We are only 8 days into these Christmas reviews and yet, after today, there will be no more reviews of films based on ‘A Christmas Carol’. Charles Dickens's tale of a bitter, money-hungry man who hates Christmas who is visited by three spirits who show him the error of his ways and help him warm his cold heart is a Christmas classic that has been adapted countless times, many of which I have reviewed over the years. And in an attempt to keep the streak going of reviewing at least one version of this film each year I have decided that Scrooge (1935) will be the last adaptation I will review this year. And I might as well jump straight into it. I would usually give a synopsis here but I am not sure there is any point when it comes to this story as I think it is known by everyone.
This film holds a place in history as the first sound adaptation of Dickens's classic tale. But a place in history does not necessarily correlate to high quality, and while this film is not bad, when compared to all the other adaptations of this story I have seen it is one of the weaker ones. That is not to say that it doesn't have its positives. The sets and costumes are all great, making the film feel authentic for the time period. You feel like these are genuine Victorian era streets and houses and it helps create an atmosphere befitting of the story. I also like Sir Seymour Hicks' performance as the titular Scrooge. He does a good job as both the cruel, vindictive Scrooge and the repentant, joyous Scrooge, never going too far with it as is sometimes the case with this character. I also really like how the Ghost of Christmas Future is presented visually. We never see a full view of the spirit, only ever seeing his skeletal hand through shadow, but it works really well, especially as it is complemented by Scrooge whose face is the only thing we see faintly in the middle of a huge shadow of his head. It’s a really effective and eerie visual and a definite highlight of the film.
But this film does have its issues. One of these issues is something that I am not sure is a genuine issue with the film or with the version of the film I watched. When I look online the runtime of the film appears to be one 1 hour 18 minutes long, but the version I watched was just over an hour. No idea why, but it may explain why the film doesn’t seem to tell the complete story. Almost everything of the original story is here, except the scenes of Scrooge as a child or young man and so we don’t see any of the reasons as to why he becomes this bitter old man. It means we are less sympathetic towards Scrooge which lessens the impact of his redemption. Also, while I liked the depiction of the Ghost of Christmas Future, the rest of the spirits weren’t the most inspired with their depictions. The Ghost of Christmas Present looked fine and was performed well enough by Oscar Ache, but the Ghost of Christmas Past was just depicted as a ball of light. Now, this wouldn’t have bothered me so much and I wouldn’t have been down on what feels like a slight lack of creativity if the film hadn’t made me laugh with their depiction of Jacob Marley. Actually, it is probably more apt to describe it is as lack of depiction as the ghost of Marley is non-existent, just an ethereal voice and a camera focus on a chair. Again, this would be fine, but the film makes a point of saying Scrooge can absolutely see Marley, so why the hell can’t we? Finally, while I liked the performance of Seymour Hicks, the rest weren’t as impressive. I don’t want it to come across as anyone was terrible, but there were some performances that didn’t do it for me, mostly due to how over the top it all feels at times.
While this isn’t a bad film or even a particularly bad adaptation of ‘A Christmas Carol’, it isn’t perfect and the issues it does have mean that there is very little in it to make you watch it over the much more impressive versions of this film, of which there are many. And because of these other superior adaptations, I find it hard to recommend the film for you to watch. Maybe if you are just interested in seeing a version of the film you may have never seen before or want to see it for the historical context of the film then it may be worth your time, otherwise, I wouldn’t bother.
Comments