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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.