A Christmas Carol

Okay, finally getting to those Christmas movies again... sigh, always I want to write, but I never really have the time:)

For today, an overview of a couple of the versions of Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol, which, incidentally, brought into the English language the term Merry Christmas. Up to that point it was always Happy Christmas (which is still used alot in Britain.).

My personal favorite version of the story, although I havn't seen it recently, is the Alistair Sim version, which IMDB lists as Scrooge, but I think it is actually called A Christmas Carol just like the others.

Made in 1951, it is black and white, which actually makes it more authentic. Sim is great in the title role, getting the right tone for Scrooge, and really putting his heart into it. All the actors are good, and this version isn't so concerned with the wiz bang as some are. It is focused, lean and to the point. It also does not shy away from the very Christian message that is encased in the story. In fact, the Spirit of Christmas Present says to Scrooge, "Mortal! We Spirits of Christmas do not live only one day of our year. We live the whole three-hundred and sixty-five. So is it true of the Child born in Bethlehem. He does not live in men's hearts one day of the year, but in all days of the year. You have chosen not to seek Him in your heart. Therefore, you will come with me and seek Him in the hearts of men of good will." This is the definitive version of the story on film. It has great production values, a great script, and great performances, just wonderful.

Number two is the more kid version, A Muppet Christmas Carol. Don't dismiss this one. It is actually a very good telling of the tale, with much of Gonzo's narration (as Dickens) and the dialogue being straight out of the book (most of the movies do this.) The muppets add humor to the equation when it gets alittle to heavy for kids, but never to much (if you want to see when it is over done, watch Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, where the heavy story is lightened by the funny characters, but so much so that the story loses the punch.) Michael Caine, who is one of my favorite actors, does a great job as Scrooge, again, hitting the tone properly. He also seems not to notice the muppets, and is at home in the strange environment. He also sings, a first for him.

Third, we have the famous George C. Scott version. This is a TV movie, and so has some of the problems associated with TV productions. But the reason to see it is Scott's impression of Scrooge, which is a bit less of a nasty person for nastyness sake, and more of a tough old hard heart, scared by past experiences.

There are a host of other versions, including a 1971 animated version that actually won an Oscar for Best Animated Short (Sim is Scrooge again). However, these three are the definitive versions for most people.

Of course, if you really want to get the whole story, and the flavor and humor of the story, read the book. Dickens has alot of humor that is... subtle... in his narrations, and his descriptions are great. I normally don't like his writing all that much, mostly because of the descriptions, but in this case, it is a plus. The book is a masterpiece, and it is short enough to read in an hour or two.