This movie looks older than 1951 - Scrooge (1951) Discussion

[–] Navaros 9 years ago

Good. It's supposed to look like the early and mid 1800's. The older it looks, the better.

reply

[–] annedoe 9 years ago

I think what the OPs means is that it looks like it was made in the 1920s-40. Not in 1950s (when there was colour in 'normal'movie)

reply

[–] snagswolf 9 years ago

Exactly. While color film wasn't used extensively in the 1950s, this movie did come out 12 years after Wizard of Oz. Even if you compare it to It's a Wonderful Life, which came out 5 years earlier, it seems like an older type cinematography. The stark contrast in the film looks closer to silent films than anything released around the same time.

reply

[–] Navaros 9 years ago

So snagswolf, what are you trying to say?

Are you trying to say that this film is worse off because it looks old?

If so, how do you figure that?

reply

[–] devildog1982z 9 years ago

He's talking about the quality of the film in which it was filmed on.

reply

[–] snagswolf 9 years ago

So snagswolf, what are you trying to say?

I'm not 'trying' to say anything. I said exactly what I intended to.

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

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!

reply

[–] jsk32870 8 years ago

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.

reply

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

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!

reply

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 8 years ago

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/

reply

[–] strntz 9 years ago

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.

reply

[–] alittlebirdie 8 years ago

Maybe, but they did a pretty good job with the ghosts considering there was no CGI at the time.

🐦Only the gentle are ever really strong ~ James Dean 🐦

reply

[–] bonidea 8 years ago

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.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 8 years ago

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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

reply

[–] hodie1 8 years ago

Yes, it looks vintage. I was born in 1954 and the film looks like it was from the early '30s. It makes the film look all the more authentic, imo. I was very surprised to learn it was made in 1951.

reply

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

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!

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

I was introduced to this movie by my dad and older brothers - I remember when I was finally old enough to stay up on Christmas Eve and watch Scrooge on Channel 11 WPIX at midnight. My father loved this movie, and although he's been gone over 20 years now, I still miss him greatly. Whenever I watch this version I think of my dad.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 3 months ago

Those are nice memories, I'm sure. I don't recall ever seeing this version on TV but somewhere along the way I did see it and it quickly became my favorite adaptation. Sim is excellent.

Now that I think about it, the only version of A Christmas Carol I ever remember seeing on television was the 1938 version with Reginald Owen. I have a specific memory of being about fifteen years old and running across it, I think, on TCM.

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

It was channel 11 WPIX in NY that always ran this version right at midnight, and we were able to get it (by antenna back then) in CT, well before cable networks and indeed, cable TV itself.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 3 months ago

That makes me wonder if there was somewhere local that showed it in my area but I just wasn't aware of it. It's entirely possible that it aired by I just didn't see it because, for that matter, I never remember seeing It's a Wonderful Life on TV either, but I certainly know it ran many times.

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

I suspect here stateside, the Reginald Owen or Seymour Hicks probably got more airplay, but Channel 11 always ran this version. Comcast dropped WPIX many years ago from our cable system so I don't know how long they kept the tradition up - maybe someone in New York can comment on that.

I also didn't become aware of It's a Wonderful Life until I was married. Was it not shown or did I just miss it?

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 3 months ago

If you're not aware of it you may want to look into the broadcast history of It's a Wonderful Life, specifically the copyright drama. Long story short, due to an error the film fell out of copyright and, on account of this, it was aired many, many times throughout the 1980s on stations all across the country. Eventually the copyright situation was worked out and now, as you probably know, it usually only airs once a year.

More info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Wonderful_Life#Ownership_and_copyright_issues

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

Interesting read - thanks for the link.

reply

[–] liscarkat (19416) 4 months ago

Many British films of the 1940s and 1950s look about ten years or more older than American films of the same period. That's not to say they're in any way inferior. They just look different.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) 3 months ago

In the OPs case, I wonder if he was watching a degraded, worn out print of the film. It can be difficult to find a good copy without buying the Blu-Ray or DVD that was issued by VCI, who very lovingly restored the film a handful of years ago.

For instance, I looked at the version of the film that is currently available to stream on Tubi and it looks like garbage. The image not only looks faded in comparison to my Blu-Ray but there also seems to be a ton of compression.

reply