more," he plaintifully asks. It is one of the classic movie scenes of all time. Surely this scence and the 'Come back Shane' scene are the two most famous movie scene involving boys. Many orphanages and poor houses were dreadful institutions and the depiction is evocative of the conditions in these institutions. Food was only one of the problems.

Schoolwear

Dickens punlixhed 'Oliver Twist' in 1837-39. This was at a time that Prliament was just beginning the social reforms mean to addsress the needs of the working-clas wr passed by Parliamnt. One of those needs was public education. The idea of free public education for the public was still a bovel idea in the 1830s, bot only in Britin, but most of the world. The only places where public education was well established were America and Prussia and other German states. Britain in facr would lag behind much of Eutope, at least northern Europe in the estblishment of free state-sponsored schools. Here the land-holding aristocracy resisted and had the power in Parliament to prevent needed reforms. Only with Parlimntary reforms begun with the Great REform Act that the Middle Class and new industrial class had the votes in Parliment to behin needed labor, social, and educational reforms. Education would be one of the most difficult to change and Britian would not begin to estblish state schools until seceral decades later (1860s). There is an interesting scene at the very end of the film meant to underscore a happy ending. A reader remembers a park scene, "There is a scene in the film showing school uniforms of wealthy pupils. The children are in a park. A group of girls are walking through and a class of boys push them in the water fountain." The children are done in light-blue uniforms, the boys in back-buttoning tunic suits or smocks, the girls in dresses and pantalttes. This would have not been a depiction of a public (private boardung school). First of all these were boys' schools and scond the age was not right. We know that some grammar schools had tunic uniforms, but a dark blue was used. The tunics were not back-buttoning and as far as we know, smocks were not worn. And these also were boys' schools. So it was a highly idealized depiction of schools at the time. Although some public schools has uniform, as far as we know the private schools for younger boys did not. Readers may want to have a look at the HBC school section which has information on 19th century English schools.

Grandfather's house

There is a scene were Oliver is taken to live in Bloomsbury Square. Oliver wears a smart skeleton suit after gis grandfather indshim and takes him in. I think the scebe has the song 'Who will buy'." Strange, I don't recall that scene when I last saw the film on TV. I wonder if it was cut from the TV showing?

Punch and Judy

Punch and Judy shows were popular throughout the 19th century. The film depicts one in London. Oliver stops to watch a Punch and Judy show on his way home after visiting a book shop to buy books for his guardian who later proves to be his grabdfather. This is a fascinating depiction of a Punch and Judy show with a view of the audience from the Punch and Judy theter. The view offers a good scene of how children were depicted in the film. Oliver is at the left in a grey suit and military-style cap.

Costuming

The film depicts the clothes worn by Children in England in the first half of 19th century Britain. The orphans at the beginning of the film wore a basic kind of uniform. Here HBC simply does not know yet how orphans were dressed and we only have limited information on work houuse clothing. The costumes depicted poor orphans and street people and children with ragged clothes and bare feet. Fagin's gang had on accurate ragged clothes, too. The wealthier people were wearing fine Victorian costumes. A HBC reader writes, "I think costuming was one of the fine points of Oliver! due to its historical accuracy." HBC would have liked to have seen Oliver and other children in some of the more fasionable clothing, but the clothing as depicted appears to have been reasonably accurate. A reader writes, "There are a number of scenes throughout the film depicting Victorian boys costume during the 1840s and 1850s. One such scene is when Oliver and the Artful Dodger need to get out of the way for a wedding party that is existing a house. There is a boy seen briefly dressed in a classic example of attire of the day. In another scene, we seen Oliver himself dressed in new finery after he is taken in by Mr. Brownlow. Attire which feature a short jacket and matching long trousers."

Sources

Megson, Adrian. E-mail, January 1, 2004.

Created: November 22, 2002
Last updated: 1:03 AM 5/15/2015