Skip to main content

I’m not the man I was!

Scrooge
(1951)

New film or television adaptations of A Christmas Carol arrive every year, and Hollywood sporadically mounts lavish big screen versions. There have been modern takes (Scrooged), motion capture takes (Jim Carrey in 2009’s A Christmas Carol), muppet takes (Michael Caine – singing! – in A Muppet Christmas Carol). But the definitive version, thus far, remains this British production. And the reason is simple; Alastair Sim’s masterful performance as Ebenezer Scrooge is unbeatable.


Sim, an actor blessed with the visage of one who has spent a harrowing night in a graveyard, was one of Britain’s great comic actors. He was one of a select few performers, Terry-Thomas being another, whose mere presence in a scene was a recipe for gales of laughter (so it’s a particular treat when both appear in the same film; see School for Scoundrels and The Green Man). Sim was an extremely versatile actor, but his expressive mug, a gift to the exaggerated reaction shot, ensured he was cast mainly in comedies. Even when he appeared in dramatic vehicles he invariably took the role of the eccentric or the comic relief (Green for Danger).


So if you know Sim’s work, watching Scrooge is as much about the anticipation of his transformation from miserly misery-guts to benefactor of boundless brio as it is watching a classic tale well told. The last 15 minutes are a joy for that very reason; the despair and foreboding disperse and Sim throws himself into the aspect of a man reborn. But even during the opening stages, his version of Scrooge displays a wily energy that few have matched. Often actors playing the role merely make Ebenezer dry or bitter, infecting the proceedings with an overly studied quality. Here, we see his witty exchange with a man to whom he has lent money (and who is requesting a stay of repayment). Scrooge expresses wilful mystification over why the man’s wife might end up in debtors’ prison when it is the man who did the borrowing. His rebuke of “Be off with you!” to a cherubic beggar singing on the street is mean but funny; in another version it would merely be mean.


Scrooge: If they would rather die, they’d better do it and decrease the surplus population.

A line such as the one above is delivered with a macabre relish, making Scrooge’s later reaction on having it repeated back to him all the more potent. His shame over his words is now palpable. Familiar Dickens lines (“There’s more of gravy than of grave in you”) sound fresh when delivered by Sim. The impact of the arrival of Marley’s ghost rests almost entirely on Scrooge’s wild-eyed fear. Michael Horden makes for a suitably tormented spirit Marley, although his chains look like a little as if they were made from cardboard.


This version spends considerably more time with the Spirit of Christmas Past (Michael Dolan, who makes little impression), and we visit a number of additional moments in Scrooge’s life. Aspects of the story have been changed (Scrooge’s mother dies giving birth to him, rather than his sister; this serves to more clearly inform the rejection of his nephew when she too succumbs in childbirth) and there are some notable additions. We see the death of Scrooge’s sister (he does not stay to hear her final wishes) and his first encounter with Marley. Unsurprisingly, young Scrooge is played by Sim protégée George Cole (I wonder if Cole was considered for Bob Cratchit; he was probably considered too young). Young Marley is future John Steed Patrick Macnee. 


Another addition is Scrooge’s visit to Marley’s in his deathbed. Then there’s the character of Mr. Jorkin, who employs Scrooge upon leaving the service of Mr Fezziwig (Carry On star Hattie Jacques can be briefly seen as Mrs Fezziwig). He’s played by future Dixon of Dock Green Jack Warner. Particularly strong is the scene where a jocular and unrepentant Jorkins is charged with embezzlement and Scrooge and Marley offer to pay off his debt in return for control of the company.


Francis de Wolff, who might be best described as his generation’s Brian Blessed, is much more memorable than Dolan as the next Spirit (of Christmas Present). Booming of voice, full of beard, and wearing what appears to be a Father Christmas outfit (except that Ignorance and Want sit miserably under his coat), he conducts an increasingly remorseful Scrooge on a tour of those he has neglected or left behind (his nephew, his once-betrothed Alice, the Cratchit house). The drawback of this section is that we’re subjected to an overdose of Tiny Tim, never the subtlest of Dickens characters. The precocious little angel is laid on with a trowel here, and Glyn Dearman is much too tall for epithet “Tiny”. The scenes in this section lead to a few unanswered questions; since Alice is apparently devoting her life to helping the less fortunate in the workhouse (rather than married), and the coda shows us a now fit and healthy Tim some time after the events of Christmas Eve, it’s curious that Scrooge isn’t shown reconciling with her.


The maudlin well-meaning of the Cratchit household (I’m sounding like Scrooge now!) is part-and-parcel of any retelling of the story, although it’s notable that, for all that Scrooge is a curmudgeon, he is paying Cratchit for Christmas Day even though he isn’t working. The Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come (C Konarski) is of the familiar cowled variety, and these scenes economically contrast grief over the loss of wee Timmy with the indifference to Scrooge’s passing. Peter Bull, also the narrator of the tale and furnished with a face for inflamed villainy, appears as a businessman offering to attend the latter’s funeral “If there’s a lunch provided”.


Scrooge: I’m as merry as a schoolboy. I’m as giddy as a drunken man.

When Scrooge awakes a new man on Christmas morning, Sim is firing on all cylinders. The interplay between Scrooge and Mrs Dilber (Kathleen Harrison) is delightful, as she becomes increasingly unnerved by her seemingly unhinged employer (who attempts headstands on his chair) and he is ever more amused at her fright. Then, to crown it all, when he visits his nephew Fred (Brian Worth) Scrooge throws himself headlong into a spirited polka. His elation is infectious (“I don’t deserve to be so happy”) and only the humourless soul would be unmoved by his wild abandon.


Brian Desmond-Hurst directed from a screenplay by the appropriately named Noel Langley (one of a multitude of writers who worked on The Wizard of Oz; Langley was, at least, one of the ones who was credited). The black and white photography serves the mood of the piece. Scrooge’s house resounds with a sombre, haunting atmosphere and the scenes of snowy Victorian streets have polish belying what was most likely a small budget. If Desmond-Hurst generally brings little in the way of flair to the fantasy elements, this is a minor quibble; all eyes on Sim. (Still, there’s the occasional arresting moment; the simple kaleidoscope of woeful souls Scrooge is shown from his window).


Sim’s Scrooge is one of only two or three versions I’ve revisited time and again. What it lacks in forward momentum it more than makes up for with a sparkling central performance. It’s surely no coincidence that Robert Zemeckis’ recent version takes its cues from this one. Unfortunately, while all the pixels money can buy have been thrown at it, it lacks heart. Sim will convince you his Scrooge’s is full to brimming.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

Afraid, me? A man who’s licked his weight in wild caterpillars? You bet I’m afraid.

Monkey Business (1931)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers’ first feature possessed of a wholly original screenplay, Monkey Business is almost brazenly dismissive towards notions of coherence, just as long as it loosely supports their trademark antics. And it does so in spades, depositing them as stowaways bound for America who fall in with a couple of mutually antagonistic racketeers/ gangsters while attempting to avoid being cast in irons. There’s no Margaret Dumont this time out, but Groucho is more than matched by flirtation-interest Thelma Todd.

You killed my sandwich!

Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020)
(SPOILERS) One has to wonder at Bird of Prey’s 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, such things are to be taken with a pinch of salt at the best of times, but it would be easy, given the disparity between such evident approval and the actually quality of the movie, to suspect insincere motives on the part of critics, that they’re actually responding to its nominally progressive credentials – female protagonists in a superhero flick! – rather than its content. Which I’m quite sure couldn’t possibly be the case. Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) isn’t very good. The trailers did not lie, even if the positive reviews might have misled you into thinking they were misleading.

On account of you, I nearly heard the opera.

A Night at the Opera (1935)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers head over to MGM, minus one Zeppo, and despite their variably citing A Night at the Opera as their best film, you can see – well, perhaps not instantly, but by about the half-hour mark – that something was undoubtedly lost along the way. It isn’t that there’s an absence of very funny material – there’s a strong contender for their best scene in the mix – but that there’s a lot else too. Added to which, the best of the very funny material can be found during the first half of the picture.

You’re a disgrace to the family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.

Horse Feathers (1932)
(SPOILERS) After a scenario that seemed feasible in Monkey Business – the brothers as stowaways – Horse Feathers opts for a massive stretch. Somehow, Groucho (Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff) has been appointed as the president of Huxley University, proceeding to offer the trustees and assembled throng a few suggestions on how he’ll run things (by way of anarchistic creed “Whatever it is, I’m against it”). There’s a reasonably coherent mission statement in this one, however, at least until inevitably it devolves into gleeful incoherence.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Yes, cake is my weakness.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
(SPOILERS) Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is good fun, and sometimes, that’s enough. It doesn’t break any new ground, and the establishing act is considerably better than the rather rote plotting and character development that follows, but Jake Kasdan’s semi-sequel more than justifies the decision to return to the stomping ground of the tepid 1995 original, a movie sold on its pixels, and is comfortably able to coast on the selling point of hormonal teenagers embodying grown adults.

This is by some distance Kasdan’s biggest movie, and he benefits considerably from Gyula Pados’s cinematography. Kasdan isn’t, I’d suggest, a natural with action set pieces, and the best sequences are clearly prevized ones he’d have little control over (a helicopter chase, most notably). I’m guessing Pados was brought aboard because of his work on Predators and the Maze Runners (although not the lusher first movie), and he lends the picture a suitably verdant veneer. Wh…