While worth watching (and owning), this version of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is all too often inappropriately described as "definitive."
For a film based upon a book to be described as "definitive," one would expect the film to be extremely faithful to the book, or at least to the author's intent. Unfortunately, "Scrooge" too often departs from both, even with regard to its title. One has to ask with extreme irony: how can this film be considered "definitive" when it can't even get the story's title straight?
Alistair Sim generally does an excellent job in portraying the title character without resorting to caricature. And the black and white cinematography is wonderful, adding to the mood and period feel of 19th century London. I love the scenes where Ebeneezer first appears at his home, and is going through his rooms after being spooked by the apparition in his door knocker. Those scenes would be far less effective in the Technicolor style that was popular in the fifties when this was made.
Further, I don't even mind that some liberties have been taken with Dickens' novel, especially in scenes involving Scrooge's time with the Ghost of Christmas Past, or his reveling at the expense of his house maid near the end. I am fine with filmmakers reading between the lines, and fleshing out more of the story, as long as it is done in a competent fashion. Unfortunately, I think Dickens would hardly have approved of the scenes that were added that actually changed his storyline.
For example, in this version, there is an invented scene in which Scrooge and Marley actually cause the financial ruin of old Fezziwig. The problem with this, of course, is that Ebeneezer is supposed to have been someone who always revered Fezziwig, but had just forgotten with the passage of time and his growing obsession with self and money what an ideal employer the jolly old fellow was. That fact allows the Ghost of Christmas Past to use Ebeneezer's history as well as his emotional ties to Fezziwig to drive an effective point home to Scrooge about his poor treatment of his own lone employee, Bob Cratchit. If Scrooge never cared for Fezziwig, then he makes an ineffective role model and the comparison is useless.
In addition, the scene in which Scrooge is taken by the Ghost of Christmas Present to observe the goings-on at his nephew Fred's place is far too short. It doesn't communicate at all the merrymaking and companionship that Ebeneezer has been missing out on for years. It is woefully out of balance with the time spent on other scenes.
The Ghost of Christmas Present then takes Ebeneezer to a place where his former fiancé Belle (re-named "Alice" for some inexplicable reason) is helping out at a homeless shelter. This replaces the scene from the book where Scrooge witnesses her married, showing him what a large, happy family he could have had, if he had been a better man in his youth. Again, the lesson of wasted opportunity is missing, and this change in the script defeats the purpose Dickens intended.
Alastair Sim is likewise often described as the "definitive" Scrooge. Although I thoroughly enjoy his portrayal of the character, I think Sim lacks the physical appearance to be "definitive." His face is a bit too round and comical to have the look that is reminiscent of the drawings approved by Dickens that were done by illustrator John Leech. That Scrooge is far more gaunt and flinty. Actually, of all the Scrooges that have been portrayed on screen, I think Seymour Hicks from the otherwise lacking 1935 version may have been the closest physically to those illustrations.
I won't nitpick the supporting cast, with the exception of pointing out a couple of things. One, is that I have to disagree with reviewers who loved Michael Horndern as Marley's ghost. I thought his hammy, over-the-top acting style was of the kind that is usually associated with melodrama in the silent era.
Far more importantly, Tiny Tim is not nearly tiny nor sickly-looking enough. That huge casting blunder alone is enough to prevent this version from assuming the title of "definitive!"
One last criticism, that has nothing to do with the debate over "definitive" is with the music soundtrack. It is far too loud and blaring in spots, especially when the tune (ironically) "Silent Night" is drowning out some dialog.
At any rate, while I disagree with the verdict of "definitive," I have to say this is nonetheless a very enjoyable adaptation, and certainly close enough to the spirit of Dickens' novel to be recommended. While it lacks the natural subtlety and congruity of the George C. Scott version, it is head and shoulders above the version starring Patrick Stewart, which, while very literal in its treatment of the novel, falls extremely flat.
For a film based upon a book to be described as "definitive," one would expect the film to be extremely faithful to the book, or at least to the author's intent. Unfortunately, "Scrooge" too often departs from both, even with regard to its title. One has to ask with extreme irony: how can this film be considered "definitive" when it can't even get the story's title straight?
Alistair Sim generally does an excellent job in portraying the title character without resorting to caricature. And the black and white cinematography is wonderful, adding to the mood and period feel of 19th century London. I love the scenes where Ebeneezer first appears at his home, and is going through his rooms after being spooked by the apparition in his door knocker. Those scenes would be far less effective in the Technicolor style that was popular in the fifties when this was made.
Further, I don't even mind that some liberties have been taken with Dickens' novel, especially in scenes involving Scrooge's time with the Ghost of Christmas Past, or his reveling at the expense of his house maid near the end. I am fine with filmmakers reading between the lines, and fleshing out more of the story, as long as it is done in a competent fashion. Unfortunately, I think Dickens would hardly have approved of the scenes that were added that actually changed his storyline.
For example, in this version, there is an invented scene in which Scrooge and Marley actually cause the financial ruin of old Fezziwig. The problem with this, of course, is that Ebeneezer is supposed to have been someone who always revered Fezziwig, but had just forgotten with the passage of time and his growing obsession with self and money what an ideal employer the jolly old fellow was. That fact allows the Ghost of Christmas Past to use Ebeneezer's history as well as his emotional ties to Fezziwig to drive an effective point home to Scrooge about his poor treatment of his own lone employee, Bob Cratchit. If Scrooge never cared for Fezziwig, then he makes an ineffective role model and the comparison is useless.
In addition, the scene in which Scrooge is taken by the Ghost of Christmas Present to observe the goings-on at his nephew Fred's place is far too short. It doesn't communicate at all the merrymaking and companionship that Ebeneezer has been missing out on for years. It is woefully out of balance with the time spent on other scenes.
The Ghost of Christmas Present then takes Ebeneezer to a place where his former fiancé Belle (re-named "Alice" for some inexplicable reason) is helping out at a homeless shelter. This replaces the scene from the book where Scrooge witnesses her married, showing him what a large, happy family he could have had, if he had been a better man in his youth. Again, the lesson of wasted opportunity is missing, and this change in the script defeats the purpose Dickens intended.
Alastair Sim is likewise often described as the "definitive" Scrooge. Although I thoroughly enjoy his portrayal of the character, I think Sim lacks the physical appearance to be "definitive." His face is a bit too round and comical to have the look that is reminiscent of the drawings approved by Dickens that were done by illustrator John Leech. That Scrooge is far more gaunt and flinty. Actually, of all the Scrooges that have been portrayed on screen, I think Seymour Hicks from the otherwise lacking 1935 version may have been the closest physically to those illustrations.
I won't nitpick the supporting cast, with the exception of pointing out a couple of things. One, is that I have to disagree with reviewers who loved Michael Horndern as Marley's ghost. I thought his hammy, over-the-top acting style was of the kind that is usually associated with melodrama in the silent era.
Far more importantly, Tiny Tim is not nearly tiny nor sickly-looking enough. That huge casting blunder alone is enough to prevent this version from assuming the title of "definitive!"
One last criticism, that has nothing to do with the debate over "definitive" is with the music soundtrack. It is far too loud and blaring in spots, especially when the tune (ironically) "Silent Night" is drowning out some dialog.
At any rate, while I disagree with the verdict of "definitive," I have to say this is nonetheless a very enjoyable adaptation, and certainly close enough to the spirit of Dickens' novel to be recommended. While it lacks the natural subtlety and congruity of the George C. Scott version, it is head and shoulders above the version starring Patrick Stewart, which, while very literal in its treatment of the novel, falls extremely flat.