posted January 15, 2011 09:55 PM            

The whole story has intrigued me for some time, I have watched the modern version of the film many times now. The richard chambelain version that I posted the link to is a good one as well. I personally think he played the character well and that the overall feel of the movie is ... um. Feels more real.

Richard, to me portrayed a more complex, subtle character.

With all the power he had he still lost his love in the end, Which to me is more genuine. The old him was really gone which amazes me.

He really believed himself to be something else than what he was, no matter what trappings he is surrounded by.

I have not read the book, but I have planned on it in the near future. I would also like to see the older version of the film to compare differences and maybe revise my opinion's.

posted January 16, 2011 09:54 PM            

In the older version, does she die? Or, did I misunderstand your post.

posted January 17, 2011 10:03 AM            

So while he gained his power to exact revenge and set matters straight, Even after being sent to a prison wrongly for many years.The price he paid for it was his love would be lost to him.

Acute Tragedy

"Titus, with Anthony Hopkins"

posted January 21, 2011 10:07 PM            

Acute Tragedy

I can quickly see that it's a good story about the effects of revenge on one's "soul". The main character choosing to exact revenge and regain the power that he lost in such a terrible way... but, by doing so he loses fragments of his innocence and humanity?

posted January 21, 2011 11:54 PM            

The one stipulation the priest had was that the money be used to feed and clothe the poor of the world, to take care of a vast many.

The story eludes that eventually the count does this but you never see it in the films beyond those he needs to exact revenge.

I can only surmise that he like so many others never used it for good ultimately like the priest would have.

All that wasted on revenge and he lost the woman he loved plus his son.

All the while being self deluded believing himself to be "The instrument of God", In my view he was gifted a kindness by the priest and used it for his own desires.

That was the error.

The priest warned him not to use it for the crime that he had already served the sentence for.

In my view the priest had a point.

posted January 22, 2011 12:48 AM            

In my view the priest had a point.

Which was the best way to counteract the cruelty and evil in the world was by turning towards peace and focusing himself on those in need? Rather than sinking money and effort into fighting a battle against the friend who stole his lover and had him falsely imprisoned?

posted January 22, 2011 01:03 AM            

You can't fight evil with evil?

The only way to "win" is to forgive and find peace, somehow?

However, if Edmond Dantes had NOT planned his revenge, there would be no true entertainment and no great story to tell

Wasn't the excitement of this story partially attributed to what this man had to endure to recover his life, and how in some way, his bitterness and anger became a crutch and focal point to get him out of prison and realigned with society again?

I haven't read the book, but the storyline is very interesting because of that alone.

There's a human perspective that gets thrown under the bus and degraded when looking at "higher truths".

posted January 22, 2011 11:01 AM            

Yes, How many people died in the cold or from starvation before his revenge was complete so he could then turn his attention to help those in which the money was intended. The intention was diverted by human desire.

"I agree, philosophically, that the priest was right. However, on a more human level, of COURSE the man would want revenge!"

Which in my opinion is why having a philosophical outlook helps with this. Human emotion is INCREDIBLY hard to deal with, Much time is needed for understanding, to get a grip on yourself.

"The point: Better to forgive and forget than to be destroyed with bitterness and revenge, wasting your life fighting a hopeless battle?"

The battle was not hopeless for him, He had gained the means which to defeat almost anyone, Large money crushes anything in the human sphere of reality.

He could have paid someone desperate to kill off those he felt wronged by, quickly and be done with it, Could have been done for cheap too. -Grandiose schemes.

"However, if Edmond Dantes had NOT planned his revenge, there would be no true entertainment and no great story to tell"

Which makes me stop and wonder, It is easy to tell what interests people and what does not.

"Wasn't the excitement of this story partially attributed to what this man had to endure to recover his life, and how in some way, his bitterness and anger became a crutch and focal point to get him out of prison and realigned with society again?"

Of course, and if he had done it the way I stated no one would have watched the film, well maybe a few, I do not think that type of thing makes money.

"There's a human perspective that gets thrown under the bus and degraded when looking at "higher truths"."

Yes, Everyone is different and not subject to wanting or needing the same reality as the other. But yes one persons "higher truth" could step on the free will of another, it is hard not to step on others if you have the power to do it, and accidents happen.

Morals or Karma or Both.

"I believe that if God exists, he uses ALL things for good, whether or not we can comprehend that. So, YES, the priest was right, but the fact is, humans are imperfect and prone to human reactions... thus the need of "grace"."

I was not looking for perfection, But if a person was looking for having his or her name remembered for a very long time, Could you imagine having that wealth and using it not for good or evil but to practically feed and clothe those that are in need, to help with medical needs to those it can. Many family made or saved because of it.

You take 99.9% of the fortune and in a matter of years the world is changed not due to one man's greed or thirst for advancement of power, But because one choice was made.

He could then retire with a modest home in a warm place and live out his life with the goodwill of humanity with him.

Who remembers really rich people, and why would they matter to a individual person?

posted January 22, 2011 11:50 AM            

I agree with you, and with the importance of greater philosophy to guide humanity towards enlightened action.

I just had to play devil's advocate, though

posted January 22, 2011 01:26 PM            

Must be a reason why people wont do it.

I am sure through history a single wealthy man on his death bed willing his fortune over for that reason would have been remembered.

posted January 22, 2011 01:51 PM            

"Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (verses 23, 24).