MovieChat Forums > Scrooge (1951) Discussion > Two things I never understood about this...

Two things I never understood about this story

posted 7 years ago by Horror_Metal
6 replies | jump to latest

I love the Dickens novella and all its various adaptions, this one being my favorite, but there are two things that never made sense to me about the story in general. Maybe someone can help me out.

1. Doesn't Marley tell Scrooge that the first ghost will visit him at the stroke of midnight and the second at 1 in the morning? So wouldn't Christmas Present arrive at about 1am? If that's the case, then the spirit must be showing him the next day (Christmas) during the daytime as obviously everyone is not up celebrating at 1am, right? So he takes him a little into the future then? Or is it still Christmas Eve? I know exactly where the spirit takes him but the when is what confuses me unless he takes him a few hours into the future. I can't seem to find an answer to this anywhere.

2. Scrooge is distraught to find that the dead man he has been shown repeatedly is, in fact, himself during the Christmas Future part. So then he vows to change his greedy ways and become a better person who loves Christmas and doesn't hate everything as a heartless miser. So this somehow means he will live longer and not die at the time he was shown by the spirit? Or is it more like he won't die lonely with everyone hating him?

Can anyone shed some light here?

My Reviews: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbYVmhjEJi9UAB4pZqseAGM9CSmMooF0n 

[–] steve-606 7 years ago

1. I think you're correct in saying that the ghost of Christmas present is taking him to later that same Christmas Day.

2. I dont think there's a right or wrong answer to this one. I've always thought that the ghost of Christmas future shows him the events of more than one future Christmas. I think it's clear that the death of Tiny Tim is the very next year, whereas Scrooge's own death may or may not be the the same year. For what it's worth, I've always imagined his own death to be several years in the future and not necessarily the next year.

Some people have mentioned later in this thread that he effectively extends his years by changing his ways and 'making mankind his business', which is food for thought and a nice way to think of things.

Anyway, hope that helps & Merry Christmas!

[–] jsk32870 7 years ago

For #1 - yes it's the 'present' but it's the 'future-present' as you interpreted it. It's that year's Christmas, what will be happening later that day (all things being equal/remaining the same). I think the best example of that is the dinner party at Fred's house. We first hear/see what it would be like if Scrooge remains the way he is, with everyone joking about Scrooge, and then after the Spirits are done and Scrooge actually goes to Fred's, now we see what the difference is. The story actually references how the people look the same as they did now, when he actually went to Fred's on Christmas day, as when Scrooge saw them with the Ghost: "His niece looked just the same. So did Topper when he came. So did the plump sister when she came." Etc. etc.

#2 - nothing suggests or puts forth the notion that Scrooge's life is prolonged as a result of his change. When Scrooge is with the Future Ghost, he is distraught to see that no one cares about the dead guy.

"If there is any person in the town, who feels emotion caused by this man's death," said Scrooge quite agonized, "show that person to me, Spirit, I beseech you!"

And also "Let me see some tenderness connected with a death," said Scrooge; "or that dark chamber, Spirit, which we just left now, will be for ever present to me."

Both of these point to your 2nd guess, namely, 'Or is it more like he won't die lonely with everyone hating him?' Honestly, why that would be a shock to him, the way he treated everyone, I have no idea. Frankly he should expect nothing else but scorn or indifference at best.

At the end when he is pleading with the Phantom, he does say "Why show me this, if I am past all hope?" And also "Assure me that I yet may change these shadows you have shown me, by an altered life!"

So I would say....he is definitely pleading for a chance to change. If he were to die now, he does not have that chance. But that does not necessarily mean his life was prolonged in order for him to achieve that. For all we know, he still has 20 years to live, whether he changed or not. It's what he does with his remaining time that will make all the difference.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

For all we know, he still has 20 years to live, whether he changed or not. It's what he does with his remaining time that will make all the difference.

Perhaps, but in the novella and every movie I've seen, Mrs. Dilber hasn't aged much if at all (and Dickens was very good at describing minutia) during the beetling shop scene, so Scrooge would have noticed if she had aged, particularly 10-20 years.

While Dickens didn't clarify this one bit, I think Scrooge's time on earth was nearing it's end when Marley dropped in. At the beetling shop, Mrs. Dilber remarked that Scrooge's death was a curse upon him, otherwise he wouldn't have been gasping out his last breath alone. In his new life, he might have had someone to look after him, notice he was ill and call the doctor, or perhaps Scrooge went to the doctor instead of saving the doctor's fee.

Scrooge's new life would also reduce his blood pressure and otherwise improve his health in so many ways that perhaps that's what extended his life, or maybe he was visiting Cratchitts one Sunday instead of being run down by a runaway horse or carriage.

But we do know that Scrooge did indeed live many more years because the final line in the book reads that it was always said of Scrooge that he knew how to keep Christmas well. If he had only lived one or two more after Marley, no one would say that.

Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

[–] jsk32870 7 years ago

You know, you make a very good point, and I have to admit I never connected those dots. The dots being, what Mrs. Dilber looked like in the 'Future' scene at the beetling shop compared to what she looked like in the 'real-life' scene at Scrooge's house on Christmas morning. I just checked it now, and it appears she is even wearing the same exact shirt/blouse in both scenes! So that means one of three things (in the film version, anyway)...they were too cheap to dress her differently, they just plain forgot to change her costume, or, it was meant to indicate that he died very soon. However this is "Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come" so it would have to be at least a year from the current time. Mrs. Dilber wearing the same exact shirt a year later is a bit sloppy of the film-makers. I suppose it's possible, but sloppy.

Now, my counter-point....when watching the scene in that beetling shop again, I thought it was odd that Scrooge did not recognize Mrs. Dilber. In many other scenes, he recognizes the various characters....Fan, Fezziwig, Belle, Fred, etc. But yet, in this scene in the shop, although we can see that one of the women here is his own housekeeper, Mrs. Dilber, Scrooge has no reaction to seeing her with a bundle of bed curtains. He doesn't seem to know who she is. That struck me as odd, so I pulled out my book to check on the story....and....

I found that, in the original story, Mrs. Dilber is NOT Scrooge's housekeeper. She is listed as a 'laundress' and the only time she appears in the story, is here at the beetling shop. This explains why Scrooge does not recognize her at the shop. He has no idea who Mrs. Dilber is. The scenes on Christmas morning, with Scrooge bouncing off the walls in sheer delight, do not include anyone else (in the story). Scrooge wakes up, is elated to find he hasn't missed Christmas, calls down to the boy in the street, shaves and gets dressed and goes to Fred's house. No Mrs. Dilber to be found.

So....I know this discussion board is about the movie, so in the movie, you may be right. Mrs. Dilber doesn't look 20 years older than the current time in the beetling shop scene, so in this version, it seems Scrooge must have died no more than a few years later at the most. But in the original story, no such connection can be made, as Mrs. Dilber is not his housekeeper. In that version, it is still possible that Scrooge lives for 20 years, with or without 'spirit' intervention.

BTW - the more I analyze this version (1951), the more I have come to realize how different it is from the original story as written. This whole Mrs. Dilber episode is just the latest example, but there are numerous others. I used to love this version, now, not as much.

[–] strntz 7 years ago

But in the original story, no such connection can be made, as Mrs. Dilber is not his housekeeper. In that version, it is still possible that Scrooge lives for 20 years, with or without 'spirit' intervention.

But wait, there's more!!

Submitted for your consideration: the Ghost of Christmas Future also shows Scrooge the scene outside the 'change where he sees business acquaintances discussing what turns out to be his own funeral. None of the movies, or more importantly, the novella mention that they have aged at all, hinting that his death would be in the near future, perhaps one or two Christmas' more. Being older men themselves, there's a good chance one or more of them would have died or moved on to other things or places if too many years passed.

In any case, I've always wondered about this subject and wondered why Dickens never addressed this subject in any way.* We only have, at best, hints of how long Scrooge would have lived if not for the intervention. My personal opinion has always been that he lived longer for the changes he made in his life after the spirits visits.

BTW - the more I analyze this version (1951), the more I have come to realize how different it is from the original story as written. This whole Mrs. Dilber episode is just the latest example, but there are numerous others. I used to love this version, now, not as much.

I've been reading the novella at least twice between Thanksgiving and Christmas for 30 years or more, but I realize that these movies are all adaptations of the novella. Certain scenes that "read" better don't do as well on screen, and vice versa.

My understanding is that Kathleen Harrison (Dilber) was a well known actress at the time whose scenes were expanded for just for her. And of course the whole Jorkin addition is really unnecessary and, if we really think about it, doesn't fit Scrooge's business model at all, but that's another discussion. In any case, the character Jorkin was created for Jack Warner, another popular actor. I actually love the added Mrs. Dilber scene when she interacts with the reformed Scrooge Christmas morning in this version, even if it's not part of Dickens' original story.

In any case, my two favorite versions of Christmas Carol or Scrooge are 1984's G.C. Scott version and this 1951 Alastair Sim version. Of the two, this one is my favorite because of the dark and sinister score but mostly because of Sim's masterful work. The variances between this screenplay and Dickens' novella don't detract enough for me to love it any less.

*Edit:

Okay, I gave this some more thought. If Scrooge was told he would live longer if he changed, could we be sure of his motive if he did change? I'm going to speculate that Dickens wanted Scrooge's reclamation to be solely the result change of heart from the lessons he learned from the spirits, not from believing a changed outlook would forestall a premature death.

Thoughts?

Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

[–] jsk32870 7 years ago

Ah but hold on here....a proposition is not true just because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

Meaning, of course, just because there is no mention that the gentlemen look older, that doesn't mean that they therefore must be of the same age. There is also no mention of that (i.e., Scrooge doesn't comment about how the gentlemen look the same even though he's in the future). Added to that I would say - Scrooge knew he was with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. So, it stands to reason that he already knows the visions he is seeing are in the future, and thus perfectly logical that the people he sees are going to look older. If that is already known, you can certainly argue that Scrooge then wouldn't feel compelled to observe and/or comment on it.

If Scrooge was told he would live longer if he changed, could we be sure of his motive if he did change? I'm going to speculate that Dickens wanted Scrooge's reclamation to be solely the result change of heart from the lessons he learned from the spirits, not from believing a changed outlook would forestall a premature death.

I believe you have nailed it here, and it confirms what I've always thought. But you put it in words better than I could! For that makes a heck of a lot of sense. If Scrooge were to understand or believe that his 'new' actions and attitude would prolong his life, there is nothing magnanimous about them. It is purely an act of self-preservation and nothing more. I think at most you can argue that perhaps his life was extended in order to give him a chance to repent. But that is not the same as 'rewarding with longer life' because yes, who is to say if his motivation is genuine? So no, that cannot be right. But even the part about giving him a chance - you can argue, what's so great about him, that he be allowed to live longer and be given the chance to repent? Of all people, he probably should be last on the list of those deserving a chance. I think that's why I've always thought there was nothing at all going on here in terms of his life being prolonged one way or another. Marley visits him and tells him the deal. It's up to him to make the changes he needs to make, but nothing happens supernaturally to artificially prolong his life as a reward. Marley even makes a comment to him that he has visited Scrooge often, only now on this night, Scrooge is able to see him. And Marley says he doesn't know why that is the case. So that's kind of interesting. That seems to suggest that Marley has been wanting to warn Scrooge for 7 years, not just now, not just this night. Only 'the magic of Christmas' perhaps, has allowed Marley to be seen on Christmas Eve. But it wasn't intentional on Marley's part to suddenly be seen now.

As for favorites, this used to be mine, but that's sinking fast. There are just way too many changes. And in another convo on here someone else observed that all of the scenes we see in the Christmas Past segment - are they all taking place at Christmas? All of the scenes with Jorkin? I don't think they are, which of course betrays the book because the scenes are all supposed to be one Christmas or another. So no, this version really messed up. I love Sim's Scrooge but a lot of the rest of this bothers me now.

This season I watched the 1935, 1938 and 1951 versions. I haven't watched 1984 in a few years but I remember liking it. Ditto for Stewart in '99. I will have to watch those again but right now, of the three B&W versions, the 1935 one now tops my list for being the most faithful to the original. 1938 goes way off the rails and I've now come to realize 1951 does as well. It's a shame too because Sim was absolutely brilliant.