Download Oliver Twist - Eric S. Kildow

Charles Dickens'
Oliver Twist
Adapted by Neil Bartlett
Savannah College of Art and Design
Winter 2008 Production
Directed by Sharon Ott
Dramaturg's Protocol
Trustees' Theatre
Prepared By
Eric S. Kildow, Dramaturg
Rachel Jones, Assistant Dramaturg
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.) Foreword
II.) Historical, Cultural, and Social Background
Victorian Social Structure
Victorian Morality
The Workhouses
Indenture, Apprenticeship, and Transportation
British Monetary System circa 1835
Notes on Lyric Hammersmith circa 2004
III.) Biographical Information Regarding the Authors
Charles Dickens
Neil Bartlett
IV.) Critical and Production History of the Play
V.) Comprehensive Critical Analysis of the Play
Tone of the Piece
Textual Fidelity
Textual Variation
Dickens and Anti-Semitism
VI.) Glossary of Terms
VII.) Bibliography of Support and Supplemental Works
VIII.) Appendices
The Poor Law (abridged text)
Workhouse Rules
Anti-Workhouse Poster
Victorian Fashion Guides
Cruikshank Illustrations from Original Serial
1
2
2
3
5
7
8
8
9
9
10
13
15
15
16
16
17
19
20
21
23
25
26
28
Foreword
It is a fortunate author indeed who's name becomes an
adjective. Shakespearean, Chaucerian, Beckettian, and
Dickensian have all entered the nomenclature with their own
meanings and enshrining a particular style of writing. Scholars
as various as Ronan McDonald and Nancy Springer have quailed at
the very concept of engaging such literary titans. And this is
not without good reason. Not only have works by these authors
entered popular culture (May I have some more, sir?), but these
works are also densely layered with symbolism, meaning, and
beautiful words so that they are hard as laminate, damascine
steel.
And yet, Neil Bartlett and his “suprising” Lyric
Hammersmith theatre have done precisely that in this adaptation
of Dickens' Oliver Twist. This piece, with immortal characters
such as Fagin, Bumble, Sikes, and the Artful Dodger, has found a
new, fresh breath. Aside from the leanness and efficiency of
the narrative, there is also a strong, one might go so far to
say Brechtian, alliance with Dickens' own social commentary and
protest regarding the Victorian poor laws.
SCAD's own production must engage this text with energy,
enthusiasm, and the same fervent desire to engage with the
subject matter that illuminates Dickens' text. As Dickens felt
strongly about telling the world about the troubles of the
workhouse, so must we; as Dickens felt strongly about showing
the growth of purity and good in the rank poverty of Victorian
London, so must we. Sometimes, intellectual acuity and subtlety
are not enough, and a particularly tough work must be cracked by
simple sincerity and enthusiasm. That, above almost all else,
is what we should bring to this production. Enthusiasm for our
work, willingness to see it through, and enthusiasm to tell the
tale Dickens, and Bartlett, has given us.
--Eric S. Kildow
1
Historical, Social, and Cultural Background
Victorian Social Structure
Though the era is named for Queen
Victoria of England, it had begun before her
actual ascension to the throne. Indeed, the
poor laws Dickens so railed against were
passed by parliament a full three years
before she took the throne in 1837. She
presided over the peak of Britain's
industrial revolution and also was the
longest reigning monarch in British history.
When celebrations were planned to
commemorate that she had surpassed George
III as the longest reigning monarch, she
requested that celebrations be postponed for
one year, in order to cause them to
correspond with her diamond jubilee.
Victorian England was marked by strict social
stratification marked by three classes: the aristocracy/clergy,
the middle class, and the working class. One might even posit
the existence of a “pauper class,” which rested below the
workers and was the fodder for the workhouse system.
The top class was known as the aristocracy. It included
the Church and nobility and had great power and wealth. This
class consisted of about two percent of the population, who were
born into nobility and who owned the majority of the land. It
included the royal family, lords spiritual and temporal, the
clergy, great officers of state, and those above the degree of
baronet. These people were privileged and avoided taxes.
The middle class or bourgeoisie was made up of factory
owners, bankers, shopkeepers, merchants, lawyers, engineers,
businessmen, traders, and other professionals. These people
could be sometimes extremely rich, but in normal circumstances
they were not privileged, and they especially resented this.
There was a very large gap between the middle class and the
lower class.
The working class contained men, women, and children
performing many types of labour, including factory work,
seamstressing, chimney sweeping, mining, and other jobs.
However, one cannot consider the working class to simply be a
monolithic entity, for even within this class there was a wide
division between skilled and unskilled workers. Such divisions
stemmed from the older guild system, that governed and spoke for
skilled workers, and the fact that unskilled labor did not begin
unionizing until the 1890's. Both the working class and the
2
middle class had to endure a large burden of tax.
Finally, the poor class consisted of those who were not
working, or not working regularly. There people were the
occupants of the workhouses, a system of state-supported charity
to encourage work and “assist” the impoverished and unemployed.
These people paid no tax, and were thereby viewed, particularly
by the middle and working class, as being immoral.
Victorian Morality
The workhouse system that figures so prominently in
Oliver Twist is largely a product of the moral and social
structure of the era. While the social structure has been
covered above, one must also examine the fabric of Victorian
morality in order to gain a full understanding of the workhouse
system and Dickens' world overall.
Firstly, Victorian morality was nothing more nor less
than a reaction to what had come before. Some might depict
Victoria and her consort, Prince Albert, as ignorant of the
private habits of their subjects, particularly in the realm of
their sex lives. However, their attitudes were simply the
product of history. Roughly two-hundred years before Victoria's
reign, the Puritans, under the command of Oliver Cromwell, had
unseated the monarchy and declared England to be a Republic. In
their newly dominant role, the Puritans then moved to put in
place a strict moral code. This code even went so far as to
abolish Christmas celebrations on the grounds that they were too
indulgent of sensual pleasures.
Following the interregnum, there followed a period of
fairly loose morality, particularly influenced by Charles II
exile in France. This time did see, among other things, a
resurrection of Anglophonic theatre and the appearance of women
onstage, but it also was marked by a high level of promiscuity
(the King himself fathered children by no fewer than 7 different
women and is thought to have had at least 6 other mistresses
including prominent actresses) that sprung up in response to the
repression.
It is this conflict between Puritan prudery and
Restoration libertinism that lodged in the English psyche and
brought about the creation of what we understand to be Victorian
morality. Though often hypocritically applied, it was a
reaction to earlier libertinism. Particularly of concern to the
aristocracy was the perception of “Frenchness.” Knowing of the
excesses of the French court at the time of the French
Revolution, a certain amount of repression was an attempt to
keep a moral image for the other classes. It was this strange
prudery that made it improper to say “leg” in company, but
3
instead “limb.” It also is the
system that gave birth to the
bathing machine (pictured right),
a contraption designed for the
privacy of ladies that desired to
go swimming, it was a hut that
could be lowered into the water on
a track so that women would not be
seen walking
about on the
beach in their
swimsuits,
despite the fact that most beaches were
segregated by gender. Some even went so far as
to specifically recommend lengths of women's
skirts by age, as shown by the illustration from
Harper's Bazaar shown at left.
Aside from lopsided oppression of sexual
mores, Victorian morality took from its Puritan
forebears a strong respect for hard work,
initiative, and industy. Indeed, much of the
Puritan denomination was located in the growing
middle-class of industrial owners, managers, and
traders. They bore not only a grudge towards
the aristocracy, for the latter paid no taxes
and enjoyed certain privileges, but also towards
the poorest, as they were supported by state
charity that was funded by the heavy taxes paid by the middle
class.
Though there had existed a system of poor relief dating
back, in some cases, centuries, these systems were known as
“outdoor relief,” where parishes would provide cash payouts on
an ad hoc basis in times of need. However, with the development
of the principle of laissez faire (French for “let do,”
promoting concepts such as absolute free-enterprise) poverty
began to be viewed as a result of fecklessnes, drunkeness, and
immorality. As such, liberal welfare programs (such as outdoor
relief) was seen as simply contributing to vice. As such, with
the poor law amendment of 1834, a new system was established
with an eye towards the eradication of vice and poverty.
Excerpts from this law may be found in the appendices.
4
The Workhouses
Workhouse conditions were
deliberately harsh to deter the
able-bodied idle poor from relying
on them. Men and women were
segregated and children were
separated from their parents. Aged
pauper couples who by definition
were neither idle nor criminal were
not allowed to share a bedroom. By
entering a workhouse paupers were
held to have forfeited
responsibility for their children. Education was provided but
pauper children were often forcibly apprenticed without the
permission or knowledge of their parents. Inmates surrendered
their own clothes and wore a distinctive uniform.
As the belief of the time was that poverty was
sympomatic of vice, authorities
sought specifically to keep
conditions unfavourable. Families
were separated. Husbands from
wives, in order to keep them from
breeding more paupers. Mothers
from children, to keep them from
passing on their evil ways.
Brothers from sisters, in order to
suppress what the Victorians
believed was the poor's “natural
tendency towards incest.”
Mealtime, the locus of one of Oliver Twist's most famous
scenes (May I have some more, sir?), was another source of
humiliation and degradation.
Until 1842, all meals were eaten
in silence and some workhouses did
not allow cutlery to complete the
humiliation. Breakfast in a
workhouse usually consisted of 7oz
of bread and 1½ pints of gruel.
Lunch was not much better and
often consisted of a maximum of 1½
pints of poor quality vegetable
soup. For dinner a workhouse
member would expect 6oz (170g) of
bread and 2oz (60g) of cheese. Due to this poor diet the members
of a workhouse often suffered from malnutrition.
In the 1850s the then vicar of Stoughton and Racton in
5
West Sussex wrote to the Guardians of the Westbourne Workhouse
requesting that (as a matter of Christian charity) second
helpings of gruel were provided on Christmas Day. He was
informed in no uncertain terms that if the rations were raised
above the minimum required to keep body and soul together the
result would be laziness, fecklessness, and hordes of otherwise
able bodied people clamouring to get in.
Below, I have included extracts from firsthand reports
of workhouses in order to give an even clearer picture of the
nature of these places:
“The first time I went into the place I was horrified to see
little girls seven and eight years on their knees scrubbing the
cold stones of the long corridors. These little girls were clad,
summer and winter, in thin cotton frocks, low in the neck and
short sleeved. At night they wore nothing at all, night dresses
being considered too good for paupers. The fact that bronchitis
was epidemic among them most of the time had not suggested to the
guardians any change in the fashion of their clothes.”
--Emmeline Pankhurst, Poor Law Guardian
“The State keeps 22,483 children in workhouses. Here is a
description of a Government nursery: "Often found under the
charge of a person actually certified as of unsound mind, the
bottles sour, the babies wet, cold and dirty. The Commission on
the Care and Control of the Feebleminded draws attention to an
episode in connection with one feeble-minded woman who was set to
wash a baby; she did so in boiling water, and it died."
--Elizabeth Robins, Author and Suffraget
6
Indenture, Apprenticeship, and Transportation
There should be a word said about three terms that are
used in this piece, and those are the three closely related
terms of indenture, apprenticeship, and transportation.
Apprenticeship was the system where a craftsman or
tradesman of some sort, usually in a skilled craft, would retain
the services of a young man or boy in order to teach him the
skill and take advantage of the unpaid labour of the apprentice.
Such labour usually consisted of simple piecework, sweeping,
maintenance, and general cleaning. Though the apprentice was
not paid, it was the responsibility of the master to oversee his
instruction in the craft and entry unto the trade guild if such
an organization existed.
An indentured servant or apprentice took another step
and bound the apprentice or servant to the master for a
specified time. During that time, the master was also
responsible for feeding, housing, and generally taking care of
the apprentice. In return, the apprentice could not leave
without release from the master, and in some cases would not be
allowed basic citizenship rights. In many cases, particularly
in those indentures that were brought to the colonies, the
treatment of indentured servants was actually worse than that of
coloured slaves (in the Caribbean and American South). The
simple fact behind this was simple economics. Where an
indentured was paid for and then at the master's disposal for a
term of years, that time would eventually come to an end and the
servant would be gone. However, coloured slaves were owned
property, and thus were a capital investment that needed to be
treated acceptably in order to remain efficient over the long
term. Essentially, one was a long-term investment and the other
a short-term.
Finally, there is the concept of transportation.
Transportation of the shipping of British convicts to outlying
penal colonies in order to remove their influence from the crown
heartlands. It is interesting to note that, before American
independence, the Georgia colony was founded by emptying the
debtors prisons of London. In the case of transported youths,
such as the Artful Dodger, these were often then sold as
indentured servants. Though, on the surface, such a penalty
might seem to be less severe than death, prisoners often
committed suicide or begged to be hung after being sentenced to
transportation. During Dickens' time, the primary destinations
were the penal colonies in Australia and the Caribbean. That
these people would then face crushing work in intense heat, poor
living conditions, and a period of servitude that many simply
did not survive puts a slightly different tint to the
7
transportation situation. According to commentator Jim Goad, in
his Redneck Manifesto, the prisoners were treated even worse
than indentured servants, and as such many saw transportation as
a sentence to a slow death in hell.
British Monetary System circa 1835
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
4
2
1
Farthings
Halfpenny
Pennies
Thrupence
Sixpence
Schillings
Florin & 1 Sixpence
Half Crowns
Ten Bob Notes
Pound & 1 Schilling
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1
1
1
1
1
1
½
1
1
1
Halfpenny
Penny
Thrupence
Sixpence
Schilling (or Bob)
Florin
Crown
Ten Bob Note
Pound
Guinea
It should be noted that the British resisted the full
decimalization of their currency until 1971 because they felt it
was simply too complex.
Notes on the Lyric Hammersmith circa 2004
When Neil Bartlett joined the Lyric Hammersmith in 1994,
the theatre was a small and struggling entity that was
continually outclassed by larger and more financially soluble
theatres in downtown London. Mr. Bartlett, who's work at this
time had consisted of experimental and minority expression
pieces was a controvesial, but eventually wise, choice.
As of 2004, after 10 years of Bartlett's artistic
guidance, the Lyric was a thriving theatre offering quality
shows are low prices for their community. Bartlett led them
away from direct competition with West End theatres and instead
into adapted and “experimental” works, with an eye always
towards audience accessibility.
As such, with its nontraditional interpretation and
staging, one can consider Oliver Twist to be a work very much
within the Lyric aesthetic.
8
AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHY
Charles Dickens
Charles Dickens was born
February 7, 1812 in Portsea, England.
Though born into the middle class, his
family had a certain fondness for living
beyond their means, and soon became
destitute. When Dickens was twelve years
old, his family's dire straits forced him
to quit school and work in a blacking
factory, a place where shoe polish is
made. Within weeks, his father was put in
debtor's prison, where Dickens's mother
and siblings eventually joined him. At
this point, Dickens lived on his own and
continued to work at the factory for
several months. The horrific conditions in the factory haunted
him for the rest of his life, as did the experience of temporary
orphanhood. Apparently, Dickens never forgot the day when a more
senior boy in the warehouse took it upon himself to instruct
Dickens in how to do his work more efficiently. For Dickens,
that instruction may have represented the first step toward his
full integration into the misery and tedium of working-class
life. The more senior boy's name was Bob Fagin. Dickens's
residual resentment of him reached a fevered pitch in the
characterization of the villain Fagin in Oliver Twist. After
inheriting some money, Dickens's father got out of prison and
Charles returned to school. As a young adult, he worked as a law
clerk and later as a journalist. His experience as a journalist
kept him in close contact with the darker social conditions of
the Industrial Revolution, and he grew disillusioned with the
attempts of lawmakers to alleviate those conditions. A
collection of semi-fictional sketches entitled Sketches by Boz
earned him recognition as a writer. Dickens became famous and
began to make money from his writing when he published his first
novel, The Pickwick Papers, which was serialized in 1836 and
published in book form the following year. In 1837, the first
installment of Oliver Twist appeared in the magazine Bentley's
Miscellany, which Dickens was then editing. (From Sparknotes for
Oliver Twist).
After establishing himself as an author with The
Pickwick Papers in his mid-twenties, Dickens enjoyed an
unprecedented level of fame, much akin to movie stars in America
today. He was greeted at speaking engagements by almost
hysterical audiences of staggering size. It would indeed be
9
fair to refer to him as the Elvis of authors. Estimates of his
readership extend as high as 10% of the Victorian Society. This
was unprecedented for the simple fact that almost 50% of the
population simply couldn't read. Further, one should keep in
mind the nature of Dickens' writing. As his works were
originally publishes as serials, in newspapers and magazines,
the entire readership was reading him at the same time. Thus,
this one author had the power and popularity to plunge an entire
nation into grief when little Nell, of The Old Curiosity Shop,
died.
Yet success did not keep him from hard work. He
maintained a grueling writing schedule in order to sustain his
wife and ten children. However, he also played hard, engaging
enthusiastically in amateur theatre, horseback riding, dinner
parties, prison visiting, and various other social causes.
However, he scandalized the nation when, in middle age, he left
his wife in order to pursue a beautiful young actress who
remembered only with disdain. In order to recoup some of his
image, he embarked on a national speaking and reading tour. At
fifty-eight, he suffered a stroke and died. His health problems
stemmed from his touring.
Neil Bartlett
Neil Bartlett was born in 1958 . He
grew up Chichester, West Sussex, and now lives
in Brighton with his partner James Gardiner.
In 1982 he set up his first company,
the theatrical collective THE 1982 THEATRE
COMPANY, whose other members included Annabel
Arden, Annie Griffin and Banuta Rubess. The
company’s early projects included stagings of
Brecht’s Im Dickicht der Stadte and Aspazija’s
feminist Latvian melodrama Sidraba Skidrauts.
Other early work included street performances
with Simon McBurney as part of THE BEECHBUOYS,
a clown act influenced by the teaching of
Phillipe Gaulier. They appeared together at
the first London International Festival of Theatre in 1981, and
also (memorably) as support act to the Goth band Bauhaus at the
Hammersmith Palais. In 1983, Bartlett worked as an administrator
for gay community theatre company Consenting Adults in Public,
helping to stage and tour Louise Parker Kelley’s Anti Body, the
first play produced in Britain to address the AIDS crisis . He
also created his first original theatre project, Dressing Up, a
triptych depicting three centuries of London’s gay subculture,
at London’s Cockpit – his first collaboration with visual artist
10
Robin Whitmore. Other early works were staged at the ICA, the
Drill Hall and Battersea Arts Centre, as well as touring to arts
centres (and the occasional nightclub) across the country. In
1985 he worked as a director for Theatre de Complicite, helping
to create More Bigger Snacks Now, the show that won the company
the Perrier Award and first brought them to national attention.
In 1988, he published his first book, Who Was That Man? a
groundbreaking study of Oscar Wilde, and set up the collective
company GLORIA , together with long-term colleagues producer
Simon Mellor – who was later to run the Lyric Hammersmith with
him - composer Nicolas Bloomfield and choreographer Leah
Hausman. The company created and toured fourteen projects over
ten years , ranging in scale from the first intimate version of
Night after Night, a solo show staged upstairs at the Royal
Court to an audience of fifty a night, to Seven Sacraments at
Southwark Cathedral ( Gloria’s final show, in 1998, co-produced
with Artangel ) a performance-oratorio featuring a choir, a
children’s chorus , a company of dancers and a full orchestra
alongside Bartlett himself. The shows ranged in form from
revivals of classical plays with incidental music (Twelfth Night
at the Goodman, Chicago; Marivaux’s The Game of Love and Chance
at the National Theatre, London ) to original devised
performance (A Vision of Love Revealed in Sleep). Throughout the
work, there was a deliberate challenge to accepted divisions of
genre between high and low, between “radical” and “traditional”
theatrical practice . The pieces were often shown in the
unlikeliest of venues; Sarrasine, a cross between performance
art and chamber opera, toured to the Edwardian splendour’s of
the 1500-seat Blackpool Grand; the second version of Night After
Night took musical comedy, complete with tap-dancing chorus boys
and a technicolour dream ballet, to the main stage of the Royal
Court ; the queer autobiographical monologues of Seven
Sacraments were performed first in a lecture theatre in the
London Hospital, then in front of the high altar of Southwark
Cathedral. The pieces also often featured unlikely and
innovative casting, providing surprising new contexts for
established mainstream performers such as Sheila Hancock and
Maggie Steed as well as outsider artists and artistes such as
Francois Testory, Bette Bourne and Regina Fong.
Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s Bartlett was also busy
as an activist, speaking at the Sex and the City conference in
Toronto in 1986, working behind the scenes on London’s first
International AIDS Day ( 1987), working on the campaign against
Clause 28, and appearing at benefits and rallies everywhere from
the Piccadilly Theatre to the Zap Club (Brighton) to Trafalgar
Square and Hyde Park and the Albert Hall. He also created a
series of short polemic television and video pieces(That’s How
11
Strong My Love Is, That’s What Friends Are For, Now That It’s
Morning, Pedagogue), worked as an Artist In Residence at
Newcastle Polytechnic and published two acclaimed novels, the
first of which, Ready To Catch Him Should He Fall was Capital
Gay’s Book of the year for 1990 and the second of which, Mr.
Clive and Mr. Page, was nominated for the Whitbread prize in
1996.
In 1994 he was controversially appointed Artistic
Director of the Lyric Hammersmith, with Simon Mellor as Chief
Executive. Over a ten year period, they transformed the
previously run-down venue into one of the most respected
theatres in London, combining an eclectic and consistently
challenging programme, a radical pricing policy and the work of
a pioneering education department to slowly build a genuinely
diverse audience. The range of his directing work at
Hammersmith, which included popular Christmas shows and musictheatre as well as radically reconceived revivals and
collaborations with other leading theatre makers of his
generation such as Robert Lepage and Improbable Theatre , again
deliberately confounded the categories of the experimental and
the mainstream. In addition, he invited leading “new theatre”
companies such as Kneehigh, Frantic Assembly, Shared Experience
and Tamasha to share the main stage with his own work. In
recognition of this work at the Lyric, he was awarded the O.B.E.
in 2000. The transformation of the building was completed by a
major rebuild of the front of house areas by architect Rick
Mather in 2004.
Bartlett left the Lyric in November 2004, bringing the
curtain down with a suitably theatrical staging of Moliere’s Don
Juan, the poster for which succinctly invited its audience to
“Go To Hell”. Since then he has finished his third novel, and
resumed his career as an independent theatre-maker and freelance
director. (From http://www.neil-bartlett.com/biography.php)
12
CRITICAL AND PERFORMANCE HISTORY
Recent productions of the Bartlett/Dickens Oliver Twist
have received mixed reviews at best. At the heart of this
stands the play's unusual (for the average audience member)
style and unfamiliar tone (for those who are more familiar with
Oliver!). It appears, when walking in to a piece regarding on
of the most famous orphans in Western literature, that people
are looking to have something to tug in their heart strings.
The fact that this piece does not do that has led to a steady
stream of mixed reviews.
The first American production, and only one of
significance, appears to be the 2007 production of the American
Repertory Theatre under the direction of Bartlett himself.
Further, this piece appears to be largely unproduced in the
United Kingdom, aside from the original Lyric Hammersmith
production in 2004.
Louise Kennedy, of the Boston Globe, generally applauds
the 2007 American Repertory Theatre production under Bartlett's
direction. She approves of the highly changeable set and
multiplicity of acting performances due to their emblematic
effect at conjuring Dickens' world of, “vivid eccentrics,
saints, and villains” (Kennedy). However, she also put forwards
that the emotional distance created by the play's self-aware
approach is sometimes too much, but that the greater insight
afforded into Dickens is worth it.
Ginia Bellafante, of the New York Times, while echoing
applause for the versatile performers, also echoes Ms. Kennedy's
misgivings. “Mr. Bartlett has at once worked very hard and not
hard enough. He has labored to avoid Oliver Twist's melodrama
and he has lost its poignancy and soul” (Bellafante). So here,
once again, there is a criticism of Bartlett's use of distancing
techniques. However, she carries this further to claim that
avoiding sentiment, but not playing up potential social
significance, is “like offering La Boheme without the
tuberculosis” (Bellafante).
Eric Grode, of the New York Sun, finds that there is
more than enough sentimentality in the ART production. However,
there is a certain amount to suspect in this review, as he cites
the scores as being written by Theatre du Complicite director
Simon McBurney (the scores actually belong to Gerard McBurney,
his brother). A lack of such fact-checking does leave on
wondering slightly. Regardless, Mr. Grode is far more
enthusiastic regarding the presentational staging of the piece,
particularly in regard to the villains. Further, he fully
acknowledges the Brechtian and Epic aspects of the play, which
13
he accepts without reservation.
Alexsis Soloski, of the Village Voice, primarily laments
the performance of Oliver himself. Beginning with the fact that
“principles of good,” such as Oliver, translate poorly to the
stage in the first place. They cannot menace as Sikes nor
prance and simper like Fagin and are therefor inherently less
interesting when surrounded by grotesques. But further, she
find fault with Oliver and his portrayal. “Wartella makes a
valiant effort, but ultimately becomes a sort of absence in the
show's midst, orphaning poor Oliver once again” (Soloski). Such
sentiments regarding Oliver specifically are echoed by Grode (NY
Sun) and Eugene Lovendusky (of broadwayworld.com). Indeed, in
the latter case, he is compared to a football. Caroline Clay,
of The Phoenix, goes so far as to hand the show to Fagin, as
opposed to Oliver.
Finally, Charles Spencer of the Daily Telegraph,
unabashedly praises the British production for having moved away
from the sanitized Lionel Bart musical to a truly dark, gaudy
Dickens. He finds the show to be fully satisfying in the ways
of a terrifying and fascinating dream.
It seems that the only unreserved praise of the piece
comes from the United Kingdom. Given the fact that both
American and British productions share both script and artistic
team, the variable might simply be one of differing tastes. In
such a case, it might be wisest to err on the side of caution
and pay more attention to American criticism. These criticisms
are rooted in a difficulty of grasping Epic techniques, and that
such techniques, foreign as they are to many the American
Theatrical diet, might need to be couched in other terms.
Further, given the weakness of Oliver both dramatically and
literarily, the prime challenge might be to restore a certain
“awww..” factor to Oliver and render him slightly more active
and less of a football.
14
Critical Analysis
In a work such as Oliver Twist, particularly a
singularly unique adaptation as Bartlett's, is difficult to
comprehensively and critically address in a coherent manner. As
such, we shall address this piece topically for greater clarity
and detail.
Tone of the Piece
Critics and practitioners alike have noted a distinct
Brechtian tendency to this work, even down to the recommended
music. The music, as developed by the Lyric, was largely that
of a Music hall, and was ground out on a hurdy-gurdy, serpent,
and fiddle. The music of most Brechtian pieces, particularl
those done in collaboration with Kurt Weil, was also of this
sort, and bound to achieve the same effect in either case.
Further similarities to Brecht comes both from Dickens'
phrasing and personal concern for social issues such as poverty.
Chapter titles, given the original serialization of the piece,
strongly resembles the placard announcements of Brecht's plays.
As such, we should consider a certain Brechtian approach to the
piece, through the use of self-conscious performance and gestus.
Indeed, Bartlett's Oliver Twist is very conscious of its
own performative basis. Critics often commented on a sudden
change in accent and lighting on Fagin during one of his final
monologues, in order to comment upon the conception of the Jew.
As such, Scad's production should keep the fact that it is a
theatrical performance in mind and not attempt to hide the fact
from their audience. Aristotelean mimesis is not the word of
the day here.
Also, on the subject of Brechtian Gestus, this is an
indicative technique that I highly recommend that the creative
staff consider employing. The gestus is, by definition, an
emblematic movement, or gesture, made by the actor in order to
indicate a particular opinion regarding the nature of their
characters. As such, Justice Fang might continually gesture and
brandish his gavel as if it were a weapon of violence. Indeed,
some Gestus are actually written into Dickens' text, such as Mr.
Grimwig's rapping of his cane upon the floor as an equivalency
to his oft repeated “I'll eat my head.”
Dickens felt strongly about the society in which he
lived, and his close linkage with Brecht helps to reflect this.
However, this piece is also somewhat divorced from contemporary
society as the social commentary of the piece is so specifically
aimed the the workhouse system and Victorian era poor laws.
Indeed, commentators has written, and I agree, that a way needs
15
to be found to link the Dickens/Bartlett social commentary to
today in order to give it more resonance. Instead, as the tale
as it has been staged is rather divorced from current society,
the social commentary falls flat and we're left with
entertaining but unfulfilling grotesques.
Textual Fidelity
Bartlett takes pains to point out that almost every word
(with necessary adaptations) that appears on the page belongs to
Dickens. However, even in the hands of the most careful
adapters, adaptation is an act of respectful murder. In order
to dramatize a novel, one must make essential changes to plot
and structure, otherwise it simply remains a novel. As such,
even if novel text is used, there is still a significant
difference between the two works.
Mr. Bartlett has used little but Dickens' language.
However, much of the used language comes from the dialog of the
novel, which depicts far less of the millieu than the omniscient
commentary of Dickens' narrative. While much of the condition
can be depicted through design, there is also a particular
attitude that needs to be displayed if one is to retain true
textual fidelity. Mere words are not enough to remain faithful
to the text, but instead the entirety of the milieu must be
captured.
Whether the script is sufficient to do this is not
clear, and the productions directed by Bartlett seem to indicate
that they were not. Indeed, multiple critics found that while
Bartlett had avoided Dickens' melodrama, but also lost the
poignancy and soul of the literary piece. If there is a way to
create empathy or identification with Oliver himself, then
perhaps it would be possible to recapture the soul of the piece.
Textual Variation
In order to capture much of the dominant mood of
Dickens' piece, Bartlett has removed or adjusted a great deal in
order to render the script dramatically viable. Certain key
characters and situations to the Dickens original have been cut,
such as the majority of the Maylie family (Rose is now a
Brownlow), Monks, and the time in the country which Oliver
spends after the house-breaking.
Firstly, and most significantly, the character of Monks
has been eliminated from the text altogether. In Dickens'
novel, Monks was Oliver's half-brother who sought to discredit
him in order to keep him from the inheritance that was left to
him by their father. It is due to this that Fagin is so intent
16
upon keeping Oliver, as opposed to simply killing him before he
blabs or letting him stay with the Brownlows (or Maylies) in
peace. With the removal of this particular character, Fagin's
motivation for holding on to Oliver is removed. Though the boy
might be useful, he cannot possibly be so useful as to warrant
continually chasing him with the intent of leading him back into
a life of crime. Further, the elimination of Monks places his
fate onto the Dodger's shoulders. This works towards casting
the Dodger in a slightly different light. As opposed to giving
as good as he got and being transported, the Dodger is instead
doomed to languish in prison and die.
Further, the Maylie family (along with the secondary
plotline of the romance of Harry and Rose Maylie) and their
pastoral surroundings have been completely excised. Of course,
this was also done in the Roman Polanski film, and the house to
be burgled was the Brownlows. However, this is largely an
effort to steer attention back onto the best known images of the
piece, namely the poverty and slums of London. While this is
effective in showing the poverty as unending, it does little to
give it context. Unless the audience has read the novel, none
will have an idea of precisely the comfort and pastoral paradise
that Oliver stands to lose. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult
to see how Oliver would have a basis for comparison in order to
value one of his states over another.
The fact that Mr. Bartlett used Mr. Dickens' text for
the great majority (a bit of jogging here and there to make
things fit) of the piece is mentioned often in the critical
materials. However, it should be kept in mind that this is Neil
Bartlett's Oliver Twist. He uses the same words in much the
same way that all English speakers use the same letters.
Further, although the story is (in essentials) the same, the
texture of this piece is far more hard edged and less goodhumouredly snarky than the Dickens original.
Dickens and Anti-Semitism
The portrayal of the Jewish Fagin, has often led to
claims of anti-semitism to be leveled against Dickens. However,
it should be noted that while Fagin is shown as villainous and
unrepentantly vicious other Jewish characters in the Dickens
canon are the epitome of saintliness. Essentially, both are
inaccurate depictions of these people. Of course, it should be
kept in mind that these Dickens characters aren't fleshed
people, but instead colourful sketches.
Given American racial and ethnic history, it is often of
standard mindset to cast such differences in terms of either the
African-American/Jim Crow policies or Nazi Racial superiority
17
concepts. However, it should be noted that the former is
uniquely American in its scope, and the other is predated by
nearly a century. Instead, it should be conceived of in terms
of the Orientalism of Edward Said and the “othering” concepts of
Neocolonial theory. Fagin, as a Jew, is a completely different
sort of creature than the upright Anglicans populating England
at this time. As such, he is very much the epitome of inhuman
evil... precisely because he is not human. Instead, as
something else, he has stepped out of a child's nightmare to
terrorize all. Indeed, he is at times called “the old one,”
which is a common English name for the devil.
The use of Yiddish and other such “traditional”
indications for Fagin's “jewishness” is further questionable due
to geographic differences between Yiddish and the London Jewish
community. Firstly, Jews had been a part of London society
since the Roman invasion, and the first solid record dates from
1128, when there is a mention of a Jewish quarter. In 1283, the
entire Jewish population was expelled from England. This
condition would remain for 350 years, until Oliver Cromwell
allowed their readmittance due to a viewed necessity of Jewish
financiers to the British economy. This group was primarily
Sephardics of Spanish and Portuguese extraction, where the
population had fled upon their expulsion to enjoy relative
freedom under the Muslim administration of Moorish Spain.
Yiddish, being largely a Germanic/Hebraic hybrid, is
geographically removed from Fagin's probable ethnic extraction.
Indeed, Yiddish was largely developed in Central Europe with the
establishment of the Ashkenazic community, contemporaneously
with the expulsion of English Jews.
Further, it should be kept in mind that Fagin's
Jewishness is not simply a religious issue. Benjamin Disraeli,
one of Victoria's Prime Ministers, was born to Jewish parents
yet was an observant, and baptized, Anglican. However, he
thought of himself as ethnically Jewish, despite being a member
of the Anglican Christian Communion. And yet, he did not view
these two positions as incompatible, and indications are that
such attitudes were consistent with his time.
18
Glossary of Terms
Beadle- a minor officer in a religious parish with subordinate
duties, such as keeping order during worship.
Chunter- to grumble and grouse in a mild or ineffectual way.
Foundling- an infant or small child found abandoned, without a
known parent or guardian.
Gruel- a thin porridge made of a cereal boiled in water.
Guinea- a relatively large unit of British coinage.
Lagged- to be sentenced to transportation.
Lifer- one serving a life sentence.
Parochial- of, or pertaining to, a parish or parishes. Also
used to mean narrow or uninformed.
Peach- to inform on one's cohorts.
Pins- a leg. Usually used plurally.
Quid- unit of money. (Similar to American use of “bucks” for
dollars).
Snitched- to be caught by the police.
Thingummy- a British term for something which one cannot recall
the name of (similar to American “Whatsisname”).
Togs- clothing, particularly nice clothing, but applicable to
any set of garments.
Transported- the shipping of prisoners from England into penal
colonies throughout the British Empire.
19
Bibliography of Supporting and Supplemental Works
J Bayley, “Oliver Twist: 'Things as They Really Are.'” Dickens and the Twentieth
Century. London: Routledge (1962).
M A Crowther, The Workhouse System 1834-1929 (1981);
P Collins. Dickens and Crime. London: Macmillan (1968)
A Digby, Pauper Palaces (1978);
R J Dunn. Oliver Twist: Whole Heart and Soul. New York: Twayne Publishers (1993).
N Longmate, The Workhouse (n.d);
J Gibson, C Rogers, Cliff Webb, Poor Law Union Records Vol.1 - South East England
and East Anglia (FFHS, 2 ed.,1997)
J Gibson, Colin Rogers, Poor Law Union Records Vol.2 - The Midlands and Northern
England(FFHS, 1993)
J Gibson, Colin Rogers, Poor Law Union Records Vol. 3 - South-West England, The
Marshes and Wales (FFHS, 1993)
J Gibson, F.A. Youngs Jr.Poor Law Union Records Vol.4 - Gazetter and England and
Wales (FFHS, 1993)
J H Miller. Charles Dickens: The World of his Novels. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press (1986).
B Raina. Dickens and the Dialectic of Growth. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press (1986)
M Slater. Dickens and Women. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (1983)
C Swisher. Readings on Charles Dickens. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press (1998)
http://www.workhouses.org.uk
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/poorlaw/attacks.htm
http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot08/snapshot08.htm
http://www.vauxhallsociety.org.uk/LambethWork.html
http://humwww.ucsc.edu:16080/dickens/
20
Appendix 1- Poor Law (abridged text)
An Act for the Amendment and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and
Wales. [4 & 5 Will. IV cap. 76]
It shall be lawful for His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, to appoint
Three fit Persons to be Commissioners to carry this Act into execution.…
II.
… the said Commissioners shall be styled 'The Poor Law Commissioners for England and
Wales'; and the said Commissioners, or any Two of them, may sit, from Time to Time as they
deem expedient, as a Board of Commissioners for carrying this Act into execution.…
V.
… the said Commissioners shall once in every Year, submit to One of the Principal
Secretaries of State a general Report of their Proceedings; and every such general Report shall
be laid before both Houses of Parliament.…
XV.
… from and after the passing of this Act the Administration of Relief to the Poor throughout
England and Wales, according to the existing Laws, or such Laws as shall be in force at the
Time being, shall be subject to the Direction and Control of the said Commissioners; and for
executing the Powers given to them by this Act the said Commissioners shall and are hereby
authorized and required, from Time to Time as they shall see Occasion, to make and issue all
such Rules, Orders, and Regulations for the Management of the Poor, for the Government of
Workhouses and the Education of the Children therein, and for the Management of Parish
Poor Children.…
XVI.
… no General Rule of the said Commissioners shall operate or take effect until the Expiration
of Forty Days after the same, or a Copy thereof, shall have been sent, signed and sealed by the
said Commissioners, to One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State; and if... His
Majesty, with the Advice of His Privy Council, shall disallow the same or any Part thereof,
such General Rule, or the Part thereof so disallowed, shall not come into operation.…
XXIII.
… it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners… by and with the Consent in Writing of a
Majority of the Guardians of any Union, or with the Consent of a Majority of the Rate-payers
and Owners of Property… to order and direct the Overseers or Guardians of any Parish or
Union not having a Workhouse or Workhouses to build a Workhouse or Workhouses…
XXVI.
… it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, by Order under their Hands and seal, to
declare so many Parishes as they may think fit to be united for the Administration of the Laws
for the Relief of the Poor, and such Parishes shall thereupon be deemed a Union for such
Purpose, and thereupon the Workhouse or Workhouses of such Parishes shall be for their
common Use.…
XXXVIII.
…where any Parishes shall be united by Order or with the Concurrence of the said
Commissioners… a Board of Guardians of the Poor for such Union shall be constituted and
chosen, and the Workhouse or Workhouses of such Union shall be governed, and the Relief of
the Poor in such Union shall be administered, by such Board of Guardians; and the said
Guardians shall be elected by the Rate-payers, and by such Owners of Property in the Parishes
forming such Union as shall in manner herein-after mentioned require to have their Names
entered as entitled to vote as Owners in the Books of such Parishes respectively; and the said
Commissioners shall determine the Number and prescribe the Duties of the Guardians to be
elected in each Union, and also fix a Qualification without which no Person shall be eligible
as such Guardian.…
21
XXXIX.
… if the said Commissioners shall, by any Order under their Hands and Seal, direct that
the Administration of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor of any single Parish should be
governed and administered by a Board of Guardians, then such Board shall be elected and
constituted, and authorized and entitled to act, for such single Parish, in like Manner.…
XLII.
… the said Commissioners may and are hereby authorized, by Writing under their Hands and
seal, to make Rules, Orders, and Regulations, to be observed and enforced at every
Workhouse already established.…
XLVI.
… it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners… to direct the Overseers or Guardians of
any Parish or Union… to appoint such paid Officers with such Qualifications as the said
Commissioners shall think necessary for superintending or assisting in the Administration of
the Relief and Employment of the Poor.…
XLVIII.
…the said Commissioners may… as and when they shall think proper, by Order under
their Hands and Seal, either upon or without any Suggestion or Complaint in that Behalf from
the Overseers or Guardians of any Parish or Union, … remove any Master of any Workhouse,
or Assistant Overseer, or other paid Officer of any Parish or Union whom they shall deem
unfit… or incompetent.…
LII.
And whereas a Practice has obtained of giving Relief to Persons or their Families who, at the
Time of applying for or receiving such Relief, were wholly or partially in the Employment of
Individuals, and the Relief of the able-bodied and their Families is in many Places
administered in Modes productive of Evil in other respects: And whereas Difficulty may arise
in case any immediate and universal Remedy is attempted to be applied in the Matters
aforesaid; be it further enacted, That from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful
for the said Commissioners, by such Rules, Orders, or Regulations as they may think fit, to
declare to what Extent and for what Period the Relief to be given to able-bodied Persons or to
their Families in any particular Parish or Union may be administered out of the Workhouse of
such Parish or Union, by Payments in Money, or with Food or Clothing in Kind, or partly in
Kind and partly in Money, and in what Proportions, to what Persons or Class of Persons, at
what Times and Places, on what Conditions, and in what Manner such Outdoor Relief may be
afforded....
XCVIII.
… in case any Person shall wilfully neglect or disobey any of the Rules, Orders, or
Regulations of the said Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners, or be guilty of any
Contempt of the said Commissioners sitting as a Board, such Person shall, upon Conviction
before any Two justices, forfeit and pay for the First Offence any Sum not exceeding Five
Pounds, for the Second Offence any Sum not exceeding Twenty Pounds nor less than Five
Pounds, and in the event of such Person being convicted a Third Time, such Third and every
subsequent Offence shall be deemed a Misdemeanour, and such Offender shall be liable to be
indicted for the same Offence, and shall on Conviction pay such Fine, not being less than
Twenty Pounds, and suffer such Imprisonment, with or without hard Labour, as may be
awarded against him by the Court by or before which he shall be tried and convicted.
22
Appendix 2- Workhouse Rules
Parliamentary Papers, 1842, XIX, pp.42-3.
The purpose of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was to reduce the Poor Rates by dissuading the poor from
applying for relief. The main way of doing this was to end the system of outdoor relief and make the poor enter
workhouses where conditions were as harsh as possible. The list of rules that follows is an example of the severity
of the regime to be found in workhouses.
Any pauper who shall neglect to observe such of the regulations herein contained as are applicable to and binding
on him:• Or who shall make any noise when silence is ordered to be kept
• Or shall use obscene or profane language
• Or shall by word or deed insult or revile any person
• Or shall threaten to strike or to assault any person
• Or shall not duly cleanse his person
• Or shall refuse or neglect to work, after having been required to do so
• Or shall pretend sickness
• Or shall play at cards or other games of chance
• Or shall enter or attempt to enter, without permission, the ward or yard appropriated to any class of paupers
other than that to which he belongs
• Or shall misbehave in going to, at, or returning from public worship out of the workhouse, or at prayers in
the workhouse
• Or shall return after the appointed time of absence, when allowed to quit the workhouse temporarily
• Or shall wilfully [sic] disobey any lawful order of any officer of the workhouse
SHALL BE DEEMED DISORDERLY
Any pauper who shall, within seven days, repeat any one or commit more than one of the offences specified in
Article 34 [above];
• Or who shall by word or deed insult or revile the master or matron, or any other officer of the workhouse,
or any of the Guardians
• Or shall wilfully disobey any lawful order of the master or matron after such order shall have been repeated
• Or shall unlawfully strike or otherwise unlawfully assault any person
• Or shall wilfully or mischievously damage or soil any property whatsoever belonging to the Guardians
• Or shall wilfully waste of spoil any provisions, stock, tools, or materials for work, belonging to the
Guardians
• Or shall be drunk
• Or shall commit any act of indecency
• Or shall wilfully disturb the other inmates during prayers or divine worship
SHALL BE DEEMED REFRACTORY
It shall be lawful for the master of the workhouse, with or without the direction of the Board pf Guardians to punish
any disorderly pauper by substituting, during a time not greater than forty-eight hours, for his or her dinner, as
prescribed by the dietary, a meal consisting of eight ounces of bread, or one pound of cooked potatoes, and also by
with-holding from him during the same period, all butter, cheese, tea, sugar, or broth, which such pauper would
otherwise receive, at any meal during the time aforesaid.
And it shall be lawful for the Board of Guardians, by a special direction, to be entered on their minutes, to order any
refractory pauper to be punished by confinement in a separate room, with or without an alteration of diet, similar in
kind and duration to that prescribed in Article 36 [above] for disorderly paupers; but no pauper shall be so confined
for a longer period than twenty-four hours; or, if it be deemed right that such pauper should be carried before a
23
Justice of the Peace, and if such period of twenty-four hours should be insufficient for that purpose, then for such
further time as may be necessary for such purpose.
It shall be lawful for the Board of Guardians, by any special or general order, to direct that a dress different from
that of the other inmates shall be worn by disorderly or refractory paupers, during a period of not more than fortyeight hours, jointly with, or in lieu of the alteration of diet to which any such pauper might be subjected by the
regulations herein contained; but it shall not be lawful for the Board of Guardians to cause any penal dress or
distinguishing mark of disgrace to be worn by any adult pauper or class of adult paupers, unless such pauper or
paupers shall be disorderly or refractory within the meaning of Article 34 or Article 35 of this order.
24
Appendix 3- Anti-workhouse Poster
25
Appendix 4- Victorian Fashion Guides
Various styles of tying a cravat.
26
Women's dress profiles throughout the Victorian era.
27
Appendix 5George Cruikshank Illustrations from Original Serial
28
“Please, Sir.
May I have some more?”
Oliver escapes being indentured to a Chimney
sweep.
Oliver introduced to a “respectable old
gentleman.”
Oliver fights Noah Claypole.
Oliver recovers from the fever.
Thieving Mr. Brownlow's handkerchief.
Oliver is “recovered” by his old affectionate
“friends.”
Oliver back with Fagin and the gang.
Charlie Bates explains a professional
technicality to Oliver.
Oliver shot during a burglary.
Mr. Bumble courts Mrs. Corney.
Noah Claypole when the master is away.
Oliver at Mrs. Maylie's door.
Oliver waited upon by the Bow-street runners.
Monks and Fagin spy upon Oliver in the country.
Mr. Bumble humiliated before the workhouse
inmates.
Evidence of Oliver's parentage destroyed.
Fagin recovers Nancy from a faint.
Fagin recruits Noah Claypole.
Noah spies on Nancy meeting with the Brownlows.
Sikes trying to escape via rooftop.
Sikes tries to destroy his dog.
Fagin on his last night alive.
Oliver and Rose Maylie... and they all live
happily ever after.