Grinch Wars: Jim Carrey's Grinch May Not Have Been The Grinch We Deserved, But He Was The One We Needed in 2000
A few weeks ago, my lovely coworker Carly published an article dissecting the original Grinch movie and its two 21st century adaptations, concluding that the original animated version of Dr. Suess' How The Grinch Stole Christmas is not only superior to the others, but also the only one that captures the real meaning of the story.
She convinced me on the second point. I'll give her that.
"In the 1966 classic, The Grinch is the only one who is grouchy about the perceived commercialism of Christmas, but, through his Grinchly plight, he realizes that The Whos were giving these gifts to express love... Christmas, however, is not dead when The Grinch steals the gifts, because The Whos recognize that, while gift giving is their FAVORITE way to show love, the love exists and prevails without the ability to express it in gift form.
"The 2000 adaptation keeps The Whos in constant Christmasy competition: Competition to have the best decorations, competition to get the best presents, competition to be the Holiday Cheermeister (and the fact they didn't call it WHO-liday Cheermister proves that Dr. Seuss had no hand in this). Everyone in Whoville is bogged down in Christmasy commercialism.
"If The Whos aren't filled with the Christmas spirit, that means that gifts are Christmas to them. Therefore, when The Grinch steals the gifts, he succeeds. He stole Christmas. Point Grinch."
I'll be honest: I was ready to die on the Jim Carrey Grinch hill, I really was. I grew up on that movie (because for some reason as a child I was obsessed with Jim Carrey, go figure) and I can quote it at will ("Brilliant! You reject your own nose because it represents the glitter of commercialism!") - but she's right. The original point of the story was exactly as she said: To remind the people who DON'T get it that Christmas isn't ABOUT the gifts, they're just a perk, and that real Christmas is about togetherness and love.
I was going to respond to that article with the counterpoint that the Jim Carrey Grinch is more fun to watch (the one-liners ALONE, my god), even if she is right...but then I had my annual rewatch last night, and I realized that she isn't.
Like, she is. But she's also not.
The 1966 Grinch Was A Simpler Story For A Simpler Time
After the end of WWII, the world was a VERY different place, and Christmas was celebrated very differently. Compared to where we are right now (when the Christmas decorations in stores go up the same day Halloween ones come down), Christmas was only just beginning to be commercialized - at that point in time, the US was coming to create its own Christmas traditions after porting most of them over from Germany for years. (Because German things were kinda on the no-no list at the time.) Along with that came a host of new Christmas products and songs, creating a very different picture of Christmastime than years previous.
By 1966, many people were probably overwhelmed by the Christmas culture that resulted from the combination of the boom in population and industry at the end of WWII, and all these new traditions that were so different from the...well...traditional traditions. Unexpected changes to tradition is actually the leading cause of grinchiness in the world, and we've known this for as long as humans have been around: You switch something up, we complain until we get used to it or they change it back.
It therefore follows that the original Grinch was likely meant to remind those grumpy traditionalists that, while the gifts were a fun way to show that we love each other (and our country, I guess?), that the people giving them are doing it for the same reasons as always; To support and celebrate friends and family during the darkest, coldest time of the year.
By the year 2000, the world was a different place again. The US just before 9/11 was basically high on itself in every way possible - and commercialism and consumerism are two VERY American things. By then, those kids who grew up on the newer, more US-Native version of Christmas were on the other side as parents, and the general populace had never known a Christmas that wasn't heavily commercialized.
The version of Whoville we see in the Jim Carrey Grinch was meant to reflect a world that felt more familiar to the viewer: One that was rushed, materialistic, and overwhelming. Cindy Lou Who is a child growing up not "getting" Christmas because she's never seen what it was before it became All That - but she has a gut feeling that this isn't how it's supposed to be. Everything LOOKS like Christmas, but she doesn't understand why it's special because she doesn't FEEL it.
The Grinch is a creature with plenty of experience in "not feeling" the love. He grew up visibly different (there's been a lot of discussion on Twitter this week about whether Grinch is even actually his name or just a slur that became his name), and he never got to experience the kind of love that's supposed to come with the exchange of Christmas gifts. The one time he tried to participate, he was mocked, and his gift was rejected. (And then he decided to leave his gay moms and go live alone on a mountain. (BTW, props to Universal for sneakily giving the Grinch two moms in the year 2000.))
The Grinch still needs help learning what Christmas is all about in Jim Carrey's version - but this time around, so do the Whos. Putting the burden to explain that on little Cindy Lou Who's shoulders wasn't right - but it was kind of accurate.
The 2000 Grinch Was A Story For An Audience of Millennial Children
If you look at our political landscape now, it's clear that the generation that Cindy Lou Who belonged to (Millennials) understood instinctively that something was wrong with her society's perceptions, and started doing something about it - hence the political unrest that began in the real world when a majority of that generation came of age, around 2008.
She also reached out to The Grinch - a traumatized and mentally unwell individual who was thoroughly rejected by his own peers - and pointed out that maybe if people were nicer to him, he would be more pleasant; maybe if someone would give him a little love at Christmas, he'd finally understand what it's all about. There's a very direct parallel there that ties to the modern movement to prioritize and discuss mental health rather than sweeping it under the rug - a movement also spearheaded by Millennials.
We don't need to make this too political, but it's obvious that Jim Carrey's Grinch film was a reflection of the changes that our society had undergone since Dr. Seuss penned the original - the materialism of the Whos isn't an accidental inaccuracy; it's a comment on modern society. (Or, rather, modern society 20 years ago.)
The fact that this version of the story has somehow become the blueprint for future films IS a problem, however, because the distortion of the central point of the 1966 Grinch only works if it remains an easily identifiable distortion. If you forget that it's a comment on something, the whole story just begins to look wrong.
So in conclusion, while I had bones to pick with Carly's analysis of this film, she was ultimately right: We should continue watching and playing the original 1966 Grinch, and never give it less credit than its successor; because if we don't, not only will we lose its message to time, the 2000 Grinch's overall message goes missing too. (And given Jim Carrey's stellar performance in that role, that would be a tragedy.)
