Am I the only one who hated this? - Scrooge (1971) Discussion

[–] Flywiththeowl 9 years ago

Been 6 years & I doubt the OP is still reading these, but count me as another who disagrees.

I can't imagine a Christmas without watching this. The music is So festive & at times, very moving! How can anyone not see that?!

reply

[–] joesorce 9 years ago

🎄🎅AND IF I HAD A BUGLE I WOULD BLOW IT, TO ADD A SORT OF FINAL VICT'RY TOUCH🎌.........🎵but since I left me bugle at home I'd simply like to say THANK YOU VERY VERY VERY MUCH, THANK YOU VERY VERY VERY MUCH! 🎶🎅🎄

reply

[–] johandav 8 years ago

Am I the only one who hated this?

I hope so. My faith in humanity is weak enough with Trump and Clinton winning their parties nominations; I don't need to think that a bunch of people hate this great film.

Listen, brother, forty percent of all accidents represent nearly half of all accidents.

reply

[–] phillindholm 8 years ago

You can say THAT again.

reply

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

My faith in humanity is weak enough with Trump and Clinton winning their parties nominations; I don't need to think that a bunch of people hate this great film.

You know this is the kind of arrogance that this election ripped away the mask of. Just as we have too many people who refuse to take a long look and try to understand why people vote as they did (even for candidates we may not like) we also seem to have too many people who think a subjective reaction to a movie is a comment on a lack of humanity or not. I say this as someone who doesn't hate the film but who think it has some serious flaws that start chiefly with the fact that Leslie Bricusse is not a good screenplay writer and that he also jettisoned too many important parts of the Dickens original that water down what makes the original source material special. This is a point I've wanted to have a dialogue on in the past but a lot of people would rather not do that. That alas has to be their problem.

reply

[–] johandav 8 years ago

My, my, I didn't mean to strike such a nerve. The stuff about the candidates was a joke about how unpopular both of them were/are.

I love the book and different movie versions of the story. You say that you think 'Leslie Bricusse is not a good screenplay writer and that he also jettisoned too many important parts of the Dickens original that water down what makes the original source material special'.

I'm not sure what part of Dickens original story you think Bricusse jettisoned in his script. I know he changed some things (like Scrooge seeing Cratchit on Christmas instead of the day after, and he added the scene in hell, but I think he was by and large very faithful in keeping the important parts of the story intact. (It drives me crazy that in the Patrick Stewart version they have time to add several scenes that don't appear in the book, but don't have Scrooge meeting a second time with the men collecting for the poor.) What parts of Dickens' story did Bricusse eliminate that bothered you so much?

Careful, Tiny, don't bang the furniture with the crutch.

reply

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

What you said about the Stewart version is ironically the one big flaw I see in the Sim version which is otherwise the best film version of the story. I am in complete agreement with you that the second meeting with the men should always appear in every production.

Basically I think the problem with Bricusse's script is that the tone of the story just seems.....off. It's something that's become more noticeable to me from many viewings over the course of several decades while I've simultaneously had time to discover other versions of the story. Basically here are the problems I have:

1-In the Bricusse version of the tale, there is shockingly little about the meaning of the season beyond presents and partying and getting drunk. Consider how in this version we don't hear the nephew's speech about "though its never put a scrap of gold on my table etc." No in this one, he just makes a throwaway line about Scrooge still having the office open at seven. There are also no references to the religious meaning of the season. Bob and Tiny Tim didn't go to Church so goodbye to Bob recalling Tim's line about hoping people in church would see him as a cripple "and remember on Christmas who made lame beggars walk and blind men see." Dickens didn't hit us over the head with this stuff but it was still there. Remove these two simple lines and you suddenly start to see a script that overly fixates on partying. Christmas Present becomes an extended scene of Scrooge just getting giddy with drink (and still calling his nephew "Stupid!") and we don't even get Christmas Present showing the children Ignorance and Want, and this deprives us of a chance to hear Kenneth More deliver the mocking refrain, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" (More is IMO the perfect Christmas Present, yet to not hear him deliver this line is such a cheat to me) And then consider also how giving us a black comedy moment in Christmas Yet to Come for "Thank You Very Much" suddenly shows all the common folk people as ones who are not much better than Scrooge if they feel like celebrating. No Christmas spirit in these people! Yes, I know this is a musical where we need production numbers but they shouldn't come at the expense of what the story is supposed to be about. I can more easily see "Thank You Very Much" springing organically from the traditional ending where Scrooge tries to fool Bob and after showing his dramatic change and telling him he's about to raise Bob's salary etc. Bob could then break into the number. But the more times I see the film version as I have (probably about several dozen over the decades and its because I do have a sentimental attachment to it from the childhood viewings on WPIX in the 70s and because of the score) the more I'm forced to conclude sadly that this script comes up short.

2-Marley. This is the worst version of Marley I've ever seen in any production. The whole reason for why Marley appears to Scrooge is because he pitied his friend and wanted him to avoid his fate. It was literally the one charitable act he ever got to perform. But we see none of this because Marley is turned into a sadistic fop who loves to terrorize Scrooge. In the years I grew up watching this on TV which *always* edited the Hell sequence, this didn't bother me too much but when I saw the Hell sequence for the first time and saw how over the top Guiness was with his sadistic smirking, I was just dumbfounded. How could anyone ever believe there was a spark of pity in Marley for Scrooge from this version? It was again a case of sacrificing Dickens for a cheap gimmick I felt.

Basically had just a few of these touches been kept like the nephew's original speech, the "lame beggars walk" line I'd be less bothered by some of the other things. Collectively things add up to something that IMO represents a script drifting off course that a professional writer might have steered back better. So that's why I don't hate the film, I've just been forced to conclude as the years have gone by that it could have been done *much* better.

reply

[–] boll-weavil 8 years ago

You're obviously a man that knows his Christmas Carols Eric. I think some of the points you make are quite valid. This interpretation is of its time - 1970 and it is an age on the end of 60's earthly pleasures.This is going to reduce the emphasis on the Christian element but then Dickens himself didn't want to over stress that. That message was 'conveyed by other ministers' to his mind.I don't think he wanted the plot of simple human conversion to be restricted to a Christian message of salvation or indeed a liberal message of power to the workers. It was simply about people's ability to rethink what had passed at this watershed time of the year and do the next year differently.I do agree with you about Guinness.I think he's a poor Marley whereas my favourite would probably be in the 1984 version but on the other hand we do get Kenneth Moore who is a great Present and a superb Edith Evans as...well herself really. The hell scene is unwatchable I think. So why do we like this version so much ? Well it's all down to what you touched on.You grow up with a version or you have an affinity with something you watched at a critical moment in time.I'm not a big fan of the Sim version. It has some nice moments but the BBC accents put me off, as do the American accents of the children in the 1938 version.I do accept it has big significance in the US though where I would suggest people know it better than they do the actual book but it falls short on the message of gradual change as most versions do.It just doesn't get the character of Scrooge although it's probably the best 'baddie' portrayal. Only Finney does to me but I accept it's just what you know and you could ask a 100 people and come up with a range of different versions from Sim to Murray. Ultimately there is no right answer.It's just personal taste.

reply

[–] Big_AL-96 8 years ago

It does annoy me when parts are removed from the book but parts of little consequence are added. All versions are to,some degree guilty of this. Removing the scene after Scrooge's reformation where he encounters the collectors he dismissed earlier making amends removes so much from the story. For me, oddly enough, the most moving version of this is in the Muppet Christmas Carol,
particularly when Beaker gives Scrooge his scarf, and Scrooge tearfully says "for me". It brings home that he has not received anything as a kind gift as well as never giving one.

I would have loved a hybrid of most versions capturing the best of each. In that vein I love Alec Guinness, a wonderful actor but I agree, his Marley was poor. For me Frank Finlay was the best Marley.

I have pretty much all versions on DVD and love and enjoy them all very much, but I do feel a pang of disappointment when important scenes are removed.

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

reply

[–] catjoescreed 8 years ago

This is my sister's favorite version, and she sat me down to watch it back in the eighties. I absolutely hated it, and never gave it another try until tonight.

Well, I still hate it.

In the eighties, I was a fan of Dickens but had never read the story. In the aughts, I'm a post-grad lit student who studied Dickens for my Masters degree. I'm offended that the writers thought not only that they should, but that they *could*, improve on the original story. Guiness, whom I usually really love, was downright awful in this. The hell scene was ludicrous, and the toy shop scene was an embarrassment. The omission of the children Ignorance and Want was criminal.

Like you, I love the Muppets version, with Beaker gifting his woolen scarf to Michael Caine (who was excellent as Scrooge.)

For my money, the George C. Scott version is the ultimate interpretation, but each to his own.

Yeah....

I hate it.

reply

[–] Big_AL-96 8 years ago

Yep to each his own. I don't hate it, in fact Finney's portrayal of the old miser is excellent. I saw this in the Cinema when it was released and so have a great affection for it, but do dislike immensely the parts that swathed from it.

George C Scott was too healthy, too well dressed for me. But as I said in my post, I do genuinely have an affection for all the versions, because in each there is something (other than the wonderful story) that twists the heart.
One example is Sim with Mrs Dilber on the stairs giving her a guinea for a present. Though not in the book, it is so moving.

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

reply

[–] davismargaret 8 years ago

Anthony Esolen on the subject:

One of the few columns of a Christian culture that still stands in the secular city is Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Everyone knows, or supposes, that Scrooge’s problem was greed, and that Bob Cratchit’s problem was poverty. Everyone knows, or supposes, that the whole aim of the three Ghosts of Christmas was to loosen up Scrooge’s claw-hold on his purse, so that he might give a little to Bob Cratchit and his struggling family. That’s why the strangely unpleasant film Scrooge ends with Albert Finney, a miser turned prodigal, shoveling out coins everywhere, looking like that old confidence man Santa Claus, with a jollity approaching the manic. But Dickens’ novel is not centrally about increasing your charitable donations. It is about the coming to life of a dead soul. There is an Easter in his Christmas. “I am quite a baby,” says Scrooge the reborn, on that Christmas morning.

reply

[–] catjoescreed 8 years ago

This is an excellent appraisal; thanks for sharing it.

Dickens is careful to portray Scrooge, not as a dead soul, but as a deadened one. Had he no sensitivity, no imagination, he would have been unreachable by the ghosts in any case. And we're shown quite clearly that it was hard treatment in his boyhood (this part is so autobiographical - most people know that Dickens was yanked out of school at twelve and put to work in a shop, but most don't know that it was partly so that his parents could keep his older sister Fanny in piano classes) - that made him shut himself down against hurts.

When he is revived in the novella, it is indeed very Easter-like. The Finney version makes him seem too much like a senile, dementia-impaired imbecile and too little like a renewed soul.

Plus, I really love the part in the book where Scrooge confronts Cratchit coming in late to work the day after Christmas. Scrooge's prank, which is awkward and potentially hurtful, demonstrates that he's learning to interact with humanity again, and this just isn't shown in the versions where he plays Santa Claus by bringing pricey gifts to the Cratchit house. This learning curve is also present when he goes to his nephew's party and plays games with the guests, also missing from the Finney version.

Oh, seriously, head writers -- why mess with perfection?

reply

[–] Big_AL-96 8 years ago

This learning curve is also present when he goes to his nephew's party and plays games with the guests, also missing from the Finney version.

This is where the Sim version really excels. From his kindness and obvious affection towards Mrs Dilber, his timid and embarrassed entrance into Fred's parlour to Bob Cratchit coming in late to be met by a much changed Scrooge. He played this with such pathos and emotion. The most annoying thing was the lack of the scene with the "charity collectors" which is an integral part of vthe story and again shows his growing reformation.

Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis

reply

[–] mojo2004 8 years ago

I've loved this version from the first time I saw it on tv. I'm a fan of all the adaptations. TCM showed the 1935 version last week that starred Seymour Hicks. (It's also on youtube).It was interesting to watch. Then 3 yrs later came the beloved version starring Alistair Sim.

In this film the the only song I didn't care for that also went on forever was '"Happiness" sung by Isabel. But other song are beloved to me.

"A Christmas Carol"
"I Hate People"
5."Father Christmas"
6."See the Phantoms"
"December the 25th"
"Thank You Very Much"

The song "I'll Begin Again", I didn't remember it from this film. Sammy Davis Jr sings has done an amazing version. Of course the arrangement it is completely different. Only because I knew it by heart is when I realized it was the song I knew by Davis.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The truth of life has been revealed.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

reply

[–] j_ryberg 8 years ago

Bgb217, I'm betting you're a Republican.

reply

[–] sebring2003 8 years ago

Well, here it is 7 years later and I read your post. I'm sorry you felt this way about this movie. Musicals are meant to be otherworldly. No one sings like this in real life! But real life can be a real drag. That's why I love musicals. I have watched Scrooge many times over the years since it came out. That is when VHS was affordable. It was 1984 for me. $600 for a VCR then and I thought that was good. The first tape cose $15.00 and the first thing I recorded was Oliver! from HBO. That was fantastic back then. I remember buying Scrooge (1970) on VHS. I have watched it every year since. Musicals are fantasy. Some stories don't adapt. This one did. And Tiny Tim...he was a sweet little boy with a little boy voice. I love it when he sings. Anyway that's enough. I just finished watching it and it's now officially Christmas Eve day! 12/24/16 1:15AM. Our kids are grown and gone so I watched it alone but I do remember watching this and other musicals with them and as a result they learned to love them. I'm glad Albert Finney is still alive at 80! That's all.

reply

[–] boll-weavil 8 years ago

Great personal tribute to the film and I'm sure that if any of the people involved ever read this they would be pleased the impact it had had on your Christmas. My story is quite similar and it shows what a great adaptation this is that people still love it even when other versions have come and gone.

reply

[–] aspicco 8 years ago

Love Finney as an actor but he was an awful Scrooge... and this is a pretty flat version. The songs add nothing... and it isn't even bad enough to be awful... just "eh"

reply

[–] boll-weavil 8 years ago

Even the film critics who don't like the film acknowledge Finney provided a great performance and in my opinion, it's the most accurate one by a long distance. It's nice to see an actor who has read the book and can portray what Dickens intended rather than the traditional simplistic interpretation most adaptations generally fall into.Shame you didn't like it but thankfully there's plenty more that recogonise its quality.

reply

[–] j_will1133 8 years ago

My least favorite of all. I feel like I am watching a mentally challenged version of Scrooge throughout the entire film. I laugh at many of his mannerisms and responses (especially when he asks "what is it?" when handed the goblet to drink from the Spirit of Christmas Present).

George C. Scott is my #1.

reply

[–] boll-weavil 8 years ago

He gives the most accurate portrayal of Scrooge of all the film versions.Scott is OK if you want the simple pantomime villain that's easy to understand and simplistic but he's certainly not what Dickens intended to show which I think should always be the objective of a film trying to present itself as an adaptation.The 1984 version is good as a spectacle if you don't want to think about the issues involved or be challenged by them.

reply