The Lost Carols - 1908

Something a little bit different for the blog today: a look at an adaptation which no longer exists. I will be scattering a few of these through the month this year, as an experiment. Do let me know what you think!

 

Title:
A Christmas Carol (Possibly – it’s also named as just Christmas Carol and The Christmas Carol in different magazine pieces from the time)
 
Format:
Short silent film
 
Country:
USA
 
Production company:
Essanay Film Manufacturing Company
 
Year:
1908 – released in the US on December 9^th that year
 
Length:
15 minutes
 
Setting:

Uncertain, but seemingly Victorian
 
Background:
This is a first for this blog – looking at a version of A Christmas Carol which is no longer available to watch, with no known surviving copy in existence. This obviously means that this entry can’t work in quite the same way as most of the others, as I’m not qualified to give my own personal view on something I haven’t seen – and sadly can never see. But there is enough material from the time of the film’s release to give at least some idea of it, and how it was received.
 
It’s a notable production for being – as far as is known – the very first American screen adaptation of the story, with the US of course having gone on to be one of the two mainstays of Carol productions ever since. The company which made it, Essanay, was actually quite the outfit for firsts – they also made the first known American Sherlock Holmes film; the first film about Jesse James; and their 1909 comedy Mr Flip allegedly contains the first known “pie in the face” slapstick gag ever committed to film. They also produced some early cartoons, and are probably best-known today for their Charlie Chaplin films, signing the star in 1914 – although he left after a year.
 
They were initially based in Chicago, which is where this version of A Christmas Carol was made. Their studio building in the city’s Uptown area still survives as a local landmark, although the company itself is long gone – after Chaplin’s departure in 1915 they merged with other studios and eventually disappeared in the 1920s.
 
Cast and crew:
Tom Ricketts, who stars as Scrooge, was an important figure in early 20^th century American cinema, although perhaps more as a director than an actor. Ricketts was British by birth, having been born in Greenwich in 1853 – a mere ten years after the Carol’s original publication. At the age of 17 – so 1870, the same years as Dickens’s death – Ricketts had emigrated to the United States, where he took up acting and directing for the theatre.
 
He moved into film with Essanay soon after their founding, and following the Carol he also starred in another Dickens adaptation for them, 1909’s The Old Curiosity Shop. He then moved more into directing and co-founded his own company, Nestor Films, working on some of the first motion pictures to be made in Hollywood. His 1912 film The Dawn of Netta is credited with being the first film ever to have distributed by Universal. In the 20s and 30s he returned to the other side of the cameras as a character actor, and was still appearing in films into his mid-80s, including further Dickens work with A Tale of Two Cities in 1935.
 
Other cast and production credits for the film appear to be difficult to readily come by. But according to a summary of Ricketts’ career published in an edition of the Kinematograph Weekly at the time of that A Tale of Two Cities appearance in 1935, Ricketts also directed A Christmas Carol.
 
Underdone Potato:
Obviously, as mentioned, there is no surviving copy of the film known to exist. However, an edition of The Moving Picture World magazine from the time of the film’s release (thanks to Archive.org for making it available) contains a fairly detailed summary, which gives the impression that the adaptation departed somewhat from the story was written by Dickens – perhaps not surprisingly, when it had to be compressed into such a short running time.
 
Scrooge evidently encounters an unidentified “spirit” early on, right at the beginning of the film, when he’s showing how mean and nasty he is by striking a beggar on the street. The beggar, however, also appears to be a ghostly apparition, and Scrooge is warned by the other nameless spirit that he will see the beggar again that night.
 
From what the synopsis says, it seems that Fred actually works for Scrooge in this version, and is waiting at the office when Scrooge arrives – along with Bob, Tiny Tim and Fred’s fiancée rather than wife. When Fred announces that he is to be married, Scrooge actually kisses the bride-to-be, before remembering he’s supposed to be a miserable old bastard, chasing them all out of the office and telling them they can’t have the day off for Christmas.
 
Past:
In common with the short, silent versions of 1901, 1910 and 1913, one way in which this adaptation compresses the story is by doing away with the separate ghosts and having a single spirit show Scrooge all that he needs to see. Unlike the 1901 and 1913 versions, however, this isn’t Marley, but the unnamed Spirit who Scrooge had already encountered earlier.
 
This Spirit doesn’t appear to Scrooge at his home at first but leads him there, also showing him children who run away from the old miser and the beggar who he’d seen earlier on. According to a review of the film in another edition of The Moving Picture World, “The scene where the little girl s the only one who will love the old man is touching and brought the tears to more than one pair of eyes in the audience.” This seems likely to have been the point in the film where that moment took place, although I can’t say for certain. Either way, it’s certainly not a moment which comes from Dickens.
 
Once at home, he is shown a vision of Marley, with the beggar from earlier transforming into Jacob when Scrooge attempts to strike him for warming himself by his fire.
 
Also in common with other silent versions of the story, the visions here don’t so much seem to be depicted as Scrooge being immersed in the experience of being back in time, but rather being shown them as if he were watching a film himself, projected into his rooms. The film appears to come slightly more back towards the original here, with scenes of Scrooge’s childhood and his sweetheart leaving him. Scrooge is so distraught he throws himself to the floor, but the Spirit allows him no rest and commands him to follow it out into the streets again.
 
Present:
Here, it seems, Scrooge is now within the visions rather than simply watching them, as he is shown the Cratchits – or ‘Cratchetts’ in the magazine synopsis, which I don’t know whether or not is a spelling which the film actually used – celebrating Christmas Day. It appears that Scrooge is actually there, rather than merely seeing a vision – he “showers them with money,” and then does the same to Fred and his friends when taken to their Christmas party, before promising that he is now a changed man.
 
Yet to Come:
Um… There isn’t any depiction of Christmas Yet to Come. At least, not according to The Moving Picture World. Scrooge is already fully-done by the end of the Christmas Present scenes.
 
What’s To-Day:
Scrooge is taken back to his office, where he “falls upon his knees in prayer”. The following day he then invites everyone over to his place for a slap-up Christmas dinner.
 
Review:
Obviously it’s very difficult to give a verdict on a film you haven’t actually seen. Not to mention rather unfair to do so. But from the description given at the time, it’s hard to imagine this being a version that I would have particularly enjoyed. Even just placing it in context, comparing it to the other silent versions, it seems to mess around with the story quite a bit more, and to miss out one entire section of the visions seems fairly extraordinary. I mean, there are other versions where Yet to Come is given short shrift – the 1913 version, for example, just has him shown his grave and that’s it. But not do to it at all seems deeply remiss, given that the whole ‘past, present and future’ trio is surely one of the best-known elements of the story.
 
However, The Moving Picture World were certainly very keen on it, with their reviewer stating that:
 
“It is impossible to praise this film too highly. It reproduces the story as closely as it is possible to do in a film and the technical excellence of the work cannot be questioned. The photography, the staging and the acting are all of the best, and the story told is always impressive… Such films cannot be too highly commended. They are a welcome relief from the riot of bloodshed which has marred he moving picture shows of New York and other cities for too long. Even though it costs a fortune almost to prepare such a film, it is quite likely that the public will patronize it sufficiently to make good the extraordinary outlay.”
 
In a nutshell:
From the synopsis, this sounds weaker and less faithful than most of the other silent versions. But it’s still a shame that it no longer seems to exist to allow us to judge for ourselves.
 
Links:
Wikipedia
IMDb