(These are only "spoilers" if you don't know Dickens' basic biography and/or the impact of Victorian England on what is considered a "traditional" Christmas)
This review is written in response to a critic who called this film "highly fictionalized." As someone who has taught Dickens and specifically "A Christmas Carol" for almost 10 years now, I wonder what the critic's problem was? Dickens truly did have a very rough period in his childhood when his father was sent to debtor's prison for living beyond his means and the young boy was forced to work in a boot blacking factory; this experience indelibly affected his outlook on life and his writing, and the movie absolutely captures this. In addition, Dickens was indeed strapped for cash in late 1843 and coming off the flop that was "Martin Chuzzlewit" (which he considered his masterpiece) so he did actually punch out the "Carol" in an amazing mere 6 weeks as a desperate cash grab. As far as I could tell, the movie was quite accurate, so I don't know what the critic was whining about (maybe he just doesn't know his Dickensian history).
Meanwhile, my one complaint...if you're going to call the film "The Man Who INVENTED Christmas," you need to establish how Christmas was (or in this case, really WASN'T) celebrated in England pre-1840s. Aside from the very quick mention by the publishers that "no one celebrates Christmas anymore" and a brief reference at the end about a "tannenbaum" (aka Christmas tree) and how the German Prince Albert had imported his tradition into his wife Queen Victoria's household, and now everyone will copy the royals, there isn't much mention of how Dickens' work and the period in general affected our concept of Christmas. For example, did you know that 1843 was also the first year printed Christmas cards were sold? And there's a reason little lit up ceramic houses on Christmas display are called "Dickens villages." It just seems that the movie could've included more information about the impact on the holiday. Other than that, a very worthy effort which will be worth referencing during my Dickens lessons in the future!
This review is written in response to a critic who called this film "highly fictionalized." As someone who has taught Dickens and specifically "A Christmas Carol" for almost 10 years now, I wonder what the critic's problem was? Dickens truly did have a very rough period in his childhood when his father was sent to debtor's prison for living beyond his means and the young boy was forced to work in a boot blacking factory; this experience indelibly affected his outlook on life and his writing, and the movie absolutely captures this. In addition, Dickens was indeed strapped for cash in late 1843 and coming off the flop that was "Martin Chuzzlewit" (which he considered his masterpiece) so he did actually punch out the "Carol" in an amazing mere 6 weeks as a desperate cash grab. As far as I could tell, the movie was quite accurate, so I don't know what the critic was whining about (maybe he just doesn't know his Dickensian history).
Meanwhile, my one complaint...if you're going to call the film "The Man Who INVENTED Christmas," you need to establish how Christmas was (or in this case, really WASN'T) celebrated in England pre-1840s. Aside from the very quick mention by the publishers that "no one celebrates Christmas anymore" and a brief reference at the end about a "tannenbaum" (aka Christmas tree) and how the German Prince Albert had imported his tradition into his wife Queen Victoria's household, and now everyone will copy the royals, there isn't much mention of how Dickens' work and the period in general affected our concept of Christmas. For example, did you know that 1843 was also the first year printed Christmas cards were sold? And there's a reason little lit up ceramic houses on Christmas display are called "Dickens villages." It just seems that the movie could've included more information about the impact on the holiday. Other than that, a very worthy effort which will be worth referencing during my Dickens lessons in the future!