The Tower of London (1939)
The Tower of London is an interesting film, in that it is clearly a historical drama but in spite of this, it was marketed as a horror movie. This is mainly due to the presence of Boris Karloff who plays a club footed executioner. Universal studios were keen to focus upon his role and ensured he featured prominently on the theatrical posters, wielding an axe in a menacing fashion. The film does feature several ghoulish scenes set in the dungeons beneath the Tower of London but essentially this is just a competent retelling of Shakespeare’s Richard III. However, rather than adapt the bards prose, this film offers a more of a historically accurate narrative, as Richard of Gloucester claims the throne of England in 1483 by eliminating all other heirs. The movie embellishes the political intrigue by having Richard remove a figurine from a dollhouse resembling the throne room, every time he kills an enemy.
The Tower of London is an interesting film, in that it is clearly a historical drama but in spite of this, it was marketed as a horror movie. This is mainly due to the presence of Boris Karloff who plays a club footed executioner. Universal studios were keen to focus upon his role and ensured he featured prominently on the theatrical posters, wielding an axe in a menacing fashion. The film does feature several ghoulish scenes set in the dungeons beneath the Tower of London but essentially this is just a competent retelling of Shakespeare’s Richard III. However, rather than adapt the bards prose, this film offers a more of a historically accurate narrative, as Richard of Gloucester claims the throne of England in 1483 by eliminating all other heirs. The movie embellishes the political intrigue by having Richard remove a figurine from a dollhouse resembling the throne room, every time he kills an enemy.
The Tower of London is a well written and concise drama, which manages to expedite the historical plot without it feeling like a history lecture. Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Basil Rathbone) exudes both charm and malevolence as he plots and schemes. He is assisted by executioner and assassin Mord (Boris Karloff) who idolises his master and facilitates his plans. Vincent Price has a suitably unctuous role as Duke of Clarence. The drinking contest between him and Richard is a delightful scene, which Price and Rathbone mainly ad libbed. The production values are good and the sets have a sense of period atmosphere. There are some brief scenes set in the torture chamber and although far from graphic, they are quite bleak and psychologically quite cruel. However, it should be noted that this is very much a case of the 15th century as interpreted by a Hollywood studio. Even the depiction of squalor is oddly stylised and sanitised.
When Boris Karloff made Son of Frankenstein he signed a deal with Universal to make an additional two feature films. His role in The Tower of London was written specifically for him by screenwriter Robert N. Lee. Although the part is somewhat limited within the scope of the story, Karloff certainly demonstrates his acting skills. During a scene in which Richard, Duke of Gloucester orders the murder of the twin nephews, Karloff brings a subtle degree of hesitation to his performance. He briefly pauses outside the room and reflects upon what he has been charged to do. A brief pang of guilt passes his face before being replaced with grim resolve. Sadly, the role of Mord is not as prominent as the studio inferred. My late Father remembered seeing this film in the cinema when he was ten and recalled that many in the audience expect the film to be a pure horror movie. Apparently in the screening he saw, there were chants of “ we want Boris” as viewers became bored with all the historical intrigue.
As well as being a period costume drama, The Tower of London was also provided a degree of wartime propaganda. The film starts with an opening title card that strives to clearly draw a parallel between Duke of Gloucester’s rise to power and that of Hitler in Germany. Another interesting aspect of the production are the battle scenes. Despite using quite a lot of extras, bad weather destroyed a lot of the props and so a lot of the action were shot at close quarters, giving them a very intimate quality. John Boorman used the same technique forty years later in Excalibur. The director Rowland V. Lee was also keen to maintain a degree of authenticity with the production and wished to use period music. Sadly this was disputed by the studio and so a lot of stock music from previous Universal films were used. All things considered, The Tower of London is an entertaining historical drama that deserves a reappraisal. It certainly makes for an interesting alternative perspective on these events, rather than a traditional adaptation of Shakespeare’s Richard III.
This movie questionnaire was originally created by Alexander from Cinemaniac Reviews. Sadly, I believe that website is now defunct. However, that doesn’t in anyway invalidate the questionnaire itself which has some very good questions about your relationship with cinema. Some of my answers to the questions posed are about films that I enjoy, as opposed to those that are considered cinematic classics. However, I have answered some questions more seriously than others, especially the one about undeserving recipients of the Best Film Oscar. I struggled with a couple of questions because I no longer go the cinema as frequently as I did 10 years ago. This is mainly due to the fact that a lot of the films I find interesting end up going straight to streaming after very brief theatrical releases. Some do not even get shown in cinemas. Hence I view far more at home. But I digress. On with the questions and answers. Feel free to comment below and share your views.
Exit 8 is a sophisticated and claustrophobic psychological thriller directed by Genki Kawamura, which skilfully transforms a minimalist indie walking-simulator game into a cinematic existential enigma. This overtly metaphorical film renders the repetitive nature and drudgery of modern working life into a physical environment in which the lead character is trapped and must find a way out. A random, brutal maze filled with an atmosphere of indifference to the lab rats that find themselves trapped within. Or is it their personal guilt that has put them there? Genki Kawamura’s psychological mystery draws inspiration from the Japanese video game of the same name, as well as from the cyclical nature of Groundhog Day and endless corridors of the Overlook Hotel in Kubrick’s The Shining. Although there are jump scares and some ghoulish imagery, this is not a horror vehicle. Instead this is a disquieting psychological drama with a strong sense of morality.
I wrote a post 18 month’s ago regarding whether a directors cut of a film is superior by default to the version originally shown in cinemas. Obviously the answer was no and I then went on to give three examples of films where I think the theatrical release is better to lengthier or substantially altered director’s cut that was subsequently made available at a later date. This time round in this post, I would like to do the complete opposite. I shall provide some examples of films that I think are significantly improved by a longer cut or a substantially, restructured edit. Note some of these examples are technically not a “director’s cuts” but a restoration or reconstruction of the director’s original vision. I shall endeavour to highlight what specific material or broader changes make each respective film “better”. As ever, all of these examples are a matter of subjective opinion and my views are presented as such, not “fact”.
In 1968 the dilapidated freighter Corita hastily leaves Freetown to avoid a customs inspection. Captain Lansen (Eric Porter) has a cargo of dangerous explosives which he is smuggling so he can finally retire. His ship’s passengers also have reasons for leaving in a hurry. Dr. Webster (Nigel Stock), together with his daughter Unity (Suzanna leigh), is relocating due to his indiscretions with patients and illegal operations. Alcoholic pianist Harry Tyler (Tony Beckley) is aimlessly drifting from port to port. Eva Peters (Hildegard Knef) is fleeing from her husband with stolen bearer bonds which she intend to use to buy back her son from his evil clutches Caracas. Ricaldi (Ben Carruthers), a questionable lawyer, is pursuing Eva to retrieve the stolen bonds. First officer Hemmings (Neil McCallum) suggests that the ship should return to Freetown after an imminent Hurricane warning. The Captain asks the passengers and they are unanimous that they do not wish to return. However a mutinous crew, the bad weather and the instability of the explosives force everyone to abandon ship. The survivors find themselves adrift in a lifeboat surrounded by a strange carnivorous seaweed.
Jason Statham is an exemplar of the US mantra of “staying in your lane”. He makes action movies and occasionally strays into action comedies. His formula broadly works and is sufficiently lucrative to keep Mr. Statham employed. Therefore, if you watch a film in which he stars, you have a fairly good idea of what you’ll be getting. Of late, the criteria for his action vehicles have become more succinct. Jason Statham will play an innocuous character, such as a construction foreman or a bee keeper. Something terrible will subsequently befall another character who Mr. Statham has an emotional connection with in some capacity. He will subsequently hunt down those responsible and meet out death and violence. At some point the villain of the story will enquire as to how this innocuous person is so lethal. Research will then show that our Jason is in fact an ex-police officer/special forces operative/international assassin. There’s then a showdown and the villain dies. Job done.
The Light at the Edge of the World presented itself as an action movie upon its release in 1971. Based upon a story by Jules Verne, the Spanish American co-production was driven by its star Kirk Douglas, who curiously hired British director Kevin Billington to helm the project. This tale of a lighthouse keeper fighting a war of attrition against a group of pirates that have captured his island, was market as an adventure film ostensibly in the idiom of the authors previous works and as a pirate movie. MGM bought the rights to distribute the film in the UK on the misunderstanding that it was a family friendly production. It was not and remains so. They subsequently had to cut 15 minutes of violence and torture as well as an undercurrent of sexual assault to secure a suitable rating. Conversely, the US distributors received an arbitrary PG rating, despite the fact this is one of a handful of films that honestly depicts pirates as murderers, rapists and worse.
It’s an established action film trope. The fire team comprised of ex-military personnel, move in on their target. Only to have the tables turned by someone they don’t deem a threat. What makes it different in The Last Stand of Ellen Cole is a throwaway line of dialogue. The bested operative lies bleeding on the floor and the protagonists stands over them ready to finish them off. “Don’t, I have a cat” they feebly plead. For me that was the icing on the cake. The movie had already established it was taking the “same old, same old” and doing something different. Something fun, if taken in the right spirit. This scene tipped the balance and I embraced this film because it was being honest about what it is. This is a modern B movie that decides to give a very specific sub-genre a makeover. Furthermore, its clearly done with an affectionate wink, which is very different to sly wink. This isn’t deliberate self-knowing irony. Its just a film doing something different and possibly silly but it genuinely wants to have fun with it.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Despite being considered by many as an original story, The Abominable Snowman (1957) is in fact a remake of a made for television play, The Creature, that was originally broadcast in the UK in 1955. Hammer Films would often purchase the rights of popular TV programs and subsequently re-work them for mainstream, international cinema. Larger production budgets and fewer censorship restrictions allowed them to make their cinematic interpretations more lurid, thus commercially viable. Hence The Quatermass Xperiment, Quatermass II and Quatermass and the Pit were all given a big screen makeover and were commercially successful. The Abominable Snowman was written by acclaimed writer Nigel Kneale, who also wrote the original television drama and the aforementioned Quatermass trilogy. Although ostensibly marketed as a horror film this production is actually an interesting blend of psychological thriller and science fiction.
There are certain subjects that are notoriously uncinematic. These tend to be things that exist or are undertaken mainly in the mind, rather than expressed in an overtly physical way. Computing, science and mathematics are good examples. Writing code or working out complex equations does not immediately lend themselves to a visual medium such as cinema. Therefore, any film dealing with the world of corporate finance has its work cut out. Hence writer-director J C Chandor immediately deserves praise for making Margin Call, a film about the financial crash of 2008, as gripping and compelling as any political thriller. He does this by keeping the financial elements of the story to a minimum, choosing instead to focus upon those who have become aware of the imminent crisis and their reaction to it. However, the film remains a tough watch with regard to the some of the characters and their respective personal morality or lack there of.
The 1937 Hindenburg disaster has remained an enduring mystery over the years. The physical mechanics of how this airship filled with 7,000,000 cubic feet of hydrogen gas caught fire has been fully explored over the decades and there are now several extremely plausible theories as to how it may have happened. However, there remains the possibility of sabotage. As such an idea has more dramatic potential than mechanical failure, it was used as the central theme of the 1975 disaster movie The Hindenburg. Directed by Robert Wise, the screenplay by Nelson Gidding explores a German resistance against the Nazi regime. The airship is targeted as it is a powerful propaganda symbol for Hitler’s Germany. Sadly despite some interesting ideas, a strong cast and solid, old school optical effects, The Hindenburg is a slow and somewhat ponderous production. Although the final 20 minutes of the film recreate the infamous explosion meticulously, it doesn’t quite compensate for the uneventful, dialogue driven investigation of the previous 100 minutes.
On the Eastern Front in 1943, a German Tiger tank crew led by Lieutenant Philip Gerkens (David Schütter) is sent on a mission to rescue the missing officer Paul von Hardenburg (Tilman Strauss) from a top-secret bunker that is at risk of falling into enemy hands. As they make their way through an eerie no-man’s land, they have to avoid Russian armoured vehicles that seem to be aware of their mission. They also encounter a German unit taking punitive action against a peasant village, in reprisal for partisan activity in the area. The youngest crew member, Michel (Yoran Leicher), talks of the land being home to ghosts and spirits. As the tank penetrates further into contested territory the crew become increasingly disturbed by the uncanny nature of their mission and begin to fall prey to their own inner fears.
Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel has been adapted for cinema and television numerous times. Perhaps the most well known is the 1950 Disney version, starring Robert Newton as Long John Silver. His eye rolling performance and exaggerated West Country accent is credited with popularising the stereotypical form of “pirate speech" that has become the pop culture default. Although an enjoyable film, it does gloss over the more sinister aspects of both the source text and history, perpetuating the myth that pirates are just loveable scoundrels. Many subsequent adaptations have fallen into the same trap to a greater or lesser degree. However, that is not the case with the 1990 version of Treasure island, which was made for the TNT cable network and released theatrically outside of the US. This darker and notably more violent adaptation closely follows the source text and is widely considered the most faithful to the book.
The Planet of the Apes movie franchise took a radical change of course with its third entry in the series. The first two films were set in the future and benefited from high production values to help realise a post apocalyptic earth. However, due to a substantial reduction of budget, Escape from the Planet of the Apes uses a time travel plot device to bring the ape protagonists to present day Los Angeles (1971 in this case). The result is a film with a much smaller narrative scope. However, although it lacks the science fiction spectacle of its predecessors, it features an interesting satirical exploration of celebrity culture and ponders what it is like to be deemed an enemy of the state. As ever, Roddy McDowell and Kim Hunter provide exceptional lead performances as the Chimpanzees Cornelius and Zira. Escape from the Planet of the Apes also captures the pop culture vibe of seventies America.
It is not unusual for Disney to change film titles when marketing them outside of the US. In 2016 they renamed the animated feature film Zootopia to Zootropolis in the UK and Europe to avoid trademark conflicts with other existing businesses. For example there is a Danish zoo which already holds the “Zootopia” name. Similarly, in Germany there is a children’s book which caused copyright conflict, which led to the film being released under the title Zoomania. Such changes, although practical for legal reasons, can sometimes cause a degree of confusion. Especially as there are numerous, low budget productions companies that go out of their way to produce similarly titled “mockbusters” whenever there are big, tentpole, releases. So for clarity, Zootopia 2 has been released in the UK as Zootropolis 2.
Stephen King’s dystopian story, The Running Man, was previously adapted very loosely in 1987, as a vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger. That version focused mainly on the “Battle Royale” element of the story and leaned heavily into Arnie’s personality, rather than the politics of the book. It also wasn’t well received by the author. Edgar Wright’s remake follows the source text a lot more closely and is far more interested in its political themes and wider social commentary. Furthermore, this version re-establishes the everyman quality of the hero of Ben Richards, rather than him being the muscle bound, ex-military hero as per Mr. Schwarzenegger’s prior interpretation. This time round, The Running Man uses a lot of the visual and narrative tropes of contemporary reality TV, making this forty three year old story very relevant to today’s viewers and couching the film in a style that is recognisable and accessible.
The Haunted Dolls House is a short film based on a story by M.R. James about a unique antique that is subject to supernatural phenomenon. Adapted by Stephen Gray and David Lilley, this is the third of three short films based upon James’ work that the pair have made. It stars Steven Dolton as Mr. Dillet, a collector of antique dolls houses, who acquires a bargain only to discover that it harbours a ghostly secret. Made on an extremely modest budget over the course of 2012 this clever, innovative and rather sinister adaptation is a fine example of short film creativity. It manages to offer a unique visual depiction of M.R. James’ classic story whilst capturing the unsettling quality of the author’s work. Like so many independently made short films it is clearly a labour of love, made with modest resources. It succinctly captures the spirit of the author’s work and is both innovative and rewarding.
A lot of people may know Luke Evans from the live action version of Beauty and the Beast or Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit trilogy. With his matinee idol good looks, charming Welsh demeanour and his “smoky” tenor singing voice, he projects a sense of old school stardom. Which brings us to No One Lives; a film which is a radical departure from his previous work. His performance is disconcerting to say the least and the film is somewhat unhinged. Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura, who made an interesting adaptation of Clive Barker’s The Midnight Meat Train, this cinematic outing is similarly replete with robust shocks and gore. There are some interesting ideas about the nature of violence, Stockholm Syndrome and whether one should deny or embrace one’s nature. However, these are ultimately minor asides. Philosophical musings in between bouts of surprisingly striking unpleasantness.
In the near future, Kepler 822, a research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, suffers a sudden and catastrophic structural failure. There are only six survivors. Mechanical engineer Norah Price (Kristen Stewart), Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel), biologist Emily Haversham (Jessica Henwick), engineer Liam Smith (John Gallagher Jr.) and crew members Rodrigo (Mamoudou Athie) and Paul (T.J. Miller). As all the functional escape pods have been used and they are unable to contact the surface, the Captain suggests using pressurized suits to walk one mile across the ocean floor to the Roebuck 641 drill installation. There they will find more escape pods. However, it soon becomes apparent that the disaster was not caused by an undersea earthquake and that they are not alone as they make their journey.
One of the most common objections raised regarding the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise is that the films are specifically made to obtain a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association, for purely commercial reasons. Hence, in all films, there is little on screen violence and the dinosaurs are mainly portrayed as a threat and a means of providing jump scares. When a character is killed by a dinosaur it usually happens off screen, is obscured by something else in frame, or is shown in long shot with very little detail. The realities of being eaten alive by a predator are conspicuously absent. Hence, audiences looking for films featuring more graphic dinosaur attacks, have not been well catered for apart from some minor direct-to-video titles. Primitive War finally fills this gap in the market with a frenetic genre mashup that strives to punch above is budgetary weight.
During the seventies, cinema was not only a source of mass, commercial entertainment but was still perceived as a medium for intellectual and philosophical discourse. Television was a poor relation in terms of art and cultural significance. Film was where the so called auteur director could muse and ruminate upon the nature of the human condition and audiences could subsequently gush sycophantically about their work at dinner parties. Or something like that. Let it suffice to say that some film makers were still indulged by studios and financiers, who were still keen to cash in on the cultural sea change that came to Hollywood in the late sixties. It’s difficult to see how a film such as Emperor of the North (AKA Emperor of the North Pole) could have been made otherwise. A film set in the Great Depression about a hobo illegally travelling on freight trains and his feud with a ruthless conductor.
In Buenos Aires, Clara (Natalia Señorales) hears voices emanating from the plughole in her kitchen sink. The voices seem to be plotting against her. Her husband Juan (Agustín Rittano) says the sounds are coming from next door. That night, Juan finds Clara’s dead body levitating in their bathroom, slamming against the wall by an invisible force. Meanwhile their neighbour, Walter (Demián Salomón), is experiencing supernatural occurrences while he tries to sleep. An invisible force repeatedly shakes his bed. After using a video camera to film these events, he sees a tall, cadaverous figure emerging from under the bed, standing over him as he sleeps. Across the road, Alicia (Julieta Vallina) is grieving for her recently deceased son, who was run over outside Walter’s house. Alicia's ex-boyfriend, police commissioner Funes (Maximiliano Ghione) calls Jano (Norberto Gonzalo), a paranormal investigator and the pair soon discover more supernatural occurrences in the area.
Black Sabbath (AKA I tre volti della paura) is a 1963 horror anthology film directed by Mario Bava. Although an Italian production, the film was co-financed by American International Pictures and as such was conceived to appeal to US audiences. Hence, the English dialogue edit of the film which was released in America differs significantly to the original Italian version. Despite the presence of the legendary Boris Karloff and the popularity of both anthology and gothic horror at the time,the film was only a modest success at the US box office and did not do well in Italy. However, in more recent years there has been a critical reappraisal of Black Sabbath, especially the Italian dialogue version. Many aspects of the film which are standard genre tropes today, were in fact novel at the time. Also despite the production mainly being studio bound, the film oozes style and has a striking visual aesthetic.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
American music producer James William Guercio is primarily known for his work in the music industry. He was the producer of the band Chicago’s first eleven studio albums. In the mid-seventies he also managed the Beach Boys and was a member of their backing band. He was during this time, well known in his field and respected. In 1973, Guercio directed, produced and wrote the score for his first and only feature film, Electra Glide in Blue. He was 28 years old at the time. Upon release the film received mixed reviews from many traditional US newspapers, who were dismissive of its revisionist themes and poetical style. However, in Europe the film was received more favourably and was entered into the 1973 Cannes Film Festival. Fifty two years on and Electra Glide in Blue is now considered an overlooked cult classic and is analysed in a more measured fashion.
When I first saw the promotional trailer for Gangster Squad back in 2012, prior to its release, I wasn't especially impressed. I simply thought the film was another attempt to re-invent the gangster genre for a generation who were not especially familiar with it. I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with director Ruben Fleischer's resume either. I didn't particularly like Zombieland and haven't seen 30 Minutes Or Less. Then came the tragic mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado which led to the movie being delayed so that the original ending, which featured a shoot-out in a movie theatre, could be replaced. Hence when I finally watched this film recently, I wasn't expecting a movie up to the standards of say Once Upon A Time In America or Miller’s Crossing and it would seem that I was right do so. Gangster Squad is not especially noteworthy in any respect.
A Christmas Carol (1954)
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.
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.
Music and song plays an integral part of this version. Although not a full blown musical, there is an itinerant group of carol singers that seem to grow in size, who regularly regale the viewers with expository songs. Plus many characters sing at some point. Others do not. It’s all rather inconsistent and confusing. The songs are mainly designed to underpin the story's themes. At times they are used as a means to bridge scenes or expedite the story without an excess of dialogue. Unfortunately the songs, also written by Maxwell Anderson, are weak and superfluous. Some are actually annoying. However, the orchestral score and incidental music by the great Bernard Herrmann is striking. At times it has a very eerie and foreboding quality, with its use of strings and choir vocalisation. But alas, there’s far too little of it.
There are very few original ideas featured in this adaptation. The Spirit of Christmas Past and The Spirit of Christmas Present look like Scrooge’s lost love Belle and nephew respectively. This is because they are played by the same actors. I initially thought this was a visual conceit used for narrative reasons but it is more than likely due to the budgetary restrictions. The screenplay attempts to focus on Scrooge’s failed relationship as the main cause of his abhorrent nature. Unfortunately, it dwells a little too long upon the matter. There’s an excruciating song that Belle and Scrooge sing at Fezziwig’s Christmas party. The Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come is not even shown. Scrooge merely “looks within himself” and has a revelatory vision of a graveyard with both his and Tiny Tim’s names upon the tombstones. This proves sufficient shock therapy to reform Scrooge’s nature.
Despite the presence of quality actors such as Fredric March and Basil Rathbone who plays Marley’s Ghost, this is a rather poor adaptation which is actually quite hard to sit through. Rathbone, covered in cobwebs, rambles through the poorly condensed dialogue. “I come out of torment. I come to help your soul avoid eternal misery”. Well, not watching this particular adaptation is possibly a good place to start. The contract TV actors chew the low budget scenery and incessantly assail you with tedious and never ending songs. And then to utterly mitigate the underlying theme of poverty, Scrooge invites himself to Bob Cratchit’s meagre Christmas Dinner. It is as illogical as it is risible. Hence, there is precious little to recommend about this version of A Christmas Carol. I would only suggest watching it if you are a completionist or a consummate fan of the two main leads. Casual viewers should seek out a more competent adaptation.
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.
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.
In the year 1860, Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) faces execution by guillotine for the murders perpetrated by the creature he created. With the assistance of a hunchback named Karl (Oscar Quitak) he avoids death by beheading the priest who came to give him the last rites. The priest’s body is then mistakenly buried by the authorities. Three years later, Victor, now using the name Doctor Stein, has established himself as a prosperous physician in Karlsbrück, serving both affluent patients and the poor at a paupers’ hospital. Hans Kleve (Francis Matthews), a junior member of the medical council, recognises Victor and being an admirer, seeks to become his apprentice. Victor and Hans then undertake an experiment to transplant Karl’s living brain into a new, more refined body, rather than a grotesque monstrosity the Baron has previously made. Karl is eager to have a new healthy body, especially after encountering Margaret Conrad (Eunice Gayson), the charming new assistant at the hospital.