Spoiler alert! The most disturbing scene in Oliver! comes near the end of the film when Nancy attempts to reunite Oliver with Mr. Brownlow, the kindly older man who had previously rescued Oliver from street life with Fagin and his gang of pickpockets. Wanting to keep Oliver under his control, the ruthless Bill Sykes beats Nancy to death when he sees that she has disregarded his wishes. The film version of Oliver’s story provides a brief (non-verbal) expression of guilt and possible regret on the part of Bill; but with Bill’s death and the conclusion of the film following hard upon Nancy’s murder, there isn’t enough time for Oliver!’s audience to reconcile the violence they have just witnessed—regardless of how joyful we can presume Oliver’s future life will be.

Since watching Oliver! this past week, I’ve been pondering exactly why I never seem to be able to get to the end of the musical with an overwhelmingly positive feeling. It’s more like that “pit-in-the-stomach” feeling one gets at the end of West Side Story, instead of the elation and hope of The Sound of Music. I’ve come up with a couple of reasons why I just can’t move around Nancy’s death to Oliver’s happiness like the film wants me to.

First, Bill and Nancy both allude to the fact that they were raised as Fagin’s little lackeys. They must have known each other, then, for a decently long time and seem relatively devoted to each other. It’s clear that Nancy loves Bill, despite his flaws and his violent tendencies; and when she tries to get Bill to confirm that he loves her as well, he gruffly replies, “I live with ya, don’t I?” Tragically, Nancy’s tenderheartedness places her in dangerous proximity to Bill’s volatile emotions and swinging fists. Her compassion is admirable, but her choice to stay with Bill is unwise—even though they probably share a strong bond based on past childhood suffering and the present need for survival as adults. So, it bothers me that such a relationship can be smashed to bits in seconds when Bill doesn’t get his way for once–but I’m also uncomfortable with the fact that the relationship has gone on as long as it has.

The troubled Bill Sykes.

Second, the arrangement Fagin has with the young street children is also a bit hard for me to swallow. Fagin obviously uses the children for profit—the risk is theirs, but the “earnings” are his. Well, mostly. Fagin does fill a massive void in the children’s lives: that of father figure. Fagin provides food, lodging, and an adult supervision/guardianship of sorts. Minus the fact that he encourages crime (for survival, I guess), he gives the little pickpockets a home and a kind of stability in a pretty intense and uncertain world.

There are other options, though, for the children in Fagin’s keep. They could go to an orphanage—but, oh wait, we first see Oliver in an orphanage; and it’s dark, dingy, and run by corrupt adults who also look to profit from the children in their protection. Oliver is literally sold by Mr. Bumble, the ridiculous man who runs the orphanage, into the keeping of the Sowerberry family, who are just as rotten as the Bumbles. At least Fagin seems to care about the well-being of his band of thieves—or is it just that he wants the stolen items they bring him in order that he can fill his secret treasure box in preparation for his old age? Like the Nancy/Bill relationship, I’m not too fond of the Fagin/orphans relationship either. Is there no good solution to childhood in poverty?

Fagin and Dodger in cahoots.

For Me Then…

I think maybe my main issue with this film is how it deals with the problem of evil. For all the catchiness of songs like “You’ve Got to Pick a Pocket or Two” and “Be Back Soon,” there’s still the discomfort in seeing the child thieves exploited with no assurance of a better future at the end of the film. Instead, though he wrestles earlier with the possibility of turning his life of crime into a respectable one, we see Fagin join forces with The Artful Dodger to continue their petty crimes to their mutual profit. I guess this is better than Dodger getting nothing for all his efforts, but the pair just throws the possibility of an honest future away. The notion of abandoning evil and turning to good almost becomes a joke at the close of the film. Although Fagin and Dodger are two of the most likeable characters in the film, again in my mind I go back to Nancy and Bill and the bloody scene at the bridge. Their start in the underworld of London came under Fagin’s tutelage in the arts of such “harmless” petty crime, and the results were far from mild for them in the end.