Anachronisms


"Yankee Doodle Dandy" is played at the U.S. lecture near the beginning of the movie, which is supposed to be in the early 1840s. George M. Cohan wasn't born until 1878, and his song "Yankee Doodle Dandy" wasn't premiered until 1904.

The kid at the shoe polish place taunts Charles with a wise crack about doing something "with the Queen". Dickens was born in 1812. He was twenty-five years old before Queen Victoria took the throne in 1837. At the time of Charles's childhood depicted in the movie, the sovereign would have been King George III or IV.

reply

Well spotted. It's possible that the kid was referring to Queen Caroline, wife of King George IV, although it is not likely as she was separated from him and lived abroad most of the time, so was not a well known figure.

Some others: when Dickens jumps the barrier at Paddington station and is pursued by PC Copperfield, the latter blows a police whistle - these were not in use until the 1880s. Police in Dickens' time used a wooden rattle to sound the alarm.

The poster for the talk where Dickens meets the man who says 'are there no workhouses?' uses an anachronistic font and layout, as do the internal pages of the printed edition of 'A Christmas Carol'.

During the funeral service, the parson recite 'Rest eternal grant them O lord' &c. This prayer was not included in the Church of England funeral service until 1928.

When the customers are queuing to buy the book at Hatchard's, we hear the sound of a cash register going 'ker-ching'. The cash register was not invented until 1879.

When Dickens' father is seated at dinner he is shown in his shirtsleeves (his waistcoat is mentioned). No 1840s man with aspirations to being a 'gentleman' would sit at dinner in mixed company without wearing his coat. This, along with showing men going hatless in the streets, is a fairly common mistake in historical dramas.

reply

Spectacular observations! More fun doing this than actually watching the film!

reply

Thanks. What puzzles me is why amateurs like me can spot these things, but films with huge budgets can't pay a historical advisor to get things right.

reply

Yes, amateurs like us. I'd review a copy of the script and make corrections for a couple of hundred bucks. Yet they spend thousands or millions and make so many mistakes. I think the problem is that they just don't give a damn, and they know that the average audience member doesn't, either.

reply

Probably true. It's odd though because some films get the period detail perfectly correct. I saw '6 Days' last night, (set in 1980) and I couldn't spot any inaccuracies at all (except for a tiny one - a car had a 1982 registration plate). The TV series 'Endeavour' (set in the 1960s) is another good one - so some film people obviously do pay attention to these things.

I guess the problem is it's not only the script. The costumes, makeup, set design etc all have to be correct and it's probably hard for one person to have overall control. If the director doesn't care about period details then he or she isn't going to listen if somebody points out an anachronism.

reply

Well spotted, all! liscarcat, when "Yankee Doodle Dandy" played right at the beginning, my heart sank and I was extra alert to possible errors but was able to spot only a few. You'd think anyone not living under a rock would be familiar with the film of the same title about Cohan's life, and know that Cohan was still alive when the film came out, one hundred years after the time of Dickens's life portrayed in The Man Who Invented Christmas. Do the math, people! They could have, and should have, inserted other music--they could have been dancing to almost anything.

Cranmer, you are brilliant! You spotted way more than I did. I was also downcast when the first edition of A Christmas Carol was opened with a totally modern font. Couldn't they make a facsimile edition for the film?

One I was surprised wasn't a mistake is that "flop" was used for a failure so early--according to Webster, twenty years or so before this story, so that was all right.

One everyone else might have missed because it was said very quietly.

(SPOILERS for anyone who may have been living under a rock:)

After Tiny Tim dies, Mrs. Cratchit whispers to her surviving children, "It's okay." "Okay" was a brand new expression in 1841 in America, and was not in wide use in America even then. It is forbidden in certain historical reenactments. It didn't catch on in Britain until much later. "Flop" was okay, "okay" was not okay! In theater, if something is wrong during rehearsal, one is supposed to approach the director, but one time, being in the orchestra, I spoke to the cast directly when someone used "okay"--I believe this was an ad lib during Oliver! but not sure--I just couldn't stand it. I didn't even get in trouble for speaking up either. Perhaps the actress in the film also ad libbed and no one caught it.

Dickens also says "Shut it," dangerously close to "shut up," another no-no.

Restricted to 2,000 characters so continued in next post.

reply

For sticklers, Tiny Tim and the two young Cratchits only are portrayed; Master Peter and Martha are left out. I was cool with that, figuring maybe Dickens was supposed to have added them into the final draft and they weren't written yet in this first draft, or, come to think of it, in the dystopian version of future events, both were working and may not have been at home during the day, though you'd think they'd be off work on Sunday!

Late in the movie, someone was advertising "Santa Bells." In England, Santa is usually called Father Christmas, although Santa is sometimes used, but was it in use in the 1840s?

Presumably some of the characters, such as Marley and Copperfield, were fictional to reference future Dickens works, but I wonder whether Dickens really had a friend named Forster. Brian Forster, who played the second Chris Partridge in The Partridge Family, is a direct descendant of Dickens, and I think it would be a cool coincidence if Dickens actually had a friend named Forster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forster_(biographer)

reply

For Marley, we're safe in "Christmas Carol" territory: Jacob Marley is Scrooge's partner, the first ghost in the story, and basically the organizer of the evening's events.

According to that Wikipedia article, Forster was a friend of Dickens (and many others) and read Dickens' works in manuscript, so the scenes between the two that concern Dickens' writing would be based in actuality.

Budget and other concerns might be the reason for leaving out the Cratchit kids: I don't mind that. This is basically a fantasy of how the story was written, and the events in Charles' life during the composing of the story deliberately parallel the story itself, down to the bouquet of blessings on after the dark night of his soul when he lets Scrooge live and learn. For me, the movie works on those terms. I have quibbles, but they didn't interfere with my enjoying the experience, well, how can I say "no" to Christopher Plummer needling poor Dickens; Jonathan Pryce being utterly charming and eccentric, and getting a chance to cheer on Simon Callow in his tiny but wonderful scenes?

reply

That is so way cool.

reply

I know this is an old thread, but just watched it and someone says, "There's gold in them thar hills." Near as I can tell, this expression was first used by Matthew Fleming Stephenson (1802–1882), an American miner, geologist, and mineralogist from Georgia, US. In trying to discourage people from heading west for the 1849 Gold Rush, he said this referring to the Georgia hills, hoping to convince folks they could find gold closer to home. So it seems pretty certain this wasn't coined until the late 1840s.

reply