Great Expectations (1974)

Thanks for the memories!

Highly Overrated But Still Good

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Blistering performances.

Great Expectations is a difficult book to adapt, that is true of a lot of Dickens actually, but that doesn't stop this 1974 TV film from being a disappointment- and on its own merits as well- especially considering the talent involved. Of the adaptations there is, the definitive one is David Lean's, one of the best Dickens adaptations there is as well, while this fares the weakest from a personal perspective. The redeeming qualities are in the costumes and a handful of decent performances. The costumes are very beautiful-looking, and of the performances Margaret Leighton, James Mason, Joss Ackland and Anthony Quayle fare the best. Leighton brings mystery and tragedy to Miss Havisham although the writing can work against her. Mason makes for a Magwitch that is both creepy early on and dignified in the latter parts of the story. Ackland is effectively subtle and forthright as Joe without ever trying too hard. And Quayle's Jaggers is very intelligently played with the right amount of occasional pompousness.Unfortunately, these four performances are the only ones that work. The worst case was Sarah Miles, the very meaning of miscast. Yes she is beautiful, which is just part of Estella's character, and Estella is not a likable character at all. But she plays the character as too much of a overly-hysteric and condescending snob, and manages to not be cold or haughty enough. The decision to cast her as Young Estella too backfired hugely as well, she doesn't convince at all playing a character that is meant to be over half her age. Michael York is a good actor as well as handsome, but seems wooden and ill at ease as Pip. He and Miles don't have that much chemistry and their scenes are lifelessly paced. Robert Morley is too comedic and not shrewd enough for Pumblechook, though he gets the indignity right, he's done these types of roles before so it did come across as rather predictable. Rachel Roberts looks and sounds bored as nasty Mrs Joe Gargery, and while the boy who plays young Pip acts very reasonably and is very photogenic he didn't really convince as a seven year old, too tall. And you'd be hard pressed to find a blander Herbert Pocket than Andrew Ray.The adaptation does have other problems other than the casting. Of the production values, only the costumes left too much of an impression. The camera work lacks character or any distinction, and completely fails to give any atmosphere in the opening graveyard scene. Done so unforgettably and hauntingly in Lean's film, the choice of camera work- the scene works so much better with Magwitch appearing suddenly instead of having the camera work focusing completely on him- made the scene devoid of any surprise or tension. The settings are also colourless and too TV-bound, with very little of the dreary and desolate quality that Dickens' writing and the other adaptations portrayed. The Satis house was the sole exception, the details were quite well done there such as the wedding cake. The music sounds beautiful and is ravishingly orchestrated, not a surprise as this is Maurice Jarre we're talking about. Unfortunately, it is both not appropriate and poorly utilised, in places it's very syrupy and in others it is comically rousing, it never seems to find the right tone and it's rather repetitive as well. The script is dry and stilted, also often taking a simplistic approach, the additional dialogue veers on ludicrous. Miss Havisham's taunting of Pip was not needed and very insensitive, it also distorts Miss Havisham's character.But it's the story where the adaptation falls down most upon on, adaptation-wise and on its own. The basic structure is faithful but that's pretty much it, the worst cases being the ending, Biddy's role being changed to a significant degree and Miss Havisham and Estella's character writing taken to extremes. The storytelling is much too simplified to the extent that some instances don't make sense, any darkness, conflict and ambiguities are completely lost and even the underwhelming ending of the 2012 Mike Newell film wasn't this horrendously bungled. With a longer length and much more secure pacing(details were rushed but the pacing on the whole was tedious) things probably would've been better. Apparently it was originally meant to be a musical, but the songs were excised, even with that happening a lot of it is staged in a way of anticipating some big musical number, but one that never happens. In conclusion, good costumes, good Satis house and four good performances but uninspired and dull. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I remember being assigned to read Charles Dickens' novel, "Great Expectations," as an English major in college. I think this movie would have greatly enhanced my understanding of the story. The film has a first rate cast featuring a rising star, Michael York, as the adult Pip. Miss Havisham is played by the late great British actress, Margaret Leighton. Sarah Miles played Estella in this film. I loved Leighton's performance as Miss Havisham, the mysterious woman who lived in a mansion in a small English village with Estella, her adopted daughter. The first rate cast features plenty of great actors and actresses mostly British such as Joss Ackland, James Mason, Anthony Quayle, Heather Sears, Rachel Roberts, and even Tom Owen has a scene in there as taunting adult Pip. The quality is decent and the film was done in Elstree Studios long before East-Enders in Bedfordshire, England.

This made-for-television production obviously doesn't follow the book too closely. The novel brims with sub plots and details of the period. I know this not because I've ever read it but because I once saw it in a library, took the book down, and hefted it in my hands before deciding I wasn't up to tackling it. I was just recovering from a traumatic experience with "War and Peace." But the movie is nothing to be ashamed of. Oh, it's not as taut and dramatic as David Lean's earlier version, which is compact and superb, but it has its virtues.One of them is Sarah Miles -- not so much her performance as the bitchy Estella, but the fact that in her first scenes she passes adequately for a post-pubescent teen ager. This is remarkable because she was a post-pubescent teen ager ten or fifteen years earlier in both "Term of Trial" and "The Servant." She's mean enough, but doesn't quite project the same genuine haughtiness of Jean Simmons in David Lean's film.Michael York is adequate as the blacksmith's apprentice turned snob turned Mensh. The Oxford-educated York seems to handle the accent well. Joss Ackland is a proud, benign presence. He had yet to develop the jowls he displays and wobbles so threateningly in later villainous roles, like the Commisar in "Citizen X." James Mason -- this is quite a cast, isn't it? -- James Mason is the rude and murderous Magwitch and handles the part surprisingly well, given that his criminal persona is usually so suave and ironic. Anthony Quayle, a great Shakespearean, is lawyer Jaggers and Peter Bull appears in a small role. Margaret Leighton is fine as the tragic Miss Havisham.It all ends happily or, at least, justly. In the final scene York manages to convince Miles that she should give up the notion of re-living Miss Havisham's life and marry him instead, and he prints on her soft cheek a lover's kiss.Yet it's all a little depressing. Dickens is almost always a little depressing. What are the themes he deals with so relentlessly, after all? Poverty, wealth, inheritance, greed, pride, social class, power, parentage. No one was more graphic about being poor and to see it in living color on the screen isn't exactly uplifting. Dickens himself was born poor and knows whereof he speaks. During a visit to the United States he had a chat with Edgar Allan Poe. One can only wonder what in God's name they had to talk about.

With one noted exception to date, it seems that all who rated this only noticed at a later time after viewing that this film was made for TV. Perhaps people in other places are unfamiliar with conditions in 1974 and British TV.I have heard that budgets at BBC in the early to mid-70s were small and therefore special effects and expensive location shoots had to be dispensed with in favor of trying to use imagination and get the great story across with small budgets.I got "Great Expectations" on a very inexpensive DVD copy, had looked it up here and saw it was made for TV and enjoyed the work of the cast, so I gave it a shot.I thought the music and some of the things they did with the sets outdid what most TV films and serials were able to do was remarkable compared to other things on TV from the same time period on the BBC.It was a wholesome family friendly adaptation and the chief complaint is that it was too short! Yes, it was difficult because it had to cut out so many parts of the incredible Dickens book, but you try to adapt a huge novel into a made-for-TV film that has to fit in less than 2 hours (to accommodate commercials) and see how much better of a job you can do! Many of the best Dickens adaptations whether for the big screen or small are MUCH LONGER and have a MUCH BIGGER BUDGET. Is it the best Dickens adaptation? No, of course not.Is it on the other hand unwatchable and piece of junk? Not at all.For TV fare, it is above average and for the time period, it is a real treat to see one of the later great performances from the legendary James Mason, and very good performances by much of the cast.I disagree that Michael York did a poor job. He purposely underplayed a boy who was by nature not a pushy, scheming character like Miss Havershim, his uncle Pimblebrook(sic?), the relatives of Miss Havershim, the guy that marries Pip's true love-Estelle, and so many more.Perhaps it was also difficult coming off playing D'Artanian (sic?) in 'The Three Musketeers'.Maybe he wanted not to play a fearless, reckless youth, but an honest, caring youth, that sometimes made big mistakes - lying to his family about Miss Havershim's activities, telling a snooty London 'friend' that Joe was his blacksmith, etc.But Pip (when GROWN played by York) was a young man that learned lessons from the heart and never lost sight of his love of Estelle, his uncle and surrogate father Joe, his teacher and later 'stepmom'.He nearly got caught up in the 'gentleman's snobbery' towards Joe and his benefactor, but showed in the end that both had not wrongly encouraged and put their trust that Pip would turn out alright, each investing in Pips life in their own way to help him not to have to have the struggles that they had.Joe brought Pip up due to his parents dying, and Joe's first wife was Pip's sister. After Pip's ill-tempered sister died, even though not a blood relation or true father, Joe still regards Pip as a son and marries Pip's kind reading teacher who brings more of a steady and mother-like influence to Pip.Joe was also well done by Joss Ackland, an underrated British actor who also played C.S. Lewis in the original 'Shadowlands' ((also done for TV and MORE accurate in that it portrayed Joy Gresham with TWO sons...the later film with Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger (nominated for Academy award in the role of Joy Gresham) was adapted from the television screenplay in the movie version...imagine that?)).Many years later Ackland also played in the fun family film 'A Kid in King Arthur's Court' as King Arthur.I think it would be great if someone remade Great Expectations for regular film today, just as there was a more recent version of Oliver Twist (which overall was well done though there were parts I didn't like either...) No director can please everyone and NO FILM EVER 100 percent represents a book, unless the author wrote a screenplay and not a book! To those who haven't: read the book! It's the best source of the story in all cases.To those that prefer lavish productions, big budgets and Lord of the Rings style all out efforts of a book (though fans of the books point out flaws in those too...no director can win with the die hard book folks that can't seem to separate the mediums and, like me, sometimes enjoy both...differently!), then watch one of those versions or films.For a family friendly couple hours (for those with kids old enough to watch something more than animation), check it out! It's much better than even much of the 'made for cinema' movies put out on cheap DVD release in Europe and the USA.