Paularoc
As someone who has an interest in the film history of A Christmas Carol but only a modest knowledge of silent films, I appreciate the previous reviewers remarks about this short film. Given its length, the movie well captures the essence of the Dickens' story although I did miss Tiny Tim. I thought the special effects were pretty good especially given the production date of the movie. This is one of those movies that is interesting to me only because of its historical significance and that it was an early filming of a beloved story. I wonder if even audiences at the time of the movie's release liked this movie unless they were already familiar with the Dickens story and viewed this film as a curiosity. Comedy was much better suited to one reelers than was drama. Nonetheless, I'm glad I saw it.
MartinHafer
For a film from 1910 (or 1907--I found 2 different dates for it), this is an exceptional film, though by today's standards it's pretty poor. Compared to the average Edison production, this one had much nicer sets and costumes and the short length of the film wouldn't have been seen as a problem--all films were rather short in this era. Of course, compared to later versions, this one also comes up wanting in many ways--but for its time it was dandy. As for the problems, you really need to know the story well to follow this version. I assumed audiences of the day must have been well-versed with it but again and again, things happened but because the film was so truncated you only understood it if you knew the story. Also, like most versions of the story, the poverty and responsibility to the poor were aspects of the film that weren't emphasized enough--and this was THE reason Dickens wrote the story--not just to give us a nice Christmas story.Still, for 1907/1910, this is a well made and watchable little gem that should make fans of early silents happy.By the way, if you wonder why I mentioned the Movie Channel's Bunnies, they are cartoons where an entire film is condensed into 30 minutes. This condensed format reminded me a lot of this version of A Christmas CAROL since it's so very short.
José Luis Rivera Mendoza (jluis1984)
While the first decade of the 20th Century was ending, cinema was rising as a new form of entertainment, and after more than 20 years of constant experimenting, it was beginning to show the elements of a new art form. Gone were the days of the early pioneers, and it was now the time of the very first filmmakers, those who would shape the new art form and develop the language of cinema. Director J. Searle Dawley, who considered himself as "the first motion picture director", was one of those first artists who would complete cinema's transformation from charming sideshow attraction to a full-fledged narrative art. Hired by film pioneer Edwin S. Porter to make new and original films, J. Searle Dawley would use his experience in theater to follow the steps of Vitagraph and adapt many popular novels to film. Charles Dickens' classic "A Christmas Carol" was one of them.The story of "A Christmas Carol" is very well known, and while short, this early version remains faithful to the most important parts of the plot. Marc McDermott plays the old miser Ebenezer Scrooge, a harsh man so concerned about money that on the day before Christmas refuses to donate to the Charity Relief Committee, neglects his worker Bob Cratchit (Charles Ogle) the permission to leave early and even rejects his nephew in a very rude manner when the young man comes to invite him to his Christmas celebration. However, that Christmas' night the old Scrooge sees the ghost of his former business partner Marley, who tells him that no good can come from that behavior, and warns him about the horrible punishment for those who follow those ways. Later that night, Scrooge will be visited by three spirits that will show him more than what Scrooge was ready to see."A Christmas Carol" wasn't directed only by J. Searle Dawley, as he was assisted by Vitagraph regular Charles Kent and newcomer Ashley Miller. Considering Kent's experience in adapting plays to screen for the Vitagraph Company, it is very possible that this short film was also written by him, or at least assisted Dawley with it. Considering it is only a short film, this version of Dicken's novel is remarkably faithful to the source, and manages to condense the most important parts of the tale without losing the novel's meaning. Obviously, it doesn't go into full detail about every scene and the script moves at a very fast pace, but that's natural because it had to cover a lot in a very short time. To the writers' credit, they managed to make the adaptation entertaining and easy to understand despite these shortcomings.The cooperative work between Dawley, Miller and Kent is truly excellent in this film and make it stand out among the many early films by the Edison Manufacturing Company. Kent's experience in Vitagraph's versions of literature classics adds a lot of class to the movie and gets excellent performances from the actors. This style works perfectly well with Dawley's directing style, who makes the film look a bit less stagy than the usual Vitagraph movie by making interesting visual compositions and giving good use to the limited camera-work of the time. While, as written above, the story moves at a fast pace, the film flows nicely thanks to the narrative style of the directors. The highlights of the film are of course the visits by the four ghosts, done with an excellent use of several special effects (mostly double exposures) that look outstanding for its time and add a powerful eerie atmosphere to the movie.In any version of "A Christmas Carol", the role of Scrooge is often one that can make or break the adaptation due to its enormous importance, and in this version Marc McDermott doesn't disappoint. A rising star in Edison's Studio, McDermott shows off his enormous talent for acting by playing the considerably older (McDermott was only 29 when filming this movie) in a very natural and convincing way. With the aid of makeup, McDermott delivers one of the best portrayals of Ebenezer Scrooge in film, by transforming himself into the wicked old miser with an extraordinary ease that makes the movie a must-see. The rest of the cast is very good too, although it is obvious that this movie depends completely on McDermott's performance. Interestingly, and uncredited Charles Ogle makes a small appearance in the role of Scrooge's clerk Bob Cratchit.Judging the film by today's standards, the 1910 version of "A Christmas Carol" (or any other film from those years) could be seen as a stagy, uneven and incomplete attempt to adapt a classic story; however, set in the context of its time, it is actually one of the best silent movies of those early years of cinema. While not exactly the most innovative film of its time, it's easy to tell how the styles of J. Searle Dawley and Charles Kent would be of great influence to a young D.W. Griffith who was just starting his career in those years (in 1908 under Dawley's direction) and would develop cinema's language even further. With an amazing performance by Marc McDermott and the excellent direction by Dawley, Kent and Miller; this early version of Dickens' classic is a very good example of early film-making and a good choice to watch in Christmas. 8/10
ixtab9
Obviously this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL is largely noteworthy for it's historical value since it doesn't have time to delve very deeply into the Dickens story. This one-reel wonder is watchable as long as you have a fondness for silent movies like I do. I'm not so sure others will consider it worth a look.Besides Marley there's only one other ghost, no Tiny Tim and comparatively few dialogue boards. What is left is largely a pantomime performance of the holiday classic but the familiarity of the story makes it easy to follow. What special effects there are are wonderful considering the time period and this will whet your appetite for other silent film versions of the tale.Anyone who enjoys the Edison Company's equally short production of FRANKENSTEIN is sure to appreciate this film as well.
