 |
| (Amazon UK link) |
It’s at least three decades since I read the Charles Dickens classic on which so many films have been based. But the basic story is well-known. Scrooge is such a miser that his name has become a synonym for meanness. We learn that his business partner, Jacob Marley, has died - we even see a brief cameo of the funeral. Then the main story takes place seven years later, on Christmas Eve.
Patrick Stewart does not look anything like I have ever imagined Scrooge to be. I don’t understand why he wasn’t given a suitable wig for this film, to make him look more Victorian and rather older. But really that’s my only gripe. He is such a good actor that, as I became absorbed in the film, I quickly forgot my preconceived ideas, and saw him for the penny-pinching businessman Scrooge.
Scrooge has one employee, Bob Cratchett (Richard E Grant) who is also very believable in his role. He is paid fifteen shillings per week, on which he can barely scrape by. But he has a wife and five children, and they are all happy - much happier than Scrooge despite their poverty. The youngest, ‘Tiny Tim’ is crippled; there’s no indication why, but he walks with a crutch and mostly has to be carried. Ben Tibber, who must have been eight or nine when this production was made, does well in this role.
Saskia Reeves is excellent, too, as Mrs Cratchett, holding the family together by her excellent housekeeping and cooking. Her other children are less distinct and perhaps over-acting a bit, but it doesn't much matter.
Scrooge reluctantly gives Bob a whole day off for Christmas, while muttering ‘humbug’, and then returns to his gloomy home where he starts seeing ghosts… starting with his former business partner. The ghost of Marley rattles chains and warns Scrooge that unless he changes, he, too, will be doomed to roam the earth full of regrets for his self-centered life.
Some of the special effects look a bit dated, which isn’t surprising for a film that’s now over twenty-five years old. There are many adaptations of this story, and I expect modern ones are more realistic (if ghosts can ever be considered realistic), and perhaps more scary. But given the era, and the fact that the book was written for older children, it’s not inappropriate to have very different and unscary ghosts. The third, who doesn’t speak, is perhaps the most disturbing, but then the third ghost shows Scrooge what might happen if he doesn’t change his ways.
Dickens cared deeply about the impoverished in society, and many of his novels form a kind of social commentary. ‘A Christmas carol’ is obviously intended to be a moral tale, demonstrating why it’s important to be kind and generous. Scrooge’s change of focus is perhaps a tad unlikely after so many years of selfish miserliness. But it’s done so well in this film that it feels quite realistic while watching.
Knowing the story well did not in any way detract from my enjoyment of seeing this version. It’s rated PG which seems about right; there’s no violence or bad language, and parents will know whether or not the situations portrayed might upset their children. I doubt if it would be of much interest to very little ones anyway.
But for a good portrayal of the story, fairly close to the book, I would recommend this.
Other related films we’ve watched in the past few years include:
* Scrooged (with Bill Murray) - a modern take on the story, not for children
* A Christmas Carol goes wrong - chaos and some slapstick, as an incompetent cast attempt a play
* The man who invented Christmas - a fictional portrayal of Dickens’ life and the writing of the 'Christmas Carol' story
No comments:
Post a Comment