preview

Sydney Carton

Decent Essays
Open Document

Charles Dickens book clearly reveals the idea of resurrection through the character of Sydney Carton. Although, in the 1980 version of A Tale of Two Cities directed by Jim Goddard, the same actor, Chris Sarandon plays the role of both Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay. Through having such change being made, it severely shifts the theme of the novel. For starters, the author is trying to reveal the idea of resurrection but does so by the character of Sydney Carton and when he decides to give his own life for that of Charles. Thus, when both characters are the same actors in the film, it also creates new ideas of who Sydney really seeks to be, not only himself but Charles as well. Nevertheless, the whole idea of resurrection is questioned due …show more content…

Although, the actor himself did an incredible job, the fact that he has played both characters has severely affected the central message of the novel, which in fact is resurrection. When Syndey decided to pursue his plan of execution in place for Charles, it revealed the idea that it is possible for people to change and become what they have never been able to achieve; whether this may be positive or negative. When Carton dies, Dickens presented the idea that although he was malicious, alcoholic, and sought no aspiration for life, he was able to change. He proved this by dying to save his lover Lucie’s own happiness, her happiness was indeed Charles. However, by allowing the character of Charles and Sydney to be portrayed by the same actor, it reveals that resurrection would be impossible. Thus, the theme of the novel is clearly irrelevant to the theme in the movie. When Sydney dies he is leaving his old self, but in the movie with two characters being played by the same actor, it deprives the theme from being truly expressed. Ultimately, by having Charles character stay alive, it reverse the idea that humanity can change and through sacrifice change is indeed a characteristic of humanity itself. However, in reality nothing could ever change a malicious and foolish …show more content…

In the novel, Sydney’s character is portrayed as cruel and a man who has no purpose in life and dishonorable among the community. In contrast, Charles is classy, and handsome. However, as Chris plays both characters, it raises questions on who they really, and if after all they seek to be different. As a result of the theme of resurrection shifted from the novel to the movie, it is relevant to state that now these characters have slightly diverse significance and their standpoint is most definitely changed. Due to the fact that both Charles and Sydney have been portrayed by the same person, it reveals that after all they simply do not seek to be very much diverse. As a matter of fact, we see the mischievous side of Charles when he fails to announce that he is related to the Marquis, he is part of the Marqui family. This idea is greatly enforced as we see little to no evidence in the film that Sydney is an unpleasant person. With that being said, the film almost shows a balance of malice of both characters to emphasize the idea that although they can be portrayed physically different, overall they are fairly similar. Nonetheless, the fact that Chris is playing both roles raises the doubt that in fact they may after all be similar; Charles, is indeed not who he appears to be. The 1980’s version of the novel A Tale of

Get Access
Related
Get Access