I like Robert Donat. He had marvelous stage presence, and a fine speaking voice (ironically, as he suffered from asthma). He was a terrific actor, who did get an Oscar for his portrayal of MR. CHIPS, but due to poor health made far too few movies. And we are the poorer for it.
His performance as Edmond Dantes, in THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, is the one most people recall seeing. It is the best known performance in that role on film. But is it the best performance? I think it is one of the two best performances. The other one was by Gerald Depardieu in a film version for television that was shown on two nights a few years back as a mini-series. It told far more of the details of the thousand page plot than this film version with Donat did. But that might be a serious defect.
It sometimes helps to plow through a long classic work to see what all the shouting is about. Alexander Dumas Sr.'s novel was an adventure tale set in the years 1815 to 1830/35. It was more than an adventure novel. The son of a French Revolutionary War General, Dumas recognized that the Bourbon restoration of 1814, and 1815 - 1830 was a step backward for French liberties - that despite Napoleon's egomania he had straightened out France's constitutional rights and had restored it's glories. So the novel, looking at the careers of it's three (or four) villains notes who is considered favorably by the new regime: the business swindler Danglars (who becomes a banker), the questionable military hero De Mondego, and the ruthless, hypocritical legal master De Villefort. The fourth villain, Caderrouse, is a born criminal, who is in and out of jail. He is really a human parasite in the story. He doesn't even appear in this version with Donat.
The idea of the novel is that circumstances twist the fate of Edmond Dantes into the hands of these swine. Danglars is jealous that his employers by-passed him, and made Dantes (a younger man) the captain of the merchant ship they work on. De Mondego is in love with Mercedes, and she is to marry Dantes, so he hates his shipmate as well. De Villefort finds that Dantes unwittingly knows information about the return of Napoleon from Elba that could blast his career with the Bourbons (the information implicates De Villefort's father, a longtime supporter of the Emperor). So it is that these three act together to put Dantes out of the way - in the infamous Château D'If prison.
The novel shows how Dantes tunnels into the cell of the Abbe Faria, how the latter teaches him the sciences, history, culture, and bequeaths to him a buried treasure he was protecting. After a remarkable escape, Dantes gets to the isle of Monte Cristo off Italy and finds the treasure. And he uses it to destroy his enemies.
Because the three have Achilles heels it is not too difficult, but if the film was shown as the novel reads a film director would have a serious problem: After four hundred pages of plot, one begins to resent Dantes - now the Count of Monte Cristo. He is so determined to destroy these three (and Caderrouse, who helped starve Dantes' dependent father to death), that innocent third parties are hurt all over the place. Also some of the plots make the villains less villainous because their personal lives are involved. De Villefort finds members of his family being poisoned, and suspicion falling on his beloved daughter. This plot line was jettisoned in the 1934 film version. Probably just as well, as Louis Calhern's characterization of De Villefort was quite sharp and business-like, but not loving as the actual character is to his legitimate children in the novel (however, he does try to dispose of an illegitimate baby at one point - an act that eventually helps destroy him).
For a good, "classic comics" style version of Dumas' novel, Donat's film will do well. But try to catch Depardieu's version, and (better yet) try to read the complete novel.
His performance as Edmond Dantes, in THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO, is the one most people recall seeing. It is the best known performance in that role on film. But is it the best performance? I think it is one of the two best performances. The other one was by Gerald Depardieu in a film version for television that was shown on two nights a few years back as a mini-series. It told far more of the details of the thousand page plot than this film version with Donat did. But that might be a serious defect.
It sometimes helps to plow through a long classic work to see what all the shouting is about. Alexander Dumas Sr.'s novel was an adventure tale set in the years 1815 to 1830/35. It was more than an adventure novel. The son of a French Revolutionary War General, Dumas recognized that the Bourbon restoration of 1814, and 1815 - 1830 was a step backward for French liberties - that despite Napoleon's egomania he had straightened out France's constitutional rights and had restored it's glories. So the novel, looking at the careers of it's three (or four) villains notes who is considered favorably by the new regime: the business swindler Danglars (who becomes a banker), the questionable military hero De Mondego, and the ruthless, hypocritical legal master De Villefort. The fourth villain, Caderrouse, is a born criminal, who is in and out of jail. He is really a human parasite in the story. He doesn't even appear in this version with Donat.
The idea of the novel is that circumstances twist the fate of Edmond Dantes into the hands of these swine. Danglars is jealous that his employers by-passed him, and made Dantes (a younger man) the captain of the merchant ship they work on. De Mondego is in love with Mercedes, and she is to marry Dantes, so he hates his shipmate as well. De Villefort finds that Dantes unwittingly knows information about the return of Napoleon from Elba that could blast his career with the Bourbons (the information implicates De Villefort's father, a longtime supporter of the Emperor). So it is that these three act together to put Dantes out of the way - in the infamous Château D'If prison.
The novel shows how Dantes tunnels into the cell of the Abbe Faria, how the latter teaches him the sciences, history, culture, and bequeaths to him a buried treasure he was protecting. After a remarkable escape, Dantes gets to the isle of Monte Cristo off Italy and finds the treasure. And he uses it to destroy his enemies.
Because the three have Achilles heels it is not too difficult, but if the film was shown as the novel reads a film director would have a serious problem: After four hundred pages of plot, one begins to resent Dantes - now the Count of Monte Cristo. He is so determined to destroy these three (and Caderrouse, who helped starve Dantes' dependent father to death), that innocent third parties are hurt all over the place. Also some of the plots make the villains less villainous because their personal lives are involved. De Villefort finds members of his family being poisoned, and suspicion falling on his beloved daughter. This plot line was jettisoned in the 1934 film version. Probably just as well, as Louis Calhern's characterization of De Villefort was quite sharp and business-like, but not loving as the actual character is to his legitimate children in the novel (however, he does try to dispose of an illegitimate baby at one point - an act that eventually helps destroy him).
For a good, "classic comics" style version of Dumas' novel, Donat's film will do well. But try to catch Depardieu's version, and (better yet) try to read the complete novel.