I have only recently seen this much-loved version of the story, so I do not have the benefit of childhood tradition to colour my view of it. I am a much greater fan of Ronald Neame's 1970 musical starring Albert Finney, and I will use this version for comparison. Fans of the 1951 film by Brian Desmond Hurst may be offended by what I'm about to write!
Firstly, this black and white classic does include the majority of the scenes from Dicken's original - the musical has had a few scenes cut. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the scenes particularly helps the plot along, but they do tend to be the darker sequences, like the pawning of Scrooges possessions after his death. Including these darker scenes is good in historical respect, but bad in other ways, as I will explain.
Both versions of the story feature "added" scenes. Neame's musical includes the infamous "hell" scene. But Hurst's 1951 version suffers most from additions, because they are protracted, dreary, and push the story down a route Dicken's probably had not intended. Two scenes in particular serve no purpose other than to convince us what a truly ruthless, heartless man Scrooge is. This is not a pathetic man with whom sympathy is possible. He is cunning, and does not value honesty - even in business matters - and anxiously waits for his partners death.
The added sequences with the ghost of Christmas past occupy an enormous chunk of the film, and literally suck the life out of it. The interposing of a maid in Scrooge's "awakening" scene also seems to drag it out and adds nothing. This is a private revelation in the text, not one shared with non-existent household staff. He is, after all, a miser!
The casting and the sets were not entirely appropriate. Sims' Scrooge was overdone in his evil behaviour, and yet somehow unconvincing in both it and his transformation at the end. Perhaps his eyes were a little too big and sad for such a wicked man. Perhaps he wasn't that good at expressing ecstasy. Perhaps both. But having gone through pains to convince us of his completely wicked nature, director Hurst leaves little room for joy at his transformation. Albert Finney's far more lively and convincing Scrooge was miserable and mean to be sure, but also pathetic and in turns comical, as Dickens wrote him. I can only believe that Alastair Sim "is Scrooge" to many simply because they grew up with his interpretation. Having read the book, he does not capture the depth of the character at all.
Hurst's Bob Cratchit was rather portly for such a poor man, and his household appeared at least as opulent as Fezziwigs offices - a grave error in my opinion. The contrast with Bob Cratchit's cramped but cheery household is made perfectly clear in Neame's 1970 version, and Cratchit himself is appropriately "trim", and inspiringly jovial in the face of his adversity - again, so important in Dickens' novel. Once again, this is an area where Hurst seems to have failed to convey the spirit of Christmas as well as others.
All that said, the city street sets and costumes were quite good, and the other supporting cast were adequately played. I think the Ghost of Jacob Marley was more true to form in this version than in the musical, though I confess I found Alec Guiness' interpretation a delight.
In summary, I'd give this version of A Christmas Carol the advantage for inclusion of more of the original text by Charles Dickens. However, the added scenes build upon those darker scenes to create a version which is ponderous and largely devoid of joy and wit until the very end. There are several better adaptations of the tale than this one, and make better use of adaptation to capture Dickens' "spirit".
Firstly, this black and white classic does include the majority of the scenes from Dicken's original - the musical has had a few scenes cut. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the scenes particularly helps the plot along, but they do tend to be the darker sequences, like the pawning of Scrooges possessions after his death. Including these darker scenes is good in historical respect, but bad in other ways, as I will explain.
Both versions of the story feature "added" scenes. Neame's musical includes the infamous "hell" scene. But Hurst's 1951 version suffers most from additions, because they are protracted, dreary, and push the story down a route Dicken's probably had not intended. Two scenes in particular serve no purpose other than to convince us what a truly ruthless, heartless man Scrooge is. This is not a pathetic man with whom sympathy is possible. He is cunning, and does not value honesty - even in business matters - and anxiously waits for his partners death.
The added sequences with the ghost of Christmas past occupy an enormous chunk of the film, and literally suck the life out of it. The interposing of a maid in Scrooge's "awakening" scene also seems to drag it out and adds nothing. This is a private revelation in the text, not one shared with non-existent household staff. He is, after all, a miser!
The casting and the sets were not entirely appropriate. Sims' Scrooge was overdone in his evil behaviour, and yet somehow unconvincing in both it and his transformation at the end. Perhaps his eyes were a little too big and sad for such a wicked man. Perhaps he wasn't that good at expressing ecstasy. Perhaps both. But having gone through pains to convince us of his completely wicked nature, director Hurst leaves little room for joy at his transformation. Albert Finney's far more lively and convincing Scrooge was miserable and mean to be sure, but also pathetic and in turns comical, as Dickens wrote him. I can only believe that Alastair Sim "is Scrooge" to many simply because they grew up with his interpretation. Having read the book, he does not capture the depth of the character at all.
Hurst's Bob Cratchit was rather portly for such a poor man, and his household appeared at least as opulent as Fezziwigs offices - a grave error in my opinion. The contrast with Bob Cratchit's cramped but cheery household is made perfectly clear in Neame's 1970 version, and Cratchit himself is appropriately "trim", and inspiringly jovial in the face of his adversity - again, so important in Dickens' novel. Once again, this is an area where Hurst seems to have failed to convey the spirit of Christmas as well as others.
All that said, the city street sets and costumes were quite good, and the other supporting cast were adequately played. I think the Ghost of Jacob Marley was more true to form in this version than in the musical, though I confess I found Alec Guiness' interpretation a delight.
In summary, I'd give this version of A Christmas Carol the advantage for inclusion of more of the original text by Charles Dickens. However, the added scenes build upon those darker scenes to create a version which is ponderous and largely devoid of joy and wit until the very end. There are several better adaptations of the tale than this one, and make better use of adaptation to capture Dickens' "spirit".