8 / 10
Official trailer
George C. Scott plays Ebenezer Scrooge, with David Warner as Bob Cratchit, Susannah York as Mrs. Cratchit, Edward Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present, Roger Rees as Fred, Frank Finlay as Jacob Marley and Anthony Walters as Tiny Tim. Roger O. Hirson wrote the screenplay.
CBS broadcast the film in December 1984 to major American audiences, with theatrical release in the United Kingdom and several European territories. The film has later become a perennial American television Christmas staple alongside the 1951 Alastair Sim version.
I like this Carol a lot, and George C. Scott is why. He’s so sharp and so pleased with his own cruelty that I’m half on his side before the ghosts show up, and that makes the turn hit harder.
My reservation is the look of it. It’s a TV movie, and the cautious camerawork never lets me forget that.
Scott’s Scrooge is different from Sim’s. Where the 1951 Sim plays Scrooge with cold pinched cruelty that gives way to childlike joy after his transformation, Scott plays Scrooge with active, sometimes amused contempt that gives way to weighty moral seriousness. The American actor’s Scrooge knows exactly what he’s doing in his treatment of others and finds his own cruelty mildly entertaining.
The transformation consequently registers as recognition of consequence instead of as conversion to joy. Both readings are valid Dickens. Both produce strong films.
The 1984 version’s existence as serious alternative to the 1951 standard is the reason it has an annual place in the rotation.
George C. Scott’s Performance
Scott was fifty-seven and at the height of his late-career power.
His Scrooge dominates every scene through sheer intelligence and presence. Where Sim’s Scrooge is a small mean man, Scott’s is a large brilliant man who has chosen meanness as a rational position. The reading is darker and the implied indictment of capitalist accumulation more pointed.
Scott’s transformation scene is delivered with hard-won weight instead of light release. The Christmas-morning recognition that he’s been given a second chance arrives in Scott’s performance as a serious man’s serious acceptance of moral responsibility. He doesn’t dance. He sets to work. The reading is recognizably American and recognizably Scott’s own. Scott’s Christmas morning is my favorite part of his performance. He takes his second chance like a man signing a contract, and I believe this Scrooge will still be a better man in February.
For Writers
Source material that admits multiple actor approaches produces multiple strong adaptations. Scott’s Scrooge succeeds without imitating Sim because the screenplay leaves room for the second reading.
Edward Woodward as Christmas Present
Edward Woodward’s Ghost of Christmas Present is the film’s most memorable supporting performance. Where many Carol adaptations soften the spirit into avuncular jollity, Woodward plays Present as a serious figure whose celebration is real but whose moral judgment is precise. The character laughs and weeps and rebukes with equal conviction.
The ‘Ignorance’ and ‘Want’ sequence works in this version with full Dickensian weight. Woodward draws aside his robe and the audience sees the two children clinging to him, and his accusation that Ignorance and Want are man’s children rings with real prosecution instead of performance. The choice to play this material seriously is one of the film’s signatures.
The Ignorance and Want moment is the scene that wins this film its 8 for me. Woodward turns from warm to terrifying in a breath, and I can’t imagine the scene played better.
For Writers
Comic-relief supporting characters in serious adaptations can raise the material when actors refuse the easy reading. Woodward’s Christmas Present is funny when funny and devastating when devastating.
Television Production Constraints
The film loses a little ground for me because it was a television production, and it shows in the tighter coverage and cautious camera work. Donner smartly leans on performance over spectacle, and the chamber-drama feel gives the supporting cast room to work. I still wanted more of Victorian London around these people, and the flat framing keeps the film from feeling as big as Scott’s performance.
Shrewsbury, England played Victorian London for the film’s exterior work. The town’s preserved Tudor and Georgian architecture allowed location shooting without requiring extensive period dressing. Tony Imi’s cinematography handles the limited budget through warm interior lighting and atmospheric exterior compositions in fog.
For Writers
Television production limitations shape film aesthetics in identifiable ways. The 1984 Carol’s chamber-drama focus is a direct consequence of budget and broadcast constraints instead of artistic preference.
Craft Note
Roger O. Hirson’s screenplay sticks close to Dickens with minor expansion of the young Scrooge sequences and the Fezziwig material. The film’s recurring American television broadcasts have given Scott’s Scrooge a serious second-place position in the Carol-adaptation conversation, especially with American audiences. Director Clive Donner had previously directed the 1965 What’s New Pussycat among other projects. The 1984 production cost approximately three million dollars and was financed entirely by CBS for the network broadcast.
Does A Christmas Carol still hold up?
It’s an 8 from me, and I think it’s the strongest American Carol.
Scott gives the story a Scrooge with a brain and a backbone, Woodward makes Christmas Present frightening when it counts, and Hirson’s screenplay sticks close to Dickens. The TV-movie look is what holds it under a 9. I’d pair it with the 1951 Sim version and let the two Scrooges argue with each other.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Nominees and Winners 1985: Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series or a Special, Television Academy
- A Christmas Carol (1984 film), Wikipedia
- A Christmas Carol (1984), IMDb
