Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
A Christmas Carol More at IMDbPro »
| Index | 9 reviews in total |
10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Ideal for silent movie fans and CHRISTMAS CAROL completists!, 5 December 2003
Author:
ixtab9 from USA
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.
9 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
An excellent early version of Dicken's classic, 23 May 2007
Author:
José Luis Rivera Mendoza (jluis1984) from Mexico
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
6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good Version For Its Time, 28 March 2006
Author:
Snow Leopard from Ohio
For 1910, this is a good version of the classic Charles Dickens' story.
Many of the scenes look quite familiar from the many more recent
versions, and most viewers today will have no trouble filling in
unexplained details and the like. It covers a lot of ground in only one
reel of film, but even then it leaves out some very familiar details,
so it really just tries to get across the main point of the story.
Marc McDermott, one of the Edison Studio's best actors, plays Scrooge.
He does a good job, although the techniques of the era limit him
somewhat, since the story relies on an effective Scrooge to make an
impact. The story moves quite quickly, which again is simply a
reflection of the time. Quite a few one-reel features of the era
squeezed in enough material to fill two or three times their running
time.
The story is so well-known and so worthwhile that almost any version of
"A Christmas Carol" is worth seeing. This one is a good movie
adaptation for its era, and it would have been hard to improve upon it
significantly given the techniques and resources available at the time.
6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Mostly historically important but moderately entertaining, 27 December 2003
Author:
Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States
This is obviously not a full adaptation of Charles Dickens story--it only runs 17 minutes! It assumes the audience knows the story and just basically gives us the highlights. It involves all 4 visits from the ghosts (using some surprisingly good special effects for the time) and flashbacks to Scrooge's life. And it shows his complete change. It's actually very well-done and, for what it is, entertaining. But where's Tiny Tim? Nevertheless, recommended.
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
An Early Glimpse at Scrooge & Company, 3 January 2002
Author:
Ron Oliver (revilorest@juno.com) from Forest Ranch, CA
A miserable old miser, frightened & shamed into better
behavior, learns to make his life A CHRISTMAS CAROL of
good
will towards men.
This version of Charles Dickens' 1843 classic is condensed
into
only a few minutes, hitting the highlights of Ebenezer
Scrooge's astonishing reformation. Surprisingly, in such
an
extreme abridgment, the acting is quite good and the special
effects - involving double exposures - well handled.
Al Kryszak provided the score for the video compilation
A
Christmas Past, in which this film appears.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Classic Tale, 9 November 2003
Author:
MrCritical1 from Toronto, Canada
This early film version of Dickens' classic Christmas tale follows the
story
closely, though it telescopes the appearance of the Ghosts into a matter
of
minutes, using some well-conceived double-exposure effects.
6* (10* Rating System)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Sort of like the Movie Channel Bunnies version of "A Christmas Carol", 22 December 2008
Author:
planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
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.
Historically interesting, 8 May 2012
Author:
Paularoc from United States
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.
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Impressive Silent, 29 December 2008
Author:
Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY
Christmas Carol, A (1910)
*** 1/2 (out of 4)
Early version of the classic Dickens' story has Marc McDermott playing
the miser Scrooge who gets a visit from three ghosts who will try and
make him change his ways. Even though this film only lasts ten-minutes
it packs in all the important details of the story and turns out to be
a pretty good movie. For 1910, the special effects are pretty good with
the ghost "visions" coming across quite well. McDermott does a very
good job in his role even though he can never really dive into it due
to the film not really lasting long enough to get to the more adult or
scary parts of the story. Charles Ogle plays Bob Cratchit, which was
fun seeing as the same year he'd also play the monster in Frankenstein.
Related Links
| Plot summary | Amazon.com summary | Ratings |
| External reviews | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.