Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost (2023)
Filmed in 35mm and in black and white, this short silent film was produced by the English film pioneer R. W. Paul, and directed by Walter R. Booth and was filmed at Paul's Animatograph Works. It was released in November 1901. As was common in cinema's early days, the filmmakers chose to adapt an already well-known story, in this case A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, in the belief that the audience's familiarity with the story would result in the need for fewer intertitles. It was presented in 'Twelve Tableaux' or scenes. The film contains the first use of intertitles in a film.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
Overrated and overhyped
A waste of 90 minutes of my life
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
"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.
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.
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.
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.