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

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.

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…

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…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.