MovieChat Forums > A Christmas Carol (1984) Discussion > The SECOND Best Adapation of A Christmas...

The SECOND Best Adapation of A Christmas Carol

posted 3 months ago by PrimeMinisterX (8857)
17 replies | jump to latest

For me, the 1951 version with Alistair Sim will always be #1 but Scott's version is a close second. I first saw it about 15 years ago and have watched it several times since.

It does a good job of staying faithful to Dickens' story while bringing it to life in a distinctive way through its atmospheric production design and cinematography, and great performances from Scott and the rest of the cast. Scott's Scrooge has a unique feel to it. I think that with a character like Scrooge it can be easy to turn in a generic performance of the sort that occurs on theater stages all across the world every year but Scott's Scrooge doesn't feel quite like any other performance I've seen. It's very human and very authentic: I fully believe in him both as the ruthless and miserly businessman and also as the redeemed man of charity and goodwill.

From the very 80s Ghost of Christmas Past to the very creepy Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, from the moody nighttime scenes to the vibrant and colorful daytime scenes and cheerful interiors, and from the haunting moments of the score to the joyful ones, I think it is all-around a very enjoyable and well-crafted film.

My only complaint is the depiction of the Ghost of Christmas Present. He is supposed to be quite a cheerful character but often comes across as just a little too mean and a little too angry when he delivers some of his lines. It is the one thing about the film that I find off-putting and wish had been done better.

Overall, however, I think it's an excellent adaptation, bested only by Sim.

(And if you wonder which adaptations I have in third and fourth place, that would be '99 with Patrick Stewart and '38 with Reginald Owen.)

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

Well said and I agree. These are the two I *must* watch when they come across the channel guide.

Re: Ghost of Christmas Present - he is indeed described by the author of being jolly, but I have to say I enjoy the spin this version puts on the character. He is still overall pretty jolly with a big hearty laugh, but his sniping sarcasm at a couple of things Scrooge says adds some dimension.

I do love how this version restores Scrooge's ex-fiance's happy marriage that 1951's version took out.

I also like Stewart's version and Reginald Owen's versions, but I also like the Mr. Magoo take!

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 3 months ago

I feel like the Ghost of Christmas Past in this version already delivers a fair amount of that sniping sarcasm and so I don't feel like I need more of that from Christmas Present. In my view, if there is any character who is supposed to embody the jolliness and good nature of the Christmas spirit it is him, and I just don't really feel that in this version. Nevertheless, it's a relatively small gripe and I love this version overall.

I don't specifically recall the scene with Belle's happy marriage being excised from the Sim version but I agree that it's an important inclusion. It is interesting that they would take that scene out but add in all of the original material regarding Jorkin. I do like the Jorkin scenes but it feels like they were created the round out the characters and the story just a little more and it seems like if that's the goal, then you would include the scene with Belle and her husband.

Stewart and Owen are both good. I saw the Stewart version when it aired on TNT way back in 1999 and enjoyed it enough that I eventually purchased it on DVD. Owen's film seems to be the favorite of a lot of people--I've gotten into multiple debates over which one is better, 1951 or 1938--and I do enjoy it, but something that I can't quite put my finger on holds it back in my mind from being as good as Sim, Scott or Stewart. As for Magoo, I've certainly heard about it, but I've never seen it unless I saw it when I was a small child.

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

What we need to break up the monotony is a Christmas Carol with weapons...

I wonder if Stallone and Ahnold would do a TV version!

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 3 months ago

LOL. I'd watch it.

We are due for another rendition. If you look historically, there is usually a major adaptation every 10-20 years.

138, 1951, 1970, 1984, 1999, 2009. . . FX did something a few years but I absolutely won't count it because everything I've heard about it is terrible and I know it deviated in significant ways from Dickens' story, and not in ways that are positive. So as I see it, the last "real" adaptation was in 2009.

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

I saw the FX thing - it's not really A Christmas Carol. I mean, Scrooge being sexually molested at school. Scrooge forcing Cratchit's wife into the sack for money to save Tim? It was like watching a train wreck so I saw the whole thing, but it's a one and done for me.

You did yourself a favor by not seeing it.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 3 months ago

I heard that it was terrible and completely against the spirit of Dickens' story. I appreciate your confirmation. It really makes me wonder what possessed someone to make it in the first place.

[–] diezman (2241) 3 months ago

I like the 1951 version but this one is my favorite.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 3 months ago

Why would you say it is your favorite?

[–] diezman (2241) 2 months ago

I think nostalgia is the biggest reason. I actually like most versions of A Christmas Carol. It's a great story 😃

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 2 months ago

I agree with that. It's one of those stories that no matter how many times I get exposed to it in one form of another, I never get tired of it. I've read the book and have seen several film and stage adaptations, and it still captures my attention.

It seems that we are due for a new live-action adapation. The last major traditional live-action take on the story was in 1999. It's been quite a while.

[–] Tam87 (1592) 2 months ago

The key thing is that George C. Scott played an understated Scrooge.

In the other Scrooge adaptations that I've seen, Albert Finney overplayed the part and Bill Murray was out of sorts thanks to not getting along with his director, whereas Scott nailed it.

If you could've given this film the budget and scale of the 1970 version, then it would've been the best Scrooge film by far.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 2 months ago

I agree about Scott's Scrooge being understated. He is never goofy and never comes across as cartoonish. This is what I was talking about when I said his is a very human and authentic performance.

I'm not sure I would agree that this film would be better at the budget and scale of the 1970 version, though. If you blow it up too much and it comes across as too much of a spectacle, it might lose something. One reason I prefer the 1951 version to the 1938 version is that 1951 has an appropriate dark, dingy, gritty look to it, while 1938 is very Hollywood and is too clean and polished to properly convey the right atmosphere for Dickens' tale.

[–] Tam87 (1592) 2 months ago

If you blow it up too much and it comes across as too much of a spectacle, it might lose something.

That's true. I love the opening scenes of the 1970 Scooge where you see him walking through those victorian London streets at Christmastime, the scale and scope of what is merely a set is great. I really wish they cast Scott instead of Finney for that movie, as his performance deserved a bigger film, but I'm not sure he'd have dug the singing and musicals. I think the 1984 version was more up his alley.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 2 months ago

I watched the 1970 version exactly once. Honestly I did not like it much. It deviated too much from the original story, and not in enjoyable ways, especially with the silliness at the end where Scrooge goes to hell. I will agree though that it has a bigger feel to it than the 1984 film.

By the way, on a side note, I would've sworn that Scott's film was shot mostly on a backlot somewhere, so I was rather surprised to learn that it was actually shot in the picturesque town of Shrewsbury.

[–] Tam87 (1592) 2 months ago

The 1970 film is definitely overblown. There's some bits I don't like, and Finney is going apeshit at the end dancing on the streets, it looks hilarious.

Yeah I watched the 84 Scrooge last Christmas and I remember checking the credits to see where it was filmed. It certainly gives the film a nice touch and looks authentic that they filmed it on location with the snow and everything. It's got a great cast with David Warner, Susannah York and Joanne Whalley.

[–] Where (1597) 2 months ago

I am nostalgic for the Mr Magoo rendition

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8857) 2 months ago

I've seen other people say the same. It seems to be one that a lot of people have a lot of love for.

I've seen clips and think it must be something you had to have seen as a child to appreciate, but just in general animated adaptations aren't my thing.