11) A Christmas Carol Films - Who Scrooges the Scroogiest?

Forward

(Christmas and horror are two genres that modern cinema has glued together several times. Sometimes it works. Most of the time, it's just a novelty. But A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens is a ghost story depicting just how far heaven will go just to change a single person. And it's a story that fits in this blog about obscure horror films as there's ghosts, and some freaky stuff in there. A ghost story is a ghost story, no matter when it was written. With so many movies based on this one novella by Charles Dickens, I wanted to narrow it down to one. And that one movie is an underrated one. - Mike)

Alastair Sim as Ebenezer Scrooge in 1951's A Christmas Carol

The story of Ebenezer Scrooge and his night of ethereal redemption by not one, not two, not three...but four Christmassy apparitions has been told again, and again...and again.
I think if I Google'd how many movie adaptations there are of Charles Dicken's story A Christmas Carol, I wouldn't get an accurate answer. There's probably a new one every minute. 
There's the 1938 version with Reginald Owen. There's the more famous 1951 British film Scrooge with the superb performance by Alastair Sim. Sim also did an animated version for TV in 1971. There's the iconic Mickey Mouse version, which has a 100 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. There's the musical version, too, with Albert Finney. Then there's a version with Patrick Stewart. And there's the Muppet version with Michael Caine. And the one with George C. Scott from 1984. 

In 2009, Disney came out with a computer animated story starring Jim Carrey as Scrooge. Oh, I can't forget the Bill Murray comedy movie Scrooged which is Bill Murray-y. That movie takes place in present day, with Murray playing Frank Cross who's basically the same character as Scrooge.
I suppose whatever sort of character Ebenezer Scrooge is outside of Charles Dicken's novel is up to anyone's interpretation. 

And which ever film adaptation of the story is the best is up to the person in the audience.
Every few years during the Holidays, I read the story. Being familiar with Dicken's tale, I've formed my own version of Scrooge in my head.
I've seen most of the movies I've mentioned above. When Scrooge is portrayed, he's played as an angry man shouting at everyone and just blurting out his catchphrase "humbug!" Too many actors seem to smother on the anger.

Scrooge is played out as being just bitter and hatful of Christmas, and then he's redeemed. His dislike for Christmas is important, sure. If he didn't hate Christmas, there'd be no story. He could still be the squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner. But once he hates on Christmas? Nope! Send in the spirits!
Dicken's describes his character immediately in the story as "hard and sharp as a flint, from which no steal had ever struck out a generous fire, secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster."
He also writes that, "The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed noise, shriveled his cheek, stiffened his gait, made his eyes red, made his thin lips blue, and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice." 
When it comes the coldness of winter around him, Dickens says "External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth could warm, no wintery weather chill him." 
Scrooge is a proud man, to say the least. He's a man of business. And as the story takes place in mid 1800s England, there was a standard of etiquette and manners even Scrooge wouldn't forego so lightly.
Scrooge is often portrayed as angry, which he was. As the story indicates, it's an anger that stems from childhood experiences, especially in regards to his father.
But, though he carried his anger with him for decades, to portray him as constantly yelling, and turning his bitterness into a caricature all its own, is rather off to me. There's nothing dignified in a English man of prominence of the mid 1800s (as Scrooge was) yelling and carrying on in front of others. People didn't dislike him because he yelled all the time. They stayed away from him because he was uncaring and cold. He didn't have to shout to convey his bitterness. Besides, a man who shouted all the time would probably be deemed a lunatic. When it comes to business, being a staunch, cold, and unmoving is one thing. Being looked upon by others as crazy is something no self-respecting man of business, as Scrooge was, would want. It would be counter productive in his world of business, and it goes without saying Scrooge would have known that. No person would take them as competent enough to perform business with.
Scrooge is a man of dignity and wealth. In his mind, he's right about Christmas being a wasteful time.  He's absolute certain of it. The rest of the world is wrong, and blinded by their own overblown sense of need. He points the finger at them for being greedy. No doubt he sees his own greed in others at Christmas time, and despises what he sees. So, Christmas, therefor, is a "humbug."
"What is Christmas but a time for buying things," Scrooge says.
This over exaggerated sense of importance, especially in regards to his conclusion about Christmas (a time were he sees his ugly greed in others) has Scrooge seeing himself better than the rest. If he just yelled at everyone, then he'd be that crazy old man who yells at everyone...like that one guy you see in the subway station each morning.
I see this portrayal in the 1984 TV movie A Christmas Carol with George C. Scott.

George C. Scott as Scrooge.

My dad found a copy of this movie on VHS several years ago. At first, I wasn't impressed by Scott as Scrooge. He didn't seem angry enough. That is, he was more collected, yet proud of himself in his dislike for Christmas. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that Scott's Scrooge is a bulls-eye.
His portrayal is just as I described. Rather than yell and scream, and shout "humbug" randomly at each beggar, or each child singing carols on the street corner, his attitude is more like "I'm the only one who sees Christmas time for what it is...and it's a humbug because greed and waste!"
When it comes to really showing anger, it's the ghost of Christmas Present who does it best as seen in the movie.
Christmas Present is a jolly ghost immersed in the spirit of the moment- that moment being Christmas. So, to see him raise his voice in anger at Scrooge is a scene that stayed in my memory. I have yet to see that in other versions of the story.
Scrooge's humanity was always inside him, buried beneath his anger and frustrations. It just needed to resurface again.
There's one moment in the Scott version that stands out to me. When Scrooge goes to his nephew Fred's house to accept an invitation to Christmas dinner, Fred's wife tells Scrooge he's made them happy. And Scrooge's response is "Have I?" It's a quick scene. Still, when was the last time someone told Scrooge they've made them happy? He clearly hasn't heard a compliment like that in... who knows how long? He can still bring joy to others, and it didn't take much to do so at that particular moment.
There's also a scene where Scrooge sees his father during his visit to the past. The look Scott gives as he (playing Scrooge) sees his harsh and strict father is an indicator all on its own to show where Scrooge's anger stems from. No words are needed to be said in that scene. Scrooge's look said what the audience needed to know. It's small instances like those in Scott's performance that make him the best Scrooge that I've seen.
I haven't yet seen Scrooge's dad show up in other movies. He's been referred to, and talked about, in other movies. But he wasn't seen.
The 1951 Alastair Sim film A Christmas Carol is a version I watch each year. Sim's performance has a lot of passion in it. His Scrooge has an underlying tone of pitifulness, but he still captures the pride and pretentiousness of Scrooge. However, his laughing and silliness at the end, when he realizes he hadn't missed Christmas after all, is over the top when compared to Scott's performance. I get it, however. He throws his dignified manner out the window, and lives for the moment just as Christmas Present taught him to.
As for the worst Scrooge portrayal I've seen - Michael Caine's in the Muppet version. I enjoyed the movie overall. The songs are memorable. The jokes are funny. I saw this movie when it was released in theaters. And it was a tradition to watch this movie the night before flying home for Christmas break during my high school years. There's some personal nostalgia with the The Muppet's Christmas Carol.
But Caine just phones his performance in. His Scrooge is bland. He's just about being bad because that's what audience expects. When his Scrooge becomes good, Caine is unconvincing. He tells the audience in so many words that he's a good now, does some ridiculous dancing, and then - the end. Caine is a great actor, but his role in The Muppet's Christmas Carol has a lot of room for improvement.
And by the way-one last question. Why did it take so long for heaven to send down three spirits to turn old Scrooge around? In fact, why did heaven even bother at all? I think it has to do with one simple act of kindness Scrooge performs even after he takes a few more verbal shots at Christmas, calling it a poor excuse to pick a man's pocket every twenty-fifth of December. Scrooge, nevertheless, lets his employee, Bob Cratchit, take the day off despite his own views. One small spark of kindness was all it took. After Dickens went on and on about how cold and tight fisted, etc., Scrooge was, and he gives Bob a day off for a holiday he despises! Sure, it could be argued that closing his business up on Christmas like all other businesses would saved him money. But Scrooge indicates he doesn't see it that way.

"I suppose you must have the whole day," Scrooge tells Cratchit just after telling him an entire day off is not convenient, and not fair. Regardless, Bob gets his request from his grasping, covetous sinner of a boss. In the Alistair Sim version, we see a Christmas Eve in the past where Cratchit again asks for the whole day, and Scrooge refuses, giving a little emphasis on just how unselfish the act we saw in the beginning of the story was.
I'm sure other portrayals of Scrooge get one thing or another right. They're obviously not all bad. George C. Scott's version is one that's underrated, and really stands out to me. If it's not on your list of Christmas movies to watch each year, it's absolutely worth giving it a view.


And according to Google, there's 20 film versions of A Christmas Carol. 

UPDATE: 9/29/2021
As I approach my 100th review, looking back I realized I skipped an 11th review. And I thought I was keep things consistent all this time. 
So, rather than go back through all my posts and re-number them, leaving my 96th review really my 95th, I'm numbering this post as my 11th review. And rather than review any given film adaptation of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, I'll use my review card to pass judgement on the best Ebenezer Scrooge. 

10) The Gate (1987)

"Demons aren't going to ring the doorbell!"

Director
Tibor Takacs

Cast
Stephen Dorff - Glen
Christa Denton - Al
Louis Tripp - Terry Chandler

The Gate - a story about a young boy named Glen and his best friend, Terry, who  accidentally open a gate to hell releasing a horde of demons upon Glen's house. It sounds like a cookie-cutter horror film, but the visuals really make up for the simplistic story line. It's a scary movie for sure.
This movie was actor Stephen Dorff's first role. Dorff later went on to star in Blade, and in 2003's Cold Creek Manor among other roles.
The tree in Glen's backyard is a favorite of his. But he has a dream where it's struck by lightening and collapses. He wakes up to find his nightmare come true. As a result, workers are hired to uproot the tree revealing some kind of geode in the hole left in the ground.
Glen calls Terry over to check it out. In the meantime, Glen accidentally cuts his finger spilling a little blood onto the crystal.
Meanwhile, Glen's parents head out of town for a few days, and his sister, Al, is left to watch him.
Al throws...like...a totally rad party as most 80s movie teens often do when mom and dad are off screen. During the party, Terry and Glen go to study the geode some more.

Louis Tripp and Stephen Dorff

They decide to break it open.
It also happens that some words are left by the rock which the kids innocently speak.
This is when the film gets really dark, and visually freaky.
That night, Glen starts seeing his bedroom walls stretching. And Terry, who is sleeping over that night, hears his mom, who previously passed away, calling him from down stairs.
In a scene that doesn't hold back, he follows the call and sees his mom in the front entrance. Terry runs to her and embraces her, but realizes it's actually Glen's dog who falls dead in his arms.
The next day, Terry turns to the only logical place to go for an explanation on paranormal, demonic encounters - a heavy metal album.
The album, which is based on something called "The Dark Book", leads them to the conclusion that they indeed opened a gate to hell in Glen's backyard. Bummer!
The design of the demons is really underrated among the rogues gallery of movie monsters. They should be as memorable with other iconic 80s monsters. In fact, I think the entire movie is underrated.
The stop-motion is great and well done for its time. The Gate might lack in story, but its intention is to scare, and leave something in the audience's memory. It doesn't fail in that regard.

If I had seen this movie when I was a kid, I know it would have made a huge impression and kept me up a few nights in the process.
The character, Terry, does get annoying as he acts as the narrative constantly explaining everything to Glen.
Being a movie that depends so much on its visuals, it should have maintained the "Show! Don't tell" aspect of story-telling.
Otherwise, if movies like Evil Dead and Child's Play can remain at the surface among mainstream audiences, this movie deserves to be at that same level, too. It's a fun film for "horror night."

9) Horror High (1974)

"You've got your killer. I've got my classes to attend."

Director
Larry N. Stouffer

Cast
Pat Cardi - Vernon Potts
Austin Stoker - Lt. Bozeman
Rosie Holotik - Robin Jones
Joye Hash - Miss. Grindstaff
John Niland - Coach McCall

A white and nerdy push-over high school student taking on a small rogues gallery of stereotypical, unreasonable and intolerant high school authority figures and bullies makes for a quintessential drive-in style popcorn slasher flick.
Horror High (aka Kiss the Teacher...Goodbye) is that kind of film. It seems very loosely based on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It's almost a poor man's Toxic Avenger, which came out ten years later.
Horror High is as campy as the title suggests. And it's just as predictable. The weird angles, the light and dark scenes, and the right amount of cringe moments makes it satisfying horror movie. The acting and cutaways make the movie come across as a high school or college freshman film project. And the music is as good as a low budget movie from the 1970s can be. The best way I can describe it is spooky rock. It's something a teenage Alice Cooper cover band would play in a garage.
Horror High can easily be looked at as an anti-authoritarian movie, but somewhere among the slashing and fear is a scene of generational differences. The David Bowie quote as seen in the beginning of The Breakfast Club comes to mind.
"...And these children that you spit on, as they try to change their worlds are immune to your consultations. They are quite aware what they're going through." (I'm probably reading way too much into this) Still, that's more or less the case with this movie's protagonist, Vernon Potts (Pat Cardi).
Pott's is not a bad student nor a bad kid. He's really too good. He's actually too good to be true, even for a social outcast which is what he is.
Potts takes his studies seriously. He's not anti-authority. I mean, the kid is every teachers fantasy come true. His ambition is in his biology class.
Nevertheless, teachers push him in unreasonable ways. His literature teacher, Miss. Grindstaff rips apart his biology report simply because Potts accidentally turned it in to her instead of his report on Robert Louis Stevenson. Potts has been preoccupied in trying to develop a chemical proving people can change physically and not just mentally, at a rapid pace. He's been experimenting on a guinea pig he dubbed "Mr. Mumps". For some reason, educators find that problematic. Pursuing a goal and utilizing your education while in school, Potts? How dare you!
So, Potts simply handed her the literature report by accident, but to "teach him a lesson" that literature is just as important as biology, she tears up his biology assignment right in front of him. Then she gives his other report an "F" even though he finished it.
Later, Mr. Griggs, the janitor, threatens to kill him because Potts scared Grigg's cat which was roaming around the biology lab and getting too close to Mr. Mumps.
His bullish P.E. teacher laughs in his face when Potts requests to skip P.E. to work on his project in the biology lab. And the bullies in the school call him "Creeper" which evidently people found insulting in the 70s.

Amidst all the torment, his classmate, Robin Jones (Rosie Holotik) feels bad for him because she's really into him. Aside from her love interest, she doesn't serve much of a purpose. He confides in her, but her interest in him doesn't change anything.
Potts decides to consume the chemical he's been brewing, and it turns him into a violent maniac seeking revenge on the teachers and bullies that made his school life hell. The moment he takes his anger out on his lit teacher is pretty freaky, though over the top.
After the first kill, the police waste no time investigating.And the murders continue on under their nose.
Lt. Bozeman (Austin Stoker) is heading the investigation. His intro to the audience is accompanied by music probably found in most 1970s black exploitation (blaxspotation) movies. I mean, c'mon. It shouldn't be that funny when it plays! But his scenes and music don't match.
It's not the first time Stoker and Cardi were in a movie together. They also acted together in Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973).
Bozeman laughably tells Potts a lot of information about the case. He's not initially a suspect in the murders. So, it doesn't make much sense why Bozeman would confide so much in this one white and nerdy student.
The ending is just a quick tie-up to a movie that really did try to some extent to tell a tragic, yet simple horror story.
It was over all entertaining. Entertain is what it pretty much set out to do in the end. It's funny in some instances, and a couple times not where it was supposed to be. At other times, it delivers in horror as best it could with its simple budget.