'The Count of Monte Cristo' and the end of morality in movies | Opinion
“The Count of Monte Cristo” by Alexandre Dumas was the first “real” (non-sports) book I ever read. To my shame I was already in college, and trying to impress a woman who, 26 years later, I am still trying to impress. I loved the story. It was full of love and revenge and intrigue and swashbuckling (what is this?) and I was in.
Recently we watched the same story on the stage, courtesy of Union University Theatre, and they did a tremendous job handling the many characters and overlapping storylines. Again, I was struck by how beautiful and moral the story was. It was the opposite of the kind of revenge action movie I watched with my high school buddies in the 1990s, in that it painted vengeance as something that only belongs to the Lord, and it showed Edmund Dantes to be, ultimately, unsatisfied in it.
Delighted by the play, we rented the 2002 Monte Cristo movie starring Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce and realized it may be the last entry into a time-capsule in which Hollywood “tried” morality on any level, and in which Hollywood painted God (or “ideas about God”) in a positive light. It was fascinating and very straightforward and very linear and very fun and very earnest and very “90s” despite releasing in 2002. It was, I would argue, more moral and more God-saturated than the similar-era movies (the “Lord of the Rings” mega-franchise) that are usually credited with these things but just feel to me like people walking around in the dark. Anyway.
“The Count of Monte Cristo” was as accessible and innocent as the look on Caviezel’s uncomplicated face for most of it. The bad guys – Pearce’s grate-cheese-on-them cheekbones and smugness just scream “hate this guy” – were without complexity and nuance. The high spots (to borrow a wrestling term) were super fun, and it was peppered throughout with the little glimpses of humor that remind you that watching movies used to be enjoyable. Caviezel’s mid-length hair was horrible, and his beard was sponsored by Just For Men but in a way that reminded you that you were watching a figment of someone’s imagination and not an exercise in gritty hyper-reality.
I present, as counter-evidence, Robert Pattinson’s recent, glum, guylinered, millennial emo-Batman. It took us about two decades to take a concept (comic books, their characters) that was supposed to be fun and render it completely grim and joyless, but we’ve done it! Per rogerebert.com, Pattinson’s Batman was “Travis Bickle in the Batsuit, detached and disillusioned.” This was written in a fawning and complimentary tone. My main takeaway from experiencing a couple of hours with Travis Bickle in “Taxi Driver” was the feeling that I didn’t ever want to spend more time with Travis Bickle. We’ve made a Batman who has his own “dark stuff” and won’t judge you for any of your “dark stuff” (unless you live in Gotham and are doing whatever he deems to be really dark stuff) but who isn’t, in any way, a good hang. This Batman is a telehealth Zoom come-to-life.
Caviezel’s “Count of Monte Cristo” kind of reminded me to be better. Which I absolutely need, and which I am open to receiving via a movie that is also a good time. It said one true thing about God (the vengeance thing) and one true thing about the human heart (it’s sinful), and said it well, with joyfulness and style.
I’m still in.
Ted Kluck is the author of 30 books and teaches journalism at Union University.
This article originally appeared on Jackson Sun: 'The Count of Monte Cristo' and the end of morality in movies | Opinion
