Showing posts with label Non-Review Posts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Non-Review Posts. Show all posts

Tuesday, 22 December 2020

The Lost Carols - Scrooge, 1936, television

Title:
Scrooge
 
Format:
Scheduled but never broadcast live performed reading for television
 
Country:
UK
 
Production company:
BBC Television
 
Year:
1936 – it was due to be broadcast live on the BBC Television service twice, both on December 24th that year
 
Length:
Somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes, approximately
 
Setting:
Unknown, but probably Victorian
 
Background:
This is a very lost Carol. On Wikipedia – until I removed it after researching this article – it used to be listed as the earliest ever television version of the Carol. However, while I was putting together this piece I discovered that, sadly, that’s not the case. It was certainly billed in the listings. But due to the illness of its star, in the event it never actually happened.


Following various experimental broadcasts throughout the early 1930s, the BBC had begun the world’s first regular television service in November 1936. It was not yet the popular mass medium it would become – sets were an expensive luxury, and the BBC had only a single transmitter at their Alexandra Palace studios in London. Thus, the signals were available only to those in London and the surrounding area, although in certain conditions they could be picked up much further afield.
 
The BBC Television Service broadcast for only a few hours a day, and although there were some demonstration and bought-in films, almost all of its output was shown live. This consisted of assorted talks, musical and variety programmes, dramas and readings. One oddity was that there were two competing technical standards for television in use at the time – from the Baird and Marconi companies.
 
The BBC had agreed to start its service using an alternation of the two systems – but the receiving sets were not compatible, so if you only had a set of a certain type, for the first few months of the BBC’s service you could only watch programmes every other week. Christmas week in 1936 fell under the Marconi system, which was regarded as the superior and the Baird system was eventually abandoned.

 
This was to have been a live performance broadcast twice on Christmas Eve, Thursday the 24th of December 1936, under the title Scrooge. It went out once just after 3pm, and again just after 9pm. I say ‘just after’ as its billing in the BBC’s Radio Times listings magazine is for “Programme Summary, followed by Scrooge,” so it’s difficult to say precisely at what time it would have started or how long it might have been.
 
I have found no information about what, if anything, was broadcast instead of Scrooge that Christmas Eve. It’s possible that a script or other information about the abandoned 1936 version may survive at the BBC’s wonderful Written Archives Centre in Caversham. But until such time as I can perhaps make some enquiries there, it’s difficult to say much more.
 
Cast and crew:
This seems to have been due to be a one-man performance from Bransby Williams, a man with a strong connection to both Dickens in general and the character of Scrooge in particular. Eight years before this he’d starred in another lost Carol, the 1928 short film Scrooge, which is believed to have been the first sound version.

Excerpt from the Yorkshire Observer,
24th December 1936
 
Williams had been born only two months after Dickens’s death, in 1870. He’d been particularly associated with the author’s characters on stage for many years, specialising in such productions as an actor-manager with his own company. Like Seymour Hicks before him, he’d made a particular success of Scrooge in the theatre, having played the part in various productions since 1898, when he gave a one-man monologue version as part of the Christmas bill at the London Pavilion. The one-man show of Scrooge was, then, clearly something he was well-practised at by 1936!
 
Williams had also made various recorded versions of a dramatic readings and performances from the book, the first released as early as 1905. He continued making various recordings as Scrooge for over forty years, with the final one being released on the Decca label in 1948. He’d also played Scrooge for the BBC on the radio on more than one occasion, since at least 1932.
 
Williams did eventually get to play Scrooge for BBC Television in its first full-cast version of the Carol in 1950. Then in 1952, some sixteen years late, he did eventually get to give his one-man version, in a solo performance of “scenes from A Christmas Carol”. This 1952 version may have not been dissimilar to what was due to have been broadcast in 1936, as it’s in a not much longer slot of 20 minutes. That 1952 performance actually survives as a film recording of the live broadcast, and was repeated by the BBC in 1953, 1955 and 1960, but alas I currently have no way of watching it.
 
While researching this piece, I found an article Williams wrote which was published in the Larne Times on Boxing Day 1936 – just two days after he had been due to give television its first Scrooge. Writing about his love of Dickens and the importance the author and particularly A Christmas Carol held for him, Williams wrote that:
 
If Dickens had written no other story than the Christmas Carol – and be it remembered he wrote twenty-four full-sized stories, hundreds of short ones and hundreds of miscellaneous articles – if he had written no other it is possible his name would be just as famous. He would still have been the man who was Christmas.”
 
This particularly struck me as I wrote something similar in my introductory essay in this blog, about why I love the story so much. Not a particularly original thought, I grant you, but nice to know that someone so important to the performed history of the Carol as Williams felt the same way.
 
In a nutshell:
It never happened.
 
Links:
BBC Genome

Saturday, 14 November 2015

Introduction


Ever since I was a young child, I have loved A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. I don’t think that I am alone in this. I am sure that for many people – probably including you if your online search has brought you here to this page – it is wrapped up in and part of happy, nostalgic memories of Christmases of the past.

But it is not purely and simply a matter of nostalgia. As I have grown older, and continued to enjoy the story of the Carol every Christmas in one form or another, I have become ever more convinced that it is quite possibly the greatest story ever told. A story so perfect and so natural that it almost seems difficult to imagine that it wasn’t always there; so incredible to think that someone actually sat down and thought it out and created it as an authored piece of work. It feels as if it should have been a folk tale for the generations, and indeed that is pretty much what it has become.

I have another blog, where back in 2012 I wrote a piece about why I love A Christmas Carol so much, and where I thought its power lies. I have reproduced that post here on this blog, to hopefully give an idea as to the background to why I am such a fan of the work.

John Leech's illustration of Scrooge with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, from the original 1843 edition of the book.
For many, probably most, of us who have discovered the Carol since the mid-twentieth century, it is almost certainly an adaptation of some form or another that was our first exposure to it, rather than the original work itself. It has been adapted for stage, cinema, radio and television across the world on hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of occasions – and I find this fascinating.

All of the adaptations are different in one way or another. The creators of all of them choose to either to include or to omit certain sections, scenes, characters or lines of dialogue. They may take place in the original setting, or transport the story to other times and places. The very best of them have helped add to the story’s legacy and to widen its appeal – while the very worst can at least prove to be amusing examples of how not to undertake an adaptation, along with some more noble failures along the way. I want to see how one single, rather short, tale has been adapted so many different times by so many different people in so many different ways. (I must also admit to taking some inspiration from a rather fun blog I came across a few years ago, which listed and reviewed hundreds of cover versions of Last Christmas by Wham!)

Two screen versions of the Carol in particular drew me to the story as a child, and we’ll certainly come to those as the project progresses. There are others I have seen since of which I am also very fond, but at this point, in November 2015, I would say I have seen no more than a dozen versions. I hope, over time, to add a great many more than that to this blog.

The idea is that each review will be split up into sections, for greater ease of comparing and contrasting the various different versions as you browse through. The reviews won’t be in any particular order, whether chronological or otherwise – they’ll be posted as and when I come to them, or when I discover or finally watch versions I hadn’t seen before. I expect it’s a project I will add to from time to time for several years, so apologies if your favourite version isn’t up on here yet!

Some of you may wonder why I’m doing this if I love the story so much – won’t seeing and analysing so many versions make me sick of it? I’m not worried about this, however, as I don’t think that even the very best screen versions ever quite manage to capture the entire magic of the book. The book is always the book – it will always be the definitive version, for me. If you haven’t yet read it, I heartily recommend it – if you have enjoyed the story in other forms, I promise you it is never stronger or more potent, or more fun, than in Dickens’s original.

So that’s why this blog is here. Purely for a spot of seasonal amusement, or for whenever you and I may come to a version of A Christmas Carol throughout the year. If there’s a version, particularly an obscure or unusual one, that you think I really ought to have a look at, do please drop me a line via watchingthecarol@gmail.com, or leave a comment below.

Thank you for reading!

The Book - The Greatest Story Ever Told

Note: This post first appeared on my other blog back in December 2012. It's here to explain why I love "A Christmas Carol" so much.



Folk tales, fairy stories and nursery rhymes are perhaps the most powerful narratives that we have, because they have been subjected to the strongest and most stringent editorial processes possible. Over hundreds, in some cases perhaps thousands, of years, they have been polished clean and smooth in the telling and the retelling, as one generation hands them on to the next.

All the rough edges are gone, only plots and characters that are the most engaging and affecting remain. The collective popular consciousness is a fine judge of when a story works and when it does not, which is why the narratives formed in this way have stood the test of time, and why these tales first heard in childhood are often the ones that stay strongest in the memory.

It takes a special talent, then – perhaps a unique one – to consciously and single-handedly create a story so organic, so natural and so powerful that it feels like a folk tale.

And yet, A Christmas Carol did indeed spring from the mind of Charles Dickens. He was influenced of course by the world and the society around him, of attitudes and realities of the early Victorian age; and he had, after a fashion, piloted the story before, in the The Story of the Goblins Who Stole a Sexton. No piece of writing is created entirely in isolation, but when Dickens sat down in the autumn of 1843 and formed the plot to convey his message, he hit upon something so utterly perfect in every way that he initiated one of the few folk tales – the only one, perhaps? – with a very definite date of publication and a single author. Characters who are familiar touchstones in popular culture to this day, and will remain so for generations to come – Scrooge, the three spirits, even Tiny Tim; he came up with them all.

Like all folk tales, A Christmas Carol is a story that is told and re-told again and again, its form and format changing for the age, but Dickens’s central narrative always remaining at its heart. There is not a year that goes by without some new adaptation or pastiche appearing either in the cinemas, on the television, on the radio or online. The Hallmark Channel in the United States alone seems to manage to turn out a new version each year, usually an overly-saccharine modern-day adaptation, featuring the Scrooge character as a heartless female celebrity or executive of some sort.

These adaptations vary from the sublime to the ridiculous, but whatever the heights some of them can reach, there is nothing that can match the joy and the sheer excellence of the prose in the original. If you’ve never read it, I beseech you to try it – you may have some idea of Dickens as being overly long and ‘difficult’, but A Christmas Carol remains perhaps his most readable work. You can polish it off in an afternoon, it has a lightness of touch that comes perhaps from his driving sense of purpose and message, and from not being weighed down by having to be published in serial form. A Christmas Carol, unlike his longer works, first appeared all of a piece; a perfect whole, ideal for consumption in a single sitting.

In an early entry on this blog, I played with an analogy of writers as footballers, musing that I was more of a Steve Claridge than a Maradona or a Pele. A Christmas Carol shows why Dickens was clearly Maradona, Pele, Best, Messi and anyone else you may care to mention all rolled into one. Take, just as an example, the initial description of Scrooge’s house:

“They were a gloomy suite of rooms, in a lowering pile of building up a yard, where it had so little business to be, that one could scarcely help fancying it must have run there when it was a young house, playing at hide-and-seek with other houses, and have forgotten the way out again.”

The text is fairly littered with gems such as this, scattered so frequently through the story that each page is turned with the delight of a walk in the woods where you continually find diamonds underfoot. It actually feels a disservice to lower A Christmas Carol to the level of being a mere “text”, but there we go; I am an English Literature graduate, after all.


The very first page alone must surely be one of the greatest single pages of any piece of prose fiction in the English literary canon. In the pantheon of great opening lines, Dickens is perhaps better known for “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...” but that doesn’t set up the mystery and wonder of the story anywhere near as well as the Carol’s “Marley was dead, to begin with.

The very first sentence – this chap Marley is dead, but only to begin with? How can there be any further story to come after that...?

Further down the page we have Dickens’s clarification of Marley’s status: “There is no doubt that Marley was dead. This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate.” In between, we’ve had Dickens’s playful musings on the nature of one of the great English similes; he compares Marley to being “as dead as a door-nail,” and then points out that:

“Mind! I don't mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country's done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.”

To use another footballing analogy, Dickens is – as my colleague Rob Butler would perhaps put it – “unplayable.”

If Charles Dickens had never written another word after A Christmas Carol – or indeed, another word except for it – then such is its quality, he would still be famous. Such is the power of the book that it has even been credited with inventing, or at least helping to invent, the modern celebration of Christmas as we know it in the English-speaking world. It is a high watermark, not simply for Dickens, but for all of literature – and even the man himself was never again to match it. What perhaps makes this all the more amazing is that Dickens wrote the Carol quickly, and because he needed the money. Having said that, he clearly had some idea he was on to a good thing, as he later related how he would pace the streets of London at night, forming the storyline in his head, laughing and crying at the wonder of what he was concocting.

After the instant success of the Carol, Dickens did his best to capture the lightning in a bottle. For each of the following three Christmases, and again in 1848, he produced another Christmas book. None of them come anywhere close to the Carol, however, and even had they not been overshadowed by it, they would probably still have been pretty much forgotten among his lesser works.

The Chimes feels too much like an artist doing a cover version of his own hit record; The Cricket on the Hearth verges too far into the territory of the twee fairytale, although the construction of its title did inspire a much lesser scribbler in the titling of one of his own works many years later; The Battle of Life was poorly-regarded by even Dickens himself, although the first two or three pages are worth a look, as Dickens rather startlingly seems to invent First World War literature about 70 years early; and The Haunted Man is a stodgy and confusing read.

None of Dickens’s attempts to replicate the success of A Christmas Carol can ever cheapen the impact of the original, however. It is a story for the ages, and in these more secular times it has perhaps in some quarters become the Christmas story. After all, it is just as believable, and a much more satisfying read, than the tale to which Christians cling.

Indeed, it would not surprise me if, in the future, there are children who understand Christmas to be the season when we celebrate the redemption of Ebenezer Scrooge. And why not? If the genius and sentiment of A Christmas Carol isn’t worth a day of praise and commemoration, then I don’t know what is.