A Christmas Carol

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.