#John Chivery

[lifewithaview]

Claire Foy in Little Dorrit (2008) Ep4

John Chivery is heart-broken when Amy rejects his marriage proposal, telling him she will never marry, though Arthur is clearly in her thoughts. News gets back to her father, who becomes self-pitying, hoping it will not alter the way John and his father regard him. Henry Gowan arrives at the Meagles' house. He is the 'unsuitable' young man who fancies Pet, but it is obvious that his presence is not welcomed by her parents, who hint to Arthur that he and she make a fine couple. Arthur returns to London with Daniel Doyce and visits his work-shop in the Bleeding Heart Yard where they formalize their business agreement. Cavaletto comes running into the yard, is knocked down by a horse and cared for by the Plornish family. He is running away from Rigaud, now calling himself Blandois, who goes to see Flintwinch, engaging in dastardly deeds to get a box in the latter's possession.

*When Pancks scans a page of Mr. Chivery's book at the Marshalsea, looking for information on Mr. Dorrit, one can see that the entry directly above William Dorrit's is that of John Dickens. Dickens was the father of Charles Dickens and an inmate of the Marshalsea Debtors' Prison for a few months in the 1820s. Besides the imprisonment date, John Dickens' year of birth was also altered.

[louisetaylor]

Little Dorrit rarepairs

I just watched the final episode of the miniseries and thought two things. One: Flora Finching and Mr. Pancks seem to get on well together. She really needs to get away from her hypocritical miser of a father...and what if Mr. Pancks has been in love with her all along but thought she was too far above him? He's certainly got a lot of pent-up energy, enough to give her the dramatic attention she needs. And he's just enough lower-class to give her that sense of Forbidden Romance. She'd be really impressed when she finds out he yelled at her dad, outed him as a jerk, and gave him a haircut. Honestly Pancks has been helping people for the entire story, and he deserves a happy ending of his own. (He could totally put up with cranky old Mr-F's-Aunt and hold his own against her and eat her unwanted crusts. And Flora would feed him treats and be super proud of him) (not to mention she really really needs to get railed)

Two: I saw Harriet having returned to the Meagles family and thought "Girl, you need to get yourself married and get out of that house." (It's 1827, how else is she going to get out? Become a nun?) I can see her going for someone lower-class like herself, who won't condescend to her, who'd see her as a lady and love her with his whole heart and be gentle with her sensitivity and anger. Someone like John Chivery Junior. Harriet Chivery sounds nice. (And she'd live with him by the Marshalsea and be nice to all the forgotten overlooked people who live there. And John's dad might be a kinder father figure to her)

[meril-tospen]

[recycledmoviecostumes]

This brightly colored waistcoat has been used at least three times over the years. It likely originated in Jane Campion’s 1993 The Piano, where it was worn by Harvey Keitel as George Baines. It was not spotted again until 2008, when it was seen in an adaptation of Little Dorrit on Russel Tovey as John Chivery. In 2019 the costume was worn by Dev Patel as David Copperfield in The Personal History of David Copperfield.

Costume Credit: Katie S., Shannon

E-mail Submissions: submissions@recycledmoviecostumes.com

Follow:  Website | Twitter | Facebook | Pinterest

[fortunatelylori]

Hey Lori, it is (or may be) Lori, yes? Anyway: Edward Denham as Willoughby? I was thinking how very much Sidney Parker - in the result of his actions - resembles Willoughby. I know, that's a tough one to swallow but it kept me on edge even before I knew where the finale was heading. And I'm still not entirely convinced, that Davies wouldn't have set Stringer up as some Wentworth/Brandon amalgam for Charlotte in S2 while leaving Sidney to rot with Mrs. C. Worst: Now we'll probably never know.

Hey, nonnie.

It’s Lori, you’re all good. :)

Here’s the thing with debates on tumblr. It’s far too often that people resort to false equivalence in an attempt to make a point. It becomes very frustrating to engage in a exchange of opposing ideas because one side (you, I’m afraid) is simply not playing fair.

The reason why you are not playing fair is because false equivalence gives you the ability to claim anything you want on the thinest of arguments, all the while ignorning all the evidence that disproves your claim.

Let’s say I use your logic and claim the following: I think that Elizabeth Bennet from Pride and Prejudice – in the result of her actions – very much resembles Lucy Steele from Sense and Sensibility. After all, they both claim to value feelings above all else but end up marrying very rich men, all the while snubbing less affluent suitors. Lizzie even says she “fell in love” with Darcy after seeing his country estate so … what’s the difference really?

Do you see why there’s a  problem with that type of logic? You can’t just equalize these two women because to do so means to completely cancel their character, intentions and motivations through out the story.

By that same token, both Willoughby and Sidney proposing to rich women does not make them the same.Willoughby gives up Marianne and engages himself to a rich heiress because his aunt found out he seduced and abandoned a 15 year old girl who is now pregnant with his baby. Sidney proposes to Eliza because he needs to save his brother from prison and his family from ruin.

One is acting selfishly and highly immorally, without sparing one thought to the girl whose life he ruined (Brandon’s ward), while the other is so concerned with the wellbeing of his brother and said dimwit’s family that he ruins his life in the process.

In regards to their behavior towards Marianne and Charlotte, in particular … Willoughby essentially ghosts Marianne, refuses to give her any explanation as to why he’s leaving for London, ignores her letters and turns his back on her when they meet at the party. Worst of all, he eventually writes her a letter in which he basically tells her she made their whole relationship up and that he never meant to make her think he had any romantic interest in her.

Sidney, on the other hand, has the decency to look Charlotte in the eye and tell her what he’s done, taking the full brunt of her dissapointment without looking for someone to scapegoat, has to be dragged away from her side by Eliza at Babbington’s wedding and can barely let her go on the cliffs.

This all isn’t to say that you should like Sidney or even want him to end up with Charlotte. You do you, nonnie. It would be nice though if people that didn’t like this character, actually came up with valid reasons to dislike him as opposed to arguments that don’t make a lot of sense.

As for Stringer being an amalgam of Wentworth and Brandon and Charlotte ending up with him, it’s a moot point to argue over what might never happen since it’s almost certain we won’t get a second season.

I would like to point out, though, that stories don’t generally focus that much on the development of two characters and their relationship, to the point where Charlotte and Sidney’s arcs can’t be completed unless they get together and then throw that away and pull Stringer as Prince Charming out of their hat. Also important to note that Austen always has her heroine meet her endgame love interest first and only after that she gets introduced to the “false”suitors.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, James Stringer is a character Andrew Davies invented for the adaptation while Sidney is the character Charlotte thinks is “very good looking with a decided air of fashion” in the book. Also Stringer shares a great deal of similarities with Young John Chivery (down to being called Young) from Davies’adaptation of Little Dorrit. Anyone familiar with that adaptation knows why Stringer as Charlotte’s endgame suitor would be highly unlikely.

Thanks for the comment!

[claudia1829things]

"LITTLE DORRIT" (2008) Review

"LITTLE DORRIT" (2008) Review In my review of the 1998 miniseries, "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND", I had stated that I was never a real fan of Victorian author, Charles Dickens. But I was willing to give the author another chance with a second viewing of the miniseries. However, I have yet to watch "OUR MUTUAL FRIEND" for a second time. Instead, I turned my attention to another miniseries based on a Dickens novel - the 2008 production of "LITTLE DORRIT".

Based upon Dickens's 1855-1857 serialized novel, "LITTLE DORRIT" is basically the story of a young late Georgian Englishwoman named Amy Dorrit, who spends her days earning money for the Dorrit family and looking after her proud father William, who is a long term inmate of Marshalsea Prison for Debt in London. When her employer's son, Arthur Clennam returns from overseas to solve his family's mysterious legacy, Amy and her family's world is transformed for the better. And she discovers that her family's lives and those of the Clennan family are interlinked. Considering that "LITTLE DORRIT" is a Dickens tale, one is bound to encounter a good deal of subplots. Please bear with me. I might not remember all of them. I do recall the following: *Arthur Clennam is initially rejected by Pet Meagles, the daughter of a former business associate, due to her infatuation for artist Henry Gowan. *John Chivery, the son of the Marshalsea Prison warden, harbors unrequited love for Amy Dorrit. *A mysterious Englishwoman named Miss Wade, had been jilted by Henry Gowan in the past; and has now extended her hatred and resentment towards his wife, Pet Meagles and her family. She also notices their patronizing attitude toward their maid/ward, Harriet Beadle aka Tattycoram. *Amy's older sister, Fanny, becomes romantically involved with the step-son of wealthy businessman Mr. Merdle. *Mr. Merdle becomes the force behind a fraudulent speculation scheme that impacts the London financial world. *French criminal Rigaud/Blandois not only stumbles across the Clennam family secret regarding the Dorrit family, but is also recruited by Miss Wade to accompany Henry and Pet Gowran on their Italian honeymoon. If there is one thing I can say about "LITTLE DORRIT", it is a beautiful looking production. Four of the Emmy Awards that the miniseries won were in the technical categories. Production designer James Merifield, art director Paul Ghirardani, and set decorator Deborah Wilson all shared the Emmy Award for Outstanding Art Direction in a Miniseries or Movie (they shared the award with the art direction team for HBO's "GREY GARDENS"). And honestly? They deserved that award, thanks to their outstanding re-creation of both London and Italy in the 1820s. Owen McPolin, Alan Almond and Lukas Strebel, who won the Outstanding Cinematography Emmy; contributed to that re-creation of 1820s Europe with their sharp, colorful and beautiful photography. Costume designer Barbara Kidd and costume supervisor also won Emmy awards for the beautiful, gorgeous costumes created for this production. Not only did I find the costumes beautiful, but also a perfection re-creation of the mid-1820s fashions, as depicted in the images below:

I could go on and on about the many subplots featured in "LITTLE DORRIT". But honestly . . . I am too exhausted to do so. The only plots that interested me were the fortunes of both the Dorrit family and Arthur Clennam, Mrs. Clennam's secret about her husband's past, and Mr. Merdle's financial schemes. I thought that Emmy winning screenwriter Andrew Davies and directors Adam Smith, Dearbhla Walsh (also an Emmy winner for her direction of Episode One), and Diarmuid Lawrence did a very good job in handling these plot lines. Or tried his best. His adaptation of the rise and fall of the Dorrit family's fortunes was probably the best thing about "LITTLE DORRIT". This was especially effective in plot lines that revolved around Amy Dorrit's inability to adjust to her new status as the daughter of a wealthy man and especially, William Dorrit's inabilities to move past his memories of the Marshalsea Prison. The subplot regarding the Dorrit family's ties to the Merdle family also struck me as very effective. Fanny Dorrit's relationship with Merdle's stepson, Edmund Sparkler proved to be one of the funniest and more satisfying subplots in "LITTLE DORRIT". And the subplot regarding Mr. Merdle's financial schemes not only effected both the Dorrit family and Arthur Clennam's fortunes in an effective way, it also strongly reminded me of the circumstances that led to the international community's current economic situation. However, there were subplots that did not strike me as that effective. I wish I could solely blame Charles Dickens. But I cannot. Davies and the three directors have to take some of the blame for not making some improvements to these subplots, when they had the chance to do so. The subplot regarding the Meagles family, their servant "Tattycoram" and Miss Wade struck me as a disaster. I found it poorly handled, especially the narrative regarding the fate of "Tattycoram". In the end, nothing really came from Miss Wade's resentment of Henry Cowan, the Meagles and especially her relationship with "Tattycoram". I am also a little confused at the financial connection between the Clennam and Dorrit families. Could someone explain why an affair between Arthur's father and some dancer would lead to a possible inheritance for Amy Dorrit? Many critics have tried to explain Dickens' creation of the French villain Monsieur Rigaud. No explanation can erase my dislike of the character or its addition to the subplots involving the Clennam/Dorrit connection and the Gowans' honeymoon. I realize that Rigaud was Charles Dickens' creation. But it seemed a pity that Davies and the three directors did nothing to improve the use of Rigaud . . . or eliminate the character altogether. Aside from killing Jeremiah Flintwinch's twin brother, intimidating other characters and blackmailing Mrs. Clennam, he really did nothing as a villain. If there is one thing I have no complaints regarding "LITTLE DORRIT", it is the excellent performances found in the production. I honestly have no complaints about the performances in the miniseries. I can even say this about those characters, whose portrayals by the writers that I found troubling. And yes, I am referring to Andy Serkis and Freema Agyeman's performances as Rigoud and "Tattycoram". Both gave excellent performances, even if I did not care how Dickens, Davies or the directors handled their characters. Emma Pierson, an actress I have never heard of, gave a superb and very entertaining peformance as Fanny Dorrit, Amy's ambitious and rather blunt older sister. I would have say that Pierson's performance struck me as the funniest in the miniseries. I was amazed at how intimidating Eddie Marsan looked at the rent collector, Mr. Pancks. Yet, Marsan went beyond his superficial appearance to portray one of the most compassionate, yet energetic characters in the production. I was also impressed by Russell Tovey's portrayal of the love-sick John Chivery, who harbored unrequited love for Amy Dorrit. Tovey managed to give a very intense performance, without going over-the-top. And I found that quite an accomplishment. However, there are a handful of performances that really impressed me. Two of them came from the leads Claire Foy and Matthew McFadyen. On paper, the characters of Amy Dorrit and Arthur Clennam struck me as boring and one-dimensional. They were simply too goody two-shoes. But somehow, both Foy and McFadyen managed to inject a great deal of fire into their roles, making them not only interesting, but allowing me to care for them a great deal. Another outstanding performance came from Judy Parfitt, who portrayed Arthur's guilt-ridden and cold mother, Mrs. Clennam. But instead of portraying the character as a one-note monstrous mother, Parfitt conveyed a good deal of Mrs. Clennam's guilt regarding her husband's will and inner emotional struggles over the memories of her marriage and what Arthur really meant to her. Another outstanding performance came from Tom Courtenay, who portrayed the vain and insecure William Dorrit. In fact, I would have to say that he gave the most complex and probably the best performance in the entire production. Courtenay managed to create contempt I felt toward his character with skillful acting, yet at the same time, he made William Dorrit so pathetic and sympathetic. I am amazed that he did not receive a nomination or acting award for his performance. I now come back to that earlier question. Did "LITTLE DORRIT" improve my opinion of Charles Dickens as a writer? Not really. Although I cannot deny that it is a beautiful looking production. Some of the subplots not only struck me as interesting, but also relevant to today's economic situation. And the miniseries featured some outstanding performances from a cast led by Claire Foy and Matthew McFayden. But some of the other subplots, which originated in Dickens' novel struck me as either troubling or unimpressive. So . . . I am not quite a fan of his. Not yet. But despite its flaws, I am a fan of this 2008 adaptation of his 1855-1857 novel.

[katie-dub]

Comfort Movies

Oh my god, I’m actually doing a tag game, instead of being incomparably shit as per, can you believe it @profdanglaisstuff​ @distant-rose​ @thisonesatellite​? These movies really need to be in hard rotation right now.

Sliding Doors

Just look at John Hannah, look at him! That adorable Scottish ragamuffin! How could you not fall in love with him? With his adorable comic timing. Urgh. love.

When Harry Met Sally

I love Billy Crystal. Him + rom com + SCENES SET AT CHRISTMAS = joy.

Enchanted

Disney making fun of itself, while also being perfectly Disney. I love it. Love love love it.

Clueless

This is basically the first rom com I ever loved, Josh, be still my beating heart. 

The Muppet Christmas Carol

Who doesn’t love the Muppets, I mean, really? But I do try to save my viewing for, you know, seasonally appropriate times. But sometimes, SOMETIMES, you just need the wit and the nostalgia and the joy that this brings. Don’t @ me.

Right, I know this is about movies, but I need to have some honourable mentions for some BBC TV shows, both Dickens that just see me through the pain some days

Our Mutual Friend

*insert Bella and John gif here*

Bella and John. I mean, there’s so much else to love, and I do, but BELLA and JOHN.

Little Dorrit

OK, I know that I should be talking about all the wonderful side characters (John Chivery, MY HEART) but again, it’s one of the LOVE STORIES that has me swooning. Amy and Arthur, they are just 👌

[redemptionofthedead]

Miss Jin Young

Name: Jin Young

Age: 19

Height: 5’0

Weight: 94 lbs

Sexuality: Straight Female

Race: half Asian half Russian

Alignment: Lawful

Morals: punish the bad, the stupid, and the unjust, even if it means breaking the law.

Physical appearance: Jin is a rarity, her face and attributes comes from her mother. Having a soft Asian face, small stature and busty figure. The only things she acquired from her father was her bright blue eyes and light ashy hair. She has six slashing scars down the left side of her face. Two over her eye, majority over her cheek and some trailing down to her neck. This was the gift from the men who killed John.

Eyes:Sky blue

Hair: Light ASHY blonde hair

Personality:Jin may seem timid, but she's more cautious and reserved. Jins a polite and sweet girl to common folk. But the Russian in her distills pride and a temper. She relies on herself and no one else, won't ask for help. She is no one's pawn, she will not let anyone disrespect her or distract her from her mission. She's has a fury of a temper and is easily angered, always ready to fight. But once she's taken a liking to you she'll fight, kill, and die. But trust, loyalty, and love is tough to earn with her.

Fears:

Never getting Justice for John

Never finding peace.

Never feeling safe again.

Storms/thunder

Desires

Finding Justice for John and herself.

Ridding the world of the nasty.

Finding her path in life.

Making John proud.

Likes

Tea

Chocolate (only)

Silver jewelry

Chivery/romance. (She hides this

Jerky / salty snacks.

Dislikes

Crassness.

Coffee.

Being lied to.

Being underestimated.

Candy/sweet stuff.

Weapons: Ivory and ebony duel lemat revolvers. Evans repeater and her Bessy, pump action shotgun. She does have a collection of weapons but those are always with her. (All her guns are customized with dark walnut finish and silver metal and ebony engravings)

Horse: Jin has three horses.. Tank, John's Hungarian halfbred. Jasper her grey Thoroughbred. And her beloved Marshall, grey Mustang. (Not yet cannon)

General description: Jin is someone you want to be on her good side. She's a valuable ally, but a nasty enemy. She does not value her own life, and that makes her dangerous. She's pissed and angry at the world for what it's done to the good people in her life. Jin has a giant heart and sweet personality but she'll never admit it. She acts tough and heartless only to protect herself. Shell help anyone who needs it to keep more good folk from bad fortune. Jin has a Russian accent and when she's mad she's even tougher to understand. Get her pissed off and she might just start cussing you out in Chinese or Russian.. perhaps both at the same time. She knows three languages, English is her tougher speaking. When. She doesn't know the proper translation, shell just use the easiest.

Background: Jin's mother Thu, was a prostitute in Russia that was born and raised in Shanghai. She was caught up in the slave trade at the age of 16 and shipped over to Moscow. There for 5 years Thu travelled around Russia as a sex slave. When Thu started showing signs of being "overused". Thu was sold as a house slave to a rich man for his wife. But that didn't stop Mr.Bykov from using Thu. Soon after Thu was pregnant with Jin. During that time Jin was raised with the same status as her mother. From the time she could walk she was doing chores. Beaten and teased by the her half siblings of the higher family. Few years before Jin turned 11 the Bykov family moved to America. Settling in South Alaska. Jin was still a slave to her family despite being Bykov's bastard. She wasn't claimed in anyway or form. When Jin was coming of age, Thu over heard that he was planning on selling Jin to a high roller in Strawberry for a lot of money, for her beauty and purity. At this point Thu wanted to save her daughter from the life she had of her own. Risking it all, Thu escaped taking Jin with her heading down to Saint Denis. Of course losing out on a thousand dollars, Bykov sent men after the two. They ended up finding the girls on a train, north of valentine with a dozen other slaves trying to escape. At some point gunfire erupted and Thu was killed. When the law was involved and things were settling. After hours of clean up, detaining, and the process of law, a man name John D Connor found A 16 year old Jin huddled into a luggage hold. With Thu dead, Jin hardly speaking English, the man not knowing what to do with her. So John D Connor the Marshall, took Jin in and raised her for four years. Teaching her to be a free woman, a compassionate equestrian, a accurate shooter, a responsible huntsman and the importance of law. John became the only man she trusted, becoming her pa. With John having no family, he really took Jin under his wing

[violetbxdelaire]

can i please give john chivery the hug he deserves?

[all-the-dickens]

The devoted Young John all this time regarded the family with reverence. He never dreamed of disputing their pretensions, but did homage to the miserable Mumbo jumbo they paraded. As to resenting any affront from her brother, he would have felt, even if he had not naturally been of a most pacific disposition, that to wag his tongue or lift his hand against that sacred gentleman would be an unhallowed act. He was sorry that his noble mind should take offence; still, he felt the fact to be not incompatible with its nobility, and sought to propitiate and conciliate that gallant soul. Her father, a gentleman in misfortune—a gentleman of a fine spirit and courtly manners, who always bore with him—he deeply honoured. Her sister he considered somewhat vain and proud, but a young lady of infinite accomplishments, who could not forget the past. It was an instinctive testimony to Little Dorrit's worth and difference from all the rest, that the poor young fellow honoured and loved her for being simply what she was.

Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens

[gaelicfiddle]

Please, forgive me!!!

[recycledmoviecostumes]

This brightly colored waistcoat has been used at least twice over the years. It was first seen on Russell Tovey as John Chivery in the 2008 adaptation of Little Dorrit. In 2019 the piece was seen being worn by Dev Patel as David Copperfield in The Personal History of David Copperfield.

Costume Credit: Shannon

E-mail Submissions: submissions@recycledmoviecostumes.com

Follow:  Website | Twitter | Facebook | Pinterest

[ashbyonthemove]

Here lie the mortal remains of John Chivery, Assistant Turnkey and later Chief Turnkey of the Marshalsea Prison for Debt. He was unlucky in love and endured a good deal of sorrow, but he rose above it and performed many an act of kindness, even to his rival. And always engraved, on stone, deep into his very heart, is the name of "Amy Dorrit".

John Chivery- From the BBC's "Little Dorrit"

[pendragonness]

[modernaustenlady]

Love this scene. :)