Blog Directory CineVerse: Ghosts of CineVerse's past

Ghosts of CineVerse's past

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Last week, CineVerse dusted off the timeless chestnut that is Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" (the big screen 1951 adaptation, that is) and discussed the elements that make this perhaps the definitive film version of the Christmastime tale. Here are highlights of that discussion.

WHAT MAKES THIS VERSION OF DICKENS’ STORY ON FILM A CUT ABOVE THE REST?
·       It arguably features the finest performance by an actor in the role of Scrooge, as evidenced by his range of emotion expressed and severe degree of transformation exhibited; many fans say that Scrooge’s redemption and transformation is much more believable and uplifting in this version
·       It’s darker and more gothic than its 1938 American predecessor from MGM starring Reginald Owen, which was rather light, frothy and condensed; this isn’t a “feel-good” movie until the end, excluding any appreciation you have for the acting, production values, visuals, etc.
·       It’s a more fully realized and faithful version of Dickens’ text, although it pads on a few extra characters and scenes that aren’t in the book
·       It evokes the dark, gritty, haunting qualities of film noir and horror, gracing the production with more seriousness and unnerving visuals and sounds than many other adaptations; it also “looks the part” in terms of attention to detail and period authenticity regarding costumes, sets, and the look/mood of 1843 England; plus, the black and white cinematography is exceptional, particularly in its use of deep blacks and shadows
·       It’s also firmly a movie of its times and for its times in Britain, where it was made:
o   it echoes some of the social angst experienced in postwar England
o   It comes shortly after David Lean’s popular, effective and successful Dickens’ adaptations of Great Expectations and Oliver Twist, which were also faithful to their source materials
o   According to one reviewer: “Scrooge is also a contemplation on Britain’s place in the world after the war; its social commentary on the welfare state and its utterly terrifying depiction of ignorance and want as two of mankind’s own self-destructive children (as shown in the film) foreshadowing the rights and freedoms being contested in Britain’s House of Parliament at that time, the same year the conservatives defeated the labor party to gain control of government and make sweeping reforms that set the country’s path onto a decidedly different course.”

SURPRISINGLY, THIS MOVIE WAS NOT WELL RECEIVED IN AMERICA AT THE TIME, DESPITE BEING HAILED IN THE UK. WHY DO YOU THINK IT TOOK MANY YEARS FOR THIS PICTURE TO BE APPRECIATED HERE?
·       Perhaps audiences thought it too bleak, depressing, cold and dreary, despite the fact that those are tenets that remain faithful to the tone expressed in Dickens’ story
·       The MGM version was relatively popular in its day in 1938; perhaps American audiences were used to that more over-glitzy, lighthearted, polished production and saw this as a radical departure from that vision
·       This version is much more “British” than the MGM version, especially in accents, casting and sensibilities
 
DOES THIS FILM REMIND YOU OF ANY OTHERS?
·       It’s a Wonderful Life, in that the main protagonists in both films are visited by supernatural beings and shown dark alternate realities to teach them a lesson, and both tales depict a miserly old rich man villain
·       The British anthology horror film “Dead of Night,” which also stars Mervyn Johns and includes a Christmastime tale

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP