I watched this to see how it handled Balzac's classic Eugénie Grandet. In the first part, it follows the novel quite closely. Then, however, it verges considerably, for various reasons.
First, Charles Grandet never becomes the cold-hearted cynic of Balzac's tale. In Balzac, he forgets about Eugénie entirely while off in the West Indies making a fortune, and when he returns to France ignores her for the homely daughter of a nobleman - he wants a title and access to high society, since he already has money. In the movie, Charles sincerely falls in love with Eugénie - could Valentino have been allowed to play such a cynic? Second, Grandet, who is already an excessive character in the novel, becomes even more obsessive in the movie. This leads to the greatest scene in the movie, Grandet's hallucinations while in his counting room, which are completely original with the film, very impressive, but have no equivalent in the novel.
Charles and Eugénie don't get much chance for real acting. That is left to Eugénie's father, and, in silent movie terms, he does a fine job.
I found it interesting that some of the very melodramatic scenes in the novel, which would have been great in a silent film, were not used, such as when Eugénie defies her father to serve Charles a good breakfast, and the classic melodramatic scene, when Père Grandet tries to cut the gold out of the box Charles gave Eugénie as a pledge for the money she had lent him.
Balzac's novel is better. He acknowledges the depths to which man can descend. But this movie has interesting scenes, mostly those invented by the script writer and the director.
First, Charles Grandet never becomes the cold-hearted cynic of Balzac's tale. In Balzac, he forgets about Eugénie entirely while off in the West Indies making a fortune, and when he returns to France ignores her for the homely daughter of a nobleman - he wants a title and access to high society, since he already has money. In the movie, Charles sincerely falls in love with Eugénie - could Valentino have been allowed to play such a cynic? Second, Grandet, who is already an excessive character in the novel, becomes even more obsessive in the movie. This leads to the greatest scene in the movie, Grandet's hallucinations while in his counting room, which are completely original with the film, very impressive, but have no equivalent in the novel.
Charles and Eugénie don't get much chance for real acting. That is left to Eugénie's father, and, in silent movie terms, he does a fine job.
I found it interesting that some of the very melodramatic scenes in the novel, which would have been great in a silent film, were not used, such as when Eugénie defies her father to serve Charles a good breakfast, and the classic melodramatic scene, when Père Grandet tries to cut the gold out of the box Charles gave Eugénie as a pledge for the money she had lent him.
Balzac's novel is better. He acknowledges the depths to which man can descend. But this movie has interesting scenes, mostly those invented by the script writer and the director.