It is no wonder that this story has multiple adaptations. It has everything: epic scope, human drama, the battle between good and evil, and the ultimate triumph of the former. I would even go so far to say that it is not yet milked for all its value; the story of Pitcairn island only began with this story, and I would love to know more about what happened thereafter.
Silly me, I assumed that the better movie version would be the more modern, ambitious, and Brandoed of the two. It is clear that his power and emotions ran away with him during filming, though. Focusing so much on the romance, and the resulting blow to pacing and narrative, was clearly his fault. And there are character choices that make his version of Fletcher Christian suffer in comparison to Gable's: a certain foppery and affectation that reduce the stakes of his choices among them.
But overall I think the credit for the earlier version's ultimate superiority can be given to the editors, rather than the performers. Even if Laughton's version of Bligh descends into caricature rather too often, the tight pacing and streamlined script of the 1930s version are what ultimately make it the better of the two.
But was it great? I can't bring myself to go that far. Surely the cinematography is a marvel (in both versions), and one struggles to imagine how the filming of either was even possible with existing techniques and technologies. However, I maintain that a movie can only ever rise to the level of its concept, and in both cases the intention was just to tell a story, not to reflect a larger truth. Good, but Great was never going to be in reach.
No comments:
Post a Comment