A Christmas Carol

This was at least the 14th screen adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens tale that I have watched (the others being those made in 1935, 1938, 1951, 1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2006) with another (dating from 2009) following only 2 days later! While the 1951 version is universally acknowledged as the finest rendition (though one cannot really put a finger on why it works so well, given its modest credentials!), a few of the rest (including the 1983 animated Disney short!) are well enough regarded as well. Incidentally, while several actors have attempted to give life to the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge, Alastair Sim's portrayal was so vivid and perfectly-realized (he would also voice the character in the 1971 animated version by Richard Williams) that all later remakes would have to be judged against it, and this is were the film under review decidedly comes up lacking!

Ironically, the otherwise reliable character actor involved – Michael Hordern – had played Scrooge's partner Jacob Marley in both adaptations involving Sim (Marley, then, is here incarnated by John LeMesurier, another welcome presence), but his contribution in this case comes across as no more than workmanlike. The main reason for this, I guess, also has to do with the script's scrupulous adhering to the letter of the original source which, again, was superbly-delivered – in his inimitable fashion – by Sim! I am sure it is not necessary for me to relate the plot line: with this in mind, the many familiar characters are adequately-filled (most impressively perhaps by Patricia Quinn – fresh from THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW {1975}! – as the Ghost Of Christmas Past, with Bernard Lee – 'M' in the first 11 instalments of the James Bond franchise – also on hand as the Ghost Of Christmas Present). Besides, the eerie elements of the narrative (which, admittedly, is what really draws me to this piece, as opposed to the sentimental subplot involving the fate of Tiny Tim!) are given their due…but, all in all, the film merely sticks to the standard of British TV productions of the era i.e. generally tasteful in approach and undeniably practised in execution, it is also inherently dull!

There is nothing dramatically wrong with this version of the Dickens classic. It is just short and undernourished. Numerous scenes are either shortened or not seen at all. The characters have no opportunity to gain any traction. The people are physically pretty good but they are on the screen and off. The scene with Belle takes so much time and is not set up well in the least. We don't know about their arrangement so there is little dramatic oomph. The final scene seem as if they are trying to squeeze everything into a couple of minutes so they don't use any extra film. We barely see Marley except as a ghost. It was by the book and little in a creative way.

In comparison to longer, more showy versions of Dickens' classic novella, this version from 1977 with Michael Hordern as Scrooge can look a bit underfunded - however, I think that its short length and the quality of its cast outweigh these concerns.

The key of adapting a familiar story is to meet expectations in many ways, and this version does succeed. The visitations of the four spirits (including Jacob Marley), are well done, Bernard Lee as Christmas Present, John Le Mesurier as Marley amongst them. Hordern himself makes a good Scrooge, grey, morose and menacing at the start, and gentle and reformed at the end.

Alongside versions with Alistair Sim, George C Scott, Patrick Stewart, and others, this version more than holds its own.

Spending your time spotting actors you've seen in other stuff may hold the key to making it through this rather lifeless adaptation of A Christmas Carol.

Michael Horden makes a reasonable Scrooge but the surrounding production lets him down as it's clear that this suffers from a thin budget. Using drawings rather than actual sets may have a quaint charm in children's television, but here it just draws attention to how Scrooge-like the BBC must have been when they commissioned it.

There are plenty of Christmas Carols on IMDb. This one isn't horrendous, but it's certainly forgettable.

Let's get this out of the way: This television version of Charles Dickens's classic story is not the best acted nor the best produced, and it's special effects are (quite frankly) laughable even by the standards of the time. It's gifted actors seem like they're rushed to deliver all of their lines in the course of a commercial television production (because they are). None of that is what makes this such an outstanding version of the teleplay.

The secret sauce here is that this is filmed in 1970s BBC studios, and that means you get the wonderful effect of the PAL video technology at the time, with its overblown highlights, deep blacks, and high refresh rate. These qualities inherent in the technology of the time make this (in my mind) the spookiest version of this story ever put to screen. The ghosts are just more ghostly, and matte-background London looks much more gritty than any other version. The atmosphere is palpable and feels oppressive, and that is what you want in what is arguably the most famous ghost story ever told.