On
Sunday, December 22, the FX network premiered its new take on Charles Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol.” In passing, I saw a
visual that struck me as odd, but I was not in a position to settle in and
watch. Curious, I read a little about the new production. The critics called it
“gritty,” uniform in their warnings that this interpretation was not at all reminiscent
of the Muppet’s version. I read a
little more. The developers claimed that nuances were drawn from “deeper
readings” of the text, paragraphs here and there that are often overlooked.
These allegedly served to inspire some of the additional material in the movie.
I
decided to embark on a little experiment. I would listen to Dicken’s original
on an audiobook, not a play nor a dramatization. It would take a little over
three hours, but I drive an hour to work so I knew I could fit it in. Then, I would
watch the FX presentation in its entirety. You see, that particular rhetoric
about “a deeper reading” triggers me for reasons that will soon become evident.
I
listened carefully to the audiobook. Then, on Christmas Eve, I watched the
movie. Suffice it to say, I did not pick up on any paragraphs in the book that
so much as remotely hinted about: 1) Jacob Marley’s interactions in purgatory
with the Ghost of Christmas Past; 2) Scrooge and Marley’s complicity in scores
of negligent homicides due to their indifference to essential industrial
repairs amongst their scores of holdings; 3) the deliverance of a young Scrooge
from a pattern of sexual abuse by his schoolmaster when his older sister,
Lottie (a wholly- fabricated character), rescued Ebenezer at gunpoint; 4) Scrooge’s
sexual extortion of Mrs. Cratchitt as she desperately seeks funds to pay for Tiny
Tim’s life-saving surgery; 5) Mrs. Cratchitt’s repeated lies to poor old Bob in
covering up her act of desperation; 6) the idea that the visitations to Scrooge
by the three spirits were initiated by some vague conjuring from an angry Mrs.
Cratchitt.
Additionally,
sentiments and actions were attributed to characters that actually violated the
text. An exasperated Fred never told his wife that he was through with inviting
Uncle Scrooge to Christmas dinner. In Dicken’s original, the nephew explicitly
said that he would keep inviting his uncle every year. Young Scrooge’s abusive
father did not bail on the family so that the way home for Ebenezer was made
possible. In the book, Scrooge’s younger sister said, “Father has become so
much kinder.” Scrooge did not shut down his business at the end of the story
and wander off into an unclear future. Rather, Dickens wrote that he became
like a “second father” to Tiny Tim. And, of course, all kinds of events and
words were placed in inaccurate settings.
Now,
before anyone scolds me about the nature of poetic license or artistic liberty,
let me say, “I get that.” So, script writers, just tell me that you took such
liberties and not that you read Dickens “more deeply.” The latter comes across
as a bluff. I was reminded of certain “constitutional scholars” I heard in
recent weeks. I take nothing away from scholarship, but I think I have a fairly
well-developed radar for bluffs. Constitutional scholarship does not mean that
one’s opinion on this or that matter should invoke awe in others, especially
when the others know what is in the constitution. That is a mere bluff.
The
greatest defense against being the victim of a bluff is very simple. KNOW THE
SOURCE MATERIAL!
Perhaps,
nothing too critical hinges on whether or not a remake of a Dicken’s classic is
particularly accurate. So, I will tell you at this point why claims of “deeper
readings” are such triggers for me. Christianity today is being distorted,
misrepresented and undermined because too many believers choose to be ignorant
of their source material. In the meantime, new scholarship, new approaches to
meanings of words, new alleged archeological findings and new treatments of
historical contexts are turning traditional Christian values and virtues on
their head. Marriage is being redefined. Every biblical standard for human
sexuality is being cast aside. Abortion is virtuous. Any sincerely-held belief
will lead a person to heaven. Apparently, when Jesus said, “Judge not,” He meant that neither He nor His disciples should ever
exercise the audacity to simply distinguish between light and darkness, sin and
virtue, or right and wrong.
I
expect the world to oppose and undermine the church. I am angered by wolves who
misrepresent truth with their claims of scholarship and deeper readings. I am
nothing short of mesmerized by believers who are so disinterested in their
source material that they will fall for and often parrot what they hear, simply
because they lack discernment, that is, a scripturally-informed radar for bluffs.
