A Christmas Carol (1938)
I have written previously about the versatility of Charles Dickens’ classic story and how it lends itself to multiple adaptations and interpretations. This 1938 film version tests that very theory as the reformation and redemption of Ebenezer Scrooge is presented through the medium of Golden Age Hollywood. A Christmas Carol sees the source text sanitised, infantilised and presented as a polished example of wholesome American film making. It has the high production values you’d expect from a studio such as MGM at the time, along with a cloyingly sentimental screenplay that dodges the politics of the book and renders the proceedings into an odd mixture of comedy and soft US Christian propaganda. It presents a very stylised depiction of Dickensian England and bears too many of the obvious foibles and tropes of the studio system that produced the movie.
This movie deals in caricatures and archetypes. Reginald Owen portrayal of Scrooge is hamstrung immediately due to his comical stylised “age make up”. His performance is neither scary, embittered or intimidating. He simply comes across as rather grumpy old man who is just “put out” about contemporary life. His Nephew Fred (Barry MacKay) has an expanded role and an ongoing romantic interest via his fiancée. As for Bob Cratchit (Gene Lockheart), his is reduced to nothing more than a comic foil (who is sacked due to his participation in a snowball fight). His rotund build hardly convinces viewers of his poverty. Similarly, his home, children and wife are only “poor” in the Hollywood sense of the word. With such one-dimensional depictions, it is very hard to become overtly invested in the characters.
Moving on to Marley’s Ghost (Leo G. Carrol) and the three spirits, all of these characters are subsequently bastardised. Scrooge calls the night watchmen when Marley first appears, and the use of comedy again robs the subsequent scenes of any drama. The Ghost of Christmas past looks like she’s stepped straight out of a Broadway chorus line, complete with a star on top of her hat. The Ghost of Christmas Present is also saddled with humorous vignettes as he uses the spirit of Christmas to stop several contrived comedic fights. The final spirit follows the standard depiction of a hooded spectre, but its scenes are pure melodrama. The screenplay removes the more sinister and bleaker elements of the book, such as “ignorance and want”, along with the pawn shop meeting and Scrooge lying dead in his own bed. There are further frivolous scenes of Fred and his fiancée attending church to bolster their piety.
This is a far from subtle or nuanced adaptation. It is contrived and tonally somewhat childish with its continual veering from humour to melodrama. Scrooge’s redemption and subsequent visit to the Cratchits house to make amends is borderline nauseating and devoid of any genuine adult emotion. It’s all very highly polished and superficial. The only aspect of the story that is clear is the perfunctory handling of the Christian message, which is no more sophisticated in this instance than “don’t be mean to each other”. Plus, this film includes one of the healthiest Tiny Tim’s ever seen. A Christmas Carol may amuse and entertain those who are interested in seeing how classic Hollywood film making was a finely-honed process that always lead to a specific product. It may also be of interest to completists who wish to seek out as many versions of the book as possible. But for those who want a more robust, honest and sophisticated adaptation of Dickens, then look elsewhere.
This BBC production from 1977 packs a lot into its 60 minute running time. Succinctly dramatised by Elaine Morgan, this adaptation focuses on the essential themes and key scenes of Dickens’ book. Shot on video, as many BBC dramas were at the time and confined entirely to studio sets, this low budget production makes use of chroma key visual effects. The snow bound countryside, the dark staircase in Scrooge’s apartment and the London skyline are all line drawings, with the cast composited in the foreground. Hence this version of A Christmas Carol feels like an episode of Doctor Who from the same decade. However, the production has one trump card to play with its robust cast of British character actors from the era. Fine performances from the likes of John Le Mesurier, Bernard Lee and Zoe Wanamaker more than compensate for the budgetary restrictions and short duration.
There are three key elements to Disney’s 2009 3D computer-animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol. Firstly, director Robert Zemeckis clearly seeks authenticity and hence includes a lot of original dialogue from the novel, as well as a bleaker depiction of the period. Secondly, he uses the digital production tools at his disposal to create sweeping vistas of 19th century London as well as highly stylised caricatures of the central characters. Thirdly, as this is a Disney production, there is an occasional lapse visual humour and levity that is required by their business model. Sadly all of these aspects of the production make for strange bedfellows that are at odds with each other. The result is a visually sumptuous film that loses its way as it lurches between bleak drama, odd humour and CGI driven spectacle.
Upon its theatrical release, Mickey’s Christmas Carol was the first animated film to star Mickey Mouse for thirty years. It was therefore accompanied with a large amount of hype and a wave of nostalgia. The US marketing stated “He’s Back. Mickey Mouse in his first new motion picture” which was somewhat misleading, as the actual animated film was just 26 minutes long. It was shown theatrically along with a re-release of The Rescuers in the US and The Jungle Book in the UK and other territories, in late December 1983. And despite his name being in the title, Mickey doesn’t have a lot of screen time as he plays Bob Cratchit. This is very much a vehicle for Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer Scrooge. Overall, it’s a succinct distillation of the plot of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, filled with cameo appearances by classic Disney characters. Naturally it is replete with the humour and sentiment that is inherent in the process known colloquially as Disneyfication. However, does this mitigate the book’s message?
At first glance, there is not much to distinguish this low budget production by Burbank Films Australia, from any of the other adaptations that were ubiquitous during the seventies and eighties. However, attentive viewers will discover a few details that lift this particular version above the mundane. Firstly, this is the second animated adaptation to feature the voice acting of Ron Haddrick as Ebenezer Scrooge. He had previously voiced the character in Air Programs International's shorter version of A Christmas Carol in 1969, thirteen years earlier. Secondly, despite the modest production values, there are a few additional scenes taken from the source text by Dickens, that don’t usually make it most film and TV adaptations. It is these minor embellishments that compensate for the simplicity of the animation (during the opening scene, some background characters do not move).
It’s interesting that so many adaptations of Charles Dickens’ iconic seasonal story are brought to us via the medium of animation. Naturally, this is a far more economical means of depicting the story with its period detail and supernatural elements, compared to a live action production. However, for an animated version of A Christmas Carol to work successfully, it needs three things. An innovative and striking production design, robust voice acting and a screenplay that keeps the core themes while offering significance difference compared to prior adaptations. You’ll find all of these elements in Richard Williams’ 1971 animated short. Sadly they’re conspicuously absent from the 1997 version. Despite the presence such talents as Tim Curry, Ed Asner and Whoopi Goldberg, this is a distinctly arbitrary animated film. Considering that the screenplay was written by Jymn Magon who has years of experience working for Disney, I had hoped this would be better endeavour.
There’s a degree of hubris implicit in such a definitive title. At the very least the inference is that this is a notable adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic book. And at first glance, it is perfectly reasonable to assume just that. Jimmy Murakami was an animator of note with such unique movies as The Snowman and When the Wind Blows to his credit. Hence it is reasonable to expect a similar quirky and experimental treatment of this well know yuletide story. However, what audiences actually get is a rather bold adaptation that substantially embellishes upon the established narrative. Veering between sinister and borderline psychedelic imagery, this is a very inconsistent version that tries to be too many things at once. Just as you think you’ve got a handle on the film approach it takes an abrupt turn in the opposite direction. Comedy, drama and even power ballads are thrown into the mix. Sadly, all these elements do not hang well together.
I have written previously about the versatility of Charles Dickens’ classic story and how it lends itself to multiple adaptations and interpretations. This 1938 film version tests that very theory as the reformation and redemption of Ebenezer Scrooge is presented through the medium of Golden Age Hollywood. A Christmas Carol sees the source text sanitised, infantilised and presented as a polished example of wholesome American film making. It has the high production values you’d expect from a studio such as MGM at the time, along with a cloyingly sentimental screenplay that dodges the politics of the book and renders the proceedings into an odd mixture of comedy and soft US Christian propaganda. It presents a very stylised depiction of Dickensian England and bears too many of the obvious foibles and tropes of the studio system that produced the movie.
This 1935 British adaptation of Dickens’ classic book was the first movie version of the story to have sound. Director Henry Edwards had to work creatively to stretch the productions modest budget. Subsequently the production is reliant on fog and snow shrouded sets, mainly to keep costs down. However, this does provide a veneer of authenticity in its depiction of a divided and polluted London. There are a few miniature shots showing the capital city at night and a handful of location shots inside various public buildings to establish the period setting. But mainly this is a set bound production and a sombre one at that. The underlying thrust of this adaptation is to highlight the class division as well as the contrasting wealth and poverty of the country at the time. It is this perspective that is used as the fulcrum of Scrooge’s redemption.
This version of Dickens novel is a very serious and somewhat sombre affair. Patrick Stewart not only stars in this 1999 TV movie but also has a producer credit. Anyone who is familiar with the actor will be aware of his long-standing passion for this tale, as he has starred in several one-man stage performances and narrated an audio book version. Stewart plays his Scrooge as more of an arrogant and aloof businessman. It’s a different Scrooge to that of George C. Scott or Alistair Sim. Here he is much more fearsome and bitter than he is cold and loathsome. Richard E. Grant is a touching, vulnerable Bob Cratchit, who looks decidedly poor and malnourished. There is a more tangible depiction of real poverty here than in other adaptations. The three ghosts are portrayed in a manner closer to the source text, although I could have done without the glowing eyes of the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.
The Muppet Christmas Carol was the first Muppet feature film to be made after the death of Jim Henson. The production maintains his standards and style throughout, although due to the plot, this is a somewhat dark Muppet film. It’s also the one most affectionate of the Muppets movie. The plot follows Charles Dickens's original 1843 novel quite closely with the added bonus of The Great Gonzo playing Dickens himself as an ever-present narrator. Michael Caine provides an excellent performance as Ebenezer Scrooge that wouldn’t be out of place in serious adaptation. Caine attacks his role with his acting prowess and does not end up playing second fiddle to The Muppets themselves. As ever with Muppet movies, neither Caine or any other member of the cast ever question the fact that the Muppets aren’t human.
By 1988 Blackadder had run for three seasons in the UK and had seen the central character of Edmund Blackadder evolve from a seedy incompetent to a cunning, scheming, evil genius who was always frustrated at the last moment. Cleverly written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton and superbly portrayed by Rowan Atkinson, Blackadder was very much at the cutting edge of British comedy of the time. It managed to mix physical humour, with verbal sparring, sarcasm, dry self-deprecation and irony. It was popular with a very broad spectrum of viewers.
Over the last few years I’ve reviewed several adaptations of Charles Dickens seasonal story A Christmas Carol. As I stated previously one of the stories greatest strength is that it lends itself perfectly to multiple interpretations. I recently had the good fortune to rediscover the animated version from 1969 by Air Programs International. I remember seeing this animated short as a child but could not recollect sufficient details to allow me to track it down via the IMDB. Then by complete chance, I stumbled across it again on You Tube while doing some research.
I have a great deal of affection for Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, not only because it’s a fine piece of literature but because it lends itself so well to dramatisation. I therefore have a keen interests in all the respective adaptation, of which there are many. Over the years there has been a trend to focus excessively on the sentimental aspect of the plot, resulting in a rather nauseating Disneyfication of the story. Although the redemption of the main protagonist is central to the narrative, the poverty and deprivations of the time are still very pertinent themes, especially in today's economic climate. I was therefore very gratified to rediscover the 1971 version of Charles Dickens' classic story which was originally shown on ABC. This short 25 minute animated feature realises the story superbly, capturing the tone of the book and accurately reflecting the darker aspects. Remember that A Christmas Carol is fundamentally a ghost story.
Clive Donner's 1984 version of the Dickens' classic "A Christmas Carol” is bold and different mainly because of the casting of George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. The story is told with precision and an eye to detail. In some respects it’s the most authentic adaptation, with credible performances from the ensemble cast. Alastair Sim's portrayal in the 1951 film has always been perceived as a benchmark and provided a template as to how the role should be interpreted. Scott replaces the traditional anger, bitterness and rage with a cold and utterly dispassionate demeanour. There is a strong sense of honesty in his Scrooge as the audience follows him on his emotional journey. The tears, the regret and the realisation that there is still hope are all present, yet explored in a very non-theatrical manner.
The all-star big screen musical was desperately striving to be different during the sixties and seventies, producing many hits and misses. Tommy, The Lost Horizon and The Wiz are prime examples of the experimentation made within the genre at the time. However, due to the success of Oliver! at the box office in 1968 it was thought that there was potential mileage to be had from Dicken's classic "A Christmas Carol". So the musical Scrooge was conceived. Unlike Oliver! it was not based on a existing stage adaptation but on a wholly original screenplay, although a theatrical treatment has since been adapted.
I am a great fan of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". There is something very special about the novella which is quite hard to quantify. It is a very unique book despite its central theme of redemption being universal. The text has for want of another phrase, a "power" to it. It is profoundly moving, insightful and true. Perhaps the key this story’s appeal lies with the central character, Ebenezer Scrooge. Not because Scrooge is a monster (which are so often fascinating) but because he's a man broken by circumstance. I think readers throughout the years have related to this and considered "There, but for the grace of God, go I". Cinema has found a rich vein of gold running through this tale, which is why it’s been revisited so often and interpreted so many ways.
Roger Edwards
This 1954 adaptation of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is a distinctly studio bound US television production. It was in fact the fourth episode of an anthology variety show called A Shower of Stars. Originally filmed and broadcast in colour, only black and white prints now survive. The production boasts a script by noted American playwright Maxwell Anderson. Due to the 48 minute running time (without commercial breaks) the narrative is heavily abridged and often it is only the story’s most basic themes which are dramatically interpreted. It stars Fredric March who plays Scrooge as a cool and indifferent man, rather than the usual shrill old miser. However, despite his presence his performance cannot save the production. Most of the other cast members are far from accomplished and at times their acting borders on the amateur.