Scrooge (1935) User Reviews

Keeping Christmas

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 6 December 2008]

This version of A Christmas Carol is not as well known as the MGM version with Reginald Owen in 1938 nor the later British version from 1951 with Alastair Sim, but in seeing this one we get a rare treat to see one of the great men of the English Theater doing his most famous part. Sir Seymour Hicks had been playing the part of Scrooge from the last century when he was in his twenties and criticized by some critics for being too young for the role.

Hicks did a silent version of Scrooge in 1913, it was his screen debut. What we are seeing here is not Charles Dickens per se, but an adaption of the play Hicks did by writer H. Fowler Mear. Still the spirit of Dickens message of universal brotherhood is not affected in any way by the screenplay.

I have to say that I marveled at Hicks even without dialog being able to create through force of personality and maybe some makeup, the soul of the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge and then after his encounter with the three spirits, a reformed, contrite and merry Scrooge. It's like watching two different people in the same role.

Hopefully more of the public on this side of the big pond will get to see Sir Seymour Hicks essay the role of the greatest reformed miser in history. They will be blessed, everyone.

An Interesting Early Version Of A Familiar Story

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 30 November 2009]

There's absolutely no way around the fact that every version of "A Chrismas Carol" that you will ever watch is going to be viewed through the lens of the 1951 Alastair Sim classic, even more than it will be looked at through the lens of the Dickens story itself. This very early version (the earliest "talkie" version as far as I can see) stands up pretty well in that respect. Seymour Hicks was a very convincing Ebenezer Scrooge with a different take on the character than Sim presented. Sim's Scrooge was - while mean and crotchety - a somewhat comic character, whereas Hicks seems to emphasize Scrooge's essential nastiness, making his ultimate transformation even more jarring in some ways. The story has all the basic elements, and so there are no real surprises in that sense, but there are some differences worth noting. Aside from the early shot of Marley's face in the door knocker, I found it interesting that Marley's ghost was invisible to the viewer (although seen apparently by Scrooge.) Marley's spirit also came across as stronger than in the '51 version, where he was a more pathetic creature, although afflicted in the same way. I also found the visits of the three Christmas spirits somewhat truncated - especially the visit of the Spirit of Christmas Past, who offered Scrooge only a couple of scenes revolving around his love Belle with no mention of Fezziwig and no mention of Fan. There was however some interesting additional material. The scene of the Lord Mayor's banquet seemed to put Scrooge's essential isolation into stronger focus. With no compassion for the poor, Scrooge is also completely alienated from the wealthy, and while the poor celebrate as best they can and the wealthy enjoy a huge banquet, Scrooge dines alone and then goes home to a lonely house. The end of the movie also puts Scrooge's transformation in a different context. Whereas the end of the '51 version emphasizes the relationship Scrooge develops with Tiny Tim, the end of this version has Scrooge joining Cratchet in church to sing "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing. What I took from that was that in this version Scrooge's transformation was a spiritual transformation as well as a personal one. This is a very interesting version of the story. 7/10

Makes an interesting contrast with the Alastair Sim version

[Varlaam · 7/10 · 21 December 1998]

To many or most people, the 1951 version is so familiar that it is a bit of a shock to see a different, but equally valid, version. The Sim version is still the definitive one I feel, but ...

The Sim Scrooge is utterly plausible much of the time, but then he will be as giddy as a schoolboy, for example, giving an interpretation that an incorrigible naysayer could choose to quibble about. My reaction to Seymour Hicks was similar but, strangely, in alternation with Sim -- oh, he's better than Sim here, worse than Sim here, more realistic here, less realistic here. Any given scene with Hicks could be better, worse, or just plain different from the corresponding scene with Sim. This is partly what made seeing this version so enjoyable; you really couldn't second-guess the next scene.

There are significant differences in the portrayal of the ghosts. I think we are all familiar with Michael Hordern's eerie and frightening ghost of Jacob Marley, shrouded in chains, from 1951. In this version, Marley's ghost is invisible!! You hear the chains but you see nothing whatsoever. The Ghosts of Christmas Past and Future are also quite non-corporeal. Only the Ghost of Christmas Present is someone we recognize from Sim.

Tiny Tim is quite different. We expect Tiny Tim to be an eternal optimist, irrepressibly cheerful. But the Sim Tim (boy, I loved typing that) seems to overdo it a little. He appears to be "on something", to use the vernacular. In this version, Tim is toned down. In some ways, it's an improvement. In the Sim version, to its credit, there is a special balance however, namely, the repentant Scrooge has an exuberance which matches Tim's precisely, and they appear together in the final shot, as we all know. A perfect ending. Back to that later. A key difference in Hicks: at the tragic moment, we do not see the lonely crutch we're used to; oh no, we see Tiny Tim lying dead!!

This version has some scenes which are not in Sim. This version in general has more singing, and one of the extra scenes involves the Lord Mayor of London giving his Christmas toast to Victoria followed by the singing of God Save The Queen.

In Sim, Scrooge comes to his senses on Christmas Day and there is a warm and funny scene with Mrs. Dilber, the housekeeper. Not here. Here there is an extended scene of Scrooge and the prize turkey! Scrooge goes to the butcher shop which is closed, snow falls on Scrooge, Scrooge throws snow, snow hits butcher. Butcher opens up, Scrooge orders turkey, Scrooge goes home. Scrooge gets dressed, boy brings butcher, Scrooge still dressing, butcher tries to leave with huge turkey, Scrooge answers door. Scrooge then pays the butcher, pays the boy, and gives the boy extra money so the boy can take the turkey to Bob Cratchit's house in a cab! Scrooge then leaves the house whereupon he meets the two gentlemen who were soliciting for the poor earlier in the film and volunteers to give them 100 pounds!

So, how does the film end? There's nothing about rushing right out to buy a new coal scuttle. No mention of scuttles in this film. It's Boxing Day and Scrooge gives Bob the day off. Then Scrooge joins Cratchit in church (!) for the singing of Hark the Herald Angels Sing. The End, with Tiny Tim not to be seen anywhere. So perhaps it's the warm emphasis on Tim that really clinches the 1951 version.

There are many moments of surprise and enjoyment here if the opportunity should ever present itself.

Little Seen and Not Bad

[BobLib · 20 December 2003]

While not as well-known as other versions of the Dickens classic (Owen, Sim, Magoo, Scott), the 1935 British film of "A Christmas Carol" is almost in their league. Among other things, it preserves, in sound, the performance of one of the legendary Scrooges of the English stage, Sir Seymour Hicks, who definitely does not disappoint. In the beginning, his Scrooge is one of the nastiest ever seen on film, his appearance that of something that crawled out from under a rock. But it is precisely these qualities that make his gradual transformation all the more affecting. At the beginning, we loathe the man, at the end, we rejoice with him at his redemption.

The performances of the rest of the cast are on the same level, with Oscar Asche's Falstaffian Ghost of Christmas Present a particular standout. And, although this is probably the one major film version of the story where you don't actually see Marley's Ghost, the anonymous actor who provides his voice, the accompanying special effects, and Hicks's reactions are enough to make the scene that much spookier.

Finally, kudos to Sydney Blythe and William Luff for their excellent camerawork. Fog-shrouded 19th century London has rarely been presented this well in ANY picture. And the play of light and shadow, particularly during the Christmas-Yet-to-Come sequence, would scare even the Scroogiest among us into repentance.

In sum, while this is not on the level with the excellent versions I've already mentioned, it has more than its' share of good points, and deserves to be seen at least once.

Different

[utgard14 · 6/10 · 20 December 2013]

Not bad but not great version of the classic Dickens tale. Seymour Hicks makes for a very different Scrooge than most of us are used to seeing. Big bushy eyebrows, wild hair, and a permanent caveman expression on his face. He makes Scrooge appear more brutish than other versions. His Scrooge looks like the kind of guy you would see in films of the period that hung around the docks waiting to rob people. This is a darker Carol than most. A lot of stuff is either left out or is only alluded to rather than shown. I don't know...it's not one of my favorite versions, to be sure, but it is interesting and enjoyable enough. Give it a shot if you have seen other versions and like to compare. Otherwise, if this is your first stop for A Christmas Carol film, you'd be better off with the 1951 Alastair Sim version.

An uneven pace lets things down

[smerph · 6/10 · 15 December 2015]

If there's a lesson to be learned from the countless adaptations of A Christmas Carol, it's that the makers should stick to the text as closely as possible. Dickens barely wasted a word in his novella; it being a perfectly judged, perfectly paced bit of fiction.

This adaptation takes a few wrong turns. It takes far too long before we get to the actual haunting, with the first 30 minutes being positively meandering. There's also a perfunctory sequence, featuring none of the main characters, where the King is celebrated. Maybe this kind of thing pleased the masses back in the thirties, but it does make the opening act a bit of a slog.

One would hope that things would get back on track when Jacob Marley appears. Unfortunately, Jacob Marley doesn't appear at all; he's a rather unimpressive voice-over. It's an odd choice; as if the makers aren't confident enough to give us a character design that will work for us.

Unfortunately, the sequence following this isn't much better. The visit from The Ghost of Christmas Past is done and dusted in less than 5 minutes (I'm not exaggerating). There's nothing of Scrooge of a boy, no mention of Fezziwig and we only really see the break-up of his relationship with Belle (and nothing of the good times Scrooge shared with her). This is a major misstep; as it fails to adequately give us Scrooge's backstory. Considering what *is* included in this adaptation, it's baffling that such a key segment was skipped over. I'm wondering if it was abridged so that they'd be no need for other, younger actors to play Scrooge, but that seems like an unnecessary compromise.

The Present and Yet To Come sequences fare better, and the conclusion to the story is really rather good as adaptations of the novella go. However, the damage has already been done.

It's a big shame as the cast are fine. Seymour Hicks may be a touch too shabby for my tastes as Old Scrooge, but he's able to give us a decent contrast in his performance (even if his redemption is far too quick, and seems almost complete after a quick glimpse at his past).

In summary, this is probably on an even footing with the Reginald Owen offering from just three years later (1938). Both have as many flaws as aspects to recommend, but both are worth a watch to aficionados of the classic story.

Good Film Adaption of the Classic Novel

[Christmas-Reviewer · 7/10 · 10 April 2017]

BEWARE OF FALSE REVIEWS & REVIEWERS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW TO THEIR NAME. NOW WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOVIE. IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THE FILM . NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 200 HOLIDAY FILMS. I HAVE NO AGENDA. I AM HONEST

This adaption of the novel would make Charles Dickens happy. In case you don't the story here it is.

Scrooge is a mean old man. He is always unhappy "about everything". He thinks his employee getting a day off work for Christmas really sets him off. He reluctantly does.

On Christmas Eve 4 Ghost come to visit him and shows him how his anger has hurt "Only Himself"

Now I like this adaption. According to IMDb there is 2 editions of the film. One runs an hour. The other one runs 78. I have yet to see the longer one.

This film is also in public domain. And unfortunately many DVD versions of this film. Anybody can release or show this for free. That's too bad. Because it needs to be restored. Nobody restores public domain films.

Scrooge

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 23 December 2018]

Although suffering from key storyline familiars (no mention of sister Fann or fiancé Belle, or even Fezziwig!) left out and the absence of ghosts that visit Scrooge not visualized (Marley isn't seen but heard, only an outline of Christmas Past and just a dark shadow silhouette of Christmas Yet to Come), the 1935 British adaptation of Scrooge does have some significance. Seymore Hicks can scowl and bark with the best of all Scrooges, and I felt when the film is cramped inside Ebenezer's counting house as poor assistant, Bob Cratchet (Donald Calthrop, who looks weathered, worn, and aged, appropriate considering the stress and working conditions he endures) tries to just warm the place with a few extra lumps of coal is grim, gloomy, and claustrophobic as it should be. The London of the film at the beginning is dark and sinister, with extra focus on how the wealthy and aristocratic are quite separate from the poor local folk always looking for a charitable soul or scraps from the master's table. And Scrooge, wealthy and yet quite ridiculously frugal, with no sympathy for those in need while himself living as if he had very little financially to his name. It seems like the entirety of London is beset by darkness until Scrooge's conversion is complete, awakening to the brightness and cheer of Christmas morning. No nick on the nose during shaving or falling snow dumped on him while hoping to pay for a prized turkey will sour Scrooge's mood after realizing that there is so much more to life than counting up the wages he collects from his struggling debtors. Hicks' jolly Scrooge at the end is often forgotten when you think of how marvelous Sim or Scott (later in the '84 version), or even Reginald Owen three years later, was in the same role but considering just how rude and ogre-like Seymore is at the beginning, the humbled and spry Ebenezer of the very end deserves mention just the same. This film does lack, no doubt, the richness and depth that often came from seeing the back story that shaped and molded Scrooge into the cantankerous moneylender that disregarded Cratchet, his nephew, and the two charity seekers. And the MGM production three years ahead would also undermine this version, along with bad reproductions often found in the public domain. But Hicks does give this version some needed clout despite its failures in comparison to other adaptations benefiting from better budgets and advanced developments not mentioned here.

Another Great Version of a Magnificent Novel

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 26 February 2011]

In the Victorian England, the stingy and cranky Ebenezer Scrooge (Sir Seymour Hicks) does not care to Christmas and runs his business exploiting his employee Bob Cratchit (Donald Calthrop) and clients. In the Christmas Eve, he is visited by the doomed ghost of his former partner Jacob Marley that tells him that three spirits would visit him that night. The first one, the spirit of past Christmas, recalls his miserable youth when he lost his only love due to his greed; the spirit of the present Christmas shows him the poor situation of Bob's family and tiny Tim and how joyful life may be; and the spirit of future Christmas shows his fate. Scrooge finds that life is good and time is too short and suddenly you are not there anymore, changing his behavior toward Christmas, Bob, his nephew Fred (Robert Cochran) and people in general.

"Scrooge" is another great version of "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens. I do not recall how many versions of this magnificent tale of redemption I have watched, but this 1935 is one of the best, with a fantastic performance of Sir Seymour Hicks. This film has been recently released by Brazilian distributor Flashstar in black and white and colorized versions in the same DVD but edited to 60 minutes only. I found the complete version in Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=_Sr2ow_ZH9w). "Scrooge" (in any version) and "It's a Wonderful Life" are mandatory for viewer that enjoy Christmas. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Fantasma de Scrooge" ("The Ghost of Scrooge")

It Could Have Been Much Better

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 25 December 2014]

This version of the Dickens classic is decent enough. But it treads so lightly, ignoring key elements of the original story. It isn't bad for mood and atmosphere, but it never captivates like some of the other superior efforts. For "A Christmas Carol" to really work we must get into the head of Scrooge, to feel what it is that has made him. We got none of that here. The acting is decent, but the budget must have been a little lacking. I found the absence of an actor to play Marley's ghost to be a shortcoming, for it is here that Scrooge begins to find the error of his ways, not in a big way because he argues for the preservation of his inadequate life. The Ghost of Christmas past doesn't get into the harsh realities of young Scrooge, and so we are left without a psychological foundation. Anyway, from one who has been enamored with this wonderful story for a lifetime, I didn't feel this stacked up very well. There seems to be a kind of fat and sassy Cratchitt and Tiny Tim doesn't really draw our sympathy.

A time capsule of 1935 cinematography

[dontspamme-76078 · 5/10 · 23 December 2018]

The thing that kept me interested in this movie was how clunky it is. Many of the actors are much too old for their characters, and they all seem to be clinging to their silent movie era acting style. They have long, over-emoted expressions which slows the pace to a crawl.

Some parts are very detailed as to make the viewer almost forget why the scene is happening. And the total non sequitur of the prosperous (meaning fat) Mayor's over the top luxurious dinner made no sense at all.

Much of the filming seemed to be done with very bad cameras. Out of focus, overly high contrast and much too dark to properly see what's happening on the screen.

But the strangest part was how they completely erased Scrooge's past. His lonely childhood in a boarding school, with his sister as his only friend. This is a very important explanation of why present day Scrooge is so angry and bitter. His beloved sister died in childbirth and he deeply resented his nephew because of it.

Still, it's worth watching to see an epoch of the evolution of film. Not much more.

The most enjoyable version of the Dickens classic!

[markb-33 · 10/10 · 20 January 2005]

Keeping very well within the Narrative of 'A Christmas Carol', and indeed portraying the characters of Scrooge(Seymour Hicks) and Bob Cratchit(Donald Calthrop), this is, in my opinion, the closest, truest and most enjoyable version of the Dickens classic! An excellent example of 'sticking to the story'. Far too often have script writers and directors alike 'adapted' the classics and forgot or indeed neglected the fundamentals. Henry Edwards and H. Fowler Mear most certainly payed attention to Dickens' guidelines (the book itself!), and portrayed nothing other than the book itself. I've read 'A Christmas Carol' numerous times with great enjoyment, and this movie version is a visual equivalent.

"Would you know the weight and length of the coil you bear yourself"?

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 27 December 2009]

For some odd reason, this earlier filmed version of the venerable Christmas classic has somehow eluded my attention. Perhaps it's because for a long time I thought the 1951 Alastair Sim movie was the original, and now I've come to learn that Seymour Hicks actually reprised an even earlier silent interpretation of Ebeneezer Scrooge dating back to 1913. The additional irony is that this "Scrooge' is now easily available via VCI Entertainment's widely distributed package featuring the Sim version in both black and white and a colorized edition.

Surprisingly, or maybe not, Hicks does a rather reasonable job of bringing the Dickens classic to film. Although he seems to be rather more overbearing in his miserliness than Sim's character, part of one's reaction to his performance may well rest on his physical presence. Hicks has a fuller, more rounded appearance than Sim, who's scarecrow-like features always suited me better from the perspective of how I envisioned the character myself. There's also the question of the picture's length. This earlier version doesn't have as much time to fully develop Ebeneezer's transformation, skipping rather large parts of the story's exposition when it comes to Jacob Marley's appearance and the subsequent visits from the other worldly spectres. Scrooge's personal relationships are also given fuller measure in the 1951 picture.

All in all though, I have no trouble in recommending the picture on it's own merits. It handles the basic story well if rather thriftily, and even manages to throw in an interesting aside focusing on cooks preparing a royal party for the Lord Mayor of London, while the crowd toasts the Queen, and forlorn peasants outside the gathering manage to pay tribute to her majesty from their street side vantage point.

Halfway down the list of "Scrooges"

[dafrieze · 5/10 · 29 December 2007]

This is a very odd film version of "A Christmas Carol," mostly worth watching, I suppose, for Sir Seymour Hicks's performance (he was a renowned stage actor, and renowned for this particular role). There is a long interpolated scene of the Lord Mayor giving a Christmas feast while poor children watch through the window that doesn't exist in the book, or in any other film version that I know of, and which seems to have eaten up the budget for the rest of the movie. The invisible Marley's ghost may have worked well on stage but is simply peculiar on celluloid. Most of the performances are acceptable, and this is by no means the worst of the seemingly billions of "Scrooges" available to film lovers, but I wouldn't put it in the same rank as the versions starring Alastair Sim or George C. Scott.

A fine early British Ebenezer

[cwgallagher · 21 December 2002]

This is a very nicley done filming of A Christmas Carol. Seymour Hicks gives a marvelous performance as Scrooge,complimented very well by the rest of the cast. Unlike the MGM version of a 1938,the Cratchits in this film are in very reduced circumstances! Not a chair at the table matches,the curtains are ragged,and thier home is tiny and run down.In the Hollywood version,Bob Cratchit and his family don't seem to be in a very bad way.The sets(if they are indeed sets,and not real locations) add to the authentic feel of the picture.The only Scrooge to surpass this one is Allistair Sim's 1951 portrayal,which is probably the Ebenezer Scrooge for the ages.

First talkie movie version

[Phenominal67 · 7/10 · 6 December 2014]

Being a big fan of the classic Dickens story, I have decided to watch all the movie and cartoon versions and share my views of them here starting with the first motion picture talkie version, this 1935 British movie starring Sir Seymour Hicks.

Lets start out with the negatives of this production, starting with what's missing from Dicken's story. Much from the Christmas past chapter is missing and I find it to be the most important of Scrooge's visits from the spirits. There is no trip to Eb's old school and his love for discovering the classics, no Sister Fan's visit to take him home, and more importantly, no Fezziwig. Without the old Fezziwig party scene, we lose Scrooge remembering what it was like to feel joy again and how well his old boss treated him as opposed to how he treats his man Cratchit. Two points that make Scrooge's transformation much more believable.

Christmas past does include the scene where the love of his life, Belle, lets him go, however this scene comes off as laughable. Instead of having a younger actor portray young Ebenezer, they put a dark haired wig on Hicks and have an older woman portray Belle. The acting in this scene is too over the top and the music is overbearing and silly.

A big letdown in this version are the ghosts. Christmas present is the only one of them visible and his entrance contains the spirit devouring a turkey leg while speaking his lines. He's like a Shakespearian General Bulkhalter from "Hogan's Heroes". And although we do see Jacob Marley's face on the door knocker, for some reason he's invisible in Scrooge's chambers.

One of the best points of the movie is in just about every scene included from the book, the dialog is very faithful. The only scene really where it is not is the Marley scene where they cut about a page of text. They take out the part where Marley puts the scare of Scrooge by moaning and rattling his chains until Scrooge believes in him. I think it is very important to the story.

I also like very much the Cratchits in this one. Bob and his wife may be a bit older than they should be, but I think they play the parts well of a tattered and torn family just getting by and not letting their circumstances break their spirits.

As for Scrooge himself, Seymour Hicks's acting overall is good. But I think he makes just an OK Scrooge. There's something about him- A bit Sterling Hollawayish that makes him a peculiar choice for the part.

All in all, I barely gave it a 7. Points earned for close Dicken's text, Hick's acting, and for the Cratchits. On the minus side, a few points taken away for Marley's ghost and Christmas past.

A vintage Scrooge but not a classic

[johno-21 · 6/10 · 7 December 2007]

It's now been 72 years since this film's release in December of 1935 but I had never seen it until the other evening on late night PBS television. I really enjoy Christmas-themed films so I'm surprised that I had never seen it before. It does have a good old Dickensonian flavor to it but it's not nearly as good as the MGM A Christmas Carol film that came out three years later with Reginald Owen or the Scrooge from 1951 with Alistair Sim which was the best of filmed adaptations of the Charles Dickens story. Noted British stage actor Sir Seymour Hicks is Ebenezer Scrooge in this offering adapted by screenwriter H. Fowler Mear and directed by Henry Edwards. It of course is the tale of an old miserly businessman in 1840's London who makes life as tough as it is even more miserable for those around him out of the misery and emptiness he carries with him all his adult life. A late night Christmas Eve visit by the ghost of his long-dead business partner will tell him that he will have additional ghostly apparitions that night and there still may be time to make atonement. Donald Calthrop is Scrooge's employee Bob Cratchit, Mary Glynne is Scrooge's past love Belle and Robert Cochran is the nephew. Hicks made a stage career out playing Scrooge and appeared years before in a silent film adaptation so he's quite familiar with the role but it's not a particularly great performance in this film. The other principal roles are delivered forced or wooden and only some of the minor roles are acted convincingly. This was a 61 minute version of the original 78 minute film so in some fairness it was not the complete intended film but even with that said it is still not that very good. Julius Hagen who was known as the Tsar of Twickenham was the film's producer and head of the small Twickenham film studios in London. He was known for churning out quickie films that were shot on low budget with run times between 60 and 80 minutes. He put out 19 films alone in the year Scrooge came out in 1935. Two years later he was bankrupt and by 1940 was dead. Twickenham lived on though despite being almost bombed out of existence during World War II. The Beatles filmed most of A Hard Days Night, scenes for Help and the rehearsals in Let it Be at Twickenham. An American Werewolf in London and A Fish Called Wanda along with many other notable movies have also been filmed there. I'd recommend checking out the 1935 Scrooge but it's nowhere near the 1951 or 1938 filmed versions. I would give this a 6.0 out of 10.

SCROOGE (Henry Edwards, 1935) {Edited Version} **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 28 December 2007]

To begin with, in the coming days I should be checking out all the major film adaptations of the venerable Charles Dickens festive classic "A Christmas Carol" – seven in all (1935, 1938, 1951, 1970, 1983 {animated short}, 1984 {TV} and 1992 {puppets}).

This is the first of three I watched in quick succession, being also one of only two I hadn't viewed previously. Unfortunately, it came via the trimmed 60-minute version (included as a supplement on VCI's 2-Disc Set of the definitive 1951 adaptation) – though, ironically, I came upon a copy of the complete 78-minute print the very next day! Curiously enough, while this particular narrative has been adapted to the screen countless times, its plot has rarely been updated or altered; in this respect, most versions could well be deemed superfluous...except that the intrinsic moral lesson is so timely that film-makers constantly feel the need to remake it (this line of thought was understandable back in the old days when DVD, or even TV, wasn't available – but now I find the concept unfathomable and even punishing, since no one can hope to surpass the aforementioned classic with Alastair Sim)!

Anyway, the 1935 film itself emerges to be an unsurprisingly faithful rendition of the Dickensian tale; actually, the lead actor – Sir Seymour Hicks – had already appeared in a 1913 Silent version! Still, unsurprising is the key word here: granted, the plot is so well-structured and engaging that one can't help watching (especially during this time of year)…but it's also so inextricably familiar that one tends to become impatient during expository passages, fully anticipating the next dramatic highlight or famous line. Ironically, even if this version is shorn of some 20 minutes, there's still a bit of padding – particularly the bludgeoning message inherent in the scene where the scraps of a royal banquet are flung out on the street to be picked up by beggars.

Hicks himself emerges as probably the least sympathetic Scrooge (but, at the same time, being the right age for the role – unlike most other performers of the emblematic miser figure); in hindsight, this may be due to the fact that I'm only familiar with his work through this one performance (incidentally, he co-scripted the film himself) – though, to be fair to him, I hadn't watched most of the other versions in quite some time. Similarly, the supporting cast doesn't have the many established faces one finds in subsequent versions – which, again, serves to distance one somewhat from the narrative's desired effect; that said, the Ghost Of Christmas Present is played by Oscar Asche – co-author of CHU-CHIN-CHOW, a stage musical whose 1934 screen adaptation (via VCI's surprisingly generous 3-Disc Set) preceded this very same viewing!

Artistically, therefore, the 1935 SCROOGE is workmanlike if nothing more: the silhouetted Ghost Of Christmas Future is rather effective – but, then, Jacob Marley's ghost is heard but not seen!; it's unfortunate, too, that the outdoor night-time scenes on this particular print were excessively dark.

Good For What It Is

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 16 March 2015]

Scrooge (Seymour Hicks), the ultimate Victorian miser, has not a good word for Christmas, though his impoverished clerk Cratchit and nephew Fred are full of holiday spirit. But in the night, Scrooge is visited by spirits of another color.

This film has been seen by many people not because it is the best version, but because it fell into the public domain and therefore can be shown on TV for free and sold at store for as low as $1. It also is probably not the worst version, though it is hard to say depending on who you get it from. Being in the public domain means it can be copies from a copy and look or sound terrible. There is little incentive to clean up the film.

The one included with the 1951 version of "A Christmas Carol" is pretty good. The picture is a bit rough at times, but not awful, and the music has held up pretty well.

Shorter version has been a PBS favorite

[Gblakelii · 9/10 · 15 December 2005]

Because of the overwhelming popularity of Alistair Sim's portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge this trimmer, older version may be overlooked as a matter of course. To some it may appear creaky and old fashioned, and yet after watching Sir Seymour Hick's performance it is difficult to disagree with the claim that his is the best rendition of the miser so far given. What this particular telling of Dickens' classic tale has going for it, is the time spent with the first part of the story, which focuses on the cruel & despicable Ebenezer. Hicks, with scant make-up cannot be outdone as the embodiment of a person who is to be avoided at all costs. The problem with the other films is that they spend too little time with the first 3rd of the story. One of the most important details has to be the transformation of Scrooge, and if not enough time in proportion is given in the beginning, the end result doesn't come off as strong. And as with most people who grew up watching, say, Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes personified, well then, if you viewed Hicks before Sims, you would no doubt cast your vote for Hicks, who had in fact played the part before. In the acting department the other actors do a very fine job as well. As for special effects, you'll be best forewarned not to expect any. The main question, though, regarding this motion picture is the exact running time. There are 2 editions that are shown on TV, one 60 minutes, the other a minute longer. The scene that is missing from one is when Mr. Scrooge follows after the boy to the butcher's to see the prize goose he is about to purchase. The other various minutes are as follows: video catalogs have given it 61, "The World Encyclopedia of the Film" has 67, and IMDb 78!

Corny But It Works.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 16 February 2015]

The techniques are pretty creaky, standard for 1935. There are no sweeping camera movements; the special effects are minimal; and the acting by Seymour Hicks as Scrooge is theatrical. He has John Gielgud's quavering voice.

Yet it's hard not to be swept up and moved by Dickens' fairy tale. The author played his readers as if they were a gigantic calliope, pulling out stops here and there, pumping away with his feet, and producing this enthralling melody that takes us from selfishness and greed to epiphany and redemption.

It's not as good as the Alistair Sims version, which is superlative, but it's effective in its own, old-fashioned right. Probably a lot of the difference is due to performers and crew feeling more comfortable with the technology of movie-making in the 1950s than in 1935. In the 50s version, Sims never overacts as Hicks does here. Sims knew he didn't have to, that the camera would pick up the slightest nuance in dialog or expression.

But this version, crude as it is, is no disgrace.

It Could Have Been Much Better, Even In 1935

[bohn007 · 2/10 · 4 December 2003]

I am a huge fan of Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol'. I have read the unabridged novelette several times - Always during the Christmas Season - Over the past few years, and it is my most favorite piece of literature ever written. It therefore follows, that I am also a huge fan of the major cinematic productions based on the story, which I have seen over the years (Though that doesn't necessarily mean that I like them all).

The many different filmed versions of this story are practically uncountable. But of the ones I have seen, only the following 8 bear a serious look: Under the title of 'A Christmas Carol', there was the 1938 version, with Reginald Owen as Scrooge, and the made-for-TV productions: 1984 - With George C. Scott, 1999 - With Patrick Stewart, more recently, 2004, with Kelsey Grammar (Officially titled: 'A Christmas Carol: The Musical'), and the 2009 animated version with Jim Carrey. Under the title 'Scrooge', there's the 1951 version - With Alistair Sim as Scrooge, the 1970 musical, with Albert Finney, and this rather obscure 1935 version, which I would have to rank at #6.

Sir Seymour Hicks was knighted in 1935, but it couldn't have been because he was a good actor. Not having seen any of his other film appearances, I have only this one to judge his talent on, and his performance, here, was a big disappointment. I can't even say that his acting was consistent, for, in some scenes, Hicks acts as though he'd memorized his lines just before his scenes were shot, and took little, if any, time to work on characterization. In others, his actions are somewhat jerky, and he spits out his lines with hardly any emotion, and in still others, he overacts, which is almost as bad as not acting at all.

Donald Calthrop plays a barely acceptable Bob Cratchit. He looks a bit too old for the part, and his acting is below average, at best. Robert Cochran appears briefly as Scrooge's Nephew, Fred, but does well with his short screen time. Also in brief, but notable performances, are Mary Glynne, as Scrooge's lost love - Belle, and Barbara Everest as Bob Cratchit's Wife, both of whom do well, with what little they've got to work with.

The 'Rag and bone shop' scene is my favorite, in this movie, though that's not saying much. Hugh E. Wright, Athene Seyler, Margaret Yarde, and D.J. Williams - as 'Old Joe', 'Scrooge's Charwoman', 'Scrooge's Laundress', and 'The Undertaker', respectively, do okay, but other interpretations of this scene, in other productions, are much better.

Jacob Marley - Scrooge's 7-years-dead partner - Is seen only once, and very briefly. His confrontation scene with Scrooge, later, is not nearly as terrifying as it should have been, for reasons that will be obvious, when you see it. Much greater care should have been taken in the portrayal of a character as important to this story as Marley. I realize that special effects were, by comparison, primitive, in those days, but it seems that something could have been done to make this important scene more believable.

I was very disappointed, almost to the point of sadness, with Oscar Asche's performance as 'The Spirit Of Christmas Present'. This character is supposed to be a gentle, jolly giant, but Asche makes him a disgusting slob. He delivers his lines as though he's reading them from a cue card, and keeps losing his place. Perhaps he was a better Actor on the stage, with Shakespearean roles, but here, he turns what is supposed to be quite a likable character into someone you'd try to avoid.

If you're as big a fan of Dickens' story and characters as me, you might want to see this version just out of curiosity. And, by all means, please do! Just don't expect much, and you won't be as disappointed as I was.

Oscar Asche to the rescue!

[JohnHowardReid · 10/10 · 10 March 2018]

The players (in credits order): Sir Seymour Hicks (Scrooge, a miser), Donald Calthrop (Cratchit, his clerk), Robert Cochran (Fred, his nephew), Mary Glynne (Belle), Oscar Asche (Christmas Present), Athene Seyler (Scrooge's housekeeper), Mary Lawson (poor man's wife), Maurice Evans (poor man), Garry Marsh (Belle's husband), Barbara Everest (Mrs Cratchit), Eve Grey (Fred's wife), C.V. France (Christmas Future), Morris Harvey (the poulterer), Philip Frost (Tiny Tim), D.J. Williams (the undertaker), Margaret Yarde (Scrooge's laundress), Hugh E. Wright (Old Joe), Charles Carson (Middlemark), Hubert Harben (Worthington).

The technicians (transposed from the opening credits of the movie): Director: HENRY EDWARDS. Screenplay adaptation: H. Fowler Mear. Dialogue: Charles Dickens. Based on the 1843 novelette, A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens. Photography: Sydney Blythe, William Luff. Supervising film editor: Jack Harris. Film editor: Ralph Kemplen. Art director: James A. Carter. Music scored and directed by W.L. Trytel. Costumes: L. & H. Nathan. Hair styles: Charles. Producer supervisor: Hans Brahm. Assistant directors: Arthur Barnes, James Davidson. Sound recording: Baynham Honri. Visatone Sound System. Producer: Julius Hagen.

Produced at Twickenham Film Studios. Copyright 30 December 1935 by Paramount. U.S. release through Paramount: 30 November 1935. New York opening at Loew's Orpheum: 13 December 1935. U.K. release through Twickenham: August 1935. Australian release through 20th Century-Fox: 1 January 1936. 78 minutes.

COMMENT: Seymour Hicks was a Scrooge specialist. He'd played the role over two thousand times on the stage before making his initial film version in 1913 (for which he himself wrote the scenario). He'd no need to write the script for this one which follows Dickens so faithfully it even uses the novelist's own dialogue. To put it simply, Hicks is Scrooge to the letter. The other characters are likewise faithful transitions, and all are superbly brought to life here. Produced on an admirably lavish budget, the movie is brilliantly directed by Henry Edwards who imaginatively takes full advantage of the many prodigiously decorated sets. The music score is also a stand-out. In all, this is a truly moving yet spirited production that cannot be faulted even by the most fervent Dickensian. Those who dote on special effects, however, will have a beef. There are very few-and I think the movie is all the better for this restraint. For once, we don't have Marley's ghost visualized before our eyes-aside from his obligatory imposition on the door knocker. Instead we hear his voice and the ominous rattling of his chains. A few present-day critics have complained that Oscar Asche is far from their conception of Christmas Present-yet his appearance and his "business" are based on an extremely popular illustration widely circulated both in the book itself and as a Christmas card in the first half of the 20th century. To depict Christmas Present otherwise would have keenly disappointed most picturegoers. In fact, Oscar Asche was so admired in the part that his name not only became a household word but was widely used as a rhyming-slang synonym for "cash". I've lost count of the number of times I've been accosted in the street by friends, beggars and strangers who asked, "Got any Oscar Asche, mate? Any Oscar Asche?"

Good but not great

[kelseylaura-47162 · 6/10 · 26 December 2022]

Considering that it was made in 1935 and was the first talkie version I won't judge it too harshly. The acting in some scenes was overdone. The best example of this is the scene in which Belle tells Scrooge that the won't marry him due to his greed. The other problem with this scene is that Seymour Hicks at age 64 plays his younger self and the actress playing Belle is 40 years old. Sir Seymour Hicks makes a good Scrooge overall. There is an unnecessary scene comparing the wealthy with the poor which shows an elaborate banquet and the guest singing "God Save the Queen" while starving onlookers peer in the windows. Perhaps the money spent on these scenes meant that the budget had to be cut for others. Scenes of Scrooge's past were missing that are important to understand his change of heart. I still recommend watching the 78 minute version at least once.

Not a particularly good version of A Christmas Carol.

[madkaugh · 4/10 · 15 December 2007]

I bought this dirt cheap in a double pack with Cyrano de Bergerac. I like the A Christmas Carol story, and expected this to be good.

There is little to recommend this version. The major characters seem miscast. Seymour Hicks's Ebenezer Scrooge lacks the confident air of a successful business man; he's more Baldrick than Blackadder. Cratchit is older than in most versions, and the Ghost of Christmas Present seems wooden and disinterested.

The special effects are practically non-existent, sub-par even for 1935. The Marley is a disembodied voice. No chains, money boxes, and ledgers. Even the 1908 and 1910 versions had double exposure ghosts.

The visual and audio quality were lacking. Not sure if this is due to bad transposition to DVD, deteriorated film, or if it was done poorly in the first place. Lines seem indistinct and muddled, enunciation is often unclear. The film could use some computer enhancement. (I have the Mill Creek Entertainment 78 minute DVD)

One of the more annoying aspects of the film is a cultural artifact. This film was made a few years after talkies were becoming ubiquitous. A continuous musical background plays that tends to overwhelm the already muddy dialog. My impression is that the director could not envision a movie without a piano player providing sound, and tried to make up for it.

On the plus side, this version is true to the dickens story. It includes the hearse, which most do not. (The hearse is the most elaborate special effect in the movie.) The scene of the charwomen fencing Scrooge's goods is particularly good.

If the story itself were not so classic and compelling, I wouldn't even give this a four.

MadKaugh