I understand why this movie is called a classic. The camera work is dazzling and fresh, sweeping away all the stodginess of a period picture. The cast is attractive, cheerful, and plainly having the time of their lives. The direction makes it easy to laugh along and get caught up in the sheer sexual charisma of Tom Jones' personality.
But personally, as an English major who really treasured the book, I find that this movie is not all it's cracked up to be. It plays up all of Tom's worst qualities -- his lustfulness, the impulsive and almost infantile side of his personality -- and plays down all of his loyalty, courage, and higher feelings. This movie was "influential" for the rest of the Sixties, and in all the wrong ways.
Tom was the first "anti-hero" in Sixties film, a guy who is good looking and sexy but not especially brave or clever or even kind. Note again that this was NOT Fielding's intent. In the novel, he says explicitly that Tom "is as much a Hercules as an Adonis" meaning that he is a real hero, who fights for right, not just a lover boy. But this movie plays Tom's fist fight scenes strictly for laughs, as if to say courage and manhood are "out" and getting by on sheer charm is "in." Not to carry it too far, but you can draw a straight line from this vision of Tom Jones to the increasingly repulsive "anti-heroes" who followed later in the decade. They range from the ultra-violent Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE to the cowardly Indian warrior in LITTLE BIG MAN to the criminal Michael in THE GODFATHER.
What's missing from the film -- but not the book -- is any sense that Tom really loves Sophia, or that he learns from his adventures and becomes more worthy, more manly, at the end. The book takes the idea of choice and responsibility seriously, the movie just laughs it off. Not surprisingly, Tom's love affair with Lady Bellaston comes off differently as well. Casting the exquisite and sultry Joan Greenwood as Lady Bellaston was delightful, but wrong. In the book she is a fat, dumpy old hag who buys Tom and tries to corrupt him. In the movie she is a stunning older swinger who indulges him just for the fun of it. Sure it's sexy to watch -- really sexy. But what does it prove? Nothing. Tom doesn't resist temptation, he isn't punished, and he doesn't grow. It's the infantile approach that was to become all to popular during the "idealistic" sixties.
But personally, as an English major who really treasured the book, I find that this movie is not all it's cracked up to be. It plays up all of Tom's worst qualities -- his lustfulness, the impulsive and almost infantile side of his personality -- and plays down all of his loyalty, courage, and higher feelings. This movie was "influential" for the rest of the Sixties, and in all the wrong ways.
Tom was the first "anti-hero" in Sixties film, a guy who is good looking and sexy but not especially brave or clever or even kind. Note again that this was NOT Fielding's intent. In the novel, he says explicitly that Tom "is as much a Hercules as an Adonis" meaning that he is a real hero, who fights for right, not just a lover boy. But this movie plays Tom's fist fight scenes strictly for laughs, as if to say courage and manhood are "out" and getting by on sheer charm is "in." Not to carry it too far, but you can draw a straight line from this vision of Tom Jones to the increasingly repulsive "anti-heroes" who followed later in the decade. They range from the ultra-violent Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE to the cowardly Indian warrior in LITTLE BIG MAN to the criminal Michael in THE GODFATHER.
What's missing from the film -- but not the book -- is any sense that Tom really loves Sophia, or that he learns from his adventures and becomes more worthy, more manly, at the end. The book takes the idea of choice and responsibility seriously, the movie just laughs it off. Not surprisingly, Tom's love affair with Lady Bellaston comes off differently as well. Casting the exquisite and sultry Joan Greenwood as Lady Bellaston was delightful, but wrong. In the book she is a fat, dumpy old hag who buys Tom and tries to corrupt him. In the movie she is a stunning older swinger who indulges him just for the fun of it. Sure it's sexy to watch -- really sexy. But what does it prove? Nothing. Tom doesn't resist temptation, he isn't punished, and he doesn't grow. It's the infantile approach that was to become all to popular during the "idealistic" sixties.