I don't think there's a need to get huffy. People who have differing views of a film's strengths and weaknesses can do so in a civil tone. I put the question in the interests of having a dialogue on the subject.
Drinking “the milk of human kindness” (which you dismiss as Scrooge just getting drunk) is meant to show that he CAN enjoy life, instead of being miserable. Maybe you think people have no business dancing, having cheerful libations, and playing games on Christmas (ie it isn’t “humble” enough for you)
Not in the least. But when that's the *only* thing I see in the film and all the other parts of the story that Christmas Present shows Scrooge of miners toiling who are still filled with Christmas cheer despite having nothing, or bringing Scrooge to far distant places where the good cheer is felt even by the lonely sailors or the solitary lighthouse keeper get left out, that's when the *balance* can seem off and we're seeing too much of one thing over-emphasized.
Besides even when Scrooge has all that "milk of human kindness" he still feels compelled to say of his nephew, "He's stupid! He's always been stupid!"
I certainly don't ignore the lines about finding the doctors etc. and what he'll give to the gentlemen for charity each year (though the way Scrooge is going overboard he's not likely to have a hundred guineas left to give to charity next Christmas!) the problem again with me is they come off more like an afterthought when they're taking place amidst the much too long production number and isn't flowing naturally from the proceedings. The moment of giving the good news to Bob shouldn't come as a quickie interlude between choruses IMO.
As for lack of humility, well, I think when the townspeople who are supposed to be the wonderful normal people who are in debt to Scrooge decide to throw a production number of celebration over a death, they're in a strange way demonstrating that perhaps they're showing a rather dark side of themselves that isn't particularly pleasant. I'm sure that moment works in the context of black comedy to get a laugh from the audience but to me it doesn't hold up well on repeat viewings.
I won't disagree on how "Happiness" is a beautiful song. I just think it should have been a duet to give more substance to showing young Scrooge in love (the stage adaptation does fix this point).
and the touching reprise of the song as Bob mourns the death of his little boy. Yeah, that sure is an example of Bricusse thinking the story is “one big jolly party” (as you put it), isn’t it
Well yeah, considering how Bob's mourning for Tim takes up so little screen time because we've just had the aforementioned black comedy party number of death celebration going on for over five minutes! The jolly old party spirit still came first and from my standpoint proves my point on how the balance can seem off to someone else watching the film.
Oh, and let’s not forget the “Scrooge goes to hell” scene (meant to hammer home the consequences of his nonredemption), which is a REALLY “jolly party”.
I'd like to forget the Hell sequence because that scene alone shows a screenwriter who doesn't "get" the source material. The whole point of Jacob Marley visiting Scrooge was because Marley considered Scrooge his friend and wanted him to avoid his fate. When you show Marley as a sadistic fop enjoying Scrooge's predicament then the focus has been turned upside down from the story's actual intent.
These are just subjective views. I put my question out of genuine interest in hearing what those who think this is the best cinematic take on the story have to say and if they can give some thoughtful answers to the questions I raise. I'm still open to hearing them.
reply
share
robert3750
10 years ago
Not in the least. But when that's the *only* thing I see in the film.
The “only thing”?? Like I said, you seemed determined to ignore scenes in the movie (such as the Cratchit Christmas) that don’t fit your predetermined characterization. I’ve given plenty of examples showing that your depiction of the movie as showing Christmas as nothing but partying and presents is flat out wrong.
Besides even when Scrooge has all that "milk of human kindness" he still feels compelled to say of his nephew, "He's stupid! He's always been stupid!"
All that shows is that it’s going to take time for Scrooge. What, you expected an instant transformation? I can just imagine how you would have jumped all over THAT.
You also complain that no friend would ever use the scared straight tactic. Not exactly proven.
The rest of your criticisms seem more like complaints about big lengthy musical numbers in a movie. I suggest you not watch a movie with such a structure (Oliver is another example).
These are just subjective views.
Subjective views are fine. What’s not fine is mischaracterizing the movie (“it’s nothing but parties and presents”) to support them.
reply
share
Eric-62-2
10 years ago
Like I said, you seemed determined to ignore scenes in the movie (such as the Cratchit Christmas) that don’t fit your predetermined characterization. I’ve given plenty of examples showing that your depiction of the movie as showing Christmas as nothing but partying and presents is flat out wrong.
I've never disputed the film has some things going for it, because if I 'hated it' like the original poster of this thread did, I wouldn't watch it, but my criticisms stem from what I perceive as an *imbalance* in which the partying is front and center above the sense of what the "true meaning of Christmas" message of the story is supposed to be. The Cratchit Christmas is not given anywhere near the level of heart that the standard tellings give us (Bob's observation about what Tiny Tim said in church) plus there's the fact that only in Bricusse's script it seems could Bob be given dialogue that makes him come off as dense ("But his money paid for the goose...."; "But he paid me"....."Mr. Scrooge assures me times are difficult.") instead of trying to extend Christmas cheer to someone he knows mistreats him.
I'm not ignoring scenes in the movie, I'm merely pointing out the things that Bricusse ignored from the story that to some people have much to do with what the whole point of the story and Scrooge's transformation is about, and which IMO explains why the film as a whole tends to be seen in a more negative light compared to other adaptations (just for the record even the ones that I think are the best are not without flaws too. Sim's version is the best IMO but it inexcusably leaves out the scene of Scrooge meeting the gentlemen again to tell them to accept his contribution to the poor). If you really think it was impossible for any of these elements to be retained and augmented into the script and that Bricusse wrote the most perfect adaptation treatment imaginable than I guess that's the real crux of the impasse we seem to find ourselves at.
The rest of your criticisms seem more like complaints about big lengthy musical numbers in a movie.
Not in the least. I can easily envision "Thank You Very Much" springing more organically if its a number that starts with Bob after Scrooge springs the surprise on him about doubling his salary, providing for Tiny Tim etc. That would be how you can get a production number that fits more with the story instead of shoehorning things to fit the song. It isn't the fact there's a production number that's the problem it's to me all in the *execution* which springs from how Bricusse handled the source material. Let's face it, it's not a slur on his honor to say that Bricusse was a much better songwriter (and I'm among the first to say he's gotten a bum rap from critics regarding the dissing that usually happens for all the numbers other than "Thank You Very Much") than he was a pure writer for the screen and this is the only time in his career he ever did a screen adaptation from an existing story. ("Doctor Doolittle" was an entirely original script and that of course wasn't exactly the greatest screenwriting effort either).
I'm still open to a discussion, but I think we can do without the snippiness. I respect those who have a higher view of the film overall than I do. It would certainly be more in keeping with the Christmas spirit to show the same in return for those who don't want to bash the film out of hand but to just have a friendly discussion.
reply
share
robert3750
10 years ago
I've never disputed the film has some things going for it, because if I 'hated it' like the original poster of this thread did, I wouldn't watch it, but my criticisms stem from what I perceive as an *imbalance* in which the partying is front and center above the sense of what the "true meaning of Christmas" message of the story is supposed to be.
But you didn’t say the partying is just emphasized (it isn’t, as I’ve shown). You said:
Bricusse seems to think that Christmas is supposed to be just one big jolly party of drinking and present accumulations.
That makes it sound as if the movie is ONLY about partying and presents. It clearly isn’t. You refuse to acknowledge this.
If you really think it was impossible for any of these elements to be retained and augmented into the script and that Bricusse wrote the most perfect adaptation treatment imaginable than I guess that's the real crux of the impasse we seem to find ourselves at.
Saying one likes something doesn’t imply it’s “perfect”, So please don’t make that strawman argument. No one said “Bricusse wrote the most perfect adaptation treatment imaginable”.
reply
share
Eric-62-2
10 years ago
That is the dominant tone that came out of this film to me. Sorry, but when you point up the exceptions, they're only for me proving the underlying point that Bricusse seems to think that the partying is first and foremost (would you prefer I use that term then "only"?) and when *every* essential part of the story that could have been included to balance that out gets jettisoned or in the examples you cited get understated, starting with the nephew's speech about Christmas then I don't think it's invalid to note that Bricusse seemingly can leave the impression that its all about having a good time or "living the life of pleasure" (to use his lyric from the "I Like Life" reprise)
If my point is really a strawman argument, then maybe you can demonstrate that by explaining just what did Bricusse *not* do right if you are insisting you don't believe he did a perfect job with the adaptation? I've at least answered your strawman charge that I'm against the idea of production numbers in a version of the story.
reply
share
robert3750-92-607013
10 years ago
Yet again, you didn't say partying was "emphasized", you said the movie was JUST about partying and presents. That claim is clearly wrong, no matter how you try to spin it by saying that the non "party" aspects weren't "prominent" enough for you. I'm not not obligated to prove a negative regarding your strawman. You made a strawman claim that isn't backed up.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
Eric-62-2
10 years ago
If the tone is 90% to 95% one way and barely 5 to 10% the other (which is what the collective sum of your counter-examples add up to and that's being overly generous) then I don't think my use of the term "only" is quite so misplaced though its unfortunate that its become your convenient excuse to avoid a serious discussion regarding the things that Bricusse left out which you can stick your fingers in your ears all you want about, but they're still there just the same and its too bad you're so insecure that you're not willing to answer objections from the other side about them and instead fall back on "Bricusse took care of everything, he was perfect!" as your only line of defense.
Since you're not going to answer any of my questions regarding what Bricusse did wrong if you really want me to take you seriously when you say you're not saying he did a 100% perfect job, or treat this discussion in a civil fashion (though I will note how you've grown silent regarding some of the points I answered completely in regard to production numbers and the Hell sequence) then its obviously a waste of time talking to you. So sorry you had to take the "Bah Humbug" approach to this but that will have to be your problem.
Time for me to watch the Alastair Sim version which had a literate script by contrast. "Scrooge" is what it always will be for me, an interesting curio of my childhood with some good songs and a few good points, but there were others who knew how to do the story better and have. But a Merry Christmas just the same to those who like this one, best.
reply
share
robert3750-92-607013
10 years ago
If the tone is 90% to 95% one way and barely 5 to 10% the other (which is what the collective sum of your counter-examples add up to and that's being overly generous) then I don't think my use of the term "only" is quite so misplaced
Your percentages are manufactured out of nothing, especially considering the fact that the film is a musical and it’s natural for big musical numbers to take up a large percentage of the film’s running time. In fact, aside from the musical numbers, there is only ONE "party scene" (his nephew's house). You might as well complain that people running around dancing and singing “Consider Yourself” doesn’t tell the story of Oliver Twist.
you're not willing to answer objections from the other side about them and instead fall back on "Bricusse took care of everything, he was perfect!" as your only line of defense.
No, what I’m unwilling to do is engage in a discussion based on YOUR false premises, namely that the film is JUST about partying and presents (I demonstrated that’s flat out wrong), and your strawman argument about perfection.
reply
share
Eric-62-2
10 years ago
You haven't demonstrated anything actually (I have to laugh when you say there's only one party scene, as if two extended "Thank You Very Much" numbers with its partying through the streets can be exempted from that), other than the fact that you're a very touchy individual who has no capacity for engaging in a civil discussion about this film. Your first post in fact was to jump in with a snotty toned comment, when I had simply asked for a dialogue with those who like the film more on these things that I have found problematic. I have answered your objections repeatedly and also proved some of your assumptions about my views wrong (like your saying I'm against production numbers) and then your modus operandi is to pretend you were never talking about that. That's my definition of pathetic.
But a Merry Christmas to you just the same.
reply
share
robert3750-92-607013
10 years ago
You missed the part where I said "apart from the musical numbers", of which "Thank you very much" is one. It's rather irrational to complain about the presence of musical numbers in a MUSICAL. All my other examples are strong, touching parts of the film, and not the least bit weak, but it's no surprise that you're so desperate to dismiss them, since they disprove your claim. I'll be enjoying the film this weekend, and dismissing YOUR Scroogish reaction to it.
reply
share
Eric-62-2
10 years ago
And once again you are distorting my comments. I said earlier my objection was the *execution* of these numbers that threw the balance off and thus created that impression that partying trumped the underlying message. The whole problem with your counterexamples as I answered them is they are presented weakly in contrast. I answered your point on Bob's mourning for Tim and how it took up so little screen time compared to the black comedy number that preceded it and how the scene with Bob on Christmas Day minimizes that part of the story for me because we have to get another overly long number that isn't proceeding organically from the script. Tough nuggie if you don't like my answer, but it was an answer and if you're going to say I didn't answer them then all we can do is add lying to your other disagreeable traits of rudeness and condescension that you've been making an art form in this thread.
reply
share
robert3750-92-607013
10 years ago
Once again, you're trying to run away from your own words. Here's what you said:
Bricusse seems to think that Christmas is supposed to be just one big jolly party of drinking and present accumulations.
The presence of the other scenes, which far outnumber the ONE party scene that's not a musical number (the movie is, after all, a MUSICAL, which makes the "thank you very much" number no more out of place than the "consider yourself" number in Oliver), makes the "It's
just one big jolly party of drinking and present accumulations claim
ludicrous (exactly where are the scenes in the "thank you very much" number preceding the Tiny Tim eulogy that show "drinking and present accumulations"??).
reply
share