Iconic miser Ebenezer Scrooge is shown visions of Christmases past, present and future by the ghost of his deceased partner, Jacob Marley. This short (~5 min) film, which was produced by Robert Paul and directed by Walter Booth, is the first adaptation of Dicken's famous tale (but, similar to J. C. Buckstone's 1901 theatrical version, Marley's shade takes the place of the three Christmas spirits). The film is divided into 4 chapters, separated by title cards but there were no 'dialogue intertitles' in the version I watched on YouTube. Although the sets are simply furniture placed in front of painted backdrops, the 'special effects' are effective and technically sophisticated for its time: Marley's ghost, including his face on the door-knocker, and Scrooge's various 'visions' are done using double exposures. Booth was an early innovator of optical trickery and directed the delirious 'The ? Motorist' (1906) and two of the earliest 'military science fiction' films, 'The Airship Destroyer' (1909) and 'The Aerial Submarine' (1910).
13 Reviews
ghost of cinema past
lee_eisenberg2 October 2014
The oldest surviving cinematic adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" is a very truncated version to the point that the Ghosts of Christmases Past, Present and Future don't even appear. Jacob Marley shows Ebenezer Scrooge what the latter needs to know. There's apparently no available info about who the cast is. Only about half the movie exists today, and I watched it on Wikipedia. I understand that a lot of movies during cinema's infancy were adaptations of classic novels so that viewers would already know the story and there would be limited need for intertitles.
Aside from being the oldest surviving adaptation of Dickens's classic novel, there's nothing particularly special about "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost". It's actually based more on J.C. Buckstone's stage adaptation "Scrooge". I'll forgive it for looking like it does - the background looks painted - since movies were just getting off the ground. My favorite adaptation of Dickens's novel remains "Scrooged", starring Bill Murray as a greedy TV exec (one of the lines describes a TV ad as "the Manson family Christmas").
Anyway, it's an OK movie.
Aside from being the oldest surviving adaptation of Dickens's classic novel, there's nothing particularly special about "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost". It's actually based more on J.C. Buckstone's stage adaptation "Scrooge". I'll forgive it for looking like it does - the background looks painted - since movies were just getting off the ground. My favorite adaptation of Dickens's novel remains "Scrooged", starring Bill Murray as a greedy TV exec (one of the lines describes a TV ad as "the Manson family Christmas").
Anyway, it's an OK movie.
Early Scrooge
utgard1425 September 2017
Early adaptation of the famous Dickens tale. I believe it's the earliest film version (that survived, at least). IMDb lists the runtime as 11 minutes but the only versions I could find were 3 minutes and change. They cram a lot into that 3 minutes. Points for that but I can't imagine any viewer who wasn't familiar with the story knowing what was going on. There are a few title cards but, again, unless you know the story already they don't explain much. So you have this guy being tormented by Christmas spirits with little explanation. There's clearly a lot missing. Still, the effort is good for its time and limitations and some of the technical stuff is impressive.
Outdated Approach to Filmic Storytelling
Cineanalyst4 January 2008
Nowadays, we often take for granted the approach, grammar and techniques that make up self-contained narrative movies. This seems to have been a natural advancement, but it was actually a difficult problem to early filmmakers. Many hesitated to even edit together spatially separate shots to tell a story for concerns that it would seem discontinuous. In "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost", Walter Booth and R.W. Paul approached this problem by using a story that a general audience already knew, but abridged it, explained some finer points in the intertitles and packaged it within the tableaux style. Perhaps, a lecturer would even provide further clarification during an exhibition. Several other filmmakers tried this as well, including Cecil Hepworth with "Alice in Wonderland" (1903) and Edwin S. Porter with "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (1903). The earliest and most common films of this kind, however, were the passion plays. Another early story film James White's "Love and War" (1899) was accompanied by explanatory song. This kind of filmic storytelling soon became outdated in comparison to, but for a time coexisted with, the story film, especially the chase films, which established continuity editing. Of course, novels would still be abridged, intertitles would occasionally do too much of the work, and the tableaux style continued in some places, but films became self-contained narratives. Therefore, this film is outdated, but it does have some interesting aspects.
This is perhaps the earliest screen adaptation of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". Apparently, there were earlier film versions of other Dickens' stories, but according to the British Film Institute, this is the earliest that survives. Ewan Davidson for the BFI further adds that it was based on a play by J.C. Buckstone, which like the film, dispensed with the different ghosts for a condensed vision provided by Marley's ghost. Additionally, Dickens, with this book, was one of the more important 19th Century writers to invent the family-oriented, charitable and gift-giving Christmas holiday that we know today. Likewise, this film is an early example of a Christmas film released during the season.
This was an elaborate film for 1901; originally, it supposedly contained 13 scenes. What remains is less than five minutes with about six scenes in their entirety and a brief glimpse of another scene. In what remains, there are some novel techniques for the time. There are multiple exposure shots for the ghosts, but this effect had already been done in previous films; this is, however, the earliest instance that I've seen of using the multiple exposure effect for overlapping images with title cards. This is also an early use of title cards in general, although they had appeared less elaborately in a few earlier films, including "How It Feels to Be Run Over" (1900). Furthermore, this is the first instance I've seen of the wipe, which transitions between shots. Dissolves are also used, which is a transition effect that Georges Méliès had already established in his films. Scenes are also tinted.
This is perhaps the earliest screen adaptation of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". Apparently, there were earlier film versions of other Dickens' stories, but according to the British Film Institute, this is the earliest that survives. Ewan Davidson for the BFI further adds that it was based on a play by J.C. Buckstone, which like the film, dispensed with the different ghosts for a condensed vision provided by Marley's ghost. Additionally, Dickens, with this book, was one of the more important 19th Century writers to invent the family-oriented, charitable and gift-giving Christmas holiday that we know today. Likewise, this film is an early example of a Christmas film released during the season.
This was an elaborate film for 1901; originally, it supposedly contained 13 scenes. What remains is less than five minutes with about six scenes in their entirety and a brief glimpse of another scene. In what remains, there are some novel techniques for the time. There are multiple exposure shots for the ghosts, but this effect had already been done in previous films; this is, however, the earliest instance that I've seen of using the multiple exposure effect for overlapping images with title cards. This is also an early use of title cards in general, although they had appeared less elaborately in a few earlier films, including "How It Feels to Be Run Over" (1900). Furthermore, this is the first instance I've seen of the wipe, which transitions between shots. Dissolves are also used, which is a transition effect that Georges Méliès had already established in his films. Scenes are also tinted.
This is a very good movie.
jacobjohntaylor127 November 2015
This is a very good movie. It is very scary. It also well written. 1951 version of A Christmas carol is better. But still this a great film. A miser is hunted by the dead sprite of an old friend on Christmas eve. This one best ghost stories ever. It is also on of the best moral stories ever. It is a classic. I enjoy the book a little more. But still this is a great movie. This movie is a must see. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. I do not know any of the actors but they are good. This is a great fantasy movie. It is a hidden classic. This a great movie. The 1986 version of A Christmas carol is better. But still this a great movie.
Pepper's Ghost
owen-watts12 March 2024
CarolQuest Part I
The earliest ever adaptation of probably the most-adapted novel of all time is mostly built around some great theatrical tricks and not much else. Wikipedia insists it's also the first use of intertitles in a film which feels quite an intense mantle to place on it. Bracingly abridged down to about five minutes, and now only surviving as three-and-a-half it's worth a gander (beyond historical fascination) for the door-knocker effect at the very least and the genuinely fascinating choice of projecting Scrooge's youth onto a curtain behind him. Not essential, but fairly atmospheric.
The earliest ever adaptation of probably the most-adapted novel of all time is mostly built around some great theatrical tricks and not much else. Wikipedia insists it's also the first use of intertitles in a film which feels quite an intense mantle to place on it. Bracingly abridged down to about five minutes, and now only surviving as three-and-a-half it's worth a gander (beyond historical fascination) for the door-knocker effect at the very least and the genuinely fascinating choice of projecting Scrooge's youth onto a curtain behind him. Not essential, but fairly atmospheric.
An exceptionally difficult film to rate and perhaps the earliest film featuring Scrooge.
planktonrules7 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I am not going to give this film a numerical score, as the film is very incomplete. Like so many old films made on nitrate film stock, much of the film has been lost. What remains is highly abbreviated and makes little sense unless you know the story (and today who doesn't?). In addition, films made around that time were VERY short and abbreviated to begin with--so you have a film that has limited watchability today. You can't blame the film makers for all this--this is true of many films of the era.
The film begins as Scrooge approaches his house and Marley's ghost appears on the door knocker. Using superimposed images, this and the appearances of Christmas ghosts are pretty good--especially for 1901. Scrooge then eats his dinner and falls asleep--at which point the first ghost appears and shows his what seem to be random images. The film then indicates that part 3 follows--and you are left assuming part 2 was partially skipped (especially the intertitle card indicating part 2 had begun). Part 4 is poorly done--as the intertitle card pretty much says it all BEFORE you see any of the action. This describing everything before it occurs was actually very common in 1901 but it sure took out any sense of suspense! And finally, the ending is completely missing.
What you have is a reasonably well made film. Considering most films made about 1901 showed very mundane things (people eating, trains arriving at the station, etc.), this is a nice attempt to tell a story. And, the camera-work for the time is good. But, on the other hand, only about half of the original film still exists and unless you are dying to see what is perhaps the first Scrooge on film, I suggest you watch only if you are a die-hard cinephile.
The film begins as Scrooge approaches his house and Marley's ghost appears on the door knocker. Using superimposed images, this and the appearances of Christmas ghosts are pretty good--especially for 1901. Scrooge then eats his dinner and falls asleep--at which point the first ghost appears and shows his what seem to be random images. The film then indicates that part 3 follows--and you are left assuming part 2 was partially skipped (especially the intertitle card indicating part 2 had begun). Part 4 is poorly done--as the intertitle card pretty much says it all BEFORE you see any of the action. This describing everything before it occurs was actually very common in 1901 but it sure took out any sense of suspense! And finally, the ending is completely missing.
What you have is a reasonably well made film. Considering most films made about 1901 showed very mundane things (people eating, trains arriving at the station, etc.), this is a nice attempt to tell a story. And, the camera-work for the time is good. But, on the other hand, only about half of the original film still exists and unless you are dying to see what is perhaps the first Scrooge on film, I suggest you watch only if you are a die-hard cinephile.
It's short, it's missing parts, yet it's still fairly impressive
cricketbat21 November 2022
Considering that Scrooge, or, Marley's Ghost was made in the very early days of cinema, and it was created only about 60 years after Charles Dickens's novella was written, it's fairly impressive. This is essentially a very short stage play with a little cinematic magic thrown in, such as superimposing images of the spirits. It eliminates much of the original story, and even some of the ghosts, as Jacob Marley (holding a sheet around himself) is the one who leads Ebenezer to the past, present, and future. Nevertheless, it's still fascinating to watch the first film adaptation of "A Christmas Carol."
Zip Zip Zip
boblipton1 September 2006
Although the IMDb listing would have you believe this movie is 11 minutes in length, the DVD version of it as issued by the British Film Institute in 2006 times in at about three minutes --- and there isn't time enough to tell the story in any meaningful way unless you know it -- stick with the 1951 version starring Alastair Sim is my advice.
Nonetheless, this movie is interesting, because it may be the earliest use of titles I have ever seen in the movies. Although in coming decades movie titles would expand into dialogue, and the writing of concise and witty titles into a fine art, at this stage, the titles are actually just that: brief chapter titles, describing the scene you are about to see. There are four of them.
Nonetheless, this movie is interesting, because it may be the earliest use of titles I have ever seen in the movies. Although in coming decades movie titles would expand into dialogue, and the writing of concise and witty titles into a fine art, at this stage, the titles are actually just that: brief chapter titles, describing the scene you are about to see. There are four of them.
Not yet ready
Horst_In_Translation6 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost" is a British black-and-white silent short film from 1901 and I have read different statements on how long it was in the original and how much of it was saved and still isn't lost after way over a century has passed. The version I watched ran for roughly 6.5 minutes. This is of course another take on Charles Dickens' famous "A Christmas Carol" The director here was very prolific back then and it is from relatively early in his career. For lead actor Smith, it was apparently the only career effort in front of the camera, at least according to IMDb, although it is of course very possible that he appeared in other works whose existence is forgotten too because they are lost as well. Anyway, I personally am not sure if I had recognized the tale here had I not known what it was beforehand. Without sound and color, the medium film may simply not yet have been ready for the Dickens material and the emotion, depth and significance that comes with it. So I gotta give this one here a thumbs-down. Not recommended.
First Version of the Dickens Tale
Michael_Elliott26 December 2009
Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost (1901)
*** (out of 4)
Most people, myself included, haven't heard of Paul's Animatograph Works, the production company here but they were the first to produce a film version of Dickens' A Christmas Carol. In the film we see Scrooge visited by three ghosts and his redemption. This is a pretty unique film for 1901 in many regards. For starters, title cards weren't being used during this era but this film here has pretty long ones and I'm pretty sure that this is the earliest film I've seen them used in. The film also tells a "story" which again wasn't the norm for this era. One would be shocked that a three-minute film could stay pretty faithful to the original story but this film does a pretty good job at that. I was really surprised to see the film pay close attention to the original material, although, needless to say, this film does have to speed things up quite a bit. The special effects, from the Melies style of film-making, are pretty good and hold up well today. Apparently this film originally ran a bit longer but hopefully the other few minutes will be found at some point. What remains is an interesting bit of history.
*** (out of 4)
Most people, myself included, haven't heard of Paul's Animatograph Works, the production company here but they were the first to produce a film version of Dickens' A Christmas Carol. In the film we see Scrooge visited by three ghosts and his redemption. This is a pretty unique film for 1901 in many regards. For starters, title cards weren't being used during this era but this film here has pretty long ones and I'm pretty sure that this is the earliest film I've seen them used in. The film also tells a "story" which again wasn't the norm for this era. One would be shocked that a three-minute film could stay pretty faithful to the original story but this film does a pretty good job at that. I was really surprised to see the film pay close attention to the original material, although, needless to say, this film does have to speed things up quite a bit. The special effects, from the Melies style of film-making, are pretty good and hold up well today. Apparently this film originally ran a bit longer but hopefully the other few minutes will be found at some point. What remains is an interesting bit of history.
For those who want them all
Byrdz25 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The 1901 silent version of "A Christmas Carol"... who wudda thunk it ? Is the internet great or what ?
This short (very short) films is known as "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost". It's quite theatrical with what appears to be painted canvas (or cardboard) sets, very little story and a totally unidentified cast.
It's terrific to be able to view what remains of what is said to be the earliest version of this Dicken's story.
It has fewer than the usual number of ghosts but it does have "trick shots" with superimposed images.
It's worth a look, movie history wise.
This short (very short) films is known as "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost". It's quite theatrical with what appears to be painted canvas (or cardboard) sets, very little story and a totally unidentified cast.
It's terrific to be able to view what remains of what is said to be the earliest version of this Dicken's story.
It has fewer than the usual number of ghosts but it does have "trick shots" with superimposed images.
It's worth a look, movie history wise.
nice
Kirpianuscus4 June 2020
The only problem is when you understand be a half of film. Decent in each aspect, reasonable adaptation, great in details and message, not bad craft and, sure, theatrical at whole. But not bad. Short, pieces of an old age of cinema, testimony of a very old world.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
