Scrooge (1935)

Some things I liked some I did not.

Excellent, a Must See

Brilliant and touching

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Apologies to Variety for borrowing their headline (Styx Nix Hix Pix: a reference to cinema patrons in rural America objecting to the way they were portrayed by Hollywood) and adapting it to include the star of this film (Sir) Seymour Hicks. Primarily a man of the theatre this was his most famous role and he played it several times including this, the first 'talkie' version of the old war-horse. For the time it presents a solid adaptation and although it is structured around Hicks the rest of the cast are all up to snuff. Several reviewers here have expressed surprise that rather than end with Tiny Tim's verging-on-immortal @God bless us, everyone' the film ends with Scrooge taking a pew next to Bob Cratchit in church and joining him in a rendition of Hark, The Herald Angels Sing. That, however, may be splitting hairs.

The techniques are pretty creaky, standard for 1935. There are no sweeping camera movements; the special effects are minimal; and the acting by Seymour Hicks as Scrooge is theatrical. He has John Gielgud's quavering voice.Yet it's hard not to be swept up and moved by Dickens' fairy tale. The author played his readers as if they were a gigantic calliope, pulling out stops here and there, pumping away with his feet, and producing this enthralling melody that takes us from selfishness and greed to epiphany and redemption.It's not as good as the Alistair Sims version, which is superlative, but it's effective in its own, old-fashioned right. Probably a lot of the difference is due to performers and crew feeling more comfortable with the technology of movie-making in the 1950s than in 1935. In the 50s version, Sims never overacts as Hicks does here. Sims knew he didn't have to, that the camera would pick up the slightest nuance in dialog or expression.But this version, crude as it is, is no disgrace.

There have been tons of versions of "A Christmas Carol"--perhaps more than any other film. Because of this, only a very few stand out in a positive way--the rest are just copies of copies of copies and nothing more. I would put this 1935 film in this latter category, as it is competent enough in most ways and tells the story but absolutely nothing more. And, to make matters worse, much of Dickens' original social commentary has been deliberately muted.Before I talk about the quality of the film, I should say something about the quality of the print now available from archive.org. While downloads from this site are free since the films are in the public domain, a few of the films are a bit of a mess and could use some restoration. This is DEFINITELY the case with this film as the sound track and film are way out of sync. The only to deal with this was to periodically stop the film and re-start it--but soon it returned to the soundtrack being way ahead of the film. I am not sure how to fix this, and judging by the mediocrity of the film, it may not be worth doing.As for "Scrooge", this 1935 version is from Twickenham Studios and it boasts a cast of relatively minor actors. In the lead is Seymour Hicks who was reasonably good in the lead though he looked a bit older, gruffer and grouchier than most Scrooges. I won't beat a dead horse and discuss the plot--we ALL are familiar with it. However, I was very surprised that this film seemed to strongly de- emphasize the negative commentary about the rich and their duty to their fellow man. Apart from Scrooge, ALL the rich folks are wonderful and there even is a completely superfluous scene which I've never seen in another version that shows a lot of rich swells (led by the Lord Mayor of London) toasting the health of the Queen. Why? I guess to say, in an indirect way, that the mega-rich are really the salt of the earth and backbone of the British empire. Whatever. All I know is that the whole poverty angle was apparently distasteful to the blokes who made this one and they really gutted this aspect of the film. Additionally, at times, the film took some liberties which made it look cheap...which it was, actually. You do NOT see Jacob Marley's ghost AND the Ghost of Christmas Past is an ethereal thing--more of a cloud than a figure. Overall, this is a great version if you don't want to bother with social commentary, excellent special effects or top acting. It's sort of a cheaper version and considering how many nicer looking ones are out there, I see no real reason to see this one.

Not bad but not great version of the classic Dickens tale. Seymour Hicks makes for a very different Scrooge than most of us are used to seeing. Big bushy eyebrows, wild hair, and a permanent caveman expression on his face. He makes Scrooge appear more brutish than other versions. His Scrooge looks like the kind of guy you would see in films of the period that hung around the docks waiting to rob people. This is a darker Carol than most. A lot of stuff is either left out or is only alluded to rather than shown. I don't know...it's not one of my favorite versions, to be sure, but it is interesting and enjoyable enough. Give it a shot if you have seen other versions and like to compare. Otherwise, if this is your first stop for A Christmas Carol film, you'd be better off with the 1951 Alastair Sim version.