Oral Aversion
You know, aversion -- in contrast to "fixation", I suppose. I have the personal delight of giving an "oral presentation" (which is not to exceed 5 minutes under any circumstances) in my History of Theatre class. (Yes, it is astonishing how little real work I'm doing at school this semester.) It gets a little better: it's a presentation on The Count of Monte Cristo. Wait, you say, The Count of Monte Cristo is literature not theatre -- it was a book, dammit! Indeed. Nevertheless it was adapted into a series of 3 plays by Dumas. Never fear, then, you say -- we're talking about the plays! Huzzah! It is theatre.
...no, it's Rhode Island College, baka! We're talking about the 2002 movie adaptation of the book. Yes, that's right, the loose, modern cinematographic re-interpretation of the English version of a French book is indeed the focus of the current section of my History of Theatre class.
No matter, though. It's a fine movie, a good story, and (supposedly) a great book -- I haven't read it all, yet.
Except that there's this chess piece. It's a king. Dantes and Fernand toss this chess piece back and forth as they become "king of the moment" in their exploits. They do not include the blinking, neon "Symbolic Plot Device" sign that accompanies the chess piece, as it would be too large and gaudy to throw around. Instead Napolean Bonepart (why not, right?) says to Dantes "We are all either kings or paws in this life." If you cross you eyes like when you're looking at those stereograms during that scene you can see that in the distance a giant Greek statue is holding the big neon sign.
Anyway, that's what I'll be talking about. No, not the Greek statue. The chess piece. As a cheap meta-device. Meta-device, I say? That's right: the chess not only works as all sorts of hero-villain banter-replacement and revenge symbology, it's also squarely situated in the possession of whichever character is currently dictating events in the film. Fernand has it (and notably keeps it even when Dantes announces his upcoming marriage) when he prepares to setup Dantes. Dantes receives it on his way to prison where he becomes the man plotting revenge. Fernand gets it back at the moment of Dantes' revenge only to become the force that controls the final outcome of the movie. It's almost like whoever has the king is manipulating everyone else in the story... as if they were some kind of... pawns or something.
This, my friends, loyal readers, disloyal skimmers, assorted surfers (if any), and people not yet avenged by my ever-building wrath, is deep shit. Behold the subtlety of modern cinema and despair.
