This movie looks older than 1951
-
Navaros — 9 years ago(December 09, 2016 10:19 PM)
I'm not 'trying' to say anything. I said exactly what I intended to.
Your OP does not make clear if you think this film looking old is good or bad.
But regardless of what you think about that, the correct answer is, it's great! -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 09:04 PM)
It appears you are looking for something that isn't there.
If I say "I think it's going to rain tomorrow" - there shouldn't be an assumption, either way, of me liking it to rain, or not liking it to rain. I'm just stating that I think it's going to rain.
The OP stated that this film looks older than a film released in 1951 might look. The end. -
vmacek@mindspring.com — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 06:55 AM)
I was thinking myself how the use of shadow and darkness (and so much of the mood) evokes the classic 1930s Universal horror movies of James Whale and Tod Browning. Having Ernest Thesiger on hand as the undertaker certainly helps.
The production is flawless too, evoking Victorian London in its finery and its squalor. Seeing this movie as a child in a spellbound state from a creaky old print on an old black and white tv I could be convinced it was filmed in 1851! -
TwoThousandOneMark — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 10:02 AM)
I for one love its well worn look, greatly adds to its appeal & helps separate it from every other version. I feel like I'm watching a real ghost story.
my essential 50
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/ -
strntz — 10 years ago(March 07, 2016 05:02 PM)
Agree: I always thought the 1938s American filmed version was brighter, crisper, and clearer. Looked far more modern from a production standpoint. Most people though have only seen 1951 Scrooge on TV or VHS or standard DVD.
But, I have the bluray version of the 1951 Scrooge (now my third DVD of this film) and it's leaps and bounds better than what I had previously seen. Images are sharp and clear with far better contrast and detail even in the darkest areas. If you love this movie, it's worth the price.
Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad. -
bonidea — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 06:55 AM)
The British film industry at the time was not as advanced as the American film industry. I think this contributes to this version's charm. The darkness, the shadows, as designed by the cinematographer, highlighted the darkness in Scrooge's heart.
-
PrometheusTree64 — 9 years ago(December 25, 2016 07:49 AM)
This 1951 version is the definitive version.
Others have had things to offer (and, yes, the 1984 version with George C. Scott was better than expected and has the better Tiny Tim, but it's an '80s TV production and therefore feels a bit rushed and choppy in its pacing) but no version could surpass the forlorn, ice cold, Victorian gothic vibe of the 1951 version with Alastair Sim.
You just can't hit the nail on the Dickensian head any closer.
But not only was the British film industry at the time was not as advanced, in the '50s and early-'60s using B&W over color was often an artistic choice rather than an economic one (even in America). High budget films would be shot in B&W if they were thrillers or had some heavy social message, while comedies and musicals would be filmed in color.
There is indeed a little bit of a '30s vibe to this 1951 version, although it's much better than the 1936 take on the story. But then the noir genre poured over into the early-'50s, so one could almost put it in that category.
LBJ's mistress on JFK: -
vmacek@mindspring.com — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 06:21 PM)
TCM ran it on Christmas Eve, and I have the DVD, both of which are nice clean sharp copies. Then I saw the FXX network was running it continuously, and they had an older copy with a somewhat less sharp image, some visible dust, and crackling on the soundtrack. Somehow that really conjured up memories of old childhood viewings - it was great!