|
QUOTES
Urquhart:" I do enjoy these little visits to the Palace; a glass of sherry, some verbal fencing, and a bracing dose of hatred and contempt." Urquhart: "Far be it from me to lop off another million or so from a deserving Royal family on the specious pretext of babies starving in the street!" (This is quite clever of Urquhart: he is using the King's regard for the poor and disenfranchised against him. He is telling the king that the Royal family subsists on money that could be, ostensibly, better used ––– though of course he doesn't say how that will be used. It can be pretty sure that it would not be to alleviate the suffering of the poor and the jobless and homeless and all the other "nuisances" that he no doubt sees these people as. But like everything else in his life, he has no qualms about using their plight in order to score points over his adversary.) Urquhart: "I hear you've been having secret talks with the opposition and some of the less trustworthy memories of my own party. Is this true?" The King: "I have a perfect right ––– I would consider it my duty –-– to inform myself of all shades of political opinion." Urquhart: "Yes, but that right hardly extends to conspiring in Chelsea restaurants and trying to organise a bloodless coup against the elected government of the day, does it?" Urquhart (to camera): "What I would prefer of course is that he would give up thinking altogether. Kings aren't supposed to think." Princess:"What's going to happen, Mr Urquhart?" Urquhart: "I'm afraid that by his actions his Majesty is going to injure himself." Princess: "You mean you're going to injure him. Do you really want to destroy the monarchy?" Urquhart: "No Ma'am I do not wish to destroy the monarchy. You have nothing to fear from me, nor does your son." (Here, once again, Urquhart has been very clever and manipulative. He is telling the Princess (who is already harbouring wounded feelings for her ex-husband) that it is the man he is after, not the throne. He only wishes to ––– as he already intimated to us ––– take down the current occupant of the throne, not destroy the actual monarchy. He is telling the Princess that, should the king be defeated, then the next in line to the throne (her son, presumably) will have his total, unequivocal, and loyal support. As long as she supports him in his endeavours to unseat the current monarch, of course.) Quilley: "Man's making a stand: got to respect that." (Quilley may be a drunk, overentitled, aristocratic waster, who only hangs around the Princess in order to bask in her reflected glory, but he is, in this one sentence, voicing the opinion of a large section of the population. When they compare the cynical, heartless, capitalist attitude of the government towards their plight, and contrast that with the King's honest, if somewhat naive, view, it's not hard to see why so many people would be prepared to support the King in his endeavours, and rail against the government for not doing enough, or indeed anything, to help them.) Sarah: "He's put it on the agenda though (the King) ––– compassion. He's really done it I'm afraid. Compassion is here to stay." (The one thing Urquhart cannot combat, and will have no truck with: compassion. You could say he doesn't even know the meaning of the word. Well, you might very well think that: I couldn't possibly comment. ;)) Urquhart (to camera): "No, it is not easy; it is interesting but it is not easy. So many people gather in these rooms where lovers meet, so many ghosts, so many silent witnesses from my past life and her present one. Sometimes it seems that they suck up all the sweet, clean air in the room and I can't breathe. I wanted to make her my slave, and now I almost feel in danger of becoming hers." The King: "This is not some petty personal blood feud, and I'm not a politician." (It may not be for him, but to his opponent this is exactly what it is. The King, naive as he is, inexperienced as he is, really thinks that he can effect change if he gets the power of the people behind him. He does not like Urquhart, but he is not battling him personally. He is in fact (or he believes he is) battling the policies, ideologies and decisions of the government which have brought them to this pass, as he sees it. Were another man in power things might be different: perhaps even such a man might side with the King (although that is probably unlikely), but Urquhart sees this as a personal vendetta against him and his government, and he has taken a very personal dislike to a king who, as he sees it, is abusing his position, and making life for the Prime Minister much harder than it needs to be. In reality, Urquhart probably believes that the King is not fit to sit on the throne: somewhere deep, deep down in that dark, unfathomable, cold heart there is perhaps a shred of decency, a small voice calling to him from the darkness, saying "England cannot be ruled by such a man". Urquhart intends to make sure that this is indeed the case. For him, the feud between the King and himself could not be more personal.) Urquhart: "No rest for the wicked." (Never was a truer word spoken, nor a phrase used more appropriately). Urquhart: "Prime Minister's Question Time: very frightening. Like being mugged by a guinea pig." Urquhart: "If any of this dirt sticks to Stamper, I'll drop him like a hot brick. In some ways, it could be a very good thing: the way the tide is running against us, we could do with a scapegoat." Sarah: "I thought he was your oldest friend?" Urquhart: "He is." (As if there was any doubt in our minds at this stage, it's quite clear that Urquhart has no friends, and that those who think they are his friends, those who count themselves among the chosen few, are little more than pawns to be sacrificed as he sees fit. If Urquhart can save his own neck by, literally, metaphorically or politically stabbing his very best friend in the back, pushing him over the edge, letting him fall to his death, he will do it. And he would have absolutely no hesitation in doing so; he would consider it the expedient thing to do. There is no room for emotion in the heart of the Prime Minister.) Urquhart (to camera): "But they all, all of them, betray us eventually. They love us, but not quite enough. They trust us, but not quite enough. And we trust them to be entirely human, meaning less than completely trustworthy. Which means that we can never quite entirely sleep. As the cat's eyelids flicker, some part of us must stay awake, always: ready, as the coiled spring is ready." Urquhart: "You might think that some of those who made accusations were not perhaps in the ideal position to throw stones, living as they do in glass houses… Or Should I say, glass palaces. You might very well think that: it would not be proper for me to comment." Urquhart: "Why are you doing this? What could possibly be in it for you?" The King: "You really don't understand at all do you?" (Here we see again evidence of the fundamental dichotomy between the King and the Prime Minister. Urquhart does nothing unless he can gain by it. Whether this is financial gain, political gain, or indeed personal gain, there must be some return for him before he will take any position, before he will move. The King, on the other hand, is not looking for personal wealth, reward, even recognition: he is the king after all, and has no need of celebrity, and certainly no need for riches. He genuinely believes that this is the right thing to do, and he does it because it is the right thing to do. The concept is alien to Urquhart. Why would anyone go up against the government when there is nothing to be gained, as far as he can see?. It just doesn't make sense: not to him. And here we see why these two men will never see eye to eye; though they, to a degree, "fight on the same side", they are living in worlds apart.) THE REAL URQUHART We see here an interesting parallel between the divorced Princess and Mattie Storin from the first series. Very much unsure if she can, the Princess asks Urquhart "Can I trust you?" He smiles, that shark smile, that crocodile smile, the smile of a predator sensing he is closing in on his prey, and tells her "You know you can". It's almost exactly the same question, and the same answer, he gave to Mattie ––– just before he threw her off the roof at the end of the first series. POWER BEHIND THE THRONE It would seem that even the Machiavellian wife of Urquhart needs to take a little time away from her own schemes, keeping Francis on the right road (as she sees it), and of directing his career. She tells her husband she will go to the country retreat, and will take Corder with her. Urquhart mentions that Corder is "good value for money": Elizabeth smiles that secret smile and says that she thinks so too. It's pretty obvious what is going on here: although Elizabeth is fiercely loyal to her husband, it's probably fairly likely that they don't sleep together, or if they do it's not very much. Whether Urquhart is aware or not of her dalliances with one of his underlings is not known, but considering his own extramarital (and approved by his wife) affairs, I hardly think that he would have too much to say on the subject. Pot calling the kettle black? The betrayer betrayed As he falls farther and farther from Francis's good graces, it seems quite likely now that Tim Stamper realises there is really no room for him at the table any more. His place of honour has been taken by the younger and obviously prettier Sarah Harding, with whom Francis seems to have what Stamper would probably assume to be an unhealthy fascination. Truth to tell, he's probably seeing Mattie Storin all over again, and we all know how that ended. But as he is squeezed further out of the circle, pushed out of the loop, Stamper is given a rope to hold onto: a rope not only to cling to to drag himself back to the metaphorical shore (let's say back into political life, or at least, active political life), but also quite possibly to use to hang Francis with. He has been told, or it has been intimated at any rate, that should Urquhart go down ––– as everyone expects he will have to ––– that Stamper could very well be next in line to lead the country, and he has friends he did not know that he had. With this sort of power base, it is possible that Stamper can be a force in politics, even without the patronage of Urquhart. So what now is there to stop him from betraying his old master? After all, we're likening him to the faithful dog getting kicked by his master: how long before that dog is no longer prepared to take the kicking, turns around and bites the hand that fed it? There's plenty of betrayal to go around; Urquhart set Bullerby the task of recording Princess Charlotte's memoirs as a way of safeguarding his own position, a weapon against the king, should he need it. He told Bullerby the story that they would not be published until after the Princess's own death. It is certainly not clear whether Bullerby believed this to be the case, whether or not he expected that Urquhart would go back on his word, as he has done in so much of his career and his life. What is clear is that, despite himself, he has grown attached to the Princess and finds Urquhart's betrayal of her ––– with himself used as the instrument of that betrayal –-– to be especially bitter and hurtful. Bullerby knows he has been used, knows the Princess has been used as well, and it is unlikely that he will forgive or forget this very personal betrayal. And is Sarah also betraying her husband? When she first took the job from Urquhart, she made it clear ––– as did he ––– that no sexual involvement was envisaged. Now, by mutual assent, (though really through the manipulation of her by Urquhart) she has fallen into a romantic/sexual relationship with him ––– she believes that she may even be in love with him, and tells him so. How he feels about this we do not know: after all, the last woman who fell in love with him literally fell out of his good graces, and onto the roof of a parked van several stories below. Urquhart does not have time for love: he believes it to be an impediment to his plans, an unnecessary distraction, something to be avoided at all costs. He also knows the power it can have over the human heart, and the human brain. It can most definitely get in the way when you're plotting dastardly schemes and trying to destroy your enemies, which is why he is also most surprised ––– and it would seem mildly annoyed ––– to find that the tables have in a way been turned against him; he finds himself as attracted to Sarah as she is to him, and the whole power dynamic has been shifted. Urquhart always prefers to have his hand firmly on the reins: he is not used to being the one being directed, as he feels he is at this point. So it seems Sarah is prepared to give up her marriage for this man. Is she really in love? Can she truly believe that anyone could ever really be in love with Urquhart? And if she is just fooling herself does she realise that her entire marriage is being sacrificed for what very well may be a fantasy, a lie, or even a misunderstanding? She may be a hard-nosed political analyst but in matters of love it would appear that Sarah Harding is driven by the same urges, desires and needs that characterise virtually every human on this planet. I couldn't possibly comment... Again Urquhart trots out his familiar "plausable denial" phrase when asked during Prime Minister's Question Time if the royals have any right to be telling people what they should do, as they live in such luxury? A Boy in a man's world? Is the king growing up? Up to now, although his arguments with Urquhart have been heated, and quite bitter, there has been ––– mostly through what we would assume to be king's naivete ––– some sort of forlorn belief that he can somehow get through to the man, that he can make Urquhart see the world through his eyes, and that somehow, suddenly, out of the blue there will be a revelation, and the two will work together as one. Of course it will never happen, but that has not stopped the king up to now. Now however, it would appear that the king has taken something of a harder line with his ––– he detests the word, but there really is no other ––– enemy. Urquhart maintains a stiff, formal, almost mechanical attitude of respect to the monarch, but his actions are belied by his words. We see this most clearly when, as he prepares to leave the king after having failed to blackmail him into changing his mind, he speaks to him an equal. He does not use the words “Your Majesty”, he does not say Sir; he in fact affords no real respect to the king: he speaks to him as he would speak to any man in the street, and more, he speaks of him with the unbridled, barely restrained rage and fury that he would level against those who cross him. The king, for his part, seems to realise that being a gentleman and doing things the right way will not actually get him anywhere. It is, in the truest sense of the phrase, time to take off the kid gloves. We see the king begin to realise this, when he refuses to allow Urquhart to review (that is to say, edit and censor) the text of his television programme, due to go out the next day. He is tired of Urquhart interfering with him, trying to muzzle him, trying to make him say the things he wants him to say. He has come to realise that Urquhart will not bend, that if he is to get his message across it must be directly to the people and not through the offices of the Prime Minister. But he is torn too: he begins to see that Chloe is using him to further her own minorities agenda. When he complains "I'm not a political animal" she is quick to contradict him, telling him that he should go further when the king wants to step back, that people need to hear from him, that he is their hero, their champion. All of which no doubt plays to the King's ego, but he is no fool: he sees now he is being used as a mouthpiece for Chloe's own views, and as a way to get things that she wants from the government: effecting change through the Palace, possibly whether the Palace wants it or not. It's also quite clear that she is in love with the king at this stage, but whether he realises that is not clear. If, or when, he does, then their working relationship is going to get even harder, as he will have to wonder is he doing things that she asks him to do ––– or advises him to do –-– because they are the right thing to do, because he believes that they need to be done, or simply because she asks him? There's an old saying: when the going gets tough the tough get going. Never has this been truer than of Urquhart. However when the going gets tough he generally gets murderous! Now that things are beginning to turn against him, in many ways, heads are almost literally going to roll. Blood will flow in the streets, knives will stab in the dark, and those who are in his way will fall as Urquhart bends his will to the task of removing any obstacles or impediments to his absolute rule. Yes, it's time to check on The Urquhart body count Lethal John Krajewski: The journalist was a loose end and Urquhart does not like loose ends. There was only ever going to be one outcome of that situation. Although, with all that is on his mind at the moment you have to wonder had Krajewski not met with Sarah Harding, would it just perhaps have been possible he may just have been let fade away into obscurity, ranting his hard to believe conspiracy theories, dismissed as just another nutcase? But once he had passed on what he knew ––– or suspected he knew ––– to Sarah, he was back on the government's radar and there was only one way to deal with him. And so, in a way, we come full circle: the only other person really to know Mattie Storin, and to suspect her death as being other than accidental, has now joined her in the afterlife. Nonlethal Princess Charlotte: She would have to fall into this category: her life has been ruined, ostensibly by the man she trusted and was possibly falling in love with, and now, thanks to the revelations in her memoirs, published in the Clarion, her very life may be in danger. We cannot count her as a lethal victim of Urquhart, but we can count her as nonlethal. Her career, quite possibly her life may very well now be at an end. Non-lethal Bodycount: 5 Lethal Bodycount: 3 Total Bodycount: 8 And isn't that…? The television journalist we see during the programme is none other than Don Warrington, who came to fame as Philip, the upper-class student who partnered Richard Beckinsale and was something the bane of Rigsby's life in the television series "Rising Damp". We have also seen him play a small part in one episode of “Red Dwarf”, but in fairness "Rising Damp" is where he made his name, and is the series for which he will always be remembered. |
http://www.trollheart.com/xmasth41.png
http://www.trollheart.com/scroogeth.png Oddly enough, it's more like Christmas now than it was in December. The sky is cold and blue, it's freezing cold and we're even getting some snow. But it is almost a month since Christmas Day, so time to get the last versions out of the way. There are four left that I know of, but of those, one, an animated version which has everyone as cartoon animals, can't be tracked down, which is a pity, as I would love to have seen Scrooge as a skunk, but what can you do? That leaves us with these three then. Year: 2004 Medium: Colour Starring: Kelsey Grammer, Jane Krakowski, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jason Alexander Directed by: Arthur Allan Seidelman Length: 98 mins Brief comments: I found this so hard to track down I actually had to buy it. This is only the second time I've done this, but I have seen this version on telly before and was so impressed with it that I didn't want to pass over it. Plus it's Kelsey Grammer. It's also a full musical, based on a stage production in which Grammer also starred. It's interesting how Scrooge does not conduct his business at his office, chewing out Cratchit and the gentlemen collecting for the poor (three this time) at the Exchange, while his nephew accosts him on the way to his office. For once, a film set in the twenty-first century uses the bewildering arsenal of special effects at hand to create a true masterpiece of horror and fear. Wonderful soundtrack too. One of the best I've seen. Mind you, if I have to sit through one more rendition of Fezziwig's party I may just have to shoot myself in the head! CHARACTERS Scrooge: I once said Scrooge was the role Patrick Stewart was born to play. Not so. I was very disappointed, as I wrote already, with his take on the character; basically Picard plays Scrooge. Very limited. But Grammer! Ah now there's an actor! I've seen him play Frasier of course, the mayor in “Boss”, a criminally axed show that portrayed him as a real hardass, uncaring grasping politician, and as the cocky newscaster in “Back to you”. Here, he is none of those things (well, perhaps a little of Mayor Tom King) and puts in a powerhouse performance (and I don't say that often, but it's deserved), both with his acting and his singing. He is resistant to change but slowly crumbles, unlike other Scrooges who changed abruptly; he really gives the impression of a man going through a transformation, a cathartic epiphany. An almost perfect portrayal that easily gets him top marks. 10 Marley: Another excellent performance from George from “Seinfeld”, and a great song too. Wonderful effects, especially in the “Danse macabre” as the other poor spirits of misers cavort around him, wrapping him in their chains. Superb. Another 10. Cratchit: The usual annoying Bob, content with his pathetic life. But a little less annoying. Have to admit he's a good singer too. Damn him. 8 Tiny Tim: Not too annoying, though he does sing. I notice that he walks without his crutch at one point. Still, not bad overall. 7 Others: The girl who is unnamed but whose father owes Scrooge is a sort of recurring character and she's played well. Say a 6 for her. Fred's okay but as usual doesn't figure enough in the story to be rated. I'd add a 4 for the trio of charitable gentlemen, who sing very well. The Ghosts: The Ghost of Christmas Past: Sexy as FUCK with superb legs, and she virtually does a pole dance around Scrooge's bed! Oh me heart! Great link with her being the lamplighter Scrooge refuses to help on Christmas Eve, and then her song is “The lights of long ago.” Got to be a 9 The Ghost of Christmas Present: Another character Scrooge briefly crossed paths with, a barker advertising a show. Could have done without the stage number though: pretty cringeworthy. There rest is ok, and there's Ignorance and Want, so that's good. 7 The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come: This time it's the old blind woman Scrooge originally passed. She said he'd meet her again. Interesting that it's the first time the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come has a face, also she's dressed in white not black. The Gravediggers' dance is great but a lot of the scenes are a little rushed and pushed together. Still, I'd give her a solid 7. Faithful to the novel: Mostly, but there are some real liberties taken with the story, such as Scrooge's father being sent to jail for debt, he himself never being reunited with Fan, and the only depiction I have ever seen of his mother. It doesn't show Scrooge in school, but in a factory, working. Also, Scrooge's lover is called Emily, not Belle. Ah crap! JLH can sing as well! I really hate her now. The idea of Scrooge refusing Fezziwig the loan that would save his business is clever too, though added to the novel. We also see a lot more of Marely, including his death. Oh God! Not dancing sailors! Please! Um, Fred seems to have a son? In fairness I can only give this a 5. Emotion level: High enough, yes, say 7 Puke level: Zero Horror level: Zero Soundtrack: Superb. Of course, given that this is based on a stage play and is a musical, you would expect that, but to be honest it kicks the 1970 version's musical arse. Fantastic songs, well woven into the story, and just top rate all round. The link between the song “A place called home” being sung first by Fan as she wishes for Scrooge's return home, then later by Emily is outstanding. No hesitation awarding this, too, the highest score. 10. So that's a total of 97. With the stars added in that's another 20, but as The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is played by Geraldine Chaplin, daughter of the silent movie comedy icon, that's got to be worth at least another 5. The idea of using existing characters for the ghosts works far better here than it did in Ross Kemp's version, so I'm giving a 10 for that. That's a Grand Total of 132! I think that is the very highest yet, and it certainly deserves it. Phenomenal version! Hard to imagine anything beating that! Now, I was supposed to view, against my better judgement, “Barbie's Christmas Carol”, but the only workable version I could find --- other than those fuckers who tell you they have the full movie then direct you to their spam site --- Cunts --- was one where whoever filmed it decided for some reason to do so at half-speed, so that ev-er-y one spoke ve-ry slow-ly and made the whole thing e-ven more of a strug-gle than it would have been, and extemded the damn thing to over two hours! Nearly two and a half! Fuck it: an hour would have been tough to get through, never mind two! Plus I fast-forwarded a little and what I saw made me glad I had decided to abandon the idea. So Barbie was sent on her way, and that then leaves us with one final version to check out: Year: 2009 Medium: Colour (Animated) Starring: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Bob Hoskins, Colin Firth Directed by: Robert Zemeckis Length: 94 mins Brief comments: Currently the last of the adaptations to be filmed, the 2009 version allowed Disney to employ all of the latest techniques in computer animation and CGI, allied to their almost limitless budget, and produce a film that far exceeded any of the previous ... oh no wait. It didn't. It's good, but it suffers from a few flaws. The animation is first class and the story is stuck to almost rigidly, but the writers can't resist throwing in some typical Disney wackiness and comic relief, though thankfully they stay away from cute animals and written-for-the-film songs. Not a bad version, to be fair, but far from the best. CHARACTERS Scrooge: Much as I dislike Jim Carrey, he is great in the role. The animated figure is perfect, a combination of nastiness and world-weariness, and Carrey voices him extremely well (he also voices other characters). For the animation I'd give an 8, for the voice an 8, so let's say an 8 then. Marley: Here Disney really go to town on the special effects, and for the first time in a long time he's actually scary. Well played by Gary Oldman, who also voices Cratchit and his son. I'm glad to see they've realised, after all this time, that the scariest most horrible colour for a ghost is green. Ugh! A solid 8 for him. Cratchit: Happy-go-lucky Bob annoys me as ever. He's okay but nothing special. 6 Tiny Tim: Not too annoying. Also voiced by Oldman. Say 5 Others: n/a The Ghosts: The Ghost of Christmas Past: Did not like this at all. Weird, flame-type creature whose head keeps separating from his body, and has an unnervingly thick Irish accent, which for some reason Carrey (who voices all the ghosts) thought was necessary. 4, and I'm being kind. The Ghost of Christmas Present: Much better. The standard huge jolly figure, though now Carrey makes him a scouser! Laughs too much though, even laughing as he dies! The death scene is unexpeced and carried off very well, as are Want and Ignorance, the animation depicting them top drawer. Really, due to this I give him a 7 The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come: Terrible. A shadow, literally. The scenes are good but why does Carrey get credit for voicing him when the spirit never speaks a single word? Also, why they suddenly decided to have Scrooge (shrunk, for some reason, to tiny proportions) chased by a ghostly carriage (a metaphor for the sins of his life bearing down on him perhaps?) and take up most of the sequence is beyond me. No, I thought the whoel thing was very poor. 2 Faithful to the novel: Almost slavishly so, almost word-for-word. Have to give it top marks for that. 10 Emotion level: Some, but it hadn't me blubbering. 7 Puke level: Zero Horror level: Actually, due to the great animation of Marley and the depiction of Want and Ignorance in the Ghost of Christmas Present sequence, a pretty high 6 Soundtrack: Meh, standard Disney but you have to give them credit for not taking the path of writing songs for the movie. So, let's see, 5 sound OK? Our total then is 68. Add the stars and that's another 20, and the animation deserves credit too, so let's say 10 for that. That's a Grand Total then of 98. Not bad. But not anywhere near enough tobeat off Kelsey Grammer's version, which storms right into the second round. Now we have our finalists, and tomorrow I'll start whittling them down, so that by hopefully the end of the week we'll have our answer to which is the greatest version of “A Christmas Carol”. Stand by: it's gonna get bloody! I mean jolly! No, I mean bloody... |
http://www.trollheart.com/xmasth41.png
http://www.trollheart.com/scroogethknock.png So now we have seven finalists, time to start cutting them down. Although each of these movies arrived here by virtue of achieving a higher score than the other two it was paired with, and some of those scores were impressively high, all that's in the past now and those high scores count for nothing. Everyone starts with a totally blank state, with no reference back to previous high scores, or scores, indeed, that just allowed them to scrape through. Here it's all about a new day, and we begin really testing the movies to see how they fare against each other: the best of the best, as it were. These, then, are the finalists: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e1935_icon.jpg 1935 version starring Seymour Hicks. Black and white. First version with sound. Scored a total of 64 first time out. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...oChristmas.jpg "Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol". Animated colour version, first animated version, 1962. Scored 70 in the first round. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ge1970Film.jpg “Scrooge”, 1970 musical version starring Albert Finney. First live-action musical. Scored 91 originally. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stmascarol.jpg 1984 version starring George C. Scott. Scored a total of 95. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tmas_carol.jpg "The Muppet Christmas Carol". Hilarious but strangely accurate version of the story from 1992. Scored 102, highest score to that point. But then came http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ilm_poster.JPG “Scrooged”, Bill Murray's comedy 1988 masterpiece. This cleared the boards, hitting a total score of 121, and setting a new record. Finally, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...sCarol2004.jpg Kelsey Grammer's musical masterpiece swept all before it, and booked its place as the last finalist with a total score of 132. There can be seen a clear progression here. Good as some of the original versions were, the lack of effects, music and in the beginning somewhat simplistic or at least literal interpretations led to the original scores being quite low, if the highest in that particular class, while as technology progressed, bigger names came on board and the idea of twisting or retelling the story slightly --- or in some cases, totally --- became popular, the scores increased exponentially. Which may be why Grammer's 2004 version has the highest score of all. Anyway, time for these titans of the Scrooge Showdown to face each other. Not surprisingly, we'll start off with characterisation, so who is the best Scrooge? Rather than awarding marks out of 10 this time, we'll issue each film's character with a mark from 1 to 7, as there are seven versions, but these will work backwards, as in, the best Scrooge gets number 1, the worst (of these) 7. The same then will be done with the other major characters. Rather than draw this out longer than necessary, and as I've already made my comments about each character and facet in the individual entries on each film, I'm just going to score them here. Scrooge: 1935 (3 ), 1962 (5 ), 1970 (2 ), 1984 (7 ), 1988 (6 )1992 (4 ), 2004 (1 ) Marley: 1935 (7 ), 1962 (5 ), 1970 (1 ), 1984 (3 ), 1988 (6 )1992 (6 ), 2004 (2 ) Bob Cratchit: 1935 (7 ), 1962 (6 ), 1970 (3 ), 1984 ( 1), 1988 (5 )1992 (2 ), 2004 (4 ) Tiny Tim: 1935 ( 6), 1962 (3 ), 1970 (5 ), 1984 (7), 1988 (4 )1992 (1 ), 2004 (2 ) Others (if any): 1935 ( ), 1962 ( ), 1970 ( 5), 1984 (4 ), 1988 (2 )1992 (1 ), 2004 (3 ) The Ghost of Christmas Past: 1935 ( ), 1962 ( 3), 1970 (5 ), 1984 (4 ), 1988 (2 )1992 (6 ), 2004 (1 ) The Ghost of Christmas Present: 1935 (7 ), 1962 (6 ), 1970 (4 ), 1984 (2 ), 1988 (1 )1992 (3 ), 2004 (5 ) The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come: 1935 ( ), 1962 (6 ), 1970 (4 ), 1984 (5 ), 1988 (2 )1992 (3 ), 2004 (1 ) So, on characters alone, we have the following finalists: 2004, with 6 top three showings out of eight categories, three of which are number ones. 1992, with four top three showings, two of which are number ones and 1988, with four top three showings, one of which is a number one. So those would be our finalists, were this only about characterisation. But though the story is famous for its characters, we judge the movies on more than that, and so on to the second category, which is, how true are all seven movies to the novel? 1935 (2 ), 1962 (5 ), 1970 (4 ), 1984 (3 ), 1988 (7 )1992 (1 ), 2004 (6 ) So now we see a change. Whereas some of the finalists excelled in depicting the characters, they often don't do so well when you look at the actual story and how true they stayed to it. Kelsey Grammer's 2004 version, kicking the crap out of the competition up to now, and three times at the very top, slides almost down to the bottom here and is not even considered, whereas Kermit and the boys, a strong contender with characterisation and one of the expected final three, keeps up the pressure here, coming in at number one. A late runner is the 1935 version, doing well but already out of the race due to its not making it into the characterisation category finals, whiel Albert Finney's 1970 version, a favourite in the scoring above, falls outside the top three. Ah, but then the question needs to be asked: did any changes in the storyline benefit or detract from the movie? Well, let's see. The one furthest down the ladder, “Scrooged”, is so because really, at its heart, the film is not a true depiction of the novel, so I can't really add anything to that and it must remain where it is, with a score of 7, the lowest possible. Just above that, at 6, Grammer's 2004 version added and changed bits but to be honest they made good sense. Scrooge's father being sent to jail for unpaid debts gave his son a reason to ensure he would never end up like that, and the idea of him working rather than being at school at that age fits in too. His never being reunited with his sister works too and the idea of him being the only thing standing between his former boss and bankruptcy is a clever twist. In fact, the only thing that doesn't work is the fact that Fred appears to have a son. I can see no reason for this, but other than that everything they changed works. The rest of them are pretty faithful to the novel, so if I were to move anyone it would be Grammer's and as the one above him has no real flaws in this area I can't do that in all good conscience. So basically everyone remains where they are. That means that in terms of this category our finalists are: 1992, 1935 and 1984. Emotion Level: 1935 (6), 1962 (7 ), 1970 (5 ), 1984 (4), 1988 (3 )1992 (1 ), 2004 (2 ) Leaving us with finalists as 1992, 1988 and 2004 Puke Level: As none of the finalists had a Puke Level at all, other than maybe the 1935 one, I'm going to declare this a no-score draw and move on to Horror Level: 1935 (1 ), 1962 ( ), 1970 (2 ), 1984 (3 ), 1988 ( )1992 ( ), 2004 ( ) Nothing much to choose here. Most versions had very little actual horror, but based on what I wrote I find that we have as finalists 1935, 1984 and 1970 Our final category, before we total up, is Soundtrack: 1935 (7 ), 1962 (5 ), 1970 (2 ), 1984 (6 ), 1988 (6 )1992 (3 ), 2004 (1 ) Which then gives us 2004, 1992 and 1970. |
So, of all those categories, who featured in the most, and how high were they in each? Let's check.
1935=2 1962=0 1970=2 1984=2 1988=5, one of which was a number 1 1992=7, 4 of which were number 1s 2004=8, 4 of which were number 1s That clearly gives us three front runners in 1988, 1992 and 2004, but as we only need two, then 1988's “Scrooged” lags badly behind with five top three nominations but only one of them being a number one. Our final top two then are http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tmas_carol.jpg The 1992 Muppet Christmas Carol and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...sCarol2004.jpg Kelsey Grammer's 2004 musical. So it's Muppets versus humans, musical versus musical, nineties versus two thousands, twentieth century versus twenty-first and cute and funny versus clever and powerful. Who will win, and be crowned the top version of a Christmas Carol ever committed to screen? http://cdn.photolabels.co/images/ima..._420-420x0.jpghttp://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...60/Kermit3.jpg Can you call it? Cos I sure can't! |
I've seen Casablanca, Dead Poets Society, and a ton of war flicks, but the only time I've ever cried during a movie was (don't laugh) during the Muppet version, when Beaker gives Scrooge his scarf. I'm tearing up just thinking about it.
Hoping it wins. |
And the winner of the most convoluted scoring system of the year goes to.......
|
Quote:
|
http://cdn.marketplaceimages.windows...=ws_icon_large
After careful consideration, and not a little trepidation, I have decided that in order to do Star Trek Month (tm) properly it would be unfair, not to mention unwise, to leave one of the main series out. I may not like it, but it is part of the Star Trek universe and really, after a lot of soulsearching I have admitted to myself that it deserves to be included. Therefore I will after all be covering http://tomdurham.com/wp-content/uplo...oyagerShip.jpg in its entireity. You can of course expect some caustic writeups on some of the worse episodes, and my trademark criticism of many of the aspects of the show, but I think you all know that I strive to be fair, and where the series does okay I will note that. Not every episode is terrible --- far from it --- but of what I watched originally (and I missed about half a season or more) the bad certainly outweighed the good. However on reviewing the series, that may change. Will this affect the journal Batty and I were running, debating the series? I honestly don't know: he's given me no indication that he's in a position to return to it, and I of course am as ever super-busy, so if it does come back all I can say is we'll try to link it, but it may end up being that, when I run it here, the series will get discussed by us in this journal. Or not. I can't say. Anyway, this won't just be for Star Trek Month (tm). Like any other series, I will be covering it outside of that too, but as I have so much to get through here I have no idea how long it will take or how regularly, or not, it will feature. We will of course as always begin with the pilot episode, and as ever, anyone who wants to chime in is more than welcome. So watch out, Janeway: I'm comin' for ya! ;) |
Having just finished my first ever watch-through of Voyager, I can't wait to hear your thoughts on it. My in-a-nutshell opinion is that it's competent Star Trek with a handful ofclassic episodes, if you can push any sort of continuity out the door (BSG, this ain't). I will have more to say on a per-episode basis, and I might even rewatch a few with you.
|
Quote:
But I concede it had a few good episodes. You just had to really dig down deep to find them. Will be interesting, that's for sure. And welcome to my journal! Glad to have ya aboard! :) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:38 PM. |
© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.