Mainlining Christmas

When I first watched this a few years ago, I came to two conclusions: first, that it wasn't really what I'd consider a Christmas movie, and second that it was a goddamn masterpiece. That second point isn't exactly a new observation, even if audiences and critics weren't ready for Charles Laughton's visionary work of horror when it came out. The Night of the Hunter may have been a flop in 1955, but these days any list of "the greatest movies ever made" that doesn't include it is liable to face criticism of its own. I'll touch on why it's become so well regarded, but first let's tackle the thornier issue: whether the film's admittedly brief holiday sequence qualifies it for discussion here. The sequence in question occurs at the very end of the movie following a time jump - prior to that, the film seems to be set in the summer, though the precise date is left nebulous. It's a relatively brief sequence serving as a sort of coda to the ...

I was torn on whether to write this up at all. The holiday section accounts for roughly thirteen minutes of the movie's runtime, plus or minus depending on when you assume some ambiguous events are taking place. The section is pivotal and the use of the holidays interesting, but this is more a case where it's relevant to trends of how Christmas appears on film, rather than of particular note to the movie itself. But I found it notable enough in context to want some notes, and this blog is largely turning into a sort of public collection of notes I'm compiling on holiday media for.... God, I don't know. I'm still figuring that part out. Regardless, the compromise I came up with was to write this up but hold the post until after the holidays. I don't want to water down our Christmas season posts any more than I already have. So that's why you're seeing this now. This movie, I should note, is a good one. Roadblock is a noir crime story with a tragic love st...

I'm working my way through the collection of "Holiday Noir" Criterion is streaming this year (God, I love that service). Like some of the other movies in this collection, the "noir" label should be taken with a grain of salt. It certainly has elements in common with noir - particularly towards the end - but the tone here is relatively light throughout, and this isn't as stylized as I generally expect from the genre. Or maybe my definition of that term is simply too restrictive - I'll defer to serious noir aficionados so long as they listen to me when I tell them films like Backfire should be recognized as legitimate Christmas movies. Whatever labels you attach to it, this one's quite a lot of fun. It's not unique or bizarre enough to be a "must watch," but it's a pulpy, energetic mystery that throws a barrage of fun twists at you from start to finish. For a movie with an escalating body count (including at least one character you ac...

I'm grouping these two animated shorts from Ladislaw Starewicz, a pioneer of stop-motion, together despite them being made more than four decades apart. Both films are fairly easy to locate online and well worth tracking down. The Insect's Christmas (1911) I believe The Insect's Christmas is the first animated Christmas movie ever made, or at least the earliest surviving example. The Insect's Christmas is sort of a whimsical fairytale that admittedly becomes a bit less whimsical when you realize the titular insects are dead bugs whose legs have been replaced with wires, but it's worth overlooking that unpleasant detail. Before we get to the insects, the movie opens with a Father Christmas ornament coming alive on a Christmas tree and climbing down, accidentally shattering an ornament and waking a sleeping doll in the process. He travels outside and conjures a Christmas tree using his staff. Next, he uses his staff to clear away rocks and even break open the ground, ...

Rather than running these individually, I'm posting reviews for five shorts, each of which is an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Match Girl. This is far from an exhaustive list, of course, but this covers every surviving version through the 1950s I was able to locate. For those of you who don't feel like digging through my notes, I'll save you a little time - these are all good for when they were made. The two that really stood out were the 1928 silent French version and the 1937 animated version. The animated probably aged the best of the bunch, as far as general audiences are concerned, while the 1928 film was the one I found the most fascinating from a technical standpoint. So, if you're interested in old movies, that's a good one to see (actually, all of these are good to see, but that's a great starting point). Those are the two I was thinking of when I slapped a "Highly Recommended" label on this post, though in both cases ...

A few years ago, there's no way I'd have written this up here. That's not a strike against the movie - I liked this quite a bit - just an acknowledgment that it is absolutely not a Christmas movie. It is not set at Christmas, it does not reference Christmas (or any holiday, for that matter), and it is not about Christmas. However, the wintery setting and other elements (first and foremost the titular animal) resemble contemporary Christmas traditions and iconography. The movie also takes place in Lapland, a location with connections to the holidays, and folkloric winter horror has deep connections to the Christmas season, as well. In short, while this isn't a Christmas movie, the overlap with subgenres within the holiday film canon is substantial, and I suspect this will be of interest to readers of this blog. I know I'm stepping onto a slippery slope here, but I'm going to risk it to talk about this bizarre Finnish horror film about a woman who falls in love, g...

"Tales from Dickens," alternatively referred to as "Fredric March Presents Tales from Dickens," was an anthology series adapting stories by Charles Dickens that ran for four years. I think. See, here's the thing: there's virtually no information about this series anywhere online. It doesn't have a Wikipedia page, IMDB's data is full of holes, JustWatch hasn't heard of them, and - with one exception - every episode seems to have been swallowed by the abyss of time. Fortunately, that exception is their 1959 adaptation of A Christmas Carol, which was released on VHS, DVD, and can be easily found on YouTube. So while I'm a little light on context, I was able to watch the episode itself. This is notable for a couple reasons, the first being it features Basil Rathbone as Scrooge, a role he played three years earlier in the live television musical, The Stingiest Man in Town . This adaptation is very different - perhaps Rathbone wanted a chance to po...

I doubt this TV adaptation left much of a mark on future interpretations, but I will say it was interesting , albeit in the same way it's interesting looking at the wreck of a 1954 Chrysler Station Wagon on the side of a road. First, I better give a little context. Shower of Stars was an anthology show from the 1950s. For Christmas, they produced an hour-long adaptation (and I use that word generously) of Dicken's classic. Like every episode, this was broadcast in color, which was unusual for the time. This is of particular significance because every color copy of this episode has been lost. Black & white prints are pretty easy to find, though there's not much reason to bother. The role of Scrooge is played by a comedically long prosthetic nose affixed to [checks notes] Frederick March. Basil Rathbone, who'd play Scrooge a few years later in The Stingiest Man in Town, shows up briefly as Marley's Ghost. Virtually every existent adaptation of A Christmas Carol ma...

This should be a short review, but I think I can make it even shorter: you need to track this down and watch it. "On the Twelfth Day..." is a 20-minute British comedy special from 1955 that's more or less just playing with the premise of adapting the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" literally, without dialogue other than the lyrics. Suffice to say, it sinks or swims on a combination of the comedy and visual design, and... you know what? It doesn't sink or swim - it floats away in a hot air balloon. It is joyful, ridiculous, and beautiful. Just a joy, start to finish. It's directed by and stars Wendy Toye as a progressively more exasperated woman dealing with a suitor literally named "Truelove" in the credits (played by David O'Brien), who gifts her everything outlined in the song, in the quantities specified. Toye and O'Brien act silently, with O'Brien seemingly channeling Charlie Chaplin. Both give great comedic performances, as...

There were numerous live adaptations of A Christmas Carol made in the '40s and '50s, the majority of which were either lost or weren't notable enough to warrant a release. The Stingiest Man in Town seems to have been one of the better-regarded examples, and even that wasn't entirely exempt from being discarded. Until a black and white copy was found in the home of an Alcoa executive in 2011, it was believed lost. Since it's kind of miraculous any version exists, I won't complain too much about not being able to watch it in the original color. Let's back up. The Alcoa Hour was an anthology series sponsored by Alcoa, an aluminum company that's still around. This is the same anthology responsible for the 1955 version of Amahl and the Night Visitors . This 1956 musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol was one of the show's most famous installments. This was also remade as an animated movie in 1978. Scrooge is played by Basil Rathbone, best known as the de...

I reviewed this once before, way back in 2011 (a.k.a.: year two of the blog). I didn't have much to say then, mainly because I hadn't seen all that many adaptations of A Christmas Carol at the time (nor was I all that familiar with the era). This was still in the "we'll be wacky and watch a bunch of Christmas stuff for no reason" phase of the blog.  At the time, I basically summed it up as fine for what it was, but still kind of boring to sit through. After watching the 1935 version with Seymour Hicks , I wanted to give this another viewing to see what I'd missed. Turns out, there was quite a bit.  I've seen this version called the best adaptation out there, a claim that.... Look, I want to be fair here, and - to the extent possible - objective. As a straight adaptation, I think there's a case to be made. This version is faithful to the source material, deviating only to expand the story. I want to take a moment and focus on something that differs bet...

First off, whatever version of Miracle on 34th Street you think this is, you're almost certainly mistaken. This isn't the 1947 classic , nor is it the sickeningly melodramatic 90's remake . In fact, it's not really a movie at all, at least not in any sense I'd use the word. No, this was a TV special attempting to remake the original movie at a breakneck pace to fit neatly into an hour timeslot. That's an hour with commercials - the special itself is around 45 minutes. What's odd about this is that, with a couple exceptions, the parts that aren't cut for time are nearly a word-for-word copy of the original. Hell, the leads even appear to be mimicking the original actors, albeit at a faster clip. Think understudies in a stage play filling in. Since we're more or less using a pared down version of the '47 script, the plot is virtually identical. Kris takes a job as a Macy's Santa (though the scene with the drunken Santa he's hired to replace...

Roy Rogers starred in more than a hundred movies, so I guess the laws of probability dictate at least one would be a Christmas flick. That brings us to "Trail of Robin Hood," a movie I wish I could discuss without first going through the exercise of explaining who Roy Rogers was, what his movies were, and why you should care. Actually, I'll field that last one now: you shouldn't. While this is sort of interesting as a cultural artifact, it doesn't hold up 71 years after its creation. In fact, I'd call it a stretch to refer to this as a movie at all. Which brings us back to who Rogers was and why his "movies" are somewhat distinct. I doubt anyone will be shocked to learn that Roy Rogers was a stage name, but if (like me) you've never subjected yourself to any of his movies, you might not realize Rogers is also the main character in the majority of them. You could look at this as an actor playing a fictionalized version of himself, but I honestly d...