FX's A Christmas Carol: The Mix of Peak TV and Dickens I Didn't Know I Was Looking For Until Now

 

By the end of December the average TV viewer,  whether they want to or not, will have encountered A Christmas Carol in so many variations that they might very well wish programming executives to be visited by three spirits to convince them to make sure that they keep it only once a year.

And to be fair, I have long since given up trying to count the variations of the story, authorized, adapted, or contorted out of proportion have been made by this point. The classic versions – the 1938 Reginald Owen and the 1951 Alistair Sim – are so good that you really wish Hollywood could have quit while they were ahead. When I was still a child, I saw a CBS version where George C. Scott played Scrooge so perfectly no variation has ever been able to top it. Patrick Stewart would so later in a movie for TNT in the mid-1990s.

Those are just the direct versions. There is of course the Broadway adaptation Scrooge!, filmed in 1970 with Albert Finney, who can not sing, in the title role. There’s Scrooged where Bill Murray plays a heartless network executive bullying his colleagues and forcing America to stay home on Christmas Eve to watch a live version of A Christmas Carol, purely for the sake of ratings. I’ll confess I’m fond of this version not just because of Murray’s performance or how it can be darker than some dramatic ones but because Murray’s version of a TV executive is completely fitting with the character of Scrooge. (“But people watched Sports Night! “Bah, Humbug! We must deplete the series population!”) I have not seen the TV movie with Susan Lucci as Ebbie and don’t track it down and inform me about it if you have by chance.

And every child by the time they are six or seven will have seen at least a couple dozen variations of it in the world of animated cartoons. When I was growing up they were showing what I assume was a Rankin Bass version with Walter Matthau doing Scrooge’s voice, and some pretty decent songs. The Jetsons, The Flintstones, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, The Simpsons, they’ve all done versions at least once – hell, there was a long forgotten 80s cartoon called Beverly Hills Teens that did a three part story on it. And those are the children’s versions. God help me, Melrose Place did one where Heather Locklear was visited by the ghosts of Christmas Past and saw her future. Of course because this was 1990s soap opera; the lessons didn’t take beyond the next week.

A Christmas Carol is so ubiquitous that it may be the only work of Charles Dickens that most Americans have read or even know he wrote. One film actually completed the parallel about this called The Man Who Invented Christmas with Dan Stevens playing Dickens. And I am certain that most British citizens and literary scholars are justifiably appalled that the man who has little peer as the greatest author of the 19^th Century is remembered for what is, with little question, his least Dickensian novel. For one thing, it’s his shortest book, barely tapping at 250 pages. It also follows a single narrative as opposed to just one and follows everything through a single character’s perspective, which is far from anything Dickens usually did. But it is also Dickens’ most accessible work and because of that, it is far easier to adapt to film than any of his other novels.

Of course the movies have been doing this as long as there have been movies. From A Tale of Two Cities to David Copperfield and Nicholas Nickleby, the film industry is constantly trying to capture the magnificence of Dickens on screen. David Lean may have been the most successful at it: during the 1940s he directed two masterful adaptations Great Expectations and Oliver Twist. And making musicals from his work has always been a source of success: Oliver! Was a winner at both the Tonys and Oscars and they even managed a successful adaptation of his final, unfinished novel The Mystery of Edwin Drood. But the problem adapting Dickens successfully always runs against the brick wall of the fact that his best works contain so many characters and plots that a two or three hour film cannot encapsulate them.

That it was the best adaptations have exclusively been BBC miniseries going back as far as the 1970s. From major works such as the ones I’ve listed to Bleak House and The Old Curiosity Shop  works by Dickens have been one of the leading projects of both British theater and TV for more than half a century. And anyone who knows how Dickens originally told his stories should be stunned by this. When Dickens serialized his stories in London magazines, there were tales of thousands of Londoners crowding newsstands and waiting in harbors for delivers of the next installment of one of his stories. In a sense the works of Charles Dickens are the model not merely for so many great writers to come, but also the literary equivalent of how Peak TV would come.

Which brings me to FX’s version of A Christmas Carol which came out in 2019. I didn’t watch it when it came out nor over the several times it has ended up repeating during successive Christmases on FX. There were several changes to the makeup of it that sounded odd at the time, and frankly I didn’t really see a need to watch it. But this past week, I had occasion to do so and since this is the time of year to being writing these kinds of reviews, I figured why not.

Let’s deal with some of the changes that many considered controversial. The biggest is that Scrooge is played by Guy Pearce and where is he is not the youngest actor to play the role (Albert Finney was thirty-four when he played him in Scrooge) all previous Scrooges have looked to be elderly and on their last legs. Pearce’s is not only not decrepit; he looks vital and almost handsome. It’s worth noting that ‘elderly’ in Victorian England had a different connotation then it does today, particularly in an era with rampant disease and nothing resembling modern medicine. (Dickens himself died at 58, an age that in his era was considered among the elderly.)  The problem is that both Pearce and Stephen Graham (who plays Jacob Marley) do not seem like the kind of geezers that we have associated with the roles.

Pearce and the writing make up for that with the fact that Scrooge’s cynicism and darkness is just as apparent, and its clear that his contempt is not merely for Christmas but the world at large.  That actually makes some parts of the first episode better in some ways. You got the feeling in previous versions that people were being generous to Scrooge because they thought he was old and frail. It’s a lot harder to hold your disdain for a man who is both wealthy and looks stronger than you.

There are also images throughout the series that border on Dickensian as well as the mood of the characters. A Christmas Carol is a ghost story but the ghosts seem to be trying to help Scrooge so the supernatural elements, at least until the end, seem benevolent. Here the writers don’t hide the trappings not merely of horror, but also gothic horror.

There’s also a benefit that the story being split over three nights (appropriately) helps add depth to the other characters. Some have complained that Scrooge is the only character in the novel who is anything more than a caricature, and there is some literary merit in that. Spread out over three episodes, the writers have the ability to give the other characters – including Scrooge – depth that was lacking. You get a sense of it in each of the episode.

The first part is titled The Human Beast. Marley awakes in his grave after a youth has pissed on it and is crying for peace. We see him yanked from his grave and eventually see his chains being forged. They are forged by one of the workers who died in an explosion in a factory that was acquired by Scrooge and Marley and that they cut the corners to the point that dozens died. Scrooge eventually sees this explosion. Dickens only says that Scrooge is a monster because he is a usurer and loves money. This adaptation makes it very clear what the cost of that wealth was and it’s the kind of thing Dickens would use in other novels.

In the novel both Bob Cratchit and Fred are cheerful and kind to Scrooge in the opening chapter. This is not the case here. Cratchit is clearly exhausted with Scrooge and his boss now seems to enjoy lording his authority over him and flaunting his power. Cratchit tries to be patience because he wants to go home early. Scrooge just seemed cheap in previous versions; Pearce’s seems cruel. When Bob completes a task perfectly and on time, Scrooge mocks him and then purposely creates another one for him to do.

In all other versions Fred is always cheerful despite Scrooge’s disregard for him. In this one, Fred seems to have little patience for his uncle. There’s a weariness in the behavior between them absent from previous versions. And there’s a sorrow. Fred tells his uncle that he’s will never invite him to another Christmas, and that he has kept doing so over his wife’s objections. When he leaves, he actually tells Scrooge he doubts he’ll ever see him again.

There’s also a deeper cynicism to Scrooge here. He hates Christmas because he considers it a lie to how human nature works. Man is a beast 364 days of the year; why is he only on Christmas? What’s telling that this attitude frequently pervades much of Dickens’ other work; the cheerful attitude so many of the poor and downtrodden in this story is an outlier for almost the rest of his fiction.

We also see for the first time Scrooge actually misses Marley. He talks to him as if he is still there frequently. And it’s also worth noting that unlike other incarnations, the element of the supernatural start early. There are signs of ghosts, in terms of coins and relics well before Scrooge even gets out of the office and by the time he sees Marley on the doorknocker, his reaction is such that he breaks off the jaw. When Marley manifests, the jaw is still off and he has to repair it.

The actual meeting takes less time in this version, but for once we don’t need it to. Marley has shown us in his own encounters how unlikely he thinks it is Scrooge will end up repenting and tells as much to the Ghost of Christmas Past. Scrooge’s reaction doesn’t change, but the fact that Marley knows his colleague makes it clear he thinks Scrooge’s repentance is impossible.

The second part is titled: “The Human Heart.”  It deals entirely with the visitation of the Ghost of Christmas Past. This ghost does not take the form of a benevolent old lady, as is traditional but a more sinister man. We see him in the first part, throwing toys of Marley on a fire speaking with little regard for Marley or Scrooge.

In this part we get a very clear picture of Scrooge’s past, and it bares little resemblance to what we see in the novel or any incarnation. For starters, we get as clear a picture of Scrooge’s father in a single incident that is clearly representative of the man he was. We see it in a moment of a single incident where Scrooge remembers the only present he got – a small mouse with a bell around its neck. Scrooge’s father comes home drunkenly singing, berates his family and screams at the idea of the gift, snapping the mouse’s neck. We get a sense of how much Scrooge has been equating love with money ever since. And the Ghost (Andy Serkis) wants him to unlearn this lesson.

Throughout the past the Ghost (as is appropriate for a character played by Serkis) takes the form of memories from past. And unlike previous incarnations which show Scrooge seeing pleasant memories that he took wrong; this one concentrates more on his worst aspects. I have to say I actually view this as a positive change as well as making Scrooge more of the kind of industrialist Dickens loathed.

We do see the scene at the boarding school he stayed at, but this time the memory is not pleasant. Here we see his sister Lotte come to bring him home, and that Fezziwig refuses initially. It’s part of the novel that Scrooge’s father never brought him home for Christmas; here the implication involves a certain amount of extortion and probably worse. Then we see a mining disaster caused by the work of Scrooge and Marley’s purchases and the two men extorting a weaving owner to by a company for pennies on the dollar. Scrooge is revealed to be a cross between the robber baron and the corporate raiders of today, buying companies and selling them for parts. There is no mention of Elizabeth in the past except for one scene; we see nothing of Fred after the pilot. The images that is critical are those of looms, turning into printing presses and printing out money in masses.

The critical moment in The Human Heart plays out in the third part. We see just Tim being born and that he is in poor health. Then we see Mary come to see Scrooge on Christmas Eve to beg for a loan for surgery to save her sons life. Scrooge listens to her disinterestedly and says he will give her the money as a gift – if she comes to his house that Christmas Eve.

The conclusion is called ‘A Bag of Gravel’ and begins with the scene that follows. Here I will tread carefully because most of what happens in the final part is divergent from what we have seen. Mary comes to Scrooge’s home fully expecting that she is there to prostitute herself. He does not do that. What he does is far worse than any sexual offense he could ever put on a woman. I won’t tell you what but what it seems to be is a variation on the moral arithmetic he has been doing through the first two episodes. I have to say this part of it somewhat Dickensian, certainly keeping with 19^th century literature. What follows does seem a bit too feminist for me and may lead some viewers to think it is some kind of correctness gone amok.

Scrooge tries to justify his actions and the Ghost of Christmas Past leaves in disgust and anger. The Ghost walk back to Marley, still in the snow, who feels nothing can change.

The Ghost of Christmas Present is also different – it’s Lottie, Ebenezer’s sister. I favor this change as it is keeping with the more traditional model of the ghost story. Lottie talks to Ebenezer in scientific terms about the moral arithmetic he mentioned earlier and then they go to the Cratchit’s house. (Fred is absent after the first episode.) We see the Cratchit’s building gifts for their children and then Christmas dinner.  At that dinner, there has been a gulf between Mary and Bob we saw in the previous two episodes that they’ve been trying to put off.  Mary wants to tell her husband about how she got the money, but she can not tell the truth. So he invents a story. Bob forgives her and we seem to be past it – but what happens next shows that the spirit of Scrooge’s menace (Mary can see Scrooge for a moment) will hold over them.

The next scene takes place at a Christmas memorial for all those lost in the mine explosion we saw in the second episode. We also see the young man who ‘paid his respect’ to Marley in the opening; he lost much of his family. For the first time Scrooge begins to feel regret and shame for what he is. In the final scene between him and Lottie, he apologizes for not being the kind of person he should have been. She warns him that the next ghost has no room for excuses.

The Ghost of Christmas Future takes the form of a pale man with his lips sewn shut – “because no one can no the future, he cannot speak.” This scene is also very different in several sense that I will leave you discover, save for the death of Tiny Tim. Scrooge is also at his grave but unlike past versions, he is aware of it and no longer cares for his own fate.

The major difference at the end of this is that he has a conversation with Marley. The next part is not remotely something that Dickens would write but in all honesty, it may be a better ending than the one we have gotten all these years. The fact that Scrooge learns he will die alone and unloved, with vultures picking his bedclothes is a very Dickensian theme – but the way that it is told as if he is completely oblivious to the fact that they are speaking of him all this time, seems beneath someone of his intelligence. Here Ebenezer makes a more telling decision that is different because it is far more rational.

I won’t reveal the final minutes because they are also vastly different from the ones we have spent years playing and replaying. What I will say is that there is no God bless us everyone, that Scrooge’s noble gestures are made more real because it is clear they are not necessarily going to be accepted – and that at the end he knows that his journey towards salvation is something he will try for but no longer cares if he receives it. I have to say there is something refreshingly unsentimental and sappy about this for any Christmas story, particularly this one.

What you will end up thinking of FX’s A Christmas Carol might paradoxically depend on how much you like the holiday season. If you like sentimental, often treacly holiday specials that fill the year and if you want to get away from the grimness that pervades so much of our television, I can see why you might not want to indulge in a story that is more Dickensian than this story is.

If, however, you want to see a superbly written series, with very good performances and some truly memorable imagery and direction, if you want to see what Christmas would truly have been like in the world of Dickensian England rather than the version we get in this story, if you actually want to see the gothic and supernatural nature that this story promises but often get lost in the sometimes saccharine nature of the fable – and perhaps most importantly, what the spirit of Christmas should be as opposed to what we seem to think it is – then you might be the kind of person for whom the FX version fits.

  My advice, next Christmas search it out on Hulu and visit it over three nights. And then, if you’re like me, make plans to see the version of Great Expectations that dropped this year to see what Peak TV can do with the real Charles Dickens.