(no subject)
Feb. 25th, 2004 06:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
butterflyBooks have a soul, a meaning. I'm not as fond of the prose of The Lord of the Rings, but the energy and power of it still strikes me. I can feel that power in the movie and I know that it comes from the book, that it comes from the text and what the text means. The fundamental statement that the movie makes feels as close as it could to the statement that the book makes. And that is, I think, the best that any adaptation can do.
And that's where The Count of Monte Cristo fails. It's not that they give it a happy ending, it's that it gets an ending that completely counters what the book says.
The reason that the book is so strong is because actions have consequences and motives have meaning. Making an entire life into a search for vengeance leaves a life that is empty and hollow. In the book, he can't go back, because he is no longer that man - not only through what happened to him, but also because of the choices that he made in deliberately doing the same to others.
In the movie, they 'tie up the loose ends' by giving him back his original love and making the boy his son in truth, which makes the fact that he liked the boy irrelevant - of course he did, it's his son. The book was much more complicated and real - the movie didn't just simplify things, it made them shallower, took away the depths and shades.
Which isn't to say that I don't like the movie. I do, actually - it has some beautiful moments ("I'm not supposed to want to be you." is such a desperate, wonderfully read line - I really enjoyed that actor all around). As a movie, on its own, it does work. As a movie that's called The Count of Monte Cristo it's less than it should be. Edmond is not an incredibly likable guy, at the end of the book. That's part of why I liked the book so much - it took huge risks with its main character. In the movie, those risks are downplayed and at time eliminated.
What an adaptation needs to do is capture the spirit of the original. The Lord of the Rings is definitely the best example that I can think of. Harry Potter is a bad example - much of the spirit of the books was lost in trying to keep to the letter. In the film adaption of The Count of Monte Cristo, both letter and spirit were lost at times.
On a side note, I saw Beautiful Thing and absolutely adored it. Brit boys in love. It was wonderfully down-to-earth. And it had one of the sweetest kisses ever. Ste and Jamie had some nice chemistry.
On a side, side note, I do wish that people would look up words before throwing them around. I always wince when I see a word misused, especially the commonly misused ones. Words that people think they know what they mean, only they've never actually looked at the definition and... yeah. I always try to double-check any hugely important words, because it can happen to pretty much anyone.
And that's where The Count of Monte Cristo fails. It's not that they give it a happy ending, it's that it gets an ending that completely counters what the book says.
The reason that the book is so strong is because actions have consequences and motives have meaning. Making an entire life into a search for vengeance leaves a life that is empty and hollow. In the book, he can't go back, because he is no longer that man - not only through what happened to him, but also because of the choices that he made in deliberately doing the same to others.
In the movie, they 'tie up the loose ends' by giving him back his original love and making the boy his son in truth, which makes the fact that he liked the boy irrelevant - of course he did, it's his son. The book was much more complicated and real - the movie didn't just simplify things, it made them shallower, took away the depths and shades.
Which isn't to say that I don't like the movie. I do, actually - it has some beautiful moments ("I'm not supposed to want to be you." is such a desperate, wonderfully read line - I really enjoyed that actor all around). As a movie, on its own, it does work. As a movie that's called The Count of Monte Cristo it's less than it should be. Edmond is not an incredibly likable guy, at the end of the book. That's part of why I liked the book so much - it took huge risks with its main character. In the movie, those risks are downplayed and at time eliminated.
What an adaptation needs to do is capture the spirit of the original. The Lord of the Rings is definitely the best example that I can think of. Harry Potter is a bad example - much of the spirit of the books was lost in trying to keep to the letter. In the film adaption of The Count of Monte Cristo, both letter and spirit were lost at times.
On a side note, I saw Beautiful Thing and absolutely adored it. Brit boys in love. It was wonderfully down-to-earth. And it had one of the sweetest kisses ever. Ste and Jamie had some nice chemistry.
On a side, side note, I do wish that people would look up words before throwing them around. I always wince when I see a word misused, especially the commonly misused ones. Words that people think they know what they mean, only they've never actually looked at the definition and... yeah. I always try to double-check any hugely important words, because it can happen to pretty much anyone.