The Lost Carols - The Right to Be Happy

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 25^th that year)
 
Length:
50 minutes (approximately)
 
Setting:
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.

Rupert Julian as Scrooge

 
Cast and crew:
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.
 
Of the supporting cast, perhaps the most interesting name is that of Lydia Yeamans Titus as Mrs Fezziwig. A fellow antipodean of Julian’s, having been born in Australia, she became a music hall star on the stages of the UK, the US, Australia and New Zealand, and became particularly associated with the song Sally in Our Alley. She’d evidently been a favourite of King Edward VII’s on the London stage, and had moved into films from 1911 in New York.
 
Showing some of the multi-talented abilities which seem to have been common in silent film, Belle actress Francelia Billington was evidently also an accomplished camera operator – although I don’t know whether she performed any such duties on this particular production.
 
The “scenario” was written by one Elliott J. Clawson, who later went on to receive four nominations for screenwriting Oscars once such things were invented. Clawson wrote over 80 films, including several other collaborations with Rupert Julian.

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…

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.”

In a nutshell:
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.
 
Links:
Wikipedia
IMDb

Scrooge - 1913, film

Title card for the retitled 1926 edit.

Title:

Scrooge (also known as Old Scrooge)

Format:

Silent film

Country:

UK

Production company:

Zenith Film Company

Year:

1913 / 1926

Length:

40 minutes (approximately)

Setting:

Victorian

Background:

Zenith, the company behind this adaptation, were founded in 1913 and then purchased by British Empire Films Ltd two years later, before eventually being dissolved in 1922. Their offices were based in Westminster, and they apparently used a studio at Whetstone in North London. This wasn’t the only literary adaptation they made; they were also responsible for an early version of Ivanhoe.

This film was re-released in the USA by Pathe in 1926, when it was retitled Old Scrooge. It was this version which I was able to get hold of a copy of, and it wasn’t simply a retitling. Comparing what I was able to watch to the synopses of the 1913 version on the British Film Institute’s website and in the Illustrated Films Monthly at the time of the original version’s release, it’s clear that several narrative changes had been made to the 1920s version, and I’ll try and note the main differences below.

Seymour Hicks as Scrooge - looking very like The Grinch!

Cast and crew:

Seymour Hicks stars as Scrooge, a part he’d already been playing for many years on stage, and would continue to reprise in the theatre for many years after this. He also returned to the role on screen in the sound era, taking the lead in the 1935 film version. Clearly regarded as something of an expert on the character, interestingly the BFI website also credits him as having been responsible for writing the adaptation here.

The director Leedham Bantock is a very interesting figure. He was the boss of Zenith Films, but had previously primarily been a stage actor who then moved into film. His most notable credit is being the first person known to have played Father Christmas on screen, in the 1912 film Santa Claus. He also appears in the cast here, although as there aren’t full credits available it’s difficult to tell as who.

Of the rest of the cast, William Lugg had been a successful stage actor of the Victorian era, and JC Buckstone, like Hicks, had some history with the Carol. He’d written a stage version in 1901, which he’d then adapted for the very first known screen adaptation of the Carol that same year. Ellaline Terriss had been born in the Falkland Islands and lived to be 100, dying in 1971. Her presence here may be a bit of a case of insider dealing, as she was Seymour Hicks’s wife.

Underdone Potato:

Both versions of the film begin with an introductory device of Scrooge coming up with the idea for A Christmas Carol, and settling down to write it. The BFI’s Screenonline website suggests this seems designed to show that Dickens himself would have approved of this adaptation, although to me it feels more like a lesson or a lecture, especially with the 1926 version’s intertitles, setting out the background to the story before showing the tale itself. When Scrooge is first mentioned, however, there is a nice portrait-type shot of him, glaring and glowering into the camera.

The first major difference between the two versions occurs early on – the 1913 version show’s nephew Fred, given the surname Wyland here, giving money to children on the street, but in the 1926 edit he doesn’t appear until later on. In common with some other versions, we do see Tim earlier than we do in the book here, as his father carries him to work before seemingly abandoning him in the street for the day when he goes inside.

Quite a lot of time is spent on the scenes up to Marley’s arrival, more so than any other aspect of the story. Indeed, it’s even extended somewhat from the book with scenes of “carol singers” (they look like meddlesome kids to me!) throwing snowballs at Scrooge, and the parts of the two charitable gentlemen being split into two – a poor woman who visits Scrooge first, and then later a Mr Middlemark, ‘a guardian of the poor’.

There’s another difference between the two versions here – in the UK original, we have a cutaway to a scene of Middlemark handing out food to the poor, and then going to see Scrooge when there is none left. The 1926 US edit omits this, and just has Middlemark turn up after Fred’s visit.

Perhaps understandingly given the restrictions of time, space and budget, Scrooge doesn’t go home but just settles down to sleep in an armchair in his office, where he’s visited by the spirit of Marley – perhaps hinting, more so than in most other versions, that the whole thing is ‘just a dream’? Marley appears translucently in an impressive example of special effects, not simply standing still but moving around the set and interacting with Scrooge, although he lacks something in not being chained in this version.

Ah yes, that's it! Dickens comes up with the idea...

Past:

Marley says that he has come as the representative of the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come – so in common with the 1901 version, it’s Marley who presents all of the visions here. Not so much representing them as doing all of their work for them, the lazy sods. Perhaps there was a lot of haunting that needed doing this particular Christmas!

There’s no Fezziwig, but we do have the other main ‘past’ visions usually shown – Scrooge at school, and Belle setting him free. There’s a change from the book here, in he intertitles for the US version at least, with Marley reminding Scrooge that he later ‘abandoned’ Fan, rather than her having died young as in the story. We do see an actor playing the young Scrooge at school, but fortunately unlike in the 1935 version there’s no attempt to pass off Hicks as a younger version, and he’s unseen in the sequence with Belle, with only her being shown.

Present:

We see a little of the Cratchits’ Christmas celebration, with the toast to Scrooge, and there’s a detail I quite liked where Tim, made up to look ‘ill’ with panda-like eye make-up, stares hauntingly out at us, directly into the camera.

Rather than the little taste of foreknowledge the Ghost of Christmas Present usually shares about an empty space and a crutch without an owner, Marley shows Scrooge an actual full-blown vision of Tim’s deathbed, and the moment of his expiring. As is done all-too-often, Scrooge’s redemption seems to have come rather too early, as he declares ‘what a fool I’ve been!’ before we’ve even had the vision of the future.

Marley is responsible for all of the visions in this version.

Yet to Come:

Having said that, there isn’t a great deal of the future to see – just a gravestone bearing the words ‘Ebenezer Scrooge – He Lived and Died Without a Friend,’ which is rather on-the-nose but seems to have done the trick. I doubt you’d be allowed to put that on a gravestone in the real world, however!

What’s To-Day:

There is where the 1913 and 1926 versions seems to be intriguingly different, at least comparing what I watched to the synopsis available in the Illustrated Films Monthly from 1913. In the UK original, Scrooge awakes on Christmas morning, and goes to visit the Cratchit family, joining in with their Christmas celebrations and even soliciting a kiss from Mrs Cratchit under the mistletoe.

However, in the version I watched, it’s still Christmas Eve when Scrooge awakes. After sending the boy for the bird (who comes into his office in this version, or rather is pulled in rather roughly, and knows Tiny Tim – Scrooge asks if the boy is still alive, and the bird-boy replies that yes, he saw him earlier in the evening), he then merely settles down to ‘imagine’ what it would be like if he spent Christmas Day with the Cratchits. We then get his vision of kissing Mrs Cratchit, etc.

The 1926 version then does the bit from the book of Scrooge pretending to be cross with Cratchit on boxing day – which wouldn’t make sense of Scrooge had gone there on Christmas Day. So was this an alternative ending using footage shot for but not used in the 1913 original? If so, how did they get hold of it 13 years later? Or did the original intertitles perhaps suggest Cratchit feared Scrooge had had a change of heart? Or are the available synopses of the 1913 version simply wrong?

Sadly, without going to the BFI to view the copy of the 1913 version they apparently hold, which perhaps I may try someday, there’s no way to answer this at the moment.

Scrooge asks Mrs Cratchit for a kiss!

Review:

There is a lot to like here. The location shooting outside Scrooge’s office looks very good, and I genuinely can’t tell if it’s real or fake snow being used. In the 1926 version, at least, there are some nice tinting effects going on, with a cold blue for the outdoor scenes and then a drab brown once we inside Scrooge’s mean abode. It’s just a shame they didn’t even try to make the window for the set of Scrooge’s office at least vaguely resemble the one he’s seen calling Cratchit in through in the location footage.

It’s certainly much more ambitious and expansive than the 1901 or 1910 silent versions, although it does perhaps waste too much of its running time on the pre-ghost sequences, and rather throws away or rushes through much of the rest of the story.

The intertitles do include a fair amount of Dickens’s original text as and when they can, although they’re also interspersed with all sorts of weird additions, such as acknowledging that children really shouldn’t throw snowballs at old men. I’m fairly sure the intertitles I saw were made for the 1926 version, however – we have Fred’s good ‘humor’ spelt the American way, and also a reference to a ‘corner store’ which feels rather transatlantic, so I don’t know how much they might differ from the 1913 ones.

Hicks certainly looks great as Scrooge – and weirdly, he also seems to quite closely resemble another figure from a well-known Christmas story, the Grinch. I wonder if Dr Seuss had ever seen this? He’d have been 22 when it came out in the US in 1926 – a bit of a stretch, though, admittedly!

In a nutshell:

It feels like an ambitious production for its time, but an imbalanced one – too much time it spent on the earliest sections, given an uneven and ultimately unsatisfying feel.

Links:

Wikipedia

IMDb

British Film Institute

Illustrated Films Monthly

A Christmas Carol - 1914, film

Title:

A Christmas Carol

Format:

Short silent film

Country:

UK

Production company:

London Film Company

Year:

1914

Length:

23 minutes

Setting:

Victorian

Background:

The London Film Company had been formed only the year before this release, and had built their own studios at Twickenham which are claimed in some sources to have been the largest in England at the time. Whatever the case, their 130 employees there resulted in a hefty wage bill and did the company’s finances little good.

Certainly the studios lasted longer than the company did – despite some success with The Manxman in 1916 (evidently a rare British hit in the US during the silent era), London were gone by 1921, and are not to be confused with Alexander Korda’s later and better-known London Films. Twickenham Studios, meanwhile, still exist to this day.

The bells, the bells...

Cast and crew:

Harold Shaw, who adapted and directed the story, was an American who was one of the mainstays of the London Film Company, and whose eventual departure seems to have been one of the contributing factors in the studio’s short life.

In common with the 1913 version there are some family ties at work, or family ties yet to come in this case, as Shaw’s future wife Edna Flugrath appears as Scrooge’s niece. Flugrath had got into acting with the Edison company, makers of the 1910 Carol, where she’d met Shaw and followed him to England and gained leading roles in several films, before later returning to the US and opening a beauty salon in Hollywood. You can see why she became a leading lady, though – she’s quite oddly captivating here in a relatively small role, perhaps because she has such an interesting, beguiling look to her.

Charles Rock and George Bellamy, both prolific British actors of the silent period, star as Scrooge and Cratchit, respectively, which seems a little odd in Bellamy’s case. He and Rock were both born in the same year, 1866, making him a rather old Cratchit. Fred is played by a Franklyn Bellamy, although I have been unable to discover whether he was any relative of George, or if this was just a coincidence.

Mary Brough is perhaps the best remembered of the performers, as an equally rather old Mrs Cratchit – she was possibly also the best known at the time, as she appears with top billing in some of the contemporary newspaper publicity I have seen for the film. The highest profile phase of her career came in the 1920s, however, when she was one of the ensemble cast who appeared in many of the “Aldwych farces” at London’s Aldwych Theatre.

This is all Marley has to say for himself in his entire appearance!

Underdone Potato:

There are various nice bits of business in this section, particularly Scrooge picking the extra lump of coal Bob has put onto the fire out of the fireplace with the tongs, and depositing it back into the scuttle. I also like the way Rock dismissively brushes his nephew’s hand from his shoulder when he is beseeching him to come and spend Christmas Day with them – ‘them’ being Fred and his wife, who in this version turns up at Scrooge’s office with him, although she quickly beats a hasty retreat in the face of his unpleasantness.

The two charitable gentlemen make their appearance, and as happens in a few versions – although this is a very early instance of it – after Scrooge has dismissed them, Bob gives them a coin or two for their cause even though he can ill afford it. We get to see Scrooge taking his lonely meal at the tavern as mentioned in the book, and this is contrasted with Bob going home to his happy family scene, with Tim playing a bit of hide and seek with him which is perhaps inspired by the hiding trick Martha does later on in the original story. Tim, interesting to note, doesn’t have his traditional crutch, but instead a splint strapped to his right leg.

As seems to be common with all of the silent versions, they do a good job of making Marley translucent – this was obviously a printing technique which was mastered pretty early on in the history of film-making. The chain Marley is bound with looks pretty good too, with various money boxes attached, and there’s a nice little bit where we see him pulling on the ringer to sound the long-unused bells in the house, which Scrooge hears ringing in the book.

The Ghost of Christmas Past visits Scrooge.
(Note Scrooge's real body still asleep on the bed behind him)

Past:

Speaking of the ghostly effect, one unusual thing they do here is apply it to Scrooge as he’s lifted away with each Spirit – he and the ghost are translucent in all of the scenes to which they are taken, although to really show it off they make sure that everyone else in the scenes being shown are over to one side of the frame, with Scrooge and the Spirit on the other, which makes things seem a little unnatural.

We get a quick visit to the lonely young Scrooge in his schoolroom, and then we drop in on the Fezziwigs’ Christmas party, but that’s it for the past visitations, before Scrooge is deposited back in bed. Arthur Cullin as the Spirit isn’t the androgynous figure of the book and lacks the snuffer-type cap, instead looking rather like some sort of garden ornament as he’s covered in festive greenery.

Another interesting touch seen with all three of the Spirits’ visits is that Scrooge’s ‘real’ body is always seen asleep on the bed as he leaves it in his see-through form to go with the ghost. He also, as in the book, stays in his clothes even when he goes to bed, albeit with his dressing gown on over the top.

Present:

Windham Guise is very much the traditional Father Christmas-type figure here. Again, as with the past, we have only a couple of quick visits – to the games being played at Fred’s party, and to the Cratchits’ Christmas dinner table, on both occasions seeing toasts being made to Scrooge.

Yet to Come:

Another common thread through several adaptations, particularly during the black-and-white era – the only vision of the future Scrooge is shown here is that of his gravestone, which as always seems a curious single image to choose given that we all know we’re going to die someday. The Spirit himself is hooded as usual, but the face of actor Ashton Tonge is seen and obviously human, making him look more like some grim, deathly monk; or actually, given the design of his cloak, even a little like one of Robin Hood’s merry men. He’s not very merry, though, admittedly.

The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come certainly looks like someone you wouldn't want to mess with!

What’s To-Day:

Instead of praising Jacob Marley, heaven and Christmas time when he wakes up, Scrooge gives all his thanks to god, which seems a bit mean when it was old Jacob who procured him this chance at redemption. He doesn’t call to a boy out of the window, although he does give some coins to some boys he passes in the street, before bumping into the charitable gentlemen and pledging them £100.

With no boy to send to the poulterer’s Scrooge goes himself, although it is the poulterer’s boy who delivers the bird to the Cratchits, complete with a note from Scrooge. He then goes to Fred’s house, as in the book, to join in with their Christmas celebrations.

At the very start of the film, Bob is seen putting up some holly on the mantle piece above the fire in the office, which Scrooge then tears down. There’s a nice touch here when Scrooge comes in on Boxing Day morning, sees it on the floor, and puts it back up. However, given that he had sent Bob his present with a note saying it was from him the previous day, what happens next doesn’t make a great deal of sense – he plays his little joke on Bob about him being past his time, before revealing all is well. During this bit, Bob picks up a letter-opener from Scrooge’s desk with which to defend himself, rather than his own ruler which he thinks about using in the book.

The film finishes with a scene a few days later, with Scrooge and Fred and Fred’s wife all going around to the Cratchits’ for a meal.

Review:

A curious beast, this. As you might expect given the scale and resources of the London Film Company, this is an expensive and expansive production. The sets are far more varied and better-made than the Zenith Film Company version from the previous year, and it’s probably the version of the Carol with the highest production values to have been made to this date.

However, unlike the Zenith version but in common with the 1901 and 1910 ones, I suspect you’d struggle to understand the story properly unless you were already familiar with it – although London may well have assumed that most of the audience would have been, of course. The intertitles are very few and far between, and use barely any of Dickens’s original words. Although usefully for me, and unusually from other silent versions I have seen, they do also name all the main actors and who they’re playing on their first appearances through the film.

As an example of the sparsity of the information conveyed by the intertitles, Marley’s entire appearance contains just a single sentence – “To-night three spirits will visit you – beware.” Um… Thanks Jacob!

In a nutshell:

If you’re a fan of the Carol and interested in silent film, this is certainly worth a look. While it can’t compete with the best of the later versions, for its era I’d say this was a pretty good production – with the proviso that it may be difficult to follow for anybody who doesn’t know the story.

Links:

Watch for free on the British Film Institute website

IMDb

A Christmas Carol - 1910, film

Title:

A Christmas Carol

Format:

Short silent film

Country:

USA

Production company:

Edison Studios

Year:

1910

Length:

10 minutes

Setting:

Victorian

Background:

Thomas Edison needs no introduction from me, although he evidently took no real interest in the motion pictures that were produced by his own company in the early days of silent cinema, and would have had no personal involvement in the making of this adaptation. The company had form in literary adaptations, having the same year also produced a version of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Cast and crew:

Made at the Edison Studios premises in New York, the film was directed by J. Searle Dawley, who evidently oversaw nearly 150 films during the silent era.

Australian actor Marc McDermott stars as Scrooge - he’d also been a Broadway performer, and had portrayed Sherlock Holmes on the stage. Here, he at times resembles something of a cross between Albert Steptoe from the BBC sitcom Steptoe and Son and Jim Carey’s animated Scrooge from the 2009 Disney version, and makes a decent stab of the old man. I particularly liked his forcefully sarcastic bows when trying to get people to leave his office early on in the film.

Charles Stanton Ogle plays Bob Cratchit – he was also a former Broadway performer and eventually appeared in around 300 silent films, including playing Long John Silver in a 1920 version of Treasure Island, but in spite of living until 1940 his career does not seem to have survived the silent era. The same is true of Viola Dana, Carey Lee and Shirley Mason, who all appeared in bit parts as children in the film and went on to more extensive silent film credits.

Underdone Potato:

There are a few changes evident to the early sections of the story – instead of two charity men there are three, and instead of Fred coming to visit his uncle alone he brings quite the party with him. Seeing this lot bursting into the office like a bunch of drunken revellers is actually enough to put you on Scrooge’s side in being irritated by them and wanting to be rid of them as quickly as possible.

The effect of Marley’s face on the knocker of Scrooge’s front door is at least as effective as anything else seen in the black-and-white era, and shows just at what pace the technology of film was progressing when compared to the same scene in the 1901 version.

Marley does have a chain on this occasion, although it’s a rather pathetic number simply going around his waist like a belt, with one strand then trailing along behind him. Clearly, this particular version of old Jacob can’t have been all that much of a sinner.

Fred's unwelcome party.

Past:

Like the 1901 version, this adaptation dispenses with the idea of having three different ghosts, although rather than Marley showing Scrooge the visions, the ghosts are combined into a single “Spirit of Christmas”. He most closely resembles the traditional depiction of the Ghost of Christmas Present, although as with the 1935 version lacking the beard more usually associated with the character.

We see Fan, Fezziwig and Belle breaking the engagement, all the expected horror and misery of the watching Scrooge, with plenty of the stereotypical arm-waving histrionics you’d expect from the lead character in a silent film drama.

Present:

The “Spirit of Christmas” shows us Scrooge’s name being toasted by the Cratchits and by Fred – watch the Cratchit scene closely and you’ll see Tiny Tim, making a very brief blink-and-you’ll-miss-him cameo. I know that Tim is usually the source of some of the most over-the-top saccharine moments of many adaptations, but to almost entirely omit him seems to be going a bit too far the other way.

What’s also interesting is that nephew Fred isn’t married in this version, but the intertitles make it clear that he is keen on marrying a woman but lacks the money to be able to make the match. “Rejected for want of money,” the intertitle tells us, suggesting that everything will be all right if he had some more of it. Similarly, while version of Ignorance and Want do make an appearance, here Ignorance has been changed to “Misery”, which isn’t the same thing, and is another indicator that Searle didn’t quite get the idea of the story.

Yet to Come:

Just a single vision here provided by the Spirit of Christmas – who has put on a veil for the occasion, but still seems to be the same spirit and speaks to Scrooge rather than being a silent, hooded figure.

The vision provided is of Scrooge breathing his last on his deathbed, watched over by a woman who I presume from the context is Mrs Dilber – as soon as he kicked the bucket, she wrenches a ring from his finger, which is quite a neat if extra-ruthless little boiling down of her attitude in the book I suppose. It then mixes into a shot of Scrooge’s gravestone, which I couldn’t read clearly on the version of the film I watched, but which seems to say something on it about Scrooge having died wanting friends – i.e., not having had any.

"Look! Look over here!"

What’s To-Day:

Scrooge is woken from his bed by a group of carol singers outside his window, to whom he throws some coins after having jumped up in delight at his redemption. He then goes to see nephew Fred – bumping into the three charity gentlemen outside, and pledging them some money – and gives Fred a letter, which we see, telling him he’s to become his business partner so will now have the money to marry whoever he chooses. Scrooge, Fred and Fred’s fiancée then visit the Cratchits, who are initially frightened of Scrooge and then startled by the change in him. There’s a nice little reference to the book here, with Bob picking up an instrument – the coal shovel, rather than the ruler he thinks about using in the book – to defend himself from the employer he thinks has gone Barmy. Scrooge laughs at the change in himself and presents Bob with a hamper full of a turkey and other goodies, and they all presumably live happily ever after.

Review:

The problem with this version is that Searle simply doesn’t understand the point of the story. The fact that Scrooge only sees his own death, and not Tim’s or anyone else’s perspectives, in the future means that we have a Scrooge who is upset only for himself, and not for others. When he then goes to make nephew Fred his business partner so that he has the money to marry the woman of his dreams, it delivers the message that money can solve all of your problems. This does not appear to me to be at all the message that Dickens was trying to convey with this, of all stories.

The production standards seem to be generally very good for the time, however, particularly when compared with the British version of 1901. The sets actually have walls and props rather than simply being painted backings, while the effects of the Spirit of Christmas and his various visitations are all very well achieved.

In a nutshell:

Not the best silent version – it misses the heart of the story, and makes it feel all rather mercenary.

Links:

Wikipedia

IMDb