Where was the warmth?


I read A Christmas Carol every December and one of my favourite features of the book is the warmth and good feeling the jumps from the page. It seems that this version skips or dilutes all the moments of emotional warmth or kindness and exacerbates all the "scary" or dark parts, occasionally making them even scarier.

For me one of my favourite parts is where Scrooge thinks back to the Carol singer at his door or sees Belle in the future with her husband and children or even when Scrooge interacts with his family during his time with the ghost of Christmas present. In this version it didn't even feel Christmassy to me.

And Fred was probably one of my bigger disappointments, he didn't seem friendly or engaging, just invasive and forceful.

I feel like the film very much wanted to strike a dire and dark tone, and it sacrificed the warm and nice moments to do it.

Now I'm going to read the book again to wash the bad taste away. :P

reply

I feel like the film very much wanted to strike a dire and dark tone, and it sacrificed the warm and nice moments to do it.
It's been awhile since I've read the book......but the book isn't all warm and fuzzy either?? The only warm and fuzzy moments come in the very, very last part of the story. For the story to be effective, Scrooge has to be a huge jerk, and the scenes with the Christmas spirits have to be gut-wrenching and frightening.

reply

I think it had it in a few moments, actually. When Scrooge says "I've come to dinner... if you'll have me" -- it was a touching moment in the movie. The look of joy and surprise is on the faces of his nephew and the other guests.

This movie is grossly underrated. As someone who is a big fan of the book, this is one of the most faithful screen adaptations ever filmed/animated (besides all of the 3D gimmicks). It was a very non-sugarcoated, realistic representation of the Victorian era. In a lot of other adaptations, the setting is sugar-coated to be more reminiscent of a perfect fairy tale Christmas movie setting. I didn't get that vibe when watching this movie. Whenever I watch this movie, I am totally convinced that it is VICTORIAN ENGLAND, in all of its depressing, bleak glory.

One example of how this adaptation closely follows its source, is in the very beginning of the movie. This is the only adaptation I ever saw that actually shows Marley's funeral.

The very first paragraph in the book is:

"Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it: and Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to. Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail."

The book mentions the events leading up to Marley's burial, and so does this movie. A lot of people who gave this film negative reviews complained because the subject matter was 'too dark for a Christmas movie'. That's just the thing. The actual 1843 Dickens book was more of a Ghost Story/Cautionary Tale than it was a 'Christmas story'.

Also, besides the creepy Jim Carrey face, the way the Ghost of Christmas Past is depicted here, is pretty much exactly the way it is depicted in the book. A floating humanoid creature resembling a candle flame, holding a cap that looks like a candle extinguisher.

Another example of how this adaptation closely follows the book is when the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come shows Scrooge a couple, who owed a large amount of debt to Scrooge. The ghost shows Scrooge the couple's joy, after finding out that the man who was bleeding them dry has died, and that their debts were now transferred. That is a scene from the movie, that is lifted straight from the pages of the book, but not seen in a lot of other adaptations.

Anyhow, this movie is severely under-appreciated, for when you look beyond all of the 3D gimmicks and cliches, you can find a pretty solid, and authentic adaptation of the story.

🏈

reply

Quite AGREED!

reply