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.
