The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby

Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby, The (1981). No play of the decade had a more expensive ticket ($100 for the two full‐length parts), received higher critical praise, and aroused such excitement in New York than this ingenious London stage version of Charles Dickens's novel. The nine‐and‐a‐half‐hour production by the Royal Shakespeare Company employed forty‐two actors to portray 138 speaking roles in telling the tale of poverty‐stricken schoolmaster Nicholas (Roger Rees) and his fight for survival and righteousness during the Industrial Revolution. David Edgar wrote the adaptation and Trevor Nunn and John Caird co‐directed the sprawling tale of passion, humor, pathos, villainy, and adventure that won the Tony and NYDCC Awards. The limited ninety‐eight‐performance run at the Plymouth Theatre was sold out once the rave reviews were forthcoming; scalpers were reportedly getting $2,000 a ticket for the much‐sought‐after attraction. It was revived by the RSC on Broadway in 1986 but was only mildly successful the second time around.

David Edgar 1980

When it appeared on the London stage in 1980, David Edgar’s Nicholas Nickleby became the longest play ever produced, and when it moved to a lavish production in New York for the eight-and-one-half hour theater endurance test (viewed either in one marathon sitting or in two long evenings), it boasted the most expensive theatre ticket price ever set, at $100 each. Edgar found himself identifying more and more with the Dickensian spirit of being “generously angry” as he worked on Nicholas Nickleby. This is a play that takes the social consciousness of the original Dickens novel to new dimensions, where audiences can be reminded of the need for social reform, as well as uplifted by the play’s message. Edgar sees three avenues of success in his production: “First, it looks at adaptations in a new way. It says that a group of people with a strong view about the world can take a work of art and frame it and transform it in a way that makes the adaptation one not of the original work of art but about the original work of art. Point two... it’s accessible; it’s not obscure.... [And] the third point is that it was... on the side of the underdog for the entirety of its not inconsiderable length.” The play combines Dickensian social realism with modern theatrical spectacle and genuine heart.