Michael Hordern was a great actor and Alastair Sim a great comic performer - but this version is Hollywood all the way, eviscerating Dickens for some cheap laughs. Sim is a curmudgeon here, not the soul close to damnation in Dickens' book, and Hordern's Marley is vaguely unhappy and slightly ridiculous. The chilling encounter in the 1984 version with GC Scott and Frank Finlay as Marley is the way Dickens wrote it - with Marley's WHOLE speech after "Mankind was my business."
Possibly my favorite scene in one of my most favorite films. Sim and Hordern are perfect here.
The original was, of course in B&W. This is the colorized version, but they did a pretty fair job with the color. I read that they went back to old production photos and promotional materials to get the colors right. But I think I still prefer the original.
Sorry you were besieged with spamming, off-topic thread hijackers. Bah, humbug to them.
Yes i`m a miserable human being who will never find a soul mate for the life of me and will grow to be an old cranky, ignorant bastard that hates kids, skateboards, loud motorcycles. I already started hating Christmas, New Year and all the holidays where people pretend for a day that they love each other... until the next day.
Sims Scrooge is the best of all the performances I've seen and for me, timeless. His Scrooge isn't unnecessarily evil but just focused on business to the exclusion of all else....including the death of friends, or his own personal comfort. Sims Scrooge could be any number of modern business men today.
Sims use of subtle comedic relief and timing is exceptional. "I must stand on my head"...and she runs from the room screaming with Scrooge in hot pursuit.
Probably never done better. That scene is so very pivotal to the entire story. It MUST be powerful, loud and frightening! It was all these things, Add to that one of the greatest Bristish actors of all time (and a very good Marley indeed), and the scene comes off as Dickens most likely intended it. George C. Scott's version is to die for in my opinion. Truly outstanding in every single respect. Not a false note anywhere. I watched it when it first aired on TV. Magnificent to all the senses!
@Hypsan His performance was nothing but false notes. The script said to act curmedgeonly, so he did, but there was no weight behind it. It was a hollow, bland performance with none of the richness and realism of this one. In the same way that no one could equal George C. Scott as Patton, no one can equal Sim as Scrooge.
@foodonface See the play "Jacob Marley's Christmas Carol" by Tom Mula. I too always felt that Marley's fate was unfair. Though he may disagree with Dickens' masterpiece in a few places, which I dislike, Mula does show that in redeeming Scrooge, Marley saved himself as well, and I think that Dickens would ultimately be very happy with the retelling. Marley is a fantastic character with heart & humor, and I just LOVE the Bogle, a scene-stealing demonic sprite with a wicked wit.
Can't miss a Christmas without this classic. Never, never will get sick of it! Modern analogy; Marley = U.S. government. Chains = national debt. Send three ghosts to Washington/Capitol Hill ASAP.
I don't believe in the afterlife, but there is something about those disembodied spirits trying to make up for their failings that really brings tears to my eyes.
@calamagrostis88 I dare say you believe more than you realize. GOD placed that belief in you before you were born. You can choose to fight it, ignore it or downplay it...but it is all for naught. It is a part of you. You might believe that you live & die, and that is it. Sad. Believe the obvious that we were created. We are NOT an accident. THAT is much harder to believe than the fact that we were created. Nothing comes from nothing. But you must believe that it does if not for creation.
@Hypsan Please don't tell me what I must believe in. If nothing can come from nothing and if there is a god, then something must have created god, and something must have created god's creator, ad infinitum. And creationists continue to say that evolution by natural selection is an "accident". Just goes to show that you don't understand the theory, or just refuse to look at it too closely because it conflicts with your faith.
@calamagrostis88 Well, actually, that's not correct. You can either be brought into existence (as we were) or you can always exist. This is the description of God the Bible gives of God; he is eternal, which means he always existed. That's the solution to the ad infinitum parodox.
@hell5309 Right now the Republicans are trying to take health care away from millions of Tiny Tims. They tried to block health care for the heroes of 9-11. They just held unemployment benefits hostage so they could get a tax break for the ultra-rich. The Republicans are a big bunch of hum-buggers.
@hell5309 I did not address the question of god because I wanted to get back to my main point, which is that Scrooge is the poster child for the cold-hearted Republican who thinks that if a child dies from cancer because his parents did not have health insurance that is the proper way of the free market. Talk about forging chains, it is amazing they can still walk upright.
@calamagrostis88 I understand, but since you responded to one of my comments, I was confused since I hadn't said anything about this movie's relationship with politics.
@hell5309 That is no solution at all. Only a moron would be satisfied with such a non-solution to a problem. You are a perfect example of why (or one of the many reasons) religion is a force for evil in the world and poisons everything: It teaches you to be satisfied with less. It teaches you it's good to be incurious. It leads to lazy thinking in every other aspect of life, and to the perpetually underdeveloped mind which you so obviously possess.
@davenielsen78 What non-solution? The thing about God being eternal? That's biblically backed up, and it solves the paradox. Think about it: without something being eternal (that is, uncreated and in existence), you get chicken-and-egg circular logic. God's eternity and his power to create are the solution.
@hell5309 It isn't a solution because it can't be proved. It's something you just have to believe in. There's no way to test it, there's no evidence to be examined. It is satisfying only to those who are used to believing in things which do not have even the fainted hint of any evidence. This is what I mean about religious belief leading to a weak mind. It's the classic move - anything you don't know the answer to, well God did it. That's all you need to know.
@davenielsen78 There's the bible, and there's logic- it's been known for ages that you can't traverse across infinity or count time backwards to eternity. Eventually, you need something that transcends time and space, and that's God.
Here's some food for thought: the universe is expanding. We know this as a result of the red shift in the light from celestial bodies. Working backwards, we see that the universe is finite in a temporal sense.
@Hypsan Actually, God just place's beliefs in people, which every Bible-reading Christian should know, but are textured by those around them to believe that. Why would our loving Heavenly Father, do that to anyone, to place a conflicting belief in them that would cut them off from Him.
In Matthew 7:23, it says "And then I will profess unto them (at the judgment seat), I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
So I believe that Satan can influence people into beliefs.
@masterskyrunner An easy one would be the Garden of Eden. He creates two people who are basically children and puts as the showpiece of the whole garden the one thing they must not touch. He allows them to be tempted, then throws them out when they succumb. (Our own legal system calls that entrapment, but God's allowed to get away with it.) Another easy one that leaps to mind is Abraham being ordered to kill his son - only to have God stop him with "April Fool! Only testing!" What a dick.
@davenielsen78 Well, he HAD to test his faith, to see how loyal to God Abraham really was, but after this, Abraham was blessed immensely because of his intense faith. Also, In the GoE, Man had to know temptation, sin, and struggle, this was all part of the plan to make man perfect.
@masterskyrunner Laughably wrong, I'm afraid. God testing anyone in that way is horrible. He should also not be rewarding anyone who would have been willing to kill their own son. Something that would be wrong for anyone else to do or to order is still wrong if God does it, or orders it. As for your pathetic GoE rationalization, the whole point is that man at that time was already perfect, and through this apparently horrible sin (the Fall) became the sorry creature he is today.
@davenielsen78 No, actually man was put on the Earth to deal with individual problems that they had, to learn from and over come them. MAN HAD TO KNOW TEMPTATION. And no, they were not essentially children because they could walk with God and speak with GOd in the Garden and that they were adults. Otherwise, why would God say "don't eat this apple", but all the others are okay? And for Abraham, would you, after talking with God for the last hundred years, just tell him "no I won't". cont-
@masterskyrunner You're just making it worse for yourself here, dude. Try reading the Bible before you attempt to comment on it - or school someone. They were obviously mentally children because they were created in adult form but had no life experience. Genesis mentions nothing about a childhood for either. They were totally unprepared to resist temptation of any kind. Why God would say that is because he was being a douche.
@masterskyrunner I didn't really expect rational thought from you, but it is kind of entertaining to see a religious nut try to rationalize the many horrible things found in the Bible. Another easy one is the Flood, one of the times when God decided to commit genocide - at least that time he did the dirty work himself (sort of). You know, I can't believe anyone who has actually read the Bible could be as confused as you seem to be.
cont. even though it was average religious service to sacrifice the best of the best to God to show your faith. God said for Issac to be sacrificed and Abraham would just say "no", even though you KNOW that your son will be resurrected and would live with the Father. He was rewarded for his faith and willingness to serve, not for his lust for blood upon his son.
Abraham is a prophet of God, and his faith and loyalty to God had to be proved by action to see if he was a true man of God in deed.
@masterskyrunner As for Abraham, sorry but in the Old Testament there is not any talk of an afterlife. That's one of the few perks - God might fuck with you while you're alive, but in death you can escape his torment. Only with the New Testament do we hear of being fucked over after death as well - and for a lot longer. Abraham was willing to murder his own son on God's say so. God should never have ordered it, but Abraham should never have considered doing it.
@davenielsen78 Yes there was. Adam taught the fullness of the everlasting gospel to his posterity. THE FULLNESS.
Plus, when God doesn't remind people of who's in charge, you get things like Sodom. The most wicked of the wicked. God has the power to destroy the wicked.
Perhaps you don't completely understand TRUE test of faith. Abraham's son was his life and God says sacrifice your son to me, Abraham had such great faith that he knew God would deliver his son.
@masterskyrunner You can scour the Old Testament for mention of an afterlife but you will not find any.
To say that God (if he existed of course) has the power to destroy is to say nothing at all. Of course he would have the power. He certainly did not have the right to use it. Genocide is rightly considered a crime. It remains so even if committed by God.
As I said before, it's clear from a reading of those passages that Abraham had no idea he would be stopped.
@davenielsen78 Isaiah prophesied of the coming of Christ, who he said would redeem mankind. They knew death wasn't the end.
What would've happened if God didn't destroy the wicked? The world would become too wicked and the Gospel wouldn't be able to go forth to all the world. THEY NEED A REMINDER, the people were to wicked. God tried and tried to get them to return from their sin, by then it was evident that the people weren't going to return. And I don't care if you think it's wrong.
@masterskyrunner Abraham did not know of the existence of an afterlife (obvious from a reading). He was willing to MURDER his own son on God's say-so. To do so in hope of being rewarded makes it if possible even more horrible a crime or attempted crime. As for God destroying "the wicked" - sorry, dude, but no matter how you try to rationalize it genocide can't be justified. God committed mass murder. He plans to kill even more at the end of the world. Hell of a guy.
@davenielsen78 It isn't like Abe was like "sure, I'll do it". This is the omnipotent God, who can be your closest friend, or you can feel his wrath. Remember Jonah? And seriously, this WHOLE life was designed by God to see the worthy of the souls, and the unworthy. It's all a test to prove our worth. Just like the sacrifice was a TEST of obedience and faith. So, really this life IS NOT everything, and Abraham knew that, just because he doesn't write it, doesn't mean he didn't know.
@masterskyrunner You're just helping prove my case here, dude. God's behavior - to be sweet to you if you do what he wants, to punish you if you don't - is that of a classic abuser. What would you call that, if not fucking with people? As for testing worth...well, that just proves what a dick God is. Also, what is meant does have to be explicit. Otherwise opinions on what is implied vary and who knows who is right? Your religion and your faith don't hold up under reason.
@hell5309 I'm aware of that belief but it's not rational. That used to be the way it was for us mere mortals. At one time, fathers had power of life and death over their families. We've rejected that. Giving life doesn't entitle you to take it.
@davenielsen78 Well, here's a rationalization then: everything we have we share with God, because he created it. That includes life. Thus, he does have every right to take it. If that wasn't enough, he's perfect, which means he won't take a life for a capricious or unjust reason.
See, the majority of your logic comes from anthropopmorphizing God, which shouldn't be done because though he's an entity, he's not human.
@hell5309 As I said, giving life doesn't also give the right to take it away. That's wrong for anyone to do, including God. He's obviously not perfect, as a reading of the Bible would tell you, and he most definitely does take life for capricious and unjust reasons. The Old Testament in particular is full of him doing that. My reasoning is not based on anthropomorphizing God (which the Bible did a very good job of anyway - again, as a reading (even a casual, cursory one) would be tell you).
@davenielsen78 Yes, it does. The reason it's wrong for us to kill is because we didn't bestow life on others. God did, so he's justified, and I'll say it again, despite the fact that you may not see good in everything God does, he'll never act unjustly, which means if he kills, he's done so for a good reason.
And yes, you have anthropomorphized God. You've done so whenever you assumed that his motives are human. They're not.
@hell5309 It is not rational to say that one who gives life has the right to take it away. That just does not make sense. It is something you believe which can't be supported. There are moral absolutes. If it is wrong to murder, then it is wrong for everyone. Also, as I said even a casual reading of the Bible will show you many examples of God acting unjustly. He kills or orders others to kill for no good reason at all. Your position is without justification. It just cannot be supported.
@davenielsen78 Apparently I didn't make my point clear, so here it is: there is a legitimate double standard between us and God. What's wrong for us isn't necessarily wrong for God. Look at our own law; there are double standards, mostly having to do with age, which are supported by necessity. God isn't human, and thus follows a different set of standards and rules than we do; he gave us the rules that he knew would work best for our societies.
@hell5309 Your point was clear, it just can't be supported. No one will have failed to notice that you have provided no support for your view. Your understanding of our own society is as lacking as your understanding of the Bible. If we ran our country on Biblical morality it would be vastly more brutal and unjust. Get back to the kiddie table. Your mind is clearly still undeveloped.
@hell5309 I've given you several chances to provide evidence but you've declined. I have used no childish insults but have accurately and dispassionately described you as having a weak mind. That's a fact based on the evidence (the only evidence I have to work with here are your comments).
@davenielsen78 The only thing you could have derived from my comments was (in your mind) weak logic. That does not necessarily indicate a weak mind; you jumped to that conclusion.
I have told you over and over the reason why it's wrong for humans to kill and thus why God is justified; you have simply contradicted me and insulted me in the process. Frankly, I challenge you to provide a reason as to why God wouldn't be justified (namely, your reason as to the wrongfulness of murder).
@hell5309 A simple reality check is to look at the population of convicts accused of murder. We find people represented in this population equally regardless of their so called religious values. And a glance at the Bible shows that it is not a reliable source of values. This is one of the most offensive things for athiests, when religious people say we can't have strong moral values without religion.
@calamagrostis88 Now you and I both know that atheists can embrace ethics. The point of 'religious people', however, is that morals can either be subjective or objective. If they're subjective (they come from human minds), then they're useless as a tool for judging the righteousness of an action, because anyone and everyone can invent their own ethics code. If they're objective, they have to come from a higher source than humans, i.e., God or a god.
@hell5309 The human mind is the only place ethics can come from. If you believe in god then you could argue that ethics are wired into our brains by god. But to say that the Bible is a good source of ethics is terribly wrong. I mean just read it, there are some good moral values in it, but there is a lot of weirdness and some commandments in the Bible are just plain evil.
@calamagrostis88 That is what I'm arguing, that our morals come from God and thus are overarching; we didn't invent them ourselves. As for the Bible, could you please tell me the commands and values with which you have grievances?
@hell5309 Death for Cursing Parents 1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) 2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) Reason tells us that this is not just wrong, but deeply evil. The bible is not sacred, it is the words of flawed men.
@calamagrostis88 Back then, cursing your parents meant declaring that you wanted them dead and in hell. Since your parents cared for you from infancy and loved you, cursing them was as bad as killing them, if not worse (declaring you wanted them dead can land you in hot water with the cops today). Thus, God felt the death penalty was warranted.
Also, if you're wondering, the Bible doesn't allow parents to mistreat their children.
@hell5309 In your reply you are demonstrating a higher sense of ethics to descriminate between good and bad parts of the Bible. You are picking and choosing which parts you agree with using moral values that are superior to the scripture.
@calamagrostis88 No, I'm not. I'm showing you the historical context of why those commands are as they are. For example, some claim the Bible justified slavery. Slavery back then was a way out if you got yourself into debt, and it didn't work the way it did in the USA during the 18th and 19th centuries (oddly enough, it was Christian values that prompted England to outlaw slavery and to end the slave triangle).
@hell5309 It was not scripture, it was higher values that outlawed slavery. By picking and choosing you can find scripture that supports slavery or denounces it. You can do the same for murder and genocide. For example "Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) Do you work on the Sabbath? And what is the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday?
@calamagrostis88 In the gospels, Christ (who was quoted with saying, "I and the Father are one") declared that 'it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath' (Matt 12:12, NIV). He also said, in Matt 12:7, " 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' " (quoting the OT). The point of God saying for those offenses to be punishable by death was actually to teach us to forgive each other.
@hell5309 It is interesting seeing people go through mental convolutions to try to justify the Bible. But you can't get off that easy. If the god of the Bible commands death for things that modern people reject, you just can't weasel out of it, you must recognize that the Bible is not the word of god but was written by men in an ancient society. The words attributed to Jesus are important to our understanding of ethics, but they do not wipe out the evil of the Old Testement.
@calamagrostis88 These aren't mental convolutions. I'm showing you evidence to say that God gave us those commands for a good reason. My belief is that though men wrote down the text of the Bible, they didn't dream it up; God did. You believe otherwise, that men invented biblical texts to subjugate others (or whatever reason you hold), and as long as you hold that belief, you and I will never see eye to eye on these subjects.
@hell5309 I still don't get it, are you actually saying that the commandment to stone people to death was god's attempt to teach us to forgive each other?
@calamagrostis88 Yes, I am, because yes, it was. God made it clear in Hosea 6:6 when he said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"; the books of Exodus and Leviticus (especially Leviticus) were full of offenses punishable by death, and the point of that was for us to learn that what Ghandi said was true- "An eye for an eye makes the world blind." He wanted us to forgive each other, and we instead followed the letter of the law.
@hell5309 Your thinking is still not clear to me. Are you saying we should not punish murderers or thieves? And if we should punish them why should we not also obey the Biblical Commandment to punish people who work on Sunday by stoning them to death? Could there possibly be a little seed of doubt in you that maybe the Bible is not 100% truth?
@calamagrostis88 You're putting words in my mouth. Forgiveness is not turning a blind eye- there is a difference between letting a criminal get away and pardoning him/her. God does expect us to rebuke those who do wrong, but he also expects us to forgive with the same readiness with which we expect him to forgive us when we screw up.
Furthermore, since you bring it up, we're under the new covenant, not the old. I challenge you to show me which offenses the New Testament says warrant death.
@hell5309 Obviously most of the really bad stuff is in the Old Testament. So does the new covenant mean that you don't hold the Old Testament to be valid? And why would the coming of Jesus mean that now it is not OK to stone people to death, but before it was? It seems to me that stoning people to death for any reason would be wrong at any time in history. The Taliban takes this Old Testament stuff seriously, they just did this to an adulterous couple.
@calamagrostis88 First off, don't let what the Taliban does misguide you about Christianity. What I know is that Christ told the masses, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." The implication is that we are all guilty of sin, and if we don't want to suffer the same punishment, we have to forgive. I do think that we can bring people to justice, but we have to consider that we are not blameless in determining appropriate punishment.
@hell5309 Right, justice must be tempered with compassion. But it is not just the Taliban, many Christians look to the Old Testament for making law, many even want the Ten Commandments posted in courtrooms. Should making graven images be a punishable by law, and if not, why not? How do you distinguish between that and the Commandment against killing?
@calamagrostis88 First off, look to the latest translations (in other words, swap the KJV for the NIV or NLV). A graven image refers to an idol, which was really the only thing people sculpted back then, and since idolatry is forbidden, graven images were considered sinful. You have to consider historical context instead of interpreting it in modern terms.
Second off, the only laws you should get from the OT are the ten commandments. Other than that, look to the NT.
@hell5309 How can you say the ten commandments should be law? Do we want laws that force people to keep the sabbath or to not even think about wanting your neighbor's ass? And even way back then why is god concerned with idols, instead of making a specific commandment against beating your wife and children, or slavery. If "god" had made a commandment to wash your hands before preparing and eating food he could have saved countless millions from disease and death.
@calamagrostis88 I'm not saying we should have Draconian laws. I'm showing you why I consider the Bible's morals to be right. I have nothing against a piece of art because I do not consider it an idol. The commandment "you shall not murder" isn't just limited to homicide; the rest of Exodus makes that clear. (Also, most of the dietary laws were to prevent the Jews from encountering pathogens common to ancient food storage.)
@hell5309 I don't have any problem with people choosing to uphold the ten commandments in their own lives, as long as they don't force them on other people. The problem is that there are so many contradictions that you can find in scripture to support almost any position, for or against slavery, or murder, or child abuse. The reality is that the answers won't be handed to us on a silver platter, it has taken centuries of contemplation, debate and struggle to progress to where we are today
@calamagrostis88 What do the ten commandments say that shouldn't be forced, or at least upheld? That we shouldn't keep a Sabbath day holy? That we shouldn't kill, steal, commit adultery or lie? That we should respect our parents? Or that we shouldn't curse or worship idols or covet?
I'm not calling for Kosher laws. But saying we shouldn't uphold that is ridiculous to me. Furthermore, to what contradictions are you referring?
@calamagrostis88 Furthermore, if you were married, you wouldn't want somebody lusting after your spouse and s/he wouldn't want somebody lusting after you. The ten commandments make sense. And given that God expects us to 'do unto others as we would have them do unto us', do you think he would support spouse-beating, child abuse or 19th century-style slavery?
The problem is that he expects us to follow the spirit of the law, and you keep insisting on having it spelled out.
@calamagrostis88 You also need to know that Christians (and Jews) don't have to worry about following the dietary laws- we really only have to worry about the 'laws' presented in the New Testament. There aren't morally superior or inferior biblical laws; there are only the laws as they are and a desire to see them as either good or bad.
@hell5309 You're out of your league here, dude. You can't support any of your arguments while I can and have supported mine. Also, again, a casual reading of the Bible (especially the OT) will reveal that its writers most definitely anthropomorphized God. Try Genesis. Try almost anywhere in the OT. I don't need to do it because it's been done already. God's motives are definitely very human. He has all the flaws and failings of humans, but with unlimited power. Good thing he isn't real.
@davenielsen78 I'm out of my league, you say? Well, if you mean I've stepped down into yours, you're right. Your entire argument is the equivalent of a child chastising his parents for what he perceives as a wrongdoing on their part. You don't know enough about the bible or God to demonstrate that he's sinning with his actions, since all you've given it is a cursory reading. Nor are you in a position to chastise him.
@hell5309 Thanks for proving me right - you're way out of your league. You don't seem to realize you've failed to provide any logical reason or any evidence to support your position. For one thing, no one who has read the Bible would ever try to defend God's many evil deeds. I'm glad that I taught you some new words, though.
@davenielsen78 And in proving you right, I caused you to insult yourself. And since I seem not to have given you what you request, what evidence would you like?
@hell5309 Any evidence at all would be nice. You don't have any, though, as the greatest minds in what used to be called Christendom have failed to provide any over the entire history of the Church. Of course I'm not really picking on just Christianity here as no religion has ever had any evidence to back of the things its adherents must believe.
@davenielsen78 That's an interesting assumption for you to make, since you have yet to do any actual cross examination (I'm willing to be you won't, given the way you've written your other comments).
@davenielsen78 Plus, you say destroying the wicked is stupid. But, so is immensely blessing the righteous, you know THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO WHAT HE SAYS is too? God has to power to destroy the wicked, and bless the righteous. But, he doesn't destroy people out of the blue, he sends PROPHETS and MISSIONARIES to the people to say, "Hey, if you don't repent, God's gonna destroy you for your iniquities." Of course they stone the poor men, another God offending thing.
@masterskyrunner The people who do what he says...when they're ordered to commit crimes. You really think those people should be blessed? No father should be willing to do that, even if they believed that they believed they would be stopped (something Abraham clearly didn't think). Committing genocide is always going to be wrong, no matter what the people in question have done to "deserve it". If you think otherwise I'm afraid you must be a sociopath. There is no other explanation.
@masterskyrunner The point I was making was that Adam and Eve were essentially children, and so of course they succumbed to temptation. God was being a massive dick. They didn't have a chance.
The Alistair Sim version of Scrooge is a lot more better than the others George C. Scott, Patrick Stewart and Jim Carrey in their versions. But the Albert Finney and Bill Murray ones are'nt great and for a female version Scrooge Susan Lucci She does it great in the 1995 TV movie Ebbie.
Our players Inc is putting on the musical version of this!! my daughter is the ghost of Christmas past and my son is young Scrooge!! I get to play a snooty dancer in the Fezziwig scene!! Fun fun!!
I will not gainsay how good a version this 1951 classic is but I would put forth that the 1984 version with George C. Scott is as good as this while being more condensed.
Favorite quote: "You do not know the weight and length of strong chain you bear yourself. It was as full as this and as long as this seven Christmas eves ago and you have labored on it since. Ah, it is a ponderous chain!"
My favorite scene of my favorite movie. Alastair Sim does an amazing job and the supporting cast is also very good. I always believed this version was the closest to Dicken's heart. His granddaughter was on the set giving input on the making of the film, and I believe it shows. Although some of the scenes do not appear in the book, they were added by Dicken's in later readings of the work.
I think Marley is played bang on... he is so frustrated and angry with himself.... and seeks to interfere to help Scrooge change... not to mention he is scary as Hell in this especially when he wails ' man of the world do you beleive in me or not"
@timothyj1966 Agreed. Many have played the role of Marley, but none have come close to showing how torchered Marley is in death. Of All the versions of A Christmas Carol, this one is my favorite.
Two damn fine actors here. Hordern and Sim. The late great Alastair Sim turned this into an absolute classic. Creaky old special effects, and cheap production values cannot detract from Sims superb performance. Originally filmed in glorious black and white and colourised many years later. Anyone know when ?
I think Horden was better in the animated version: He's just over reacting here! Even Dickens would have never pictured Marley being this upset; I'm sure Dickens pictured Marley as being MUCH more subtle with his emotional pain!
Sir Michael Hordern's Jacob Marley is the quintessential rendering of the character as Alastair Sim is to that grasping, wrenching, covetous old sinner; Ebenezer Scrooge. So fortunate are we that technology preserves all of this, this "Scrooge" or perhaps to you "A Christmas Carol", for instant appreciation. To me, "Scrooge" is the indelible and ultimate tale of loss and redemption.
i have to play the ghost of x mas past present & future to show my parents what they did to me cause there aint no justice god or ghost gonna help me show those cold unfeeling souls.
great film, HOWEVER can't stand the Tiny Tim character, "Tiny"?, he is bigger than everybody else in his family, the scene where Bob Cratchit is carrying him is so pathetic, poor casting.
Sims is the best Scrooge, because he doesn't play him as the usual curmudgeon stereotype, but as a sensitive man hardened and embittered by life's tragedies, desperate for love underneath.
That part where all the wandering spirits are outside still scares the crap out of me and Ive seen this more than fifty times! Also, I think its amazing that, throughout this whole journey, Scrooge doesn't have a hard attack
I love this version...LOVE this scene. Would LOVE to have seen Hordern play Scrooge. He IS absolutely the best Marley's Ghost. And Sim has a sterling performance here.
5:28 Choose God and family over business...
bradandbarb 1 week ago
I always thought that Michael Hordern was the OG Jacob Marley.... definitely the best.
D8M2D 1 month ago
I made the same sound that spirit did when I spilled a 7/11 Big Gulp hot coffee on my pants
Frontierblues 1 month ago 3
Michael Hordern was a great actor and Alastair Sim a great comic performer - but this version is Hollywood all the way, eviscerating Dickens for some cheap laughs. Sim is a curmudgeon here, not the soul close to damnation in Dickens' book, and Hordern's Marley is vaguely unhappy and slightly ridiculous. The chilling encounter in the 1984 version with GC Scott and Frank Finlay as Marley is the way Dickens wrote it - with Marley's WHOLE speech after "Mankind was my business."
sensei48 1 month ago
Fucking hell :L Play Station 1 graphics
KenobiOfficial 1 month ago
@KenobiOfficial This was 1080p back in 1951
Bonsse88 1 month ago
The best Marley ghost ever....
However, the best version is in black and white
dpx58 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK WHITE PEOPLE!!
dkell11 2 months ago
i wana see marley's jaw dop
anncool66 2 months ago
Never seen this in color, much nicer !
indez23 2 months ago
don't forget to check the mirror for the stage crew!
Funkydonnie1 2 months ago
@wboquist
@MrDeCorey
Well guys, to see the video of the gravestone and the rest of where it is located, search "andymillsacoustic ebenezer" and its the first video.
enjoy!!
dailylolable 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I watch this movie year round. It's a great morale booster. His facial expressions are priceless.
Sonnid09 2 months ago in playlist More videos from CapriRising
I watch this movie year round. It's a great morale booster. His facial expressions are priceless.
Sonnid09 2 months ago in playlist More videos from CapriRising
One of the best movies EVER, scary, Historical Look at Victorian England, Morality... teaches a great lesson
timothyj1966 2 months ago
@calama etc, God DID make various lawsand indicators to cleanliness. Read the good book and see for yourself, It's good stuff !
horsemad1670 5 months ago
Comment removed
MrDeCorey 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SIMPLY,'`COPY,`.&,`;PASTE``:
ＷＷＷ.ＮＥＷＭＯＶＩＥＳＮＯＷ.ＴＫ
SIMPLY::'COPY,,;&`:`PASTE,:,
HermanRoachTanner 8 months ago
I know exactly where The Prop grave for Ebanezer Scrooge is.I can even get a little video if anyone is interested.....??
Let me know :-)
andymillsmusic 10 months ago
@andymillsmusic I would like to see it.
MrDeCorey 3 months ago
@andymillsmusic Sure! I'd be interested! I'd also like to know how you came to know of it.
wboquist 2 months ago
Possibly my favorite scene in one of my most favorite films. Sim and Hordern are perfect here.
The original was, of course in B&W. This is the colorized version, but they did a pretty fair job with the color. I read that they went back to old production photos and promotional materials to get the colors right. But I think I still prefer the original.
Sorry you were besieged with spamming, off-topic thread hijackers. Bah, humbug to them.
PhiloYT1 1 year ago
Michael Hordern's Marley was the creepiest in my opinion, he's such a tortured soul as his Hordern's dialogue shows
Deader87 1 year ago
@Deader87 I liked the dialogue, but Hordern acted too much like a stereotypical ghost to make it believable.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 He was pretty much a flamboyantly-loud ghost, which I think is funny. His ruffled-shirt puffing up and down
Deader87 1 year ago
Love 3:51 - 3:55, freaking out!!!! Reminds me of Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space"
wdm1219 1 year ago
Scrooge is my hero and my role model.
Yes i`m a miserable human being who will never find a soul mate for the life of me and will grow to be an old cranky, ignorant bastard that hates kids, skateboards, loud motorcycles. I already started hating Christmas, New Year and all the holidays where people pretend for a day that they love each other... until the next day.
Ometopada 1 year ago
The original black and white version is better. Check it out; it's on Youtube.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
Sims Scrooge is the best of all the performances I've seen and for me, timeless. His Scrooge isn't unnecessarily evil but just focused on business to the exclusion of all else....including the death of friends, or his own personal comfort. Sims Scrooge could be any number of modern business men today.
Sims use of subtle comedic relief and timing is exceptional. "I must stand on my head"...and she runs from the room screaming with Scrooge in hot pursuit.
hootskc 1 year ago
Merry Christmas
QPRTokyo 1 year ago
“A merry Christmas to everybody! A happy New Year to all the world!” - * Charles Dickens *
matjesworld 1 year ago
Scroooooooooge ............ thats creepy
trickykid73 1 year ago
ONE WORD..........CLASSIC.
dalymc 1 year ago
which year was this from i wanna watch this
jeffhardyultimte 1 year ago
@jeffhardyultimte 1951
trickykid73 1 year ago
Probably never done better. That scene is so very pivotal to the entire story. It MUST be powerful, loud and frightening! It was all these things, Add to that one of the greatest Bristish actors of all time (and a very good Marley indeed), and the scene comes off as Dickens most likely intended it. George C. Scott's version is to die for in my opinion. Truly outstanding in every single respect. Not a false note anywhere. I watched it when it first aired on TV. Magnificent to all the senses!
Hypsan 1 year ago
@Hypsan His performance was nothing but false notes. The script said to act curmedgeonly, so he did, but there was no weight behind it. It was a hollow, bland performance with none of the richness and realism of this one. In the same way that no one could equal George C. Scott as Patton, no one can equal Sim as Scrooge.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
Wait! Why didn't Marley get 3 ghosts to teach him to be good and generous?! Oh Scrooge gets a happy ever after but MARLEY?!
foodonface 1 year ago 2
@foodonface See the play "Jacob Marley's Christmas Carol" by Tom Mula. I too always felt that Marley's fate was unfair. Though he may disagree with Dickens' masterpiece in a few places, which I dislike, Mula does show that in redeeming Scrooge, Marley saved himself as well, and I think that Dickens would ultimately be very happy with the retelling. Marley is a fantastic character with heart & humor, and I just LOVE the Bogle, a scene-stealing demonic sprite with a wicked wit.
InsaneJestress 1 year ago
Can't miss a Christmas without this classic. Never, never will get sick of it! Modern analogy; Marley = U.S. government. Chains = national debt. Send three ghosts to Washington/Capitol Hill ASAP.
greenwich1754 1 year ago
Can't miss a Christmas without this classic. Never, never will get sick of it!
greenwich1754 1 year ago
I don't believe in the afterlife, but there is something about those disembodied spirits trying to make up for their failings that really brings tears to my eyes.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 I dare say you believe more than you realize. GOD placed that belief in you before you were born. You can choose to fight it, ignore it or downplay it...but it is all for naught. It is a part of you. You might believe that you live & die, and that is it. Sad. Believe the obvious that we were created. We are NOT an accident. THAT is much harder to believe than the fact that we were created. Nothing comes from nothing. But you must believe that it does if not for creation.
Hypsan 1 year ago
@Hypsan Please don't tell me what I must believe in. If nothing can come from nothing and if there is a god, then something must have created god, and something must have created god's creator, ad infinitum. And creationists continue to say that evolution by natural selection is an "accident". Just goes to show that you don't understand the theory, or just refuse to look at it too closely because it conflicts with your faith.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Well, actually, that's not correct. You can either be brought into existence (as we were) or you can always exist. This is the description of God the Bible gives of God; he is eternal, which means he always existed. That's the solution to the ad infinitum parodox.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Right now the Republicans are trying to take health care away from millions of Tiny Tims. They tried to block health care for the heroes of 9-11. They just held unemployment benefits hostage so they could get a tax break for the ultra-rich. The Republicans are a big bunch of hum-buggers.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about that.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 I did not address the question of god because I wanted to get back to my main point, which is that Scrooge is the poster child for the cold-hearted Republican who thinks that if a child dies from cancer because his parents did not have health insurance that is the proper way of the free market. Talk about forging chains, it is amazing they can still walk upright.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 I understand, but since you responded to one of my comments, I was confused since I hadn't said anything about this movie's relationship with politics.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 That is no solution at all. Only a moron would be satisfied with such a non-solution to a problem. You are a perfect example of why (or one of the many reasons) religion is a force for evil in the world and poisons everything: It teaches you to be satisfied with less. It teaches you it's good to be incurious. It leads to lazy thinking in every other aspect of life, and to the perpetually underdeveloped mind which you so obviously possess.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 What non-solution? The thing about God being eternal? That's biblically backed up, and it solves the paradox. Think about it: without something being eternal (that is, uncreated and in existence), you get chicken-and-egg circular logic. God's eternity and his power to create are the solution.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 It isn't a solution because it can't be proved. It's something you just have to believe in. There's no way to test it, there's no evidence to be examined. It is satisfying only to those who are used to believing in things which do not have even the fainted hint of any evidence. This is what I mean about religious belief leading to a weak mind. It's the classic move - anything you don't know the answer to, well God did it. That's all you need to know.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 There's the bible, and there's logic- it's been known for ages that you can't traverse across infinity or count time backwards to eternity. Eventually, you need something that transcends time and space, and that's God.
Here's some food for thought: the universe is expanding. We know this as a result of the red shift in the light from celestial bodies. Working backwards, we see that the universe is finite in a temporal sense.
hell5309 1 year ago
@Hypsan Actually, God just place's beliefs in people, which every Bible-reading Christian should know, but are textured by those around them to believe that. Why would our loving Heavenly Father, do that to anyone, to place a conflicting belief in them that would cut them off from Him.
In Matthew 7:23, it says "And then I will profess unto them (at the judgment seat), I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
So I believe that Satan can influence people into beliefs.
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner As a Bible reading Christian you should know that God loves to fuck with people. He begins right in Genesis and doesn't let up.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Example?
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner An easy one would be the Garden of Eden. He creates two people who are basically children and puts as the showpiece of the whole garden the one thing they must not touch. He allows them to be tempted, then throws them out when they succumb. (Our own legal system calls that entrapment, but God's allowed to get away with it.) Another easy one that leaps to mind is Abraham being ordered to kill his son - only to have God stop him with "April Fool! Only testing!" What a dick.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Well, he HAD to test his faith, to see how loyal to God Abraham really was, but after this, Abraham was blessed immensely because of his intense faith. Also, In the GoE, Man had to know temptation, sin, and struggle, this was all part of the plan to make man perfect.
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner Laughably wrong, I'm afraid. God testing anyone in that way is horrible. He should also not be rewarding anyone who would have been willing to kill their own son. Something that would be wrong for anyone else to do or to order is still wrong if God does it, or orders it. As for your pathetic GoE rationalization, the whole point is that man at that time was already perfect, and through this apparently horrible sin (the Fall) became the sorry creature he is today.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 No, actually man was put on the Earth to deal with individual problems that they had, to learn from and over come them. MAN HAD TO KNOW TEMPTATION. And no, they were not essentially children because they could walk with God and speak with GOd in the Garden and that they were adults. Otherwise, why would God say "don't eat this apple", but all the others are okay? And for Abraham, would you, after talking with God for the last hundred years, just tell him "no I won't". cont-
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner You're just making it worse for yourself here, dude. Try reading the Bible before you attempt to comment on it - or school someone. They were obviously mentally children because they were created in adult form but had no life experience. Genesis mentions nothing about a childhood for either. They were totally unprepared to resist temptation of any kind. Why God would say that is because he was being a douche.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner I didn't really expect rational thought from you, but it is kind of entertaining to see a religious nut try to rationalize the many horrible things found in the Bible. Another easy one is the Flood, one of the times when God decided to commit genocide - at least that time he did the dirty work himself (sort of). You know, I can't believe anyone who has actually read the Bible could be as confused as you seem to be.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
cont. even though it was average religious service to sacrifice the best of the best to God to show your faith. God said for Issac to be sacrificed and Abraham would just say "no", even though you KNOW that your son will be resurrected and would live with the Father. He was rewarded for his faith and willingness to serve, not for his lust for blood upon his son.
Abraham is a prophet of God, and his faith and loyalty to God had to be proved by action to see if he was a true man of God in deed.
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner As for Abraham, sorry but in the Old Testament there is not any talk of an afterlife. That's one of the few perks - God might fuck with you while you're alive, but in death you can escape his torment. Only with the New Testament do we hear of being fucked over after death as well - and for a lot longer. Abraham was willing to murder his own son on God's say so. God should never have ordered it, but Abraham should never have considered doing it.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Yes there was. Adam taught the fullness of the everlasting gospel to his posterity. THE FULLNESS.
Plus, when God doesn't remind people of who's in charge, you get things like Sodom. The most wicked of the wicked. God has the power to destroy the wicked.
Perhaps you don't completely understand TRUE test of faith. Abraham's son was his life and God says sacrifice your son to me, Abraham had such great faith that he knew God would deliver his son.
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner You can scour the Old Testament for mention of an afterlife but you will not find any.
To say that God (if he existed of course) has the power to destroy is to say nothing at all. Of course he would have the power. He certainly did not have the right to use it. Genocide is rightly considered a crime. It remains so even if committed by God.
As I said before, it's clear from a reading of those passages that Abraham had no idea he would be stopped.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Isaiah prophesied of the coming of Christ, who he said would redeem mankind. They knew death wasn't the end.
What would've happened if God didn't destroy the wicked? The world would become too wicked and the Gospel wouldn't be able to go forth to all the world. THEY NEED A REMINDER, the people were to wicked. God tried and tried to get them to return from their sin, by then it was evident that the people weren't going to return. And I don't care if you think it's wrong.
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner Abraham did not know of the existence of an afterlife (obvious from a reading). He was willing to MURDER his own son on God's say-so. To do so in hope of being rewarded makes it if possible even more horrible a crime or attempted crime. As for God destroying "the wicked" - sorry, dude, but no matter how you try to rationalize it genocide can't be justified. God committed mass murder. He plans to kill even more at the end of the world. Hell of a guy.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 It isn't like Abe was like "sure, I'll do it". This is the omnipotent God, who can be your closest friend, or you can feel his wrath. Remember Jonah? And seriously, this WHOLE life was designed by God to see the worthy of the souls, and the unworthy. It's all a test to prove our worth. Just like the sacrifice was a TEST of obedience and faith. So, really this life IS NOT everything, and Abraham knew that, just because he doesn't write it, doesn't mean he didn't know.
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner You're just helping prove my case here, dude. God's behavior - to be sweet to you if you do what he wants, to punish you if you don't - is that of a classic abuser. What would you call that, if not fucking with people? As for testing worth...well, that just proves what a dick God is. Also, what is meant does have to be explicit. Otherwise opinions on what is implied vary and who knows who is right? Your religion and your faith don't hold up under reason.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 I think you might be surprised to know that, given that God bestowed life on us, he has every right to take it.
I also love your belief that God is a spoiled brat who manipulates people for his own amusement.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 I'm aware of that belief but it's not rational. That used to be the way it was for us mere mortals. At one time, fathers had power of life and death over their families. We've rejected that. Giving life doesn't entitle you to take it.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Well, here's a rationalization then: everything we have we share with God, because he created it. That includes life. Thus, he does have every right to take it. If that wasn't enough, he's perfect, which means he won't take a life for a capricious or unjust reason.
See, the majority of your logic comes from anthropopmorphizing God, which shouldn't be done because though he's an entity, he's not human.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 As I said, giving life doesn't also give the right to take it away. That's wrong for anyone to do, including God. He's obviously not perfect, as a reading of the Bible would tell you, and he most definitely does take life for capricious and unjust reasons. The Old Testament in particular is full of him doing that. My reasoning is not based on anthropomorphizing God (which the Bible did a very good job of anyway - again, as a reading (even a casual, cursory one) would be tell you).
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Yes, it does. The reason it's wrong for us to kill is because we didn't bestow life on others. God did, so he's justified, and I'll say it again, despite the fact that you may not see good in everything God does, he'll never act unjustly, which means if he kills, he's done so for a good reason.
And yes, you have anthropomorphized God. You've done so whenever you assumed that his motives are human. They're not.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 It is not rational to say that one who gives life has the right to take it away. That just does not make sense. It is something you believe which can't be supported. There are moral absolutes. If it is wrong to murder, then it is wrong for everyone. Also, as I said even a casual reading of the Bible will show you many examples of God acting unjustly. He kills or orders others to kill for no good reason at all. Your position is without justification. It just cannot be supported.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Apparently I didn't make my point clear, so here it is: there is a legitimate double standard between us and God. What's wrong for us isn't necessarily wrong for God. Look at our own law; there are double standards, mostly having to do with age, which are supported by necessity. God isn't human, and thus follows a different set of standards and rules than we do; he gave us the rules that he knew would work best for our societies.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Your point was clear, it just can't be supported. No one will have failed to notice that you have provided no support for your view. Your understanding of our own society is as lacking as your understanding of the Bible. If we ran our country on Biblical morality it would be vastly more brutal and unjust. Get back to the kiddie table. Your mind is clearly still undeveloped.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 This coming from someone who has forgone rational arguing and has instead resorted to childish insults.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 I've given you several chances to provide evidence but you've declined. I have used no childish insults but have accurately and dispassionately described you as having a weak mind. That's a fact based on the evidence (the only evidence I have to work with here are your comments).
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 The only thing you could have derived from my comments was (in your mind) weak logic. That does not necessarily indicate a weak mind; you jumped to that conclusion.
I have told you over and over the reason why it's wrong for humans to kill and thus why God is justified; you have simply contradicted me and insulted me in the process. Frankly, I challenge you to provide a reason as to why God wouldn't be justified (namely, your reason as to the wrongfulness of murder).
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 A simple reality check is to look at the population of convicts accused of murder. We find people represented in this population equally regardless of their so called religious values. And a glance at the Bible shows that it is not a reliable source of values. This is one of the most offensive things for athiests, when religious people say we can't have strong moral values without religion.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Now you and I both know that atheists can embrace ethics. The point of 'religious people', however, is that morals can either be subjective or objective. If they're subjective (they come from human minds), then they're useless as a tool for judging the righteousness of an action, because anyone and everyone can invent their own ethics code. If they're objective, they have to come from a higher source than humans, i.e., God or a god.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 The human mind is the only place ethics can come from. If you believe in god then you could argue that ethics are wired into our brains by god. But to say that the Bible is a good source of ethics is terribly wrong. I mean just read it, there are some good moral values in it, but there is a lot of weirdness and some commandments in the Bible are just plain evil.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 That is what I'm arguing, that our morals come from God and thus are overarching; we didn't invent them ourselves. As for the Bible, could you please tell me the commands and values with which you have grievances?
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Death for Cursing Parents 1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) 2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) Reason tells us that this is not just wrong, but deeply evil. The bible is not sacred, it is the words of flawed men.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Back then, cursing your parents meant declaring that you wanted them dead and in hell. Since your parents cared for you from infancy and loved you, cursing them was as bad as killing them, if not worse (declaring you wanted them dead can land you in hot water with the cops today). Thus, God felt the death penalty was warranted.
Also, if you're wondering, the Bible doesn't allow parents to mistreat their children.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 In your reply you are demonstrating a higher sense of ethics to descriminate between good and bad parts of the Bible. You are picking and choosing which parts you agree with using moral values that are superior to the scripture.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 No, I'm not. I'm showing you the historical context of why those commands are as they are. For example, some claim the Bible justified slavery. Slavery back then was a way out if you got yourself into debt, and it didn't work the way it did in the USA during the 18th and 19th centuries (oddly enough, it was Christian values that prompted England to outlaw slavery and to end the slave triangle).
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 It was not scripture, it was higher values that outlawed slavery. By picking and choosing you can find scripture that supports slavery or denounces it. You can do the same for murder and genocide. For example "Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT) Do you work on the Sabbath? And what is the Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday?
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 In the gospels, Christ (who was quoted with saying, "I and the Father are one") declared that 'it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath' (Matt 12:12, NIV). He also said, in Matt 12:7, " 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' " (quoting the OT). The point of God saying for those offenses to be punishable by death was actually to teach us to forgive each other.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 It is interesting seeing people go through mental convolutions to try to justify the Bible. But you can't get off that easy. If the god of the Bible commands death for things that modern people reject, you just can't weasel out of it, you must recognize that the Bible is not the word of god but was written by men in an ancient society. The words attributed to Jesus are important to our understanding of ethics, but they do not wipe out the evil of the Old Testement.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 These aren't mental convolutions. I'm showing you evidence to say that God gave us those commands for a good reason. My belief is that though men wrote down the text of the Bible, they didn't dream it up; God did. You believe otherwise, that men invented biblical texts to subjugate others (or whatever reason you hold), and as long as you hold that belief, you and I will never see eye to eye on these subjects.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 I still don't get it, are you actually saying that the commandment to stone people to death was god's attempt to teach us to forgive each other?
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Yes, I am, because yes, it was. God made it clear in Hosea 6:6 when he said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"; the books of Exodus and Leviticus (especially Leviticus) were full of offenses punishable by death, and the point of that was for us to learn that what Ghandi said was true- "An eye for an eye makes the world blind." He wanted us to forgive each other, and we instead followed the letter of the law.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Your thinking is still not clear to me. Are you saying we should not punish murderers or thieves? And if we should punish them why should we not also obey the Biblical Commandment to punish people who work on Sunday by stoning them to death? Could there possibly be a little seed of doubt in you that maybe the Bible is not 100% truth?
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 You're putting words in my mouth. Forgiveness is not turning a blind eye- there is a difference between letting a criminal get away and pardoning him/her. God does expect us to rebuke those who do wrong, but he also expects us to forgive with the same readiness with which we expect him to forgive us when we screw up.
Furthermore, since you bring it up, we're under the new covenant, not the old. I challenge you to show me which offenses the New Testament says warrant death.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Obviously most of the really bad stuff is in the Old Testament. So does the new covenant mean that you don't hold the Old Testament to be valid? And why would the coming of Jesus mean that now it is not OK to stone people to death, but before it was? It seems to me that stoning people to death for any reason would be wrong at any time in history. The Taliban takes this Old Testament stuff seriously, they just did this to an adulterous couple.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 First off, don't let what the Taliban does misguide you about Christianity. What I know is that Christ told the masses, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." The implication is that we are all guilty of sin, and if we don't want to suffer the same punishment, we have to forgive. I do think that we can bring people to justice, but we have to consider that we are not blameless in determining appropriate punishment.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Right, justice must be tempered with compassion. But it is not just the Taliban, many Christians look to the Old Testament for making law, many even want the Ten Commandments posted in courtrooms. Should making graven images be a punishable by law, and if not, why not? How do you distinguish between that and the Commandment against killing?
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 First off, look to the latest translations (in other words, swap the KJV for the NIV or NLV). A graven image refers to an idol, which was really the only thing people sculpted back then, and since idolatry is forbidden, graven images were considered sinful. You have to consider historical context instead of interpreting it in modern terms.
Second off, the only laws you should get from the OT are the ten commandments. Other than that, look to the NT.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 How can you say the ten commandments should be law? Do we want laws that force people to keep the sabbath or to not even think about wanting your neighbor's ass? And even way back then why is god concerned with idols, instead of making a specific commandment against beating your wife and children, or slavery. If "god" had made a commandment to wash your hands before preparing and eating food he could have saved countless millions from disease and death.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 I'm not saying we should have Draconian laws. I'm showing you why I consider the Bible's morals to be right. I have nothing against a piece of art because I do not consider it an idol. The commandment "you shall not murder" isn't just limited to homicide; the rest of Exodus makes that clear. (Also, most of the dietary laws were to prevent the Jews from encountering pathogens common to ancient food storage.)
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 I don't have any problem with people choosing to uphold the ten commandments in their own lives, as long as they don't force them on other people. The problem is that there are so many contradictions that you can find in scripture to support almost any position, for or against slavery, or murder, or child abuse. The reality is that the answers won't be handed to us on a silver platter, it has taken centuries of contemplation, debate and struggle to progress to where we are today
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 What do the ten commandments say that shouldn't be forced, or at least upheld? That we shouldn't keep a Sabbath day holy? That we shouldn't kill, steal, commit adultery or lie? That we should respect our parents? Or that we shouldn't curse or worship idols or covet?
I'm not calling for Kosher laws. But saying we shouldn't uphold that is ridiculous to me. Furthermore, to what contradictions are you referring?
hell5309 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hell5309 Contradictions? Have you ever read the Bible? There are literally hundreds, for example: Thou shalt not kill - Exodus 20:13
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his
side... and slay every man his brother... - Exodus 32:27
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Furthermore, if you were married, you wouldn't want somebody lusting after your spouse and s/he wouldn't want somebody lusting after you. The ten commandments make sense. And given that God expects us to 'do unto others as we would have them do unto us', do you think he would support spouse-beating, child abuse or 19th century-style slavery?
The problem is that he expects us to follow the spirit of the law, and you keep insisting on having it spelled out.
hell5309 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 You also need to know that Christians (and Jews) don't have to worry about following the dietary laws- we really only have to worry about the 'laws' presented in the New Testament. There aren't morally superior or inferior biblical laws; there are only the laws as they are and a desire to see them as either good or bad.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 You're out of your league here, dude. You can't support any of your arguments while I can and have supported mine. Also, again, a casual reading of the Bible (especially the OT) will reveal that its writers most definitely anthropomorphized God. Try Genesis. Try almost anywhere in the OT. I don't need to do it because it's been done already. God's motives are definitely very human. He has all the flaws and failings of humans, but with unlimited power. Good thing he isn't real.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 I'm out of my league, you say? Well, if you mean I've stepped down into yours, you're right. Your entire argument is the equivalent of a child chastising his parents for what he perceives as a wrongdoing on their part. You don't know enough about the bible or God to demonstrate that he's sinning with his actions, since all you've given it is a cursory reading. Nor are you in a position to chastise him.
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Thanks for proving me right - you're way out of your league. You don't seem to realize you've failed to provide any logical reason or any evidence to support your position. For one thing, no one who has read the Bible would ever try to defend God's many evil deeds. I'm glad that I taught you some new words, though.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 And in proving you right, I caused you to insult yourself. And since I seem not to have given you what you request, what evidence would you like?
hell5309 1 year ago
@hell5309 Any evidence at all would be nice. You don't have any, though, as the greatest minds in what used to be called Christendom have failed to provide any over the entire history of the Church. Of course I'm not really picking on just Christianity here as no religion has ever had any evidence to back of the things its adherents must believe.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 That's an interesting assumption for you to make, since you have yet to do any actual cross examination (I'm willing to be you won't, given the way you've written your other comments).
hell5309 1 year ago
@davenielsen78 Plus, you say destroying the wicked is stupid. But, so is immensely blessing the righteous, you know THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO WHAT HE SAYS is too? God has to power to destroy the wicked, and bless the righteous. But, he doesn't destroy people out of the blue, he sends PROPHETS and MISSIONARIES to the people to say, "Hey, if you don't repent, God's gonna destroy you for your iniquities." Of course they stone the poor men, another God offending thing.
masterskyrunner 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner The people who do what he says...when they're ordered to commit crimes. You really think those people should be blessed? No father should be willing to do that, even if they believed that they believed they would be stopped (something Abraham clearly didn't think). Committing genocide is always going to be wrong, no matter what the people in question have done to "deserve it". If you think otherwise I'm afraid you must be a sociopath. There is no other explanation.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@masterskyrunner The point I was making was that Adam and Eve were essentially children, and so of course they succumbed to temptation. God was being a massive dick. They didn't have a chance.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
"You were a good man of business Jacob". Thanks for Dickens and the Republicans must grovel before this work of art.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
3:48 The scream!!! Beauty!!
123JDB789 1 year ago
The Alistair Sim version of Scrooge is a lot more better than the others George C. Scott, Patrick Stewart and Jim Carrey in their versions. But the Albert Finney and Bill Murray ones are'nt great and for a female version Scrooge Susan Lucci She does it great in the 1995 TV movie Ebbie.
yogafan6500 1 year ago 3
my favorite line is "A peice o' cheese"LOL
Back2DaFuture98 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree,Alistair Simm,Is and always be the best scrooge,even giving the film its age with no cad or computer effects,still a good film.
johnbrown651 1 year ago
I agree,Alistair Simm,Is and always be the best scrooge,even giving the film its age with no cad or computer effects,still a good film.
johnbrown651 1 year ago 2
Our players Inc is putting on the musical version of this!! my daughter is the ghost of Christmas past and my son is young Scrooge!! I get to play a snooty dancer in the Fezziwig scene!! Fun fun!!
suzymundy 1 year ago
i wud b pissin my pants
hckyplaya1 1 year ago
It's good, but the Marley from the George C. Scott film is scarier to me.
SakranMM 1 year ago
It's good, but the Marley from the George C. Scott film is scarier to me.
SakranMM 1 year ago
we watched this in english, and id never thought id see a film with worse special effects than animal farm.
minifiguremob37 1 year ago
@minifiguremob37 You talk about special effects, this film was 1951 Thats 59 yrs ago, come on.
This is the best ever
MrJamest3333 1 year ago 2
@MrJamest3333 oh hell yeah, this is an amazing movie. im just pointing out that the FX suck.
minifiguremob37 1 year ago
@minifiguremob37 Cutting edge for 1951.
GESSO217 1 year ago
Those bed drapes were common in the old days, he seems to take comfort from them.
They would scare the begeebers out of me, I would be worrying what was on the OUTSIDE!
myastroflight 1 year ago
I will not gainsay how good a version this 1951 classic is but I would put forth that the 1984 version with George C. Scott is as good as this while being more condensed.
Dolmonate 1 year ago
Favorite quote: "You do not know the weight and length of strong chain you bear yourself. It was as full as this and as long as this seven Christmas eves ago and you have labored on it since. Ah, it is a ponderous chain!"
joemama62 1 year ago
My favorite scene of my favorite movie. Alastair Sim does an amazing job and the supporting cast is also very good. I always believed this version was the closest to Dicken's heart. His granddaughter was on the set giving input on the making of the film, and I believe it shows. Although some of the scenes do not appear in the book, they were added by Dicken's in later readings of the work.
joemama62 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The classic film with Alistair Sim
Barryat11 1 year ago
I think Marley is played bang on... he is so frustrated and angry with himself.... and seeks to interfere to help Scrooge change... not to mention he is scary as Hell in this especially when he wails ' man of the world do you beleive in me or not"
timothyj1966 1 year ago
@timothyj1966 Agreed. Many have played the role of Marley, but none have come close to showing how torchered Marley is in death. Of All the versions of A Christmas Carol, this one is my favorite.
GESSO217 1 year ago
love it
MMUXX 1 year ago
Ahhh, Alastair Sim, the one and only Scrooge, The best Dickens rendition EVER!!
germaniajim 1 year ago
Two damn fine actors here. Hordern and Sim. The late great Alastair Sim turned this into an absolute classic. Creaky old special effects, and cheap production values cannot detract from Sims superb performance. Originally filmed in glorious black and white and colourised many years later. Anyone know when ?
raherecolston 1 year ago
I played Marley in a play. I learned from this ghost. pure chilling :))))
PapagenoJuan2 1 year ago
I think Horden was better in the animated version: He's just over reacting here! Even Dickens would have never pictured Marley being this upset; I'm sure Dickens pictured Marley as being MUCH more subtle with his emotional pain!
2010Wilde 1 year ago
This is the best!
walletblack 1 year ago
3:50
Billy931000 1 year ago
Comment removed
Billy931000 1 year ago
best Christmas Carol ever!!
Nejifangal1 1 year ago
It's Alastair Sim. I love this film so much!!
McPrfctday 1 year ago
Marleys my fav charecter
babynick97 1 year ago
Sir Michael Hordern's Jacob Marley is the quintessential rendering of the character as Alastair Sim is to that grasping, wrenching, covetous old sinner; Ebenezer Scrooge. So fortunate are we that technology preserves all of this, this "Scrooge" or perhaps to you "A Christmas Carol", for instant appreciation. To me, "Scrooge" is the indelible and ultimate tale of loss and redemption.
TralfazConstruction 1 year ago
@TralfazConstruction here here man. right you are,
tylerdurdin 1 year ago
@tylerdurdin; Give yourself a pat on-the-back for having good taste. Thanks!
TralfazConstruction 1 year ago
best version
dannypantsgm 1 year ago
i have to play the ghost of x mas past present & future to show my parents what they did to me cause there aint no justice god or ghost gonna help me show those cold unfeeling souls.
uncreativeranter 1 year ago
@uncreativeranter: Take heart and may it be that your sorrows heal with time.
TralfazConstruction 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cool movie, just watched it at my movie kiosk . com
ChesterMarshall 2 years ago
Awesome! I just saw this video at ---> Your Movie HQ . com
milanschoenbergma 2 years ago
The BEST "Marley's Ghost" of them all,
great film, HOWEVER can't stand the Tiny Tim character, "Tiny"?, he is bigger than everybody else in his family, the scene where Bob Cratchit is carrying him is so pathetic, poor casting.
pugliesej 2 years ago 3
Sims is the best Scrooge, because he doesn't play him as the usual curmudgeon stereotype, but as a sensitive man hardened and embittered by life's tragedies, desperate for love underneath.
bscottb8 2 years ago 34
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, what you say goes over the head of the average dimwitted human being in todays world.
tun875 2 years ago 3
@bscottb8 I disagree, George C Scott was the best.
firstcowtails 1 year ago
@firstcowtails George C. Scott played it more like a caricature of a bitter curmudgeon. Sim's performance is more nuanced and real.
davenielsen78 1 year ago
@bscottb8 ...so agreed with.. he plays the part more realistically...hardened over time...rather than melodramatic... great great movie....
timothyj1966 1 year ago
this one and the George C. Scott remake are my favorites
boiledhooker 2 years ago
Man of the worldly mind, do you believe in me or not?
NonDramaZone 2 years ago 4
"the dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business..."
Rawd1976 2 years ago
That part where all the wandering spirits are outside still scares the crap out of me and Ive seen this more than fifty times! Also, I think its amazing that, throughout this whole journey, Scrooge doesn't have a hard attack
moviecritic121 2 years ago
I love this version...LOVE this scene. Would LOVE to have seen Hordern play Scrooge. He IS absolutely the best Marley's Ghost. And Sim has a sterling performance here.
servocrow61 2 years ago
best verison of xmas carol by far
spartanassain 2 years ago
This version with Alistair Sim has to be the best and most authentic retelling of Dicken's classic..I never tire of watching it!
marcostar57 2 years ago 11
This was the best and a classic
chiefnut48 <