MovieChat Forums > A Christmas Carol (1999) Discussion > Cratchit?

Cratchit?

posted 18 years ago by griffic-2
18 replies | jump to latest

I've been reading a lot of praise about this (1999) version of Bob Cratchit being the most realistic portrayal of the character. But I beg to differ.

The argument is that because the Cratchit family is poor they should look desheveled, pale and sickly with bad teeth (it is England, but still) and a somewhat cockney accent. This version illustrates that. And that's certainly one way to look at it...

...but my question is, isn't Cratchit's job as apprentice or assistant to Scrooge a somewhat "white-collar" job? Certainly there were harder, less prestigious jobs around. We agree that Cratchit and his family lived in poverty because things were tough all over in Victorian England and not helped by Scrooge's penny-pinching. So that would explain why the Cratchit family would live in a humble home and modest means. But Bob Cratchit, himself, would still be a somewhat well educated man...hence then job. I see Cratchit as a proud man who stayed well groomed with suit cleaned to maintain a professional appearance dispite poverty. After all, he may someday reach Scrooge's position.

Which brings me to my next point. Scrooge, Marley and probably Fezziwig all started as apprentices or assistants...Why should Cratchit be different from them?

I do like the Richard E. Grant's performance as Cratchit, but I think David Warner's Cratchit from the 1984 version of A Christmas Carol perfectly embodies a poor, but proud family man whom you can imagine heading his own business someday.

[–] roghache 18 years ago

I love David Warner's Cratchit in the 1984 version as well, think he might well be my favourite Bob, and agree with your take on him.

This Patrick Stewart version isn't my favourite, but I do think it does the most realistic job of depicting the Cratchits' poverty. According to Dickens himself, the family display of glass consisted of two tumblers and a custard cup without a handle. Really, they didn't have much.

Perhaps Cratchit had more education than some and his job was sort of white collar, but Scrooge paid meagerly and Bob had a lot of mouths to feed. I don't remember Bob appearing particularly unkempt in this 1999 adaptation (I'll take note when I watch it again this season) but would agree that he'd have tried to appear well groomed. The Cratchits made the best of what little they could afford, Bob's wife "brave in ribbons" which was not really shown in this version.

In the old 1938 adaptation, Bob Cratchit is lovable but quite portly and his family appeared so prosperous that I half expected a maid to enter at any minute and assist Mrs. Cratchit with Christmas dinner! Of course I'm sentimentally attached to the cute 1951 Bob, the version I grew up with!

[–] carolyn_davis2 18 years ago

I'd like to chime in a little bit; as an undergraduate at university (lo, these many years ago!) I had to learn a bit about this structure.
It seemed that Scrooge's father, as well as Marley's family, had some money to buy them appenticeships with Fezziwig. This was a pre-requisite for entering many professions: accounting/finance, law, even medicine to some degree, etc. in the days before professional associations made university training the standard way to obtain qualifications -- and young men who became professional apprentices were then enabled to enter those professions. By comparison to that mainly upper-middle class apprenticeship system, Bob Cratchit's position as clerk was a lower-middle class one. He was literate, which many Victorians were not, and had had at least an elementary education, but would not necessarily become a banker unless Scrooge or one of Scrooge's partners chose to sponsor him. (Remember that during the visitation of the Ghost of Christmas Present, I believe, Bob tells his son Peter that Scrooge's nephew Fred has indicated that Peter might work for Fred.) So Bob Cratchit's professional opportunities were fairly dependent upon E. Scrooge's interest in Bob's career; evidently Scrooge had expressed little interest in Bob prior to the visitations, but became very involved afterwards.

[–] roghache 18 years ago

Thanks for your explanation, Carolyn, I can appreciate the class distinctions. I had been wondering whether apprentice and clerk might be quite different positions with an apprenticeship offering much better opportunities for advancement, as wth Scrooge at Fezziwig's. I remember Fred offering a job to young Peter Cratchit and felt it seemed as though he might take Peter under his wing, unlike Scrooge with poor Bob!

[–] carolyn_davis2 18 years ago

Hello again, dear roghache!

Yes, Fred was really sweet. Does the film mention what Fan's married name was? As I remember, Fred was just called "Fred," by everyone. Does Bob mention him by his full name, or as just something like "Mister Fred"?

Thank you!

Your well-meaning friend :)

[–] roghache 18 years ago

Hello to you, Carolyn! I'm quite certain that Dickens doesn't specify Fred's last name in the novel. I don't remember it mentioned in any of the numerous film adaptations I've seen, but now note on the cast list for the 1984 version (George C. Scott), the nephew listed as Fred Holywell. I don't recall this last name mentioned, but will be watching that version again this Christmas so will keep my ears open for such a reference!

[–] carolyn_davis2 18 years ago

Thank you! When I was small I thought of him as "Fred Scrooge," but when older realised that implication -- from *A Christmas Carol* right to *Oliver Twist*!

[–] roghache 18 years ago

I've seen on cast listings the name Fan Scrooge, and of course that's exactly who Scrooge's sister would have been before marriage but it almost made me laugh the first time I saw it! I've always associated that last name as synonymous with Ebeneezer (and his miserly ways) and thus exclusive to him!

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

yes, that makes sense.

🎄Season's Greetings!🎁🎅🎄

[–] griffic-2 18 years ago

Wow, thanks for the feedback!

[–] flowers_on_the_razorwire 18 years ago

Perhaps Richard E. Grant's not the best performance of Bob Cratchit, but it's my favourite none the less. The scene where the family is having their christmasdinner is just wonderful and I always get choked up when he is mourning over Tiny Tim's dead body.

[–] BonzoDog 18 years ago

flowers on the razorwire, I second that emotion- Richard E. Grant is the only Cratchit who makes me weep with him. Didn't like the little Cratchits in this version, but I did like Bob and his missus a lot.

[–] RichN36 18 years ago

Love the Cratchits in this version but the Poorest Cratchits are the the Family in Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol they don't even have a Goose all they have is Razlebery Dressing for dinner.

[–] griffic-2 18 years ago

Well, I watched it again. I guess I have to say I think it's a flawed interpretation of Cratchit because they almost seem to concentrate more on the poverty and exhaustion (note how tired he looks when talking about Tiny Tim's behavior in church...he can barely sit up straight) than on the warmth he has for his family. It's not that he lacks complete warmth but it seems to take a backseat to the filmakers wanting to show a different take on Bob Cratchit. That, and the fact he threatens Scrooge with a poker at the end when he becomes frightened of Scrooge's change makes Cratchit seem less sympathetic to me.

[–] roghache 18 years ago

I agree with griffic that this interpretation of Cratchit focuses more on his poverty and exhaustion than on the warmth he has for his family. Nevertheless, I did find his portrayal generally sympathetic as Bob just seems so very long-suffering, having been obliged to deal with his miserable employer all these years.

I love the scene where the two portly gentlemen come collecting! Poor Bob realizes that Scrooge's reaction won't be rosy and attempts to inconspicuously return to his office. However, there's another scene I found odd where Bob almost appears defiant, responding to Scrooge's remark with "So you say" or something similar. Very out of character for Cratchit, I felt.

I didn't view the poker as threatening but rather defensive. Bob feared his employer had gone mad and he might need to defend himself! Having said all this, my favourite Cratchit is David Warner's warm portrayal of the struggling family man in the 1984 George C. Scott version.

[–] mrmando 18 years ago

In the novel, Cratchit thinks about picking up the poker, but doesn't actually do it.

Gotta disagree about Tiny Tim's death. When Bob talks about "how green a place it is," he's talking about Tim's GRAVE. It doesn't make any sense for him to say this when Tim's body is still in bed upstairs.

[–] Suzume-san 10 years ago

Tiny point about the 'green place' - Cratchit has been to the churchyard to choose a place for Tiny Tim's grave, and presumably to speak to the clergyman about the funeral. This is probably why he's late home.

Absurdly, the most moving version of this scene I have seen is the Muppet one; Kermit, as Bob Cratchit, starts to tell his family that he has found a place where Tiny Tim 'can see the ducks on the river' - then he catches himself up and says "He always loved to see the ducks..." How a green frog puppet talking to a pig can bring tears to my eyes, I don't know, but there it is.

[–] jnwa3 17 years ago

This Bob is my favorite as well... in the end he shows now fear as the bob of 1999 does... when Scrooge tells him to buy more coal he grins as if he's on the same level as Scrooge. The 1999 Bob is not so strong...

[–] loraleechoate 9 years ago

No, Bob Cratchit Would not have looked better...he actually would look a lot worse than this film depicts. Clothing was expensive and hard to get in the Victorian era, especially the early Victorian era before ready to wear took off. The main question would be the state and thread bareness of the clothing. The state of the clothes in this film are very good. His clothing would have been darns to pieces and frayed.

Keep in mind the man didn't even own a coat In the book. He had a scarf and his jacket And some woolen mittens and that's it. He wasn't destitute but he was poor. And poor people didn't own a lot and life was very, very hard; cold and physically demanding. This is the only movie that has shown his family to be remotely close to what the actual circumstance would have been. Especially in their house. It was a four-room house, clearly stated in the book. And the assessories used by mrs. Cratchit are spot on.

I could go on and on about this because Victorian clothing as a pet hobby of mine but I'll just leave quotes from the book to back up what I'm saying. By the way a comforter is a scarf and the poor guy doesn't even have fringe on his.

"Cratchit's wife, dressed up, but poorly, in a twice-turned gown, but brave in ribbons, which are cheap, and make a goodly show for sixpence;

and the clerk, with the long ends of his white comforter dangling below his waist (for he boasted no greatcoat

Bob, the father, with at least three feet of comforter, exclusive of the fringe, hanging down before him, and his threadbare clothes darned up and brushed to look seasonable

while bob, turning up his cuffs? as if, poor fellow, they were capable of being made more shabby