Le Comte de Monte-Cristo. Dir. Denys de La Patelliere. With Jacques Weber, Manuel Tajeda, and Carla Romanelli. 1980. Runtime: approx. 6-7 hrs.
This is going to be one of the oddest reviews I've ever done. I was able to see this series only online, as it has never been put on video or DVD. Someone very kindly uploaded it on YouTube. In French. With no subtitles.
I don't speak French.
My Spanish helped me pick up a word here and there, but I effectively could not understand what anyone said. However, I am quite familiar with the novel and was able to follow the story with no problems, always knowing what scene I was in when it started or at least by the halfway point. That was a unique experience.
This was the most faithful adaptation of all The Count of Monte Cristo versions I saw. I was stunned that nearly every scene and character was present. And presented in about six hours.
One advantage with not being able to understand the actors is not knowing if the acting was good or bad. The actress playing Haydee is very expressive with her voice, but her eyes don't follow the anger in her words, but I couldn't tell whether this was a deliberate part of her acting or not. I was pleased with the performances from Caderousse, Danglars, and Edmond. Weber takes a naive young sailor and turns him into a sophisticated count with style. Even more impressive is his ability to disappear into any disguise. For Abbe Busoni, he wears a wig, glasses, false skin, and cotton in his cheeks, and adopts a gravely voice to become unrecognisable as Edmond, the Count, or any of his other aliases. He adds the right amount of an English accent-tinged French to his Lord Wilmore persona to make himself believable as an Englishman. His performance as the Count is so different from Edmond, Busoni, and Wilmore that no one could ever mistake any of these men for each other. He is cool, collected, and suave; his actions, mannerisms, and desire for sadistic justice line up with the book Count in their manipulation and iciness. Without the dialogue, though, I couldn't tell if his words were charismatic, charming, or what not. Even so, I give him a pass for point 1 on my list. He does well as the Count, whom I know carpeted a cave because I saw the cave, and him in it in his Sinbad the Sailor disguise.
Speaking of the cave, I like that Edmond finds only one casket of treasure like he did in the book. In some adaptations, he finds dozens of trunks. In the book, he gets about 15 million francs from the treasure and, through years of investments, ends up with about 100 million francs even after all his purchases. It's a little detail that doesn't interfere with any telling, but it seems more realistic that Spada had one trunk of treasure than twenty.
The fates of the three conspirators are good. Danglars' is quite appropriate and matches the novel. Villefort's is nearly the same, except he is not shown to lose his sanity. This is acceptable to me, as the rest of his punishment is certainly fitting enough. Fernand's is, thankfully, the same--he kills himself for the right reason this time. I liked that the series preserved the way that Caderousse cannot tell that Busoni is Edmond even after he has taken the disguise off. Time has worked on the two so much that Caderousse can't recognise his old acquaintance. Edmond couldn't even recognise himself after spending fourteen years in prison--how could a friend recognise him twenty-four years after last seeing him? The makers didn't speed up the recognition time--they let Caderousse take his time in discovering who Busoni really is. It also lets us see the horrid truth: the four men who consigned Edmond to a miserable prison for life out of pride, lust, greed, and drink can't even remember what he looks like. They've given him pure misery and can't even be bothered to honor his memory. The mostly intact fates of the betrayers and the ways they arrive at them are line with the book. Each is brought down slowly and with great patience by past mistakes and has the things that they truly care about taken from them. Patience is what Monte Cristo has plenty of, as well as the desire to have them do themselves in, so he doesn't do the quick "kill the enemies" gig. This is a very important element that some adaptations leave out. They simplify the revenge scheme, which undermines the entire point of what Monte Cristo wanted to accomplish. He crafts slow punishments that fit each one of them so that they can endure the slow torment that he suffered. For Danglars, his greed. Fernand, his wife and son. Villefort, his family and position (and, in the book, his sanity). They all also lose their honor and social status. This fits point 4.
The ending remains the same as the novel. Mercedes lives her life alone in Marseilles, Monte Cristo sails off with Haydee, and Max and Valentine are left the fortune. I am very pleased that this version did not follow the Edmond-and-Mercedes-get-back-together cliche that other versions fall victim to. The two lovers are so different, too changed from their experiences. The Edmond they knew is gone, so little does he resemble the suave and bitter Count. They want each other as they were twenty-some years ago, which cannot happen. If they were to get together, they would not be happy. They would have too many painful memories, memories of a time when they would have been happy, and broken fantasies of what could have been a happy life together. They would be trying to live out a dream that they had many years ago, and the results would be a travesty, a farce of love, two lovers trying to bring back what they had, though their characters have changed. They've turned into people they hardly recognise and no longer resemble the ones they loved. Many adaptations forget these essential dynamics and have the two reunite to give the story a more happy ending. However, this story needs bittersweetness as part of its message on the destructiveness of revenge and betrayal. As well, it's more realistic than a happy ending, and even though the book is a Romantic novel, it still has tinges of Realism to make the themes shine through. The Count also sees that innocent children suffer from his plans--he's visibly saddened by Edward's death and makes amends by rescuing Valentine. I think it fits point 2 of my criteria wonderfully, and 5 as well.
Since the series included most of the scenes and subplots from the 1500-page novel in only six hours, the series felt quite rushed at times, and that is quite something when you can say that a six-hour version of a novel rushes through everything. During dialogue scenes, the pace slowed down to allow for natural conversations. But, I did feel like the action was rushed at times, like the creators were rushing us from scene to scene after giving us just enough time to comprehend what we've just witnessed because they wanted to fit in everything they could. For instance, the Edmond-saves-Morrel-from-bankruptcy subplot is here, but is distilled down to about five minutes while including every nuance of it. With that kind of rushing, suspense is lost. We don't have time to develop sympathy for Morrel's predicament or wonder if he is going to get out of it. On the other hand, I appreciated the inclusion. Many adaptations leave out the rewarding phase of the Count's scheme. He not only punishes the wicked, he rewards those who did right by him. Morrel tried to get him out of prison, and Caderousse brought him up to date on what's happened in the world, so they get money to help them out of their financial woes and to preserve their honor. This subplot is a good one to include and matches my #3 point, but it could have been spread out a bit.
As well, because of the compression, I never got the sense that Edmond despaired in prison. In the novel, he spends years feeling sorry for himself; he tries to starve himself to death at one point and bashes his head against the wall at another and leaves a permanent blood stain on the stone. None of this is present, jumping from his arrival to Faria's introduction six years later almost immediately. The Edmond/Faria relationship also was not as protracted as I would have liked. Faria explained how he made his tools in prison, but I did not see any of the teaching that is so crucial to the creation of Edmond's Monte Cristo identity. Of course, maybe I missed the dialogue where Faria said he would teach Edmond. Even so, I didn't see any teaching, making this a case of tell-don't-show that does not pay off. However, some of the pacing worked well: the first third of the show is spent on Edmond's life, prison time, and rewarding phase, ending with his farewell to goodness and humanity, leaving about four more hours for the his schemes.
One technical thing that could have been done better: the camerawork. The presentation is very theatrical with its long takes and faraway shots. The long takes during dialogue scenes let the tension build, such as the scene where Danglars talks to Hermine about her infidelity. In many other scenes, the camera is too far away and objective to make an impact, like when Edmond "breaks his ankle" on the island and at the end in the cave when he and Haydee talk. Moving the camera a little closer and moving it around in some shots would have increased the emotional impact and made us feel like we were in the story more instead of observing it from a distance. The last shot was fitting: the Count and Haydee sail away on a ship while the credits roll. Yes, there's an adaptation where the Count hooks up with Haydee!
I count it extremely impressive that a series is so close to the book it's based on that it can still reach me even when I can't understand what anyone says. Of all the adaptations that I could have seen without dialogue, I'm glad it was this one--a few of the others were so far off the mark that I would never have been able to follow them without English dialogue or subtitles.
The most faithful adaptation? Definitely. The best? Though it contains all my criteria for a good adaptation, no, not in my opinion. Had this been twice as long and opened up the rushed scenes and subplots, it probably would have been the best, as the markings of greatness are there. As it is, however, it's still an adaptation that's worth your time if you know French, if you don't know French but know the book well, or if it is ever put out on DVD someday. And if it is, I will gladly view it again (with subtitles, perferably).
Three down, three to go: Gerard Depardieu in 1998's Le Comte de Monte Cristo.
No comments:
Post a Comment