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

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.