Ghosts of CineVerse's past
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Last week, CineVerse dusted off the timeless chestnut that is Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" (the big screen 1951 adaptation, that is) and discussed the elements that make this perhaps the definitive film version of the Christmastime tale. Here are highlights of that discussion.
WHAT MAKES THIS VERSION OF DICKENS’ STORY ON FILM A CUT
ABOVE THE REST?
·
It arguably features the finest performance by
an actor in the role of Scrooge, as evidenced by his range of emotion expressed
and severe degree of transformation exhibited; many fans say that Scrooge’s
redemption and transformation is much more believable and uplifting in this
version
·
It’s darker and more gothic than its 1938
American predecessor from MGM starring Reginald Owen, which was rather light,
frothy and condensed; this isn’t a “feel-good” movie until the end, excluding
any appreciation you have for the acting, production values, visuals, etc.
·
It’s a more fully realized and faithful version
of Dickens’ text, although it pads on a few extra characters and scenes that
aren’t in the book
·
It evokes the dark, gritty, haunting qualities
of film noir and horror, gracing the production with more seriousness and
unnerving visuals and sounds than many other adaptations; it also “looks the
part” in terms of attention to detail and period authenticity regarding
costumes, sets, and the look/mood of 1843 England; plus, the black and white
cinematography is exceptional, particularly in its use of deep blacks and
shadows
·
It’s also firmly a movie of its times and for
its times in Britain, where it was made:
o it
echoes some of the social angst experienced in postwar England
o It
comes shortly after David Lean’s popular, effective and successful Dickens’
adaptations of Great Expectations and Oliver Twist, which were also faithful to
their source materials
o According
to one reviewer: “Scrooge is also a contemplation on Britain’s place in the
world after the war; its social commentary on the welfare state and its utterly
terrifying depiction of ignorance and want as two of mankind’s own
self-destructive children (as shown in the film) foreshadowing the rights and
freedoms being contested in Britain’s House of Parliament at that time, the
same year the conservatives defeated the labor party to gain control of government
and make sweeping reforms that set the country’s path onto a decidedly
different course.”
SURPRISINGLY, THIS MOVIE WAS NOT WELL RECEIVED IN AMERICA
AT THE TIME, DESPITE BEING HAILED IN THE UK. WHY DO YOU THINK IT TOOK MANY
YEARS FOR THIS PICTURE TO BE APPRECIATED HERE?
·
Perhaps audiences thought it too bleak,
depressing, cold and dreary, despite the fact that those are tenets that remain
faithful to the tone expressed in Dickens’ story
·
The MGM version was relatively popular in its
day in 1938; perhaps American audiences were used to that more over-glitzy,
lighthearted, polished production and saw this as a radical departure from that
vision
·
This version is much more “British” than the MGM
version, especially in accents, casting and sensibilities
DOES THIS FILM REMIND YOU OF ANY OTHERS?
·
It’s a Wonderful Life, in that the main
protagonists in both films are visited by supernatural beings and shown dark
alternate realities to teach them a lesson, and both tales depict a miserly old
rich man villain
·
The British anthology horror film “Dead of
Night,” which also stars Mervyn Johns and includes a Christmastime tale