A Christmas Carol (1997) - A Flawed, but Serviceable Adaptation of the Holiday Ghost Story

 

Easily one of the most famous Christmas stories in pop culture is A Christmas Carol, while other stories may be more renowned or popular, A Christmas Carol has remained an iconic and memorable tale since the original publication of the Charles Dickens novella in 1843. With an almost uncountable amount of film and stage adaptations, parodies and homages, and episodes of television shows that have this as the main basis for a plot, it is safe to say that everybody is familiar with some form of the classic holiday ghost story. I've reviewed one adaptation of the story before, the 2009 Robert Zemeckis motion capture feature starring Jim Carrey. It was a movie that had a lot of really good stuff in it, but ultimately failed due to the constantly shifting tone, and the story being made too extreme. However, there is another animated Christmas Carol movie, well there is one from 1971 starring Alastair Sim which was produced by Richard Williams and Chuck Jones, but that one doesn't reach forty minutes. The one I referred to was a version from 1997 that stars Tim Curry as Scrooge, and features Ed Asner, Whoopi Goldberg, Michael York, Jodi Benson and Frank Welker. This is A Christmas Carol, 1997.

Strange to say but, there is a reason this movie has been on my list, and it's not just that I adore the story of A Christmas Carol. I remember vaguely being at my grandmother's place, around the holidays and what should be on television but this exact version of A Christmas Carol. This may have been my introduction to the classic story, and all these years later, I wanted to see if it was as... well I'll be honest I didn't really like it as a kid, but I was a kid and I had weird opinions. A part of this review is me making sure this was the version I watched on my Grandparent's TV all those years ago. Has it improved with age, or is still as weird as I remember it.

I'm not going to go over the plot this time, seeing as this is a retelling of a story I've already talk about I feel it isn't necessary. You know the story of Scrooge, the three spirits and the moral of keeping the spirit of the season in your heart. So, how good of an adaptation is this one? They do an... adequate job, but not much else. They get the basics of the story down, making it book accurate, however this does include the inherent flaw of the book. In the book, Scrooge almost immediately begins regretting his actions, and yet does not feel like he changes until the very end. You can still believe he is redeemed, but at the same time you don't really get that arc. It is quite apparent in this movie, but it is a flaw you get with most adaptations, they just hide it better I guess. That being said, I am impressed with what they managed to squeeze into just over an hour. When the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come shows Scrooge the dead body under the sheets, they cleverly combine this with people stealing from the dead man, rather than being dragged to Old Joe's. It is a serviceable adaptation, but not much else.

The same goes for book dialogue, there are lines that are from the book, but they have slight changes that make them feel different, and don't get me wrong, different is not bad. The 1984 version with George C. Scott also changed some dialogue, but this just is not the same. When we got to the point where the Ghost of Christmas Present throws one of Scrooge's lines back at him, my thought was not "Oh, the hammer's coming down", it was more "Wait, did he say that line earlier?", and yeah, I went back to the earlier scene and checked and he said the line, but it was not the same. I guess it also does not help that the tone is also a bit different in this version, toning down the darker aspects of the story and putting more emphasis on the emotional aspects. Rather than a dark and horrific scene of the dead trying in vain to aid a helpless woman, it's just two ghosts offering things to a woman who can't see them. Yes, it does get the point across, but it is a very different tone. They also add in a bit of a comedic edge, which... is fine. I didn't find it that amusing, but it did not hurt this movie. Save for how they handled Jacob Marley's face in the door knocker, it didn't upset me at all.

This is an interesting adaptation character wise. In the role of Scrooge this time is Tim Curry, definitely a good choice, he is someone I could see playing an excellent Scrooge, there are some moments where it sounds like he's channeling his interpretation of The Joker from the Batman animated series, and I'm not just saying that because that was my previous review, some of his reads sounded like that. The character is also a bit nastier in this version, going to the point of straight up attacking children and some hints that he is abusive to his dog. Oh yeah, he has a dog in this version, he doesn't add much, but is again, mostly harmless. They add a detail where Scrooge ends up relating to Tiny Tim a little bit, which is actually a kind of interesting addition to the story. In the original, and most versions of the story, Tiny Tim is less of a character and more a representation, a symbol of never-ending cheer and optimism, he's not really meant to be mourned as a character but as one would mourn the loss of innocence or faith. Having Scrooge have something to relate to with Tiny Tim makes the kid feel more like an identifiable character rather than an idea.

The ghosts were also handled interestingly. The Ghost of Christmas Past is a tricky being to really adapt properly, so design wise they went with a young child. For some reason they made him... cockney? I'm not good at identifying specific accents. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is done well, again they do tone down the darker scenes of the story, so when Scrooge is staring at his grave at the end, it's played a bit more emotionally than dark. Then we have The Ghost of Christmas Present, and this is going to be a tough one. So, for those of you who don't know, England had a winter figure of their own before Santa Claus, in fact he was a big influence of the modern day Santa Claus. His name was Father Christmas, he was a giant man who wore a green robe and had a wreath of holly on his head like a crown. Does that sound familiar? The Ghost of Christmas Present was literally Father Christmas. Which begs the question why they made this version of the character a black woman played by Whoopi Goldberg. So, in this decade of the two-thousand and twenties, the subject of race swapping a character has... not become touchy, it's been a touchy subject for a while, but kind of became a bigger discussion with the announcement of Halle Bailey as Ariel for the live action Little Mermaid remake. Is it right to cast a person of color in the role of a character that was originally not? This is a tough issue, especially in this case. On the one hand, Father Christmas was a cultural figure, but on the other, he has been all but replaced by the modern day Santa Claus, so I don't really know what to think. To be fair, the character mostly remains unchanged despite the race and gender swap, so... yeah... I'll leave this one up to everyone else.

On to the technicals, a much easier topic to discuss because the animation is objectively passable. It's a direct-to-video movie, so the animation is not going to be spectacular. That being said, it was definitely passable, not a lot of major mistakes. The same could be said for the backing score, it is perfectly serviceable, it does its job, and not much else. The Music was composed by Megan Cavallari and John Campbell, and I can't really find much else on these two. I found a website for a John Campbell who is a composer who did work on a version of A Christmas Carol for television, but there is not confirmation on the site that it is this version of A Christmas Carol. The songs in this movie are also not that great. They serve their purpose, they aren't awful songs, but they are pretty bland. I can't imagine anyone begging for a release of this movie's soundtrack. Overall, the animation and music are serviceable.

I think that is a best word to describe this movie; Serviceable. It wanted to be a decent retelling of A Christmas Carol and it was a decent retelling of A Christmas Carol. There really isn't much to this one, and I don't really know how to rate it. Do I condemn it for being nothing special, or to I commend it for being watchable, both just kind of feel wrong. I guess it does not hurt to compare it to other versions of the story, most notably the three big ones and the 2009 version. I have a theory that the big three adaptations of the story all worked because they each highlighted an aspect of the character of Scrooge. Alastair Sim was the self-loathing misanthrope who felt like he was beyond redemption, George C. Scott was the bitter man who was molded into something he never wanted to be and Michael Caine was the good man buried under years of pain and never saw the joy in life. I don't really get any of that with Curry's Scrooge, and I can't really argue this movie being as good a movie as those three. 2009's A Christmas Carol is a different story, as that movie was almost good, fantastic even, but the minor changes really piled up and made the movie into something the story was not. I guess it depends on what you want between these two. The 2009 version takes a lot of liberties, while this one is pretty safe and bland. I dunno, I kind feel generous to this one since it is a harmless, maybe a bit too harmless, telling of the story. No, I don't think it will really change your life, but if you find it on TV, I can think of bigger wastes of time.