Review: A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Unnecessary and lifeless.  These two adjectives describe better than any my thoughts behind A CHRISTMAS CAROL, Robert Zemeckis’ latest, motion-capture adaptation of a classic story.  Unnecessary in that this, roughly the 61st time Charles Dickens’ legendary tale, is a story that has been told,  verbatim, so many times before by filmmakers who were far more gifted in the art storytelling that even Zemeckis, the man who brought us BACK TO THE FUTURE and FORREST GUMP.  Lifeless in that the film offers very little in the way of newness, and, for the most part, the film plays by a paint-by-numbers version of the story.  Lifeless, also, in that the motion-capture photography that Zemeckis seems keen to never let go of, creates characters who are so nonnatural as to take you interests out of the story at hand entirely.

Normally, here is where I would delve into a synopsis on the film, but this being such a classic, it just wouldn’t feel like justice is being served.  Dickens’ original tale is an inward glance at a troubled soul, one whose only hope is for a handful of spirits to guide him back on the path of righteousness should his own spirit be damned forever.  Zemeckis’ film would have none of that.  Inward glances are the complete antithesis to what this version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL is going for.

By the time we are even fully introduced to the fateful night when Ebenezer Scrooge meets these ghosts, we have already gone on a whirlwind ride through the streets of 19th century London.  To note, these shots are impeccable.  No one has ever blamed Zemeckis for not being able to create interesting or groundbreaking shots.  However, the time of asking “how did he do that” went out with the knowledge that most, creative shots are aided by CG, anyway.  Having fully embraced what he can do with completely realized films using 1s and 0s, Zemeckis has turned from being the magician to being the host of Breaking the Magician’s Code, and he is doing so without the slightest bit of shame.

But, what does this have to do with A CHRISTMAS CAROL, really?  In a word, loads.  The film falls way short in trying to create any level of connection with its audience.  Any time Dickens’ story, which is pretty much shot word-for-word here, so I’m not entirely sure what Zemeckis did in the script-writing department, even teases that it is going to grip the audience, we are whooshed away on some tree-buzzing trek across a snowy field.  The Ghost of Christmas Present makes a house levitate off its foundation just as we are gaining any kind of insight into Scrooge’s psyche.  In a nutshell, what Zemeckis has done here is he has turned the story into an overblown, Hollywood retread.

The mere presence of Jim Carey attests to this.  Here, a digitized Carey plays not only Scrooge, but all three lesson-teaching ghosts, as well.  For the most part, he does a fine job, pulling laughs out of the audience even when the story doesn’t call for it.  His Ghost of Christmas Past is a  laid back  candle with some sort of strange head bob.  It’s almost hypnotic, and it serves as one of the only character choices the new film makes that hits its mark, odd as it may be.  The Ghost of Christmas Present is, once again, a loud, obnoxious giant who bellows  decibel-shattering gasps of laughter.  The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is a shadowy version of the Grim Reaper.  Scrooge himself has always been a fascinating character, and, honestly, not even the motion capture elements of the film can completely draw the life from him.  I did say completely, as you realize how grand the performance would have been in live action.  It is almost painful to have to watch Carey perform this well inside of a character this fleshed out and have it all practically for naught under the digitized shroud of banality.

You can tell that Gary Oldman, Bob Hoskins, Colin Firth and Robin Wright Penn all give staggering performances, as well, each one of them playing anywhere from one to four, different characters in the film.  Unfortunately, the level of care given to the realization of their characters is not even on the level of that of Scrooge.  These performances are completely hidden, particularly Oldman’s Bob Cratchit who looks practically inbred he’s so odd shaped.

The story is there in all of its totality.  Tiny Tim, though seemingly a staple in Scrooge’s decisions, seems like an afterthought in the actual film.  Zemeckis even takes the first, few paragraphs of the story to a literal sense and shows us Marley’s funeral, a scene that was only mentioned at in subtext.  With this version of the film, we are given everything and so much more, but the magic and the beauty of the story have been replaced by fast-moving chases through the streets and splashy 3-D graphics.  Speaking of that 3-D, A CHRISTMAS CAROL is the latest in the growing trend of films released in the in-your-face format.  Don’t worry about spending the extra, few dollars to see it this way.  It offers nothing, and, in fact, takes much away from some of the slower, more character-driven scenes.

What we have is a story that, over 160 years ago, began as a character study and ends here a monumental adventure that is as gaudy as it is charmless.  Unnecessary and lifeless in so many ways, the newest version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL looks at the concept that less is more and gives it a terse “Bah, Humbug!”