When a film is marketed with the title of one of the greatest novels in English literature, especially if its story resembles the story of the novel, it is inviting comparisons...not only to the novel, but to David Lean's definitive 1946 film. Cuáron's film holds up fairly well; it is beautifully shot, in heat-soaked colours (having been relocated to south Florida), a far remove from Lean's cold, naturalistic black and white with forced-perspective sets. The new film is also energized by some vivid acting in secondary roles, especially Anne Bancroft and Robert DeNiro.
What cripples it, unfortunately, is a 90s mentality that sacrifices the most interesting parts of Dickens's narrative, for the sake of a myopic fixation on the love story between Finn (Pip) and Estella. The novel is about many things (including its astonishing array of vivid secondary characters, many of them unforgettable), but it is laid out within a trajectory of a warm- hearted young boy growing up in poverty aggravated by the self-centeredness of most of those around him, his rise to prosperity aided by a mysterious benefactor, during which he himself is corrupted, and his collapse when he discovers how mistaken he has been about many things (especially about the identity of that benefactor). In the aftermath, he discovers some genuine humanity in himself, as he is impelled to make real sacrifices to rescue his benefactor, and is himself rescued by the one truly decent character in the book.
The heart of this trajectory is gone in the film. Finn is lifted up to success by a benefactor, but never confronts any demons in himself as a result of this generosity; his friend and roommate in the novel, Herbert Pocket, who shares his degradation, is left out of the film altogether. Finn never needs rescuing, and the character of Joe (one of Dickens's great creations) is much diminished; the talented Chris Cooper is given little to do, and comes across as someone to be pitied and tolerated rather than admired. Finn just goes from success to success as an artist; he never makes any sacrifices for anyone. Estella (in some ways, only a minor character in the book) is in almost every scene of the middle of the film...because those seem to be the only ones the filmmakers care about.
Perhaps this film is best viewed without any reference to Dickens at all? Its love story is certainly passionate and sensual; Paltrow is beautiful (and not just in her nude modeling scene), but unfortunately Hawke is, as usual, flat and bland. That flatness is actually appropriate for a film of the novel (John Mills, a similarly bland actor, is effective in Lean's film, because Pip is to some extent a blank slate written on by those around him), but it's disastrous for a love story; what does Estella see in him? One is left at the end with the suspicion that she ultimately grabs hold of Finn the successful artist because he's successful and can support her and her daughter, now that her other lovers have left her.
To be honest, the conclusion is the worst part of the novel, too. Dickens had originally written an ending where a more mature Pip meets a miserable, cynical Estella years later, and is able to observe her dispassionately, from some distance; given that she had been trained by a master (Miss Havisham) to hate and exploit men, this was probably the only conceivable ending for their story. But then he listened to "advice" from his friend Bulwer-Lytton, and replaced that plausible and moving ending for a Hollywood-anticipating reconciliation and fade-out (which is indeed adopted by both films). The revision made readers happier, but you didn't want to think too carefully about what kind of life Pip and Estella were going to have together...
What cripples it, unfortunately, is a 90s mentality that sacrifices the most interesting parts of Dickens's narrative, for the sake of a myopic fixation on the love story between Finn (Pip) and Estella. The novel is about many things (including its astonishing array of vivid secondary characters, many of them unforgettable), but it is laid out within a trajectory of a warm- hearted young boy growing up in poverty aggravated by the self-centeredness of most of those around him, his rise to prosperity aided by a mysterious benefactor, during which he himself is corrupted, and his collapse when he discovers how mistaken he has been about many things (especially about the identity of that benefactor). In the aftermath, he discovers some genuine humanity in himself, as he is impelled to make real sacrifices to rescue his benefactor, and is himself rescued by the one truly decent character in the book.
The heart of this trajectory is gone in the film. Finn is lifted up to success by a benefactor, but never confronts any demons in himself as a result of this generosity; his friend and roommate in the novel, Herbert Pocket, who shares his degradation, is left out of the film altogether. Finn never needs rescuing, and the character of Joe (one of Dickens's great creations) is much diminished; the talented Chris Cooper is given little to do, and comes across as someone to be pitied and tolerated rather than admired. Finn just goes from success to success as an artist; he never makes any sacrifices for anyone. Estella (in some ways, only a minor character in the book) is in almost every scene of the middle of the film...because those seem to be the only ones the filmmakers care about.
Perhaps this film is best viewed without any reference to Dickens at all? Its love story is certainly passionate and sensual; Paltrow is beautiful (and not just in her nude modeling scene), but unfortunately Hawke is, as usual, flat and bland. That flatness is actually appropriate for a film of the novel (John Mills, a similarly bland actor, is effective in Lean's film, because Pip is to some extent a blank slate written on by those around him), but it's disastrous for a love story; what does Estella see in him? One is left at the end with the suspicion that she ultimately grabs hold of Finn the successful artist because he's successful and can support her and her daughter, now that her other lovers have left her.
To be honest, the conclusion is the worst part of the novel, too. Dickens had originally written an ending where a more mature Pip meets a miserable, cynical Estella years later, and is able to observe her dispassionately, from some distance; given that she had been trained by a master (Miss Havisham) to hate and exploit men, this was probably the only conceivable ending for their story. But then he listened to "advice" from his friend Bulwer-Lytton, and replaced that plausible and moving ending for a Hollywood-anticipating reconciliation and fade-out (which is indeed adopted by both films). The revision made readers happier, but you didn't want to think too carefully about what kind of life Pip and Estella were going to have together...