Title:
A Christmas Carol
Format:
Illustrated reading
Country:
UK
Production
company:
Anglia Television, for the ITV network
Year:
1970 – shown at various points by several different ITV regional companies that Christmas season
Length:
48 minutes
Setting:
Victorian
Background:
A Christmas Carol
Illustrated reading
UK
Anglia Television, for the ITV network
1970 – shown at various points by several different ITV regional companies that Christmas season
48 minutes
Victorian
Anglia Television, based in the city of Norwich, were the East of England regional contractors for the ITV network in the UK, going on-air in October 1959. Although they relied heavily on the network output produced by the larger ITV companies for much of their prime-time output, they were also a fully-fledged TV station and production company in their own right, producing a large number of programmes across a range of genres. They became something of a cultural institution in their region, particularly across much of Norfolk, the county where they were based.
There are just two people mainly responsible for the vast majority of the work on this version. One of them is Paul Honeyman, who produced it, wrote the abridged adaptation, and also performed it for good measure as well. And the other is John Worsley, the artist who produced all of the illustrations which make-up the visual part of the production.
"Come on mate, time to go..." |
In spite of the fact that this is an abridged version of the text to fit the running time, we get something here which you get hardly anywhere else – Dickens’s little preface about hoping the story will haunt the readers’ houses pleasantly, which is a nice touch.
Past:
Worsley does a decent job of trying to render Dickens’s description of the Ghost of Christmas Past as both old and young at the same time, although there’s an odd effect given by the shadowing of its face early on which makes it look rather like it has some bushy black beard. It also looks as if it’s carrying a document folder, given how the cap its holding looks when we first see it, giving it a rather officious, middle-management-ghost sort of appearance.
The transition of
Scrooge and the spirit being outside the school to inside the schoolroom is a
nice effect that works well, although there’s no Fan at the end of the school
sequence. Fezziwig, however, gains a first name in this version – Algernon –
and in the break-up with Belle scene the young Scrooge gains some fairly
extraordinary-looking yellow trousers.
"How can you possibly not want me, with my magnificent yellow trousers, Belle?" |
Present:
While the Ghost of Christmas Past appeared oddly bearded on its first appearance, here Worsley goes against tradition and while depicting Christmas Present as the large, robed figure of Dickens, he has no beard in this version.
We get the
educational point about the bakers cooking people’s Christmas lunches for them
because they didn’t have their own ovens, but the only ‘main’ scene included is
the visit to the Cratchits’ house. There’s no dropping-in on Fred and his house
guests and party games in this one.
Yet to Come:
Es are good, apparently... |
This is the only section which actually contains any of what you might call animation; firstly as Marley’s face on the knocker gets a reprise, giving a wink as it appears again, and secondly at the end when Scrooge watches the clock for Bob’s late arrival at work on Boxing Day, and we see the hand move through the minutes.
This is probably
the section which departs most from the original; not massively, but there is a
bizarrely, Disney-ish diversion when Scrooge laughs to himself at the change
which has overcome him, as he does in the original. In this version, however,
we see illustrated and are told about the birds on the windowsill outside being
surprised to hear this noise from him, and they gather there to hear it.
We get the main
sections, as per usual – meeting one of the charitable gentlemen, going to see
Fred, and then playing his trick on Bob at the end.
Review:
When I first began watching this, I did wonder how well it would hold the attention. I’ve nothing against a reading of a book, but usually - unless it’s some sort of performance of the type Dickens himself used to give – you’re not also watching it at the same time. Honeyman’s reading would work equally well as an audio book without the illustrations, although it would fall down on not being a complete version.
The illustrations
are nice, though, and director John Salway does a decent enough job of not just
keeping them statically in frame the whole time, but keeping the cameras moving
across and into them.
When I first began watching this, I did wonder how well it would hold the attention. I’ve nothing against a reading of a book, but usually - unless it’s some sort of performance of the type Dickens himself used to give – you’re not also watching it at the same time. Honeyman’s reading would work equally well as an audio book without the illustrations, although it would fall down on not being a complete version.
Worsley doesn’t
try to ape John Leech’s original illustrations and has a style of his own,
albeit one which feels very in-keeping with the Victorian setting. He’s also
good at creating mood and atmosphere, with Marley and the Ghost of Christmas
Yet to Come both being particularly effective in this regard.
Honeyman does
well as narrator, too – I found a review in The Times from the time of
the original transmission crediting him for not attempting to go over-the-top
in acting it, but rather giving a good reading instead, and I
think there is indeed a difference. It’s just a shame about the Old Joe
sequence, which leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and means this can’t, in all
good conscience, be recommended as a highlight in the Carol canon.
In a nutshell:
This isn’t a bad version by any means. It’s well-read, and the illustrations are nice – it’s just that there are better-read unabridged versions if that’s what you want, and more exciting versions visually, making it hard to think of a particular reason to recommend it.
This isn’t a bad version by any means. It’s well-read, and the illustrations are nice – it’s just that there are better-read unabridged versions if that’s what you want, and more exciting versions visually, making it hard to think of a particular reason to recommend it.