MovieChat Forums > A Christmas Carol (1984) Discussion > best version but some miscasting

best version but some miscasting

posted 7 years ago by strangebedfellows
12 replies | jump to latest

It's a sickly story but this version is the most acceptable to me.
I thought that the worst piece of casting was Susannah York - she was just so unconvincing in that role - she couldn't act poor and humble to save her life - she has an innate arrogance that she can't quite conceal in my view.
I also thought that Roger Rees was a bit of a watery character and I am not surprised that "Tiny Tim" did not pursue an acting career. He wasn't bad, but Britain rarely produces a great child talent.

[–] boll-weavil 7 years ago

I'm not a particularly big fan of this version but I almost feel sorry for it after your verdict. If this is the most acceptable version I'd hate to see what you think of some of the others ! I wouldn't say it's a sickly story particularly, in fact I think the bad man makes good at the heart of it is one of the principal story lines in fiction all over the world. It overdoses on sentimentality at times and that's because the Victorians had to have everything overdone and spelled out to them at a pretty basic level at times but that seems to be coming back into fashion in modern society so who are we to argue ? Tiny Time I find OK. It's a difficult role isn't it, because, as you say, he's got to be fairly sickly so I think he does a reasonable job. Roger Rees is himself, Mr Serious, in everything whereas Bob has quite a strong sense of humour which helps keep the family together. Susannah York doesn't seem to have a London accent abd is far too well-bred to fit into those poor surroundings but I think that's true of all of the different version. Try the 1938 version if you want a particularly dire Cratchit family.My major problem is George C Scott who delivers a fine version of a character that is frankly not the one in the book which is why this version is spoiled a bit for me.Frankly I can live with all the others and the scenery is very genuine and very visual.

[–] strangebedfellows 7 years ago

Thank you for responding - I always welcome another point of view. I read the book so many years ago I can't remember the exact characterisation of Scrooge - I didn't mind the Alastair Sim incarnation - but hated the Bill Murray version.

[–] boll-weavil 7 years ago

You should watch some of the other versions and see what you think. I'm interested in all different portrayals although, like yourself, I have ones I like and ones I don't. This year, for the first time, someone has posted on You Tube the first ever version I saw from 1977. It's a a short TV adaptation but Michael Hordern plays a very convincing Scrooge against a backdrop of not very convincing special effects.I don't suppose I can post links but tap in Michael Hordern Christmas Carol and up comes the TV version running at 58 mins. Give it a try.He's a more believable Scrooge for me.

[–] strangebedfellows 7 years ago

I like Michael Horden - I can imagine him being a really good Scrooge !

[–] Big_AL-96 7 years ago

There are many versions and all have their strong points and bad points.

I read the book every year (in fact I just started it last night) and the descriptions that Dickens makes of scenes are some of the most beautiful, dynamic and powerful word illustrations that I have ever read.

Back to the films though.
I loved Alastair Sim as Scrooge (1951) and for its atmosphere it comes the closest to the book. However there are too many liberties taken in the film for my liking - such as the putting Fezziwig out of business, Jorkins' embezzlement etc. And there are scenes that are missing that are intrinsic to the book.

The issue with the George C. Scott version for me is he is too well dressed, too well fed and healthy. He doesn't portray the essence of Dickens' Scrooge. Again too much dialogue from the book removed as well.

For a fun version, Albert Finney, Scrooge (1970) version is excellent, though there is so much more added on (the scene in hell being a case in point) and major dialogue removed, but the music works (for me). His portrayal of Scrooge is brilliant.

And then there is the The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) which I love, because the kids were first introduced to this wonderful tale through this version and now my grandchildren.

Just to mention the Kelsey Grammer version A Christmas Carol (2004) which I can't take to at all, and Patrick Stewart and A Christmas Carol (1999) a version which seems to have been done far too seriously.

Among the animated versions I would say Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol (1962) was probably the best. A Christmas Carol (2009) seems to have been made purely for the 3D effects rather than the content of the book. A Christmas Carol (1982) is not too bad either. There are a number of other versions I haven't mentioned here, but my recommendation (as said in The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)) is read the book - though sad as I am I will watch most of those I have mentioned here. And of course these are only my opinion!!

A Merry Christmas to you all!!

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

[–] boll-weavil 7 years ago

I absolutely agree with your comments on the book and your opinion of Finney.To the Muppet Christmas Carol I would say there is more to it even than you mentioned. Their handling of Tiny Tim's death scene for me is the best of any portrayal. Regarding animation, watch Williams 1971 short version (available on You Tube) as Sim and Hordern reprise their '51 film roles twenty years later. Excellent for the Carol fan.

[–] Big_AL-96 7 years ago

I agree and I don't underestimate the muppet version. It certainly is poignant and is a great production with great music.

Thanks for the pointer. I will watch it over the weekend.

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

[–] Big_AL-96 7 years ago

I watched the 1971 animated version a week or so ago ( I remembered it as soon as I started watching it).

I couldn't help notice the similarity to Miles Malleson, who played Old Joe in the 1951 version, to cartoon representation of old Joe in this animated version. I was wondering if it was some kind of tribute considering the cast of Sim and Hordern and the fact that Miles had only passed a year or so before.

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

[–] Karl Aksel 7 years ago

The issue with the George C. Scott version for me is he is too well dressed, too well fed and healthy. He doesn't portray the essence of Dickens' Scrooge. Again too much dialogue from the book removed as well.

I agree - and Scott just doesn't come across as unfriendly enough. Even when he is denigrating Christmas to other people, he does so with smiles. This was the first version my step-son watched, and he commented: "He's just an old man who wants to be left alone, what's wrong with that? Why can't they just leave him be?"

[–] Big_AL-96 7 years ago

Indeed.
I think the benchmark was laid down by Alistair Sim, his demeanour and gradual change was an excellent portrayal of the Dickens' character. Albert Finney is remarkable in the role also. Scott is a fine actor, but his portrayal of the character doesn't come up to what is required for the role.

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

[–] JR541 7 years ago

I tend not to like any version that has him spending Christmas with the Crachit's instead of with Fred. When they do that it deletes to great scenes. One in which we see The happiness he brings to his nephew and then the December 26th Crachit scene with the faux anger/changed man scene.

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] elena-28 7 years ago

I agree with this, but despite everything, one of our family's favorite Scrooge moments is the Reginald Owen version, with Gene Lockhart as Cratchit:
(go to 58.35:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KgUlUBkg9w