its up there for me
-
strntz — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 08:01 AM)
There is only opinion. Everyone finds something in every adaptation that they love and that one becomes their favorite. For instance, how can anyone love the Finney version is beyond me, but people clearly do. I can't tell if that version is supposed to be a comedy or campy, although I suspect the latter.
Alastair Sim is, to me, the quintessential Scrooge. Despite being primarily known a comedic actor, he shows the range of emotion this character's transformation should show. I marvel each and every time I see it.
1984's Carol with George C. Scott surprised me as I was expecting to not like it going in. While Scott does a fine job as Scrooge, he's a distant second to Sim in this role. The rest of Scott's cast was fabulous. I loved the actors, sets, characters, costumes and music of this production. I put it as a close second to 1951's Scrooge.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad. -
Big_AL-96 — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 08:07 AM)
I agree with you regarding this version and Sim's portrayal and yet this too has flaws which make me think "Oh why did they do that" or "why did they cut that important piece out?".
I like and enjoy the Finney version very much, and I do see the flaws in that as well. Adapting it for a musical was always going to make it "different". That said I think it is about the impression it has on you when you first see it. I saw the Finney version in the cinema on Christmas eve in 1972. It made a massive impression and I have enjoyed it since, warts and all. But the 1951 is my favourite.
Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis -
TwoThousandOneMark — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 09:21 PM)
1951, Alistair Sim, & it's not close. A+, this is my #41 all time.
What I love is how old & aged the film looks & feels, even for the 50's. I'm afraid to say it's flawless, & yet I can't pinpoint any flaw.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
Big_AL-96 — 9 years ago(December 21, 2016 02:18 AM)
It depends on what you mean by flaw.
As a stand alone, it is produced, directed and acted brilliantly. The mood is excellent. However, because of the bookand because of the fact that the "collectors for the poor" are introduced to us in the beginning, their omission at the end when Scrooge would apologise to them and state that "there are a good many back-payments included" is a flaw. However it is still a great film and the best version in my eyes.
Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis -
PrometheusTree64 — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 07:13 AM)
This 1951 version is the definitive version.
Others have had things to offer. And, yes, the 1984 version with George C. Scott was better than expected and has the better Tiny Tim, but it's an '80s TV production and therefore feels a bit rushed and choppy in its pacing.
But no version could surpass the forlorn, ice cold, Victorian gothic vibe of the 1951 version with Alastair Sim.
You just can't hit the nail on the Dickensian head any closer.
LBJ's mistress on JFK: -
Horror_Metal — 9 years ago(December 24, 2016 09:27 AM)
Most definitely. This one is my favorite, with the 1984 version starring George C. Scott a close second.
My Reviews:
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbYVmhjEJi9UAB4pZqseAGM9CSmMooF0n -
steve-606 — 9 years ago(December 24, 2016 04:01 PM)
I'm a big fan of the story in the first place, so I quite like most of the different versions.
But in my opinion, this is the very best. I make a point of watching it every year - it never fails to bring a tear to the eye and warmth to the heart. Such fantastic performances by all concerned, especially Alastair Sim, whose performance is wonderful.
(As you may have guessed, I've just watched it today and have once again been hugely entertained).
Merry Christmas! -
dannieboy20906 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 03:04 PM)
It is not one of the best for me. I am impressed with the production values and I loved the characterizations, but I have a major complaint with the expansion of the plot.
The original novella or short story by Charles Dickens is short. The plot development is tight and it proceeds rapidly, so that it occupies only 57 pages of my Dickens anthology. The other novels in the collection, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, A Tale of Two Cities, and Great Expectations are each hundreds of pages long. I think I remember reading that Mr. Dickens knocked the story out quickly for a magazine to raise badly needed money and later took to reading it live for appearance fees. So, it needed to be short.
Perhaps in order to expand on the story line to make the film longer, various production companies have added material. This version adds a couple of scenes that are speculative in the sense that they do not appear in the book. The death of Fan, Scrooge's YOUNGER sister (this movie changes her to being older) occurs off the printed page. It is referred to, but never described in detail and their is no indication that Scrooge was present. She dies shortly after the birth of Fred. This is referenced in the book, but it is left up to the reader to decide what impact it had on Scrooge. The movie also suggests that Scrooge's mother died in childbirth, his, but this is not referenced in the book. It is not fundamental to Scrooge's character. The fact that young Scrooge was ostracized by his family and childhood friends that contributes so strongly the how he develops, not why he was ostracized. The greatest variation the movie makes and the travesty that offends me is the invention of the character Mr. Jorkin.
No Mr. Jorkin appears in the novella. We read that Scrooge and Marley were first apprentices together under Mr. Fezziwig. Earlier and later we read understand that they went into business together. But, they are never shown to have deserted Mr. Fezziwig for another partner, neither Mr. Jorkin or anyone else. Also, this version of the story shows Mr. Jorkin to be a bankrupt and an embezzler. Scrooge and Marley appear to be not much, if any better. They are show to know of his misdeeds and the film suggests they cover them up in order to gain managing control of "Scrooge and Marley."
In the original novella Mr. Dickens makes it clear that Ebenezer Scrooge is an honest man. He has little sympathy for his fellow man and the story, through the Ghost of Christmas Past explains the events in his life that impelled him to focus on earning money. But Mr. Dickens never suggests that Mr. Scrooge is anything but scrupulously honest. There are, at least a few lines in the story referencing Scrooge's reliability in business and dependable honesty. The entire sequence with Mr. Jorkin makes Scrooge and Marley both to appear at least sleazy if not outright crooked. There is no reason to do this for the story. The point of the story is that we do need to care about one another as people, not just as business factotums. To attack Scrooge's character undermines the audience's sympathy for him without adding anything to the story, just to make a longer run time or to invent a character for Jack Warner to portray.
I hope this doesn't happen often, but I won't cherish that hope too strongly.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank. -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 10:43 AM)
I am with you on some of this but not all.
Let me state that I always thought I loved this version best, until I watched it again last night. Now, I am not so sure. I am usually not a fan when a story gets changed from the original and that's one of my main gripes with the 1938 version. I thought this one was much more true to the original story, but after viewing last night, I found out I was wrong.
To wit: In the very first scene, we are shown Scrooge at the Exchange calling Christmas a humbug - not in the story. Then he goes outside and is approached by a Samuel Wilkins regarding a debt. Again, not in the story. Then Scrooge walks to his office, where he finds the two solicitors waiting for him. In the actual story, it opens with Scrooge already in his office at his desk, and he is first visited by Fred,
before
the two solicitors arrive. So here I was, not 5 minutes into the film, and already three differences from the source.
From there, it gets deeperI found it amusing that Scrooge is shown asking for bread in the tavern, and when told it was extra, he then declines the bread. However in the story, it states "Scrooge took his melancholy dinner in his usual melancholy tavern." So really.if Scrooge frequents this tavern, does he not know that bread will cost extra? I mean seriously. That may sound like nit-picking, but it was thrown in to 'show us' how miserly he really is I suppose. But to me it fails in this regard, because Scrooge, more than most people, you would think would be fully aware of how much things cost, etc., especially if he is a frequent visitor. For him to not know this simple fact is lazy scriptwriting.
As you noted, there are several fabrications here that I always took to be 'true' until reading the story:- Fan is younger, not older, than Scrooge in the story. In the film she is older and their mother died giving birth to him.
- Belle's name is changed to 'Alice' in the film. I don't know why, but I'm sure if Tiny Tim became "Tiny George" or something else, people would question.
- Fan's death scene is a total fabrication, as you noted. (As was their earlier dialogue where Scrooge tells Fan she must live forever.) Nothing at all like that in the story.
- The scene of Jorkin visiting Fezziwig and propositioning Scrooge was a total fabrication.
- The scene of Scrooge joining Jorkin and meeting Marley was a total fabrication.
- The scene of Scrooge and Marley taking possession of Fezziwig's business was a total fabrication.
- The scene of the shareholder meeting with Jorkin et al was a total fabrication.
- The scene of Marley's death and deathbed warning was a total fabrication.
And that's just the Ghost of Christmas Past segment! My goodness. I was more than a little surprised when I realized how different this version actually is from the source material.
Now for JorkinI watched the scenes with him again. And while you are correct that his character itself is a total fabrication, I don't completely agree that Scrooge is shown to be crooked here in his dealings with Jorkin and the shareholders. Opportunistic, yes, but not crooked. In the scene that shows the company in serious financial trouble, Scrooge proposes that Marley and he can rescue the firm from bankruptcy for a 51% stake. And while they are definitely taking advantage of the situation, I don't know how aware he was of Jorkin's shady dealings that put the company in trouble. When Scrooge makes his proposal, Jorkin seems surprised and makes a comment along the lines of 'You should watch these two.' That suggests that Scrooge and Jorkin were
not
colluding behind the scenes. Also, when the shareholders ask Scrooge if he is 'in sympathy with Mr. Jorkin,' Scrooge says 'not I confess with his methods.' Meaning, he may like Jorkin as a person (after all, Jorkin gave him more money than Fezziwig), but he does not approve of how Jorkin ran the business into the red. He was merely taking advantage of a bad situation.
I still like this version, mainly because of how great Sim was as Scrooge, I still haven't seen a better portrayal. But I have to take the film down a few pegs because of all of the changes the producers made, many more than I at first realized.
-
dannieboy20906 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 07:24 PM)
I agree with you on Mr. Sim's portrayal of Scrooge and that he (Scrooge) is not presented as crooked. If I used that term I overstated my case. He and Marley are shown as opportunistic in a sleazy, off-putting way. This is my subjective view and others may not feel as strongly as I do either that Scrooge is humorless, but scrupulously honest or that the scenes with Mr. Jorkin undermine that view.
Like you, I find it difficult not to like the quality of this production. Nevertheless, the 'tweaks' introduced for whatever reason will always distract me a bit.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank. -
paul-273-129025 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 07:51 PM)
jsk32870 I think you have to take into consideration that the film makers had to take a very short novella and turn it into a 1 hour 26 min film. So they had to include some padding and I think they were true to the spirit of the source work. A literal translation of the book would probably not have added up to a feature length film.