The retrospective narrator in Charles Dickens's novel David Copperfield recalls early in his story a lesson learnt from the elderly woman from whom young David acquired his famous caul. He believes that, as a story-teller, it is important not to 'meander', or linger over interesting but ultimately unimportant details: especially when there is a great deal of story to tell.

The BBC seems to have followed the narrator's lead in its recent adaptation of Dickens's 1849-50 semi-autobiographical novel. No one could accuse them of 'meandering' when it comes to recreating the significant events within the text, although it might have been wiser for the Beeb to have acknowledged the narrator's belief that "some conveniences ... [often] resulted from this objectionable practice". Further attention to character development, or inclusion of some of the omitted plot-lines would have been more than welcome from many viewers who well remember the novel. 
 
 

Let me reiterate the beliefs of many a reviewer who has watched a Victorian novel, originally designed for serial publication, made into a television series, that the adaptation of a lengthy novel to small screen involves a process of omission. One portion of the story must go to make room for full investigation of another, more significant line of narrative. Sometimes large sections and even favourite characters become casualties of the screen writer's urge to reduce eight or nine hundred pages of delicious text to four comfortable hours of viewing. We have in this recent re-telling of the Copperfield story no Martha Endell with whom to compare the fate of the fallen Little Emily; neither do we encounter Annie Strong whose undisciplined heart and immaturity we are invited to compare with that of the sometimes thoughtless David. The storylines in which both characters are involved are significant as they heighten our awareness of the situations in which Emily and David find themselves. (Additionally, the Strong and Endell stories are good tales in their own right.) Tommy Traddles was included, but his significance to David as a friend was cut back to an absurd degree. His presence was such that one was left wondering why he was introduced at all as one of David's school friends. Traddles is a much more engaging and vital presence in Dickens's novel. 

Another, more noteworthy, point about characterisation concerns the choice of Bob Hoskins as Wilkins Micawber. Hoskins, although a fine actor, did not seem to convey the full eccentricity of one of Dickens's most extraordinary creations. The verbosity was there, and so too was the almost criminal shiftiness needed to evade various debt collectors. But this was not the stoutish, entirely bald Micawber described to us by Dickens and depicted through illustration by H. K. Browne. Micawber as Dickens created him is, to quote John Mortimer, a perfect example of the novelist writing "one foot above the ground", purposely straining the reader's credibility and delighting the imagination. Yet, Hoskins couldn't quite bring Micawber to full theatrical magnificence. That notwithstanding, Hoskins did show us a Micawber who was financially troubled, whose worries were genuine enough. The transformation from insolvent to hero (the point at which he unmasks Uriah Heep, well played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) occurs quite rapidly, but it is capped off with a touching acknowledgement of the importance to him of his wife Emma (Imelda Staunton) when they become the new gentry of Port Middlebay following their emigration to Australia. The devotion between the Micawbers, very evident in the novel, is also prominent in the adaptation. 

Despite the omissions and the changes there are good things to be said about this production, so let me focus on some of the merits of Adrian Hodges's adaptation of Dickens's favourite novel. 

I should begin by mentioning that we encounter three David Copperfields in this production: the title character appears as a child, and again as a young man, where he is played by Ciaran McMenamin. There is also David the middle-aged narrator, and this role is ably filled by the soft-toned Tom Wilkinson. There are some excellent performances. Maggie Smith, for instance, was a brilliant choice for Betsey Trotwood, and manages to combine sternness with a softer, maternal quality as David's guardian. Smith commands every scene in which she appears, from the brisk exit that occurs at the opening of the story when she discovers that David's mother has given birth to a girl, to the explanation of her ill-fated marriage -- a nice parallel with David's mistaken alliance with Dora. 

Also of note among the cast are Ian Mcniece as the kite-flying, Memorial-writing, good-hearted Mr Dick, Emilia Fox as Clara Copperfield (who can forget her final appearance as she holds David's little brother and farewells David as he leaves for Salem House?), and Amanda Ryan as Agnes. Of particular note is the way in which Ryan exhibits the right amount of disapproval of James Steerforth when she first meets him. Pauline Quirke and Alun Armstrong do admirably as Peggotty and her gentle hero of a brother Daniel. Furthermore, Daniel's boathouse at Yarmouth is beautifully recreated and serves as a perfect retreat for David from his unhappy homelife at Blunderstone Cottage.

Trevor Eve and Zoe Wanamaker do a sinister brother-sister double act as David's childhood nemises, Edward and Jane Murdstone. The scene in which Edward thrashes young David, for having bitten him, is brought about with disturbing realism, and Eve conveys the right amount of coldness and detachment from his step-son make him the quitessential villain of David's childhood. By contrast, Wanamaker's accusation that Miss Trotwood suffers from either insanity or intoxication, following the interview about David's future, provides a moment of light relief.

Joanna Page as Dora Spenlow should also be mentioned because she has, I believe, managed to reveal what is fast becoming a staple of recent scholarly criticism of David Copperfield:  that Dora is much more than the adult David's helpless child-wife. Dora is still pretty, vulnerable, and, unlike Agnes, unable to deal fully with all the complication of the real world. However, Page does not overplay Dora's failings. Instead they are used to emphasise David's severe lack of judgement. The first Copperfield marriage has always been seen as an unfortunate error, but not all dramatic adaptations of the novel show quite as successfully as this recent one Dora's encouragement to David that he recognise this mistake, and that he contemplate it at length.