The Count of Monte Cristo. Dir. Rowland V. Lee. With Robert Donat, Elissa Land, and Sidney Blackmer. Reliance Pictures, 1934. Runtime: 110 minutes.
There were several silent versions of Dumas' book before this movie, but this is the first well-known adaptation of the tale. Many reviewers say that this is the best and most faithful adaptation of the Dumas book.
Having seen six versions, I can't say that I agree on either count. It's a decent adventure movie that makes sense, but doesn't follow the book at all.
The logic within the film works. We go from scene to scene knowing exactly who everyone is and what's happening. The plots, while greatly simplified and altered from the novel, still follow the general principal of Monte Cristo wanting the pasts to catch up to the men. Fernand's treacherous actions are put in display as a pageant in front of the upper crust of Paris, and he is shamed. Danglars plays the stock market, not knowing that the Count is controlling it. Villefort is put on trial for his false imprisonment of Edmond. Other subplots are also condensed reasonably well. The time in Rome and Albert's kidnapping are portrayed in about two minutes, if that, and are very clear. Edmond's time in prison and learnings from Faria are also displayed well, with a montage representing the years spent tunneling and learning. Other subplots are omitted altogether. While condensed more than I'd like, the film's story would still make sense to anyone who had never read the book.
(SPOILER WARNING) One thing that really puzzled me was Fernand's suicide. In the book, he is exposed for the Ali Pasha affair and is disgraced. He loses his social status and honor. But, he still has two things left he loves: his wife and son, Mercedes and Albert. When he comes home and hears that they no longer see his house as their home, and then sees them leaving without looking back, he kills himself out of despair. The only reason he framed Edmond was so he could marry Mercedes, and her leaving him is the last straw. Without her, he has no reason to live, as she is the primary reason he did everything he did. This film has Fernand killing himself the morning after a newspaper article runs the Ali Pasha scandal story. Thus, the film makes the reason he commits suicide be over losing honor instead of losing Mercedes, which makes him a more shallow person. The film also does not portray a love between the two. Fernand makes his false accusation out of love, but we see none of the love he has for her. The film changes Mercedes from liking Fernand as a brother to marrying him only as a dying wish to her mother. So, we see no love develop for him from her, but nor do we see him love her or even a deterioration of love between them. More scenes between the two would have cleared up the status of their relationship. As it is, Fernand's demise does not have the impact that it should have: a feeling that the Count has triumphed while making us feel sorry for Fernand.
Donat does not make a good Count. He has the charm and sophistication to entrance the denizens of Paris. He lacks the youth and naivete that he possessed as Edmond and makes the transition from sailor to aristocrat well. However, he lacks the darker, icy edge that the Count needs, which is crucial to the theme of the story. He doesn't seem cruel enough to actually want to carry all this out. He becomes too loud and accusatory during the courtroom scene (an original to the film). Dumas' Count would not have acted the way Donat does in that scene--he's too cool and calculating. I attribute this acting to the acting style of the time, which favored theatrically of this nature (which does not mesh with the 1840s world). The loud, grand acting also partially messes with the examination scene, where Danglars and Fernand are present to incrimminate Edmond, making their parts too obvious to the audience and to Edmond. We also miss the exoticism and originality, which is a large part of why the Parisians talk about him so much. It's not his name or his title, which they know he bought, that catch their attention--it's his wealth and what he does with it, and book Monte Cristo does amazing things with his money. Donat's Count is shown to carry one million francs on him at all times, but he never spends anything. We do not see mansions (plural intended) decorated in Turkish style, a Greek princess at his side, or him buying the opera box that belonged to a long-dead royal figure. I do not believe that Donat's Count carpeted a cave. He does not revel in the luxury that is characteristic of the Count of Monte Cristo. Without this show of wealth, it seems less likely that the Parisians would be so taken with him. He has the charm, but not the sadistic streak or originality, and fails point 1 of my criteria.
Sometimes gut reactions are the best indicators of a thing's quality. (ENDING SPOILER) When the movie was over, I said aloud, "That wasn't seriously the ending, was it?" I even looked back at V for Vendetta to verify it, and the same ending was shown there. Monte Cristo and Mercedes get back together, last shown sitting in a tree lovingly in each others' arms. Not only does this fly in the face of the novel where the two acknowledge that they have changed so much that they couldn't live together as they might have, but the film does nothing to show us that they are growing towards each other again, which would be the only way to accept that they reunite for the ending. What could they have in common now? Monte Cristo has changed from an optimistic sailor to a melancholy count who cares only for avenging himself; Mercedes is stifled by a marriage she didn't want. They went from saying they would only address each other in the impartial, meaningless etiquette assigned to their classes to sitting together in a tree without anything in between. The soppiness of it makes me want to vomit. It's a happy ending for the sake of a happy ending, which doesn't work in any story, much less in a tale of bittersweet revenge.
Which brings me to the next point. The biggest problem in this film is that it changes the entire theme of Dumas' work from "revenge is hollow and can't ultimately bring you happiness" to "revenge is sweet." While we may enjoy watching Monte Cristo's enemies get what they have coming, we also know that he's going too far when innocents get dragged into his scheme. While vengeance is satisfying while it's being carried out, the price paid is too high and the Count is left with remorse for trying to play God. He sees that there is nothing right about what he's done, pulling up weeds will also pull up wheat, and hate only begets more hate. His saving Valentine is his way to atone for the sins he has committed. The movie throws out this theme, changing the story from being about the inability of revenge to provide emotional fulfillment into a simple revenge tale in which the hero triumphs with no regrets. The complexities of emotion and motivation are gone, replaced with a "revenge is good" message that Dumas did not convey. Without this essential theme, it is not The Count of Monte Cristo. It fails the second point of my criteria for a successful Count of Monte Cristo adaptation.
Continuity issues don't always bother me (i.e. a glass moves on a table from shot to shot), but differences in name pronunciation do unless a character purposefully mispronounces a name (like Schillinger from Oz). The script renders the name Dantes as [dæn-tiz] by nearly everybody. However, Villefort calls him by the more-or-less correct French pronunciation of [dan-tes]. The incorrect pronunciation bothered me, but at least it could have been consistent. Why does this bother me and not Japanese-rendered versions of French names? The Japanese linguistic system is not set up to handle French syllables, and even lacks some French sounds, so alterations must be made, but English has nearly all the sounds and combinations that French has, and English speakers are more than capable of pronouncing the French name "Dantès." In fact, the Japanese pronunciation of Dantes is much closer to the French than the English one used in this film.
The Count of Monte Cristo from 1934 does work as an adventure story on its own. It condenses many storylines in an effective way that doesn't make you feel like you got to point C from point A without going through point B. As an adaptation, however, it's far off the mark, mainly because it alters the characters and reverses the theme. As well, the makers tried to cram a 1500 page novel into two hours. This story simply needs more time than allotted to a typical film.
Characters omitted: Andrea Cavalcanti (aka Benedetto), Caderousse, Major Cavalcanti, Eugenie and Hermine Danglars, Heloise and Edward de Villefort, Maximilian Morrel, Bertuccio, Baptistin, Franz, Countess G---, Barrois, Peppino, and all of Edmond's aliases. It also makes Valentine Albert's girlfriend and greatly minimises Haydee's and Noirtier's roles.
Next time: Richard Chamberlain in the 1975 made-for-TV movie The Count of Monte-Cristo.
No comments:
Post a Comment