Happy Halloween!

Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol (1962) (Part 1)

Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol (1962)
Director: Abe Levitow
Scrooge: Quincy Magoo

So, now we've looked at two movie adaptations and an audio recording. Let's switch gears and check out a cartoon...

Not just any cartoon, but "Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol," a highly regarded version of the story.

So, is it deserving of it's lofty status? Of course it is!

This was apparently the first made-for-TV animated Christmas special, predating "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" and "A Charlie Brown Christmas" by a couple of years. (Hmmm... Those three would make an awesome mini-marathon. I'm totally doing that!)

The special is presented as a Broadway musical and it has some terrific original songs by the well-established Bob Merrill and Jule Styne, who also teamed up for the actual hit Broadway musical "Funny Girl" a couple of years later.

Side note: I've heard the urban legend that the song "People" was written for Mister Magoo, but it was rejected and wound up in "Funny Girl." Or that that he producers wated "People" for Magoo, but Merrill and Styne were saving it!

It's certainly a novelty to have an established cartoon star such as UPA's Mister Magoo appear in a largely serious role, but "he" is actually very well-cast in the role. Hey, Mister Magoo's a two-time Oscar winner, so he's got some cred!

The voice acting of Jim Backus as Magoo as Scrooge is top-notch. You really feel like you're watching Scrooge, not just Mister Magoo playing Scrooge. Not the easiest trick to pull off.

I like to think that in the Magooverse, his series of theatrical and TV cartoons show Quincy Magoo in his everyday life. In this special, we see that same Magoo as an actor on Broadway, which explains the wacky mayhem he causes in the bookends of the special. "The Famous Adventures of Mr. Magoo" series which followed this special is Magoo acting in a "filmed" TV show rather than a "live" play. We even see him in his dressing room introducing the stories. Makes sense?

A lot has been said over the years that Tiny Tim looks like Gerald McBoing-Boing (star of the groundbreaking 1950 Oscar winning UPA cartoon of the same title), but if it is Gerald, why does he talk? We all know "he doesn't speak words, he goes Boing! Boing! instead." My theory is that in that same Magooverse, the same actor who plays Tiny Tim in the Broadway show plays Gerald McBoing-Boing in the cartoons (which would be live-action to them). So, this actor can talk just fine. Kind of meta, but it works for me!

Besides Jim Backus, we have a lot of other talent voicing the characters.

I remember Jack Cassidy, who plays Bob Cratchit here, as one of those famous-for-being-famous celebrities that seemed so prevalent in the 70s, but I did know that he had a musical background, and not just because he was married to Shirley Jones and was the father of David and Shaun Cassidy! He does a great job here! I would not have known it was him.

We also have prolific voice artist Paul Frees in a bunch of roles. He's versatile, but I can always tell it's him. His best work to me was his Peter Lorre imitation on the old record of "My Old Flame"(1947) by Spike Jones.

The part of Belle is played by Jane Kean, who does a great job with her song "Winter Was Warm" in the Christmas Past sequence. A couple of years after this, she started appearing as "Trixie" in the musical episodes of "The Honeymooners." Jane had a sister, Betty, who was also a performer. Interestingly, Betty Kean had been married to Jim Backus about 20 years prior to this special. Awkward!

We get the great pipes of veteran radio actor Les Tremayne as the Ghost of Christmas Present. I remember him from the Saturday morning show "Shazam!" back in the day.

You can catch Morey Amsterdam (of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" fame) as one or two of the other businessmen in the Christmas Future sequence, but you have to listen for him.

The opening titles say that this was "freely adapted" from the Dickens work. Next up we'll talk about how free it is!

A Christmas Carol (1941) - Ronald Colman (Part 2)

So, did you listen to it? What a voice, right?

I like this a lot. It has solid production values, moves along well and doesn't dumb it down.

OK, so, now here's where my OSD kicks in and we see what this version includes, omits and adds!

With the half-hourish running time, they could actually cram a lot of the book in there, but some things needed to be omitted for time constraints and some things changed a bit to fit the audio-only format.

I thought it was really interesting that Scrooge was the narrator. I don't know how many adaptations have used that idea, but certainly not many. I think it's a good touch and allows us to hear that much more of Ronald Colman's velvet tones!

Scrooge sets the story in 1843, the year of publication the original book. Good to know.

Scrooge never does call his nephew by name here and we don't go to his party, so there's no one else to call him Fred. The cast lists Fred (Nephew) as a character, because you might not know who Fred is otherwise.

I think this is the only version in which Scrooge says that his nephew has a child. I wonder why they threw that in.

There's only one gentleman to ask Scrooge for a donation to charity. As in the book, he's not named, but the cast lists him as "Mr. Portly!" I think it's funny that Scrooge makes a joke about Marley's liberality! He's pretty sarcastic on the whole here.

This version uses the relatively common variation of all the ghosts appearing in one night. Marley says the first will come at 1:00, the second at 2:00 and the third at 3:00.

Naturally we can't have everything the various ghosts would have shown Scrooge in each sequence, but we get a couple with each.

In the past, we get lonely Scrooge at school and his breakup with Belle, who's also not called by name here, but listed as Belle (Sweetheart). No Fezziwig here, so we don't actually see Scrooge happy in the past - which he points out to the next ghost!

In the present, we have Scrooge describing the various people he sees celebrating Christmas. This is taken right out of the book, but a lot of versions don't include this.

We go to Bob Cratchit's house to see his Christmas dinner. Scrooge had no idea that Bob had a family. Interestingly, the ghost says he has five children. He usually has six. Hmmm... Besides Tiny Tim, we hear Mrs. Cratchit mention Martha and Peter.

Speaking of Tiny Tim, he does have a wacky voice, obviously palyed by an adult woman (Barbara Jean Wong). Tiny Tim is so hard to cast! Tiny Tim sings a song, as he does in the book, but it's just heard in the background as Scrooge and the ghost talk.

As mentioned, we don't get to go to Fred's party.

One big change here is that the Ghost of Christmas Present talks! They must have done this to avoid having Scrooge just talking to himself. It's different, but fits the format fine.

We get Scrooge's business associates discussing his death in he usual casual manner, but we don't get his things being sold off.

What we do get that is extremely rare is Scrooge pulling down the shroud on his corpse to see his own face! Almost always Scrooge refuses to do it. Maybe too hard (and creepy) to do in live-action, but it makes for a good bit here.

Instead of Bob Cratchit talking about Tiny Tim's death with his family, he talks to Tim in the graveyard. Interestingly, we learn that Tiny Tim was born in 1838 and was seven years old when he died. So, the future here is 1845, two years later. Way more specific than usual!

Scrooge wakes up on Christmas morning and talks to the kid who buys the turkey. He then relates the rest of the story to us, how he had dinner with his nephew and raised Bob's salary. He says that was a memorable day, so he must have gone to Bob's house later that same day.

Am I reading too much into all of this? One hundred percent! But, hey, that's what I do!

A Christmas Carol (1941) - Ronald Colman (Part 1)

A Christmas Carol (1941)
Director: George Wells
Scrooge: Ronald Colman

So, remember when I was saying that the 1938 MGM adaptation could use a bigger star, such as Ronald Colman, as Scrooge? Well, we're going to jump ahead a few years to 1941 and take a look at a record album from Decca, featuring... Ronald Colman!

This was a set of three 12-inch 78 rpm records, which allowed for about a half-hour of material.

Full disclosure: I love listening to old radio shows, and this recording is done in that style, as noted, with a supporting cast, sound effects and music. So, I think it's awesome, but as they say, your mileage may vary.

Back in 1941, radio was king. You could listen to your favorite shows, but you had to be right there when they were on. Then after the broadcast, the shows were gone forever.

So, imagine the thrill of having a handsomely produced drama on records that you could play whenever you wanted. Sort of like primeval home video!

Make that drama one of your favorite stories starring a top movie star and you've really got something!

It doesn't take much to make me think of  a family listening to this album as a tradition on Christmas Eve, gathered around the big radio/phonograph combination, fireplace roaring, maybe sipping some hot cocoa. What could be better?

So, what makes this so special? Well, for starters, you have Ronald Colman narrating the proceedings as Scrooge. He was a great icon of the Golden Age of Hollywood, starring in such classics as "A Tale of Two Cities," "Lost Horizon," "The Prisoner of Zenda," "Random Harvest" and others (check out any and all of those!). And for my money, he had the best voice of any actor ever. One of those that you would pay to hear read the phone book, as they used to say when we still had phone books!

The guy had sophisticated charm and class to spare!

This project gives Mr. Colman topnotch support. Musical director Victor Young and vocal director Ken Darby were tops in their fields. (Side note: Ken Darby arranged a wonderful version of "The Night Before Christmas," which he performed annually with his group the King's Men on the "Fibber McGee and Molly" show.)

The supporting cast is full of top radio actors, with Hans Conreid (voice of Captain Hook and Snidely Whiplash among many others) and Gale Gordon (of "Our Miss Brooks" and "The Lucy Show") most familiar to more modern listeners.

I feel I would be remiss if I did not point out that the actor who plays Bob Cratchit, Eric Snowden, appeared on two episodes of "Leave It to Beaver!" He's an ultra-sophisticated salesman in each. He sells Aunt Martha that Little Lord Fauntleroy suit that Beaver has to wear to school, as well as the hunting jacket the boys buy as a present for Ward. Fun!

As I understand it, this record set was popular when it came out and I don't think it's ever really been out of print. It started out as 78s, later showed up as a set of 45s, then LP, cassette, CD and is even now available as a digital download. Probably even had an 8-Track!

Enough talk for now. If you've never heard it before, give it a listen and we'll talk about it a bit...

A Christmas Carol (1938) - A Few Odds and Ends

Did you think we were done dissecting the 1938 MGM version? Oh, no, we're not!

There are still a few little curiosities here and there.

Interestingly, the opening indicates that the story takes place "more than a century ago." Perhaps neither here nor there, but this would place the events earlier than 1838. The book was published in 1843, which is the year a lot of versions place it in, if a year is mentioned at all. The book does say the story takes place "once upon a time," so it technically does not take place in 1843. So not only does "more than a century ago" sound cool, it's also accurate!

Fred and Bob Cratchit are very well-acquainted here. They have a scene together before Scrooge first appears and prior to that, Fred met Peter and Tiny Tim. He meets Bob and Tim again in the Christmas Present sequence outside of the church. This makes it seem a bit odd in the future when Bob says he ran into Fred and Fred was so understanding of Bob's troubles that it made it seem like he really knew Tim. This is faithful to the book, but here Fred does know Tiny Tim well!

A neat little touch is that Scrooge takes the bottle of wine that Bob and Fred had been drinking at the beginning of the movie rather than throwing it away!

A couple of characters that are unnamed in the book are given names here. Fred's fiancée (his wife in the book) is Bess and the two gentlemen collecting for charity are named Twill and Rummidge. Don't know why those two need names, but at least they sound Dickensian!

And don't get me started again on Fan being rechristened Fran!

When the Ghost of Christmas Past brings Scrooge back to bis old school, Scrooge calls out the names of his fellow students. He does that in the book too, so whatever, but... Scrooge yells, "Dick Wilkins!" So, wait, Dick Wilkins went to school with Ebenezer and also worked with him at Fezziwig's? Could be, but it seems like an odd thing to add in.

What's odd to leave out is that Tiny Tim does not say "God bless us every one" during the scene at the Cratchits' Christmas dinner. I actually rewatched the scene a couple of times to make sure! Tiny Tim always says that so it can be echoed at the end. He does say it at the end of the movie, but...

Something that I think might be unintentional was when Scrooge asked the Ghost of Christmas Present if Tiny Tim would die. The ghost misquotes Scrooge as he only says that Tim dying would "decrease the population." What happened to the "surplus" in there? Scrooge said "surplus population" earlier, but the ghost doesn't. I think the actor (Lionel Braham) flubbed the line and either no one noticed or they didn't bother to fix it. Line!

What really would appear to be a blooper is when Scrooge is eating his melancholy dinner in the melancholy tavern. He's reading a ginourmous banker's book (clearly labeled for our benefit!) then leaves it on the table in the tavern when he's done. Surely he wouldn't want to leave something like that behind! The waiter doesn't seem to react to it either.

One more thing that's probably not intentional is that you can see the face of the Ghost of Christmas present a couple of times. Very fleeting, and nobody had freeze frame in 1938 anyway!

Not a mistake, as it is scripted that way, but I find it very odd that Mrs. Cratchit is the one who offers the Christmas toast to Mr. Scrooge. Almost every other version has her squawk when Bob makes the toast, but not this time. Interesting!

And as mentioned before, Fred and Bess are not married, as they don't have enough money. I presume that's why in this version they have the Christmas party with Bess's "people." Otherwise how could Fred afford a big shindig?

Scrooge makes Fred his partner, which is also as different take, so by next Christmas he'll be many hours richer!

And one thing I can't help but wonder, is how long did Scrooge make the carriage driver wait while he was with Fred and Bess? That guy had to babysit that big turkey until Scrooge was ready to go to Bob's house. Luckily for the driver, his passenger was newly generous and probably gave him a big tip!

OK, so perhaps we're done with this movie for now, but it's a fascinating little thing!

A Christmas Carol (1938) - Who's Who

Now let's take a look at the cast of the 1938 MGM version of "A Christmas Carol."

First up, Reginald Owen as Scrooge. He's OK, but doesn't seem all that mean and reforms extremely quickly. Granted, that's the script and direction, but I don't think he adds much. He does have an iconic Scrooge look, but sometimes you can really see the heavy makeup!

As mentioned previously, Bob Cratchit gets an expanded role here. That's a good thing as Gene Lockhart does a great job in the role. He has tons of Christmas spirit! I know the knock on him is that he looks like he hasn't missed too many meals, so he doesn't seem poor, but what're you gonna do? He's a total pro  and was in a lot of movies over the years. His other Christmas classic movie claim to fame is his part as the judge at Kris Kringle's hearing in "Miracle on 34th Street" (1947). Not too shabby!

A fun thing is that Gene Lockhart's wife, Kathleen Lockhart, was also a performer and she was cast here as Bob's wife. No name given to her in the book or in this adaptation. She does a good job, but her role is much smaller.

Even more fun is that the Lockharts' 13 year old daughter, June, appears here as Belinda Cratchit! June Lockhart of course was later famous for her roles in the TV series "Lassie" and "Lost in Space." She's recognizable here in  her film debut. She guesses that Bob brought home sausages for Christmas dinner!

So, what about that other Cratchit kid, Tiny Tim? Well, he's played here by Terry Kilburn, who's not an unappealing performer (I've seen him elsewhere, most notably in "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" from 1939), but he just seems wrong here. Too old, too healthy looking. He's just not, you know, tiny!

This movie has the full complement of six Cratchit kids, including Martha and Peter. They all kind of run around screaming a lot, in the manner that adults think that kids act. They remind me of a Victorian Brady Bunch!

Scrooge's nephew Fred also has a greatly expanded role here too. What about the actor, Barry Mackay? Best. Fred. Ever. I don't know who he is, as I've never seen him in another movie (his filmography is small), but he does a great job here. Fred's supposed to have the most infectious personality of anyone you've ever met, and this Fred does!

Fred's not married yet in this version, but he has a fiancee named Bess. The actress, Lynne Carver is attractive, but she doesn't really get a lot to do.

Marley's ghost is played by Leo G. Carroll, whom I've seen in a zillion things, all they way up through "The Man from U.N.CL.E." TV series and he always seems about the same to me, including here. The idea of your former partner's ghost visiting you is pretty scary, but he doesn't add much more. He kind of groans more than moans, I guess.

The Ghost of Christmas Past might have the most interesting casting in the whole movie. While many versions tend to feature an old man, here the ghost is a beautiful young woman, as played by Ann Rutherford. She's the one actor who seems like she was cast because she was hanging around the MGM lot. This was around the time she started playing "Polly Benedict" in the "Andy Hardy" movies. The Christmas past sequence seems very short, but she does just fine.

Interesting casting for young Scrooge too. As mentioned before, we only get one young (and he is young) Scrooge. The actor, Ronald Sinclair, is a young teenager and it's interesting to see someone so young as Fezziwig's apprentice. Dick Wilkins is young here too. Is that actually more period authentic than the twenty-somethingish apprentices we're used to seeing?

Ronald Sinclair appears in a few movies as a teen actor (including playing young Ronald Colman in "The Light That Failed" (1939) - fun!), but switched to the other side of the camera as an adult. He eventually worked as a sound editor on "Die Hard" (1988)! So, does that also give him two Christmas classics on his resume?

To me, the cast is not peppered with familiar character actors the way a lot of MGM movies of the period are, for whatever reason, but the other parts are adequately played. Except for "Fran!" She's as annoying as her name change!

All in all, I think the cast does a good job with the material they're given, with Scrooge and Marley's ghost particularly watered down, but a superior Bob and Fred in the bargain!

Still worth a watch, and it's a snappy 69 minutes!

A Christmas Carol (1938) - What it is!

OK, now that we've raked the 1938 MGM version over the coals for what it's not, what do we really have here?

Well, it's a pleasant diversion to be sure, but it doesn't have a lot of gravitas.

It seems like MGM wanted a family friendly movie, so while they hit most of the key plot points, they take out most of the unpleasant sequences.

In the past, we only get one young Scrooge. The actor who plays him, Ronald Sinclair, was about 15 during filming and maybe looks a little younger. We see him stuck alone at school until his sister comes in and then as an apprentice with Fezziwig. We don't get Belle or any other lost love.

The little sister here is called "Fran" instead of Fan and that is like nails on a chalkboard to me!

In the present, we have Scrooge and the ghost stopping people from arguing, Fred and his fiancee and Bob and Tiny Tim in church, then the Cratchits' dinner and Fred's party. We don't have Ignorance and Want. Scrooge was already in a good mood by this point, so who needs them around?

In the future, Tiny Tim does die and we see Scrooge's grave. But we don't get the scene at Old Joe's where his belongings are being sold off.

So, if they took out all that, did they add anything? And did it help lighten the mood?

Yes, for the most part, the additions actually are interesting and fun!

We get a lot more of Fred and Bob Cratchit here and the portrayals are really good. Barry Mackay as Fred and Gene Lockhart as Bob have so much Christmas spirit that it's contagious.

We see Bob buy all the fixin's for Christmas dinner on his way home from work and the scene is a lot of fun!

MGM used to like to add a romantic subplot when they could (witness the Marx Brothers movies there), so here Fred is not married. He has a fiancee, who gets a name - Bess, but they don't have enough money to get married. Scrooge sees that they do at the end of the movie, so that adds an extra little happy ending.

Another interesting addition is that Scrooge actually "sacks" Bob on Christmas Eve. (You could have a drinking game of how often Bob says he was sacked. Just make sure it's some of his famous gin punch!) I suppose that's to add another happy ending in that Bob gets rehired.

Fred and Bess go with Scrooge to Bob Cratchit's house on Christmas Day so everyone is there for the big, happy ending. They had to do it this way because Bob would not have gone to the office the next morning, as he was... you know!

An added scene in the present shows Fred and Bess and Bob and Tiny Tim in church on Christmas Day. We always hear how Tiny Tim had gone to church with Bob and it's nice to see it.

Perhaps the oddest addition of all is the scene where Scrooge calls in the neighborhood watch after Marley's ghost first appears. It's sort of funny, I suppose, but it kills the mood. Not sure what was up with that!

In any event, there's Christmas spirit to spare, so no wonder Scrooge is pretty much reformed before the Ghost of Christmas Present even has a chance to get going!

That's the thing, though, Scrooge doesn't really seem all that bad. He's crabby and a mean boss, but he doesn't exactly come off as a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner! Sure, he fires Bob, but Bob did throw a snowball at him and ruin his hat!

He's already having a good time helping the Ghost of Christmas Present stop arguments, he says Fred and Bess should be married and ends the segment by exclaiming that he loves Christmas!

I do agree with the common criticism that the Cratchits don't seem all that poor. The Christmas goose looks fairly big and they set a nice looking table. But seemingly destitute Cratchits would be out of place here!

So, on the whole, when compared to the 1951 version, this one here certainly comes off as much lighter and superficial. Not bad, but...

It's funny that this version had the field to itself for so long. In fact, I think it remains the only talking, live action, full-length American theatrical adaptation! And its stiffest competition didn't even come along for another 15 years.

So, it casts a long shadow...

Next up, we'll take a look at the cast!

A Christmas Carol (1938) - What It's not!

A Christmas Carol (1938)
Director: Edwin L. Marin
Scrooge: Reginald Owen

OK, first off - that tagline? Greater than "David Copperfield." Ummm, no!

Now that we've taken a look at the well-regarded 1951 adaptation, next up is the less-regarded 1938 version.

Back in the prehistoric days of no home video and before the more recent glut of "A Christmas Carol" adaptations, there were two old black & white versions you'd see on TV. You'd have to catch them when they were on, but they would definitely be on.

It may not be fair, but naturally you had to compare the two. It was Reginald Owen vs. Alastair Sim and Sim always won in a unanimous decision!

I always thought that the 1938 version produced by MGM and starring Reginald Owen as Scrooge was lacking something. It's OK and I was always glad to have another version, but it's just a bit lightweight.

So, it got me to thinking what does this not have? (We'll talk about what it does have later.)

The obvious thing to me is that is does not have a strong Scrooge to dominate the proceedings. I've seen Reginald Owen in a bunch of MGM movies from that same period and he seems like a fine, versatile character actor. Not a star, though. I'm not sure if he ever had another lead role. The billing on that poster is telling. He's listed with everyone else without any kind of star billing.

I also think that while his makeup gives him a good Scrooge look, iconic in fact, you can tell it's makeup!

Who should have played he role instead?

Well, in a perfect world, it would have been Lionel Barrymore. By this point in time, he had already established a reputation for playing Scrooge in annual radio adaptations. He was also a "star" character actor. Someone who could carry a movie without being a romantic lead. So, this was a perfect opportunity.

Unfortunately, this movie was going into production about the same time that illness and accidents left Lionel Barrymore confined to a wheelchair. So, he was out. You can convince just about anybody that Barrymore would've been a great Scrooge by telling them that he played "Mr. Potter" in "It's a Wonderful Life." Anybody can totally see it!

Publicity for the movie said that Barrymore was sorry he couldn't play the role, but personally recommended his good friend Reginald Owen, but if you believe old studio publicity, there are many things I'd like to sell you!

We also don't get an all-star cast of supporting actors. Not to say the supporting cast isn't good, but it's not full of well-known actors, even by 1938 standards. If Barrymore had been able to star in the movie, would it have elevated the status of the production and got us a better known supporting cast? Who knows?

There's a pretty fun trailer for the movie with Lionel Barrymore himself telling us all about the movie. The hyperbole is understandable. Check it out...

But MGM can't help but invoke their earlier successful Dickens adaptations, both from 1935, "David Copperfield" and "A Tale of Two Cities." Is this a fair comparison? Well, since they brought it up...

This adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" comes nowhere close to those classics. It's not nearly as ambitious and only runs a little more than an hour, where both of the others exceeded two hours. Granted the source material is shorter in length too, but still...

The big difference is that the earlier films were produced by David O. Selznick for MGM. They were big budget affairs with lavish production values and large casts of star actors and character actors.

After these triumphs, Selznick started his own independent studio and continued to produce such top pictures as "The Prisoner of Zenda," "Gone with the Wind," Rebecca," etc. He was apparently done with Dickens adaptations, however.

So, it gets me thinking what if David O. Selznick had produced a version of "A Christmas Carol" back in the 1930s, either with MGM or independently.

I can see, say, Ronald Colman (superstar of "A Tale of Two Cities" who later played Scrooge on records and radio) as Scrooge with Freddie Bartholomew (breakout child star of "David Copperfield") as Tiny Tim. How's that for thinking big?

Well, now we know what we don't have, so what do we have?

Scrooge (1951) - What's What

So, we've established that "Scrooge"from 1951 has a great cast, as led by "the incomparable Alastair Sim" (the poster is correct!).

The cinematography, set design, music score, special effects, script, direction, all good!

Except for changing the title to "A Christmas Carol" for U.S. release, there's nothing Americanized about it and the very British feel of the whole thing adds to the authenticity. And as we move further away from 1951, the movie seems to get closer to actual Dickensian times, making it a wonderful time capsule.

The movie feels authentic, but is it actually faithful to the source material? Well, yes and no.

Now, I wouldn't say that there are actual spoilers ahead, as if you're reading this, you must know how the whole thing turns out. But if you have not seen this version yet, by all means do so, then come back!

The idea of the whole thing hasn't changed much, but a lot has been added to the Christmas Past sequence in order to flesh out Scrooge's character. With these added things, we get more on idea of how Scrooge came to be such a miserable wretch!

Many of these new angles have been appropriated (to be polite) by subsequent versions, because they came up with some really good ideas!

The biggest change of all is to make Fan the older sister of Ebenezer. Dickens clearly states in the book that Fan is much younger. Making her older allows for their mother to have died giving birth to Ebenezer. That wouldn't work if Fan were younger. But this causes the father to be kind to Fan and resent Ebenezer. In the original text, we have no idea what happened to their mother or why Daddy Scrooge scorns Ebenezer but favors the younger Fan. This all makes sense now, though.

Now, throw in Fan dying while giving birth to Fred and we have a reason why Scrooge resents his nephew.

The added scene of Fan's death is very powerful. Scrooge and the Ghost linger after the young Scrooge storms out. Turns out Fan hadn't passed away yet and the last thing she asked is for Ebenezer to take care of her boy. That hits the old Scrooge like a ton of bricks and you know right there he will never again have a cross word with Fred.

Another scene from the past that goes on after young Scrooge leaves is the breakup with Alice. She puts on a brave face while young Scrooge is there, but after he storms out, she breaks down. Another thing that hits old Scrooge hard. Alastair Sim's reactions in these scenes really help sell them.

Besides being named Alice rather than Belle, another big change is that she did not get married to someone else after splitting with Ebenezer. She went the opposite route from him and works as a nurse or social worker or something. I always hope that in the new, improved future, Scrooge looks her up and they finally get together! Some Dickensian shipping!

The expansion of Scrooge's back story also includes his progression from happy young apprentice with Fezziwig to miserable old partner with Jacob Marley. The newly added character of Mr. Jorkin sets this in motion by introducing young Scrooge to young Marley and he inadvertently allows them to take over the company, eventually driving Fezziwig out of business.

It's very interesting to see the gradual hardening of Scrooge as it happens, rather than just hearing Alice/Belle say that it happened.

While they're throwing extra scenes into the past, we get to see Jacob Marley on his deathbed. He tries to warn Scrooge to change his ways, but Scrooge isn't buying it.

We also get see Bob Cratchit in this scene and since it was on Christmas Eve, he tries to get the next day off as usual. Scrooge has a comical reaction to Cratchit's "if it's quite convenient line," saying that Cratchit says the same thing every year. It's funny, but kind of backwards, as Scrooge should have had that reaction in the present rather than in the past if he had already heard it so many times before with an additional seven times added on!

In any event, it's really in the past that most of the changes and/or additions take place. They all make sense and blend in so well that they could have been part of the original novella.

Back in the present, quite a bit of screen time is given to the charwoman, Mrs. Dilber. She also had popped up in the Marley's death scene and gets her own catchphrase; "in keeping with the situation!"

 Not too much is omitted, but the whole thing clocks in at a snappy 86 minutes, so you can definitely fit in a screening at least once every holiday season!

Scrooge (1951) - Who's Who

Scrooge (1951)
Director: Brian Desmond Hurst
Scrooge: Alastair Sim

OK, so, let's start big!

This is the famous British adaptation released in the U.S. as "A Christmas Carol" and starring Alastair Sim as Scrooge.

For as long as I can remember, it's always been conventional wisdom that this is the best version ever, with Alastair Sim the Sean Connery of Scrooges!

Now that 68 years have passed and so many other versions have come along, are these things still true? In a word: yes!

This production on the whole and Alastair Sim in particular have that something special that everyone else tries for, but can't quite reach. It set the bar really high! In fact, I think a lot of subsequent adaptations use this move as a template. Sometimes it seems like it's the source material rather than the book itself!

You can't have a great version without a great Scrooge and this has one. Alastair Sim's Scrooge starts off pretty mean and miserable and ends up pretty nice happy and we get to see the progression throughout the movie. With a lot of other Scrooges, it's like a switch was flipped from mean to nice! He has a good Scrooge "look" as well, without a lot of makeup to be distracting.

To modern American audiences, it's as if Alastair Sim showed up to play Scrooge one day, then fell off the face of the earth once shooting was completed, but he actually had a long career in British cinema, continuing for a couple more decades after this.

It's not a one man show, however, as the rest of the cast is solid as well. To me, Mervyn Johns as Bob Cratchit is right up there too. He strikes the right notes as the humble, subservient employee as well as the jolly, caring family man. For more old school ghostliness with Mervyn Johns, "Dead of Night" (1945) is not to be missed.

Mrs. Cratchit is played here by a relatively young and subdued Hermione Baddeley. I remember her from her way brassier appearances in the 1970s, such as "Mrs. Naugatuck," the replacement maid on "Maude," so it's interesting to see her 20-odd years before.

I've gone back and forth over the years with my opinion of the Mrs. Dilber character, as played by Kathleen Harrison. The performance is definitely over the top, but if taken on the spirit of comedy relief, she's OK and I've come to peace with the character. I imagine the whole thing was more suitable for British audiences at the time. I understand that Kathleen Harrison was popular at the time in British movies that did not make their way across the pond. This explains her extremely prominent billing in the original advertising.

Of course, in the original book, Mrs. Dilber is the laundress, but in this movie she's the charwoman. But since she's fairly prominent here, it seems that every future version featuring the charwoman inevitably refers to her as Mrs. Dilber. Admittedly it's hard to follow in the original text, but a small thing like this only further shows the influence of this film!

The other oddly prominently billed actor, Jack Warner, was frequently paired with Kathleen Harrison in those popular British films. He gets some good scenes here as "Mr. Jorkin," a completely made-up character who "helps" Scrooge on the road to miserliness, although in a very jovial manner.  He's quite a charming scoundrel!

Not a made-up character, but one who gets an unusual amount of screen time is young Scrooge, played by George Cole. He does a good job, but I can't say that he seems like a young version of Alastair Sim to me, but young Scrooge is always tough to cast. George Cole is another actor who's in zillion British films and TV shows, but never well-known to American audiences. He was a protege of  Alastair Sim and they appeared together in a number of other movies, including a couple of entries in the "St. Trinian's" series. I wonder if they ever chatted about playing Scrooge!

Another not-exactly made-up character is Alice, Scrooge's former fiancée, who morphed from Belle from the book. She's played by Rona Anderson, who makes a pretty good impression in her couple of scenes.

We get a good Jacob Marley from Michael Hordern, who actually gets a brief opportunity to play a "live" Marley!

Also suitable is Brian Worth as Fred, who is fine, if not in the top ranks of Freds.

That leaves us with Tiny Tim. I always have a tough time with Tiny Tim, as it's hard to picture most of them as being so deathly ill that the next Ghost of Christmas Present will only find an unused crutch at an empty chair. Glyn Dearman here does a good enough job in the role, though.

In one of those cool things about older movies, sometimes you get a glimpse of a future star in a small, early role. Here we get Patrick Macnee (later of TV's cult favorite "The Avengers") as young Jacob Marley. Fun!

OK, so we have a solid cast with top cat Scrooge. Next we'll talk about the movie itself, with a close look at how it compares with the original novella...

Stave Five. The End of It.

When we last saw Scrooge, he was holding on to a bedpost. Luckily, it was his own bedpost. He's back in his bedroom and sees that his bed curtains are not torn down!

Scrooge is so happy to be back at home and finished with the spirits that he laughs and jumps around a lot. He looks out his window and sees a boy going by. He needs to ask the boy what day it is, as he's not sure how long he was with the spirits.

By my calculations, it could be as late as December 28. We started on Christmas Eve with Marley's Ghost. The first of the three spirits was due the next day at 1:00 am, which was presumably an hour after midnight on Christmas Day, so 1:00 am on the 26th. The second came the next night, also at 1:00 am, so the 27th. The the third came at the stroke of midnight on the next night, which I think is still December 27, so when Scrooge awoke the next morning, in theory it would have been the 28th!

But since, as Scrooge notes, the spirits can do anything they like, the boy reports that it's Christmas Day!

So, what does Scrooge have planned for his first Christmas with holiday spirit?

He has that boy buy a prize turkey and sends it anonymously to Bob Cratchit. We don't see the Cratchits that day, so we don't know what they thought of it, but presumably they enjoyed their best Christmas dinner ever!

Scrooge name-drops Joe Miller when thinking about how funny the joke of sending the turkey will be. Joe Miller being a performer of a century before that, known for really, really tired old jokes. An early pop culture reference, if you will!

After he shaves and gets dressed, Scrooge leaves his house, running into the talkative one of the portly gentlemen who had been soliciting for charity. This gives Scrooge a chance to promise a generous donation.

Scrooge then goes to church, which is not shown in most adaptations.

After walking past Fred's house 12 times, he finally has the nerve to ring the bell. He enters and Fred is overjoyed to see him

Dickens points out that everything was as Scrooge had seen it with the Ghost of Christmas Present, including Topper and the plump sister!

Scrooge has the time of his life, but he has one more piece of business to attend to the next morning.

Scrooge arrives at the office the next day, well ahead of Bob Cratchit, who had been making rather merry himself.

Scrooge feigns anger at Bob for being late, but rather than firing him, he raises his salary and promises to assist his family. Even better, he tells Bob to buy another coal-scuttle!

Looking ahead into the future, we learn that Scrooge was true to his word and Tiny Tim did not die!

So, there's a rundown of the major characters and incidents in the original text. We'll be taking a look at the different adaptations and see what elements they use or don't use and what they add in!

Stay tuned - it'll be fun!