The story was written by Dickens in order to tackle the relatively new issue of urban poverty, and in particular the growing underclass of impoverished townsfolk produced by the Industrial Revolution. With the rapid shift away from conventional farming and trade practices, and with the rise in new technological advancements, many people were suddenly without work and without the necessary skills to find a job. The British government’s answer to this escalating crisis was the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. Amongst other things, this law saw the establishment of brutal workhouses and treadmills that turned huge swathes of the urban poor into de-facto slaves. As a result, many were trapped in a cycle of poverty which led them into the ghastly and degrading conditions of the poor houses, where they would live a miserable existence, rarely ever earning enough to lift themselves out of their predicament. Dickens himself had first-hand experiences with the ruthless attitude towards the poor which was prevalent in Britain during this period. In the 1820s, his father was sent to a debtor’s prison for outstanding arrears which he simply couldn’t pay. As a result, 12-year-old Charles was forced to board with a family friend and leave school to begin working ten-hour days in a shoe-blacking factory. Being from a relatively middle class background, Dickens struggled to fit in among the rest of his work colleagues and he had a fairly miserable time of it during this period. His experiences working in the cruel and backbreaking conditions of the factory, as well as the harsh treatment meted out to his father, had a profound effect on young Charles, and a great impact on his later literary work. Of course, by the story’s end, Scrooge is a changed man who embraces the spirit of Christmas and becomes a second father to the children of his employee Bob Cratchit. Scrooge’s new found love of Christmas highlights the second most crucial point of A Christmas Carol: Dickens wrote the tale at a time when forgotten Christmas traditions were experiencing a resurgence in popularity in Victorian England. Prince Albert introduced the Christmas tree in 1841, and the first Christmas cards were sent in 1843. All of these traditions were gradually being re-introduced into society as the celebration of Christmas became not just a religious festival, but also a time of charity and family gatherings. It is the darkness, death, and despair brought on by urban poverty, and the joy and happiness generated by good will at Christmas, that provides the two contrasting themes of Dickens’ work. It’s fair to argue then, that any Christmas Carol film worth its salt must convey the warmth and frivolity of Christmas time through key scenes such as Scrooge’s introduction to Christmas morning by the ghost of Christmas Present and the Cratchit family Christmas dinner. It must likewise demonstrate the gloom and misery of scenes such as the Ghost of Christmas Present unveiling the allegorical twin children of ‘ignorance’ and ‘want’ to Scrooge, and the Cratchits grieving for the late Tiny Tim (spoiler alert). Arguably, however, despite its deserved place in the pantheon of British literary classics, there has yet to be a truly great cinematic adaption of Dickens’ work. For many of us, the only version that sticks in the mind may well be of the Muppet-based variety, or perhaps the 1951 Alastair Sim film, arguably the closest we have had yet to a ‘classic’ version of the story. Yet, many different adaptations exist, many of them unknown, and most likely unseen, by the general public. And so, with this in mind, we must begin our Dickensian odyssey and examine which of the numerous adaptations best serves the author’s original vision, which offers the best in entertainment, and most crucially, which has the most annoying Tiny Tim. It turns out that this last category was easily the most competitive.
A Christmas Carol (1910)
The earliest version of A Christmas Carol that I managed to track down was this 1910 short film directed by J. Searle Dawley for none other than Thomas Edison’s film production company. Despite lasting only a little over 13 minutes, and with the medium of film itself only in its infancy, the director makes a pretty decent go of including the important points of Dickens’ story, and even does an effective job of showing the various ghosts onscreen. It’s only perhaps worth seeing out of curiosity, but it’s available for free on YouTube and is well worth a watch, if only for a valuable lesson in cramming a whole lot of story into a very short space of time.
Scrooge (1913)
Perhaps the best known silent version of A Christmas Carol is this 1913 release, which was also known as Old Scrooge in the U.S. Scrooge is played by Seymour Hicks as a wide-eyed and angry old scruff. The actor regularly played Scrooge onstage and would go on to reprise the role in the 1935 sound version. The main distinguishing characteristic of this adaptation is that it dispenses with the three ghosts of past, present, and future and instead has Marley stand in for all three. For a film made prior to the First World War, the effects used to create Marley’s ghostly appearance and the visions he presents to Scrooge are quite effective. The whole film is made all the eerier thanks to some very well selected backing music which accentuates the haunting moments perfectly.
A Christmas Carol (1923)
This third silent offering is even shorter than Old Scrooge and so omits a greater chunk of the original story. Russell Thorndike is suitably grumpy in the lead role, and all the ghosts are shown onscreen, but of the three silent versions, this was not only the least enjoyable, but also suffered due to the fact that it was the worst preserved print of the three. It feels a little churlish to criticize a film from 90 years ago for looking a bit fuzzy, though, so maybe we can let that slide. A lack of effects expertise seems an unlikely reason for this, given that earlier silent films had managed to include ghosts to a pretty decent standard. One can only assume, therefore, that it is a foolhardy artistic decision. Speaking of which, omitting such crucial plot points as young Scrooge’s Christmas reunion with his beloved sister Fan is questionable, but leaving out Fezziwig altogether is frankly unforgivable. There are three distinct takes on the Scrooge character which actors and directors have opted for over the years. There’s the thin, spindly and decrepit old miser, the brash and pompous old blowhard, and then the route which Seymour Hicks (he of the 1913 silent version fame) takes here, which is the Mr. Trebus, scruffy old git angle. He bears an uncanny resemblance in fact to Jim Trott from The Vicar of Dibley. Overall, it’s a forgettable offering, which lacks either the darkness or joviality found in Dickens’ tale.
A Christmas Carol (1938)
Noticeably made in Hollywood’s Golden Era, this MGM adaptation is a charming if slightly sanitized version of Dickens’ tale. Reginald Owen is a fairly bland and unmemorable Scrooge, edging more towards the pompous blowhard side of the character, but the actor never really convinces as an elderly man and there is some fairly visible age make-up on show throughout. It’s also noticeable that the supporting cast are all distinctly well groomed and handsome given the majority of them are meant to be destitute. There are no phantoms at Scrooge’s window, no flashback to Scrooge’s doomed romance, and certainly no ghastly depictions of starving children. The filmmakers clearly wanted to ensure that this was seen as a ‘family film’ and even played up the romance between Scrooge’s nephew Fred and his fiancée Bess (they are married in the book) to give the suggestion it was more central to the story than Dickens ever intended. This version also has the first in a long line of nauseating Tiny Tims. Now, I know the child actor concerned is very young, and it’s perhaps unfair to judge him too harshly, but on top of his iffy acting skills, he’s also so overly cheery that I almost started losing all sympathy for him. Maybe that says more about me than him, though. Nevertheless, despite my grumblings, compared to some of the adaptations which followed it, this is a slick, old fashioned movie, and one which captures the warmth and of Dickens’ story fairly well. It may not win prizes for its dynamism, but aided by a strong cast and wonderfully fuzzy soft lighting, it warms the cockles regardless.
Scrooge (1951)
This is arguably the movie version of A Christmas Carol to which all others are compared. Alastair Sim is absolutely superb as Scrooge, constantly disgruntled with the world; he is a mean and uncaring old man, but with a visible inner pain which few other Scrooges convey. It plays pretty fast and loose with the source material in parts, with some areas such as Scrooge’s ascent to owning his own business and his career with Fezziwig noticeably fleshed out. This movie also suggests that a cause for Scrooge’s resentment of his nephew is that his beloved sister Fan died in childbirth. This echoed Scrooge’s father’s anger at him over his own mother’s similar death. Dickens was surprisingly vague about both of these facts, and it seems to vary from film to film. It is unlikely that Dickens intended for Scrooge’s mother to die in childbirth with him, as his sister Fan is described as being younger than Ebenezer. However, there is a genuine train of thought on the internet that this is actually an error on Dickens’ part, and he did in fact intend for the ‘death in childbirth’ angle to be taken. I don’t buy that myself, however. The issue of Fan dying while giving birth to Fred is also never directly referenced by Dickens, but it crops up in several of the film adaptations. Sim’s Scrooge visibly alters as the film goes on, the actor perfectly capturing the old miser’s changing mentality. As well as Sim, Michael Hordern is brilliantly OTT as the moaning and groaning tortured spirit of Jacob Marley. It’s a well acted and memorable version, which captures the darkness of the story well in scenes like the wailing phantoms at Scrooge’s window, as well as the cheerfulness of the Cratchit family Christmas. Fully deserving of its place as a Christmas classic.
A Christmas Carol (1969)
This is one of several forgettable animated offerings I tracked down, and while it’s fairly unremarkable, it does have a strangely effective gloomy atmosphere with Marley’s ghost in particular being an unsettling sight to behold. The only moment that really stood out from the rest of the film, however, was a random bit where Fred starts singing upon his arrival at Ebenezer’s counting house. There’s no other singing in the rest of the film, so I’m not sure if this was an aborted attempt at a musical number which they just never bothered to take out. It’s toward the top end of the animated spectrum, but it’s still a little bland and un-engaging.
Scrooge (1970)
An all-singing, all-dancing film starring Albert Finney in the titular role. Finney’s Scrooge is very much in the wiry and frail mold, and he is suitably objectionable throughout, closely resembling a slightly better dressed Steptoe. As well as Finney, the cast also includes, Sir Alec Guinness who puts in a particularly over-the-top turn as Marley’s ghost. The other ghosts in this version are a bit strange, the ghost of Christmas Past is just some non-descript old dear, and the ghost of Christmas Present opts to get Scrooge pissed in order to make him more cheerful. Seems obvious now that you think about it. The Cratchit family are all irritatingly chipper throughout, although credit must go to the filmmakers for actually having a family of cockneys playing the roles of this working class London family. I’m pretty sure they are the only ones to do so, thinking about it. This film remains the only live-action version of A Christmas Carol to receive Academy Award nominations, which were for Best Score, Original Song, Art Direction, and Costume Design. Meanwhile, Finney himself actually won a Golden Globe for The Best Motion Picture Actor in a Musical/Comedy. I can only assume there was a distinct lack of quality original songs and scores that year, though Finney’s performance is perhaps far more deserving of praise. The actor, then only 34, is the film’s saving grace, with a memorable performance that elevates the film into the hallowed ‘just about average’ category.
A Christmas Carol (1971)
Not one that many of you will be familiar with, but this Oscar-winning short film is well worth seeking out should you be so inclined. It’s a surreal animation that has a unique visual style, with some imaginative camera tricks and haunting visuals. It’s extremely somber throughout, and moments like the spirit of Jacob Marley’s jaw collapsing and the Ghost of Christmas Present revealing the ghastly embodiments of ‘want’ and ‘ignorance’ are especially disturbing. The first ghost is particularly trippy, as it swiftly zooms Scrooge from past memory to past memory. There is also a fairly malevolent and mean Scrooge voiced by Alastair Sim, reprising the role he made his own in the 1951 screen version.
A Christmas Carol (1977)
Here’s a run-of-the-mill BBC production made for TV back in the late ’70s. The extremely basic and sparse sets don’t really help to create much of a sense of place, and overall it’s a fairly dreary old affair. It’s saved from being a complete write-off, though, by a wonderful central performance by Sir Michael Hordern as a blustering old Scrooge and John Le Mesurier as a suitably creepy Marley. There was also some notable faces popping up in minor roles including Dot Cotton – sorry, June Brown – as Scrooge’s housekeeper Mrs. Dilber, and Christopher Biggins as Fred’s pal Topper. It’s pretty drab throughout, which helps the darker elements of the story, but there is a dire need for some warmth and Christmas spirit to be injected into the proceedings.
A Christmas Carol (1982)
Truth be told, I actually watched this version by accident. I was expecting another animated version to arrive from a certain online film rental company, and they sent this one in error. “Not to worry,” I thought. “Let’s give this one a go instead.” Oh dear. My mistake. It’s a made-for-TV Australian offering, and it is easily the worst animated version of A Christmas Carol I’ve watched. It leaves huge swathes of the story out, has absolutely zero charm, and somehow looks more dated than the one from 1969. I genuinely believe that if four or five of us got together for a long weekend, we could knock out a better looking animated movie. This film marked Mickey Mouse’s first appearance in cinemas for over 30 years, though his Bob Cratchit is an extremely minor role, with Scrooge McDuck’s Ebenezer Scrooge (it’s the part he was born to play) taking even greater prominence than normal. The emphasis here was definitely on making the story a fun tale for kids, but luckily, that doesn’t denigrate the film, which retains enough of Dickens’ original story to ensure it still works. The cast is like a who’s who of Disney favorites with Goofy, Donald Duck, and Jiminy Cricket all involved, as well as some more obscure characters like Lady Kluck from Robin Hood. It’s not exactly a faithful retelling – surprisingly, the issue of Scrooge’s mother and sister dying never comes up – but it’s a thoroughly enjoyable and warm festive offering nonetheless.
A Christmas Carol (1984)
George C. Scott opts to go down the cantankerous old blowhard route for his Scrooge here, and it’s definitely a standout performance. We get a glimpse early on of Scrooge at the bank exchange ripping fellow businessmen off over a deal involving some corn. Clearly this Scrooge isn’t just an old miser; he’s an unscrupulous bastard too. The film is extremely loyal to the source text and shows Scrooge’s shift from hate-filled old sinner to gleeful man of the people very effectively. There’s a great supporting cast, including Edward Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present, David Warner as Bob Cratchit, and Roger ‘Lord John Marbury’ Rees as Fred. The moments of festive jollity at Fred’s house are nicely done, and contrast well with The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come scenes which are suitably gloomy. The Ghost of Christmas Past does date the film somewhat, as she is quite possibly the most ’80s ghost imaginable. At one stage, I thought it might actually be Toyah. Unfortunately, it also contains another incredibly annoying Tiny Tim who, to make look sicker, they have clearly just put dark make-up round his eyes. It makes him look like a bit like a child zombie more than anything. Nevertheless, it’s one of the most comprehensive adaptations of Dickens’ work on offer, and is elevated considerably by Scott’s marvellous performance. Murray is at peak form as the misanthropic ball of hate that is Frank Cross, and he’s backed up by plenty of memorable supporting players with special praise going to David Johansen, who is perfect as the cigar chomping Ghost of Christmas Past. All the ghostly visitations are really neatly worked in, with the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come a particularly clever creation – its emergence from a bank of TV screens is especially effective. Events found in the book, such as Fezziwig’s Christmas Party and Scrooge’s harsh treatment of his loved after he starts making his fortune, are neatly adapted from Dickens’ source material and molded to fit in with a modern day retelling. Interesting fact for you trivia fans out there as well: all three of Bill Murray’s actor brothers have roles in the film, from Brian Doyle-Murray to Joel Murray, to the little known and seldom seen John Murray. True story. Scrooged is easily the finest Christmas comedy of all time, and deserves to be watched every year without fail. All together now: ”Put a little love in your heart…”
Blackadder’s Christmas Carol (1988)
Technically I’m cheating again here, but Blackadder’s Christmas Carol is such a great parody of the classic A Christmas Carol story that I feel it warrants an inclusion. Working in reverse to the source material, Ebenezer Blackadder is a kind and generous man whose saintly nature is taken advantage of by all and sundry. When a ghostly visitor, played with great aplomb by a game Robbie Coltrane, regales Blackadder with tales from his ancestors’ Christmas Past, Ebenezer begins to realize that “it points to the very clear lesson that bad guys have all the fun!” Cue a Christmas morning revelation and Blackadder becoming the biggest swine ever. From the opening “Humbug! Humbug! Humbug, Mister Baldrick?” You know you’re in for a treat, and lines as brilliant as “Baldrick, you wouldn’t see a subtle plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord, singing ‘Subtle plans are here again,’” make this a Christmas must-see every year. The musical interludes are catchy (I will never tire of hearing “there goes mister humbug”) and despite huge chunks of the original story being left out, it’s a balanced and hugely entertaining take that deserves to be a festive TV staple. It was an excellent choice to leave out the thoroughly depressing and out of place “Love is Gone” song by Belle in all releases since it first arrived on VHS too.
A Christmas Carol (1994)
Another fairly ropey animation that suffers considerably from being rather badly synced. The good people at Jetlag Productions can rest safe in the knowledge though that they are still nowhere near as bad as that god awful 1982 version. That really was the benchmark for bad animation. Anyway, here Bob Cratchit is unwisely rebranded as a bumbling fool and old Scrooge has for some reason become a squawking nutter. The highlight of the whole piece comes when Marley beckons Scrooge over to the window and a troupe of pretty ghoulish phantoms swirl around moaning while a rather eerie song called “Sleep No More” plays in the background. It’s a strange artistic choice to break away at that moment for a musical number, but it was at least fairly atmospheric compared to the rest of the film.
A Christmas Carol (1997)
When Tim Curry looks back over his career, I doubt somehow that this charmless and bland animation will be up there with his finest moments. This version is peppered with some truly awful songs and the supposedly poignant moments between young Scrooge and Belle being particularly sugary and cringeworthy. Despite it being a crucial moment in Scrooge’s turn to the dark side, if you pardon my mixed cinematic metaphors, I still feel that they should have followed the Muppets’ lead and trimmed this bit down considerably. Also, for no particular reason, Scrooge now has a dog. The dog performs no function. If anything it shows that Scrooge must care for something – after all, it’s clearly not undernourished. Meanwhile, the spirits are all largely unmemorable, and The Ghost of Christmas Past is for some reason a bratty and annoying kid, which really doesn’t work at all. It’s another boring animation that you’d do well to avoid. Marley’s ghost is pretty creepy, and the three ghosts are on the whole nicely done, though the scenes involving Christmas Yet To Come don’t feel spooky enough at all. Richard E. Grant is fine as the hard-done-by clerk Bob Cratchit, but his children are especially irritating, with Tiny Tim vying for the coveted ‘most irritating and poorly acted’ award with his fellow 1938 and 1984 Tiny Tims. The sets are impressive, and the attention to detail can’t be faulted, but it just lacks any sense of fun.
A Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001)
A most ill-advised definitive declaration in the title of this one. It’s a relatively big budgeted animation with a star-studded cast that includes Simon Callow as Scrooge, Kate Winslet as Belle, Nicholas Cage(!) as Marley, and Michael Gambon as Ghost of Christmas Present. However, it is not only incredibly boring to look at, but also takes extremely unnecessary liberties with Dickens’ original story. For some unknown reason, a major subplot is introduced which sees Belle, once spurned by Scrooge as a young man, now running a Children’s hospital which faces closure on Christmas Eve. Scrooge meanwhile sends out Old Joe to evict a load of tenants and cart them off to a debtor’s prison, presumably just to make sure you definitely knew he was a wrong ‘un in case that point wasn’t already crystal clear. Even more strangely, there is for some reason a couple of mice involved who are beloved by the kids at the hospital and who follow Scrooge around on his adventures, trying to nudge him towards reading a letter written by Belle pleading for leniency. I have no idea why they felt adding all this in was worthwhile. I can only assume that the plan was to beef up Belle’s role so as to play up Winslet’s involvement, but from a Dickens purist’s point of view, it all seems utterly pointless. Even ignoring pedantry, it’s still dull as dishwater and utterly joyless throughout. For the relatively big budget spent on it, the animation is poor and the changes to the story add nothing at all. Seriously though, why the mice? Who has ever read A Christmas Carol and thought, “I know what this bad boy is missing, a couple of miming mice scampering around and trying to make Scrooge read a letter?!” Grammer gives it a good go and throws himself into the musical numbers admirably, but you’re always very aware you are watching Frasier playing Ebenezer Scrooge. He just looks like a slightly scragglier version of himself and never really immerses himself into the role. Jane Krakowski also stars, but to me it’s now impossible to watch her without thinking of Jenna in 30 Rock. She plays a street urchin at the outset (really) and also the ghost of Christmas Past, and for a moment, it got so overly tacky that I thought it was actually a 30 Rock style Jackie Jormp-Jomp spoof musical. Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame plays Marley and appears to be pitched as midway between Beetlejuice and The Penguin, to terrible effect. The wailing phantoms that he introduces to Scrooge aren’t scary at all either; it just looks like the local am-dram society in bright white makeup. Horrible cheesy and unaware quite how ridiculous it is, this is most definitely one to avoid.
A Christmas Carol (2009)
This slick motion-capture animation courtesy of Robert Zemeckis was released in 3D to much fanfare. The opening bravura swoop over a beautifully rendered old London town was a terrific showcase for this new technology, but by about the fourth time the frenetic swooping action is used, it gets a little infuriating. On the whole, the animation is pretty darn good with a great deal attention to detail going into creating a beautifully rendered Dickensian London at Christmas time. Jim Carrey plays his Scrooge as a spindly and decrepit old miser, and he does a sound job of showing Scrooge’s gradual thawing as the ghosts go to work. The film itself is fairly loyal to the original text, and key haunting moments from the book are used well. Jacob Marley’s ghost is a fiendish spectre, and the moment he unties his neckerchief to allow his jaw to dislocate and drop before Ebenezer’s eyes is especially grim for a family Christmas film. Scrooge’s encounter with the final ghost is a bit tedious, as it soon becomes an elaborate chase scene purely designed to show off the 3D, but on the whole, it’s an enjoyable and memorable version.
The Bottom Five:
- A Christmas Carol (1982)
- A Christmas Carol: The Musical (2004)
- A Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001)
- A Christmas Carol (1997)
The Top Five:
- Scrooge (1951)/A Christmas Carol (1984) (tie)
- The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)
- A Christmas Carol (1971)
