Early

I think Dickens' books are difficult to adapt due to the sheer density of them, they'd do well as mini-series, or as "Masterpiece Theatre," as my boss said when I mentioned it to her.  He (Cukor) hit all the highpoints (and important dialogue), but with the exceptions of Peggotty (Jessie Ralph), Mr. Micawber (W.C. Fields), and the Murdstones (Basil Rathbone and Violet Kemble Cooper) and to an extent, Steerforth (Hugh Williams, though the complexity of that relationship was missing; and the conflicting influence of both he and Agnes shaping David's life was completely missing), and Barkis (Herbert Mundin), the characters didn't have a chance to develop enough to have the trajectory make sense, they were only lookout points one passes by on a journey.  I'm not sure what the overall point or message being told was, the reason for making the film, the point-of-view.

I guess that's the challenge with editing down so much material, and also a story most people would've known at the time, with doing any type of book adaptation; figuring out what story you want to tell in the time you have and casting a line through that, pulling in what supports it, and leaving out the rest (which will always have its critics, because we all have our opinions about what we think the story was about.)  I think I heard something to the effect that Chekhov was very terse in his writing, and so the opposite of Dickens...oh, and now I've lost my train of thought.  And then I guess I'll have to ask myself, "Does every story have to have a point?" Maybe not when read, but it helps when viewed.  It's early, and I've been awake for a while.  I'll lastly say, is that a strong story line, point-of-view, helps keep me invested and awake during a performance.  It was why I enjoyed Seattle Shakespeare's most recent version of "Othello" so much, a story I don't generally find all that interesting.  I mention Shakespeare and Chekhov because those are works that always get edited down for length and (hopefully) story, and so to do well, the director/adapter should have a point-of-view (that would seem to be why you would choose one director over another, a difference of vision, not better or worse, but each one will give you a different production.)  It's also why I preferred the Cornish version of "The Three Sisters" over the Seagull Project's (not the acting, I preferred the latter, I think Chekhov needs actors with more life behind them, for one, plus they seemed more invested in the project), there was a definite focus, a point where everything led, and was then resolved, and the story, directing, set, lighting, sound, all led to that one diminished moment.  I strongly felt the story the director was telling.  (The Seagull Projects' production was beautiful, I'm only referring to the tightness of the story-telling above.)

Ah...I'm rambling.  I've more or less finished the book, so, around 200 pages of catch-up, not sure how to do that, so I haven't yet.  Perhaps character by character.