
Tis the season for my television to be dominated by Christmas specials, and there is no Christmas special more special to me than the Dr. Seuss/Chuck Jones animated How the Grinch Stole Christmas.
I could go on and on about its brilliance, its hilarity, its ability to drive home just how magical Christmas can be without drowning in saccharine babble and heavy-handed religious themes. It's a story about giving, community, and redemption. It's perfect.
Every now and then I'll see "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" on my cable menu, jump over to it, and find myself smack-dab in the middle of the Jim Carrey-starred Ron Howard-directed live action version and I'm taken back to the year 2000 . . .
A few days after the Grinch release I dragged my then-girlfriend to a Tuesday matinee, hoping to avoid as many screaming children as possible. Having always been a big Jim Carrey fan, I was excited to see what he would bring to the slimy garlic-souled villain. With Anthony Hopkins taking over Baris Karloff's narration duties, I figured it was a surefire hit. The girlfriend pointed out that we were the only people in the one-third capacity theater who didn't bring a child.
It took about forty-five minutes of this thing to get me to audibly exclaim, "This is bullshit!" In a state of rage and disbelief, I sat glued to my chair like Alex from A Clockwork Orange as horror upon horror bombarded me. I groaned when Cindy-Lou Who warbled a nails-on-chalkboard Christmas song. I choked on Sour Patch Kids when Grinch Carrey oversang a big-band version of the song "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch." After about the thirtieth mirthful Grinchy wisecrack I was making such a scene that the girlfriend remarked that she did, in fact, bring a child and he was misbehaving. After the credits rolled I zombie-walked back to the car, pretty much the same vacant-eyed shuffle-step that followed my first viewing of Requiem for a Dream.
I'm not some cover-thumping purist, far from it. I'm the guy who thinks that the Harry Potter movies became good when they started straying from the books. I'm the guy who loses huge fanboy points by thinking that having elves show up at the battle of Helm's Deep in The Two Towers was a great idea. Film and literature are two entirely different art forms, and remaining 100% faithful to the book is a surefire way to make a clunky, if not crappy, movie.
The perfect example of how to be slavishly faithful to the source material yet also screw it up? Take a quick look at Zack Snyder's well-intentioned but flawed adaptation of Watchmen. The dialogue is lifted, word-for-word, from the book. There are dozens of shots that are straight-up photographs of panels from the comic. The movie was instead submarined by its super-stylized and ultra-violent fight scenes. Snyder missed the point that this was a story about ordinary people who, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, have no powers. He missed the point that having Silk Spectre and Nite Owl kill and maim thugs in a back-alley brawl flew in face of their disdain for Rorschach's violent tactics. He missed The Point.
And that's what Ron Howard does. He misses The Point.
I don't fault Jim Carrey too much for his performance; he was funny, he was bombastic, he was a human cartoon. He brought life and emotion to the table from underneath eighty pounds of makeup and fatsuit. However, he brought the wrong life, the wrong emotion, and much of that blame falls on the director.
The Grinch is not supposed to be a high-energy tornado of comedy. The Grinch is a scumbag, a thing that oozes across the screen instead of being catapulted across it. He's not a mess of espresso and crystal meth, he's a three-decker saukerkraut and toadstool standwich. With arsenic saaaauuuuuce!
The actors did everything that they could do with the script and direction they were given. But oh that script. That goddamn script. That's Carrey's greatest sin: reading that script and not realizing that it stinked, stank, stunk.
I understand that it's difficult to fill an hour and a half with a picture book. Seuss and Jones needed to stretch it a bit just to fill the 21 minutes and 36 seconds of the cartoon. You can add anything your little heart desires to the story so long as you keep it faithful to the spirit of the source material, the Point. Spike Jonze proved it with his brilliant adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are.
If you haven't seen either or both of the Grinch versions, here are capsule plot outlines:
The original: The Whos are a happy little community that loves Christmas. The Grinch, a cave-dwelling monster whose heart is two sizes too small is a vile thing that hates Christmas, the Whos, and their holiday singing. On Christmas Eve he dresses up like Santa, steals all their stuff in the middle of the night, dupes the adorable Cindy Lou Who, and heads to the highest mountain to pitch their Christmas. As he listens for the sounds of weeping and misery, he instead hears their Christmas singing. His heart grows three sizes, he realizes Christmas isn't about materialistic bullshit, and he gives back all of the Whos' stuff and becomes a part of their community.
The remake: The Whos are a materialistic community that loves Christmas. When the Grinch was a baby, he was left in a basket on a Who doorstep. Throughout his entire childhood, the Grinch is constantly teased, harassed, and psychologically abused to the point where he flees Whoville and becomes this vile monster whose heart is too sizes too small. Years later, Cindy Lou Who convinces the Grinch to come back to Whoville and make amends. He reluctantly agrees but is thrown into a fit of rage when he is again belittled by the Whos. On Christmas Eve he dresses up like Santa, steals all their stuff in the middle of the night and heads to the highest mountain to pitch their Christmas. When he finds that Cindy Lou Who has stowed away on his sled o' swag (which, by the way, has rocket engines) his heart grows three sizes and he saves her and the sled. They return to Whoville, where the Whos are broken up about their crap being stolen, and he gives back all of the Whos' stuff. Their hearts are warmed by Cindy Lou and the Grinch, and he becomes a part of the community.
To be perfectly honest, I may have missed a thing here or there, because I haven't seen it in nine years and it was a very traumatic experience. However, that's the gist.
We can all see the minor changes, right? In Howard's version, the Whos are the villains. The Grinch tried and tried again to fit in, but he was pushed to the point of villainy. His motive wasn't out of hate and ignorance, it was vengeance. Honestly, the Whos in this movie deserved to be robbed. The Grinch's heart didn't grow by realizing the true spirit of holiday love and cheer, it grew because he was about to inadvertently murder the one person who showed him kindness.
Don't get me started on the Grinch's romatic subplot with the foxy "Martha May Whovier."
Seuss' general disdain for big business and greed is evident in his original masterpiece, both in book and cartoon form. Christmas is about bringing people together, about love and forgiveness. All of the presents and decorations, well, that's just bonus. The Point of Howard's remake is twofold: 1)Eff with the bull, get the horns. 2)Cute blonde girls heal all wounds.
My Christmas wish this year, as it has been every year this decade, is that someday this live-action thing will fade away and be mostly forgotten, and once again the voice of Boris Karloff will usher in egg nog and snow flurries. Until then, my friends,
Welcome Christmas while we stand
Heart to heart and hand in hand.



















