Suddenly Dickens' timeless tale is too scary? Humbug.

After reading numerous reviews of Robert Zemeckis’ newly released A Christmas Carol, starring Jim Carrey, it appears that there are two main congruences among the majority of critics who disliked the film: 1) the film lacks the warmth and emotional weight of the book and other adaptations; 2) certain parts are too scary for children. The lacking of an emotional connection (which no critic I have yet read has successfully explained and/or articulated) is certainly a valid critique if one were to grade the film based purely on a personalized evaluative judgment, but the argument that the film is too scary for kids intrigues me.

Exactly what makes a movie “too” scary for kids? And for that matter, who said the movie was made just for kids? Pixar’s Up, which was released earlier this year to wide critical acclaim and is a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination, opened with a montage that explicated how Mr. Fredrickson and his wife were unable to conceive a child of their own, and how later Mr. Fredrickson eventually became a widower. Those old enough to understand what was being explained got teary-eyed, while little kids just sat there confused. This is certainly not “kiddy” material, and yet it’s at the beginning of a children’s movie. Critics praised this. The consensus is that one reason Pixar is such a fantastic filmmaking company is because their films can be thoroughly enjoyed by audiences of all ages. The point becomes – if Pixar can be heralded for not being afraid to appeal to audience demographics aside from just children, then why criticize Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol for attempting to do the same thing?

Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol in 1843 attempting to appeal to as wide-range an audience as possible because he was hard pressed for money. The story itself reflects this, as it contains hauntings, romance, religious motifs, social criticism, political criticism, and a positive message. Aside from a positive message and romance, none of these features are present in a typical children’s film (at least not to the degree that Dickens’ included them). So why is it that we expect adaptations of Dickens’ story to be geared towards kids? In the case of Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol, the reason is because it’s attached to Disney.

But even this is a shaky excuse. Disney also plastered its name onto the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and those films were filled with more than their fair share of adult material (both hidden and unhidden) and “frightening imagery.”  Yet, many people love those films – or at least The Curse of the Black Purl – and there were hardly any complaints that they were “too scary for kids.”

So for a film, the source material for which was not written to be geared specifically to kids, like Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol to get the flack that it is for not aiming enough towards the <10 demographic and containing too much scary imagery, seems a little unfair.

Or is it? Tell us what your thoughts are by posting a comment below.