The Man Who Invented Christmas (Dan Stewart)

(Amazon UK link)

I’m not entirely sure how the film ‘The Man who Invented Christmas’ arrived on my wishlist. Perhaps Amazon had recommended it to me based on other films I had rated well. Or perhaps someone else had suggested. In any case, I was pleased to receive it as a Christmas gift. It seemed like the ideal film to watch towards the end of the Christmas period.

This film is a fictionalised story set in the mid 1840s, based around the writing of Charles Dickens’ classic novel ‘A Christmas Carol’. Dan Stevens is superb as the author, who would have been around thirty at the time. I had only seen pictures of Dickens as a much older man, so it took a moment’s readjustment of my mental images. But I quickly realised that it was probably a very realistic setting.

I didn’t know much about Dickens’ life, other than that he had a happy childhood until his father was thrown into a debtors’ prison, and Charles had to go and work in a factory, giving up his education. It didn’t stop him reading and working as a journalist, and eventually a novelist. But I had no idea about his family life - he was married with several children - nor that for a while he was in debt, and in doubt as to whether he could keep going.

I assume that most of the story involving the writing of his famous Christmas book was in the imagination of the script-writers, but it all feels quite realistic. Charles feels rather worthless after a successful American tour, and unable to write, all the more so as his publishers pressurise him and his debts mount. He’s an angry person who has not forgiven his father for his childhood traumas. He is also very angry about the way that the poor are treated. This comes across in several of his novels. Charles Dickens was responsible for raising public awareness about some of the horrors of poverty and the workhouse.

But the film is mainly about the slow progress made on the novel ‘A Christmas Carol’, along with several flashbacks. As the character of Scrooge (brilliantly played by Christopher Plummer) develops, so some of Charles’ hangups also reveal themselves. It’s cleverly done. The story of the novel is so well-known that of course we knew what would be coming, but the way the plot emerged, rather slowly, feels entirely believable.

Morfydd Clark deserves a mention as Charles’ long-suffering wife Kate. He is a man of many moods, and she looks after her household, uncertain when he’s going to fly into a temper, patient about his many quirks. There are several children, and Charles is clearly fond of them; at times he seems to be a excellent father, at others he almost entirely ignores them and his wife.

There’s plenty of low-key humour in the book, including times when Charles hears a new name, or watches a type of person whom we know is eventually going to be put in one of his future books. Dan Stevens has some very expressive looks, too, that say almost as much as some of the dialogue. And there’s plenty to think about too - we see glimpses of cruelty, and poverty, and the hopelessness of those without family or work. But they’re not over-done; there’s nothing gratuitous.

The film title, of course, is hyperbole since Christmas relates to the birth of Christ 1840 or so years earlier, and also the ancient legends of St Nicholas. But apparently the popularity of his book changed ideas about celebrating Christmas in the minds of the general public, in particular encouraging them to help those less fortunate than themselves.

The PG rating reflects the lack of bad language, nudity, violence and so on. But I wouldn’t recommend this to anyone unfamiliar with ‘A Christmas Carol’, nor to a sensitive child who might be upset at the flashbacks to Charles’ later childhood.

Other than that, I would highly recommend this film, which absorbed us fully and gave an excellent insight into Dickens’ circumstances as a young man, as well as some more imaginative fantasy scenes involving dreams and visions.

Review copyright 2020 Sue's DVD Reviews

Summer in February (Dominic Cooper, Emily Browning)

(Amazon UK link)

We came across this film when in the UK; it was on the special offers shelves at a local supermarket. Described as a powerful love story set in Cornwall, we thought it would make a good addition to our collection, although we had not heard of it before, nor of any of the actors.

We watched it last night with our twenty-something son.

‘Summer in February’, as we discovered after watching it, is a true story set in the early part of the 20th century. It features a group of artists who live, work and socialise in Cornwall. Early scenes set in a pub are probably realistic, but very confusing. Even as Brits we had a hard time understanding some of the accents. I should think they would be impossible for anyone from outside the UK.

Moreover, there are so many people in the pub scenes that it was difficult to work out who were the main characters. I nearly gave up watching after fifteen minutes. Perhaps I should have done so, as it turned out to be a very depressing film.

The love story angle isn’t, in my view, particularly well played. AJ, the main protagonist (Dominic Cooper), comes across as both cruel and shallow, while Florence, a hopeful young artist (Emily Browning), is naive and selfish. There isn’t much chemistry between them at all. Gilbert (Dan Stevens) is the only reasonable character in the film, and he gets a pretty bad deal.

Apparently the real AJ - also known as Alfred - Cummings was a talented painter of horses. This comes across in the film, but if his private life was half as unpleasant as portrayed, I wouldn’t want one of his paintings, no matter how good it was. I hadn’t previously heard of him or any of the artists shown.

Other characters - Florence’s brother, and another couple - seem almost irrelevant to the story. Presumably they were in the film because they were part of her life, but the plot seems disjointed, and nothing much gets resolved. Perhaps it’s meant to reflect reality too closely.

Still, the scenery is stunning, the settings believable, and I had a good feel for the place and the colony of artists who (apparently) existed there, giving Cornwall its name, later in the century, as a haven for art.

The UK rating is 15, which is appropriate given the subject matter. For some reason there's no US rating. Bad language is not too much of a problem; there are some uses of ‘strong’ words but in the context they were not too disturbing.

The violence is minimal, the intimate love scenes not shown directly. There is, however, some gratuitous nudity which doesn’t do anything for the film, and made us even less inclined to like it.

As is probably clear, we didn’t enjoy ‘Summer in February’ and I wouldn’t recommend it. But someone who likes true-story films with gorgeous scenery, and who doesn’t mind a tragic and depressing ending might like this better than we did. It's evidently very popular with a lot of viewers.

Review copyright 2015 Sue's DVD Reviews