Stephen said
. . . I have my own Christmas three-hankie movie. The 1951 version of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** starring Alastair Sim. There are other good adaptions (George C Scott requites himself well in a TV version from 1984) but there is no better cinematic depiction of human redemption than Sim’s performance. (I seem to always be getting something in my eye whenever I watch the movie. Funny how that works. Every time.)
I agree that the Sim performance is the best movie Scrooge. The Scott adaptation looks wonderful, and Scott’s performance of the pre-reformed Scrooge is good, but his post-reformed Scrooge feels like a miss to me. Sims seems to be the one actor who understood that Scrooge is not a bitter old skinflint because he is a bad person; he is a bitter old skinflint because he has been disappointed by life, and he has hidden his fears behind the safety of making money. You can sense Scrooge’s vulnerability even before he is reformed — his Scrooge feels like one that might be saved, and ultimately is.
Robert said
Alistair Sim’s Scrooge was always the favorite of my father and mine. His giddy Christmas morning and repentant Christmas evening (when he finally comes to dinner) are truly classic.Has anyone seen the very dark 2019 FX/BBC reinterpretation? My daughter, who is a Charles Dickens purist hates it, but I love it. It focuses on the fact that Scrooge’s business practices are truly evil in their effects on employees and the ghosts are genuinely scary. But it also starts off with a much more naturalistic introduction of the introduction of the ghost of Jacob Marley, with Scrooge merely reminiscing about his diseased and taking to him in his own imagination. It’s very dark, the opposite of Capra-esque, although Mr Potter was fairly evil and I have to admit that I love Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life.
If that was the one with Guy Pearce, I have to side with your daughter. They tried to add too much to the story, well beyond the minor tinkering of other adaptions, and, metaphorically at least, did indeed bury it with a sprig of holly in its heart. Still, it might not be quite as bad as Rich Little’s a Christmas Carol.
Robert said
Yep, that’s the one. It’s definitely not for everyone, but I loved it because it was so realistic and dark, but I also love the original. A couple of years ago, I bought her an edition of the book with photos of the original handwritten manuscript alongside the type-set text. Interesting to see Dickens’ additions and scratch-outs as he worked. I like to see movies that present a different take on a novel. That actually respects the role of the reader, which a true author should appreciate.
Also interesting is the facsimile of his personal “prompt” copy of the printed edition, with lots of markings adapting it to his version for public readings. He really had to trim it down to the most essential parts to get it to be a reasonable length. (I saw the original from the Berg Collection on exhibit in New York some years ago, and I have seen the manuscript, which I think they display every year at the Morgan Library in New York.) The hotel where I recently stayed in Boston makes a big deal out of the fact that Dickens stayed there during his American tour in 1866-67. The entire structure was rebuilt in 1927, so no part of the original survives except the fragments that were saved and reused. They do still have the door to that suite, with the room numbers on porcelain tags, the fireplace from the room, and the huge mirror in front of which Dickens is said to have rehearsed for his readings. (The frame is clearly original, but the glass has just as clearly been replaced.) When I did some research many years ago at the Free Library of Philadelphia, which has a fine Dickens collection, I was allowed to sit in Dickens’ chair and at his desk. (They also have Grip, the raven, now stuffed and in an elaborate Victorian display case. This raven was Dickens’ personal pet, and was said to have inspired the raven in Barnaby Rudge, which in turn is thought to have inspired the raven in Poe’s famous poem. It is, of course, no longer speaking.)
Judith said
Jill_L said
I found this article on line. I don’t know if it’s of any particular interest. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Never read that book and am wondering if I should? Why?
One reason why is that a number of people, including Albert Einstein and William Faulkner to name just a couple, consider it the best piece of literature ever written. It is definitely on my list of books to be read. I only wish I knew Russian so I could read it in the original.
Never read that book and am wondering if I should? Why?
Ah… the Russians.
Yes you should read the Russians. Until the Soviet Union chased everybody away (or killed them) the Russians had a literary tradition every bit equal to the English and the French.
The Constance Garnett translations are ubiquitous. She must be honored for introducing much of this work to the West. However her work was done mostly in the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and was intended for a Victorian audience. The biggest criticism of her work is that her English rather homogenizes the writing so that the peculiarities of each author are diminished. (Look at it like this. If you read the KJV, as wonderful as the English might be, it still all sounds like the KJV. A koine reader will appreciate stylistic qualities invisible to the reader of the KJV. A reader of Russian, such as your humble correspondent, will not mistake Tolstoy for Dostoevsky. A translation should enable the reader to appreciate those differences.)
Sooo… if you want contemporary (2000s) English translations of these works try the stuff from Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. He’s an American poet and she a native Russian essayist. Both have extensive translation experience and are able to bring out the individual voices of these writers. You can easily find cheap used copies of their translations online at the usual places.
For what it’s worth…
If you’ve never read Tolstoy start with ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is vastly overblown. So it’s going to take a little longer to read. Well what’s the hurry? (Look at it this way. If you combine all three volumes of Lord of the Rings it will come to about 1250 pages. War and Peace? Just shy of 1300. Millions of readers have tackled Tolkien without despair. Might as well say it. Tolstoy is the vastly superior writer.)
Dostoevsky? Take your pick. I prefer ** you do not have permission to see this link **. The Idiot is about a truly good man in a corrupt world. Demons is about ideological madness. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear!
And for god’s sake don’t forget about ** you do not have permission to see this link **!
Why read any of this?
Life is short. It comes down to how you want to spend your fleeting time on this earth. I totally reject the “medicine” view of literature. Read this because it’s good for you! Read this because it’ll make you a better person! (Sure, Einstein loved Dostoevsky. But so did Stalin.) Tens of millions of people don’t read it and they seem to get by fine.
Through the power of the active imagination you can enter into the consciousness of other minds, different yet oddly similar, and experience the world in a way impossible for you alone. If that experience doesn’t interest you then there’s always YouTube or Netflix. But if you are allured by that prospect, well then, enquire within.
Stephen: Who said anyone should read The Brothers Karamozov because it is good for you, like a medicine? I simply noted that many people consider it the best book ever written and gave a couple of examples. The only “should” came from you: “Yes you should read the Russians.”
Robert said
Stephen said
… A reader of Russian, such as your humble correspondent, will not mistake Tolstoy for Dostoevsky. …
Very impressive, Stephen.
What would be more impressive is if I could read Homer and Euripides. But we have to make due with the opportunities that come our way. I was fortunate. My alma mater Emory U in Atlanta has an excellent modern languages program and my teacher was a graduate of St Petersburg ( Leningrad) State U which has one of the finest language departments in the world. Ludmilla got her PhDs in English and French by the time she was 23! Plus it was fun. That’s the secret to learning another language. Enjoying the process of learning it.
TTHorne56 said
Stephen: Who said anyone should read The Brothers Karamozov because it is good for you, like a medicine? I simply noted that many people consider it the best book ever written and gave a couple of examples. The only “should” came from you: “Yes you should read the Russians.”
Generations of English teachers to generations of students.
My friend, my wisdom is bread cast upon the waters. Available to all, aimed at no one.
Stephen said
. . . Plus it was fun. That’s the secret to learning another language. Enjoying the process of learning it.
I think it also takes a certain knack for languages. Also, studies do show that the facility for picking up new languages begins to fail as we get older. I always admire people who are really functional in more than one language. I took German in high school, the only alternative offered being French. I did not take the third class because it was taught in German, and I was caught in the trap of translating rather than thinking in German, which would have meant that I could never have kept up.
Robert: “…the best way…at a young age…”
As we age our vocal chords lose elasticity making learning and then speaking a foreign language more difficult. But then, as Robert said, we can still do it if okay with being able to laugh at ourselves along with those who are laughing at us!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)