Charles Dickens (Dan Stevens) confronts the character he is creating, Scrooge (Christopher Plummer), in The Man Who Invented Christmas. (Photo courtesy signaturereads.com)
Certain media presentations are as inevitable in the Christmas season as turkey and tinsel, such as these obviously include A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS, HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS, and IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Almost certain to be added to the list is a new film, THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS.
The new movie adds a new dimension to the multitude of film versions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL, as it attempts to show the creative process through which Dickens went in penning his most popular work.
Based on Leo Stanford’s book of the same name, THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS has the merit of being largely historically accurate in its portrayal of the young Dickens.
Fresh from a wildly successful tour of the United States, Dickens returned to England financially challenged. Not only did he have extravagant taste, a sponging father, and a large family to support, but he was also faced with the reality that his last three novels had been met with nowhere near the success of the one that preceded them, OLIVER TWIST.
One may understand the public rejection of BARNABY RUDGE (though I have loved the novel since I was 12 thanks to the enthusiasm of a former English teacher), but it may come as a surprise that these “failures” included NICHOLAS NICKLEBY, certainly widely loved today, and THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP, which, with its death of Little Nell scene, went on to be wildly popular with Victorian audiences.
Be that as it may, Dickens felt it necessary to take time off from writing MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT to produce a Christmas story. Working under enormous pressure, in six weeks Dickens succeeded beyond anyone’s expectation. It is to these six weeks that the film addresses itself. The result is entertaining, diverting, and, as already indicated, bound to become a part of the media Christmas routine.
Part of the delight of the film arises from Dickens’ inspiration taking on physical form, with the characters not merely seared into and rising from the author’s consciousness, but made apparent to the audience.
So Scrooge, Marely, and Mr. and Mrs. Fezziwig and others take up residence in the house with the same presence to Dickens as his family.
The result is engaging, often witty, and a reminder of how forceful (and difficult) the creative process is.
At the same time, Dickens’ family is also shown, most especially his burdened wife and his good-natured but parasitical father, clearly the basis later for Mr. Micawber in DAVID COPPERFIELD.
To further add to the complexity of events, Dickens himself is shown as going through not merely the challenge of creativity, but also something of the process of Scrooge in a journey toward redemption.
This latter may be a stretch in a film that clearly aims at some historical accuracy. That Dickens was obsessed with the difficulties he experienced as a child, forced to work in a shoe-blacking factory when his father was condemned to a debtors’ prison, is as factual as the pet raven that also appears in the film, but it is questionable that he saw Scrooge’s journey as his own.
What is glaringly missing from the film, however, is the impact that visits to the ragged schools for destitute children had on Dickens, who as a result was moved by the plight of the poor.
At the same time, though, despite the title of the film, it is a commonly held view that Dickens did not invent Christmas in the way in which we celebrate it.
Of course, his treatment of Christmas in A CHRISTMAS CAROL was anticipated in THE PICKWICK PAPERS. What he did was gloriously to make alive and enchanting the best qualities of a season that already existed. And this is perhaps the biggest failure of the film. It cannot equal Dickens’ writing skill, for, despite some lapses into a sentimentality that contravenes modern taste, Dickens was a superb stylist.
While the film is lovingly photographed, well directed by Bharut Narulli, and superbly acted (Christopher Plummer as Scrooge is alone worth the price of admission), in the end, nothing can capture the marvel of Dickens’ prose.
Yes, some of the delightful dialogue is present, but nothing visually can capture the gorgeous magic of Dickens’ descriptions of people and places. This is perhaps the major shortcoming of all the films based on A Christmas Carol, including this latest.
Rather than audiences simply adding THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS to their seasonal viewing, it is to be hoped that it will inspire them to give themselves the even greater reward of actually reading the book.
Above all, the fact remains that the most important aspect of THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS, as with A CHRISTMAS CAROL, is that it is a reminder of the real meaning of the season and a call to imitate him whose birth we celebrate. In this sense, the film is timely indeed.