David Copperfield – POC, Period Drama and Making Modern Classics
2020. It was a bit of an odd one, I suppose.
I never thought I would one day be living out a weird semi-modern life as a Jane Austen character and yet that was the year that was 2020! Constantly asking about the health of other people’s families. Being unable to touch loved ones for fear of social outrage. Living out a quiet domestic life as I knit, or bake bread, or wait for the postman to deliver a sought-after letter from my sister in Malvern. Taking a brisk daily walk or five, and wondering what are men to rocks and mountains. Or to a large flat field, as this is Lincolnshire after all.
As my life seems to have become one long Regency episode without any of the fun costumes or any upper-class heroes walking through a misty field at dawn (which is an outrageous absence in my life at the moment), I might as well settle into that age-old nostalgia treat for anyone who is even vaguely historically inclined – the period drama.
One caught my eye during the lockdown lull, as it was a film that I actually wanted to see in this thing called ‘the cinema’ before COVID came and robbed us all of our dreams and patience. It’s a film called The Personal History of David Copperfield – a story about a young man, the titular David Copperfield, who is born into a loving family, then is sent away as a child labourer in a factory by his evil stepfather, then escapes to his eccentric aunt who then goes bankrupt, before managing to save the day all round.
So, you can’t say I don’t bring the most pressing stories and analysis to you – as today I’ll be bringing you the hottest of hot takes that is that The Personal History of David Copperfield is rather marvellous actually. This may not come as a surprise to those who have actually watched the film – but of course, COVID had to go and ruin the financials for this film, leading to its earlier than anticipated digital release earlier this year. But it means you have no excuse now not to watch it!
When it comes to this film, I feel like the thing that is more representative of the general hellscape that was this year wasn’t actually the fact that I couldn’t watch this film at the cinema with a friend or three and a small hill of popcorn, or even that the features of this fun period drama were an escape from my lockdown life. (I had never thought of it before, but thank goodness I haven’t had someone steal my honestly bought chicken.) No, it was the seeming backlash when it came to Joe Public and his quivering rage at this movie even existing in the first place, what with the fact it has more characters being cast with POC than many period dramas out there. I wonder why.
And we will get to that. God in heaven, don’t worry – we’ll get to that particular dumpster fire. I mean, why not? I’m basically still locked inside the UK; Boris Johnson is still inexplicably Prime Minister; my fringe has gone on strike. Why not huddle for warmth at this particular dumpster fire?
But if we are to talk about David Copperfield and why anyone should actually care about this film, I think there’s someone we should acquaint ourselves with. The real-life David Copperfield. And no, I don’t mean the odd magician chap.
The Original Charlie Boy - Charles Dickens
Where do you start with Charles Dickens?
Born in Portsmouth on 7th February 1812, I think it would be safe to say that Dickens had a rather eventful life even as a boy. His father, John Dickens, who many have seen as the inspiration for the frivolous albeit loveable Mr. Micawber, was sent to debtors prison when Charles was 12; which led to Charles being sent to work in a shoe polish factory whilst his father tried to earn the family’s way out of debt. Charles would end up working at the factory for three years, which must have stayed with him for the rest of his life – both for inspiration in his works; but also starting a lifelong interest in socio-economic and working conditions for the working class, and trying to make these conditions easier and more humane. From there, Dickens went on to become a junior clerk at a law firm, then a freelance legal journalist for four years (where his sympathies for the working classes only increased when he saw how the law tended to treat them), before finding journalistic success with his Sketches by Boz series, and then starting his periodical writings which included The Pickwick Papers and Oliver Twist. And all before he was 30. Thanks for showing the rest of us up, Charlie boy.
And the rest was literary history. Dickens’ books have never been out of print, his stories have become part of the architecture of both literary culture and pop culture in general, and his books have become fodder for copious amounts of adaptations across film, television, and radio. Dickens has also had a bit of an afterlife as a man who stood up for the oppressed in Victorian Britain, such as the working class who he saw as being the backbone of industrial Britain, and whom he saw as being treated unfairly for baring the economic brunt for their middle class and upper-class masters. Especially as Britain at this time was a place where it was also very easy to slip through the cracks – it was a society that had no pensions, no socialised health care, no sick pay, no National Insurance. And that’s before you had to pay back your factory-owning boss for your rent and for your essentials, because chances were that industrialist owned a lot of the residential and commercial properties that were lived in and used by his own workers. I mean, the Quakers were different but you had to be lucky to be working at Cadbury’s or Rowntrees, and these kinds of industrialists were hard to come by at the time.
In a letter in 1858 to his friend, Wilkie Collins, Dickens summed up how he could not be silent when his own experience and the experiences of his fellow countrymen led to Britain becoming an industrial powerhouse, whilst not benefiting the actual workers who made these achievements possible:
“Everything that happens […] shows beyond mistake that you can’t shut out the world; that you are in it, to be of it; that you get yourself into a false position the moment you try to sever yourself from it; that you must mingle with it, and make the best of it, and make the best of yourself into the bargain.”
The world of ordinary people can’t be shut out when there is something that needs to be addressed, even if it makes middle-class readers uncomfortable - and Dickens’ writing shows that. It’s not about kings and queens and knights of old – it’s about flawed, normally lower class, human beings trying to make their way through a rather unfriendly world; criminals, prostitutes, children, those who have fallen on hard times, those who are finally finding a happy ending after a life of graft and struggle. Dickens had the devoted attention of around one out of every ten readers in Britain (or about a million and a half people, which is before you even consider people reading to others who couldn’t read), so he was broadcasting the living and working conditions of ordinary people to a vast section of society – and was part of the reason for society starting to realise that working and living conditions were important aspects of decent living for everyone. And before anyone tells me that Dickens wasn’t inclined towards socialism – Karl Marx thought Oliver Twist was more revolutionary than Das Kapital. His own book. Something to consider.
But I’m just going to add a little aside here to tell you – Charles Dickens was also a bit of a humungous turd monger. I do love the man and his work – but he is still rather a large twerp.
Dickens was not great with women. Or POC. Or Irish people. Or Jewish people. And he was rather unapologetic about it. He openly talked about how black people shouldn’t be enslaved, but the idea of them voting was an outlandish notion and would use racist language to describe them. Hmm. He called Native Americans ‘the noble savage’ in an essay of the same name, which leaned into all stereotypes of the time, and which was even called out by some of his contemporaries. Hmm. He used incredibly racist language against the Indian people (who at the time were ruled by Queen Victoria as Empress of India), refused to discuss them in any other less racist terms, and even called for their “extermination”. Fliping hell Charles. Dickens described Irish people as “racially repellent”. Sweet grenadine, Charles.
Dickens’ rather 2D portrayals of women in his novels kind of go without saying, and mirror his very real issues with the women in his life – which included leaving his devoted wife who had done nothing but be his perfect ‘Angel In The Home’ on the pretext that not only was she getting old (as was he) but that she had been the worst thing to ever happen to him. It may not have helped that his own mother didn’t immediately want to bring Charles back from the shoe polish factory when the family was released from debtor’s prison, which would have inflicted some trauma and complicated feelings for sure – but to conflate his mother and wife together in such a way really shows that Dickens may not have been great when it came to seeing women as individuals with different outlooks.
And then there’s Fagin. I’m not sure if I should be surprised that Fagin managed to get through the editors’ cuts as he did – but the backlash against Fagin didn’t start as a ‘modern castigation’ on the part of liberal snowflakes like me. Jewish people at the time were rightfully pissed off with Dickens. In 1854, The Jewish Chronicle asked why "Jews alone should be excluded from the 'sympathizing heart' of this great author and powerful friend of the oppressed." Eliza Davis, a Jewish woman, wrote to Dickens in protest against Fagin and the fact that Dickens had called Fagin ‘The Jew’ 257 times in the first 38 chapters of Oliver Twist alone, pointing out that by doing so he had "encouraged a vile prejudice", and he had done something awful. And Eliza’s letter must have given Dickens pause, because he did halt the printing of Oliver Twist, and changed out the text from Chapter 39 onwards, which had not been set at the printer yet and, therefore, hadn’t been properly printed for the first edition at that time. As a result, from Chapter 39 onwards Fagin is barely referred to as ‘the Jew’ in the following 179 references to him. However, the subsequent illustrations in the first edition don’t help as they lean into vile visual stereotypes of Jewish people; the later editions don’t seem to want to change the first 257 references to Fagin at all; and the fact that Dickens had to be taken to task by an angry letter from his friend’s wife is rather worrying, as he was a grown man who maybe could have thought through the implications first. Anti-Semitism, remarkably, wasn’t a pre-requisite to being a Victorian social commentator or a gentleman in society.
So, what is the point of my little tirade here against an author who has been dead for over 150 years? Well, it’s mainly to highlight that Dickens is a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, this is the man who invented modern Christmas, and who stood up for the poor and those who had slipped through society’s cracks in an increasingly mechanised and industrial world. On the other hand, he had some really insidious, harmful views about minorities that he did broadcast and felt not all that much regret over. Off-the-cuff reactions and remarks still show a person’s character after all. The perfect person he was not, a bundle of contradictions he most definitely is – which comes as a surprise to many who may have only heard about the social crusader side of his story.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t engage with his work? Well, considering the chap has been dead for a century and a half, I think it may be fair to say that his personal influence on the public has kind of waned. It’s not as though he’s on Twitter unrepentantly spreading rather shitty views that do real harm to real people. I’m looking at you, Joanne.
And in that century and a half since the death of Dickens, we have seen his characters and novels outliving and even surpassing their creator. Magwitch looms on the mist of the fens; Uriah Heep is that quietly plotting colleague you always imagine would stage a water cooler coup in the office; Ebenezer Scrooge saves his soul every single Christmas in some way, shape or form. Taking up Fagin again, his character has gone through a bit of a revamp in the last century as well. Starting with the early movies, Fagin was pretty much the first edition illustrations come life, with all the wildly stereotypical issues intact – leading to the David Lean film in 1948, where Alec Guinness played Fagin. This portrayal led to all kinds of issues for the film, including having its release date delayed in the USA due to Jewish protests. In fact, several of Fagin’s scenes were cut when it was finally released in the USA in 1951, and the film was straight up banned in Israel. It was also banned in Egypt, but the reason for this was because they felt Fagin was being portrayed too sympathetically. … Holy macaroni.
But after the Second World War and the subsequent trials of Nazi officials and collaborators, writers, directors and actors have sought to reclaim Fagin. This is in much the same way that Shylock has been reclaimed as a semi-tragic character, fighting against a system that would always punish him for no other reason than because of who he is. One major example of the reclaiming of Fagin is every am dram’s most lucrative musical option – Oliver! Lionel Bart, who was the composer of the 1968 movie musical, was Jewish, and wrote Fagin’s songs to include traditionally Jewish rhythm and musical motifs – which places this Jewish identity as part of Fagin’s more sympathetic character, instead of as a way to highlight any type of villainy. Ron Moody, who was himself Jewish, played Fagin – and to many is the archetypal Fagin and is the interpretation that they think of when thinking of this character: jovial, charming, a scamp with a heart of gold, closer to Mr. Micawber than to the original stereotype, and completely human with understandable worries, aims, and affections. Richard Dreyfuss and Richard Kline, both Jewish actors, have also played Fagin – which kind of shows how the originally stereotypical character has been remade as a more sympathetic, human character to audiences.
But of course, we have a way to go still. Jewish playwright Julia Pascal has gone on record against Oliver!, as she believes that performing the show even today is still inappropriate because the show has a minority acting out on a stereotype to please a host, gentile society; and that low-level anti-Semitism still filters constantly through British society. To which I would wholeheartedly agree. Minority voices and characters continue to be somewhat pushed into niche films, or are still subject to being stereotyped for ease of a gentile, mostly white audience – so we can’t pat ourselves on the back just yet. But we can see how Dickens’ intent and prejudices are no longer as relevant. You don’t see anyone, who isn’t an utter twerp, arguing for Fagin to be represented as the stereotype as written by Dickens. Ron Moody’s rendition is, honestly, far too charming and far too culturally engrained for one; but also the character has been critically engaged with in the last seventy years, and the parts of his character that still have value in modern society have been explored and broadcast again and again.
As Dickens has been in the public domain since 1940, his stories and characters have, as a result, become the inheritance of the public, both in Britain and outside it. As with Fagin, the public can interpret Dickens however they so wish (including in a way that makes minority characters more rounded human beings), with Dickens’ work continuing to be a fertile ground for different interpretations by and for a modern audience. We can see his work as having value still, whilst also understanding that Dickens is not the unproblematic word of an infallible deity, and to critically engage with his words, settings, and characters. You can still be a fan of Dickens today, and still understand that there are problems with the man and his work that can’t, and shouldn’t, be explained away. You can still have issues with Dickens’ personal views and by now dated characterisations, whilst wanting to bring the things that still have value in his work into the light for a modern audience. Speaking of which-
Modernising the Period Drama
We finally got there! You can’t say I won’t wax rhapsodic about British literature given half a chance – especially when it feels as though either Brexit or Covid will forever haunt me if I dare to step outside my door.
Armando Iannucci is a British writer, satirist, and director who you may not know the name of, but you will have seen one of his television shows or movies, which include The Thick of It, Veep, Alan Partidge, Avenue 5, and The Death of Stalin. It was actually during the production of Death of Stalin that Ianucci, a lifelong Dickens fan, started to seriously think about adapting David Copperfield, one of Dickens’ meatier and most autobiographical works, which had not been adapted to mainstream film since 1969, and not adapted to television since 1999.
Iannucci said in an interview with Katey Rich on the Little Gold Men podcast: Death of Stalin was the first time I’d done a historical, period piece, and so I was learning for the first time the whole business of historical accuracy. It wasn’t just, we were trying to recreate another country. We were trying to recreate 1950s Moscow, in London, and I wanted to try and get it as authentic as possible. That means you’re working with costume and make-up and art department, and DOPs, and so on, who have a specialist skill. I learned a lot making that film, and it was, when I’d made it, I thought ... I’d always in the back of my mind been thinking of David Copperfield, and it was when I made Death of Stalin I thought, “We’ve got the people here, we’ve got the team,” so literally it was the last day of the shoot. I went around all the heads of department and said, “David Copperfield next? You want to join?”
So, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the British have a bit of a thing for period drama… Not that it’s an addiction, we can stop whenever we want. But Iannucci wasn’t content to just keep to the same script of previous period dramas that had become something that British people lovingly joke about. Iannucci was after something a little different.
“I said to the crew, let’s shoot this like no one’s ever done a costume drama before, and therefore there are no conventions as to how you go about it. And I said to the cast, don’t speak like you’re thinking you’re a Victorian – as in ‘Hello Sir, Doing All This With Your Voice.’ Just speak, just be yourselves. I wanted to kind of blow away any sense of there being cobwebs and dust. It’s set in 1840, but these people in it are in their present day. We should feel like people are living their lives now, rather than historically. There’s that terrible thing when you see a period drama and someone picks up a book and it’s all covered in cobwebs and it’s yellowing. And you think – ‘But that book would just have been bought two months ago! That book hasn’t lain there for 160 years.’ And London at the time, it should feel like Manhattan! It’s at the height of the industrial revolution, it’s a big trading city, it’s an international city. So it should feel really bustling. It should feel contemporary – but what I didn’t want to do was do a kind of artificially gimmicky contemporaneity, like putting modern music in or setting it somewhere different. I wanted to be faithful to what the story was, but push these scenes, I think.”
I mean, I will put my oar in and say that some period films, especially those set in the last hundred years, can, in my humble opinion, have modern music inserted and it works, but maybe not Victorian Britain. Blimey, the lengths I will go to say that The Great Gatsby was actually a rather good film. (I mean, it could have been gayer of course. One day Nick Carraway will be plainly queer, and I will drunkenly dance around the living room in celebration.)
But getting back to Iannucci’s point, I was quite glad to see this very different way of directing period drama – no one looks as stiff or starched as you’d expect from an era basically starched to the nines. The characters move, talk, react, and engage with each other really naturally and energetically, instead of hiding behind their collars and bonnets. Which, as a historian, I can only approve of – as people of the past are not so different from the people walking around today; and the same issues that Dickens actually shone a light on, are still issues we contend with to this day. By bringing modern energy to the story, Iannucci is trying to show how relevant issues in Dickens still are today by giving the period drama a bit of a shake-up with a modern vitality.
“I wanted to preserve the spirit of the book, and also the freshness I felt of Dickens’ humour, and the extraordinary relevance still of the issues. Not just homelessness and riches and poverty sitting side by side, and the burden of debt, but those very modern issues of identity, imposter syndrome and status anxiety.”
Because this is also the thing – this film isn’t just a jolly jape through the English countryside. Indeed, the issues that Dickens wrote about aren’t ironed out of the film. We see David struggle with his abusive stepfather and then is literally sent to work in a factory whilst still a child. We see the Macawbers fight off creditors who are literally breaking through their windows. We see Betsey Trotwood’s life uprooted by financial ruin through no fault of her own, and left to make the best of it with David, Mr. Dick and the Macawbers in a flat that is one step above a slum. Steerforth’s whole story is a tragedy of not feeling worthy enough to exist as himself – something that many people, myself included, struggle with every day. We see David’s identity shift with every person he meets until he has had enough and calls himself David Copperfield. We see him try to find himself in this broadening society where fortunes are lost and won in an afternoon, and where everyone sees him a little differently. We see Davidwondering where he really belongs within his own life, all with vitality and humour that make his trails and tribulations both entertaining and still very relevant for people today, who are still trying to find their place in the world.
This vitality and humour that the movie leans into actually has its roots firmly planted within the original book. A lot of the memorable moments and lines from the film are lifted from the book, such as Betsey’s ongoing vendetta against donkeys; the pen incident with Dora; and Betsy’s first appearance, nose squashed against the window and all, making a social call as her niece is literally in the throes of agonising labour. Which may come as a surprise to many who may only know Dickens through popular culture, where he is relegated as a writer of squalid, dark stories and settings, where nary a laugh was heard. And that’s really not true. Dickens’ works brim over with humour and satire (which may be why Iannucci was so drawn to him), and I can’t imagine Dickens being as successful if he didn’t make readers laugh and smile at least a few times as his stories unfolded.
The colours and production design of this film also lean into this urgent, modern vitality – the colours and the light within the scenes may seem garish and bright in comparison to what we expect from a Dickensian novel; but it goes back to Iannucci not wanting to make another dusty period drama that knew it was in the past. 1840 isn’t our present, but it is David Copperfield’s – so why wouldn’t it be bustling, modern and exciting? The plot is almost secondary to the setting, the characters, and the adventure of writing itself, which Iannucci completely understood:
“If you read the book, it’s, so many adaptations are hung up on recounting the plot. In fact, the plot is just there to hang all these amazing characters, these wonderful ideas, for his inventive language and imagery and so on. I just felt inspired by that, and I thought, “Let’s capture that spirit.” He’s a storyteller, and it’s a book about storytelling. It’s about someone growing up, not knowing where they fit in, and whether people take him seriously or not, and then realizing what he is a writer. If he actually just writes, he sort of becomes himself, so it’s all about storytelling. I thought, “Let’s take that as an explicit theme and an explicit visual in the film.”
The process of writing, of concocting worlds and characters and narratives, is shown in a really interesting way in this film – with hands coming through roofs, with the narrator physically walking through his childhood, reimagining parts of his life to entertain friends, and picking up snippets of sentences and characterisations to store and guard like precious gems in his writing box along the way. This is a film about storytelling and imagination as much as it is a film about the ups and downs of David’s life. It’s a type of storytelling that doesn’t have to rely on gimmicks or CGI too much, but effects that look so physical that nothing is taken away from the story but enhances the idea that we’re watching a story being told where we are in the frame with the characters, instead of being merely an audience to the unfolding story.
This modern way of telling the David Copperfield also bleeds into how its characters are portrayed, especially to the female characters of Dora and Agnes who in the book were relegated to the status of sentient furniture until they need to talk to support the protagonist. As I said earlier, Dickens has a real problem with writing compelling female characters. In this film, both Dora and Agnes are allowed increased screentime and are shown to be complete individuals before David starts pursuing them romantically. I found Dora hilarious and oddly likeable in her upper-class ditziness, whilst Agnes was shown to be more socially conscious and intelligent to make her a real foil to David, as Iannucci intended:
“We were looking at some of the characters who maybe in the book felt slightly slight, like Agnes in particular. I wanted Agnes to be more than a match for David, and be able to kind of match him line for line in terms of wit and ability. So you could see how they are actually made for each other.”
I feel that this desire to make the characters more rounded was rather well achieved – whilst you can’t have every single character for reasons of time and adaptation (god bless you Barkis), taking the characters you can’t tell the story without and fleshing them out to seem more human and well rounded is a much better way of using the source material than trying to include every cameo from the book.
Whilst we’re looking at the characters, let’s also dive into one of the more modern aspects of this adaptation - the actual cast, and the fact that the cast includes more POC than most period dramas. Here’s the thing - this cast is one of the best I have seen in a period drama, full stop. Dev Patel is compelling, incredibly likeable, and delightful as the titular David Copperfield. Hugh Laurie gives one of his best performances as the softly spoken Mr. Dick. Tilda Swinton is the Betsey Trotwood to end all Betsey Trotwoods. Ben Whishaw, who many know best as the loveable Paddington, is delightfully sinister and snivelly as the contemptible Uriah Heep. Peter Capaldi gives another career-best performance as the charming Mr. Micawber (his line about his honestly bought chicken will live with me forever). Aneurin Barnard and Nikki Amuka-Bird are devastating and gripping in equal measure as Steerforth’s story ends in tragedy and parental regret. I do not think there is a weak link in the cast, including the various cameos and other small parts. Sarah Crowe deserves an award on this cast alone.
But, of course, the casting of Dev Patel as the titular David Copperfield was met with a lot of questions like “is this a stunt?” or “is this a reaction to Brexit?”, which Ianucci has talked about:
“There wasn't an overtly political decision. Really. It was more, I could only think of Dev playing David. That was it. I knew I was thinking about David Copperfield and was thinking who could play him. And I was thinking of this person, that person, and then I kept going back to Dev. And I knew Dev could play comic and vulnerable and awkward, growing up and all that. It was when I saw him in Lion being very strong and powerful and still. I immediately went, "That's David Copperfield," and once that thought I had entered my head, it wouldn't leave. I had to have Dev and I was so grateful he said yes. And then once that happens, you then think, "Okay, that's how I should cast everyone. I should cast the person who I just feel instinctively they are the part, they inhabit, they possess the soul of that character. It's something that has been going on in theater for decades, but strangely film is very literal about these things. Yes, it's set in 1840 in London and so on, but it's a film, it's not a documentary. It's a story. And the reason I'm making this and adapting this old, old story is because I feel it's relevant and worth telling now, and that it appeals to the world now. And it's important that I think the audience there can see themselves up on the screen. I want people to feel that this story is happening in front of them now. That the cast, the characters, they are in 1840, but for them, that's the present. So they should behave like they're in the present. In their present. And, well, there aren't that many cinemas open at the moment, but the audience at home should feel that they could stand up and walk into the screen, really, and still feel at home.”
Even Dev Patel has talked about his very casting, and how it shouldn’t be a big deal:
"The fact that I get to be in a film like this is amazing. It’s at the beginning of a movement, if you can call it that. You have got to talk about it to get some momentum, so it’s cool... I totally missed this literary classic growing up. It didn’t appeal to me. And what Armando has done with the casting and the world, he has given it a buoyancy and an accessibility to kids like myself. It really is representative of a modern Britain – the one that I grew up in. And it’s about humility, it’s about friendship, it’s about togetherness and accepting where you have come from and embracing that too."
The very fact that both the director and star have to defend casting a professional actor for David Copperfield who was chosen based on his talent is a little… reflective of Britain at the moment. But it is true what both Iannuic and Patel say - if you want to make a period drama that appeals to modern audience members, we can’t make the same period dramas that were made 20 years ago. It’s got to have one foot in the past and one in the present for the audience to care about the characters, setting and the story the film tells. Cinema audiences are constantly diversifying and want to see new ways of storytelling, which is no bad thing. After all, without new ideas and new people in culture, nothing would have developed beyond the Middle Ages. Culture should be open to everyone, and everyone deserves to see themselves represented in culture and visual mass media, no matter the source material.
It would be really terrible if someone was to… have a tantrum about this non-problem.
Adaptation and Appropriation
So. It may be clear by now what got so many white people’s knickers in a twist. In a year of so much to get rightfully annoyed about, this is the thing that raised quite a few people’s blood pressure. I honestly don’t know where they get the energy.
It really is a weird experience looking at the canyon between critical reviews and what Joe Public had to say upon the film’s digital release. Not that one must always side with the critics. There are loads of films that the critics rave about, but which I just don’t understand the hype for – I’m looking at you La La Land. Just saying, Singing In The Rain did it better. And Gene Kelly is just better than any of us mere mortals.
But the absolute plethora of ‘problems’ that people had with the film are… well, a little worrying. And so, we are diving into the public review cesspool that is Rotten Tomatoes! Hey, if people want to post their reviews publically, they can’t be upset if a Northern British twit like me decides to read them for not only a look into the film going public’s psyche but also to have a well-deserved laugh.
‘Slim T’ writes – gosh, I do hope they’re a cowboy in real life – “we all know what this is about, and it is disgusting.” Well yes, Slim, it would be nice if more writers of colour were adapted for these kind of lush film productions. But I don’t think I would call an adaptation of David Copperfield disgusting, especially after seeing the beige nightmare that was the 1969 film. “[T]he endless attack on our culture and our people must cease.” I didn’t know making a film based on a beloved classic was an attack on British culture. Someone better not tell Jane Austen.
In all honesty, how is making a modern adaptation of a classic book, with a cast that reflects a modern Britain, an attack? Going beyond that, I’m afraid to have to tell you this, Slim, but POC did exist back in the Victorian era. Shocker I know! Like the LGBTQ+ community, they were not invented in the 1960s! Gosh, I don’t think Slim has ever had to endure an actual attack on their right to exist in a society if a film with a few more POC in the cast is seen as an “endless attack”. That most awful of endless attacks – one period film!
Mary says “Didn’t work on many levels.” Well, you can’t fault her on her succinctness. Would be interested to know on what levels this film didn’t work though – the narrative was pretty straightforward, the visuals interesting, not a weak link in the cast (with some of the cast giving career-best performances in my opinion), beautiful music, fab writing. Maybe Mary liked the beige durge of 1969 a bit better – though that film did make me wonder how Richard Attenborough survived it with his sanity in check.
Next one from Richard. “Confusing and pseudo artistic”- oh Richard, getting the $10 words out I see! So you’re saying it’s not artistic? Again, maybe the beige is more addictive than at first glance. Just say no to beige, kids, it’s not worth it! “[A] total mess, with an Indian playing the titular character and a Chinese guy?” You’ll be amazed to hear Richard, that those people also have names and reputable careers, and that, even if they didn’t, they are also allowed to exist in visual culture beyond movies where POC are punished for merely existing. “Hollywood these days just so to give everything they produce “diversity””. I mean, they couldn’t possibly just be in the cast because they’re good, right? That would be too much to even consider!
Luisa next. “Very very loosely inspired by The Dickensian novel” Really? I don’t think you’ll find that the film is loosely inspired by the novel at all – in fact, a lot of the imagery and lines are lifted completely from the book. That’s a bit like saying that any one of Kenneth Branaugh’s wonderfully indulgent Shakespeare films only bears a passing resemblance to the Bard’s plays. “Then the political, anti-racist correctness that brought the director to choose Indian, black, Asian actors to play very British characters of a very British author of a very British novel to say the least.” Ahh, I see. So, to be British is to have no immigrant or refugee background at all. You can’t possibly be British and be a POC, even nowadays – heaven forfend! Also, why is it political to cast POC in a period drama where they are not being beaten with a stick, whilst a good guy white person looks on in impotent horror? “Despite a respectable cast, the movie is boring, excessive, and tiring to follow.” Hang on. You just said you thought the cast was an example of “political, anti-racist correctness” and was “ridiculous”. And now they’re actually “respectable”? Hmm, alright. And “boring, excessive, and tiring to follow” – well for an adaptation of a book over 600 pages long, it can’t be as bad as that.
Onto Timothy. I fear I’ll be having words with Timothy. “Sucky, hammy, and an over-abundance of unconvincing enthusiasm doesn’t compensate for its deficiencies.” Oh, I see that the $20 words are out now. “And talk about cultural appropriation run wild, it makes Hamilton pale in comparison.” Ahh, I was wondering when Hamilton would come up. Timothy, I just think you should talk less. Smile more. “What’s next - Lesbian Esk*mos in wheelchairs landing on Plymouth Rock?” … Oh Timothy, who hurt you? And also, no word of a lie, I would love to see that idea on screen – it would be better than anything Hollywood is currently working on at the moment.
“Watching David Copperfield – with its multiracial cast in roles they never filled in that period in Britain [We’ll get back to that.] require more than a suspension of disbelief, it requires a large bucket to catch your breakfast when it comes up. Feels sort of like watching a revival of “The Mikado”… except in this lastest revival the roles will be performed by Ugandans.” … Well, not to be that person but Gilbert and Sullivan could be adapted to any time and period to be fair. I’ve seen it adapted to such settings as steampunk, World War 2, and the moon. Though why you want to engage with Gilbert and Sullivan in 2020, I have no fathomable idea. But no, of course, Timothy. It would be so much better if we did “The Mikado” as God intended – with British opera singers in yellowface. Much better than letting POC actually have roles with words in period drama. Bugger off Timothy.
Oh Roy. Truth be told. I’m starting to worry about Roy. He just seems a bit conflicted. “I usually like these period book dramatization films, but this one left me scratching my head. I was OK with the diverse cast in a historical piece [Oh well done Roy! Hurrah!], however [Hurroo.] an Asian lead playing David Copperfield, but with white parents??? Was he adopted??? Don’t know, bcos [just an aside, I want to spell ‘because’ like this always now.] it’s not mentioned???”
Poor Roy, the question mark count alone shows how confused this poor bod is. He’s okay with the cast being diverse in a historical piece until they are cast in lead roles, which is a pity. Also, yes Clara Copperfield is white – but that doesn’t mean David is adopted if his mother was white, as I’m sure many people around the world can testify. Also the semi-dreamlike nature of the whole film kind of leans towards a more ‘colourblind’ adaptation of Dickens – so either way the point is irrelevant. No Roy, he wasn’t adopted – there’s the whole scene at the start where Clara is very clearly in labour; that isn’t just the actress chewing the scenery. “There were a few laughs and good individual performances but to be honest, I didn’t know what was going on most of the time. I didn’t hate it, I just didn’t get it??? Not sure what I just watched???” Oh bless you, Roy. It’s fine, Dickens isn’t for everyone. “I rented the video from Sky, and thus felt obliged to watch the film to the end.” You know what, I applaud the fact you watched it all the way through Roy – God does love a trier. “It will probably win loads of awards from the arty farty brigade”. Well, as a Squadron Leader in said Arty Farty Brigade, I do have my fingers crossed, Roy.
Oh Ethan. You quivering towel of rage. What do you have to add to the conversation? “So many plot holes.” Well, Ethan, anything made by human hands will be fallible, but were there really enough plot holes to make the narrative confusing? “So many opportunities missed to actually tell the REAL story Dicksons wanted to convey.” Goodness me. We’ve read the story wrong all these years. We’ve been reading the story as written by that imposter Charles Dickens – we should have been reading the REAL story as written by Charles Dicksons! (#ReleaseTheDicksonsCut)
Honestly, it’s not as though they fire David Copperfield into space and he colonises the moon in this film, Ethan – this is pretty much as close to the book as a good, modern adaptation can go, without just having the pages of the book on screen for an audience to read. What’s really the problem Ethan? “This was a heartless rendering of diversity stunts and production design that lacked the beauty of storytelling Dickens is so good at.” Ah. That damn diversity again. And Ethan also seems to have a problem with the production design – damn you, set dressers! Of course, Dickens can only be told in shades of beige, with no colour, flavour, or imagination – the beauty is only in the dreary, after all.
And last, but not least, the most telling review – and probably the most succinct of all (sorry Mary) – “Culture appropriation”. Half a star. Name redacted. How brave you are, anonymous reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes.
So, what was the point of all this – aside from, of course, the delight of reading through these spluttering, pearl-clutching reviews that are trying to find a problem with the film without being too obviously racist?
Let me be clear. You don’t have to like this film, this director, this book, Charles Dickens, or anything related to the production of the film. You are not a bad person if this story or the way it was told just isn’t up your street. After all, period drama isn’t for everyone; Charles Dickens is not everyone’s cup of tea; and Ianucci has a style and tone that will not appeal to all and sundry. I must add at this point that there were a few other negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes that took issue with all these aspects of the film – the reviewer thought that the book wasn’t great, the reviewer didn’t like the way the director had directed the actors, and some thought that period drama was a bit dusty in general. And that is perfectly fine to think these things.
But I wanted to dive in a bit deeper into these reviews that really show the real dumpster fire when it comes to what is seen as a scourge from the liberal left – that of diversity in period drama and diversity in film in general. Because it is a problem when your one driving issue with the film, that then leaks into your perception of the wider film in general, is that POC are in it. And have words. And characters.
So, let’s take it from where the last review left off, and see what this brave, anonymous reviewer meant by crying “cultural appropriation”.
Cultural appropriation can be defined as referring:
“to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that doesn't respect their original meaning, give credit to their source, or reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression. It may be natural to merge and blend cultures as people from different backgrounds come together and interact. In fact, many wonderful inventions and creations have been born from the merging of such cultures, such as country music. However, the line is drawn when a dominant cultural group makes use of elements of a non-dominant group in a way that the non-dominant group views as exploitative… A person of colour might be discriminated against because of a hairstyle that relates to their culture, while you as part of the dominant group can get away with appropriating that same hairstyle, making it trendy, and never understanding the experiences that contributed to the invention of the hairstyle in the first place. In other words, you've jumped on a trend because it seems cool, but in doing so you show insensitivity to the people for whom that trend is their life and not the latest fad.”
Or as the mental health and psychology group Verywell Mind put it: “Cultural appropriation is the social equivalent of plagiarism with an added dose of denigration. It's something to be avoided at all costs, and something to educate yourself about.”
So, for those in the cheap seats - there is nothing wrong with everyone enjoying each other’s cultures so long as those cultures have been shared, not taken. If the invitation to participate comes from within these cultures, it is fine to participate. Eating Chinese food, watching Bollywood movies, drinking Fairtrade Peruvian coffee, or learning to speak Japanese so you can watch every anime film your little heart desires is totally fine. It’s just acknowledging that the people who make these things may get annoyed if they are not acknowledged for their own culture, and might be angered that their culture is accepted only when a white person uses it, or if their culture is used as a costume.
So, let’s take this anonymous reviewer seriously for just a moment, and actually see whether David Copperfield is cultural appropriation. I may not be able to travel to Europe for an absolute age due to both Covid and Brexit – I have all the time in the world!
When thinking about cultural appropriation, it may be best to think about it along with three questions: consent, context, and credit.
Number One – Consent: Is the culture open to sharing this thing?
I think I’m right in saying that Britain and British people are okay with Charles Dickens being out there in the global public sphere. And if we weren’t and if we tried to stop the global sharing of Dickens’ work now, it would be like trying to close the door after the horse has bolted. And then won the Grand National.
Dickens’ works were originally written to be printed cheaply and read by as many people as possible who could afford the paper these stories were printed on – a hack Dickens may not have been, but he was writing to reach as many people as possible, irrespective of their background. As Dickens’ work tended towards the serialised, especially at the start of his writing career, it was all about getting as many repeat readers as possible every week, tuning in for the latest chapter, so his success was down to sharing these stories with anyone he could reach.
Dickens is surprisingly and stupidly popular around the world today as a result of his very accessible pieces of fiction – from an annual festival in Holland to productions and groups springing up in India for Dickens fans, the cat is kind of out of the bag now. And British literature and culture continue to be something people explore further due to Dickens’ stories, in much the same way that Austen, Shakespeare, Agatha Christie, Conan Doyle, and many more have opened the door to British literature and culture for many people around the world. This is probably in no small part due to the fact that Western culture seems to be on this pedestal across the world and is undeniably dominant – so the sharing of these works kind of comes with the territory. And British theatre, filming companies, museums, and tourist activities are built off the back of Dickens being so popular all over the world – which then leads to Dickens being even more visible in the cultural consciousness. So, yes – British culture likes to have Dickens around, in both the UK and further afield.
Number Two – Context: If a culture is open to sharing a thing but it is a thing of great religious significance, are you taking the time to learn what is a respectful way to treat the thing? Are you using it as a random decoration or to sexualize it if that is not its purpose?
Well, unless I missed something truly gargantuan, Dickens and his works are not of great religious significance. God and Christian values are mentioned and explored, but the works themselves are not of religious significance. Dickens and his works have not been sexualised or used as random decoration, even if that could be the case, to my knowledge, either – so this question can be answered with a quick and resounding “no”.
And Number Three – Credit: Give credit and if possible, buy from the original creators so the money goes where the credit should be.
I don’t believe Iannucci, or indeed anyone connected with the film, have tried to deny this is a Charles Dickens novel, or try to take the credit away from him. As Charles Dickens has been out in the public domain in Britain for over eighty years and shuffled off his mortal coil over 150 years ago, there was no need to buy the story or characters from Dickens or his estate. As this is a modern interpretation of David Copperfield, I can understand why the film credits make no allusion to working with foundations and societies dedicated to Charles Dickens and his works, as the film did not need the go-ahead from these societies to be a work in its own right – and the novel, on which the film is based, being in the public domain tends to negate the need for that too.
The locations used during the film, however, do highlight Dickens’ presence within the story, as a lot of the locations that were Dickens’ old stomping grounds are used, such as the Theatre Royal at Bury St Edmunds, and The Charles Dickens House in Broadstairs which inspired Betsey Trotwood’s house. The use of these locations is a way of giving Dickens credit within the language of the film settings, which is rather intelligent. The film also worked closely with the British charity Shelter, which works to combat homelessness and bad housing across England and Scotland – which are problems that, to this day, continue to disproportionately affect the same groups of people as in Dickens’ day. Again, a rather intelligent way of giving credit to a man who was seen, and still is seen, by many as the champion of those who slipped through society’s cracks.
So, m’lud – I don’t think there’s a case to answer here. Shocking, I know.
So, if David Copperfield doesn’t actually fit into the definition of cultural appropriation, especially when you consider the fact that Western culture is the dominant culture in most of the world (thank you colonialism), so it can’t be really be appropriated as such anyway – then why are all these people getting their knickers in an absolute knot about this film?
POC and Period Drama
Something that has come about as a result of cultural appropriation becoming a buzzword in the wider public lexicon is that some have started to use it to justify their view that ‘white people should only do white people things and black people should only do black people things’ – which to me sounds hideously close and incredibly loud to Nazi and fascist ideology. And this hideous theory haunts the very idea of any mass media including POC both on- and off-screen.
Something that is constantly brought up in conversations about POC and depictions of the past is that there weren’t many POC in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe, that they wouldn’t have been anything other than the great unwashed, that liberals are pandering at best and misrepresenting the past at worst. Only white people are allowed to be the heroes of historical fiction or stories written in the past. POC are only allowed to suffer and be degraded in these narratives, with history being cited as the reason why we can’t possibly have heroes in the past that are anything other than yet another white saviour.
And I would like to cry bullshit.
Whilst it may not have been the more egalitarian society that we have now (which, may I add, has vast leagues to still travel before we can get to a truly equal and just society), people of colour still had full lives in Victorian Britain – and some of them did very well for themselves. The fact that history is normally whitewashed to fit the comfortable narrative that white people like to see in their media should not be held against David Copperfield. People of colour have been a part of British society for centuries, due to royal patronage, trade, and religious and racial persecution from abroad – just because they didn’t make up the majority doesn’t mean that they were not there.
But all that aside, is David Copperfield actually trying to be as historically realistic as possible anyway? And I’d just like to say – most likely not. Like its younger sibling Bridgerton, this is not a film that is striving for historical accuracy. Instead, the themes of the book have been deemed more important, rather than to constrain itself to antiquated aspects of the characters of Dickens’ book.
And it just brings me back to Cowboy Slim’s review which says that they feel that their culture is under attack through this film. All because other, non-white people are allowed to play with the same toys as them. Whilst white people may no longer be the only voice in the room when it comes to culture and its media, white people still hold the only microphone – so it’s amazing that a film like this, which still has more white actors than actors of colour in the cast (including background and cameo characters), is seen as an attack on what it is to be a white person. It shouldn’t be, but many people have taken it to be.
These Pages Must Show
So, where do we go from here?
As much as I did enjoy ripping the terrible Rotten Tomatoes reviews, I do have to admit that their inherent bile against non-white representation in culture has filled me with such deep sadness. Because, whilst not perfect and while not everyone’s cup of tea, this is, to me, a really wonderful film. It’s a film that doesn’t shy away from highlighting Dickens’ humour, from his world that is so full of colour and character and unforgettable people, from a protagonist who is so curious and compassionate that the heart-breaking things the world throws at him does not break him. It only makes him kinder. It’s a film that reflects both Dickens’ fictional world and the real world we have now – it’s fresh because it has one foot in the fictional past and one in the real world of today.
It can’t be everyone’s cup of tea, because no film ever is – but it does not deserve white people throwing a temper tantrum because, for a flipping change, the hero is not white, the cast was chosen on their abilities, and the production team didn’t want to make yet another tried and dusty period drama. We’re better than that.
Art survives its creators when it tells a story that feels honest and human in the audience it is talking to – and that’s why, whilst his flaws and prejudices that shouldn’t be brushed away remain, Dickens continues to be a fertile ground for readers, artists and moviegoers alike. To only keep making the same media with the same kind of people for the same kind of audiences is, in my mind, a betrayal of the rich inheritance that literature can give us. Somehow we can whitewash stories with characters who were originally POC to little widespread anger, but the idea of letting POC have a place in media continues to be fought for - with issues such as Brexit and the COVID pandemic leading to an increase in racially motivated attacks and continued socio-political racism.
Iannuci was even questioned about what it was about Dickens that made him proud to be from Britain, and his answer, I think, is pretty on the nose:
“Well, actually, patriotism in Britain is difficult as well, because actually, it’s become slightly adopted by the right and the extreme right. If you’re waving the Union Jack flag, people think ... I sort of wanted to do the film because, especially after the Brexit vote, there was a danger that people saw Britain as being a very inward, insular, isolationist country. In fact, we’re not. We are a multi-ethnic, diverse, generous, outgoing, humorous, creative country. I kind of wanted to celebrate that. That’s the Britain I understand, and that’s the Britain I see around me. I think that can be forgotten under the sort of language and the political debate that’s been going on over the last three or four years. As a child of Italian immigrants, I grew up, rather like David, I grew up, and Dev and I had this conversation. You grew up thinking, are you fully British, or are you partly British? Are you inside, outside? Where do you belong? The answer is both. You’re fully part of the country, but at the same time, you have this other heritage as well that allows you to slightly step outside it and view it slightly more objectively at times.”
And it’s this objectivity that seems to be lost on a lot of the naysayers against this film. A film like David Copperfield is seen as political correctness gone mad, instead of a more interesting, inclusive film that is deserving of at least a chance.
And to those naysayers, I’d like to ask: Are you not tired of the same story? Or the same way of telling a story? Are you not yearning for new heroes and new ways of looking at things? Why would you shrink from the different, from the new? Because if we culturally stayed in the same place, we would stagnate. Culture would no longer be a breathing organism – it would be a crusty exhibit in a museum. A museum no one would visit and no one would have any interest in. Culture is so much more elastic and interesting than this – so why limit ourselves? These characters and these stories that we all have are more interesting by the way we all see them in our different ways. We shouldn’t gatekeep them to the point that they are merely icons of a bygone era and aren’t relevant because reimagining them is a type of sacrilege. Sharing Dickens with the world means that he will be read differently, seen differently, and interpreted differently. That is the mark of an author who created a world that is still interesting, still colourful, and still alive 150 years after the author died, who still inspires people to reimagine his world with parts of their world. Again, it’s fine to not like the film at all - but to dismiss it as a diversity stunt that is somehow ‘stealing’ culture away from white Westerners is missing the wood for the trees, and is such a bad faith criticism of a film that is trying something new for a wider, modern audience.
I’d like to end on another quote from Ianucci, which I think best sums up the intention behind the film, and how, even if you don’t like Dickens, you can still take some positives from this film existing in the first place:
“I hope [people take away] an appreciation of those who look out for them and look after them, really, whether it's family or friends or community. Beyond that, if it inspires people to read Dickens or to read about the time or to read about the history, then that's great, as well. Or if it just turns people to reading, that's great. But fundamentally it's there as an entertainment and as something for all generations and hopefully it leave them with a positive message about themselves, actually.”
And in the words of Charlie Boy himself: No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.
All content © 2021-2021 Laura Griffin
Bibliography
Charles Dickens: The Uses of Time, JE Marlow, Cranbury, NJ, London, Mississauga, Ont: Associated University Presses, 1994.
“The Personal History of David Copperfield (Lionsgate)” (Radio Times). Huw Fullerton, Monday, 27th January 2020.
“Armando Iannucci on the British Patriotism of The Personal History of David Copperfield”, Vanity Fair/Little Gold Men Podcast, https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/11/little-gold-men-armando-iannucci-david-copperfield.
“Armando Iannucci defends colour-blind casting of Dev Patel in David Copperfield film”, Ellie Harrison, The Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/armando-iannucci-dev-patel-personal-history-david-copperfield-colourblind-casting-a9264026.html.
‘What Is Cultural Appropriation?’, Arlin Cuncic, Very Well Mind, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cultural-appropriation-5070458.
