Posted on 03/18/2023 6:18:12 AM PDT by C19fan
The BBC has injected a strong anti-colonial message into its adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic novel Great Expectations, it has been revealed.
Written by Peaky Blinders creator Stephen Knight, the beloved novel has been given a new twist, referencing the evils of Empire which were not present in the original Victorian book.
In one scene, criminal Magwitch, one of the central characters, describes the British Empire as having been 'built on the lies of privileged white men', The Telegraph reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Still set in the 19th century, the 1861 novel has been adapted into a slightly more modern drama which creators hope will attract new audiences to it.
That worked so well with Netflix's modern take on Austen's "Persuasion" that was universally panned. I am attracted to period dramas to escape from modernity. I want "stiffness". Anyway what is so "stiffy' about Dickens' "Great Expectations" as it was written?
One sure sign of mental illness is self-loathing. Many of the Britons have it in spades.
In balance, the British Empire was one of the great civilizers of the world. India owes everything to the British Empire, as do other countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Kenya, and may more. There is nothing for the British people to be ashamed of. The British Empire did far, far more good than harm.
They are ashamed anyway just because.
Well, just more reason to watch British classics on YouTube or elsewhere instead of the woke pablum the BBC cranks out these days. On BritBox, I recently watched a 1982 adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles with Tom Baker, very well done and still a good watch.
The British Empire, like all the European empires, was created by desperadoes and ambitious, frustrated peasants. Not by persons of privilege.
Not - ‘built on the lies of privileged white men’.
The best parable of truth of colonialism was, of course, written by Kipling. “The Man Who Would Be King” lays it out.
This is the epitome of cultural appropriation.
Well said.
The point here is that it was common knowledge because everyone in Victorian England received educations steeped in diversity, inclusion and equity - even common criminals. It was common for people of that era to discuss white privilege of men. Dickens was one of those men that massively profited from the misuse and treatment of black and brown people. We need not discuss Dicken’s treatment of women, particularly trans women. He was a transphobe and homophobe in addition to being misogynistic and xenophobic. It’s probably best that his collective works be burned and any productions derived from said works be banned.
The British empire was so wonderful that the founding fathers all wanted to remain a part of it.
Dickens was enough of a Marxist, in my mind.
Exactly- was thinking g myself, what a piss poor rendition of the original.
God raised up teo tiny nations, the USA and Britton, to become world superpowers in very short order, and what do these nations do in return for their great fortune and blessings from God? They throw God out and celebrate moral degeneracy.
In every society the ignoramuses slowly insert themselves into positions of power...and they slowly ruin said society.
Hail King Biden!
You write: What fools they are! Not only for their wokeness but to think that they can improve upon Dickens, or improve upon the definitive adaptation starring a young Alec Guinness, John Mills, and Jean Simmons, and directed by the great David Lean.
Amen brother. Amen.
I’m hoping that the more obnoxious they get, the sooner they will be gone.
Dickens was far better at this than they will ever be.
***It’s probably best that his collective works be burned and any productions derived from said works be banned. ***
Perhaps they should take a lesson from MODERN movie producers.
Buy the rights to his novels.
Keep the title and toss most of the rest.
Have a script writer rewrite as it SHOULD have been written for the 21st Century.
Write a novel based on the script.
Release the novel of the script as the “original”.
I few years ago I bought up a bunch of academic editions of classic literature, when all the people with the nice Ivy league educations were busily decolonializing their bookshelves. Funded it by trading and selling my copies of the Twilight series, and whatnot. It started when I noticed that an anthology required for a class was greatly inferior in quality to a much older edition that I had bought, trying to save some money.
I guess that says something, when even a Stephanie Meyer fan has better taste than to read woke drivel.
But they were acting in the name of a king or queen, and their conquests wouldn't have lasted without Britain to back them up. After all, what happened to Kipling's hero?
America, Canada, and Australia certainly were built up by ambitious peasants, but the British Empire in Africa was largely created by the army and by diplomats, and even in the New World, land grantees and wealthy sugar and tobacco planters did a lot to make the empire profitable.
But of course, 19th century convicts weren't up on 21st century CRT talk. It's likely that Magwich hated the rich, and just possible (though unlikely) that he might have had some sympathy for the aborigines, but he would have seen that it was people like himself who were the chief beneficiaries of the settlement of Australia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.