I tend to assume that most who view any version of this tale, have read the original at least once, hence it is my wont to write it in what is dubbed, "spoiler" mode; albeit I hardly find it much of a "spoil" in describing a story which is fairly universally known. To cite a perhaps overused phrase: the Devil is in the details! That said, of all the uncounted dozens, nay hundreds of adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" put to film, I have found this adaptation to be far and away the most faithful to Dickens.
And yet, it does have its shortcomings:
1.) It overcompensates for the perceived ignorant masses in changing dialog to a more modern vocabulary--a thing many may appreciate, but being a purist I find somewhat irksome. Examples include changing "situation" to "job" "Walk-ER" to "You're Joshing!", "Half a crown" to "two shillings," and "Blind Man's Buff," to "Bluff" among several others. Okay, okay... you might think these picky in the extreme; and so be it. I want a story related as told by the author; I expect it to be as written. If they truly want to put it in a modern lexicon, why not simply accept any of the modern adaptations that have done just that... like "Scrooged" with Bill Murray? --and have done with it!
2.) By far the most egregious shortcoming in your humble writer's opinion is the silly need to change the name of Fan, to Fran. Say what? Why alter a perfectly legitimate name, and the one the author of the story designated for Scrooge's beloved sister? They also depict Scrooge's niece's sister, (the "plump" one) whom Topper pursues, as anything but "plump"... she looks downright anorexic.
3.) I do wish they'd have given us a short scene from the past: where Scrooge can lament what he lost in Belle's love, as she is depicted in the story with all her happy children and the husband Scrooge might have been!
4.) The movie begins with Marley's funeral, an oversight I can forgive as it nevertheless allows for a reference to his being "dead as a doornail" and delightfully from the text a reference to the "deadest piece of ironmongery"...the scene is brief, quickly shifting to the opening scene of the storyline.
5.) Those beads of light for eyes in the spirit of Christmas Yet to Come really need to go. They might add a more creepy phantom; but detract from the mystery as related in the novel by lines suggesting all Scrooge could detect behind that hood was a darkness in which he could "sense" those eyes!
So Why a 9/10 with all these "shortcomings"? Quite simply because they are trivial, in light of all of the positives:
1.) Most of the dialog is recognizably straight from the text .
2.) Unlike many versions that have this irrepressible compulsion to impose at least one female spirit, this one remains true in that both past and present are decidedly male, which makes sense since even in the ridiculous versions changing the past to a female, the very next "spirit" refers to all of his predecessors as his 1800 plus "brothers"... nary a sister in the lot. Additionally Joel Grey truly does resemble the diminutive spirit who looks both old, and young --the only thing missing was all the morphing which no version I know of depicts.
3.) Its faithful presentation of the spirits continues as we see the spirit of Christmas Present age as his time draws to a close, another thing so far as I know, found in no other version. His remonstrance of Scrooge's "wicked cant" is line-for-line from the story.
4.) We get to laugh at Topper's thinly veiled (pun intended) pursuit of the not-so-plump sister playing at blind man's buff, and while Fred's house could hardly be described as looking "poor enough", the scenes of fun follow the story well.
5.) Even though we do not get to see the horse-drawn hearse ascending the stairway, we do note the fireplace is exactly as described in the book, with the biblical scenes, and in many of them the face of Marley (from that door-knocker) returns to haunt Scrooge. Pity he had to refer to an underdone "turnip" when the text clearly states potato, but how satisfying it was to note that, exactly as in the book, Marley's jaw drops literally to his breast upon unwrapping, and how it "snaps shut" upon its being re-wrapped. The spirits outside, also, true to those described in the book, as bemoaning their inability to intercede, and fettered to items such as safes, and money-boxes.
6.) Fan is actually a little girl, and not a practically grown woman, and very much rekindles the mind's-eye view of this little angel's excitement when she tells an actual boy (not a grown man) that "father is so much nicer now"... again, fidelity is the driving positive force.
7.) The scenes of Scrooge's transformation include his actually going "to church"...something from the book which I failed to note in every other cinematic effort. He sings, he plots and schemes to ambuscade Cratchit the next day, and the closing narration is literally from the final paragraph in the original text.
While some concessions must be made, the scenes, and depictions of this version, impel me to give it the highest rating of any version I have seen. One can truthfully revisit their mind's creations upon having read the story! Perhaps Scott is a better Scrooge, (But Stewart is good!) and the nephew from either the 1951 or the 1938 version better representatives of those characters, the sum total of this version, make it far and away the very best a Dickens purist can hope to possess, given the current choices. At least in this Dickens fan's humble opinion.
And yet, it does have its shortcomings:
1.) It overcompensates for the perceived ignorant masses in changing dialog to a more modern vocabulary--a thing many may appreciate, but being a purist I find somewhat irksome. Examples include changing "situation" to "job" "Walk-ER" to "You're Joshing!", "Half a crown" to "two shillings," and "Blind Man's Buff," to "Bluff" among several others. Okay, okay... you might think these picky in the extreme; and so be it. I want a story related as told by the author; I expect it to be as written. If they truly want to put it in a modern lexicon, why not simply accept any of the modern adaptations that have done just that... like "Scrooged" with Bill Murray? --and have done with it!
2.) By far the most egregious shortcoming in your humble writer's opinion is the silly need to change the name of Fan, to Fran. Say what? Why alter a perfectly legitimate name, and the one the author of the story designated for Scrooge's beloved sister? They also depict Scrooge's niece's sister, (the "plump" one) whom Topper pursues, as anything but "plump"... she looks downright anorexic.
3.) I do wish they'd have given us a short scene from the past: where Scrooge can lament what he lost in Belle's love, as she is depicted in the story with all her happy children and the husband Scrooge might have been!
4.) The movie begins with Marley's funeral, an oversight I can forgive as it nevertheless allows for a reference to his being "dead as a doornail" and delightfully from the text a reference to the "deadest piece of ironmongery"...the scene is brief, quickly shifting to the opening scene of the storyline.
5.) Those beads of light for eyes in the spirit of Christmas Yet to Come really need to go. They might add a more creepy phantom; but detract from the mystery as related in the novel by lines suggesting all Scrooge could detect behind that hood was a darkness in which he could "sense" those eyes!
So Why a 9/10 with all these "shortcomings"? Quite simply because they are trivial, in light of all of the positives:
1.) Most of the dialog is recognizably straight from the text .
2.) Unlike many versions that have this irrepressible compulsion to impose at least one female spirit, this one remains true in that both past and present are decidedly male, which makes sense since even in the ridiculous versions changing the past to a female, the very next "spirit" refers to all of his predecessors as his 1800 plus "brothers"... nary a sister in the lot. Additionally Joel Grey truly does resemble the diminutive spirit who looks both old, and young --the only thing missing was all the morphing which no version I know of depicts.
3.) Its faithful presentation of the spirits continues as we see the spirit of Christmas Present age as his time draws to a close, another thing so far as I know, found in no other version. His remonstrance of Scrooge's "wicked cant" is line-for-line from the story.
4.) We get to laugh at Topper's thinly veiled (pun intended) pursuit of the not-so-plump sister playing at blind man's buff, and while Fred's house could hardly be described as looking "poor enough", the scenes of fun follow the story well.
5.) Even though we do not get to see the horse-drawn hearse ascending the stairway, we do note the fireplace is exactly as described in the book, with the biblical scenes, and in many of them the face of Marley (from that door-knocker) returns to haunt Scrooge. Pity he had to refer to an underdone "turnip" when the text clearly states potato, but how satisfying it was to note that, exactly as in the book, Marley's jaw drops literally to his breast upon unwrapping, and how it "snaps shut" upon its being re-wrapped. The spirits outside, also, true to those described in the book, as bemoaning their inability to intercede, and fettered to items such as safes, and money-boxes.
6.) Fan is actually a little girl, and not a practically grown woman, and very much rekindles the mind's-eye view of this little angel's excitement when she tells an actual boy (not a grown man) that "father is so much nicer now"... again, fidelity is the driving positive force.
7.) The scenes of Scrooge's transformation include his actually going "to church"...something from the book which I failed to note in every other cinematic effort. He sings, he plots and schemes to ambuscade Cratchit the next day, and the closing narration is literally from the final paragraph in the original text.
While some concessions must be made, the scenes, and depictions of this version, impel me to give it the highest rating of any version I have seen. One can truthfully revisit their mind's creations upon having read the story! Perhaps Scott is a better Scrooge, (But Stewart is good!) and the nephew from either the 1951 or the 1938 version better representatives of those characters, the sum total of this version, make it far and away the very best a Dickens purist can hope to possess, given the current choices. At least in this Dickens fan's humble opinion.