BEST/WORST versions
-
RevisedAndExpanded — 16 years ago(December 02, 2009 05:11 PM)
BEST:
Alaistar Sim
George C. Scott
GOOD:
Seymour Hicks
An American Christmas Carol
WORST:
Reginald Owen
Albert Finney
Patrick Stewart
And there's a big gap between Sim and Scott, in my opinion. I like the Scott version, but ultimately I find it charmless and humourless. Scott is a little too understated at times, and some of the casting is questionable. I find the Sim version to be virtually flawless. -
balkaster — 16 years ago(December 20, 2009 10:42 PM)
I have to take issue with any version that deviates from the story, or makes substantial changes. I haven't seen the Sim version in years (does anyone show it on TV anymore?), but it was my favourite for years. Perhaps it would not be so if I saw it again.
The Owen version was always my father's favorite, probably because it came out when he was a boy. I was never fond of it, because as a kid I felt the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come should be frightening (probably a result of seeing the animated version in which he appears with a flaming skull for a head), and it simply isn't in that film (it looks like a young woman with a sack over her head, and she's shorter than Owen, for crying out loud). It also invents several scenes at the beginning that show Fred and Bob Cratchit being chummy, something that was not in the book and which steals focus from Scrooge (whose story this is supposed to be) for much of the film. Owen's portrayal is also a bit too stagey, and his Scrooge seems to
want
to reform (he's practically transformed during the first spirit's visit).
The Scott version is the antithesis of the Owen version. I haven't a problem with Scott's portrayal, but the writingugh. Scott's Scrooge is sarcastic and unrepentant until the very end, and his sudden transformation makes no sense at all. Dickens' dialogue is subverted into opportunities to toss in irony and sarcasm which seems completely out of place. Fan's statement that "Father is so much kinder now" is completely subverted by the next set-up in which we actually
see
their father (the only version that does so, I believe), who is not kind in any sense of the word. These questionable deviations derail Dickens' careful building of Scrooge's past, which is supposed to show him as a sensitive man who reacted badly to the tragedies of his life and withdrew from the rest of humanity (and his own humanity). And the musicwere the producers so afraid that we wouldn't know how to react that we had to be thumped over the head with these heavy-handed musical cues?
I was fond of the musical version with Finney, but the recent "restored" version that now circulates makes it unwatchable. The scene in hell is not only not in the book, it's so far removed from anything Dickens would even have conceived that it doesn't fit with the rest of the film. It's high camp, just like Guinness' portrayal of Marley, which also doesn't quite fit. There's a reason it was on the cutting room floor; it should have been left there. It also shares the sin of the Owen version that it has Scrooge popping up everywhere on Christmas Day (in the book, he spends the holiday with Fred and Fred's friends only).
The Richard Williams version is probably closer in tone to the Dickens original, but it's gimped by its short runtime. However, it is the only adaptation I've ever seen that truly makes Ignorance and Want seem horrific like in the book (the Scott version makes them look like unwashed Goth kids, not really horrific at all, and most versions leave them out completely), and it's the only one that attempts to depict how people around the world celebrate Christmas despite their hardships.
I also have a peeve about adaptations that insist on having Marley announce that the spirits will appear "when the clock tolls one, the second at two, the third at three" (or, "more mercurial, he shall come in his own time" in the Scott version, inexplicably) in defiance of Dickens, but then leave in the scene in which Scrooge exclaims in astonishment, "The spirits have done it all in one night." Unfortunately, this seems to plague nearly every adaptation I've ever seen. In Dickens' book, Marley explains that the spirits will come on
three successive nights
, which causes Scrooge some disorientation when the second spirit appears because he can't believe he slept through the entire day and into the next night. He then is truly surprised when the boy in the street tells him, "Why, it's Christmas Day," because he feels he has been gone with the spirits long enough for three days to have actually passed.
In fact, I can't stand any production that rushes through the visitations like rote recitation. These are the meat and potatoes of the piece, it is here that Scrooge is made to regret his losses and the losses of others, to feel again the pain he has shut away for so long, and to reconnect to his lost humanity and desire to make amends for time wasted. It's his psychotherapy, his hypnotic regression, his guilty conscience finally catching up with him. It can not be rushed through in three hours of one night.
And that said, I think we have yet to see the definitive version. In order to show Scrooge's transformation in a way that is real and honest, it would have to be done either as a three to four hour film, or as a miniseries. -
Eric-62-2 — 11 years ago(December 17, 2014 01:00 PM)
The best version for me is Sim's in terms of fleshing out Scrooge completely in the Christmas Past sequence (the invention of Mr. Jorkin provides a plausible bridge to show Scrooge sliding into his life of miserly suspicion). The only flaw it has for me is that it leaves out Scrooge meeting the mean of charity and making amends but this is a tiny blemish. I enjoyed the fact that when Focus On The Family Radio Theatre did their version of "Christmas Carol" they received permission to use the 1951 script and utilize much of it (though not the character of Jorkin) while retaining things from Dickens that the 51 script left out.
Scott's version is a close second in terms of capturing the proper tone and spirit of the piece. Scott is believable in that his Scrooge is not so over the top, much like Sim's, but is a believable kind of businessman in this world. Too often, people make the mistake of depicting Scrooge as an outsized caricature rather than someone who you can see plausibly existing in this world of 1840s London.
The Finney musical was once a favorite of mine as a child, but while I still like much of the score, as the years pass, its flaws stick out more and more. Bricusse's script inexcusably jettisons too much of the story that represents its underlying heart and soul for the sake of over-emphasizing Christmas as a time of endless partying and for also giving us black comedy that totally undermines the story as well like the initial "Thank You Very Much" number (sorry, but if these people are doing a production number jig to Scrooge's death it doesn't say much for the goodness of their own hearts!) or the godawful Hell sequence that cements the image of Marley as a sadistic fop who you can't believe for one moment ever had a drop of pity for Scrooge in the first place.
The 38 version suffers from being too short and for the fact that Scrooge already seems reformed before the Christmas Yet To Come sequence. The one thing it has going for it is showing off the sense of MGM style and production of the era.
The 35 Seymour Hicks version to me is an interesting curio that demonstrates the difficulty of stage actors of that era adjusting to the age of sound movies.
I saw Stewart once and didn't care for it. The Richard Williams animated verison is terrific but it should have been longer to do it perfect justice (I loved though how it showed Christmas Present taking Scrooge out to sea and showing the Christmas spirit alive and well in people who had no partying to occupy themselves that night).
Next Christmas I'll try to finally see "The Stingiest Man In Town". I saw the animated version once in the late 70s and have never seen it since. The Magoo Christmas Carol wore thin on me when I revisited it because of the way it reversed the order of having Christmas Present come first and then Christmas Past second. I also admit that when I see a version that has Scrooge barging in on Bob on Christmas Day rather than doing the game the next day, I never like it.
The nice thing is we have such a rich diversity of tellings to enjoy each year and even those we don't like as much as others can be given their place too. -
lroy77 — 15 years ago(December 25, 2010 09:53 AM)
The absolute best is the 1938 version.
The genuine love between the Crachetts (played by real life married couple Kathleen and Gene Lockhart and a very young June Lockhart-their daughter) is very evident and no doubt is just as real in real life. You can't pretend that kind of affection no matter how good the actors are.
I like this one the second best. I still like Patrick MacNee even after all these years.
I'm not familiar with other versions, but would like Mr. Magoo (1962-the year I was born) if available. -
grendelkhan — 15 years ago(December 25, 2010 02:40 PM)
Eh, Magoo is ok, but only on the strength of Jim Backus.
The aforementioned animated version, with Sim is very good, though some of the line delivery is a bit stilted. It was produced by Chuck Jones' company and was my introduction to the story. Around the same time, Jones' had also produced the wonderful Cricket in Times Square.
I have a fondness for An American Christmas Carol, despite the rather bad make-up job on Henry Winkler. He plays both the idealistic and cynical "Scrooge" well. The film is a bit uneven, but worth it for David Wayne alone.
I enjoy the Scott version for the rest of the cast, especially Edward Woodward, moreso than Scott himself. I never quite buy his redemption. The same is true for Stewart. The joy of his change doesn't come across like Sim.
The Muppet one is fine, though I think it would have been much better if Jim Henson had been alive to oversee it.
The poster alone, for the Zemeckis version, screamed pointless scenes for 3D and little Dickens that I avoided it like the plague. Haven't heard anything that makes me want to give it a chance.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."-Groucho -
snsurone — 14 years ago(December 14, 2011 03:39 PM)
BEST: The Alistair Sim version.
WORST: Fred Flintstone in A FLINTSONE'S CHRISTMAS CAROL.
MICKEY'S CHRISTMAS CAROL wasn't bad at all, and I never saw MUPPETS' CHRISTMAS CAROL, so I can't judge it.
But A FLINTSTONES' CHRISTMAS CAROL is pure dreck, with Fred the total obnoxious jerk!
I'm so glad he came down with the "Bedrock Bug" at the end; in IMHO nobody was more deserving! -
strntz — 11 years ago(December 21, 2014 10:52 AM)
I'm going to vary from the question a bit as there are already many opinions of best and worst and why.
What I'm going to do is suggest what would have been the ultimate Christmas Carol if we could combine them.
There are two best CCs in my opinion; 1951 with Alistair Sim and 1984 with Scott. The 1984 is closer to perfection because of the beautiful sets, costumes, script etc. but mostly because of the supporting cast which FAR exceeded any version. Edward Woodward's Future spirit and Angela Pleasence's Past spirit as wonderful. David Warner's Cratchit is well played as well.
1951 of course features the best Ebenezer Scrooge; Alistair Sim. Far and away the more thoughtful and convincing Scrooge. Scott was good, but not in the same class as Mr. Sim. For Marley's ghost, it's a tight call between Michael Hordern (51) and Frank Finley (84), and while I'd be happy with either, I'll pick Hordern for Marley.
So in my perfect world, I want 1984's version with Alistair Sim and Michael Hordern.
Parting shot: I think Albert Finney's Scrooge is the most painful thing to watch, even worse than Reginald Owen's.
It is bad to drink Jobus rum. Very bad. -
zgystard — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 01:15 PM)
Best: The Sim version, of course. Some scenes are not in Dickens (e.g., Scrooge as a rising young businessman) but they seem to work well. There's one thing at the beginning that does bug me a bit: when Fred visits the office, Scrooge's rant and Fred's eloquent reply have been omitted.
Patrick Stewart version: I didn't care for it, and I didn't know exactly why until I re-watched it on YouTube. To me his face really isn't that expressive. I think the problem is mostly his eyes. They're fairly deep set and almost never are open wide. I noticed the contrast near the end, when for once he DOES open his eyes very wide. He's an excellent actor otherwise, without question.
There are other weaknesses in this version. I didn't like Marley's funeral being shown. I also thought the addition at the end of
Scrooge seemingly being buried alive
seemed way over the top.
On the other hand, I thought the rest of it was pretty good. I particularly think the actor portraying Bob did a very good job. For one thing, it includes the rarely seen short scene Dickens wrote of Bob visiting Tiny Tim's body in repose in an upper bedroom, and it was done with feeling but without excessive pathos. And there's a bit of business when the charity gentlemen visit Scrooge's office. Bob shows them in to Scrooge without asking their business, and then there's a brief shot of him hearing what they want and reacting like he's thinking "uh-oh"!
My least favorite of the ones I've seen: the George C. Scott version. The main reason is that I think it could've surpassed the Sim version with minor changes. The following is mostly from my review of it.
There doesn't seem to be a coherent vision uniting the performances of all the actors.
Dickens' story is NOT some nuanced, psychological portrayal of Scrooge; it's closer to a fairy tale. Dickens initially paints Scrooge as totally hateful. This is a dramatic necessity; without it, the disclosing of his past and the accomplishing of his redemption do not have anywhere near the same force. Scott interprets Scrooge TOO realistically, too early.
On the other hand, Scott NEVER really seems afraid, even when he tells the last spirit he fears him more than the others. He seems perhaps dazed instead.
Also, Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim never seem to be really afraid of Scrooge, either.
Roger Rees gives an annoyingly wooden performance. Tiny Tim looks not like he's weak and ill, but more like he had died and was resurrected as a zombie. The Ghost of Christmas Present berates Scrooge far too much. The sound effect for the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come is over the top. And so forth.
I've only seen the entire film once, when it was originally broadcast. But I went back and checked some clips on YouTube.
One thing I came across was the dialog with Cratchit as Scrooge leaves the office. Warner's portrayal is not very good, but Scott's interpretation is subtle and well done. It would've been excellent in the context of a Scrooge previously consistently shown as much angrier if it were just a little bit harsher. -
dweilermg-1 — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 07:32 AM)
As a child ages 6 and 7 I'd seen both marionette and live actor theatrical performances of A Christmas Carol but they were way over my head. In my 8th grade English Lit class we read the original Dickens version and it finally made sense to me. That same winter (December 1962) network TV aired "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol." This animated version deserves respect because unlike the various movie versions this one can be understood more easily by young children. however to this day the 1951 Alistair Sim version will always be my favorite. I own it (Both B&W and colorized) on DVD!
-
MinJeta — 3 months ago(December 25, 2025 12:26 AM)
I only ever revisit at 3 versions:
The 1951, 1984 and the Muppet version of 1992.
I do think the 1984 version has the edge, which is mostly due to George C. Scott's initial portrayal of Scrooge as the fearful miser as written by Dickens, whereas the Alistair Sim portrayal is more curmudgeonly than fearful (although I do highly rate the 1951 film). Also the Shrewsbury locations do add an awful lot.
The Muppet version is just a lot of fun.
I tend to avoid seeing any other versions as these 3 were so successful, though the musical version had it's moments I would say it was the least successful version I've seen.
"The trouble is most people are twats or cunts. Or both." -
cryptoflovecraft — 3 months ago(December 25, 2025 03:59 PM)
Best:
1938 - Reginald Owen
1951 - Alastair Sim
1962 - Mr. Magoo (Jim Backus)
1970 - Albert Finney
1979 - Henry Winkler
1992 - Muppets w/ Michael Caine
Middle of the road:
1935 - Seymour Hicks
1984 - George C. Scott
Worst:
2012 - Vincent Fegan
Never seen the Patrick Stewart, Kelsey Grammer or Jim Carrey versions.