Skip to main content

Charles Dickens would have wanted to see her nipples.

Scrooged
(1988)

If attaching one’s name to classic properties can be a sign of star power on the wane (both for directors and actors), a proclivity for appearing in Christmas movies most definitely is. Just look at Vince Vaughn’s career. So was Bill Murray running on empty a mere 25 years ago? He’d gone to ground following the rejection of his straight-playing The Razor’s Edge by audiences and critics alike, meaning this was his first comedy lead since Ghostbusters four years earlier. Perhaps he thought he needed a sure-fire hit (with ghosts) to confirm he was still a marquee name. Perhaps his agent persuaded him. Either way, Scrooged was a success. Murray remained a star. But he looked like sell-out, sacrificing his comedy soul for a box office bonanza. He’d seem even more calculating seven months later when tired sequel Ghostbusters II emerged. Scrooged is guilty of exactly the kind of over-sized, commercially cynical production this modern retelling of A Christmas Carol (only partially successfully) takes pot shots at during the first act.


If The Muppet Christmas Carol displays its self-awareness by having Charles Dickens (Gonzo) narrate the tale, Scrooged exists in a world where Bill Murray’s TV exec (Frank Cross) is charged with hosting an all-singing all-dancing live Christmas Eve production of the classic tale. That might suggest more than enough material for astute social commentary and an abundance of self-reflexivity. Unfortunately, Scrooged continually soft soaps the satire, with only the occasional gem to render it distinct.


Credited writers Michael O’Donoghue (a SNL veteran) and Mitch Glazer set the scene promisingly; a trailer for The Night the Reindeer Died, featuring Lee Majors at the South Pole saving Santa Claus; another for Bob Goulet’s Old Fashioned Cajun Christmas. But the bad taste rehearsals for the live broadcast aren’t nearly bad taste enough; they just look like standard shitty TV, with a has-been lead (Buddy Hackett) playing Scrooge and a few lines about seeing the nipples on the dancing girls. Everything hinges on Bill Murray bringing the dark heart, but the material continually fails him. The best he gets is acute remorselessness over a viewer who died watching his apocalyptic Christmas trailer. That, and his instruction to staple antlers to the “reindeer” mice. Robert Mitchum is cast as Murray’s even less scrupulous boss, identified as losing the plot because he believes cats and dogs will become valued TV viewers over the next 20 years.


Not helping matters is Bobcat Goldthwait as a well-meaning underling fired by Frank (Rick Moranis must have been busy). Much of Goldthwait’s screen time consists of laboured comedic attempts to live the life of a wino; only in the final third, when he pursues Frank with a shotgun, does his casting vaguely pay off. 


The saving grace on the TV studio side is John Glover’s enormously upbeat fellow exec, vying for Frank’s job. Alfre Woodard’s Grace shares the Bob Cratchit-equivalent role with Goldthwait. Hers is an especially thankless role; she’s even lumbered with a Tiny Tim-like son (Calvin) who doesn’t speak (as if to telegraph that this is Tiny Tim, at one point Calvin is shown watching Tiny Tim in the Alastair Sim Scrooge). You know he’s just waiting for that Bill Murray-induced Christmas miracle.


This unmeasured sentimental side makes the whole pudding particularly difficult to digest. Perhaps it’s a consequence of director Richard Donner’s unsuitedness to the comedy genre. He should have been deterred by his first foray, Richard Pryor bomb The Toy, but unfortunately he subsequently had a big success with The Goonies (not an actively bad film, but a noisy and indulgent mess nevertheless; its considerable following is more reflective of a generation’s nostalgia than any intrinsic merits). Donner can eke the laughs from an essentially dramatic movie effectively enough (Lethal Weapon) but even then he has a tendency not to know when to reel it in (the sequels). On the plus side he doesn’t shoot Scrooged like it’s a typical Hollywood comedy (ie, indifferently) but neither does he have much a sense of comic timing. Nor a feel for what plays and what doesn’t. Maybe this was partly a reflection of a more general ‘80s comedy malaise, but you can’t help wish someone with a less fettered sensibility (John Landis) or keener satirical faculty (Joe Dante) had been let loose on the material.


Murray’s characterisation is all over the place, so he yo-yos between caustic wit and likability depending on the demands of the scene. The one area the picture scores over other recent adaptations is with the Ghosts who at least ensure there is a consistently heightened tone once the fantasy plot line takes hold. John Forsythe is the rotting cadaver of Frank’s old boss (the Marley figure, who appropriately appeared to have died on the golf course). David Johansen is a break from the norm as a leeringly unsentimental Ghost of Christmas Past. But Murray goes and gets all teary-eyed from the off, ruining a nice moment when his brother Brian Doyle-Murray, as Frank’s dad, brings his four-year old son five pounds of veal from Christmas rather than a choo-choo train. The scenes with the adorable Karen Allen are continually misjudged. It’s only Allen’s milk-of-human-kindness performance that clings to the unlikeliness of their coupling.


The highlight of Scrooged is the Ghost of Christmas Present sequence. Carol Kane is hilarious as an insane, hyperactive and physically abusive fairy. She’s the only performer in the movie able to steal scenes from Murray wholesale, and she does so repeatedly (to be fair to him, he’s game). Whether she’s punching him in the face, blowing raspberries on his belly or attacking him with kitchenware (“The bitch hit me with a toaster!”), Kane’s a whirling dervish of energy and the movie misses her when she exits. Another Murray brother, John, plays Frank’s brother James; it’s a cute sign of the age of the picture that the best present he could receive is a Pioneer video recorder. Less cute is the surfeit of product placement throughout. That’s definitely a manifestation of the dark side of Frank Cross, or Paramount at any rate.


The Ghost of Christmas Future is same-old, same-old on the surface but beneath its cowls lurk the kind of ghastly prosthetics that only Hollywood megabucks can buy (leading Frank to utter the very meta, “Did our people do that? We’re going to get phone calls”) All but acknowledging the loss of Kane, the future sequence struggles for impact (and thus is unable to seal the deal on Frank’s salvation). The writers settle on a highly unlikely moral about-turn for Allen’s Claire, such that Frank’s heartless has infected her (and little Calvin has been put in a padded cell; there’s only room for overkill here).


If that’s a misjudgement, it’s as nothing compared to the awful, awful, finale Donner, Murray, and the co-writers have cooked up. Staged as Frank’s impromptu live TV confessional, Murray appears completely at a loss. The resulting sequence is car crash viewing. It has the appearance of improvisation, but this isn’t clever witty improvisation. It’s well-established dry wit Bill Murray attempting to gush heartfelt sincerity while all about him there is stunned silence. If you look closely, you can see the tumbleweeds roll by as the crew turn away in embarrassment at the mess their star has made. “What are you doing watching TV on Christmas Eve” Frank has the cheek to ask his audience, before exhorting everyone to go out and do some good. Because, “You’ve got to have a miracle”. Murray’s dying up there on that sound stage, attempting to approximate the enthusiasm of a born again true believer, so its inevitable that little Calvin only goes and speaks. Would you believe it? By the time the credits roll, there won’t be a dry pair of shoes in the house. They’ll be adorned with your vomit.


Maybe Murray was well aware that his ending was inept. He got a second crack at the “life lessons” movie six years later in Groundhog Day. If that gets one thing wrong that Scrooged gets right (the female lead), in every other respect it is a vastly superior piece of work. Crucially, it didn’t encourage its star to attempt an unbelievable character makeover. Murray without an edge just isn’t Murray; Murray speaking from the heart, oozing fake sincerity, is downright horrific. It may be rather defeating the point of the tale, but if you turn of Scrooged 15 minutes before the end, it’s a significantly more enjoyable movie.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.