Carol for Another Christmas (1964)

Too much of everything

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This should be rerun now, and every year that our current president is current. The words of Peter Sellers' Imperial Me could've been written about Trump specifically. The nuclear devastation will be provided later. The script is Serling at his most pessimistic, and yet terrifyingly prescient.

I'm a big fan of The Twilight Zone. I have enjoyed Rod Serling's writing, whether it was Zone or Night Gallery or his film work. But he had his failings as a writer, too. Specifically when he felt passionately about a cause, he could write some dialogue that was pretty heavy-handed and prone to speechifying. Usually this was limited in the restraints of a half-hour television show. But in this film-length special he is not only afforded the opportunity to get on his soapbox quite a bit more, but encouraged to do so. And so he does, almost nonstop, and the film suffers for it.The plot is a reworking of Dickens' A Christmas Carol for the 1960s. Sterling Hayden plays our Scrooge-like character, Daniel Grudge, a wealthy man who lost his son, Marley, in World War II. So now he's a bitter, jaded isolationist who scoffs at ideas of world peace or brotherhood of man. Like Scrooge, he will be visited by three spirits. But not before we get a long opening argument between Hayden and Ben Gazzara. This whole protracted piece was more of a political debate than actual conversation two people would have. It would also begin an interesting recurring theme throughout this story. That is that Serling, as the writer, had no answers for any of these problems beyond platitudes. Sometimes Gazzara would make a point and Hayden would have no real rebuttal. Sometimes Hayden would make a point and Gazzara would have nothing. While one could make an argument this is representative of real-life political discourse, I would argue it's also representative of the same outcome of that: apathy. We the viewers, like we the voters, grow apathetic towards repeated arguments that lead nowhere with no real solutions offered beyond the abstract. Later in the story Hayden's character just stops arguing his point and converts his beliefs with no legitimate reason given why he would do this, other than they needed to get him to the inevitable Scrooge-sees-the-light ending. Because he was dealing with real world issues that he has no solid solutions to, Serling has Hayden change suddenly and you're left with the feeling that it happened "just because." Speaking of Sterling Hayden, he is a wooden actor and is especially stiff here. Truthfully his performance in this special at times is just plain awful, with that vacant expression on his face that leaves us to figure out if he's deep in thought or on the verge of a poo.The Ghost of Christmas Past is played by Steve Lawrence, who plays the role with a casual ease that's enjoyable to watch....at first. But after a short while he starts to grate on the nerves and comes across as a cocksure jerk. More patronizing soapboxing. A favorite reply of Serling's in this special is to have someone respond to something Hayden says to them with something akin to "Oh is that so." It happens frequently and is very annoying.The Ghost of Christmas Present is played by Pat Hingle and he does fine in a rather forgettable segment about starving children. This is the weakest piece of sophistry in the film. There's a rule online that basically goes "the first person to bring Hitler into any argument automatically loses." Well, there should also be a rule that the first person to bring starving children into any argument also loses. The Ghost of Christmas Future is played by Robert Shaw and this segment is the best. Shaw breathes life into the wordy script. Then comes Peter Sellers as the Imperial Me and it's a whole different film. The entire sequence outclasses everything that has happened in the previous hour. Why? Because this is what film is: stories told through a combination of words and especially images. The rest of the special was just a series of monologues and political stump speeches. That's not good filmmaking or good storytelling. Sellers and Shaw are excellent in this part. They really take Hayden to acting school and embarrass him. Had the entire special been like this, regardless of the message, I would have loved it. After the Future segment, we're back to the present and Hayden's inevitable change of heart. Of course, because Hayden is a robotic actor lacking in emotion, we are left to guess if he is sincere in this change. Ben Gazzara shows back up to be a sore winner and heap more lecturing on Hayden, despite the philosophical change Hayden's undergone. Amusingly, Gazzara seems neither surprised nor impressed with it. Terrible writing that even the worst retelling of Carol has gotten right. If you don't feel Scrooge has really changed in the end, what was the point of the story? Then, there is the patronizing ending that will make your eyes roll. I won't spoil it for you if you want to be surprised. The best I'll say about it is that I'm sure Serling's heart was in the right place.Overall, it's a curious experiment that is mostly unsuccessful. However, the star power involved and the phenomenal future segment with Shaw and Sellers warrant you should check it out. Serling fans, especially those who embrace even the clunkiest of his works, will enjoy it most.

First off I am a Rod Serling fan. Second I do not like this movie.. It is a once around as far as I am concerned. I know the story is not so cheery when the various ghosts visit and should end in a positive way with scrooge reforming and becoming a very pleasant person to know. In this version I don't think I would care to know him even after he has had his visits. It will shake you up, and make you think, but I have no desire to own it for secondary viewing. I was left feeling like the whole tale was a major bummer. It is very political and brings out anti-war feelings that were very strong in 1964. We were getting deeper into Vietnam, and of course Kennedy was fresh in every ones minds, so I am sure this hit hard with the message of this movie. I say see it if you are curious, but if you like the happier, upbeat versions this is not for you. By the way I don't like Scrooged either.

Turner Classic Movies blindsided me tonight when they decided to run this rarity, a special that ran on Monday, 28 December 1964 on ABC. Yes, this special runs like a final episode of "The Twilight Zone."And that is not a bad thing!This remake of "A Christmas Carol" is, by "Zone" standards, edgy. First, Joseph Mankewicz directs this, his only television project. The cast is first-rate, from Sterling Holloway to Peter Sellers and Steve Lawrence. Unlike the original CBS series, this was filmed in New York City.This special makes me wonder whether or not "The Twilight Zone" might have lasted longer, had it aired on The Alphabet Network. In the 1960s, that network was far edgier than CBS, the original host for Rod Serling's series.Many people may find Rod Serling's writing shrill. OK, my views are very similar to his, and my family knew him personally. But in this day and age, this special is like a badly needed slap in the face. If his writing is difficult, the actors overcome this.And as for the ending: Remember, this is late 1964, when television was still a fairly timid medium, reliant on advertising. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had just been passed, and the march on Selma, Alabama was in the future. For the script's stiff qualities, I give this 9/10, but for overall effort and intention, I give this 100,000,000/10.PS: And given how, even in late 1964, animosity against the Japanese existed, seeing this special is refreshing.