Despite a few details (like the Ghost of Christmas Present's hair-style) this adaptation has aged like fine wine to me. In my opinion, most made-for-television productions from this era (early 80s) never age well. This seemed like such a high caliber production. Does anyone know if this was originally intended for a theatrical release?
Anyway, this is my favorite version of A Christmas Carol by far. I love it!
This is my favorite version of "a Christmas Carol" as well.
As for being intended for theatrical release, you are right. Although it was shown on television in the US, it was shown in cinemas in the UK.
This would have been absolutely incredible to see on the big screen!
It was actually made for TV -- I didn't know it was shown anywhere in theatres.
I don't imagine it would benefit much from being shown in a theatre. The aspect ratios can't be altered from the orginal filming, and it's shot with a TV-mentality (more closeups and mid-shots).
Actually, this version would work with widescreen quite well. I know this because for some reason the disc defaults to widescreen on my DVD player. It was filmed in such a way where even the close ups allow some room on the screen. Movies are much more reliant on close ups these days than they were back in the day and this film fits right in.
Don't get me wrong, I still prefer to see the whole picture. The details are THAT incredible. But if they ever decided to release a digitally remastered version, enhanced for widescreen TV's, it would be quite effective.
I feel like, despite being a period piece, it has a very 80s flair to it. It's been growing on me and there are definitely things about it that I've come to appreciate, but "ageless" is not the word I would use to describe it.
shareThere is certainly an 80s sensibility to it, and it does have a bit of that too-clean look that a lot of 80s films have. And it's hard to get past the 80s-ish hairstyles ... Ghost of Christmas Past, Young Scrooge, and Tiny Tim. (Egad, a bowl cut? Come on! That was the mark of every cutesy child actor in the early 80s. They might as well have cast the bowl-prince Joey Lawrence.)
But there is a timeless quality -- that's inherent in the book, and it comes through in this and other versions. But like every rendition, there are hallmarks of the era in which it was filmed.
I'm not sure where everyone is getting this 80's flare thing. Okay, maybe the Ghost of Christmas Past. But it's quite likely young Scrooge and Tiny Tim may have looked like that. And too clean? It's gritty compared to almost every other version out there. In fact, that's one of the things I don't like about the Stewart version. Too clean, the costumes too new-looking, the sets too neat (in fact sets are exactly what they look like).
share"But it's quite likely young Scrooge and Tiny Tim may have looked like that."
Agreed.
I will say also that the casting - even beyond the major roles - was perfect to a T. It was absolutely UNCANNY how much young Scrooge (Mark Strickson, I think) looked like old Scrooge (George C. Scott).
No, soup-bowl haircuts are a 20th Century thing, and were big in the late seventies through the mid-80s. And young Scrooge looks like he was in a heavy metal hair band from the mid-80s. Those aren't authentic period hairstyles by any means.
Anyone who lived through television from the late 70s and early 80s can tell you that haircuts like the one on Tiny Tim in this film were sickeningly popular among cutesy child actors of the day.
Soup bowl haircuts were a late 20th century thing in some Western cultures primarily, yes, but that doesn't mean that they or similar styles were totally nonexistent in the 19th century. Not unlike now, in the 1800s, there were styles that were in vogue but on any given day you could see all kinds of styles. I've looked over many 19th century paintings as well as photographs from the first portraits in the 1830s onward and the range of styles is pretty immense. Believe it or not, there are children in 1840s and 1850s photos I've seen that look very similar to Tim in this film.
Furthermore, when we see Scrooge as a young man, the time period is right around the year 1800. Long hair among males at that time was not unheard of in Europe or the U.S. - it was much more the norm then than in the later decades of the nineteenth century.
The hair of young Scrooge in the film looks hardly any more outrageous than that of Napoleon himself in the mid to late 1790s:
http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov/purchase/worldview.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/1801_Antoine-Jean_Gros_-_Bonaparte_on_the_Bridge_at_Arcole.jpg
Great points, Traianus!
shareIt does feel like a movie of the early 80s, like A Christmas Story.
shareThis is my favorite version of A Christmas Carol. I like the 1938 version also, but not nearly as much as this one. I still remember watching it on TV when it first aired in 1984.
I agree, this version has aged very well. It's something I look forward to watching every year.
I did not know it was shown in cinemas in the UK! That would've been something to see.
My problem is that I often compare this to the Patrick Stewart version, which seems to be the main contender to the George C. Scott version. What killed the PS version for me were the mediocre special effects. CG effects should not be allowed in a period piece like this. Perhaps it was just a limited budget or just the technology of the time(s), but the limited special effects in the '84 version did it great justice. I think the Marley scenes are still effective today.
I am watching it now. I have seen much of it before, but this may be the first time I have sit down and watched it straight through, well considering the commercials on AMC. I really enjoy it. Of course the story is timeless, being filmed in many versions and variations, both serious and comedic.
The acting and visuals are quite good, despite any period traits. I still get a spooky feeling from this story. I need to watch the Stewart version all the way through.
However, this may be second, but the 1951 Alistair Sim edition is definitive, at least to me and many others. I like the BW cinematography, It adds to the atmosphere and mood. Sim owns the role. I love the music. The only one I have seen where Scrooge actually sees the specters out his window, taking into the special effects limitations.
I love the Scott version, but as has been said on another board, it's just not Christmas without Alistair Sim
I'm a huge fan of the Dickens story and also a huge fan of George C. Scott. Strangely, I hadn't seen this version ... until just a few minutes ago.
I thought it was absolutely awesome. The sets and costumes were all top notch and spot-on. I personally didn't really notice the '80s flair thing too much; at the very least, it didn't bother me one bit.
Acting was great, led of course, by Scott, who I think is probably one of the top five American actors ever. Here again he showed me why. His range of emotions that he portrays in this role is astounding, especially if you watch closely.
I haven't even seen the `1951 version, but I can already tell that I would like this one better, being a historian and someone who loves a sense of realism. Being that this is a piece of fiction, it may sound silly, but I found this film very realistic - as if this is what WOULD HAVE happened if it COULD HAVE happened - and that's exactly what I enjoyed about it so immensely.
I have not seen the 1951 version either, but it doent matter. This one is the definitive for sure. The special effects were good but not over done (like some others have said was done in the Patrick Stewart version) George C. Scott, Edward Woodward and David Warner are flawless in their parts. This one can never be duplicated. The new Zemekis motion capture version will not top this.
shareTo both of these last two posts:
Doesn't matter that you haven't seen the 51 version? Your call, and it doesn't mean you don't have a right to love the 84 one, but...
Do each of you regularly dismiss things without any experiences with them?
Are you automatically prejudiced against black and white films?
I have seen both, many times. Come back an post when you actually have watched both. You probably will hold to your opinions, but will have more credibility.
Anyway, the haunting b/w filming, the beauty of the early toy window sequence, the lilting melody of "Barbara Allen", the tormented spirits outside his window, the best, to me, examples of want and ignorance, the beauty of the scene with Fred's maid, and then Fred and his wife, and of course, Scott's talent notwithstanding, the unparalleled talent of Alistair Sim for this role.
51 rules.
Do each of you regularly dismiss things without any experiences with them?
Are you automatically prejudiced against black and white films?
it is my favorite version too- I watch it every year- and I agree - this rendition is timeless in its completeness and all of the wonderful things- acting, direction, sets, music and wonderful narraration.
shareExcept the ghost of Xmas present. It looks like they borrowed some actor from an early 80's era porno movie and put a holly wreath around his head. It doesn't appear that he has anything under his robe.
BTW, Susannah York was too hot for Bob Cratchett's wife. She really had a sultry look about her.
Mrs. Cratchit was hot? Well, being a straight female that never occurred to me; I thought she just looked tired, as well the character would have.
Overall, I think the film has aged very well except for the '80s look of some of the child actors. Marley's Ghost is IMHO very well-done except for when he goes out the window. When you're watching his scenes with Scrooge, see how he never blinks. I also think the sickly appearance of Tiny Tim, plus the horror of "Want" and "Ignorance" are timeless, as are the cramped living conditions of the poorer areas of town. Another thing that works is that Fred looks a bit like his mother Fan.
I've seen a lot of versions of the story. The 1951 one and the Patrick Stewart one didn't impress me. Even though George C. Scott didn't attempt a British accent, he will always be Scrooge to me.
She did look tired, but in a hot way.
George C. Scott was a good Scrooge, I thought much better than Alistair Sim (1951). I did like this version better than the 1951 version, but for some reason I like the 1938 version the best, overall. I find parts of all three that i like better than the others, though.
For years I thought this was a theatrical release! The sets, ambience, etc, do not look like a made for tv movie (or at least, not if it was made nowadays)
share