How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

In 1957, author Theodore Geisel, known more commonly as “Dr. Seuss,” published a charming little story about a grouchy curmudgeon who hated the season of giving and decides to steal it away from everyone, only to learn that “Christmas doesn’t come from a store.” The book was an obvious criticism of the avarice and greed in the holiday season. The book was animated into a half-hour special, released in 1966 which, believe it or not, some people are not presently aware of its existence. The Grinch is a grumpy persona who lives away from the noise and people in the mountains. I don’t know exactly WHEN I started relating to the Grinch, but I digress. Both the book and short are such a staple of the holiday that, when Hollywood “re-imaginings” were starting to gain popularity, director Ron Howard took a swing at the classic tale, taking over from director Tim Burton, and casting Jim Carrey as the Grinch. There are some who hate this movie and some who love this movie. In the case of the former, the most common element that pops up is the statement: “I don’t like Jim Carrey.” Even if you don’t like him or his zany antics, is he really the biggest problem with this film? Now, I’m going to be fair: I do love this movie. I first saw it in theatres when I was a little kid and, good or bad, it is a staple of my holidays, just as much as the animated short is. That does not mean that this movie is perfect.

Let’s start with the cinematography and lighting. Personally, I find a lot of the camera techniques very interesting, particularly during the “steal Christmas” third act. When the Grinch slinks to the ice-box, it cranes from a high angle to a low angle in perfect synch with him opening the door. When we meet Lou-Who, he’s crowded and reading off a Christmas list, only to have the shot end on the reveal of Cindy behind the boxes. Even the close-up shots usually serve the purpose of showing the conniving or frightening nature of the Grinch. When Cindy first sees him, His face fills the frame, as though it’s from her point of view. For the most part, though, I think the lighting was off. Not that it was inconsistent or anything. In fact, most of the scenes maintain their lighting throughout. But the problem is that the lighting is somehow not vibrant. The colours don’t pop off the screen. You could argue that this is a subtle jab at Hallmark movies, which have similar lighting styles. This made the film different from the short, but just felt like a gritty reboot.

Which makes sense since Tim Burton was originally slated to direct (having done a gritty reboot for “Batman” and “Sleepy Hollow”). This kind of shows in the set. There are a ton of spirals in the clouds, Mt. Crumpet, and in the architecture. Every shot has smoke or fog in the background, creating this dystopian feel to the movie. Whoville always has snow falling somewhere in the frame, which is a nice touch. The Grinch’s lair is inventive and dark, perfectly showing his character. I also like the neat little touch that Cindy’s room is always in darkness, as well. During the “Where Are You, Christmas” song sequence, she has to use a flashlight to look around. I feel like this may have been intentional to link these two characters together through symbolic means. The rest of the set is unique and interesting to look at, even if the lighting doesn’t do it justice.

There weren’t really many moments where the editing stood out to me as intrusive. The only thing I can clearly think of is when Grinch is putting together the sled and the movements are sped up. There is clear staging and actions that help hide the cuts. Something else I noticed was the use of spinning cameras to transition between scenes or during sequences, such as when Grinch is heading to the Whobilation, and it spins when the center become the red on Cindy’s nose. The camera does rotate a lot in this film, but the editing does hide that well by using it to transition from shot to shot.

The effects are not as good as I remember them being. Sure, this was never going to be “Lord of the Rings” or “Jurassic Park,” having been produced by Imagine Entertainment (Universal was only the distributor), but some of the effects that got through were pretty bad. When he steals the sugar plums, the blue screen behind him during the explosion, and pretty much anytime they had to rely on CGI.

This is, however, undone with the makeup, which is spectacular. Some people tell me that the Whos are creepy, but I like their look just fine. If we remember that these creatures aren’t human, it makes it a bit easier. Plus, everyone has a consistency from who to who; no one looks like they don’t belong. Even those that hide the prosthetics with a beard don’t create a disconnect. The only one who looks a little different is Cindy, but she’s supposed to be the outcast in the town, so this is a good way to show that visually. The costumes are a little weird. I still can’t figure out why Cindy’s family wears breakfast plates to the Whobilation. There are two twins who wear pink and white suits (oh, because they’re supposed to be Candy Canes… okay, I’m all caught up there). I do like the Mayor going over the top in demonstrating his authority and importance, especially with his cape. Martha May-Who wears a red top and green bottom dress to the Whobilation, which is interesting because the Mayor is wearing a red cape and the Grinch is green (yes, red and green are the traditional Christmas colours, but it’s still an interesting detail).

And of course, the standout for makeup and costume is Jim Carrey, who looks EXACTLY like the Grinch. The hair and fur that the suit creates really honours the original design and its green colour honours the animated short.

From what I understand, Carrey sought counselling to combat the claustrophobic nature of the costume. Well, you wouldn’t be able to tell that he felt confined at all. He’s energetic in just about every scene he’s in, utilizing his typical Carrey mannerisms to bring more movement to the Grinch. From what I understand, this performance may have been a big contributor to people’s hatred of this film, and I can’t fully pretend I don’t understand why. While I find Carrey funny in this movie and others, it IS a huge disconnect from what the character is supposed to be. The Grinch was supposed to be a grumpy old man who hated everyone and everything. He was isolated and bitter. Carrey does not move like that. If they had gotten someone like Walter Matthau to be the Grinch, he would’ve had a more accurate movement. This Grinch, though, moves like a cartoon, which is evidenced by his over-exaggerated movements, and Jim Carrey doing a Road-Runner impression after shaving Mayor May-Who. Having said that, this is not a Grinch that I’m going to forget. Yeah, parts of Carrey’s personality shine through, ruining some parts of the illusion, but the accent and the fluidity in which he moves makes me see this as a real character rather than an actor in the suit. My opinion is that Carrey did a good job. Silly, but good.

Taylor Momsen plays Cindy Lou-Who and does her job well. I know some people have a problem with her singing voice, but honestly… do you remember how poorly YOU sung when you were a kid? Cut her a break, especially since she grew up to become a singer for The Pretty Reckless. There are a few instances where I don’t think they got the reaction they were hoping for and even more where I think there was a cut joke or something because she laughs when there was nothing funny really happening.

Jeffrey Tambor always plays arrogant really well (George Bluth, Glossaryk, Tom Manning) and here was no different. Christina Baranski (who I know most prominently as Leonard’s mother in “The Big Bang Theory”) does a great job playing the… “trophy girlfriend who loves someone else” archetype. While I’m not really fond of anyone else’s performance in the film, I do love Molly Shannon as Betty Lou-Who. Every line she says has me in stitches and she plays determined like nobody’s business. And Anthony Hopkins as the narrator is a very soothing voice.

Speaking of soothing audio, I can’t pretend that I dislike how the movie sounds. There is a ton of machine noises (gears turning, klaxon buzzers, cars beeping). Part of updating a story includes updating the world of the story, and I think this kind of helps the theme symbolically (maybe too subtly because even I know I’m reaching a bit). It’s possible that the added use of mechanical sounds helps to emphasize how machine-like Christmas has become… factory produced toys and trinkets, happening every year like clockwork (hence the clock that counts down until Christmas), and how the sled is more mechanized than either the book or the short. Could be a nod to the growing reliance on technology, further offsetting the “true meaning of Christmas.”

The music in the film never really engaged me. While I like the Small Town Titans version, the Boris Karloff version of “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch” is so iconic and I don’t think this version does it justice. “Where Are You Christmas” has more quality to the lyrics than it does to the music but is a very soothing song. Other than that, Christmas songs and carols fill in the gaps, and since I work retail jobs to fund my life, I have to listen to those on repeat during the holiday season. So, I don’t care for that.

The plot is probably where people have the biggest problems with this film and… I completely understand. The idea to steal Christmas doesn’t actually come into play until one hour into a ninety-minute movie. Up until that point, we get insight into the Grinch’s background, Cindy trying to find the meaning of Christmas, the Mayor being a self-entitled jerk, and other kind-of-pointless filler stuff, like the light competition, Jim Carrey’s schtick routines, casual yodeller murder, and a love story that really didn’t need to exist. Additionally, the original story had Whoville showing the Grinch the true meaning of Christmas, whereas this version the Grinch, along with Cindy, have to remind Whoville what that is. But there are a couple of reasons why this doesn’t bother me.

First is that the story isn’t necessarily about the Grinch learning the meaning of Christmas: he’s just the plot device by which the audience is meant to learn the lesson. His backstory is that he was bullied around Christmas, in front of the girl he liked, after making her a present to show how much he cared for her. So the one time of the year that was supposed to be about everyone coming together and being with friends and family, he found that the one chance he had at that was taken away ON CHRISTMAS. As a result, he develops a bitter hatred for the holiday, feeling like it’s tied up with gifts. It’s also worth noting that he makes Martha’s gift out of garbage, which is where he says MOST of Whoville’s gifts end up anyway. This askew version of what Christmas means is more of the catalyst that causes him to finally act than the noise that he hears. Like I said before, updating a story for modern audiences also requires you to update the movie’s world for that audience. It’s not just that he wants the holiday to go away because he has a headache. He wants to destroy the holiday because, for him, it’s the worst possible time of year and he’s sick of everyone holding it in such high regard. History repeats itself when he finally feels accepted by the Whos only to be made fun of and embarrassed again. This is what causes him to act.

The second reason for the Who’s not really understanding the meaning of Christmas not bothering me is that… it is updating the world of the story. There’s essentially a Black Friday scene where everyone is losing their minds for 99% off just to get the gifts they want. Betty and Martha are competing for who has the best lights. The Mayor is focused on ceremonies and awards. Most of these events do have the underlying idea of “family and togetherness” behind them. Gift giving embodies the “season of giving;” putting up lights is getting into the holiday spirit; even the Mayor’s ceremonies and award (which are just used to boost his own ego) do feature most of Whoville hanging out with each other, thereby promoting togetherness. Cindy is the only one who seems to understand that something is off about this, but is too young and naïve to really know what it is. The truth: it’s just excessive. The fact that the Whos had a second, pre-decorated tree to replace the previous one shows a level of commitment consistent with being in a cult. She even opens the movie with the thematic line: “doesn’t this seem like a bit much?”

Honestly, I would argue that CINDY is the protagonist of the film. She’s the one taking action in the story, which advances several plotlines; she changes the world for the better; she has a goal, created by the inciting incident of meeting the Grinch (she wants to understand why the Grinch hates Christmas to further understand why she’s having difficulty with the holiday); and when everything seems lost, she withdraws and takes the Grinch’s statement about “Christmas meaning presents” at face value. Now, since the movie is about the Grinch, his devotion to inaction is an action in and of itself. So, the two are intertwined on this journey to understand Christmas. The Grinch is old and bitter, whereas Cindy is young and confused. The Grinch is certain he understands, where Cindy questions everything. Two polar opposites form an unlikely and unusual alliance to help remind the town of the meaning of Christmas. Without Cindy bringing the Grinch to the Whobilation to suffer embarrassment, he never feels the need for revenge and doesn’t take the presents and decorations. Without that, Whoville does not come to the realization that Christmas doesn’t come from a store. Basically, it’s being told you need these things to live, but upon realizing the truth, you’re grateful to the person who exposed that for you. Which is probably why the Grinch does not go to jail.

While I do think the original works stronger for the theme, with only the Grinch being confused and angry and then learning the lesson, this one does update the story in a reasonably meaningful way. However, there is a HUGE problem with this movie that I’m surprised I didn’t notice or was informed about before: the whole “singing around the tree, hand in hand” thing is never brought up before the climax. In the original, this set up was used to help further emphasize how annoyed the Grinch was with the holiday, but became the emotional payoff to the whole story by being the thing that told him what Christmas meant. Here, though it does seem like a surprise, isn’t built up in a way that makes sense. Coupled with the Whoville residents blaming and yelling before singing, the entire emotional crux of the climax is robbed of its emotional impact, thereby dampening the meaning behind the movie.

All in all, I do still love this movie. The story does depart from the original in pretty weird ways (especially with the infidelity and swinging jokes), but the way the battle of old and young plays out with the Grinch and Cindy works to help fix the Ordinary World of Whoville. The acting is a little over-the-top, especially from Carrey, but these people are supposed to be celebrating their favourite time of year, so I buy that they’re giddy beyond all reason. I’m not a fan of how muted the colours are and the smoky nature of the set, but the costumes and makeup are interesting to watch. And Carrey brings 110% to this role, almost disappearing into the character and never letting on how uncomfortable he was.

And I think it got the gist of the original down. All holidays have definitely become heavily commercialized, even more so than when the story was written. Hell, even more so since this movie came out. So, while the theme of “Christmas doesn’t come from a store” is hammered into us by everyone (even corporations trying to use this as a marketing ploy), it is still an important lesson to learn. I do think that the original animated short is still the definitive version of the Grinch, utilizing good visuals and a succinct story to get it’s point across, but there’s no denying the amount of satire and criticism that this movie displays.