A Christmas Carol. We all know the story- even if the one that springs to mind is the Muppets' or Catherine Tate version. Who can fail to be moved at the sight of Tiny Tim singing Silent Night, or satisfied at the redemption of the man who has now become the stereotype for all Christmas-haters? But this two-man production promised something different, a new spin on a traditional tale. It poised itself as a conduit to a novel way of seeing these characters: 'There has never been a telling of A Christmas Carol quite like this - Scrooge and Marley go head to head, battling it out for redemption'.

And tell the story of Scrooge it did- but, in terms of the substance of the plot, it all felt very conventional. It was very much traditional take on the tale: enter Scrooge, berating Christmas - 'you keep your Christmas and I'll keep mine'. He is visited by the manacled Jacob Marley informing him that he is to be made visits by three ghosts - Christmas Past, Present and Future - who eventually persuade him to give up his cynicism and save himself from eternal damnation. But this production is called Scrooge and Marley - and what role did Marley play that was in any way different from the story's original telling? In his Behind the Scenes column in last week's Varsity, James Swanton commented that something that had always bothered him 'was the unresolved fate of Jacob Marley. Whilst Scrooge finds redemption, Marley remains damned for eternity. Exploring their partnership struck me as fascinating'.

But was such an exploration really developed? At the end of the play, Scrooge states: 'and Marley? Marley was dead', acknowledging that this character remains mainly a plot device for the redemption of Scrooge. This story is so well-known, so ingrained in the fabric of British literary tradition, that to be exciting it needs a telling that feels fresh and original. This new, promised framework would have been both rewarding and stimulating. But it became just another telling of the Scrooge story, albeit condensed into the time required of a late show.

And this time restraint was another reason why it production didn't quite work. I left wondering whether this is a story that works when it has to be cut. It seemed - a compliment to Dickens - that the details of the original telling are necessary, and that, without them, it fails to make sense, losing any degree of realism it might lay claim to. For example, the character of Tim was given limited stage time before Scrooge's compassion became evident: 'tell me, spirit, whether Tiny Tim will live?' It has to be said that this was followed by a humorous version of 'Once in Royal David's City' by Tim - who cleverly turned into Scrooge himself half way through (Potts plays both characters). But, if this play is going to stage the conventional tale of the empowerment of these visions on Scrooge, does it not need to provide a reason behind his sudden change? This production denied the audience that: the limited capacity to develop characters - alongside the strange mix of gravity and parody - rendered it somewhat unconvincing.

However, it was redeemed - like Scrooge himself - by these two actors: they managed to brilliantly carry off the versatility required to play such a diverse host of characters. Particular highlights included James Swanton as both mother and father of Tiny Tim; only slight changes of accessories were used to mark the shifts, with Swanton, in this instance, donning a bonnet and brilliantly changing his voice in order to become Mrs Cratchett. Potts was similarly impressive, transforming at one point from Scrooge to Scrooge's nephew. These actors are to be commended for managing to demonstrate these character shifts- even if the need to do this so frequently meant that portrayals sometimes went over the top. But, on the whole, their ability to bring each character to life was superb. They also managed to make excellent use of space as another method of marking these shifts, from the central armchair to both sides of the stage- and even staging some of it in the audience area.

This production asked the audience for visual input, to imagine these changes as real - a clever reminder the visual power of the theatrical experience. But, while there were hilarious moments, and moments of fantastic character-acting, it failed to offer anything substantially new - that which it suggested it was going to do. I felt the actors relied on their capacities as exceptional performers to carry the whole show. Scrooge, on first being visited in the night by Marley, remarks that 'a night of unbroken rest would be more conducive'. I am quite happy that I broke my rest to see this play - but it didn't entirely convince.