Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Film: 'The Man Who Invented Christmas'

There have been more than one or two damning critiques of this festive-sounding film, and I'm not totally out of sympathy with them. The title ought to have been more accurately - 'The Man Who Wrote 'A Christmas Carol', which helped consolidate some of the Yuletide traditions which are still prevalent today.', but the ambitious title it's been given will just about do for shorthand purposes. 
I know a fair bit about Dickens' life (Peter Ackroyd's massive biography is a must-read for the writer's admirers) but I couldn't recall the true circumstances of his penning of this justly well-loved tale. However, I'm told that enormous liberties have been taken here with the historical facts. No surprise there then!

It's 1843 and Charles Dickens, feted after huge initial success, has seen his fortunes slump in the wake of three consecutive unsuccessful novels, and now he badly needs another 'hit' to come to his financial rescue. 
The young Dickens (must be about the first time I've seen him portrayed as clean-shaven) played by Dan Stevens in quasi-histrionic mode, and best known as 'Beast' in 2014's 'Beauty and....', is feverishly trying to come up with a workable idea in the weeks leading up to Xmas and (would you believe it?) fate comes to his aid in the form of people in his life dropping phrases, hints and usable names which his mind garners and puts together as a kernel of an idea for a shortish story appropriate to the season, he having little time available to come up with a viable plot on which to write and get it published while Christmas is still in the offing. 
His family of young wife (Morfydd Clark) and three little children get an unexpected visit from his father (Jonathan Pryce) and mother - which allows for the (too many) interruptions of heavy, miserable flashbacks of when his father (and rest of family) was taken away for debt while he, as eldest child though yet a young boy, had to work in a blacking factory with other similar-aged children.    
There's also the dour, real-life Mr Scrooge (Christopher Plummer) with all the characteristics of the book personage, who keeps popping up not just as an acquaintance but in his imagined fantasies too, acting out scenes from the eventual tale which Dickens then quickly commits to paper, the story being written for him rather than he having to work it out. He additionally meets in his imaginings, Marley, as well as the three ghosts, their appearances he similarly hurriedly has to write down.

The film seems to rely on the audience having more than a passing knowledge of the finished work, and perhaps they will. If they don't, then a lot of the references will have been wasted. (I've read 'Carol' more than any other Dickens work, perhaps around 20 times - though it is, to be fair, just a short story, excellent as it is).

The look of the film is perfect for what it is, but otherwise I found the product tedious with an unexceptional script, and an exceptionally mannered Dan Stevens in the Dickens role. Plummer's appearances as Scrooge, both in life and in imagination, are too frequent and overplayed, and even Jonathan Pryce as Charles Dickens Senior outstays his welcome, something I thought I'd never say about that actor.

I didn't find the Christmas mood particularly effectively captured. All those gloomy flashbacks and the quarrels with his printer and publisher as he comes right up to the deadline knocked the stuffing out of the turkey for me (the fact that I don't eat turkey is neither here nor there!) - though, mind you, the finished tale itself is likewise written with much sobering, thoughtful life-messages.  

Indian director Bharat Nalluri does what he can with the, to me, misguided material, though I felt his heart wasn't in it and it shows. I can't see this being added to the considerable pantheon of worthy Christmas films to be watched annually on Xmas Eve or on the afternoon of that very day. A Christmas cracker which lacks the crucial 'bang'...................4.5.  

14 comments:

  1. I liked the look of this one but not sure I want to go and see it now! My sister is an ardent John Ruskin fan and she was so disappointed with his portrayal in 'Effie' as he was nothing like the man she had grown to love through his work and writings. I think I will remember Dickens through his books and not through The Man Who Invented Christmas! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's getting a good rating from viewers on both IMDb and 'Rotten Tomatoes' sites, Simone, so please don't rely solely on my opinion - in any case I'll never tell anyone NOT to see a particular film. It seems that for every one like me who is down on this film there are more than two who like it, so please don't write it off yet. One never knows.....!

      Delete
  2. I'm delighted that you reviewed this film because I really wanted to hear your opinion. During the past few weeks the media has been bombarding us with advertisements for it.

    My initial opinion from seeing all the "trailers" is that the enthusiastic ads are over-blown and the movie is mediocre at best. I don't particularly like outrageously fictionalized movies about true events. And (as you pointed out) the film seems to be lacking Christmas mood.

    Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed your review and have no doubt that it's spot-on.
    By the way, I love the original "Christmas Carol" and read it every year during the holiday season.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't think this would find much of a market outside the U.K., Jon, even though it's an Irish/Canadian venture - and was actually shot in Eire (though set entirely in London, of course). But it'll be the Xmas part that guarantees its sale value - I've no doubt that many Americans, like Brits, will be thrilled at the thought of anything seasonally festive.

      "Mediocre at best" sums it up perfectly. It ought to have been better but who really wants yet another take on these hoary old traditions? Still, there is a scintilla of originality in portraying a younger Dickens, though nothing beyond that - and, as I infer above, it's all turns out somewhat off-target.

      I've also read 'Carol' (together with Dickens' other short stories for this Xmas/New Year time of year) annually for something like the last 12 years, as well as before then. I was thinking of giving it a rest this time round but the feeling that I ought to keep it up just might get the better of me. However, no one can seriously argue that the story is in any way 'poor'. It's brilliantly conceived, one of his very best of all. Long may its well-deserved popularity continue.

      Delete
  3. hey Ray, commenting from my phone it may go wrong. Just checking in to see if you are OK. Windy as heck isnt it! hope you are well. I will be back to blogging soon I hope I have 2 book reviews to sort out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm fine, thanks Sol - as I assume that you are too, following your 'successful' posting of this comment. I'd assumed your silence was due to your not yet managing to come back online properly, which may not have happened quite yet.
      Waiting for when you can manage your blog on 'Rebecca' and I'm ready to fire on all cylinders - that is, when YOU can too.
      Yes, windy it is - but not at all looking for the prolonged Arctic blast coming over the horizon. Roll on Springtime!

      Delete
  4. Hey Ray. This from my iPhone too. Almost every year I watch the Alister Sim version of “ A Christmas Carol”, while at working Christmas Eve at whatever hotel I was employed. I’ve never read the book. I’ve seen different versions of “A Christmas Carol” but none matches the special quality of the Alister Sim version. Jonathan Pryce, one of my favorite actors is also in “Game of Thrones”, looking like one of those ghosts of Christmases Past (he’s actually a High Sparrow in a hair cloth sack). Just saw an excellent film last night, “Maudie”. Another Irish-Canadian venture film. Quite good. Have you done a review on it? Thanks again for another incisive movie review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm familiar with the Alastair Simm version of 'Carol', Ron, but don't hold it in quite the high esteem as a lot of people (including you) seem to do. That's not to say that it isn't good, because it is.
      Do you watch the original b/w version or the colourised one which came out about 15 years ago, I think? I generally prefer originals which haven't been tampered with but for this I think you get an added layer of interest.

      We've talked about 'Maudie' before and you said you'd have to see it in the light of my review. (I think that Pat had said that he wasn't too impressed by it?) Anyway, I know you've read my review once because you commented on it, but here it is again anyway:-

      http://raybeard.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/film-maudie.html



      Delete
  5. Well I like it. Then again I am biased I am crackers for Dickens. It wasn't a great film but it was fun.
    By the way, how he struggled to write his book is similar to how I write a blog entry .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pleased that you did feel positive toward the film, Dr Spo. I get a different kind of 'satisfaction' from hearing opinions contrary to my own. Naturally, they are no less valid for being so, and n particular cases could well be more justifiable.

      The only difference between your writing and Dickens' (a major one, nonethelesss) is that whereas he, for this novel, was awaiting arrival of the Xmas spirits for inspiration and guidance, whilst you linger on interventions from the muses?

      Delete
    2. And others. Including The Ghost of Dickens.
      Boz and Spo are sometimes one.

      Delete
    3. Only difference being that you don't get paid for your 'creations'! :-) or maybe :-(

      Delete
    4. No I don't get paid, this is my hobby. I hear Dicken's hobby was gardening, for which he didn't expect to be paid. hohoho

      Delete
    5. At least we can all enjoy your creations, Dr Spo, whereas his gardening efforts were strictly only for himself, family and, presumably, passers-by.

      Delete