November 15, 2003

WHAT ABOUT ME?:

Empire Falls: How Master and Commander gets Patrick O'Brian wrong. (Christopher Hitchens, Nov. 14, 2003, Slate)

Unlike Forester, O'Brian set himself not just to show broadsides and cutlass work and flogging and the centrality of sea power, but to re-create all of the ambiguities and contradictions of England's long war against revolutionary and Napoleonic France. (This, I argue, was the true and real "First World War," because it extended itself to every ocean and almost every nation, not exempting this one.) The summa of O'Brian's genius was the invention of Dr. Stephen Maturin. He is the ship's gifted surgeon, but he is also a scientist, an espionage agent for the Admiralty, a man of part Irish and part Catalan birth—and a revolutionary. He joins the British side, having earlier fought against it, because of his hatred for Bonaparte's betrayal of the principles of 1789—principles that are perfectly obscure to bluff Capt. Jack Aubrey. Any cinematic adaptation of O'Brian must stand or fall by its success in representing this figure.

On this the film doesn't even fall, let alone stand. It skips the whole project. As played by the admittedly handsome and intriguing Paul Bettany, Maturin is no more than a good doctor with finer feelings and a passion for natural history. At one point he is made to say in an English accent that he is Irish—but that's the only hint we get. In the books, for example, he quarrels badly with Aubrey about Lord Nelson's support for slavery. But here a superficial buddy movie is born out of one of the subtlest and richest and most paradoxical male relationships since Holmes and Watson.


Note that, for Mr. Hitchens these stories are about himself. As he describes Maturin, the good doctor is, like Mr. Hitchens, a revolutionary who switched to the very side he'd been revolting against, because the revolution's original, "noble" ideals were betrayed. Perhaps Bill Bennett can play Aubrey.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 15, 2003 6:07 PM
Comments

I've not read the books, but it's certainly impossible to adapt a novel to the screen without ticking off some fans because of what's left out. The time limits alone are formidable: one page of screenplay equals one minute of screen time, so a complete screen version of even a short novel would be elephantine.

Word is that the producers hope this will be the first of a series, so perhaps the Maturin character can be more fully portrayed in subsequent films.

Posted by: PapayaSF at November 15, 2003 7:32 PM

Yes, but Maturin's intrigues provide the real weft to the stories.

We should be grateful that the plot isn't transposed into a 21st century air power yarn, I suppose.

Posted by: old maltese at November 16, 2003 12:08 PM

Great comment about Hitchens.

Talk about the glass being 10% empty instead of 90% full...

Posted by: Steve Sailer at November 16, 2003 8:59 PM
« PROPOSING & DISPOSING: | Main | BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE A PARADIGM (via Tom Corcoran): »