Why Scrooge Needs to Die
(as Seen Through Barbie in a Christmas Carol)
That sounds like a bit of a harsh title, doesn't it? "Why Scrooge needs to die?" I might as well have written "Why we should kill the people that run the Salvation Army." Scrooge was a pretty good guy at the end of the story, why should he die? Well, I'm actually talking about the shadows that Christmas Future shows Ebeneezer in a possible future where Scrooge hadn't changed his ways. But in order to examine why Scrooge needs to die, we first need to see what happens in an adaptation where he doesn't... or "she" in this case.
Barbie in a Christmas Carol marks the point for me when the Barbie movies (which I am actively a viewer of) got really stupid. There were a few good ones after that but it was about this time when Mattel started to churn one of these out every few months instead of every few years. According to wikipedia this was one of the last films of "generation 2" before they decided to start pandering to an older demographic. While no movies are ever going to dethrone Island Princess as the best written film in the series, Christmas Carol does have something I give a tip of my hat to: the films usage of antagonists. The Barbie movies are notorious for having Skeletor villains for no real reason, and while there are definitely antagonizing forces in A Christmas Carol there isn't one main one. This was the film that broke the formula, and though everything else in the film is contrived, stupid, and overall not up to snuff, I'm willing to call it one of the best purely because of that.
Other than that, the film carries each of the Barbie movie tropes and get checked off of the drinking game one by one. The most notorious to me was the magic crap snow globe that showed up at the end, but I feel most pissed off by the anachronisms. They didn't have Christmas trees in Victorian England dang it, and that song hadn't been translated yet!
But, criticisms of movies for little girls aside, the movie was pretty good but broke the source material it was based on. I don't think this is the only adaptation that does this, but it is the one that comes to mind first. Scrooge doesn't die. The Barbie equivalent of Scrooge, Eden Starling goes to a future where she has basically swapped economic positions with the Bob Cratchit character, Catherine. And Catherine has been turned into the capitalist jerk that Eden once was. The orphanage has been closed, but most importantly, Eden has been downgraded to the peasant class and is now a beggar on the streets. This seems like a more prominent thing than death to the context of the narrative, but really it isn't for several reasons.
1st, this makes no sense within the narrative presented. Eden and Scrooge would both have to go through some pretty drastic coincidences to end up on the poverty line, and there's no way in hell that people so keen on the collection and retention of money would do something to spontaneously lose a lot of it. This is supposed to be Eden's most probable future, but her character as presented at the beginning of the narrative has a greater chance of being bit by a shark on land than she does of losing all of her money all of a sudden.
2nd, why did Catherine turn into such a jerk? If this event happened to Bob Cratchit, he wouldn't have changed his values at all. Bob would still like people and try to help people and try to adopt Tiny Tina and actually could because he wouldn't be a single woman who has very little value in Victorian society. The Bill Murray movie Scrooged did this too. What purpose does having the nice loving poor character turn into a greedy a**hole serve in the context of the narrative? It is supposed to show the negative long term effects, but there wouldn't be any negative long term effects if Scrooge died!
3rd, this is filtered through a modern context. The reason that Eden Starling doesn't die is because it seems like stooping down to a lower level is scarier than death, and the reason it seems scarier than death is because this death is filtered through modern eyes.
Death is scary to us because it is the end of all the opportunities when you can do things. Also, people live a long time now so death seems like a reasonably avoidable thing. In Dickens time, death wasn't scary, people died all the time and were more religious than they are now, so Scrooge isn't scared of his death, he's scared of the fact that he died without atoning for the things he's done. He doesn't want to turn into a chain bearing ghost like Marley has, he wants to actually make a difference in peoples lives and change what he saw in the shadows of the present.
The thing that the Barbie movie did is also a legitimate fear, but it's a legitimate fear that fuels the need for money and longevity instead of trying to let go of those things. Also, the Barbie adaptation has such a weak ending because things have time to get fixed, but in the original, things need to happen now. Scrooge isn't scared of losing everything he has, Scrooge is scared of losing the opportunity to give those things to others.
Which of these is more prominent?
Merry Christmas.
Barbie in a Christmas Carol marks the point for me when the Barbie movies (which I am actively a viewer of) got really stupid. There were a few good ones after that but it was about this time when Mattel started to churn one of these out every few months instead of every few years. According to wikipedia this was one of the last films of "generation 2" before they decided to start pandering to an older demographic. While no movies are ever going to dethrone Island Princess as the best written film in the series, Christmas Carol does have something I give a tip of my hat to: the films usage of antagonists. The Barbie movies are notorious for having Skeletor villains for no real reason, and while there are definitely antagonizing forces in A Christmas Carol there isn't one main one. This was the film that broke the formula, and though everything else in the film is contrived, stupid, and overall not up to snuff, I'm willing to call it one of the best purely because of that.
Other than that, the film carries each of the Barbie movie tropes and get checked off of the drinking game one by one. The most notorious to me was the magic crap snow globe that showed up at the end, but I feel most pissed off by the anachronisms. They didn't have Christmas trees in Victorian England dang it, and that song hadn't been translated yet!
But, criticisms of movies for little girls aside, the movie was pretty good but broke the source material it was based on. I don't think this is the only adaptation that does this, but it is the one that comes to mind first. Scrooge doesn't die. The Barbie equivalent of Scrooge, Eden Starling goes to a future where she has basically swapped economic positions with the Bob Cratchit character, Catherine. And Catherine has been turned into the capitalist jerk that Eden once was. The orphanage has been closed, but most importantly, Eden has been downgraded to the peasant class and is now a beggar on the streets. This seems like a more prominent thing than death to the context of the narrative, but really it isn't for several reasons.
1st, this makes no sense within the narrative presented. Eden and Scrooge would both have to go through some pretty drastic coincidences to end up on the poverty line, and there's no way in hell that people so keen on the collection and retention of money would do something to spontaneously lose a lot of it. This is supposed to be Eden's most probable future, but her character as presented at the beginning of the narrative has a greater chance of being bit by a shark on land than she does of losing all of her money all of a sudden.
2nd, why did Catherine turn into such a jerk? If this event happened to Bob Cratchit, he wouldn't have changed his values at all. Bob would still like people and try to help people and try to adopt Tiny Tina and actually could because he wouldn't be a single woman who has very little value in Victorian society. The Bill Murray movie Scrooged did this too. What purpose does having the nice loving poor character turn into a greedy a**hole serve in the context of the narrative? It is supposed to show the negative long term effects, but there wouldn't be any negative long term effects if Scrooge died!
3rd, this is filtered through a modern context. The reason that Eden Starling doesn't die is because it seems like stooping down to a lower level is scarier than death, and the reason it seems scarier than death is because this death is filtered through modern eyes.
Death is scary to us because it is the end of all the opportunities when you can do things. Also, people live a long time now so death seems like a reasonably avoidable thing. In Dickens time, death wasn't scary, people died all the time and were more religious than they are now, so Scrooge isn't scared of his death, he's scared of the fact that he died without atoning for the things he's done. He doesn't want to turn into a chain bearing ghost like Marley has, he wants to actually make a difference in peoples lives and change what he saw in the shadows of the present.
The thing that the Barbie movie did is also a legitimate fear, but it's a legitimate fear that fuels the need for money and longevity instead of trying to let go of those things. Also, the Barbie adaptation has such a weak ending because things have time to get fixed, but in the original, things need to happen now. Scrooge isn't scared of losing everything he has, Scrooge is scared of losing the opportunity to give those things to others.
Which of these is more prominent?
Merry Christmas.