MovieChat Forums > A Christmas Carol (1938) Discussion > A little TOO cheery an adaptation?

A little TOO cheery an adaptation?

posted 14 years ago by angmc43
16 replies | jump to latest

I feel that the best CHRISTMAS CAROL adaptations were the ones with a dramatic power toward the negative aspects of the story- much of the scary ghosts, the girlfriend break-up, the poverty, and Yet-to-Come sequences. All the more better to complement the positive stuff.
The 1938 version is full of the positive aspects and moreso (the church, the ice-slidings, Scrooge enjoying XMAS too early), but at the sacrifice of the negative. It downplays much of the darkness. We see little of poor people. Scrooge conveniently ends Christmas Past before she brings out his fall to the dark side. We get nothing of the bargaining of Scrooge's possessions. Marley looks merely uncomfortable rather than tormented. Scrooge even says he likes Christmas at the end of Present (with Ignorance and Want conveniently omitted), making Yet-to-Come look redundant. SCROOGE '70 may be a musical, but it kept faith with the potential (Heck, MICKEY'S CHRISTMAS CAROL had the burning coffin sequence!). The '38 version comes off as rather toothless from all the sugary atmosphere.
Why? This is not a case of 'old movies are supposed to be tame' that some modern-day viewers ignorantly believe. 1935's SCROOGE successfully handled the good/bad parts of the story (The celebrations of Christmas contrasting with the creepily atmospheric Yet-To-Come scenes). And two years earlier MGM churned out DAVID COPPERFIELD and A TALE OF TWO CITIES, and these films didn't pull punches with the material (then again, MGM only released those movies). I suppose it had to do with the economical and international situation in America, and 1938 Americans didn't want to be reminded of the Depression or the growing possibilities of war in Europe. It is said that Lionel Barrymore wouldn't let his hip injury delay the creation of this film, feeling audiences needed A CHRISTMAS CAROL right now that year. So, let's give them a cheery adaptation!

[–] shadow_priest_x 14 years ago

I honestly feel that the '38 version is more of a PARAPHRASE than a TRANSLATION. That is, there really is a significant amount that is different from the original novella.

I agree with most of what you say. Unlike some people that I know, I don't find this version abhorrent. I know that many people believe this version to be so terrible as to be unwatchable. I think it does have SOME redeeming qualities and I don't mind watching it once a year. But in my opinion the Sim version, George C. Scott version, and Patrick Stewart version are all superior.

[–] misspaddylee 14 years ago

Has anyone seen Reginald Owen play a truly nasty character? My husband thinks he must have been a nice fella and just couldn't sustain the grumpy Scrooge for a long time. His quick redemption does take away some of the power of the story. I do get a kick out of seeing all the Lockharts on board as the Cratchits. A charming little movie, but it isn't the version.

"Fortunately, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency."

[–] ABetterDay 14 years ago

You may be a bit too young to know what was happening in the world in 1938. This version was perfect for what was needed at the time. And remember....there was no George C. Scott version (or later) which to compare in 1938. Too cheery? Not when you were likely going to bed w/o eating much and war was inevitably just around the corner. Cheery was exactly what everyone needed. As much as they could get.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

[–] xnet95 11 years ago

Who are you talking to? The OP addressed everything you say in the last couple sentences of his post.
Helloooo...anybody home, Grandpa Simpson?

[–] roghache 14 years ago

Yes, it's unduly cheery. Barely have the opening credits rolled by when Scrooge repents! Everything is sugary sweet, no regret over Belle, Cratchits actually appear quite prosperous etc.

Normally, I'm a stickler for faithfulness to Dickens but agree with shadow priest that this is a paraphrase rather than a translation. Therefore I've learned to get past the wealth of deviations and just enjoy this charming old movie on its own merits.

Alastair Sim, George C. Scott, and Patrick Stewart are much better versions but I do faithfully watch this as well every year. However, if this were the only film adaptation available to me, I'd feel ill done by!

[–] tmaj48 14 years ago

I watched this version for the first time yesterday; even though I knew it
was probably not going to come close to the excellence of the Alastair Sim
version, I was still disappointed. The characters seem cartoonish, and when
Bob Cratchit announces at the end that he's happy, with a huge grin on his
face, even after the recent death of Tiny Tim, I was disgusted. The main
reasons to watch this film are for the appearance of the Lockharts, and for
Terry Kilburn's Tiny Tim, who looks more realistically frail than the robust
Tim of the 1951 film.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

[–] BillyFisher 14 years ago

Most of the episodes in Dickens's novel were either cut down to the bare bones or replaced with saccharine, whimsical episodes. It captured very little of the bleakness of the original story. Scrooge's offices were overlit, his home was far too fancy, and the Cratchits looked rather too well-to-do. Seemed to me most of the elements of the novel were dealt with rather perfunctorily.

- - - - - - - -
www.davidlrattigan.com
www.dictionaryofhammer.com

[–] puirt-a-beul 14 years ago

I've just seen it for the first time, after watching Alastair Sim's version last night, and I was driven to distraction by the excessively-mannered bonhomie in this version. Everyone is so relentlessly cheery -- as if that's how we are supposed to know they're good people, because they never stop grinning and being exaggeratedly happy -- that it completely undercuts the pathos and introspective qualities of the story.

I take the point that world events at the times they were made can explain much of the difference in tone between these two versions, and I well understand why people in 1938 would really want to feel that the world was basically good and innocent underneath it all, but the '38 version's skirting of anything vaguely dark really nobbles the drama. As much as I generally enjoy Reginald Owen, and think he did a reasonable job in the early "grumpy" scenes -- as far as the script provided for, anyway -- without the gloom of his embitteredness, you can't appreciate the joy of Scrooge's (and hence our) redemption.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] xnet95 11 years ago

I hate excessively-mannered bonhomie! My mother used to make me eat that with green beans and turnips. Yuck!

[–] puirt-a-beul 11 years ago

Oh well, I suppose to those without the wit to say something onstructive, lampooning may seem a clever alternative.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] mptnla 13 years ago

I tend to disagree with most of you. I think the dated sugary campyness of this version it what makes it a joy to watch at Christmas time. Granted, I would never hang out with the overly perky Crachits in real life, but their antics made for a lively production.

"...and I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids."

[–] critic-2 11 years ago

I have listened to the Mercury Theatre radio adaptation directed by Orson Welles and starring Lionel Barrymore, and even Welles omitted some of the darkest passages. I'm guessing that since this film was originally intended to star Lionel Barrymore, they tried to keep close to the radio adaptation.

[–] xnet95 11 years ago

Or could it be that the radio program was also trying to cheer people and make them forget about the depression?