Title:
The Right to Be Happy (also released as Scrooge the Skinflint in the UK)
Format:
Silent film
Country:
United States
Production
company:
Bluebird Photo Plays
Year:
1916 (released in the USA on December 25th that year)
Length:
50 minutes (approximately)
Setting:
Not definitely known, but almost certainly Victorian
The Right to Be Happy (also released as Scrooge the Skinflint in the UK)
Silent film
United States
Bluebird Photo Plays
1916 (released in the USA on December 25th that year)
50 minutes (approximately)
Not definitely known, but almost certainly Victorian
Background:
Another version of the Carol which does not appear to have survived, which is a great shame as it seems to have been by far and away the longest version made during the silent era – a five-reeler, which meant it probably ran or at least 50 minutes.
The production
company, Bluebird Photo Plays, may not be a familiar name today, but they were
actually a subsidiary of one of the biggest film companies of all time, and one
which still exists – Universal. The brand was apparently developed by Universal
to promote films which didn’t have big star names, but were being sold on the
strength or fame of the story – so it makes sense that they might choose A
Christmas Carol for adaptation.
Bluebird’s
publicity department came up with a novel idea for promoting The Right to Be
Happy, suggesting in an article in The Motion Picture Weekly that cinemas
showing the film could perhaps hire someone to dress up as Marley’s ghost in a
sheet, a white-painted face and rattling chains, to try and entice people in!
Whether anybody took them up on this suggestion is sadly unknown.
Another version of the Carol which does not appear to have survived, which is a great shame as it seems to have been by far and away the longest version made during the silent era – a five-reeler, which meant it probably ran or at least 50 minutes.
Rupert Julian as Scrooge |
As was not uncommon in the silent era, the star was also the director – in this case, Rupert Julian, a New Zealander who had moved to America in 1911. He initially worked on the stage in New York, before moving into films from 1915 and evidently becoming something of a star after another film he both directed and took the lead in, The Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin, became a hit for Universal in 1918.
Harry Carter as Marley |
Summaries (or lack
thereof):
There is a way of telling you at least something of the story as presented in this film… But unfortunately, for the time being at least I don’t have any access to it.
As with the lost
1908 version, although the film itself no longer exists we can get at least an
impression of it from a detailed summary printed at the time of its release. On
this occasion, the summary was printed in The Moving Picture Weekly, which
was Universal’s own publicity magazine. Archive.org does have many issues of this available from that time… But sadly, not volume three, number 20, which
was the issue in which the summary for The Right to Be Happy was printed.
So I’m afraid I’m
a bit stumped. I have tried other ways of tracking down any sort of synopsis,
but to no avail. For the time being at least, then, all I can do is fall back
on some of the verdicts of contemporary reviewers, to at least give us some idea
of how it was received…
There is a way of telling you at least something of the story as presented in this film… But unfortunately, for the time being at least I don’t have any access to it.
Review:
Reviewing The Right to Be Happy just ahead of its Christmas Day release in 1916, the independent film magazine The Moving Picture World was very positive, writing that: “Bluebird has been careful to impart the Dickens atmosphere to the subject, portraying the characters with faithfulness and showing in camera-trickery the adventures of Old Scrooge as he made his personally conducted flights with the ghosts of Christmas Past, Christmas Present and Christmas Future, with the spirit of Jacob Marley as the superintendent of spiritual transportation.”
In their own
publicity magazine The Moving Picture Weekly, Universal had been very
keen to point out to exhibitors the film’s message didn’t just have to be for
Christmas, but would make suitable fare all the year round. I put this down to
mere PR puffery, but interestingly The Moving Picture World seemed to
agree with this, saying: “There will be an all-year interest in The Right to
Be Happy, as the lesson of benevolence A Christmas Carol presents
has no particular season, and, furthermore, the devotees of Charles Dickens are
numbered by the hundreds in every sizeable community.”
Over in the UK,
the film doesn’t seem to have made its debut until 1917, which makes sense if
it didn’t come out in the USA until Christmas Day itself in 1916. It was
already being shown in Britain by October 1917, however, with an edition of the
Falkirk Herald that month praising its, “fine art, distinctiveness, and
the splendid acting of all the charaters.”
The Gloucestershire
Echo’s review of November 1917 commends the film’s “wonderful photography,”
which I wonder whether they mean special effects? They also add that, “The
acting of the different characters is splendid, and the picture itself contains
all the essential parts of the story.”
The Preston
Herald’s review the following month was equally positive, describing Julian
as having “admirably portrayed” the leading role, and adding that: “Lovers of
Dickens will have a treat in store next week, and to see this film will be like
spending an hour with old friends.”
Reviewing The Right to Be Happy just ahead of its Christmas Day release in 1916, the independent film magazine The Moving Picture World was very positive, writing that: “Bluebird has been careful to impart the Dickens atmosphere to the subject, portraying the characters with faithfulness and showing in camera-trickery the adventures of Old Scrooge as he made his personally conducted flights with the ghosts of Christmas Past, Christmas Present and Christmas Future, with the spirit of Jacob Marley as the superintendent of spiritual transportation.”
Impossible, for sadly obvious reasons, to give a real verdict on the film – a great loss to cultural histories of the Carol, given its status as the longest silent version.
Wikipedia
IMDb
No comments:
Post a Comment