Tony Richardson's film reaches a high level of interest with appealing characterizations and somewhat unusual camera work, but fails ultimately to reach the extraordinarily high level of sophistication in Henry Fielding's original novel.
The story is set a few hundred years ago, and begins with an interesting silent film homage which reveals the "bastard" parentage of our hero, Tom Jones (Albert Finney), who is adopted and raised by the kindly Squire Allworthy (George Devine). Tom Jones is a lusty lad who raises eyebrows among the country noblemen (and a different sort of attention from the ladies), but his true love is for his neighbor Sophie Western (Susannah York). Her hunt-loving father (Hugh Griffith) will of course have none of his girl marrying a "bastard". And Tom Jones has a rival for his adopted father's attention, the duplicitous Blifil (David Warner) who is aided by Jones' hypocritical schoolteacher Thwackum (Peter Bull... yes Fielding was not subtle about his names) and preacher Supple (James Cairncross), and they succeed in chasing him out of town. Jones heads to London to find his way in the world, chased by lovely Sophie and the secret to his lineage which he does not even suspect.
Finney is suitably "dashing" and has a lot of charm, which is what you need to play Tom Jones. I didn't really think York was quite as spicy as she should be. Griffith did some extraordinary character work as the father -- he was the very definition of "earthy". Warner was also perfect in his character performance as the sniveling "legitimate" heir.
I thought the most striking aspect of the film actually was the camera work, particularly in the scene where they were chasing the stag. Really exciting, involving stuff. There were also a lot of interesting shots that played on the perspective of the audience. Quite a bit more involved and playful camera than usual in a "period" film, which is suitable since this is a comedy.
Nothing much too "wrong" with the film, I just didn't feel it captured all the nuances of the characters in the same way the book did. The interesting aspect of Fielding's work, aside from the socio-economic aspects of it, was the way that you had a narrator who was standing outside of the action and commenting on it. Fielding made sure that even the narrator would not be so much "omniscient" as to appear to believe himself to be omniscient. The book is very much about examining the frailties and weaknesses of the human condition, not so much with an eye like the eye of judgment but more with an eye that is amused at the same time as saddened by these events. The book presented many different perspectives on the events, and it was not always that the perspective of the narrator and Tom Jones would coincide, nor was it always the case that the reader would have no reason to suspect that the actual writer's opinion would not vary from its narrator. A very human point of view, in other words, and this film achieved that kind of subjective/objective layering only very partially. However for what it is and what it intends to be I think this is a fine film that can stand on its own among British comedy masterpieces.
The story is set a few hundred years ago, and begins with an interesting silent film homage which reveals the "bastard" parentage of our hero, Tom Jones (Albert Finney), who is adopted and raised by the kindly Squire Allworthy (George Devine). Tom Jones is a lusty lad who raises eyebrows among the country noblemen (and a different sort of attention from the ladies), but his true love is for his neighbor Sophie Western (Susannah York). Her hunt-loving father (Hugh Griffith) will of course have none of his girl marrying a "bastard". And Tom Jones has a rival for his adopted father's attention, the duplicitous Blifil (David Warner) who is aided by Jones' hypocritical schoolteacher Thwackum (Peter Bull... yes Fielding was not subtle about his names) and preacher Supple (James Cairncross), and they succeed in chasing him out of town. Jones heads to London to find his way in the world, chased by lovely Sophie and the secret to his lineage which he does not even suspect.
Finney is suitably "dashing" and has a lot of charm, which is what you need to play Tom Jones. I didn't really think York was quite as spicy as she should be. Griffith did some extraordinary character work as the father -- he was the very definition of "earthy". Warner was also perfect in his character performance as the sniveling "legitimate" heir.
I thought the most striking aspect of the film actually was the camera work, particularly in the scene where they were chasing the stag. Really exciting, involving stuff. There were also a lot of interesting shots that played on the perspective of the audience. Quite a bit more involved and playful camera than usual in a "period" film, which is suitable since this is a comedy.
Nothing much too "wrong" with the film, I just didn't feel it captured all the nuances of the characters in the same way the book did. The interesting aspect of Fielding's work, aside from the socio-economic aspects of it, was the way that you had a narrator who was standing outside of the action and commenting on it. Fielding made sure that even the narrator would not be so much "omniscient" as to appear to believe himself to be omniscient. The book is very much about examining the frailties and weaknesses of the human condition, not so much with an eye like the eye of judgment but more with an eye that is amused at the same time as saddened by these events. The book presented many different perspectives on the events, and it was not always that the perspective of the narrator and Tom Jones would coincide, nor was it always the case that the reader would have no reason to suspect that the actual writer's opinion would not vary from its narrator. A very human point of view, in other words, and this film achieved that kind of subjective/objective layering only very partially. However for what it is and what it intends to be I think this is a fine film that can stand on its own among British comedy masterpieces.