#also belle fan and fezziwig

[piglinmyfeet]

Jimmy being a ghost is so currently relevant

It's just like A Christmas Carol, but is Jimmy the ghost of Christmas past present or future?

[warrioreowynofrohan]

I rewatched the Alistair Sim (1950s) movie of A Christmas Carol tonight and wanted to jot down some thoughts.

The first part of the movie, up to and including Marley’s Ghost, is extremely faithful to the book - to the point of replicating most of the original dualogue, and also adding some of the lines from Dickens’ narration to the dialogue. About the only addition is Scrooge harshly refusing a debtor who begs for a few more days to pay, something which is in line with Scrooge’s typical behaviour - as shown by the couple in the Christmas Yet to Come part of the book, who are relieved by his death because they are unlikely to meet with another creditor who is so merciless - but which is not directly depicted in the book. There’s even a scene where a blind man’s dog pulls him up an alley away from Scrooge, like the narration in the book describes! And the change in music from Bob Cratchit joyfully heading home on Christmas Eve to Scrooge taking his “melancholy dinner in his usual melancholy tavern” perfectly conveys the change in mood in the book between those two scenes. The ghosts mourning that they cannot help the poor woman, at the end of the Marley sequence, are also included.

Oh, the other addition in that section is Scrooge’s statement that his nephew married “against his [Scrooge’s] will”, which is not specifically from the book.

The Christmas Past section is the part where the adaptation makes the most changes. Fan is an adult (or at least is, like Scrooge, in her late teens) when she comes to get Scrooge from the school; his relationship with her is given more centrality as he says she is the only one who ever cared about him, and that if he is not to be lonely then she must live forever. She is also shown dying after giving birth to Fred, and it is said that Scrooge’s mother also died giving birth to him, which his father resented him for. Also, Fan on her deathbed asks Scooge to look after Fred, but only after he’s left the room, so he doesn’t hear her; the moment he hears it is when we see the present-day Scrooge express real remorse. None of this is from the book - Scrooge’s mother clearly did not die giving birth to him in the book, as his sister Fan is much younger than him there. (Also, like all other adaptations I have seen, Scrooge’s memories of the joy he found in reading during his lonely Christmases at school are omitted.)

Scrooge’s business career is also expanded upon, with him (after Fan’s death, which is thereby implied to have embittered him) leaving Fezziwig’s employ for that of an unscrupulous man who also employs Mr. Marley; Fezziwig going out of business; and Scrooge later buying a controlling share in his unscrupulous employer’s company. I can see why the movie does this. The change lets it more dramatically show Scrooge’s change from the young man who worked for Fezziwig to the harsher, more ambitious, more avaricious man he became, rather than us hearing that only from his fiancée. For this reason, I’m more okay with this expansion than I am with the changes around Fan; I think the latter too heavily frames Scrooge’s later mindset as due to grief turned to bitterness, whereas in the book it’s more about greed borne of the desire for worldly respect and prestige.

Likewise, like The Muppet Christmas Carol, the movie shows Scrooge and his later-fiancée (here called Alice, not Belle) at Fezziwig’s party - a change which lets us see more of the relationship than just its end.

We also get a (rather unnecessary, IMO) deathbed-repentance scene from Marley, where hetells Scrooge they were wrong and to save himself, but Scrooge does not understand. There is nothing of the sort in the book.

There’s also another interesting shift. In the movie, Fezziwig says he’d rather go out of business than adopt the “new methods” of doing business, and then he in fact does go out of business. Alice says that when she became engaged to “they were both poor and content to be so,” full stop. In the book she says, “we were both poor and content to be so, until we could improve our fortunes by patient industry”. In a way, this feels like the movie grappling with a question surrounding the book - can one run a successful business in an ethical way? can one become well-off ethically? - that the book itself does not take up; but the movie ends without returning to the question and Scrooge’s later reformation indicates that yes, one can. Also in this vein, where the book shows Scrooge’s fiancée later on happily married with a houseful of children, the movie shows her caring for poor people on Christmas in something like a homeless shelter/food kitchen, which further dramatizes the differences between the paths they have chosen, that of avarice and that of charity.

The section with Christmas Present is very close to the book - the Cratchit family dinner again uses much of the original dialogue, and also integrates parts of Dickens’ narration into the dialogue. Christmas Present is almost exactly as the book describes him, and as the original illustrations in the book shown him, and even the celebration of the “miners, who labour in the bowels of the earth” is shown. Fred’s Christmas party is shown, and even the minor characters of Tupper and the woman he’s courting from the book (though in the book she is described as the ‘fat sister’ and here she is not fat). Fred’s joke about Scrooge is omitted and his goodwill to him is emphasized (the opposite of Muppet Christmas Carol, which focuses on the joke and on no one liking Scrooge; I think this versiondoes better in that respect).

The section with Christmas Yet To Come is similar to the book (though it starts off with Tiny Tim’s death - a good choice, I think, as it keeps all the material surrounding Scrooge’s death as a single sequence). The debtor family who are relieved at Scrooge’s death are left out, but the rest is similar to the book, and the rage-and-bone shop scene conserves a lot of the origibal dialogue word-for-word. This movie is where Mrs. Dilber as the charwoman - a small change from the book - and the expansion of her character comes from, and she is a good comic character with several great lines. The scene in the bedroom with the body is omitted, which I think is a necessity of film - even if Scrooge failed to recognize his own charwoman and his own curtains, film would make it too implausible that he could fail to recognize his own room.

Muppet Christmas Carol has a much better and spookier Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come than the 1951 film has - the faceless void is very unsettling, whereas in 1951 the spirit is clearly just a person with a black sheet of fabric over them (in one scene you can see the person’s face through the fabric). But that’s the difference between special effects in the 1950s and the 1990s.

Scrooge’s delight at finding he is still alive is dramatic verging on hysterical and gives some more funny moments, and, as in the book, he sends the turkey to the Cratchits’ anonymously and then goes to visit his nephew’s party (rather than showing up at the Cratchits’ with the turkey in person as in the Muppet version’s crowd song). And the depuction of him chuckling as he sends the turkey and writes the note is direct from the book. His apology to Fred’s wife feels like it has too much emotional emphasis given that he has never met her before; it’s as though the movie is treating her as a proxy for the apologies he would like to make to Fan and to Alice. But the scene on the whole is lovely, and the ending with Bob Cratchit is very good.

On the whole, this is a good adaptation - better than the Muppet one in some ways (particularly the Christmas Present scene, where it focuses on others’ celebrations as well as how Scrooge has made the Cratchits’ lives harder, whereas the Muppet one focuses on Scrooge being disliked). Its main weaknesses in my opinion are 1) an overemphasis on the role of Fan’s death in the younger Scrooge’s downward moral trajectory; and 2) Scrooge’s desire to change not coming until very later in the film, when he sees the callous reaction to his death.

I would recommend this adaptation to anyone who hasn’t seen it - it’s up there with the Muppet one as one of the best that has been made, and I was amazed at how many lines from the narration they had added to the dialogue, and how much of the atmosphere of the narration they captured (as one example, Bob is actually shown trying to warm himself at the candle). It’s available both in black and white and in a colourized version (as in, they later came along and physically coloured in the film reels; I can’t imagine how much work that must have been!).

[a-living-cartoon]

My review on Marley: A queer prequel to A Christmas Carol.

Ok so I got recommended this book here on tumblr and I just couldn’t help but buy it, hoping it would make my headcannons come alive. BOY IT DID! I actually cried over it. No joke, I really cried!

This story was both heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. It had a good balance of the two (especially for being incredibly fast paced). The only thing I wasn’t the biggest fan of was Belle just being used as a cover up for Ebenezer. I do believe at some point he did love her (which means bi Scrooge). But of course, I don’t know what else they would do, this is a queer tale in the 19th century. So I see why this was the case and it doesn’t bother me. The scenes between Scrooge and Marley were so sweet. The way their love was written felt so genuine.

SPOILERS HERE

While I did cry over Marley’s death scene, the epilogue scene when the two reunite in the afterlife REALLY GOT ME. Them being young again and at Fezziwig’s just like when they first fell in love just made me sob. Also MARLEY BEING OUT OF PURGATORY BECAUSE OF SCROOGE’S GOOD DEEDS IN HIS FINAL YEARS!! AGGHHH THE OUTCOME I ALWAYS WANTED!! 😭😭

9.5/10

Highly recommend

Also shoutout to: @thedivinelights for recommending this book to me here

[princesssarisa]

Character ask: Ebenezer Scrooge (A Christmas Carol)

No one requested this, but I answered asks for all the other main Christmas Carol characters last year, so it's high time I answered one for the iconic protagonist.

Favorite thing about them: His redemption arc, and how kind, generous, and full of joy he becomes by the end. Also the fact that Dickens breaks the standard rule of "Make the protagonist likable" and depicts a very unpleasant man, yet throws him into situations that make us engage with him even before he becomes likable, and then steadily earns our sympathy for him.

Least favorite thing about them: Well, he's obviously not a good person at the beginning of the story. That's the whole point.

Three things I have in common with them:

*I tend to be less social than many people are.

*I can be greedy and self-absorbed at times, though I try not to be.

*I try to be generous to those in need, as he is by the end.

Three things I don't have in common:

*I'm not an elderly British man.

*I'm not a business owner.

*I've never been a nasty miser.

Favorite line:

"If I could work my will, every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart."

Explaining to Marley's Ghost why he doesn't believe in him:

“Because a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

To the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come:

“Ghost of the Future! I fear you more than any spectre I have seen. But as I know your purpose is to do me good, and as I hope to live to be another man from what I was, I am prepared to bear you company, and do it with a thankful heart. Will you not speak to me?... Lead on! Lead on! The night is waning fast, and it is precious time to me, I know. Lead on, Spirit!

How vow of redemption:

“I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future! The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. Oh Jacob Marley! Heaven, and the Christmas Time be praised for this! I say it on my knees, old Jacob; on my knees!”

His giddy joy immediately afterwards:

“I don’t know what to do! I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a schoolboy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to everybody! A happy New Year to all the world. Hallo here! Whoop! Hallo!”

His prank on Bob Cratchit:

“Now, I’ll tell you what, my friend, I am not going to stand this sort of thing any longer. And therefore... and therefore I am about to raise your salary!”

brOTP: In his past, his sister Fan, his fellow apprentice Dick Wilkins, Fezziwig as a mentor/father figure to him, and Jacob Marley, to whatever extent they were really friends and not just partners. In his future, Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim, the rest of Cratchit family, his nephew Fred, Fred's wife, and their soon-to-be-born baby.

OTP: Belle in his youth; in the present, none.

nOTP: Any of the ghosts or the Cratchit children.

Random headcanon: He's of Scottish descent. His family's surname was originally the Scottish "Scroggie" (from which Dickens may have derived his name in real life), but they Anglicized it to "Scrooge" when they came to England.

Unpopular opinion: Even though almost every adaptation shows him sharing romantic moments with Belle at Fezziwig's party, in the book I don't think their engagement took place until after his apprenticeship with Fezziwig. In the scene showing Belle with her husband and children on the night Marley died, her youngest child is just a baby, so she was still of childbearing age just 7 years before Scrooge's redemption. This seems to imply that she's much younger than Scrooge. I don't mind this fact; age gaps were common between couples of their generation. But apprentices in that era were usually teenagers, so unless teenage Scrooge started courting Belle when she was 10 or 11 years old, I sincerely doubt they were already sweethearts when he was Fezziwig's apprentice.

Song I associate with them:

Many songs from the many musical adaptations, but chiefly these.

From Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol:

"Ringle Ringle"

"All Alone in the World"

From the musical Scrooge:

"I Hate People"

"I'll Begin Again"

From The Muppet Christmas Carol:

"Scrooge"

"A Thankful Heart"

From Alan Menken and Lynn Ahrens' A Christmas Carol: The Musical:

"Nothing to Do With Me"

"Yesterday, Tomorrow, and Today/God Bless Us, Every One"

Favorite pictures of them:

These classic illustrations by John Leech:

Sir Seymour Hicks in the 1935 film:

Reginald Owen in the 1938 film (is it true or just a rumor that his wispy tufts of hair inspired the similar feather tufts of Scrooge McDuck?):

Alastair Sim in the 1951 film:

George C. Scott in the 1984 TV film:

Michael Caine in The Muppet Christmas Carol:

[twistedtummies2]

Top 12 Portrayals of Belle (from "A Christmas Carol")

Last time I talked about the first of the ghosts Scrooge encounters in “A Christmas Carol.” Before we get to our final three characters for this little marathon - those being the Three Spirits of Christmas - I want to take a brief pit-stop in Scrooge’s past to talk about another major supporting character: Ebenezer’s ex-fiance, Belle. Belle is by far the single most well-known and important figure in Scrooge’s past, by all accounts. I can think of versions of the Carol story that omit his sister, Fan. I can also think of versions that omit the bubbly Fezziwig. These are not to mention all the various minor characters, such as Dick Wilkins or the Headmaster. But while many version inexplicably change the character’s name (she’s been alternately called Isabelle, Alice, and Emily, just to name three examples), no version of the Carol DARES to omit Scrooge’s former love. It’s the loss of Belle in Scrooge’s past life that acts as the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. She isn’t by any means the reason he became the greedy old codger he is by the time the story begins, but the pain of losing her is perhaps the deepest wound Scrooge has in his heart. What’s interesting about this wound is that Scrooge loses her through his own fault, and this is part of what makes the character so impactful, and her part in the tale such an important element: throughout Scrooge’s past, he sees past nuggets of love and humanity that he held onto, such as Fan and Fezziwig…but it’s indicated, in all those cases, they are people he lost early on, who died before their time. Belle is another story: she was THERE for him. She was FINE. It is Scrooge’s own greed and ambition that pushed her away; he was caught between two worlds - a humble but happy life with uncertainties to face, but love in his heart…or clinging to material gain that he believed would give him security. Scrooge chose the latter, and as a result, while he’s financially successful…he’s not truly happy, and he’s racked with guilt and longing that he can never admit or let go of. When compiled on top of all the other tragedies in his past, many of which seem directly related to Christmastime, it’s no wonder that he not only hates the Christmas holiday, but also has become such a vile person. As a result, Belle is the one part of his past that every interpretation wisely holds onto: some versions restrain her role to simply the breakup moment, while others expand on the novel, including not only a bit of what happened to her after, but also what came before, to up the sorrow. However it is handled, the scene is always one of the most potent in the story, and one of the most heartbreaking. Many fine actresses have handled the role of the former fiance over the years, and many of them have done a splendid job. Who did so the best? I have no idea, but here’s some that I like. Ha Ha. These are my Top 12 Favorite Portrayals of Belle! (Again, the character’s name is sometimes different, but all of these are recognizably the same character.)

12. Bea Benaderet, from the Campbell Playhouse Radio Production (1939). (My thanks to a friend for helping me identify the uncredited actress for Belle.)

11. Zoe Wanamaker, from A Christmas Carol (1977).

10. Daisy Duck, from Mickey's Christmas Carol.

9. Meredith Braun, from The Muppet Christmas Carol. (This only really applies to the original director’s cut of the film, with the song sequence “When Love is Gone” included.)

8. Jane Kean, from Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol. (Silly hair notwithstanding.)

7. Suzanne Neve, from Scrooge (1970).

6. Jodi Benson, from A Christmas Carol (1997). (By far the best scene in the film is Ariel and Tim Curry singing a duet as Belle and Young Scrooge.)

5. Jessie Buckley, from Scrooge: A Christmas Carol (2022). (This version is pretty “meh,” but it’s perhaps telling that the stuff with Belle is, by far, the best part, in my opinion.)

4. Robin Wright, from A Christmas Carol (2009).

3. Rona Anderson, from Scrooge (1951).

2. Laura Fraser, from A Christmas Carol (1999). (Don’t ask me what Lydia from Breaking Bad is doing here. Your guess is as good as mine.)

1. Lucy Gutteridge, from A Christmas Carol (1984).

[aslightlydifferentchristmascarol]

Adele's AU Character Info Post 1: Ebenezer Scrooge

GENERAL

NAME: Ebenezer Archibald Scrooge ALIAS(ES): Eben (by his close friends only) GENDER: Male AGE: 47 DATE OF BIRTH: June 25 (Halfway in the year from Christmas) PLACE OF BIRTH: London, England HOMETOWN: London, England SPOKEN LANGUAGES: English ROMANTIC PREFERENCE: Panromantic SEXUAL PREFERENCE: Pansexual (doesn't know it yet) OCCUPATION: Moneylender

APPEARANCE

EYE COLOR: Green HAIR COLOR: Blond HEIGHT: About 5 feet SCARS: None BURNS: None OVERWEIGHT: No UNDERWEIGHT: Used to be during his miserly life, but no longer

FAVOURITE

COLOR: Red and green (wink wink) HAIR COLOR: Thinks they're all fine EYE COLOR: See above SONG: Any classic Christmas carol MOVIE: Doesn't really have one T.V. SHOW: Any sitcom FOOD: Gruel (formerly), roasted turkey (current) DRINK: Cold water (formerly), Smoking Bishop (current) BOOK: Grimm's Fairy Tales (as a child) anything by Shakespeare (in his adult years)

HAVE YOU

PASSED A LEVELS: No. PASSED UNIVERSITY: He went straight into his business when he inherited it from Fezziwig. HAD SEX: Yes... don't tell anyone. HAD SEX IN PUBLIC: NO! GOTTEN PREGNANT: He can't? KISSED A BOY: As part of a dare. KISSED A GIRL: Quite a bit! GOTTEN TATTOOS: No. GOTTEN PIERCINGS: Also no. HAD A BROKEN HEART: Yes, quite often. BEEN IN LOVE: Yep! STAYED UP FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS: Of course- when the ghosts came along!

ARE YOU

A VIRGIN: No. A CUDDLER: Since being redeemed, yes. A KISSER: Only to a select few. SCARED EASILY: Certainly! JEALOUS EASILY: He used to be a lot. Now he rarely is. TRUSTWORTHY: Ever since his redemption. DOMINANT: Not sure. SUBMISSIVE: Also not sure. IN LOVE: Yep- with Belle. SINGLE: He's getting back together with Belle, bit by bit, so no.

RANDOM QUESTIONS

HAVE YOU HARMED YOURSELF: Does eating a poor diet and keeping your house and office super cold count? WANTED TO KILL SOMEONE: I'm sure he has, but I don't know who. DROVE A CAR: Not yet, but he'll learn how! HAVE/HAD A JOB: Of course! HAVE ANY FEARS: Heights, falling, and death.

FAMILY

SIBLING(S): Fan. RIP her. PARENTS: Franklin and Oretta Scrooge. RIP them as well. CHILDREN: None of his own, but he treats the Cratchit kids like they were his own. PETS: None, but someday he might get a turtle.

[justice-for-jacob-marley]

For the 7 questions ask, Jacob Marley. (Any version.)

Three facts about them from my personal headcanons:

All five of the foods Scrooge mentions to him (beef, mustard, cheese, potatoes and gravy) are (or were while he was alive, in the original) favorites of his. Hence the name of his childhood feline companion.

He got along with Belle, although just as a close friend, back when they were apprentices to Fezziwig and she was dating Scrooge.

He's pretty musically gifted- a talented pianist and a great singer as well, although he often denies that second one.

A reason they suck:

He was once extremely greedy and ruthless.

A reason they're great:

He knows to be a better person and the importance of being kind to others now.

A reason I relate to them:

I have very few friends, and I'd probably be pretty unhappy if there was a widespread rumor that I was dead.

(what I consider to be) the top tier otp/ot3 for that character:

In the original, no one. But in my version, Amelie (of course)!

Five things that never happened to the character that I believe should have happened:

That the story didn't start with four paragraphs of Dickens shoving it down our throats that he's "dead to begin with". Seriously, Dickens, you don't need to rub it in! Plus, the story can still work if he's not dead (like in my version)!

Even in the original where he is dead, that at least one other person besides Scrooge could have truly loved him in his lifetime and mourned him.

Also in the original, that he could have been confirmed to be freed from his punishment after Scrooge was redeemed.

That we could see at least a little of him in the Christmas Past scene rather than just a brief mention by Belle's husband.

In the 2004 version where he's played by Jason Alexander, that we could find out who the female ghost he blows a kiss to is. (I like to think she was the girl he was dancing with at the Fezziwigs' ball).

Five people that character never fell in love with and why.

Scrooge. Sorry, I just can't see them as having anything more than a brotherly relationship.

Fan. I actually like to think she was an annoyance to him.

Bob Cratchit. He's married and he's probably a decade younger.

Mrs. Cratchit, for the same reasons as her husband.

Belle. Like I said, she was just his friend when she knew him.

[deafmangoes]

An Album of Christmas Carols - 3

Okay let's address the elephant in (on?) the platform:

"Scrooge" (2022, Luke Evans)

I didn't like it.

I will explain in some detail why I didn't like it, but for fairness' sake I'll also talk about the things I did like.

The main reason I didn't like it is because this isn't Ebenezer Scrooge. It's a fundamentally very different character, and for one simple reason.

Scrooge wouldn't keep a pet dog.

Quite aside from anything else, he would see it as a pointless and frivolous expense, but the main reason he wouldn't keep a pet dog is because Scrooge has utterly buried his empathy when we first meet him. He doesn't care about anything or anyone, barely even himself - there's no way he'd open his heart even a tiny crack for the sake of a dog.

The film tries to pass her off as having previously belonged to Marley but oddly fails to properly establish that in the flashback scenes where Marley's alive (although we do see a different dog).

And speaking of Marley...

Ghosts? Ghosts!

Credit to this film, Marley's design is amazing. It's a departure from the traditional but in ways that really work, and I especially loved the coins over the eyes (which makes me think someone on the team had fond memories of Robert Zemeckis' 2009 A Christmas Carol, staring Jim Carrey...), as I thought it made perfect symbolism for being blinded by avarice.

Luke Evans is too busy singing to notice Marley appear in the door knocker and this version dispenses with all the other signs except the bells (which happen mid-appearance) - Marley even excuses this as "those in charge demand a touch of pageantry".

The change to Marley's age, relative to Scrooge, was another interesting departure. They went for a "mentor/mentee" vibe, rather than the "equal partners" they're usually shown to be. It feeds into a much larger attempt to humanise Scrooge from the beginning, which I'll get into, but I do think was a mistake and chips away at the narrative integrity.

(Pictured, my expression through a lot of this film).

Christmas Past is Olivia Coleman playing an exaggerated version of herself. Her design, made of malleable wax, allows a lot of creative freedom on the part of the animators, and avoids the usual issues with the whole 'ineffable being of light' thing.

Scrooge's childhood in this film is a complete change from normal. Taking, I think, from Dickens' own experiences, Scrooge here was a child labourer (+1 sympathy points), his father went to a debtor's prison (+1 Freudian excuse), and for once his mother didn't die in childbirth! These points also come up in the 2004 A Christmas Carol musical staring Kelsey Grammar - the writers and animators of Netflix's adaptation have clearly shopped around for ideas.

A change I didn't understand was the names - Nephew Fred becomes Harry. Sister Fan becomes Jen. Curious choice. Scrooge's love interest remains Isabel this time.

We skip Scrooge's time with Fezziwig, meeting the man later in life and having Scrooge begin his romance with Isabel only after he'd started working with Marley (which... again confuses matters, he was already on the up when the engagement began instead of being a poor apprentice).

And this is when the movie threw me for a loop. It just straight up uses the songs from Albert Finney's 1970 musical.

Not even the good ones. Although it did make "Happiness" shorter and more bearable than 1970's snoozefest.

We see young Scrooge and Marley close down a bakery and are informed that it belonged to Bob's father, which I actually liked. At least within this film's logic and treatment of Scrooge, it made it feel like he took on Bob as an employee out of buried guilt.

Christmas Present was... weird. A big nod to 1970's take on the character for sure, even reprising "I Like Life" (with Gospel, for some reason), but boy howdy did I hate the Minions Cheerlings, or whatever they're called. Those pink-purple fairy bastards.

Fred Harry's party is shown, and again a credit to the adaptation - they showcase a lot of diversity that genuinely did exist in Victorian London, in this case Harry is in an interracial marriage (which does imply Scrooge might also be a bit racist). The Cratchit's Christmas runs beat-for-beat as it usually does, including a (again, mercifully shorter) version of "On A Christmas Morning" from 1970's version. Scrooge is given reinforcing visions that Bob's poverty is both directly and indirectly his fault - poor wages in the present and eviction in the past.

Christmas Present makes a, as far as I know, unique transformation into Christmas Yet To Come - sadly accompanied by the bloody Cheerlings who now become 'Fearlings'.

We're treated to a (shorter, again) version of "Thank You Very Much" delivered by Tom Jenkins the Toymaker rather than Tom Jenkins the Soup Vendor before heading straight to the graveyard.

To his credit, and the film's, Scrooge's overall more human characterisation comes out in force here - he admits his own guilt and even confronts that he might be past saving, but begs to at least exchange his life for Tim's and correct the injustice he's done to the Cratchit family as a whole. That was a good change.

Despite leaning on 1970's version for many things, Scrooge does not go to Hell. Shame.

Highlights & Humbugs

Like I said at the outset, I didn't enjoy this version. It doesn't quite know what it wants to be - a creative reimagining of the story, particularly Scrooge's character, or a nod to a famous musical adaptation of the past. The songs are schizophrenic, partly because some come from the 70s and some from the new 20s. The opening number is saccharine and lifeless, and misses out on contrasting the general happiness with something like 1970's "I Hate People". We do get "Tell Me", but it doesn't have the same impact.

Prudence the dog doesn't add to the story and messes up Scrooge's characterisation. Marley's good, though the age difference makes him less of a reflection of Scrooge's life choices and more an example not to follow. The added humanising of Scrooge works in some ways but detracts in others - rather than a "cruel, wrenching, covetous old sinner", as Dickens puts it, we get the impression of a guilt-ridden middle-aged man who doesn't know how to redeem himself but secretly wants to.

And, uh, Cheerlings. See picture above for my thoughts on that.

Overall... 3 out of 10 Humbugs. It's just not good. Sorry Tumblr fans of "DILF Scrooge".

[mightyisobel]

Ebenezer Scrooge Visits Himself Upon Scenes From His Past

(an essay about A Christmas Carol)

Stave II of A Christmas Carol, In Which Scrooge Visits Himself Upon Scenes From His Past, provides the basic narrative of where the miser Ebenezer Scrooge came from. In flashbacks, we see that Scrooge was sent away to boarding school as a child, then apprenticed with a warehousing business, and then was dumped by his long-term fiancée Belle for being too career-driven. These scenes appear to set up the obstacles before the Three Spirits in changing the old miser's heart, particularly in Belle's scathing (but loving) read of how greed and acquisitiveness have changed and overmastered him. But they also hint at hope for Scrooge yet, by letting us glimpse, as if out of the corner of the Spirit's eye, his sincere affection for friends of the past and his regrets for roads not taken.

The chapter also addresses the question, Why Is Scrooge The Way He Is? but that story is only lightly sketched in with some scant details scattered through the chapter.  Dickens is not particularly concerned with unearthing Scrooge’s boyhood traumas for display upon the page, but he is alert to the effects of bad parenting and systemic privation upon a man’s soul.  Why, when Belle delivers her ultimatum, does Scrooge resign himself to the life of the "squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner" that he becomes? There are answers in the previous two scenes, in the schoolhouse and at Fezziwig's party.

At his boyhood school, while Scrooge is delighted by the sight of his old friends, the narrator describes the scene:

It was a large house, but one of broken fortunes; for the spacious offices were little used, their walls were damp and mossy, their windows broken, and their gates decayed... entering the dreary hall, and glancing through the open doors of many rooms, they found them poorly furnished, cold, and vast. There was an earthy savour in the air, a chilly bareness in the place, which associated itself somehow with too much getting up by candle-light, and not too much to eat.

I.e., in this scene we learn that Scrooge was sent away for years by his father to starve at a shabby boarding school. Until his sister Fan walks in that one Christmas morning to bring him home, home and family do not mean love and safety to the child Ebenezer Scrooge. Home and family are rejection and privation, and being warehoused in a place that is "dreary" and "cold".

The contrast with Fezziwig's holiday party is so stark, and so sudden, Dickens does not even give us a moment to recognize what Scrooge has survived. And we know he can show us privation when he wishes to; the opening scenes of Oliver are the trope-setter for portraying starving young boys. Here, we share Scrooge's relief in escaping that place and are invited, like young Ebenezer did, to never think upon it again.

So in the blink of an eye we join young Scrooge in clearing a dance floor and celebrating the holiday in a bright, warm, safe place with a boisterous chosen family -- and plenty of food.

Given the stark contrast between the cold neglect of the elder Scrooge (let’s call him “Tywin”, shall we?), and the open-handed care and joy of the Fezziwig establishment, is it any wonder, when Belle runs out of patience with her fiancé's "changed nature" (is it really changed, or has she simply come to see the truth?), that this young Ebenezer chooses the safety of the counting house over the risks and frigidity of a family? Can we fail to notice how many of the scenes visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present feature the display, preparation, and consumption of food, from the birds being toted to the street bakers' ovens, to the Cratchits’ devouring of their Christmas goose, to the grog shared by the lighthouse keepers. 

And of course, note how Dickens ends this Stave of celebration and plenty with a hard look at the starving children allegorizing Ignorance and Want, children in far more distress than we would think that Scrooge and his schoolmates would have suffered, who constitute Dickens's sharp rebuke to the austerity politicians of every era.

But to get back from politics to the personal drama that fuels the central character study here, we also get a glimpse of the generational trauma affecting Scrooge's family, centered on the bright spot that is Fan, and her untimely death. In Stave III, Nephew Fred, who is Fan's son and Scrooge's only known surviving blood relation, tells us:

Here, he takes it into his head to dislike us, and he won’t come and dine with us.... I mean to give him the same chance every year, whether he likes it or not, for I pity him. He may rail at Christmas till he dies, but he can’t help thinking better of it—I defy him—if he finds me going there, in good temper, year after year, and saying Uncle Scrooge, how are you?

There's a whole prequel's worth of story here (which I beg you not to make because there are already far too many prequels in the world), the story of Fred deciding, in that year when his mother died, to visit his uncle to give holiday greetings, and being aggressively rebuffed by the old man so grieved by his beloved sister's death that he never NEVER thinks of it again. 

And that's how these two men maintain a slender connection to the woman they both loved, by trolling each other every Christmas Eve with a dinner invitation and a Bah Humbug in response, and their resolution to hang on to this most meager tradition of care for one another. It's not much, these gifts that old Tywin Scrooge handed down to his children and grandchildren, but this is what the Scrooge family is, until the miracle of the Spirits.

Perhaps Dickens is overly sentimental about how the magic of Christmas can heal childhood trauma, but he delivers a character study of Scrooge's magical transformation that feels grounded in a family yearning for each other’s affection.

For the full text of this novel, visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46

[dickensshows-blog]

Preparing for a New Style of Tour

With just under week to go before my Christmas season starts I am making the final preparations for this year’s ‘A Christmas Carol’ tour. As readers of my previous post will know this year has been quite an adventure for Liz and me, with the arrival of our two adopted children which has changed so much in our lives, not least the length of time I can (or want to) be away from home. I first mentioned to Bob and Pam Byers that the 2018 tour would need to be severely curtailed over a year ago and they immediately embraced the new situation and began to work hard to create a trip that would work for everyone involved. The final result is that I will be performing for a week at the beginning of November with dear old friends in Pigeon Forge, Omaha and Kansas City before returning home for just under two weeks before returning to begin more performances from the Thanksgiving weekend for a couple more weeks. Whilst we have managed to retain many old established venues (Vaillancourt Folk Art, Fortin Gage in Nashua, Country Cupboard in Lewisburg, Winterthur, Byers’ Choice and Burlington, New Jersey), sadly there are some places where I have been travelling to for many years who we have lost for this year, prominent among them being Williamsburg and Hershey (both fixtures on tour since I first travelled in 1995), as well as more recent additions such as Cambridge Ohio, Roger’s Gardens in California and Andrew Jackson’s House in Nashville. Other notable absentees are as a result of circumstances beyond our control, for instance the dear old Golden Goose store in Occoquan has closed allowing Pat and Laverne to enjoy a well-deserved retirement, and The Moravian Book Shop in Bethlehem PA is no longer run as an independent store but is now under the management of Barnes and Noble.

I apologise to all of those who have enjoyed coming to my shows over the years – especially Derek and his family in Hershey – but I am sure that you understand my reasons for this trimmed trip, and please know that I hope to see you all again soon!

Preparations

With the two children both under the age of ten it has been important to carefully prepare them for this period of absence.  Liz and I have been gently talking about the trip, and I have showed them lots of photographs of my shows (thanks to the souvenir brochures of the last two years).  We have a chart which shows where I will be every day alongside their swimming lessons, gym clubs etc.  During the tour I will make sure I Skype as much as I can, and record bedtime stories that Liz can play them in the evenings.

A couple of weeks ago I hit upon the idea of buying two little soft toys which will come to every venue with me, and sit somewhere on the stage throughout the show.  I will photograph them wherever I go so that the children can share the trip through their alter egos.

The other important thing is to make sure that Liz has as much help as possible, as looking after them has been quite a handful for the two of us, not to mention singly.  She will definitely have her work cut out during my two absences and family and close friends you must prepare yourselves for plenty of phone calls!

Changes

Alongside the obvious changes to my tour this year, I have also considered the show itself a little, as I do each year, and come up with a very slight change to the scrip that may or may not prove popular with dyed-in-the-wool fans.  One of the strongest moments of the story is when Scrooge is taken by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to the Cratchit’s house, and witnesses the grief of little Bob when he returns from the grave.

Since 1995 I have played the scene (somewhat lazily I now realise), as if Bob alone had gone to visit Tim’s grave, leaving Mrs Cratchit to look after the rest of the family apparently unmoved.

However last year a viewing of the Jim Carey Disney version of the story sent me scuttling back to the original text.  Bob is NOT visiting Tim in his grave, just the site which is being prepared for the simple funeral.  Having talked with his family and ‘broken down all at once’, Bob makes his way upstairs to where Tim still lies and by his bedside reconciles himself to what has happened, before returning to the rest of his family who dearly need his love and support.

So, I have included this simple and touching moment in the ’18 script and have also introduced a new prop, the idea of which comes from Doctor Marigold and was created by Liz a couple of years ago.  In Marigold there is a scene in which the market cheapjack steps out onto the footboard of his cart holding his baby daughter.  Somehow I could never effectively mime the scene to be believable, and Liz suggested using a rug or blanket to represent the child.

So during this season I will have a red blanket with me, which can have multiple uses:  It will be over Scrooge’s knees as he settles into his chair on Christmas Eve, it can be tidied away at Fezziwig’s ball, it can be a shawl for Belle, it can be bed curtains being sold to old Joe, and then it can become the frail form of Tiny Tim.

It is always a pleasure to find details in the book that I have either passed over or forgotten and this  is no exception.  I am greatly looking forward to my first show on Sunday to see how it all works out!

The only other change that I have planned (and there will be others along the way, for the show always develops on the road), is a costume tweak.  For years my friend David, a theatrical costumier by trade, has railed against my very formal pinstriped trousers, which come from a morning suit.  ‘No!’ he tells me, ‘Victorian gentleman’s trousers were plain in colour, with no crease in the front.  They had high waist and back, and the braces were buttons not clips!’

So, for David, I have ordered two pairs of plain grey trousers, cut as he prescribed.  They are lightweight, and washable (which is always a bonus) and should create a more authentic look.

The only issue is that they have yet to arrive!  I tried some other colours, which didn’t look right, and returned them but somehow the courier company failed to deliver the replacements.  I am hoping they will arrive today or tomorrow and can be in my case on Saturday morning.

My next update will be from Pigeon Forge in Tennessee and I look forward to sharing my adventures with you once more.

[thedaveandkimmershow]

Thinking About Hope...

“They went, the Ghost and Scrooge, across the hall, to a

door at the back of the house. It opened before them, and

disclosed a long, bare, melancholy room, made barer still by

lines of plain deal forms and desks. At one of these a lonely

boy was reading near a feeble fire; and Scrooge sat down

upon a form, and wept to see his poor forgotten self as he

used to be.”

—Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol”

Ebenezer Scrooge viewed the lives of people in orbit around his life as beneath his concern. That much is undisputed. That he withheld from them charity, mercy, fobearance, and benevolence, in fact, constitutes our modern understanding of his name.

But the Ghost of Christmas Past here reveals another truth. Scrooge’s life as a young boy was similarly beneath the concern of others. Charity. Mercy. Forbearance. Benevolence. Similarly withheld from his life.

And the result is not especially surprising.

It’s hard to read this story and not wonder whether our legacy is to perpetuate this kind of firsthand neglect in the modern age… or is it to take the exquisitely uncomfortable step of interceding in the lives of other people ourselves.

Maybe people we know?

Maybe even strangers.

Do we really have the capacity it takes to do that? And do it well?

In Dickens’ telling, the intersession is of a supernatural nature. Our telling, though, need not take on such wondrous overtones. After all, once you look passed the ghostly introductions, Scrooge’s experience is of an intensely personal nature.

Gone is the wall he typically wields against others.

Instead, he experiences their lives… with them. And therein lies the nature of his transformation.

Therein, also, lies the nature of ours.

One day a few years ago, I heard something that eventually intersected with this line of thought:

Do for one person... what you wish you could do for everyone.

Think of it as a way of focusing through the rampant complexity that reliably overwhelms. Because without that kind of focus, we’re left with a kind of averaging of our efforts, with dealing in categories of human beings, with something... not personal. An effort during which we don’t actually see people for who they are in the fullness of their humanity and experience.

Do for one person.

What you wish you could do for everyone.

Of course that doesn’t really seem like the stuff of Changing The World. Know what I mean? Not the revolution or revival we signed up for. Surely it’s not the Change with a capital “C” that we so covet.

Mostly…

It seems like busywork, if I’m being honest. After all, individuals can’t possibly count for much when we’re looking at systemic, community, societal, and national challenges.

If that reflects your thinking, by the way, I feel you. I do.

It’s just that systems, communities, societies, and nations are built on and by individuals.

Building blocks, you know?

And we overlook the condition of those building blocks at the risk of the Change we seek.

Okay one last thing about A Christmas Carol.

In the story, Scrooge’s younger sister, Fan, takes up barely a scene before exiting stage left. 

Not super important. Simply a touch of backstory.

If you think about it, though, Fan is actually the most important person in Scrooge’s life. She wields the most influence.

It goes like this:

Being set free from the isolation of boarding school doesn’t change the outcome of Scrooge’s life.

The infectious frivolity of Mr. and Mrs. Fezziwig does not set Scrooge on a trajectory similar to their own.

And the loss of his fiance, Belle, is not a wake-up call. Not even a little bit.

In Dickens' fiction, none of these events is sufficient to change the outcome of Scrooge’s life... and I would submit that our own lives are subject to a similar kind of physics.

There are plenty of ways to temporarily change a person’s course... but not a lot of ways to change their destination.

Ultimately, it’s Fan who has standing in Scrooge's life. The one person with sufficient permission to intrude into his life and be taken seriously. She fought for him as a child... and there’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t have continued to be that kind of force in his adult life.

She... is the necessary and sufficient counterbalance to her brother’s use of wealth to protect himself from the capriciousness of the world he knows, to remove himself "beyond the chance of its sordid reproach".

In Fan’s absence, outside the orbit of her willingness and ability to fight for him, Scrooge is left to fully embrace the isolation he once endured. 

Fan’s presence and, eventually, absence from her brother’s life determined the condition of not only the lives she touched… but the lives he touched as well.

And that’s not just fiction, my friends.

It’s how the world works.

Tomorrow then, what that means for you and me...

[tellusepisode]

A Christmas Carol (2009)

Animation, Drama, Family |

A Christmas Carol is a American 3D computer-animated fantasy film written and directed by Robert Zemeckis. It is a film adaptation of Charles Dickens’s 1843 story of the same name and stars Jim Carrey in a multitude of roles, including Ebenezer Scrooge and the three ghosts who haunt Scrooge.

The film also features a supporting cast consisting of Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright and Cary Elwes. Produced through the process of motion capture, a technique Zemeckis used in his previous films The Polar Express (2004) and Beowulf (2007), it is Disney’s third feature film retelling of A Christmas Carol, following 1983’s Mickey’s Christmas Carol and 1992’s The Muppet Christmas Carol. It is also the first of only two films produced by ImageMovers Digital, followed by Mars Needs Moms (2011).

In 1843, on Christmas Eve, Ebenezer Scrooge, a miserly old businessman, does not share the merriment of Christmas. He declines his cheerful nephew Fred’s invitation to a Christmas dinner party, and rejects two gentlemen’s offer to collect money for charity. His loyal employee Bob Cratchit asks Scrooge to allow him to have a day off on Christmas Day to spend time with his family, to which Scrooge reluctantly agrees before leaving. In his house, Scrooge encounters the ghost of his deceased business partner Jacob Marley, who warns him to repent his wicked ways or he will be condemned in the afterlife like he was, carrying heavy chains forged from his own greediness. Jacob informs Scrooge that he will be haunted by three spirits, who will guide him out of his misery.

Director: Robert Zemeckis

Writers: Charles Dickens (based on the classic story by), Robert Zemeckis (written for the screen by)

Stars: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Steve Valentine, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright, Cary Elwes

►Cast:

Jim Carrey…Scrooge / Ghost of Christmas Past / Scrooge as a Young Boy / Scrooge as a Teenage Boy / Scrooge as a Young Man / Scrooge as a Middle Aged Man / Ghost of Christmas Present / Ghost of Christmas Yet to ComeSteve Valentine…Funerary Undertaker / TopperDaryl Sabara…Undertaker’s Apprentice / Tattered Caroler / Beggar Boy / Peter Cratchit / Well Dressed CarolerSage Ryan…Tattered CarolerAmber Gainey Meade…Tattered Caroler / Well Dressed CarolerRyan Ochoa…Tattered Caroler / Beggar Boy / Young Cratchit Boy / Ignorance Boy / Young Boy with SleighBobbi Page…Tattered Caroler / Well Dressed CarolerRon Bottitta…Tattered Caroler / Well Dressed CarolerSammi Hanratty…Beggar Boy / Young Cratchit Girl / Want GirlJulian Holloway…Fat Cook / Portly Gentleman #2 / Business Man #3Gary Oldman…Bob Cratchit / Marley / Tiny TimColin Firth…FredCary Elwes…Portly Gentleman #1 / Dick Wilkins / Mad Fiddler / Guest #2 / Business Man #1Robin Wright…Fan / Belle (as Robin Wright Penn)Bob Hoskins…Fezziwig / Old JoeJacquie Barnbrook…Mrs. Fezziwig / Fred’s Sister-In-Law / Well Dressed CarolerLesley Manville…Mrs. CratchitMolly C. Quinn…Belinda Cratchit (as Molly Quinn)Fay Masterson…Martha Cratchit / Guest #1 / CarolineLeslie Zemeckis…Fred’s WifePaul Blackthorne…Guest #3 / Business Man #2Michael Hyland…Guest #4Kerry Hoyt…Adult IgnoranceJulene Renee…Adult WantFionnula Flanagan…Mrs. DilberRaymond Ochoa…Caroline’s ChildCallum Blue…Caroline’s HusbandMatthew Henerson…PoultererAaron Rapke…Well Dressed CarolerSonje Fortag…Well Dressed Caroler / Fred’s HousemaidAliane Baquerot…DancerSeth Belliston…DancerTroy Edward Bowles…DancerSam J. Cahn…DancerKelly Connolly…DancerJohn R. Corella…Dancer (as John Corella)Kelly Crandall…DancerSheri Griffith…DancerBeckie King…DancerKeith Kuhl…Dancer (as Keith Kühl)Allison Leo…DancerTarah Paige…DancerJohn Todd…Dancer (as John J. Todd)Patrick Wetzel…DancerEva La Dare…Dancer (as Karen Dyer)Andreas Beckett…CaptureJacquelyn Dowsett…DancerSuzanne C. Robertson…Belle / Fan / Tiny Tim / Cratchit Children Skin Texture Reference

Sources: imdb & wikipedia

The post A Christmas Carol (2009) first appeared on TellUsEpisode.net.

from WordPress https://www.tellusepisode.net/a-christmas-carol-2009.html

[newyorktheater]

Who knew that “A Christmas Carol” could be so dangerous!

The assaults begin even before the first line of dialogue in the new, charming if overlong, and extraordinarily well-designed Broadway production of Charles Dickens’ 1843 classic, starring Campbell Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge and Andrea Martin and LaChanze as Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present. Cast members on the stage dressed as 19th century English blokes and birds throw clementines and cookies to (at?) the audience…vigorously.

“I’m suing,” said somebody sitting behind me, in a comical impression of Scrooge, after he was hit by one of the packages of chocolate chips.  “Are you an attorney?”

Later, at a climactic moment in the story, an entire Christmas dinner comes shooting down from the mezzanine, piece by piece. Long links of sausages dropped directly onto audience laps, and we were urged to pass them onto the stage, where the spectacular feast was assembled.

These enlivening assaults by food were part of the production’s wondrous stagecraft, which also features a dark set warmly lit by lanterns and graced by bells, and two separate snow storms – which looked and felt like real snow (in control to the paper blizzard at Slava’s Snowshow.) There are also a dozen Christmas carols. The first song is worked into the narrative humorously:

Carol singers who show up at Scrooge’s door: oh tidings of comfort and joy, Comfort and joy Scrooge: Oh Christ Carol singers: God rest ye merry gentlemen Let nothing you dismay Scrooge: You dismay me.

The last carol — Silent Night, performed entirely by handbells held by the cast – concludes the show and is one of the two most moving moments in it.

The other moment, surprisingly moving, involves Tiny Tim, portrayed refreshingly by one of two young boys who have disabilities (I saw it with Sebastian Ortiz.) He hugs Scrooge and says “God Bless Us Every One.”

Originally produced by the Old Vic in England, this Christmas Carol is a fairly faithful adaptation of the story of a miser’s redemption after a nightmarish visit by several ghosts. All the changes to the tale are slight and beneficial, especially the effort at an inclusive cast: All three ghosts, for example, are women.  The whole enterprise reflects the trademark strengths of its creative team — written by Jack Thorne, the playwright of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, and directed by Michael Warchus, whose extensive Broadway credits include “Ghost The Musical,” “Matilda The Musical” and “Groundhog Day.” The cast narrates as a group, divvying up the lines. One scene is conducted between a performer in a box seat and another in the mezzanine!

If I may be a (pre-redeemed) Scrooge for a moment: The enticing promise of the stars in the cast doesn’t really get fulfilled: Andrea Martin plays it straight, and LaChanze doesn’t get any solos. At two hours over two acts (plus a 15 minutes intermission), this A Christmas Carol feels too long. It’s also a bit rich to be offering a lesson against avarice and yet charge up to $179 a ticket. With so many theaters all over the city offering the same story (at far less cost), the Broadway production is not a must-see.

But there’s that real snow, and the warm lanterns, and those bells… and the uplifting message that Scrooge can finally hear: “Change is within all of us. It’s why life is such a thrill.”

A Christmas Carol Ethel Barrymore Theater Adapted by Jack Thorne from Charles Dickens. Directed by Matthew Warchus. Set and costume design by Rob Howell, lighting design by Hugh Vanstone, sound design by Simon Baker, composed, orchestrated and arranged by Christopher Nightingale, movement by Lizzi Gee. Cast: Campbell Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge, Andrea Martin as Ghost of Christmas Past, and LaChanze as Ghost of Christmas Present/Mrs. Fezziwig. Erica Dorfler as Mrs. Cratchit, Dashiell Eaves as Bob Cratchit, Hannah Elless as Jess, Brandon Gill as Fred, Evan Harrington as Fezziwig, Chris Hoch as Father/Marley, Sarah Hunt as Belle, Matthew Labanca as Nicholas, Alex Nee as Ferdy, Dan Piering as Young Ebenezer/George, and Rachel Prather as Little Fan. Sebastian Ortiz and Jai Ram Srinivasan share the role of Tiny Tim. Running time: 2 hours and 15 minutes (including one intermission) Tickets: $49 to $179 A Christmas Carol is on stage through January 5, 2020.

A Christmas Carol Broadway Review: Dicken’s Tale with Campbell Scott as Scrooge, Andrea Martin and LaChanze as Ghosts, food assaults, and real snow Who knew that “A Christmas Carol” could be so dangerous! The assaults begin even before the first line of dialogue in the new, charming if overlong, and extraordinarily well-designed Broadway production of Charles Dickens’ 1843 classic, starring Campbell Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge and Andrea Martin and LaChanze as Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present.

[princesssarisa]

"A Christmas Carol": Canon vs. Fanon

@ariel-seagull-wings, @reds-revenge, @thealmightyemprex, @the-blue-fairie, @thatscarletflycatcher, @faintingheroine

Since my overview of the various Christmas Carol adaptations isn't finished yet, and since the Christmas season doesn't officially end (as per the Church calendar) until this coming Friday, I thought I would share another Christmas Carol-related post. A long one, addressing the always-important subject in fiction fandoms of "canon vs. fanon." Certain details that are widely believed and used in adaptations, but which aren't really true, or necessarily true, in the book.

Belle is Fezziwig’s daughter. As far as I know, this is only true in the musical Scrooge: the original 1970 film, the 1992 stage version, and the 2022 animated remake Scrooge: A Christmas Carol. The book never says any such thing. Fezziwig does have three daughters, but we don’t know if Belle is one of them or not.

Belle left Scrooge because he repeatedly insisted on delaying their wedding until he had earned more money. In The Muppet Christmas Carol, the direct catalyst for Belle ending their engagement is that Scrooge insists on postponing their wedding for “another year.” A few other versions also allude to Scrooge’s insisting on delaying their marriage. But the book says nothing about wedding-postponement; Belle only speaks of Scrooge having lost all his “nobler aspirations” in favor of “the master-passion, Gain,” and of knowing that if they weren’t engaged already, he would never choose to marry a girl as poor as she is.

Bob Cratchit has to plead for Scrooge to give him Christmas Day off. This is probably another misconception that stems from The Muppet Christmas Carol, where Scrooge initially tries to give Bob and the other bookkeepers just half an hour off on Christmas morning, and Bob is forced to persuade him not to open the office on Christmas because all the other businesses will be closed. But the equivalent scene in the book doesn't play out this way. Scrooge complains about having to give Bob the day off, but he makes no attempt to avoid doing it. Since some employers in 19th century London did make their employees work on Christmas Day – for example, the milliner whom Martha Cratchit works for – the fact that Scrooge does give Bob the day off without being asked, despite complaining about it, is probably an early hint that he's not all bad.

Character names. Mrs. Cratchit's first name is never given as "Emily" – that name comes from The Muppet Christmas Carol. Fred's surname is never said to be "Holywell" – that name comes from the 1984 TV adaptation with George C. Scott. Scrooge's ex-fiancée is named Belle, not Isabel – unless you're talking about the musical Scrooge or Mickey's Christmas Carol. Somehow or other, these specific names from adaptations have stuck in people's consciousness and been applied to all versions of the characters, when Dickens never wrote them.

Fan died in childbirth. The 1951 film has firmly planted this assumption in many minds: that Scrooge's sister Fan died at Fred’s birth and Scrooge despises his nephew because he blames him for her death. But Dickens’ Ghost of Christmas Past only says, “She died a woman, and had, as I think, children,” and Scrooge replies “One child.” No one ever says she died in childbirth.

Mrs. Fezziwig is fat. “One vast, substantial smile” is the way the book describes her; this is all we have to indicate whether or not she’s fat.

Marley’s Ghost dwells in hell. Few of us can forget the dark comedy sequence in 1970’s Scrooge where Marley’s Ghost welcomes Scrooge into hell during his vision of Christmas Yet to Come. Nor is that film the only version to imply that Marley resides in hell and that Scrooge will too unless he redeems himself. Even in The Muppet Christmas Carol, the deleted last verse of the song “Marley and Marley” implies that the ghosts are going back to hell after visiting Scrooge. But the book’s theology is nowhere near so traditional. Marley never mentions hell: he only speaks of wandering the world. In Dickens’s Carol, it seems that hell is on earth. The souls of sinners are punished not with fire and brimstone, but by being forced to wander and helplessly witness the suffering of the living, which they either caused or failed to alleviate when they themselves were alive.

Mrs. Dilber is Scrooge’s charwoman. First of all, Mrs. Dilber is the laundress in the rag-and-bone shop sequence. Despite several adaptations giving the charwoman her name instead, the latter goes unnamed in the book. Secondly, there’s no indication that either thieving woman works for Scrooge, rather than for the person handling his affairs after his death. Scrooge himself shows no sign of knowing the thieves. (Though to be fair, it’s not out-of-character for Scrooge to pay so little attention to his own charwoman and laundress that he doesn’t recognize them, and their insulting remarks about him can be seen to imply that they knew him personally.) Memorable though Mrs. Dilber’s role is as Marley’s and later Scrooge’s charwoman in the 1951 film, it isn’t her role in the book.

Scrooge buys a goose for the Cratchits on Christmas morning. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard Scrooge’s gift of poultry referred to as a goose. I even remember once reading a review of one of the film versions where the critic complained that the screenplay “Americanized” the gift by changing it from a goose into a turkey. But these are Dickens’ words: “It was a Turkey!” When people misremember it as a goose, they’re confusing it with the goose the Cratchits eat in the Christmas Present sequence. Scrooge’s turkey popularized turkey for Christmas dinner after A Christmas Carol became a success and helped lead to its replacing goose as the most ubiquitous Christmas poultry.

Scrooge’s chief vice is that he hates Christmas. It should go without saying that this is a gross oversimplification. Scrooge’s greed and miserliness, his cold indifference to the poor, his shabby treatment of Bob Cratchit and neglect of Bob’s needy family, his rejection of his own nephew, and his general bitterness and self-isolation from the world are all more significant than his disdain for Christmas. The latter is only a symptom of a much larger problem and his ultimate vow to “honor Christmas in [his] heart” means to embrace the spirit of love and good will, not just to celebrate the holiday.

Scrooge changes his ways out of fear. Again and again in pop culture, we hear the claim that Scrooge is “frightened into changing.” But if fear were all it took, then only Marley’s ghost would need to visit to warn him of damnation, or else only the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to show him his bleak, lonely death. The Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present would serve no purpose. That statement overlooks the fact that reliving his past softens his heart by reawakening old emotions and reminding him of what his greed cost him, that seeing others’ present joy at Christmas makes him want to share it, and that observing the Cratchits and Tiny Tim teaches him to care about them and want to help them.

Scrooge constantly says “Bah! Humbug!” Believe it or not, he only utters those iconic words together twice. Several other times he says “humbug” by itself, but only twice, in just one scene, does he precede it with “Bah!”

Scrooge fell in love with Belle while working for Fezziwig. It’s ubiquitous for adaptations of the Carol to show Belle at the Fezziwig Christmas party. Whether young Scrooge is shown proposing to her there, meeting her there for the first time, or just dancing with her, even the most faithful adaptations include her. It’s easy to forget that Dickens doesn’t feature her in that sequence at all! We don’t know if Scrooge met and fell in love with her while he was Fezziwig’s apprentice or later in his youth. The book never tells us.

Scrooge has a large hooked nose. It’s been ubiquitous to depict Scrooge this way ever since John Leech did in his original illustrations. Of course, Leech didn’t work in a vacuum either: nearly all greedy or miserly men in fiction tend to be depicted with large curving noses, probably because greed, miserliness, and large hooked noses are all anti-Semitic stereotypes (see “Scrooge is Jewish” below). But Dickens only describes Scrooge’s nose as “pointed.” He never mentions its size or anything else about its shape.

Scrooge is a crooked businessman. Occasionally, adaptations will hint that Scrooge engages in illegal business practices. But the book never implies any such thing. He's just an extremely conservative businessman, who strictly and coldly follows the rules of making profit, and follows the rules of decency and charity that his society enforces (e.g. paying his taxes to support the workhouses for the poor, giving his clerk a Christmas holiday with pay), but sees no point in doing anything beyond that. His harshest, most unfeeling speeches were typical conservative arguments in the politics of Dickens's England. He sees himself as having done nothing wrong, and the fact that Dickens calls him a "sinner" anyway reflects a perspective other than the law.

Scrooge is a fair and reasonable employer to Bob Cratchit. This argument is sometimes made by conservative critics. After all, Bob and his family live in a house, not a tenement (never mind that it’s a four-room house for eight people), they can afford a goose and plum pudding for Christmas dinner (never mind that their feast would have probably cost Bob a full week’s wages), and Scrooge gives him Christmas Day off with pay (just one day off a year, with extreme reluctance). As for Scrooge’s stinginess with the coal in his office, these critics say, why shouldn’t Bob just wear an overcoat and save the money? (Never mind that Bob has no overcoat.) And as for Tiny Tim, they say, most families lost at least one child in the days before modern medicine. (As if that somehow exempted employers from trying to save their employees’ children from preventable deaths.) Besides, they say, it was irresponsible of Bob and his wife to have six children in the first place. (To quote the Ghost of Christmas Present: “Oh God! To hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!”) It should go without saying that these arguments are precisely the kind of sentiments Dickens wrote the Carol to argue against.

Scrooge is Jewish. It’s no surprise that some people jump to this conclusion. Many aspects of Scrooge’s character mirror anti-Semitic stereotypes. He’s greedy, miserly, works as a financier, disdains Christmas, has a Hebrew name from the Old Testament (Ebenezer), and in pop culture is often depicted with a large, hooked nose (see above). It’s entirely fair for critics to complain about the Jewish “coding” in his character. But if Dickens had meant for Scrooge to literally be a Jew, he would presumably have called him a Jew, as he notoriously did with Oliver Twist’s Fagin. Old Testament names were common among Christians in 18th and 19th century England, Scrooge’s nephew Fred is a Christmas-loving Christian, and in the Christmas Past sequence, his sister Fan says they’ll be together “all the Christmas long,” indicating that his family celebrated the holiday in his childhood. There’s no real hint of Jewishness whatsoever.

Scrooge only pursued wealth for Belle’s sake until after she left him. Some critics try to defend young Scrooge against Belle’s accusation that “another idol [had] displaced [her]” by arguing that he only wanted to be rich for her sake, and that he only really turned to greed to fill the void after she ended their engagement. Several adaptations also emphasize that his motive (at least at first) was to provide for Belle. But Dickens’s young Scrooge never argues that he only pursues wealth for Belle’s sake – only that he’s grown “wiser” by striving to stave off poverty, and that despite it all he’s not changed toward Belle. Nor does Dickens’s narration ever imply that Belle judges him unfairly. He describes young Scrooge’s face as already showing signs of “avarice,” with “an eager, greedy, restless motion in the eye, which showed the passion that had taken root.” And when Belle says that if their engagement had never been, he would never choose a dowerless bride now, Dickens writes that he “seemed to yield to the justice of this supposition” before attempting “with a struggle” to deny it… and even then, he never says he would still choose her, only “You think not.” It seems to me that Dickens meant for Belle to be right.

Scrooge’s father was cold and distant because of grief at his wife’s death. Again and again, adaptations of Scrooge’s childhood explicitly state that Scrooge’s mother is dead, and often imply that his father was embittered and hardened by his grief for his wife, explaining why he neglected his son at boarding school. But the book never even mentions Scrooge’s mother. She might have still been alive when he was a child, for all we know. Nor is any explanation given for why his father neglected him, nor for why he eventually became kinder and brought him home.  Dickens didn’t choose to flesh out Scrooge’s childhood that far.

Scrooge’s mother died at his birth. Elaborating on the above, the two most acclaimed film versions of the Carol (the 1951 and 1984 versions) both explicitly say that Scrooge’s mother died in childbirth and his father neglected him because he blamed him for her death. But as mentioned above, Scrooge’s mother is never actually said to be dead. Furthermore, Fan is Scrooge’s younger sister in the book (the ’51 and  ’84 film versions both make her the older sibling, a young woman instead of a child), so unless their father remarried and she’s actually Scrooge’s half-sister, Scrooge’s birth couldn’t possibly have killed their mother.

Scrooge’s only childhood hardship was loneliness. Rarely do adaptations depict Scrooge’s childhood boarding school as the decrepit place the book describes, with its damp and decaying exterior, cold and dreary rooms, and air of “too much getting up by candle-light, and not too much to eat.” Nor do they usually portray the schoolmaster (if they depict him at all) as the imposing figure with the “terrible voice” and glare of “ferocious condescension” that Dickens describes. It’s a surprise that even the adaptations most determined to flesh out Scrooge’s backstory tend to just highlight the loneliness of his childhood, and/or his mistreatment by his father that the book only vaguely alludes to, rather than lean hard into the “Dickensian” nature of the school as Dickens described it.

Scrooge's worst traumas all happened at Christmas, which is why he hates the holiday. Well, it's true that young Scrooge was at his loneliest at Christmas as a boy, when he was left alone at boarding school while all the other boys went home. And it's true that his only friend Jacob Marley died on Christmas Eve. It's also probably true that Belle broke off their engagement at Christmastime – all the other scenes the Ghost of Christmas past shows to Scrooge takes place at Christmas, so it does seem most likely that this particular scene does too. But Dickens never explicitly names Christmas as the time when Belle and Scrooge's split took place. Most adaptations place it on Christmas Eve or thereabouts, but at least one very book-faithful adaptation, Richard Williams's 1971 animated short, sets the scene in a green park in the spring or summer. Nor, unlike in some adaptations, is Fan said to have died at Christmastime. She almost definitely didn't, since the Ghost only mentions her death rather than taking Scrooge to revisit it.

Scrooge visits the Cratchit house on Christmas Day. Many adaptations condense the action to have Scrooge visit the Cratchits and show them his newfound benevolence on Christmas Day itself. But in the book, he reveals his transformation to Bob when he arrives at work on St. Stephen’s Day.

Scrooge wears a nightshirt throughout his adventure with the spirits. So many adaptations depict Scrooge in a nightshirt that it can be hard to imagine him dressed in any other way. This is no doubt enhanced by the fact that in John Leech’s original illustrations, Scrooge’s dressing gown is white – since we rarely see white dressing gowns made for men in modern times, it’s easy to mistake it for a long nightshirt. But the book describes him as putting on his dressing gown and nightcap over his day clothes before settling down by the fire to eat his gruel (an understandable choice at night in the era before central heating, especially since miserly Scrooge doesn’t make his fire very big), and after his exhausting encounter with Marley’s Ghost, he falls into bed “without undressing.” Even in Leech’s illustrations, his trouser leg is visible in the scene where he kneels at his own grave. A book-accurate Scrooge would spend his whole adventure with the ghosts wearing his dressing gown over his shirt and trousers: a costume that so far, only a handful of screen Scrooges have worn.

The Ghost of Christmas Past and Scrooge fly over the rooftops of London before they arrive in the past. This is a ubiquitous image from the screen adaptations, starting with the 1938 MGM film. But in the book, they simply pass through the wall of Scrooge’s chamber and are instantly standing in the countryside of his boyhood.

The Ghost of Christmas Past is female, or of indeterminate gender. The ghost is described as “it,” but so are Jacob Marley and the Ghost of Christmas Present, despite their blatantly male appearance. As for Christmas Past, its strange appearance is likened to both a child and an old man, and Scrooge addresses it as “sir”. That said, its touch is described as being “gentle as a woman’s hand,” and since its gender makes no difference to the plot, it makes sense that so many adaptations should cast it as female to add another role for an actress to a largely male-dominated story.

The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is a skeleton beneath its cloak. The final ghost’s resemblance to the Grim Reaper has led several adaptations to imply, or eventually show, that its hidden form is that of a skeleton. But the book repeatedly describes the ghost's outstretched pointing hand, the only part of its body not hidden by the cloak, and its main method of communication to Scrooge. Nothing indicates that this hand is anything but a human hand with flesh on it. So at the very least, the ghost isn't entirely skeletal.

The great tragedy of Scrooge’s past was the loss of Belle. Many an adaptation gives Scrooge’s childhood a perfunctory treatment, or even passes it over altogether, and derive the chief pathos and lesson of the Christmas Past sequence from Scrooge’s broken engagement to Belle. But while Dickens’s Scrooge is obviously pained by revisiting that memory, and by the sight of her children who could have been his, he shows much more anguish at seeing himself as a neglected child alone in the bleak boarding school. He weeps uncontrollably when he revisits his childhood. So many adaptations reverse those emotional beats, having him show only restrained sadness over his childhood but then break down in tears over Belle’s departure. But those are adaptations, not the book.

The male thief in the Christmas Yet to Come sequence is an undertaker. Even though adaptations tend to portray him as the undertaker himself, the book calls him “the undertaker’s man.” He’s just an assistant, making it all the more natural that he should supplement his low income by pawning stolen goods.

The third spirit is called the Ghost of Christmas Future. No, it’s called the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.

The three spirits are the ghosts of people from Scrooge’s past. I remember once reading a short sequel to the Carol by a modern author, which revealed that the Ghost of Christmas Past was the ghost of Belle, the Ghost of Christmas Present was Fezziwig, and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was Dick Wilkins. Each one of the spirits has also been speculated to be the ghost of Fan, or portrayed as such in some adaptation or other. This is pure speculation, though. There’s no hint that any of the Ghosts of Christmas were ever human.

The visions of Christmas Yet to Come all take place at the same Christmas. People tend to assume that Scrooge's death and Tiny Tim's death are shown as taking place near the same time. This leads some to assume that Scrooge has only a year left to live at the end of the story, since the Ghost of Christmas Present predicted that with no change, Tim would have died in less than a year. But if Scrooge has only a year left to live, then how would he have enough time to become "a second father" to Tiny Tim, and how could it always be said of him that he knew how to keep Christmas well if he won't live to see another Christmas? Of course we could assume that after his transformation, his new lease on life will give him more years to live. But Dickens writes that the visions of the future seemed to occur in no particular order. So it might be that while the scene dealing with Tiny Tim's death takes place only a year in the future, the scenes dealing with Scrooge's death take place many years later.

Tiny Tim is a saintly, all-forgiving child. Several adaptations show Tim echoing his father’s gratitude to Scrooge, eagerly drinking the toast to him, and/or objecting to his other family members’ negative talk about him. But surprisingly, the book implies that even Tim shares his mother’s grim view of Scrooge rather than his father’s generous spirit toward him. “Tiny Tim drank [the toast to Scrooge] last of all,” Dickens writes, “but he didn’t care twopence for it.”

Tiny Tim is the youngest Cratchit child. This is an easy assumption to make, and the book never contradicts it. But it never explicitly calls him the youngest either. It’s possible (not necessary, but possible) to interpret the description of Tim’s unnamed brother and sister as “the two young Cratchits” as indicting that those two are the youngest children and Tim is slightly older. At least one adaptation, the 1999 TV film with Patrick Stewart, portrays them this way.

Tiny Tim has a chronic cough. Several adaptations – The Muppet Christmas Carol, 2001's Christmas Carol: The Movie, and 2022's Scrooge: A Christmas Carol – use the classic shorthand for "very sick" by giving Tiny Tim a bad cough. But the book never describes him as coughing. Might he have had a cough, though? Well, that depends on what disease he has, which we don't know. If we assume he has spinal tuberculosis, like Dickens's young nephew Harry Burnett Jr. who allegedly inspired the character, then he likely has pulmonary tuberculosis too, and presumably does have a cough. But if he has some other disease, then he might not. (See below for more on the subject.)

Tiny Tim was crippled from birth. Every now and then we hear this statement in descriptions of the character. But the book never actually specifies if Tim was born with his disability or not. Since Tim’s disease is never specified (see below), it’s impossible to know if he was born with it or developed it later.

Tiny Tim’s illness. We only know that Tim has his limbs supported by an iron frame and requires a crutch to walk, has a small, feeble voice and “withered” hands, and would have died within a year if not for Scrooge’s transformation. But he survives (though the text never says he was cured, only that he didn’t die) thanks to Scrooge improving the Cratchits’ fortunes. Several theories exist regarding his disease. One possibility is Pott’s Disease, which Dickens’s young nephew Harry Burnett Jr. suffered from: spinal tuberculosis, which wasn’t curable in the 19th century, but could go into remission with the right care and nutrition. Another is renal tubular acidosis, a kidney disease that makes the blood too acidic and causes bone deterioration: this disease was curable in the 19th century, though its rareness makes some critics doubt that Dickens would have thought of it. Yet another suggestion is rickets, although this is a nutritional disorder, so it seems unlikely because none of Tim’s siblings seem to be affected. Cases can be made both for and against quite a few different diseases.

[princesssarisa]

One of the arguable weaknesses of 2022's Scrooge: A Christmas Carol, yet one of its most interesting aspects, is how much it derives from other adaptations of A Christmas Carol, both major and minor. Having just watched and rewatched so many versions, I can name a long list of inspirations that this version draws from others.

I'm not counting the parallels with Scrooge (1970), because this version is officially a remake of that one. But it draws considerably from other versions too.

*Scrooge has a bulldog, Prudence, who serves as his constant, often comic companion. – The 1997 animated version, where Scrooge has a similar bulldog companion named Debit.

(Note: While I think it's out of character for Scrooge to own a dog no matter what, I do think Debit is better utilized than Prudence. In the first place, Scrooge keeps him for practical reasons, as a guard dog to scare away unwanted visitors, and he acts fierce because Scrooge has trained him to, even though he really wants to be friendly; Prudence is just a pet, without a scary bone in her body. Secondly, Scrooge treats him shabbily at first, always snapping at him and insulting him; only after his transformation does he treat him with kindness. 2022 Scrooge is reasonably kind to Prudence from the start, which is more politically correct but detracts from his character arc. I like Prudence's role in Christmas Yet to Come, though, where she sees future-Scrooge's coffin and tries in vain to convey the bad news to present-Scrooge, and where her future self is the only creature who mourns at Scrooge's grave.)

*Tiny Tim has a chronic cough. – The Muppet Christmas Carol and Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001).

*Marley's Ghost (and Scrooge's ghost in the future) has coins for eyes. – Disney's 2009 motion-capture film, with its prologue that shows Marley's body in his coffin with coins placed on his eyes to keep them closed, which Scrooge steals to recompense himself for the undertaker's fee.

*Marley's jaw accidentally comes unhinged as he speaks to Scrooge, and the moment is played for laughs (unlike in the book, where he purposefully lets it drop to scare Scrooge and it's played for horror). – Again, Disney's 2009 motion-capture film also does this.

*The Ghost of Christmas Past is a living candle, with a wax body and a flame on her head. – Again, Disney's 2009 motion-capture film, which also gives the Ghost a candle-inspired design.

*Scrooge's childhood is rewritten to resemble Charles Dickens's childhood, so that instead of being abandoned in boarding school by his father, he's forced to work in a boot-blacking factory after his father is sent to debtor's prison. – A Christmas Carol: The Musical (2004), which makes the same change.

*In the past, Jacob Marley is portrayed as much older than Scrooge and an established businessman, whose apprentice Scrooge was before he became his partner, whom he left Fezziwig to work for, and whose influence slowly corrupted him. – The 1951 Alastair Sim version, where an original businessman character named Mr. Jorkin plays much the same role that Marley does in the 2022 version.

(Note: I like the fact that this version uses Marley in a Mr. Jorkin- inspired role. I've often thought to myself that the 1951 film could have easily used Marley in that role instead of adding a new character. After all, the fact that Marley is dead and that his ghost's hair and clothes are 18th century in style could well imply that he was much older than Scrooge.)

*Scrooge's sister Jen died in childbirth, which is why Scrooge despises his nephew. – Many adaptations, but the first that I know of where Fan died in childbirth was the 1951 Alastair Sim version.

*Isabel sees Scrooge and Marley sending a poor baker (Bob Cratchit's father) to debtor's prison, and this becomes her catalyst for ending her engagement to Scrooge. – The 1935 Seymour Hicks version, where Belle sees Scrooge being merciless to a poor debtor couple in his office.

*Scrooge sings to his younger self in "Later Never Comes," begging him not to let Isabel go. – The 1999 Patrick Stewart version, Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001), and A Christmas Carol: The Musical (2004), where he shouts at his younger self to go after Belle.

*The Ghost of Christmas Present is portrayed as a black man – A Christmas Carol: The Musical (2004), where he's also a black man, and the 1997 animated version, where she's a black woman.

*The Cratchit children include identical twin girls. – The Muppet Christmas Carol's Belinda and Bettina.

*The Ghost of Christmas Present clutches his heart in pain when his time on earth comes to an end. – Disney's 2009 motion-capture film (although there the Ghost dies, decays, and tuns to dust, while here he transforms into the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come).

*The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come has glowing eyes. – The 1999 Patrick Stewart version.

*When Bob is mourning at Tiny Tim's grave, Tim's crutch is propped against the grave marker. – Mickey's Christmas Carol, where Mickey/Bob places it there, and A Christmas Carol: The Musical (2004), where Mrs. Cratchit places it there.

*Scrooge sees his own burial, carried out by two cheerfully disrespectful men. – Again, Mickey's Christmas Carol.

*Scrooge sees his own ghost rise from his grave in Christmas Yet to Come. – The 2006 animated film, where he sees his own ghost wandering with Marley.

*Instead of pleading for himself at his own grave, Scrooge resigns himself to his damnation, but begs to be allowed to save Tiny Tim. – The 2019 miniseries with Guy Pearce.

I could probably find of even more influences if I rewatched the movie a second time. But even just watching it once, I noticed this formidable list. I guess this sort of thing happens when a book has been adapted so many, many times.

[princesssarisa]

A Christmas Carol Holiday Season: "A Christmas Carol: Scrooge's Ghostly Tale" (2006 animated feature)

We now reach (as far as I know) the first CGI animated version of A Christmas Carol. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly good one. But it is an interesting version. That I'll grant.

This retelling takes place in a world of animals. Scrooge is a skunk, as are his nephew Fred and sister Fan. Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim, and their family are rabbits. Marley's Ghost is a cricket, and in a possible reference to another Dickens story, The Cricket on the Hearth, he emerges from Scrooge's fireplace. The Ghost of Christmas Past is a Scottish-accented stork, the Ghost of Christmas Present is an Australian-accented kangaroo, and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (who speaks in this version) is a walrus with a broken tusk. The two charitable gentlemen are bears, and the other London citizens are an assortment of frogs, cats, turtles, horses, mice, and such.

Predictably, this retelling is very much aimed at children, and the story is accordingly condensed and sometimes rewritten. Christmas Past leaves out Fezziwig and Belle, instead focusing on the child Scrooge's neglect and loneliness, and showing that he became estranged from Fan after Fred's birth made her unable to bring her younger brother to live with her. But Christmas Yet to Come gets more extensive changes. In the vision of the future, Tiny Tim is still alive and grown up, but his bad leg has been amputated, which has left him just as bitter and mean as Scrooge was. Meanwhile, Scrooge is said to have died when his hoarded pile of gold coins fell and crushed him, and at the cemetery, he sees his own ghost chained and wandering with Marley. Last but not least, after Scrooge redeems himself (and makes Bob Cratchit his partner, as in three earlier animated versions), he once again sees Marley, who for helping him is freed from his chain and rises up to heaven.

I have to admit that this Carol's main value is just as a curiosity. The CGI animation is generally crude and ugly, and while the voice actors do a fine job with their roles, the characters are written as caricatures of themselves. None of Dickens's original dialogue is used, but several quotes are borrowed from the 1951 Alastair Sim film, making me suspect that the screenwriters just watched that movie and didn't bother to read the book. The soundtrack also includes two mediocre songs – "Hey, Hey, Hey, Holiday," sung by Fred and his guests, and "A Second Chance," sung by Scrooge – despite the fact that the rest of the production isn't a musical.

Small children might enjoy this Carol, but personally, even for small children, I'd recommend many other versions above this one.

@ariel-seagull-wings, @faintingheroine, @reds-revenge, @thealmightyemprex, @thatscarletflycatcher