Other Soundtrack!

Here's the soundtrack album of the 1999 Patrick Stewart TV-movie:

Definitely not the 1984 one - just thought I'd point that out!

A Christmas Carol - Patrick Stewart (1991) - Part 2

Patrick Stewart's 1991 recording of his one-man version of "A Christmas Carol" is extremely faithful to its source, but it's not just him reading the whole book.

The CD version is two discs, with Disc One clocking in at 48 minutes and Disc Two at 59. So, that's an hour and 47 minutes, which certainly gives plenty of time to tell the story.

I'm not sure how long it would take to read the entire book out loud, but longer than the allotted time. There's a lot of descriptive narrative than can easily be cut, however, and some extraneous dialogue.

It's interesting what Patrick Stewart left out and one very interesting thing that he added!

For our purposes right now, we'll just talk about some of the things that are omitted, without really going over what's left in, as most everything is left in.

The lone sound effect not made by Stewart himself is at the very beginning, when we hear what seems to be a cold wind blowing. This stops at the point when we hear that "Old Marley was as dead as a doornail," then does not reappear.

What's clear right away is that Mr. Stewart is using the original text, but with a bit of judicious editing. He doesn't really change any of the wording, but rearranges some just a bit and leaves out some chunks that don't really advance the story.

For example, when Fred comes into Scrooge's office at the beginning, every word he and Scrooge say is in the book, but the order in which they say some of it is changed and Scrooge does not ask Fred why he got married. Not sure why and you have to think about it to notice.

When Scrooge is back home and the bells ring before Marley's Ghost appears, you get the idea that Patrick Stewart really likes to make bell sounds. He does it a lot!

No gravy joke directed at Marley, by the way. Scrooge doesn't try to pass any of that visit off as indigestion.

When the first ghost is about to appear, we get more bells. These are overdubbed with Scrooge's snoring and muttering. This is the only time something like this is done. Otherwise, you can easily imagine the whole thing being done live.

I hadn't heard this recording in a while, and in the meantime, Stewart's made for TV version of "A Christmas Carol" came out. One of the things that drove me crazy in that TV-movie was that Scrooge's sister was named "Fran." Certainly Patrick Stewart must have known her name is "Fan" if he performed his one-man show so many times, right?

So, I was wondering what name he would use when Scrooge goes back into the past with the first spirit. You know what, though? Young Ebenezer does not talk at all, so his sister is not named! What's up with that? Isn't that strange? We may never know if Patrick Stewart knows the right name!

Anyway, I think the biggest thing in the whole piece that's omitted is the scene of Belle being happily married. I don't know why, as I think it's a powerful scene. Charles Dickens himself took that out of his public reading version, so is that why it's not here either?

I've heard some criticism of that scene based on the premise that Scrooge would not have dreamt something he didn't actually experience. But it's not a dream!

Anyway, in the present at the Cratchits' house, there's no talk of Peter starting a job or Martha being a milliner's apprentice, but most everything else is there. Including Tiny Tim's song in what is perhaps the wackiest moment of all!

The visit to Fred's party is very short. No games, no mention of Topper or the sisters.

When the future segment comes around, Scrooge does not say, "Ghost of the future! I fear you more than any spectre I have seen." Some other lines I like here and there are not used, but I wasn't consulted about this project!

In the scene at Old Joe's when the charwoman (not Mrs. Dilber) produces the bedcurtains, Joe does not mention how she took them rings and all. On Christmas morning, however, when Scrooge finds himself in his own bed, he says they were not torn down, rings and all. That's the one thing that perhaps slipped by in the editing. But that's nitpicking.

Then Scrooge does the crazy weird laugh that sounds more like he's choking, which is repeated in that TV-movie. It's odd in both.

Then we get a whole bit that was added in:

"Scrooge found himself near the open door of a church. He went inside and for the first time as a man, joined his voice with those of his fellow creatures in a Christmas hymn."

He then croaks out "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" as if he's rusty at singing, then gets stronger as a he goes along. Is this purely an excuse for Patrick Stewart to show off a little? Probably, but it's fun and is pretty good faux-Dickensian!

The corresponding passage from the book? "He went to church." Boom!

While we're changing some things, about the only other noticeable deviation from the book is when  Scrooge goes to Fred's house. Here we told that, "A young housemaid answered," rather than, "Nice girl! Very," which is a bit creepy anyway, so good change!

So, on the whole, an extremely faithful adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" told in a most entertaining manner.

I think Mr. Stewart's TV-movie is OK, but this audio recording is a blast, and, to me, by far the better of his two adapataions available for home entertainment!

A Christmas Carol - Patrick Stewart (1991) - Part 1

While listening to Irene Wicker's quick run-through of "A Christmas Carol," I was trying to think of what it reminded me of. Then it hit me - Patrick Stewart's one-man version of the story!

That may seem like an odd connection, but both of these performers narrate the story as if they're reading it to you, while using different voices for the various characters. Once the voice for each character is established, they don't need to say "...said Scrooge" or something similar, since we now who did the speaking based on the voice.

I wouldn't imagine that Patrick Stewart used Ireene Wicker's record as a point of reference (if he ever heard it at all) but it's an interesting comp and 40-odd years apart!

The biggest difference, of course, is that Ms. Wicker was telling the story for 1949 children and had just over three minutes in which to do so. Just two sides of a seven-inch record spinning around at a very fast 78 rpm.

Patrick Stewart recorded his version (presumably for all ages) in 1991, well into the CD era, and got over 100 minutes, so not a fair fight!

Be that as it may, Patrick Stewart does an awesome job here. As the cover of the CD notes, he "performs" the story. His reading of the text itself with his "real" voice is very engaging and he gives entertaining voices to the various characters. He seems like he's having a good time and it's contagious.

He had apparently been performing this show for a while before making this recording and his performance here is certainly well-honed. He performed the show on Broadway the same year as this recording and wound up with a Drama Desk Award for Outstanding One-Person show!

Ireene Wicker aside, the original comparison for Patrick Stewart's show would be Charles Dickens's own public readings of "A Christmas Carol" back in the day. Dickens apparently would use different voices for the various characters too. Seeing one of those readings will be a must when time travel is invented!

I had wondered if Stewart was using that public reading adaptation for his show, but checking that text quickly shows that's not the case. It seems the original book itself is the source.

This recorded version is extremely faithful, but was anything added or omitted?

We shall see...

The Scrooge Look

While talking about the 1999 made-for-TV adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" starring Patrick Stewart, I mentioned that I didn't think he had a Scrooge "look."

That got me thinking about which actors in the role did have the look and whether that helped them in our acceptance of them as Scrooge.

Starting at the top, I do think that Alastair Sim has a pretty good Scrooge look. Certainly he's well-accepted in the role. The funny thing is that he doesn't have unusual makeup or a very different hairstyle. He always looks that way!

I imagine most people that know him at all today only know him as Scrooge. They like him, but may be underrating him as an actor. If you see him in another movie, such as 1946's "Green for Danger" (which is a good one), you realize that he looks and sounds the same as he does in "Scrooge," but the character is totally different. That's just good acting!

Moving ahead to Albert Finney, he has makeup to make him look older and more Scroogy and he affects a wacky voice. He's certainly far removed from how he looks as young Scrooge. I think he gives a terrific performance, but he's helped by the makeup and voice.

George C. Scott sounds the same as he usually did, but he had ginormous mutton chops to make him look more Scroogish. Also, his general reputation for being, shall we say, mercurial makes casting him as Scrooge a non-stretch. But he certainly delivers the goods.

Even Mister Magoo seemed well-cast as Scrooge and didn't need to change his appearance too much to be convincing. The brilliant voice acting of Jim Backus certainly helps too!

Sir Seymour Hicks is a great Scrooge, but there's not really much of a point of reference of how he might have been otherwise, so it's easy to accept him as Scrooge.

Fredric March was a great actor with two Oscars on his mantel, but he definitely needed makeup to look like Scrooge, as he still looked like a movie star in 1954.

So, props to Patrick Stewart for doing it au natural, if you will, and pulling it off!

A Christmas Carol (1999) - Part 5

A few more thoughts on the 1999 made-for-TV adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" from 1999...

I think this is a pretty solid version. I don't think it really adds much, but I do appreciate the interesting little touches they add here and there, including some rarely seen details from the book.

I'm always in favor of more adaptations anyway!

It's hard to believe that 20 years have passed since 1999, but I think this holds up pretty well.

Patrick Stewart has a large fan base, so I can see people watching this who are not aficionados of the story watching this. Maybe they've never seen another version before!

They'll get a good representation of the story with agood lead

Who knows, maybe they'll become fans!

A Christmas Carol (1999) - Part 4

The 1999 TV adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" sticks pretty close to the book, but like any adaptation, it adds a little and subtracts a little. How did they do?

The movie opens with Jacob Marley's funeral procession in 1836. There's no narrator, so Scrooge and some of the other characters have some expository dialogue about Marley being dead as a doornail and such. I think it's a bit awkward. Interestingly, however, Scrooge promises Marley that he'll keep doing what they've been doing. And how!

Scrooge goes back to his office, outside of which is a pretty spiffy "Scrooge and Marley" sign. But it ages a lot! We go inside and Bob Cratchit mentions it's been seven years since Marley died, so shouldn't they change the sign? That went over about as well as expected!

These opening scenes apparently strongly influenced the Jim Carrey computer animated version of ten years later. They're quite similar.

Scrooge and Cratchit argue about coal and such, then Scrooge's nephew Fed sneaks up on Scrooge. After the usual banter, we see Fred out in the street where he runs into the charity solicitors, who ask him where Scrooge and Marley's is, saying they're new to the district. Fred gives them a "you'll be sorry" look.

The gentlemen get the welcome that Fred predicted and Scrooge knows that they must be new. They're given names here, Williams and Foster. Interestingly one of them says there are hundreds of thousands in need. That's not usually specified like that.

After they leave, we see a bunch of carolers and one says he's going to try Scrooge's. The others don't think he should, and they're proven correct when Scrooge goes totally "get off my lawn" on them all!

After begrudgingly giving Bob Cratchit the next day off, Scrooge goes straight home and sees Marley's face in the knocker. Marley screams at him, which is little wacky.

While eating his gruel, he sees little Marley faces in the fireplace tiles. The tiles are biblical scenes and are probably the closest to the description in the book than in any other version.

Marley's Ghost comes in and Scrooge is not overly impressed. He says, "Speak up, man," so the ghost takes off his wrapper and we get a pretty good effect of its jaw dropping. What's weird, though, is that Scrooge goes over and snaps its jaw back into place!

Also curious is that when Marley's Ghost says its own change is "ponderous," which it isn't because we see it. It's Scrooge's chain that's ponderous!

Marley's Ghost does show Scrooge the other phantoms before leaving.

The Ghost of Christmas Past shows up and, as mentioned before, has an odd appearance, sort of young, sort of old.

They go back to Scrooge's school and Scrooge yells out the names of some of the kids. This version's big on assigning random names. I wonder if the names are actual old classmates of Patrick Stewart's or something fun like that.

They see young Ebenezer by himself and Scrooge says that his father turned against him when his mother died. They don't say why, but it doesn't seem to be that the mother died in childbirth.

Then Scrooge's apparently younger sister comes in. Fine, but she's named "Fran!" What? That's horrible! Why, Patrick Stewart, why? You should know better!

Next, they go to Fezziwig's. In an amusing bit, old Scrooge peeks at young Scrooge's ledger and gives an approving nod.

I must say that I don't care for the depiction of Fezziwig and his family here. They're very crass and vulgar and remind me of the Thenardiers from "Les Miserables," which is not a good thing. And they give them a son here, and he has the same hairdo as Fezziwig, but that's supposed to be Welsh wig, so does the son have a junior wig? I don't like this whole sequence one bit!

Scrooge says things look better than they were. Hmmm...

As by now seems the norm, Belle is at Fezziwig's party, so we know who she is before the inevitable breakup. For some reason, however, we don't see Belle married with her family.

When the Ghost of Christmas Present shows up, Scrooge is still not too impressed. He says he wants to get it over and done with. He's a tough nut to crack, but not quite as tough as George C. Scott.

They see people celebrating the holiday as they make their way to Bob Cratchit's house. Martha (who looks young) comes in and talks about working at the shop and Scrooge approvingly says that she sounds like a hard-working girl. Too bad her father doesn't do as good of a job!

They have their rather grim dinner, then Tiny Tim sings "Silent Night."

What's fun is that the song is picked up by the guys in the lighthouse then the sailors, who sing it in German, and so on, to show other celebrations. It's a good way to show what a lot of versions don't.

We then go to Fred's party, which also has a different vibe. The guests spend most of the time raking Scrooge over the coals and not in a jovial manner. They make Fred defend him, which actually makes Fred look better. Topper gets a last name, Haines, here. I think he's more creepy than fun. Fred's wife's sister also gets a name (Betsy) and a couple named the Bennetts are added in.

Before this spirit goes, we do see Ignorance and Want.

The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come appears next and I don't like it at all. It has these weird eyes for some reason. They look like cheap LEDs or something. I don't know what they were going for. Is it supposed to look like a Jawa?

This spirit shows Scrooge a lot of stuff. We get the other businessmen at the Exchange, and the scene at Old Joe's. In addition to Mrs. Dilber, the others get names: Mr. Crump for the undertaker and Mrs. Riggs for the charwoman. Or is she the laundress? Never mind!

After the body on the bed, we get the scene with Caroline and he husband happy that Scrooge died. This is always good to see.

For tenderness connected with a death, we go to the Cratchit's house and Bob goes to the room and we actually do see the recently deceased Tiny Tim! Is that the first time since 1935?

Scrooge then is brought  to the graveyard, where he sees his grave. But hen he sees himself in his coffin as he falls in! Yikes! Luckily, he falls into his own bed.

Now, Scrooge is fully reformed and apparently wants to celebrate with a laugh. Well, he chokes one out so violently that the first time you see this show you think he might be having a heart attack. That would not be happy ending!

But, he's OK, and calls to the boy out the window. He has to force himself to offer the boy a shilling, which is a neat touch. The kid is oddly suspicious and demands that shilling!

After dealing with the turkey business, he finds time to shave, as he doesn't have his stubble anymore. He then goes to church, which is another rarely seen detail from the book. Amusingly, he doesn't know that he should remove his hat. It's been a while!

He goes to Fred's and does the polka just like Alastair Sim!

Oddly, he doesn't run into either of the charity solicitors during his Christmas morning rounds.

The next day he surprises Bob at the office the next morning in manner that's very faithful to the book in that Bob really thinks Scrooge might need a strait-waistcoat.

During the epilogue, Fred comes on to narrate as we see Scrooge awaiting the whole Cratchit family, whom he welcomes into his home.

A nice ending, if cribbed somewhat from the George C. Scott version!

A Christmas Carol (1999) - Part 3

As expected, Patrick Stewart dominates the proceedings as Scrooge on the 1999 made-for-TV adaptation of "A Christmas Carol."

But he's not doing a one-man show this time, so he needs a supporting cast. What did he get?

Richard E. Grant plays Bob Cratchit. He looks like you'd expect Bob to look. Not overly well-fed. He's pretty somber in the role. He's appropriately subservient to Scrooge at the office,  but he doesn't crank up the Christmas spirit all that much with his family. This is perhaps more realistic based on the circumstances, but usually Bob is happy despite the circumstances.

Saskia Reeves as Mrs. Cratchit follows suit. She gives a convincing portrayal, but there's an air of doom hanging over them.

Tiny Tim is played by Ben Tibber, who does look smaller and less healthy than most TTs. He's not focused upon here, however, so he doesn't have much to do.

I think Dominic West is a standout as Scrooge's nephew Fred. He really seems to have a lot of Christmas spirit and is convincing when he defends his uncle to his wife and party guests.

I don't feel that Marley's Ghost, as played by Bernard Lloyd, is as successful. He doesn't seem all that scary and Scrooge really isn't afraid of him.

I do think that Joel Grey does a good job as the Ghost of Christmas Past. He kind of fits the description in the book as he looks sort of like an old man, yet sort of like a child. It's an odd thing, but that's the point.

The Ghost of Christmas Present is played by Desmond Barrit and he's not quite as jovial as might be expected. This whole production is kind of grim. Also, I think this ghost looks tired, even when he first appears.

An interesting note with the cast is that Liz Smith, who plays Mrs. Dilber here, also played Mrs. Dilber in the 1984 TV movie with George C. Scott! I think this time they got it right and she's the laundress, not the charwoman, but who can tell anymore?

Now that the cast is assembled  what were they given to do?

A Christmas Carol (1999) - Part 2

So, how does Patrick Stewart fare as Scrooge  in the 1999 made-for-TV adaptation of "A Christmas Carol?"

He gives an interesting performance. He definitely seems to be taking a  page from George C. Scott's book, as he plays Scrooge as a cold, tough businessman rather than an eccentric miser. Not that he's imitating Scott, but it's in that same mold.

A few things made it tough for me to accept him as Scrooge at first. The main thing is that he doesn't have a Scrooge look. He looks the same as he always looks, so when you see him, you think Captain Picard or Professor X or whatever your Patrick Stewart point of reference is. You know he's playing Scrooge, but he doesn't ooze Scrooginess.

I don't understand the shaved head. Why would Scrooge shave his head? That seems anachronistic to me. Is it merely that Stewart doesn't want to appear any other way?

I also think it's odd that he has stubble on his face through much of the movie. Even if Scrooge were to shave his head, why wouldn't he also shave his face?

Patrick Stewart was 59 years old at the time, which seems like a good Scrooge age, but I think he seems younger. He doesn't necessarily look like he's been worn down by the world or that he would die in a Christmas Yet to Come anytime soon.

He also talks like he always talks and doesn't affect a wacky voice.

In any event, as things get going and you get caught up in the story you start thinking he's Scrooge. Maybe that's the sign of a good actor? He's not relying on makeup  or other tricks.

He certainly has a commanding presence and holds our attention.

As far as the reclamation of Scrooge goes, he does gradually change.  He's convincingly mean at the beginning and convincingly nice at the end, so all in all, a solid job!

Next, we take a look at the rest of the cast...

A Christmas Carol (1999) - Part 1

A Christmas Carol (1999)
Director: David Jones
Scrooge: Patrick Stewart

We jump ahead 40 years and go from Basil Rathbone to Patrick Stewart for another made-for-TV adaptation of "A Christmas Carol."

This version from 1999 is like a full-fledged movie, however, as it runs about 90 minutes, so there's plenty of time to tell the story and include as many incidents as they see fit.

This also seems to have a pretty good budget and was seemingly meant to be shown year after year, so any criticism (or praise) is fair game!

Patrick Stewart had previously done a one-man version of the story, which he also recorded as an audio book, so he's familiar with the material. He's also listed as an executive producer for this movie, so we'll blame him for anything we don't like!

Actually, this is a solid version in the George C. Scott mode. I think that 1984 TV-movie is the modern template.

This version is somewhat dark and grim.

Next up: How Patrick Stewart does as Scrooge...