Scrooge

Most people are familiar with the 1951 classic version of A Christmas Carol (AKA Scrooge) with Alastair Sim. This British version was made three years before the MGM American film, and is actually better than that one, but of course not as great as the 1951 version. It is very short and to the point, in many ways different than other versions, since it is faithful to the Dickens story, and Hicks gives a brutally realistic portrayal of Scrooge. The Depression Era London setting is depicted quite realistically as well. 3 out of 4 stars.

Not bad but not great version of the classic Dickens tale. Seymour Hicks makes for a very different Scrooge than most of us are used to seeing. Big bushy eyebrows, wild hair, and a permanent caveman expression on his face. He makes Scrooge appear more brutish than other versions. His Scrooge looks like the kind of guy you would see in films of the period that hung around the docks waiting to rob people. This is a darker Carol than most. A lot of stuff is either left out or is only alluded to rather than shown. I don't know...it's not one of my favorite versions, to be sure, but it is interesting and enjoyable enough. Give it a shot if you have seen other versions and like to compare. Otherwise, if this is your first stop for A Christmas Carol film, you'd be better off with the 1951 Alastair Sim version.

There's absolutely no way around the fact that every version of "A Chrismas Carol" that you will ever watch is going to be viewed through the lens of the 1951 Alastair Sim classic, even more than it will be looked at through the lens of the Dickens story itself. This very early version (the earliest "talkie" version as far as I can see) stands up pretty well in that respect. Seymour Hicks was a very convincing Ebenezer Scrooge with a different take on the character than Sim presented. Sim's Scrooge was - while mean and crotchety - a somewhat comic character, whereas Hicks seems to emphasize Scrooge's essential nastiness, making his ultimate transformation even more jarring in some ways. The story has all the basic elements, and so there are no real surprises in that sense, but there are some differences worth noting. Aside from the early shot of Marley's face in the door knocker, I found it interesting that Marley's ghost was invisible to the viewer (although seen apparently by Scrooge.) Marley's spirit also came across as stronger than in the '51 version, where he was a more pathetic creature, although afflicted in the same way. I also found the visits of the three Christmas spirits somewhat truncated - especially the visit of the Spirit of Christmas Past, who offered Scrooge only a couple of scenes revolving around his love Belle with no mention of Fezziwig and no mention of Fan. There was however some interesting additional material. The scene of the Lord Mayor's banquet seemed to put Scrooge's essential isolation into stronger focus. With no compassion for the poor, Scrooge is also completely alienated from the wealthy, and while the poor celebrate as best they can and the wealthy enjoy a huge banquet, Scrooge dines alone and then goes home to a lonely house. The end of the movie also puts Scrooge's transformation in a different context. Whereas the end of the '51 version emphasizes the relationship Scrooge develops with Tiny Tim, the end of this version has Scrooge joining Cratchet in church to sing "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. What I took from that was that in this version Scrooge's transformation was a spiritual transformation as well as a personal one. This is a very interesting version of the story. 7/10

If there's a lesson to be learned from the countless adaptations of A Christmas Carol, it's that the makers should stick to the text as closely as possible. Dickens barely wasted a word in his novella; it being a perfectly judged, perfectly paced bit of fiction.

This adaptation takes a few wrong turns. It takes far too long before we get to the actual haunting, with the first 30 minutes being positively meandering. There's also a perfunctory sequence, featuring none of the main characters, where the King is celebrated. Maybe this kind of thing pleased the masses back in the thirties, but it does make the opening act a bit of a slog.

One would hope that things would get back on track when Jacob Marley appears. Unfortunately, Jacob Marley doesn't appear at all; he's a rather unimpressive voice-over. It's an odd choice; as if the makers aren't confident enough to give us a character design that will work for us.

Unfortunately, the sequence following this isn't much better. The visit from The Ghost of Christmas Past is done and dusted in less than 5 minutes (I'm not exaggerating). There's nothing of Scrooge of a boy, no mention of Fezziwig and we only really see the break-up of his relationship with Belle (and nothing of the good times Scrooge shared with her). This is a major misstep; as it fails to adequately give us Scrooge's backstory. Considering what *is* included in this adaptation, it's baffling that such a key segment was skipped over. I'm wondering if it was abridged so that they'd be no need for other, younger actors to play Scrooge, but that seems like an unnecessary compromise.

The Present and Yet To Come sequences fare better, and the conclusion to the story is really rather good as adaptations of the novella go. However, the damage has already been done.

It's a big shame as the cast are fine. Seymour Hicks may be a touch too shabby for my tastes as Old Scrooge, but he's able to give us a decent contrast in his performance (even if his redemption is far too quick, and seems almost complete after a quick glimpse at his past).

In summary, this is probably on an even footing with the Reginald Owen offering from just three years later (1938). Both have as many flaws as aspects to recommend, but both are worth a watch to aficionados of the classic story.

Though overshadowed by later versions, this 1935 Seymour Hicks version of "Scrooge" is pretty good, with the main strength being Hicks's effective portrayal of Scrooge. Aside from Hicks, most of the other characters do not have that much of a presence, and it does not have the kind of lavish detail that enriches, for example, the great Alastair Sim version. But the atmosphere works, and the story is faithfully told and moves fairly quickly. Every actor who portrays the famous miser has his own interpretation of the role, and Hicks himself is above average, lending appropriate nuances to his character's personality change while remaining believable.

The story has been filmed so many times that it's hardly possible to avoid making comparisons among the various versions. This is not going to be anyone's favorite version, but it's not a bad one, either.