Shrewdly softening its hero while sharpening his moral conflict, the filmmakers succeed in minimizing some of the moral difficulties (while also adding a couple of new ones).Īs reinvented here, the Count of Monte Cristo remains a masterful, calculating man, but on a more human scale still haunted by hatred and revenge, he finds himself unable to ignore the line between justice and vengeance. This is pop moviemaking in the tradition of, say, The Patriot, and it adapts freely, reinventing a tale of implacable vengeance as a swashbuckling morality play. We’re not talking about a Masterpiece Theater rendering of Dumas, or even a Classics Illustrated abridgement. (Small wonder that the novel was once on the Catholic Church’s now-defunct Index of Forbidden Books.)īut this film has a different story to tell. (Neither died in fact the duel was ultimately averted.)ĭumas’ story of a seemingly all-powerful figure bringing absolute judgment may make for riveting reading, but there seems no way morally to avoid the conclusion that the protagonist was not only a terrible man but also quite possibly insane. Nor was he above killing a well-intentioned youth in a duel - though he was also equally ready to throw the duel and die when the lad’s mother, Dàntes’ own one-time fiancée Mercedes, pleaded for her son’s life. Armed with encyclopedic knowledge gained from the Abbe Faria - as well as the fabulous riches of a long-lost treasure - Dàntes became the awesomely powerful Count of Monte Cristo, able to bestow misery or happiness at will.ĭumas even made his hero arrogate to himself such godlike privileges as to visit suffering even upon his friends - so as to increase their final happiness. Instead, after escaping from the Château D’If, Dumas’ hero became an unstoppable agent of divine judgment, ruthlessly bringing ruin to those responsible for his imprisonment. In Dumas’ novel, the hero never questioned God’s existence but he also never struggled (or not much) with the morality of his crusade for vengeance. He sees everything."Įven when Dàntes loses his faith during his long imprisonment and longs only for revenge, his priestly mentor puts a perceptive theological spin on it: "Perhaps your thoughts of revenge have served God’s purpose in keeping you alive these many years." When Dàntes protests that he no longer believes in God, the priest answers placidly, "No matter he believes in you." There are times when this movie has its tongue in its cheek, but it’s quite serious about the message scratched on a cell wall at the island-prison of Château D’If by some anonymous prisoner: "God will give me justice." When the sadistic warden (Michael Wincott) sneers at such displays of faith ("God has nothing to do with it - in fact God is never in France this time of year"), Dàntes counters, "God has everything to do with it. This is an action movie that’s also a morality play, a tale of injustice and vengeance that actually reckons on God, faith, and divine justice. In both films, a young illiterate who has been wronged meets a long-imprisoned old master who imparts to him the skills and deportment necessary to infiltrate the society of those who wronged him and avenge himself.īut there’s also another, more important similarity: Like The Mask of Zorro, Monte Cristo balances its anachronistic sensibilities and over-the-top set pieces with genuine emotion and a real moral dimension - even, in Monte Cristo, a spiritual dimension. Partly it’s because the relationship in Zorro between Antonio Banderas and Anthony Hopkins is here mirrored by that of young Edmond Dàntes (James Caviezel of Frequency) and the learned old priest Abbe Faria (Richard Harris, last seen in Harry Potter). So why is this year’s reimagining of The Count of Monte Cristo the best swashbuckler since The Mask of Zorro? In fact, why did it keep reminding me of The Mask of Zorro, a benchmark among late-90s action movies?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |