Section Five: A deeper dive into "Monte Cristo at the Movies" (rantings and ramblings)

Best non-book ending: 1975 (Mercedes accompanies Albert to Algeria)
Worst non-book ending: 1922 (The Count gives up his money to play "poor fisherman" with Mercedes, Albert and Haydee)
Most physically attractive Count: 2002 (Jim Caviezel)
Least physically attractive Count: 1988 (Viktor Avilov)
Most charming Count: 1975 (Richard Chamberlain)
Least charming Count: 1979 (Jacques Weber)
Best sets: 2002 (Touchstone/Disney)
Worst sets: tie: 1942 & 1964 (BBC)
Closest to the book: 1979
Furthest from the book: 2002
Dumbest plot contrivance: 1934 (the Count is on trial!) & 2002 (Albert is the Count's son!)
Dumbest way to die: 1973 (Danglars falls off a cliff)
Worst new non-book character: 1998 (Camille, the Count's mistress)
Most plot holes: 2002 

(Capturing my thoughts and ramblings that couldn't fit in the individual movie reviews).

Anyone who'd picked up The Count of Monte Cristo in its unabridged form knows it has 117 chapters, and is well over 1000 pages. In adapting it for cinema, I completely understand that some things have to go. Because I personally think that the book is 30-40% longer than it needs to be and there is NO WAY that any filmmaker will have their actors reciting the lines in Chapter 48 ("Ideology") en total & verbatim. Movie audiences would go to sleep. 

I don't even require 100% fidelity to the book. The movies are like their own universes. Sometimes switching to a different track can produce improvements. But... in deviating from Dumas, the changes had better make sense! And most of the time... they don't. Read on!

In watching and evaluating a lot of Monte Cristo movies, here's my favorite rants:

1. Should start where the book starts. Happily, most begin with the Pharaon landing in Marseilles in 1815 (1918, 1922, 1929, 1934, 1942, 1943, 1954, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1975, 1979, 2002). Some of the outliers start in a different place: Dantes in his cell at D'if (1973, 1988, 1998), or towards the end, when Albert challenges the Count to a duel (1953). I prefer starting where the book starts. The idea is that the massive list of characters need to be slowly introduced to make it digestible. By starting at a later point, flashbacks are needed to fill in the backstory, and sometimes, things get left out. I know of at least 2 examples of Danglars motivations being left out. So we, as the viewer/readers don't know why he did what he did!
2. Speaking of Danglars- bye! We hardly knew ye! There are FOUR movies (1929, 1943, 1954, 1961) that completely eliminated Danglars! Someone has to be on the Pharaon to betray Dantes, so the quick pick is Caderousse. But 3 of those movies (1929, 1943, 1961) made him a drunk, insolent, or a low-level sailor so there's NO WAY that he'd ever be promoted to Captain once Dantes was out of the way! He might be jealous, but so what? Get rid of Dantes and Morrel might hire a stricter captain! The job isn't yours, CadtheCad, baby! Cut off nose/spite face. Only in (1954) was Caderousse of a high enough rank to be promoted to Captain once Dantes was arrested and taken away for good.
3. Haydee, girl, sorry you've been swept under the rug! We hardly knew ye! Maybe filmmakers were uncomfortable with the idea of slavery. But Haydee was a slave in the Ottoman Empire. She wasn't chattel, sent out into the fields to pick cotton (⮜to many Americans, that's the only type of slavery they know of). In the Ottoman Empire, Haydee had value- as the concubine of a Sultan, any child she has would be considered legitimate by their laws, and could be a good contender for next ruler of Janina. The Count buying her and claiming her as his pseudo-"slave" is often obfuscated in the movies. The other issue is the age difference between her and the Count. So, she was eliminated completely (1973, 2002) or, more commonly, they reduce her role to Fernand's trial only. Then she disappears (1918, 1934, maybe-1954, 1961, 1975). Like the Count was only using her for that one role, and then she gets the boot or gets sent back to Janina or whatever. Sometimes she gets paired off with one of the younger gentlemen, Albert de Morcerf (1922) or Franz D'Epinay (1998). 
4. Cheapskate substitutes for Franz & Albert's Rome Adventure are pathetic. There's only three movies (1979, 1988, 2002) that have a proper Carnival in Rome. It's expensive to film a scene like that- outdoors with costumed revelers partying in the streets. There's 3 cheapskate ways around this: a) Kidnap only (1934, 1998) b) Invent some alternative reason for the Count to meet Albert and the Morcerfs (1918, 1929, 1942, 1943, 1953, 1954, 1961, 1973, 1975) or c) Just have "Albert talking to his friends/parents about his Rome adventure in a drawing room" (1922, 1964)
5. Maximilian and Valentine are NOT EXTRANEOUS and should not be dropped. It's unbelievable- the number of movies where the Max n' Val lovebirds are written out (1918, 1922, 1934, 1943, 1953, 1954, 1961, 1975, 1988, 2002). But they are key to the Count's redemption, and his feeling that saving them had balanced the scales of lives lost because of his schemes. Which brings us to...  
6. The poisonings are necessary to the story. Most of the movies also get rid of the poisonings and death of little Edouard (1918, 1922, 1929, 1934, 1943, 1954, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1975, 1988, 2002). BUT... in doing so, Villefort going mad makes no sense. They have him going mad because of Andrea's trial and the public outing of his illegitimate son (1918, 1929, 1954, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1975). But that's not REALLY the end of the world and people don't lose their minds because of that. Kings had bastards. Athos The Musketeer had a bastard. Even Dumas had a few. They didn't go insane. Villefort's real trigger was his precious reputation going down the drain and more importantly, the loss of everybody he loved!
7. Trials don't work like that #1: Monte Cristo movies have the weirdest things happen in courtrooms. (1934) has the Count being arrested and charged with a bucket list of "crimes" such as: traitor, spy, doubtless murderer, companion of thieves, patron of bandits, impostor and criminal-at-large. Some of these aren't even crimes! Villefort fails to provide any evidence but the judge is ready to rule the case solely based on the prosecution's testimony (aka kangaroo court).
8. Trials don't work like that #2: (1953) has a ridiculous trial where Valentine's doctor testifies about her death, but nobody is being charged with a crime! It's all more "information dump" and should never even BE in a courtroom! Once the Count (and the doctor) state the evidence, he dramatically points at Madame Villefort (in the public audience section) as the poisoner. NO, NO, NO! People are not accused of a crime that way! The Count and the doctor should have been working with a D.A. to... y'know, build a case! Not just suddenly throw a murder accusation at a spectator! Did a real adult write this stuff?
   

9. Trials don't work like that #3: (1953) also has a pretty lame 60 second Fernand trial. Fernand is speaking to the gentlemen of the court, and Haydee, unprompted and in the nosebleed audience seats, shouts her accusations down at him. What she says is all true, but that's not the correct way for her to testify. She should have been removed from the courtroom and sent away, and Fernand probably would have walked free. Read Dumas for how it's correctly done. Like writing a note that she's a witness, requesting to be heard. When it is approved, answer the court's questions (she came prepared) and don't speak out of turn! 

10. Trials don't work like that #4: The (1988) Soviet version has Benedetto (first mentioned and appearing WAY LATE in the film), but he's never groomed to become the gentleman, Andrea Cavalcanti. This Benedetto remains a vicious, murdering punk from start to end. When he appears at his trial, he's disrespectful, erratic and manic and he's allowed to make threatening gestures, climb over the barriers and lunge at people. Yet they never take him away and bring him back in shackles or in a cage! Even today, dangerous inmates who might harm people in court have physical restraints on them! So why is this trial continuing, with people near him being in danger of being bitten, or having their eyes clawed out???
    
11. Why Mercedes is NOT the right match for the Count: It's a movie trope that I can't stand. Movies (1922, 1934, maybe-1954, 1961, 1998 and 2002) that all have the Count and Mercedes back together in the end. (1961) has an extra little twist- the Count isn't ready to carry her away just yet. He needs time to get his head together, and vaguely promises that one day he'll return as Edmond Dantes for her. She's expected to put her own life on hold to wait for him for...14 more years or maybe 23 more years? Anyway, (1922, 1934, maybe-1954, 1961, 1998 and 2002) is not gonna work out. They last saw and loved each other 23 years ago, their time. Both had changed. the Count more-so. His experience at D'if and his revenge had made him into an entirely different person. He's NOT the man she once loved, and both would be unhappy together. She married, and had the son of the man who betrayed him and ruined his life. He was the catalyst of events that led to her husband's death. He resented her for "not waiting" ("frailty, thy name is woman"). Their buried resentments, and being unable to understand the other will come up. There's no happiness in their future, and it's just a quick n' easy shortcut for movies to shovel them together in the end because filmmakers didn't want to properly utilize Haydee (see Rant #3).
    
12. Mistresses are a BAD idea! (1998's) Count takes a mistress, Camille, at Bertuccio's urging. Because he needs to be seen around town with a woman at his arm. She "lets him go" so he can go running back to Mercedes, and the allegedly "happy" ending has Edmond+Mercedes=4Ever. But just ask Villefort about the downside to mistresses. In an age before reliable birth-control, chances are pretty darn good that the Count & Mercedes will receive a letter from Camille saying that she's pregnant with the Count's child! The Count would have to man-up and support his kid and Camille will be a part of his life, one way or another. And Mercedes would be resentful, being 10 years older than Camille, that SHE couldn't have the Count's child!
13. Mercedes deserved better. One of the very few things that I dislike about the original book is Mercedes' fate. She moves into old Dantes' place in Marseilles, has no money, refuses any help from the Count ("Albert would not approve") and says she'll spend her time weeping and praying. Neither of that will improve her situation. And her last words are pining for the man she couldn't marry and her lost youth ("Edmond, Edmond"). That's why I enjoy the alternate takes (1929 and 1975). (1929) has her moving in with the Morrels, since Albert is sweet on Julie Morrel in that movie. The Morrels are glad to have her and they all love her. Good! (1975) has her recognizing that what she had with Edmond is gone, and she's off to Algeria to be near her son. I like that too!
14. Money is not the root of all evil #1. In (1922 and 1998), the Count "gives all his money away" and rushes into Mercedes arms. (1922) is particularly bad, because they're joined by the  Albert+Haydee couple and they all decide to live simply and be "poor fisherfolk". In (1998), Mercedes is all he needs (yeah, right!). So here's the kicker... the Count was bound to have made some enemies. Villefort, Danglars and Fernand might even have highly-placed friends. Edmond Dantes is now poor, powerless (by choice), and settled in Marseilles. So... these rich friends of Villefort, Danglars and Fernand want their revenge, and Dantes is now a sitting duck for them. They can easily have him killed, and he has no Ali, no entourage, no powerful and connected friends to protect him. This can only go completely wrong for him. Money buys power and protection. He should know that.
15. Money is not the root of all evil #2. Some movies fudge the endings of Albert and/or Mercedes- they just go to File 13 (1918, 1942, 1953, 1961, 1973, 1975). (1988 Soviet) has a total bummer ending for Mercedes and Albert. They arrive at their new "home" in Marseilles, a completely run-down hovel that's just a bunch of sticks with no doors or intact walls with squatters/beggars hanging around. And they move their luggage and trunks inside. Good luck not having all your stuff stolen! Gonna sleep there, too? How depressing! Isn't there a hotel somewhere? Or were they stupid enough to walk away from their home in Paris and all their money, and the Count has no idea where they went and what's happening with them, so he *can't* lend a hand? Morons!
16. The Count+Haydee ending, just by itself, does not make a great movie. I read YouTube comments and IMDB reviews for fun. It never fails to amuse me that some people are willing to dub certain movies as "great" and "better than Hollywood" just because the Count gets with the right girl in the end. There's more than that to factor in. What about plot holes? What about logic? What about pacing? What about the Count being a sociopath?
17. Looks, gestures and body language are just as important as the script: Yeah, I know... each Monte Cristo movie different and some are only barely related to the book. But things like looks, gestures and body language can tell us more about the characters' thoughts and feelings than the abbreviated scripts do. In (1929), during Fernand's betrayal of Ali Pasha, it's easy to see that he instantly regretted how far things went and was ashamed of his part. (1979's) Count and Haydee have the worst scenes together. While reciting lines directly from the book, their body language is totally off. She's all subservient while she confesses her love for him. Then he turns his face away, turns his back and walks away from her while saying, "Love me then, your love may make me forget what I need to forget." Meanwhile, she's still kneeling behind him, head bowed. What is wrong with that guy? 

The Wrap-Up: You might notice that I don't have any "Recommended" stamps for any movies. (Cues U2 record: "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"). I've sat through hours and hours of Monte Cristo movies, and spent even more time gathering my thoughts and writing reviews. All of the movies are flawed, and I hadn't found the right one with fidelity to Dumas' book, great production values, entertainment value, a great script, the proper balance between darkness and light and a Count that's oozing charm but also has the right amount of menace, yet capable of compassion, kindness, self-realization and expiation.

Go to:

Go to:

I have to hold off on a recommendation for now. It's not like an abridged book, or a children's book, or comics/manga where I was able to find "the one" that I could stand behind with genuine enthusiasm.