The Count of Monte Cristo (2024) - overrated

Disclaimer : I don’t recommend reading this if you don’t know the story at all, or have not at least watched one movie. Major spoilers ahead.

First of all, I am a sucker for adaptations, it is bordering on obsession. If I read a book or watch a movie I like, I will go down the rabbit hole and find everything I can to exhaust the subject and myself. For example, I have watched the 12 adaptations I could find of Jane Eyre, or in this case 9 different adaptations of The Count of Monte Cristo (as well as a Japanese anime and two “Bande-dessinée” / Comics.) This is called hyper fixation – a benefice of bipolar disorder (Whoop whoop!).

The Count of Monte Cristo is a masterpiece of French literature. It was written by Alexandre Dumas and originally published as a serialized « feuilleton » in a newspaper over a two year period, between 1854 and 1856. Knowing that Dumas was paid by the word, it is probably why it is such a long story.

At the time already, it was a hugely popular. People of all ages and backgrounds would wait for weeks to read the next chapters. And since then, it has only grown and has been adapted over twenty-five times.

Edmond Dantès is a fascinating hero of French literature in this tale of revenge and redemption based in a very crucial period of French history.

Once upon a time in France...

(It’s actually 1815, and if you remember the story you can skip this part) The Emperor Napoleon has been imprisoned on the island of Elba. Edmond Dantès is a young sailor, hard-working, deeply loyal to his father and deeply in love with Mercedes, a young Catalan woman who is equally devoted to him.

After a long voyage, Edmond returns to Marseilles with a promising future, he will be promoted captain of the ship and is now engaged to Mercedes.

However, he is betrayed by three people who unbeknownst to him have loathed and envied him for a long time:

→ Danglars, the purser / accountant of his ship “The Pharaoh”

→ Fernand Montego, a Catalan fisherman, who is in love with Mercedes (and who is also Mercedes’s cousin)

→ And Villefort, an ambitious deputy crown prosecutor,

So on the day of his engagement party, Edmond is arrested for treason. Accused of being a sympathizer of Napoleon by an anonymous letter, he is sent to the If Castle, a prison on an island from where escaping is impossible, and from where you never come out apart for your burial (think Alcatraz).

Edmond will stay there for years.

One day, another prisoner enters his cell thanks to a tunnel he had dug. This is Abbe Faria, an Italian scholar with a wealth of knowledge who teaches him everything he knows, from geometry to Latin, even etiquette and manners. This is, personally, one of my favourite part of the story.

I’m not going to tell you how, (just in case, in spite of my warning you read anyway) but after 14 years, Edmond Dantès escapes and he becomes incredibly rich thanks to Abbe Faria’s hidden treasure on the island of Monte Cristo. He then leaves his identity behind to become the mysterious Count of Monte Cristo. Lead only by his desire for revenge, he uses artifices, disguises, aliases and tricks to masterfully provoke the demise of his three traitors.

So here we are, in 2024.

A new adaptation comes out, this time by the directing duo: Alexandre de la Patellière and Mathieu Delaporte. With Pierre Niney in the title role of Edmond Dantès alias the Count of Monte Cristo.

I was so excited for this new project which seemed beautiful cinematically speaking and with some of the best French actors of this generation.

In cinemas, the 42,9 millions euros budget movie grossed about 100 millions euros worldwide and got 14 César nominations (the French equivalent of the Baftas and Oscars). It was a massive success. However, from the very first scene, not only was I heartbroken but the more the story advanced, the more scandalised and angry I got.

Honestly, I’ve never had such a visceral reaction to a movie adaptation. My sister, family, friends and colleagues ended up suffering for a week because I needed to get it off my chest.

The art of adaptation is hard to master,

And before anyone tells me, you can’t adapt an 1100 pages novel and be super faithful, you have to cut storyline and characters,…

I say: of course! I know and that is not the issue. Look at Arwen in Lord of the rings, she is actually a mix of Arwen and Glorfindel, another elf who is supposed to be the one to save Frodo especially in the flood scene with the ring wraiths.

Or even in Practical magic, major storylines and characters were dropped and yet, it translated exactly the mood and atmosphere of the book (I even prefer the movie in that case).

On the contrary in Romeo + Juliet, Baz Lurhmann completely changed the time period and the place but he translated perfectly the most famous love story of all time.

My point is this: I am not a purist.

Adaptations are a wonderful way to see a work of art in a different eye. To find out about the subtlety of the characters and someone else's vision of the story. It is fascinating. In all the versions I watched (from between 1917 and 2025), I can find interesting aspects in all of them. Some versions I love, some like a little or a lot, but there is only one I hate and it is this one. (On a side note, the movies I hate can be counted on the fingers of my hand)

The tragedy of this movie:

As I mentioned before, the budget and grossing were great.

The actors amazing, especially Pierre Niney who is – in my humble opinion – the best French actor in his generation. The scene with Lord Whitmore is actually incredible, even his parents did not recognise him under his disguise.

Which leads us to Pierre Olivier Persin, the special make-up effects artist who is so very talented. He also worked on The substance that same year.

There were about 150 hours of make-up just for the Count’s character alone.

The music, stunning,…

And rave reviews... during the movie promotion, the interviews and panels,…the directors and actors kept saying they wanted to respect the work and that they were huge admirers of it. And most of all, they were acclaimed by everyone for the faithfulness of the movie. (cf. The 14 nominations).

So yes, indeed, it is a great blockbuster, especially good for the development of the French film industry worldwide and yet, it is a terrible adaptation.

So where did it go wrong? Will you ask…

Well, where to begin?

• Ah, let’s start with the traitors and their sins.

The characters are like in the great novels, be it Elizabeth Bennett, Katniss Everdeen or Hercule Poirot. You just know them. They are people you would recognise in the street if they passed you by.

→ So when Danglars, the ship accountant becomes some kind of tattooed pirate obviously corrupted, alcoholic and vulgar … it is ridiculous. Danglars would never be openly violent. It was his idea to use an anonymous letter to denounce Edmond. He is cunning and manipulated Fernand into going through with the scheme. This way, he can deny having anything to do with it. He is s a sly manipulator and even though his greed and ambition are his sins, he is very subtle about it.

→ As for Fernand Montego, now Count de Morcef, he is the happy husband of Mercedes, and the father of Albert.

A rich man, he accessed nobility thanks to his relationship with Ali Pacha of Yanina (a real historical figure). However, it is revealed that he has achieved his status through betrayal and cruelty. Something he has done to Edmond before for personal gain.

In the adaptation, they picture him as a brave soldier. He isn’t. He is a lucky deserter at best, but here, they even invent a duel scene where despite being a great swordsman, he dies almost bravely at the hands of Edmond.

This too, is ridiculous! (First of all, the count does not kill but I’ll come back to this later.) Fernand is a coward, he gained everything because of his envy and through cowardice. He didn’t fight for anything and in the original story, he dies at his own hand, because he is unable to face responsibility for his actions and does not want to lose face when he loses Mercedes and Albert.

→ As for Villefort,… it is beyond ridiculous… They invent a sister who seems to be some kind of pirate as well. Villefort is clearly ashamed of her, being the crown deputy to the king. He ends up killing her, strangling her with his bare hands because she could compromise him and his ambition.

Villefort would never do that. He has always prided himself in being an honourable man (apart from that little Dantès incident obviously). He would never ever do something that he could not justify in his own mind as to be the right thing to do.

So it is clear, the directors made all those changes for spectacle and to make more of an impact to modern audiences. The Count of Monte Cristo does not need that. It is one of the most adventurous and captivating story ever written. If it was not exciting enough, it would not be as popular as it still is today, more than 170 years later.

• Worst of all, they did not understand who is Edmond and who is the Count

The Count, blinded by his desire for revenge, unleashes his wrath on all the people responsible for his imprisonment and years in hell.

He does have this terrible side of him. He manipulates people, create opportunities to trap them and ruin what is most important to them: fortune, status and reputation.

But it is a fine line between revenge and justice.

One of the (many) thing(s) that the film doesn’t show is that the Count gives them the opportunity to make the right choice. A second chance if you will, to prove him wrong. But they never do. They have not changed and are still as corrupt, as proud, as greedy as twenty years before. So their downfall is well deserved, and self-induced. The Count does not kill.

Danglars is ruined (almost), Fernand, disgraced and Villefort goes mad.

Pierre Niney incarnates this facet with perfection.

But that is the problem you see. They portrayed only one facet. They lost all the complexity and subtlety of the characters, the biggest victim of them all being Edmond.

There is no duality in this movie which is a major theme of the novel.

Because Edmond is still here and his kindness and generosity is very present even when he lives his theatrical life as the Count. He is incredibly loyal and generous to the ones he loves.

Alexandre Dumas knew the human heart and it is not black or white. He knew we live and move in the greys.

That is why Edmond is so moving. We see him grow from an innocent and good-hearted man who did everything right, going through the darkness of adversity and yet, with a will so strong, we see him coming back to the light.

Edmond represents the justice we do not always get. He sacrifices a long part of his life to achieve it and almost loses himself. But in the end, he survives.

Life gives its toughest battles to its strongest soldiers.

proverb

And if you needed more (– even if you didn’t I would still write this because) this is where…

• Enters Haidée, (and my biggest beef of all)

(This could also be titled: The ultimate proof that they did not understand anything)

Haidée, enters late in the story, maybe that is why her character arc is not always accepted. However, her story mirrors that of Edmond:

→ She was betrayed by Fernand, so was Edmond.

→ Her father Ali Pacha died because of it, so did Edmond’s father.

→ She was sold into slavery, Edmond was lock away.

They both suffered for a very long time.

As for the reasons why people misunderstand her role:

→ “She is his slave.”

She is not. Edmond buys her freedom, yes, but she is free to leave from the very beginning. However, she decides to stay with him, yes, but also to get her own revenge over Fernand. They keep up the appearance of a pupil because it serves his revenge as well as hers.

The power dynamic is not the one people say it is.

Also, the fact that Alexandre Dumas’s own grandmother was a slave gives their story another dimension.

→ “She is younger.”

She is 19 and Edmond is about 40.

It was another time. People did get married at that age and even though today, it is not uncommon, a 19 years old then is not a 19 years old today. Moreover, having lived and gone through everything she has, she is not an adolescent.

Nowadays, storytellers tend to omit or modify certain details that are problematic instead of explaining and putting back into context.

→ “The Mercedes thing / competition”

To be fair, this is an issue with many adaptations not just with this one.

People are hell bent on Edmond ending up with his first love Mercedes. I mean if I had gotten married with my first boyfriend – or maybe my first three boyfriends, I would be divorced three times by now.

Mercedes only knows Edmond; Haidée knows Edmond and the Count. She has seen and loves both of him.

She is the last key to redemption and the happy ending so many adaptations deny him.

When Edmond achieves everything he wished for, and when he realises it went too far, indirectly because of his actions, he does not know what to do. He had never even anticipated a life after, until he was done.

He does not believe he could deserve a second chance at life. But his future with Haidée is part of his redemption.

To your relief, this will be my last words on the subject (hopefully)

You see, The Count of Monte Cristo is a study on human psychology. It is as universal as Shakespeare’s wonderful plays. It talks to everyone and everyone understands because it is deeply human.

This interpretation loses all depth, it is superficial, just for show. Hence the two César wins (out of the 14 nominations) which were for the craft departments: Costume Design and Best Art Direction, which were indeed worthy of the Count’s tricks.

Here, The Count of Monte Cristo ‘s soul was betrayed, its messages lost and the cinematic quality is not enough to make up for it.

Ironically Alexandre de la Patellierre’s father, Denys, directed the 1979 TV adaptation with Jacques Weber in the title role and it is one of the best I have seen in terms of faithfulness. He said he really studied his father’s work during his own process so, I would ask... what got lost in generation?