Books into Screen: The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

The book that changes the way I see literature. My first love for Dumas. The most influential fiction I've ever read, right after Les Miserables. The picture of consequences in life, scepticism born out of injustice, darkest hue of human nature, in short, the sweet honey and bitter poison of reality. Yes, I'm talking about Dumas' masterpiece – The Count of Monte Cristo.

I was referring to the book; the film adaptation is blasphemy.

I can't imagine the worst possible way to destroy the whole beauty of The Count of Monte Cristo other than the way it has been adapted, changed, and ruined in this particular film. The reason that I have restrained myself so long before deciding to watch it at the first place is the duration. You can't condense Monte Cristo into two brief hours without butchering it. Comparison: the best adaptation of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, a novel in 200 something pages, is a mini series of 6 episodes. Monte Cristo is a big thick chunk you can use as a pillow. It covers the lives of so many people, each with his own story, his own past, his own choices, and his own end. It's a lesson of life and death, of happiness and sorrow, of courage and cowardice, of love and hatred, of loyalty and betrayal. It's not “just a love story”.

The film is just a love story.

It is so comically predictable. Sex scene of the unmarried couple in the beginning is quite a spoiler for the “whose-son-is-he” near the end. The picture of saintly woman trying to do the “right” thing is a stark contrast with Mercedes I'm familiar with. Instead of facing the fact that this woman was good enough waiting for 18 months before she married Fernand, without knowing whether Edmond was dead or alive, the film gives her 1 month only to mourn for her beloved thinking that he was dead – but with good excuse of being pregnant. Positive side, the count had an excellent opportunity to say “in a month you won't even remember my name”, and Fernand later on, had a privilege to say to his supposedly son, “Your mother was a whore in her youth as much as she is now.”

And the love story ends happily. The Count of Monte Cristo has a family by the time the film ends, the beautiful lady reunited with her true love, the young son has a brand new rich father, the rival is dead, and everything's perfect. Nobody cares that it makes Albert a bastard in a society that regards birth as something substantially important. Nobody cares that by revealing himself as Dantes before the law he puts himself under the law, and is punishable for breaking out of jail. It's a neverland after all.

Oh, and the other people. I'd forgotten. Were there any other people? I mean, people of importance? Where's Haidee, who opened the future for the Count? Where's Ali, the Nubian, who had been the Count's loyal slave and best friend? Max, every one, the boy for whom the Count had greatest affection? Where are the other dozen of people whose lives were improved, ruined, or ended by the Count's determination?

Another important aspect of Dumas' Monte Cristo is the elaborate plan he had made just to avenge himself. He didn't touch those people with his own hand. Like an angel of death, instead of shooting a man with a gun he shaped the circumstances leading to their own ruins. Certainly not by exposing his source of riches as a bait for mouse-trap-like ambush. Not his style. Goodness! How I want to rant about the way he found Haidee, the way he got Bertuccio, the way he set Andrea Calvacanti on the stage, the way he intercepted and modified the telegrams, the way he dried up Danglars' fortune! Those smart elaborate plan changed into a sword fight and two ambushes. What?!

Blasphemy as it is, I shouldn't trample upon it so mercilessly. There are good bits in it. My favourite being Albert's reaction to his kidnapping in the catacombs (although actually, because he's the Count's son it doesn't really matter any more. It's just further proof that good trees yield good fruit, bad trees don't have a chance to change).

But maybe the film was written for modern world. Premarital sex and adultery are presented as harmless and normal while in the setting of the story it's a great taboo and a bad reflection on the Count's merit as a gentleman. As for me, a gentle and honourable Edmond Dantes of the book is more preferable. Monte Cristo's speech in Albert's birthday fits perfectly into the moral of the film and the taste of revenge and hatred in the modern world. “Do your worst because I will do mine.” I'd rather choose his final message, a message of evidently a wiser man, “Wait and Hope.”

Wait and hope for a better adaptation in the future, perhaps? Who knows?

Books into Screen: Tenggelamnya Kapal Van der Wijck

I don't always read Indonesian books and I don't always watch Indonesian movies. I read Indonesian classics, though, some of them, one of which is, Tenggelamnya Kapal Van der Wijck by Hamka.

The book review is not yet on my blog. No. I read the book last month, but less than 5 hours after I bought it and 10 minutes after I finished reading it, the book fell into my friend's hand, which afterwards wouldn't return until several more read it in months to come.

Or maybe not. I'll reclaim it soon enough.

Right, so let's be satisfied with the film for the time being.

I can't even satisfyingly express how amazing it is. Book lovers, Indonesian, it would be a great crime to miss this thing. I might have underestimated local films too much, but I readily say that I've never watched any local film that would even compare to this.

Since I haven't written the book review, I will not speak of the plot, neither would I feed the readers with spoilers. But the followings are things worth noted of the film.

First, the scenes. Your eyes would feast upon the beauty of Indonesia - the mountains, the sunsets, the forest, everything is just a sweet treat.

Second, I must congratulate the actors and actresses for the quality of local dialects they portray during the film. The Makassar accent is my favourite, though, it sounds strong but sexy. Love the actor for it. The amount of local languages in the script is amazing, one could believe he is being transferred to a distant past and faraway land.

Because the story is set in the 30s, the language, the diction is just...adorable. I love that they basically copy the dialogues from the novel, thus retain the poetical beauty of it. While I use much English when writing, I am not really fond of deriving words from English when writing Indonesian poetry and it is indeed frustrating at times to write in pure Indonesian words since the stock of vocabulary is not as abundant as the English but the novel shows how strong our language can be.

My favourite part of the film, however, is also my favourite part of the novel. As a hint, I would only say, "the fireplace scene." That's it.

Having said that I'm not a fan of Indonesian movies, I still strongly recommend this one. How good is that? To further describe how good it is, I would say, "So good that I went to watch it, not once, but twice." Yes, it's that good.

Here's the trailer. (I can't wait for the DVD release.)

Books into Screen: Cyrano de Bergerac (1990)

I watched this one quite in a hurry and a was a bit forced to do so, because the end of January is approaching and I haven't written a post for the Let's Read Play Monthly Meme. Excellent. So here I am, in the middle of the night, writing.

Anyway. Cyrano de Bergerac film is strongly based on a play of the same title by Edmond Rostand, a French playwright. I said “strongly” because it is indeed strongly based on the play. Many adaptations love to make a little twist here and there, but this film doesn't do much of that thing.

Confession: I don't speak French. It means I missed a lot of good jokes in the film, no matter how brilliant the English subtitle is. But I love Gerard Depardieu's interpretation of the role. It's simply wonderful. Cyrano is strong, brave, brilliant, man of words and action, but he's also shy and timid when it comes to the matter of love. He fears rejection. Gerard is just perfect for the role, very much alike both in appearance and actions as the one I imagined when I read the play.

Roxane is a bit too calm. I wish she would be a little more cheerful, but in the film she is pretty quiet and passive. Her eyes don't show much intelligent either. She is a bit dull for my taste. In the play, I imagine her as a smart witty lady who wants love from somebody better than her in words. Roxane in the film is good, but not as amazing as Gerard, obviously.

Now, Christian. Vincent Perez did a great job with the role. His Christian is a dashing, handsome, brave, yet not-so-good-with-words fellow who falls in love with the beautiful Roxane. His acting is commendable and his relationship with Bergerac so natural.

I won't comment much on the story though. As I said before, it's just as it is in the play. Nothing to complain there. But I must say that at times the film looks somewhat dull to me. I don't know if it's because it's old, or because it strictly follows the play. Not every play is good when it's brought to film instead of stage, won't you agree?

Books into Screen: Les Misérables (2012)

Directed by Tom Hooper, this is actually an adaptation of a musical by Schönberg, which is itself an adaptation of Victor Hugo's famous work of the same title. But this film brings more allusion to the novel than regular musical stage performance, even changes the musical here and there to fit the novel more – an effort I truly appreciate.

If you haven't watched the film and don't want to read any spoiler, please do not continue reading. You have been warned.

Firstly, the setting, the props, the costume are magnificent. From the factory uniform to the prostitutes vestitures, Javert's uniform to barricade boys' emblem, all are amazing. The barricade, the elephant, and Valjean's garden, all bring memories back to the novel, which makes watching the film even more exciting.

Then the story itself. I've only watched the 10th and 25th Anniversary Concert of Les Miserables. Thus I only know the lines that they sang there. But here are the things that are in the film but not in the two productions mentioned above and yet true to the novel:

1. Valjean meets Javert in Montreuil-sur-Mer and how Javert confesses to Valjean that he has reported Valjean to the authority, wrongly accuses him as an ex-convict.
2. Valjean buys a doll for Cosette.
3. Marius background as a grandson of a rich royalist is mentioned there. There is even a scene when he says he eats only what he earns. One of the things I love most from Marius, and those are not in usual musical performance.
4. Valjean actually sings that he doesn't want Cosette to marry, that he fears the idea. Again, nice reference to the novel.
5. Gavroche dies while singing and taking cartridges from the dead bodies. The only difference exists from the novel is the song that he sings.
6. Enjolras' death, together with Grantaire's is emphasised. Still, pity the bullets don't pin him to the wall.

Those are just some of them. I only write the most important and outstanding of the novel-based scenes that I found in the film. Now to the things I don't really appreciate.

1. No clue whatsoever that Grantaire doesn't care a bit of revolution and only stays there for the sake of Enjolras. In the musical, one part of Drink with Me actually shows it. Just a little, but enough as a tribute to his indifference to all idea of revolution, freedom, equality and such. In the film, they cut it. What a pity!
2. In the film, Valjean takes a National Guard uniform from the field and wears it. Well, I understand that perhaps they have no time to explain where Jean gets this uniform from, but they don't have to make him steal it from a dead body. A bit out of character there.
3. My eyes may be wrong, but does Valjean kill a soldier in the barricade? He shoots at least. In the novel, he aims for the hat only, but spares the man's life. That's the point. He's there, not to join the rebellion. And moreover, it's important that he kills nobody.
4. No clue that Gavroche is Eponine's sister.

Now, the cast.

1. Anne Hathaway is a brilliant Fantine. Nice acting. I don't want to comment on her singing. Although so many people report that they cry during I Dreamed a Dream, I didn't. Sorry.
2. Hugh Jackman is also a very good Jean Valjean. His smile when he's around Cosette is actually heart-warming. A little comment on his singing. I understand that he wants more emphasise on acting, but his Who Am I doesn't work for me. His Bring Him Home, which is already out-of-character, doesn't impress me at all.
3. Russell Crowe's Javert doesn't really impress me either. Instead of being a passionate lover of the law, he looks like a body without soul. His voice lacks the sternness required of the role, and he struggles with the notes at times. But his death, huft. I screamed.
4. Eddie Redmayne as Marius. He's the most likeable Marius I've ever seen in Les Miserables adaptations. He has the balance of revolutionary student and inexperienced lover.
5. Aaron Tveit's Enjolras gains a lot of fans out there. No wonder. Enjolras is a deep and attractive character both in the novel and the musical. He is even more likeable than Marius. Aaron is stern, serious, and frightening at times. He clearly shows his strong conviction, and his mind consists only of revolution. Great interpretation of Enjolras. Still, I love Ramin Karimloo's interpretation better. Aaron lacks a bit, only a bit, of fire. The blazing, fierce flame of revolutionary spirit, the vision, hope and dream of tomorrow, all that is hidden too much behind that serious expression he wears.
6. Samantha Barks as Eponine. Nice singing, nice acting. She's perfect for the role.
7. Helena Carter and Sacha Cohen are not really impressive. They do well, but not really impressive.
8. Colm Wilkinson plays a great Bishop Myriel. I love his expression.

Overall, the film is a must watch, and is worthy of the novel and musical. Despite all the minus point that I give to it, I still love it all the same. But beware! The film will be hard to understand if you haven't read the book AND watched the musical. Yes, it was an AND. As stated before, the film is a complex combination of both, with plot and detail twist here and there. I watched it with my mother and she bombarded me with questions (and I bombarded her back with explanation) afterwards.

That's it. I actually didn't want to complain about the singing since it has nothing to do with the book, but I love opera and musical too much not to say anything about it. Watch the film – it worths the pain.

New Feature: Books into Screen

I am going to make another feature in this blog. I am very forgetful, so I want to make it easier for me, and hopefully others, to find things in this blog by organising them nicely. I've tried this by arranging things I like in different tags and put the tags on my sidebar, so that it'd be easier to look for. These things are namely Coat of Arms (for coat-of-arms in literatures that I want to blazon and visualize), Off the Shelves (things not connected to books that I truly love), and Bad Translation (Shakespeare and other classic works translated into daily Bahasa Indonesia).

Now another thing. I love it when books are adapted into screens. It might be TV series, films, or even musical and opera. This year for the first time I join a challenge on reviewing books and films based on them, but I still have another problem: I don't always watch the film and read the book in the same year. So..

Here we are. Books into Screen will feature book adaptations into mainly films. I will just say how the film is related to the book, and adding some personal opinion about them. I'm going to love this.

Please enjoy~