MovieChat Forums > Scrooge (1951) Discussion > not-very-tiny Tim

not-very-tiny Tim

posted 8 years ago by aafleming-19569
12 replies | jump to latest

Is anyone else put off by how large and healthy-appearing "Tiny" Tim is in this movie? He is supposed to be small and sickly. In fact, in this movie the whole Cratchit family is either fat or plump, their home looks comfortable, and they are all wearing nice clothes. Not a very realistic or sympathetic portrayal of "poor" people in Dickens' time, when being poor really meant not having enough to eat, decent clothes, or enough heat in the winter. The George C. Scott version is the only one I can recall where Tiny Tim actually appears tiny and sick looking.

[–] howard.schumann 8 years ago

I think the fact that Tiny Tim has a great smile and looks pretty healthy makes it all the more moving and tragic when Scrooge sees that Tim will die in the future unless he changes his ways.

I don't think the Cratchits are supposed to be dirt poor, only a struggling family trying to survive as best they can in a dog-eat-dog environment.

“The truly civilized man is marked by empathy” - Malcolm Kerr

[–] cheapfrill 8 years ago

They weren't that poor. "How many families can boast two rounds of fine rum punch"?

[–] howard.schumann 8 years ago

Don't know. I don't remember that part.

“The truly civilized man is marked by empathy” - Malcolm Kerr

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

Actually, when you think about it, if all you can afford is two rounds of punch, that's kinda poor, isn't it?

Think about Fred's party, where he was hosting several people for Christmas dinner. Would you guess that he was only able to supply two rounds of anything to all of his guests? I would venture to say no. If that was the case, he's better off not hosting anything. And we are told that Fred isn't exactly well off.

So I think the Cratchits are not in a good place. Maybe not many families around them can afford two rounds of punch, but that says to me that their neighbors are even worse off than they are!

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7993) 6 years ago

I think Fred was pretty well off. Scrooge only said he was poor because he is arrogant and hated that he gave to the poor and provided for his wife. Frankly with how he's going to employ Cratchit's son he is certainly not poor. He also has a lot of guests he is feeding and giving drinks to. He's not poor. I want to give an example. I make above minimum wage at a Kroger store. I get 32-40 hours a week. I am able to live on my own. But compared to a doctor, I am poor.

[–] Ace_Spade (9658) 6 years ago

The whole gag there is certainly that the Cratchits are high spirited optimists, particularly Bob. It's more apparent in the book. The meal is meager, but it doesn't matter: the Cratchits are happy.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (2768) 6 years ago

Thanks for saving me the trouble of saying the exact same thing. The George C. Scott version had the best Tiny Tim, with others in between. This one was very cute but way too large and healthy in appearance.

[–] strntz (12773) 6 years ago

Yeah, the actor choice for Tiny Tim was poor to say the least. He was half a head taller than his mother.

Also agree that the TT in 1984's version was the best. He was indeed tiny and fragile looking.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (2768) 6 years ago

I was impressed as hell in this version that Bob Cratchit was able to carry Tiny Tim on his shoulder!

[–] strntz (12773) 6 years ago

LOL

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

it was a miscast.

[–] strntz (12773) 5 years ago

Not really.

In this version, he was supposed to be called Tall Tim, and he was purportedly afflicted with Gigantism, so he was actually perfectly cast..