Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Count Of Monte Cristo Movie V.S. Book (Spoiler Alert!)


I saw the movie first and really liked it(the 2002 version), so while perusing all the free selections for my Kindle, I saw the book by Alexandre Dumas and couldn't resist downloading it.

At first, I couldn't stop comparing the book to the movie, but it didn't take long to forget all that and get absorbed in the story as written. Several days later(it is a very long novel), I finally finished the book and decided... I love both the novel and the movie, equally and for different reasons. This doesn't happen often. I'm usually a 'books are better' person. I was a highly disappointed Ludlum fan when they changed Jason Bourne's character for the movie. Occasionally, the movie is better than the book. Jaws, Bridges of Madison County and Fight Club anyone? And from what I've heard about the book version of Forrest Gump, I won't be reading that any time soon.

It makes sense that this case is different. The book version of 'Monte Cristo' is far too complicated for a good two hour movie. I thought Kevin Reynolds did a great job condensing the novel for film, while still capturing the essence of the book(and he left Kevin Costner behind this time!).

In the movie, the three betrayers are condensed into one main antagonist, Ferdinand Mondego. He is portrayed as Edmond's best friend, which makes his betrayal more meaningful and the final climactic scene between them more powerful than in the book. Danglars and Villefort are both in the movie, but their roles are heavily reduced and what happens to them seems more like Edmond getting justice rather than revenge. In the book, Edmond's revenge is divided equally among the three traitors and made up of intricate plots that simmer and slowly evolve into fruition on all three men equally and on their families as well. I couldn't imagine seeing that done properly in a popcorn movie.

In the book, the Count's soft side is shown through his relationship with Morrell and his offspring; in the movie, it is shown through his love for Mercedes. Both versions achieve what they are meant to, i.e. show the chinks Edmond's vengeful armour.

In the movie version, I like that the Abbe Faria teaches Edmond sword skills as well as book knowledge while they are in prison. It makes Edmond's transition seem stronger. Like he can handle anything thrown at him while pursuing his revenge.

In the book, I like when Edmond teaches Maximilien Morrell, through the Valentine storyline, that "only those who have known great unhappiness can enjoy its opposite, ultimate bliss." A wonderful lesson Edmond learns that is not in the movie.

I like the greater role Morrell and his family play in the novel. In the movie, the significance of Morrell's role is reduced to telling Edmond what has become of his father and Mercedes when he returns to Marseilles. The character who does that in the novel, Caderousse, is not in the movie at all.

In the movie, Edmund Dantes comes full circle and regains his relationship with Mercedes and the boy who turns out to be his son(a great plot twist). I liked the closure aspect of this ending. He was unfairly denied the life he'd been pursuing before he was arrested, but it comes back to him in the end.

In the book, Edmond does not reunite with Mercedes, the boy is not his, and he ends up with Haydee, the slave girl he purchased for revenge purposes. I liked this ending as well because it showed Edmond moving on and teaches us that even if you can't go back, you can always go forward. Although I do feel sorry for Mercedes in the novel because the injustices of her life were rectified the least.

The transformation of Edmond is more gradual in the book and the lessons he learns more profound, but that is to be expected, as a novel is a more detail oriented medium. Cinema is a visual medium, so many of the lessons were portrayed ambiguously, relying on the intelligence of the viewer to get the point. In the end, both mediums get the message across about revenge. The movie does this by portraying Edmond as tortured about the revenge he is taking, while in the book, Edmond is cold and calculating until his gradual, yet fully explained, transformation at the end.

The movie had a more obvious and happier ending, which I liked, but that doesn't take away my appreciation for how the book ended. When I see a movie, I want to see things turn out well because the complexities of an ambiguous ending cannot be explained nearly as well visually as they can with the written word. I want to feel satisfied by my viewing and reading experiences and both the movie and the book manage to leave Edmond at peace, which, in my opinion, is essential for a satisfactory ending.

Monday, June 27, 2011

A Website Worth Mentioning

Free YouTube to MP3 conversion. I used this site recently to make an MP3 out of a political speech I'd heard on the news.

http://www.youtube-mp3.org/

Simply copy the URL of the YouTube video you wish to convert onto this website and they will provide you with a download link for an MP3 version. The site cannot convert copyright protected pages, so choose your URLs wisely.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Quick Review: Earth Balance Buttery Spread

In my never ending quest to reduce my intake of unintentional antibiotics, I went ahead and bought the organic version. I used to use Smart Balance, which is made by the same company. The reason for my change in spreads is due to an intensive study of my previous spread's label. While Earth Balance is higher in sodium and fat than it's cousin, it doesn't contain the preservative TBHQ. 

Most of the time I just use butter, but it's hard to apply stick butter on toast in the morning, especially when you are in a hurry. I have to admit, Earth Balance isn't quite as tasty as Smart Balance, but I feel better about putting it in my body.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Louis L'Amour's The Walking Drum

image description


A great historical adventure novel(plot summary) written by Louis L'Amour, who is dead, unfortunately, because if I ever wanted a sequel to a book, it would be to this one.

I first read The Walking Drum years ago(I'm not saying how many!) when I was a mere high school student. And no, it wasn't required reading! I became enthralled with the exotic locations(Russia, Turkey, and the Middle East) and the era(12th century). Such was the condition of public schools, that we were exposed primarily to European history, and when the time came, to American, but not much else. Too bad. There is a whole wide world out there.

L'Amour's philosophical style, as well as his lead character's strong thirst for learning, inspired me to study beyond the history of my ancestors. Immediately upon finishing the book, I went to the library(this was before google, or as I like to call it, BG) to find more books about the cultures covered in The Walking Drum. L'Amour's enthusiasm was so contagious, I lamented my inability to time travel so that I too might wander the Street of the Booksellers in Cordoba.

Yes, the lead character can be arrogant and larger-than-life, but that's exactly why I like him. A little boldness is sometimes called for in adventuring. If you want a tragic or everyday hero, go read Harry Potter.

L'Amour's books are typically well-researched, and while some critics note there are small historical inaccuracies in The Walking Drum, none are unreasonable or distract from the story. I'm amused when people complain about a fiction book not being 100% accurate. What part of the word 'fiction' do they not understand? Who cares if the weapons he gave to characters weren't used until thirty years after the period he was writing about? Only anal-retentive highbrow intellectuals who snub anyone who doesn't write esoteric, complex literature.

If you feel like being a smarty pants, there are plenty of good Camus and Dostoyevsky novels. But if you simply want a great adventure where you learn a little along the way, The Walking Drum is for you. Yol bolsun!
  

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Quick Review: Panera Bread BBQ Chicken Salad

A good sized salad with antibiotic free chicken strips, corn, tortilla strips, BBQ ranch dressing, romaine lettuce. BBQ sauce drizzled on top. Yum! Served with fresh bread. Costs about eight and a half dollars, but much better value for your dollar than Subway, considering the quality of the ingredients. And Panera's bread isn't laced with chemicals and high fructose corn syrup like Subway's bread

Thursday, June 9, 2011

State of Entertainment

Recently, I tried to watch two new shows on cable, Camelot and Game of Thrones, but I got turned off by all the un-necessary violence. I admit, I gave Camelot more of a shot. I watched six episodes(there were other turn-offs than just the violence). I only watched one episode of Game of Thrones**, but they killed three people in the first ten minutes and I lost interest fast. It's not like I can't appreciate dark shows. I loved Twin Peaks and I watched Reservoir Dogs multiple times back in the day. Two of my current favorite shows are True Blood and Dexter. But these shows all have strong characters and plots. The violence is used to move the story- not just thrown in for apparent shock value or because they can, which is what happens all too often these days. Movies and TV notoriously use tools such as sex, special effects and violence without any real discussion on whether they add to the story.

I don't like sounding like an old fogey, but I might have to go there to make my point. We used to get well-developed stories with interesting people doing interesting things. Now it seems like corporate owned-and-run Hollywood is just trying to find the perfect formula that will consistently sell their product. Such a shame that the industry who created wonderful films like E.T., Star Wars, Tootsie, Rambo(1st), The Godfather, Psycho, and Terms of Endearment makes us suffer through formulaic trash just because they are focusing solely on the business part of 'show business.'

And just because cable TV allows creativity to flourish without traditional restrictions, that doesn't mean channels like HBO, Showtime, and Starz should just fill their programming with violence, bad language, and sex, just because they can. Plot and character still matter. The Sex in 'Sex in the City' worked because the show was funny and the characters were well-developed. I couldn't imagine the show without the sex stuff. It was all part of the joke. But I didn't enjoy the cancelled Lucky Louie because, while it had moments, at the end of the day, the only differences between it and a lot of other sitcoms were the obscene language and subject matter. The Simpsons, Rosanne, and All In the Family were much better at cynical humor and they didn't need the vulgarity.

**I understand 'Thrones' was based on a series of books with strong characters and interesting plots, but I just can't sift through all the blood and boobs to give the HBO series a chance.