One of my favorite novels is The Count of Monte Cristo. The story has received many adaptations over the years, from silents, to talking motion pictures, to sequels, to television series, to anime, to Wishbone. After seeing two versions which had varying degrees of faithfulness, I decided to seek out whatever others I could find to see which ones best represent the story, themes, and spirit of the novel. What follows will be a seven part series on six film and television versions plus a summary of general observations about the adaptations. I will keep comparisons of film versions to each other to a minimum, except in the final article. Each film will be reviewed based on its own characteristics and merits, and, more importantly in this set of reviews, its resemblance to the novel in spirit. I will be publishing the reviews in chronological order of the release date. Spoilers will abound, mostly unmarked.
When adapting a work of literature, writers can take some liberties. Some scenes can be cut or combined, characters likewise, and occasionally subplots can also be cut. The entire time period and setting can be changed, which alludes to the universality of the story--Olivier's, Zeffirelli's, Branagh's, and Almereyda's film versions of that other great revenge story, Hamlet, all take place in different centuries and the story still makes sense. However, certain characteristics must be retained if the adaptation is to preserve the essence of the book. The theme of the work is often the major reason why a writer writes a story in the first place. If certain traits are changed, what made the story unique is gone, and the creators should change the title and names along with the alterations and say "inspired by" instead of "based on."
I believe that the following criteria are necessary to any adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo, and that film versions should have these traits to some degree for the work to succeed as an adaptation:
1. The Count must be incredibly charismatic, alluring, intelligent, manipulative, and have an sadistic streak. He is an anti-hero of the highest order. We have to love him and hate him. We sympathise with his plight and desire for revenge, but our sympathy stops the moment he drags the innocent children of his enemies into his schemes. He has the wealth, power, and will to carry out his plans. He also is an original--he does exotic things that other Parisians don't, and then claims it's nothing. (I.e. he buys several mansions, throws flowers down to a diva on stage, and creates his own hashish/opium pills. Oh, and he carpeted a cave.) This flaunting of wealth and exoticism is an important part of his charisma and why Parisians are so attracted to him.
2. Vengeance is bitter, hollow, and ultimately unfulfilling. Revenge is not sweet. He punishes his enemies but cannot get back what they stole from him.
3. The Count seeks justice, not simply revenge. He is the Avenging Angel who repays the evil of Edmond's imprisonment, Louis' death, Haydee's slavery, and the evil that happened to the other people who have been exploited so that Fernand, Danglars, and Villefort could succeed. He acts as Providence's tool, which makes him also reward the good.
4. The revenge schemes must be based on the vices and pasts of each of the three conspirators. Each one does himself in when his past comes back to bite him.
5. This is not a feel-good swashbuckling adventure tale. It is a bittersweet revenge Romance. However, this does not mean that you can't add a well-placed sword duel.
Points 1 and 2 are the most important to represent the spirit and theme of the novel. The others can have more leeway, but 1 and 2 should be intact. I will refer back to these in my reviews.
Enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment