Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ZeMastor t1_itruml9 wrote

Reply to comment by lapsedhuman in Just finished The Count of Monte Cristo by ComicsNBigBooks

Pardon me for asking, but what makes the Robert Donat film the "standard"? TBH, the rewrites in the second half make it unrecognizable as The Count of Monte Cristo. No Caderousse, and the ending fates of all 3 baddies are not based on the book. And, because of the rewrite, >!Haydee's role was diminished and the Count ends up with Mercedes,!< because of that era's Hollywood feel-good style.

That movie came off to me as needing to conform to the Hays Code, so all of the good stuff (revenge) had to be altered drastically, because the book, as written, had a whole slew of no-nos that were forbidden by the Code. It's also notable that Hollywood did not make another attempt at making a Monte Cristo movie until the 21st century. But the UK, France, Mexico, Argentina, Norway and the Soviet Union were happy to step in.

1

lapsedhuman t1_itsm4v7 wrote

I guess when I meant by the 'standard', it was the film version of Dumas' novel in most of my film books (Fraser's Hollywood History of the World, and others) most referenced by Hollywood standards. I was being biased and failed to acknowledge the many European productions over the decades.

1

ZeMastor t1_itt9ac7 wrote

Ah, I see. I would guess, then, that the film books call it the "standard" because it was the only Talkie produced in the US until 2002, so any books prior to 2002 attempting to discuss a non-silent US movie adaptation had exactly one candidate. Kinda like saying that in a horse race with one contestant, there will be one obvious winner.

I have to say that Robert Donat speaks and enunciates beautifully. But it's true that the European, and even the Mexican versions hit more plot points and have far more in-common with the book than the Donat one.

1

helennatasha t1_iuc0i5c wrote

The 1934 version despite deviating from the book, it is decent. The defect is in the judgment when edmond does not defend himself because of valentine. self-survival is something too strong in human beings to be despised.

Very naive for Albert to have accepted Mercedes' relationship with Edmond. He is the man who ruined his family life, even though he was sent to prison for his father. The end could be the lovers' ruenance, but Albert despising his mother and Mercedes being harassed by high French society as Anna Karenina.

The 1922 version erred in making Albert and haydee. He is the son of his father's murderer, even though he is innocent, he belongs to the family of the man who ruined his life and that of his parents. It's not so simple to live with someone like that. haydee belongs to another culture, language and she was not comfortable in France and wanted to return to the east. Albert belongs to another culture and customs, it takes much more than just being a handsome young man for the relationship to work. He has to look at the mentality, socio-cultural issues. She has a similar life history to the count, which allows their relationship to work, they have similar worldviews, haydee matured early, the cout assimilated Haydee's culture and language. Which allows them to have more compatibility.

The 2002 version was a mess. The movie altered danglars and Mondego. The film changed the tripartite division of Dantes' enemies that were the mainstay of the Modern State: financial power, military might and justice. They symbolize all the gears of the French State that brought about the downfall of Dantes

And Mondego shows dishonorable actions of French military who would go to help and were bribed, Danglars who is a banker who uses dishonest means to enrich himself. Corruption among the military and the financial system. France's bases were rotten.

Could it be that because of the Bush administration, they didn't want to portray the military and bankers in a more negative light?

1