Copperfield fatigue

I have to admit it: when it comes to TV adaptations of "David Copperfield" I am starting to get jaded. The one with the Little Lord Fauntleroy David that I'm watching now is the fifth version I've seen. It's got its good points, such as Paul Brightwell's Uriah - high on the bitterness, low on the cringing, just the way I like it - and an excellent performance from Jeremy Brudenell who almost makes you see why anyone should bother with a spoiled wastrel like Steerforth. And yet the adaptation seems run of the mill - maybe because it more or less makes the same choices regarding which scenes to include and which to cut as all the other adaptations. "Betsey Trotwood: you've heard of her, I dare say" - idyllic childhood scene - "come on, shake hands, Davy" - "Barkis is willing" - "Drownded" - "if I were a lady" - "Clara, my dear, firmness" - I could go on, and on... The same story shortcuts are taken, the same incidental characters removed: no Dr Strong subplot, no Martha, no Omers, no Miss Mowcher. Mr Mell and Julia Mills do put in an appearance, which is rare enough, but one of my favourite minor villains, the impeccable manservant Littimer, is nowhere to be seen. Incredibly, he only turns up in one of the adaptations I've watched (the latest BBC one).

I'm starting to realise why reviewers whine when they have to see another "Figaro's Wedding" or "Carmen" (it's often opera reviewers who grumble openly: I don't think a theatre critic would dare to say "oh no, not another b-y Hamlet"). Probably, it's for their benefit that directors take such pains to set the familiar pieces in any setting or time except the one specified in the libretto. Familiarity breeds if not contempt then at least indifference.

So what if the Uriah's good: I've seen enough good - some even great - Uriahs to form a bridge team. McCusker, Lyndhurst, Jarvis and now Brightwell (even Moody wasn't that bad, but he shouldn't have made the part into a comic turn): all of them are showcased in pretty much the same scenes. The one where David first comes to the Wickfields' house. The one where Uriah reveals his interest in Agnes. The one where he exasperates Wickfield. And then finally, the one where his fraud is exposed by Micawber. Yes, important scenes all, but not the only ones by a long way to feature Uriah. To be fair, this adaptation pastes in some Uriah lines from cut scenes in the remaining ones, but a line like "We needn't make it known to ALL the town" deserves to be heard in its proper context.

Surely there is enough good stuff in this rich novel to come up with an adaptation that stands out a little from all the others? I'm not saying I thought the Omers were that much of a hit, and Dickens himself almost ruins Miss Mowcher by suddenly making her not only one of the goodies but self-pitying too. But maybe it would be worth-while to try to make something of them? And why does no-one want to touch the melodrama-rich story of the Strong marriage?

I shouldn't complain, though. Things might be worse. I might, for instance, be a fan of Wilkins Micawber. Of the five adaptations I've seen/am seeing, only two feature stand-out performances in the role of Micawber (Ralph Richardson and Bob Hoskins). Arthur Lowe in the Jarvis version was great on the pompousness - as you would expect from Captain Mainwaring - but the jollity seemed forced. The Little Lord Fauntleroy adaptation boasts Simon Callow as Micawber, and you would think he'd be ideal for the part. Unfortunately, though, instead of using his own plummy voice which would suit Micawber excellently, he contorts his jaw and actually lisps. Er, no, sorry Simon, wrong comic character, wrong book even. This is not the first time something like this has happened; there seems to be something about Micawber that brings out the mugger in actors. Tragic, isn't it?