A Christmas Carol (1910) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Classic Tale
MrCritical19 November 2003
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)
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Historically interesting
Paularoc8 May 2012
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The material is just that good and the execution isn't too shabby either
Horst_In_Translation1 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The title "A Christmas Carol" makes it of course obvious that here we have another take on the famous story by writer Charles Dickens and this is certainly among the oldest as it has its 107th anniversary already this year. Dickens wasn't even dead for half a century when this was released. There were quite a few directors working on this one, especially if we take into account that it runs for 14 minutes only (the version I saw did, not just for 11 like it says here on IMDb). Sure the film is crucially hurt by the lack of sound and color, but you cannot really blame the makers for that. This also means that if you hear a score while watching, then this is not original and was added (decades) later. They still did a good job overall here, especially with the ghost sequences that are pretty impressive for their time. The actors are fine too and don't make the mistake of overacting too much, which was a common problem back in the day. The one playing the title character was in fact not even 30 here, but his gray wig hides it pretty well. Intertitles could have been more frequent for sure (another common problem back then), but you understand what's going on thanks to the famous material this is based on. And the latter is also what guarantees this to be a fine watch during the holidays. Not my favorite version (that's probably still the animated one by Disney), but it is worth seeing. If you are looking for other silent Christmas films, then my suggestion is to go for "A Christmas Accident" that came out not much later than this one here.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good Version For Its Time
Snow Leopard28 March 2006
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.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
short Scrooge
lee_eisenberg7 October 2014
The oldest surviving version of "A Christmas Carol" is a short movie from 1901 in which Marley shows Scrooge the past, present and future. The next one is this 1910 version which includes the ghosts of the respective times. As a short movie, it has to condense the story. They manage to do this, although it's weird to see the whole plot run by in just a few minutes. I understand that a number of short movies in the early 20th century were based on famous novels to limit the need for intertitles. Since I've seen feature films based on Charles Dickens's famous novel this one seems a little bit low quality. My favorite adaptation is "Scrooged" (which contains lines like "You are a hallucination brought along by alcohol! Russian vodka poisoned by Chernobyl!"). Nonetheless, it's impressive what they accomplished with their limited resources.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Straining At The Seams
boblipton24 December 2022
Has ever a story been filmed more often than Dickens' A CHRISTMAS CAROL? I venture to say not, particularly when you add in all the adaptations that make use of the story without quoting it literally.

In any case, the Edison studio made this version, and it shows the strengths and weaknesses of their film making in this period. The strength is their ability to rely on performances, and cut down on the titles. They would continue in this manner for another couple of years before they were swamped by the rising tide of the more subtle pantomime and elaborate productions that competitors like Biograph and Vitagraph were introducing.

The major weakness is that this is a movie for those who are familiar with the source, well-versed in the book or stage versions of the story, but more a highlights version than a flowing tale of redemption.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Marc McDermott is a little wooden as Scrooge
cricketbat21 November 2022
The 1910 version of A Christmas Carol is only 13 minutes long. It simplifies Charles Dickens's story to its essence. It also only gives us one spirit to guide us through Ebenezer Scrooge's past, present, and future. However, while the visual effects are impressive for the time, the weak link in this short film is Marc McDermott. His performance as Scrooge is fairly wooden and didn't convey the emotions I expected him to. This movie does, however, give us some nice resolution at the end, while the 1901 version did not. So this feels more complete than that earlier version, but I may like that one more.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An excellent early version of Dicken's classic
jluis198423 May 2007
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
18 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ideal for silent movie fans and CHRISTMAS CAROL completists!
ixtab95 December 2003
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.
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Mostly historically important but moderately entertaining
preppy-327 December 2003
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.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Impressive Silent
Michael_Elliott29 December 2008
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.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Sort of like the Movie Channel Bunnies version of "A Christmas Carol"
planktonrules22 December 2008
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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An Early Glimpse at Scrooge & Company
Ron Oliver3 January 2002
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
" Edison Company Brings Scrooge To Life "
PamelaShort10 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Thoroughly delightful and entertaining early silent version of the beloved Charles Dicken's Christmas tale. Amazingly well done with exceptionally fine special effects for the time, especially the visiting spirits. Facsinating how actor Marc McDermott as Scrooge is able to convincingly bring this story to life in less than 15 minutes. Silent film actor Charles Ogle plays Bob Cratchit and notable actress Viola Dana is also in this production. Directed by J.Searle Dawley, this is an excellent example of the early silents produced with quality from the Edison Manufacturing Company. For silent film fans and those who want to see an early film version of " A Christmas Carol" you will find this adaption certainly an interesting one.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very Good by Any Standard
Hitchcoc6 November 2017
In just a few minutes, the Edison Company presents us with an admirable little version of the Dickens classic. The sets are quite good. The actors emote very well. It's all here: the ghosts, Cratchitt, Marley's ghost, and so on. Scrooge looks the part. Except for the text boxes, everything must be done with the faces of the characters. Scrooge's epiphany is well conceived and believable. Not a bad beginning.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worth finding.
Byrdz25 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Am currently "working my way through the list" and watching as many versions of "The Christmas Carol" as I can locate. Imagine my joy upon finding not only the 1910 Edison version BUT the 1901 production as well.

The special effects are pretty impressive. One shot is actually three in one .. current, ghost and death scene all super-imposed.

Despite the shortness of the film, they include Fezziwig's party, Ebinezer's sister and the Cratchits. Not all of the later versions did this.

Look for it. It's on-line.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Very good fantasy movie
jacobjohntaylor130 November 2015
This tells the story of a maser who is hunted by ghost on Christmas eve. It is very spooky. This great film. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. It also has great acting. It is very scary. It tells a very good morale. This movie is a must see. Mac McDermott was a great actor. William Bechtel was a great actor. Vole Dana was great actress. Carey Lee is a great actress. Shirley Mason was a great actress. It is one of the best Ghost stories ever. This movie is must see. 6.1 is under rating it. It is a 9. This a great movie. Great movie great movie great movie great movie great movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
admirable
Kirpianuscus24 December 2023
It is just charming. Not reducing it to the status of early film but as one of the most seductive adaptations of classic Charles dickens work.

Nice special effects , well performances, inspired soundtrack, it works just admirable scene by scene, reflecting, in fair manner, the univers of A Christmas Carol, proposing a beautiful surprise for its 11 minutes.

Indeed, the theatral experience of J. Searle Dawley and the art of Marc Mcdermott are basic explanations but few moments are just lovely, like the visit of Scrooge to Cratchits and their reaction.

Beautiful sounds, in this case, more formal but delightful can be a fair definition in this case.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
My favorite of the surviving silent 'Christmas Carol' films
jamesrupert201426 December 2022
One Christmas eve, three Christmas spirits show miserly Ebenezer Scrooge (Marc McDermott) the error of his ways. This 20-minute Edison Studios silent is the second surviving celluloid version of Dicken's famous holiday fable. Unlike the 1901 version (directed by Walter Booth) and the 1913 version (with Seymour Hicks), this production features the three Christmas spirits (rather than conflating them with the Marley's ghost). With complete sets (rather than painted backgrounds), nicely done special effects (primarily double exposures), the 1910 film seems less primitive than the 1901 version and less stagy than the 1913 versions, and of the three silent renditions of Dicken's seasonal classic, most resembles the look of the beloved 1951 Alister Sim version. Bob Cratchit, Scrooge's put-upon clerk (and loving father to Tiny Tim), is played by Charles Ogle, the first actor to play Frankenstein's creature (also in an Edison production).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed