Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost

2023
5.6| 0h6m| G| en| More Info
Released: 17 February 2023 Released
Producted By: Paul's Animatograph Works
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

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.

Genre

Fantasy, Drama

Watch Online

Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost (2023) is currently not available on any services.

Cast

Director

Walter R. Booth

Production Companies

Paul's Animatograph Works

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.
Watch Now
Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost Audience Reviews

Scanialara You won't be disappointed!
Wordiezett So much average
Actuakers One of my all time favorites.
Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.
Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) "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.
utgard14 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.
MartinHafer I am not going to give this film a numerical score, as the film is very incomplete. Like so many old films made on nitrate film stock, much of the film has been lost. What remains is highly abbreviated and makes little sense unless you know the story (and today who doesn't?). In addition, films made around that time were VERY short and abbreviated to begin with--so you have a film that has limited watchability today. You can't blame the film makers for all this--this is true of many films of the era.The film begins as Scrooge approaches his house and Marley's ghost appears on the door knocker. Using superimposed images, this and the appearances of Christmas ghosts are pretty good--especially for 1901. Scrooge then eats his dinner and falls asleep--at which point the first ghost appears and shows his what seem to be random images. The film then indicates that part 3 follows--and you are left assuming part 2 was partially skipped (especially the intertitle card indicating part 2 had begun). Part 4 is poorly done--as the intertitle card pretty much says it all BEFORE you see any of the action. This describing everything before it occurs was actually very common in 1901 but it sure took out any sense of suspense! And finally, the ending is completely missing.What you have is a reasonably well made film. Considering most films made about 1901 showed very mundane things (people eating, trains arriving at the station, etc.), this is a nice attempt to tell a story. And, the camera-work for the time is good. But, on the other hand, only about half of the original film still exists and unless you are dying to see what is perhaps the first Scrooge on film, I suggest you watch only if you are a die-hard cinephile.
Cineanalyst Nowadays, we often take for granted the approach, grammar and techniques that make up self-contained narrative movies. This seems to have been a natural advancement, but it was actually a difficult problem to early filmmakers. Many hesitated to even edit together spatially separate shots to tell a story for concerns that it would seem discontinuous. In "Scrooge; or Marley's Ghost", Walter Booth and R.W. Paul approached this problem by using a story that a general audience already knew, but abridged it, explained some finer points in the intertitles and packaged it within the tableaux style. Perhaps, a lecturer would even provide further clarification during an exhibition. Several other filmmakers tried this as well, including Cecil Hepworth with "Alice in Wonderland" (1903) and Edwin S. Porter with "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (1903). The earliest and most common films of this kind, however, were the passion plays. Another early story film James White's "Love and War" (1899) was accompanied by explanatory song. This kind of filmic storytelling soon became outdated in comparison to, but for a time coexisted with, the story film, especially the chase films, which established continuity editing. Of course, novels would still be abridged, intertitles would occasionally do too much of the work, and the tableaux style continued in some places, but films became self-contained narratives. Therefore, this film is outdated, but it does have some interesting aspects.This is perhaps the earliest screen adaptation of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". Apparently, there were earlier film versions of other Dickens' stories, but according to the British Film Institute, this is the earliest that survives. Ewan Davidson for the BFI further adds that it was based on a play by J.C. Buckstone, which like the film, dispensed with the different ghosts for a condensed vision provided by Marley's ghost. Additionally, Dickens, with this book, was one of the more important 19th Century writers to invent the family-oriented, charitable and gift-giving Christmas holiday that we know today. Likewise, this film is an early example of a Christmas film released during the season.This was an elaborate film for 1901; originally, it supposedly contained 13 scenes. What remains is less than five minutes with about six scenes in their entirety and a brief glimpse of another scene. In what remains, there are some novel techniques for the time. There are multiple exposure shots for the ghosts, but this effect had already been done in previous films; this is, however, the earliest instance that I've seen of using the multiple exposure effect for overlapping images with title cards. This is also an early use of title cards in general, although they had appeared less elaborately in a few earlier films, including "How It Feels to Be Run Over" (1900). Furthermore, this is the first instance I've seen of the wipe, which transitions between shots. Dissolves are also used, which is a transition effect that Georges Méliès had already established in his films. Scenes are also tinted.