David Copperfield (1935) Review: The Good, The Bad & How to Watch

 

David Copperfield (1935) Review: The Good, The Bad & How to Watch 

American Film, Family, Adventure

Venice Film Festival, 1935- Nominated for the Mussolini Cup for Best Foreign Film  
Academy Awards, 1936- 3 nominations including: Best Picture
National Board of Reviw, 1935- Winner: Top Ten Films

Back in the golden age of Hollywood, there was a massive gamble taking place at MGM. Bringing Charles Dickens to the big screen wasn't just about high-budget sets; it was about capturing the soul of Victorian England through the lens of American cinema. When the 1935 adaptation of David Copperfield hit the theaters, it didn't just meet expectations—it defined what a literary adaptation should look like for decades to come. More on Wikipedia or Mubi 

The Magic of MGM’s 1935 Masterpiece David Copperfield 

What makes this particular version stand out, even nearly a century later, is the incredible casting. Freddie Bartholomew, the young star who played David as a child, brings a genuine, heart-wrenching vulnerability to the role. You truly feel the weight of the world on his small shoulders as he navigates the cruelty of Mr. Murdstone. But the real scene-stealer, and perhaps the most iconic performance in the film, is W.C. Fields as Mr. Micawber.

Fields was known for his cynical, boozy persona, so many were skeptical about him playing a Dickensian character. However, he stepped into Micawber’s oversized shoes with a warmth and comedic timing that felt like it was pulled straight from the pages of the novel. His portrayal of the perpetually optimistic, debt-ridden gentleman remains the definitive version of the character.

Director George Cukor managed to weave a sprawling, episodic novel into a cohesive narrative that never feels rushed. He maintained that delicate balance between the tragic hardships of David’s upbringing and the whimsical, often eccentric characters he meets along the way. The production values are top-tier for the era, with sets that feel lived-in and atmospheric, pulling the audience into the foggy streets of London and the breezy cliffs of Dover.

Even if you aren't a fan of black-and-white films, this one is worth your time. It’s a story about resilience and the kindness of strangers, told with a level of craftsmanship that modern cinema often struggles to replicate. It’s more than just a movie; it’s a time capsule of a moment when Hollywood was proving it could handle the greatest stories ever told with grace and heart.

The Good:

The film’s greatest strength is undoubtedly its heart. During an era when many films felt like filmed stage plays, George Cukor infused this story with a genuine cinematic rhythm. The transition from the bleak, oppressive atmosphere of David’s childhood to the lighter, more hopeful chapters of his adulthood feels earned rather than forced.

Then there is the cast. It is rare to see a film where almost every secondary character feels like they stepped right out of the author’s imagination. Edna May Oliver as Aunt Betsey Trotwood is a masterclass in playing "tough on the outside, soft on the inside," and Basil Rathbone provides a chillingly effective villain as Mr. Murdstone. The film succeeds because it treats Dickens’ caricatures as real people with real stakes.

The visual storytelling also deserves credit. The cinematography uses light and shadow to mirror David’s internal state, and the set design for the Murdstone and Grinby warehouse captures the gritty, industrial grime of the period with haunting accuracy.

The Bad:

However, the film isn't without its flaws, particularly for a modern audience. The most obvious challenge is the sheer length of the source material. Dickens wrote David Copperfield as a massive, sprawling epic, and trying to squeeze that into a two-hour runtime means that some beloved subplots and characters are either trimmed to the bone or removed entirely. If you’re a purist for the book, the pacing in the second half can feel a bit breathless.

There is also the "Hollywood polish" of the 1930s. While the film tries to be gritty, there is still a certain sanitization that happens. The deep, systemic poverty and the darker social critiques Dickens was known for are sometimes softened to make the film more "palatable" for a family audience in 1935.

Lastly, some viewers might find the acting style of the adult David, played by Frank Lawton, a bit stiff compared to the vibrant energy of the child actors and the veteran character stars. Lawton plays the role with a certain earnestness that was standard for leading men at the time, but he can occasionally feel overshadowed by the colorful personalities surrounding him.