MovieChat Forums > 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1955) Discussion > Bothered by the way this film portrayed ...

Bothered by the way this film portrayed the ending of Verne's novel

posted 16 years ago by IceboxMovies
15 replies | jump to latest

Anybody who has read the Verne novel is aware that it ended with Professor Arronax questioning Captain Nemo's questionable fate and survival. Verne gave the novel this kind of ambiguous ending for a reason: he felt that it would be best to let the myth of the scientific unknown remain as a myth, but to prevent the myth from being busted at the same time.

Fleischer and Disney's misinterpretation of the novel's ending worries me. They end it with the Nautilus blowing up while Nemo obviously meets his demise as a result of "bullet wounds". But doesn't this go completely againt the messages of the novel's final chapters?

Let me refer to the chapter of the novel entitled "Captain Nemo's Last Words" (I am reading from the edition translated by Mendor T. Brunetti and Walter James Miller). During this chapter, Arronax witnesses Nemo yelling out this one final cry of desperation:

"Almighty God! Enough! Enough!"

By the time Arronax, Conseil and Ned Land escape, the Nautilus has already been swallowed whole by a maelstrom, yet it isn't made clear whether or not it emerged unharmed. Even more unclear is the question of Captain Nemo's own fate. This is why Arronax, during the "Conclusion" chapter, is left to ponder:

"What happened to the Nautilus? Did she succeed in escaping from the powerful grip of the maelstrom? Is Captain Nemo still alive? Is he still lurking beneath the waters, bent upon revenge, or was that last hetacomb his final act of vengeance?

Arronax has no answers to any of those questions. Therefore the point is that whether or not he and Conseil and Ned Land actually experienced everything depicted in the novel remains dubious to whatever characters will be asking them about it in the future. They don't know if anybody lived or died, or if anything endured or was destroyed.

So I don't understand why Fleischer and Disney felt that they needed to give the film a romantic twist that provided set-in-stone closure. Was it because they wanted to do everything they could to leave audiences entertained- rather than asking questions on the way out? After all, it can be assumed that the majority of audiences were unfamiliar with Verne's novel at the time. And why provide "witnesses" (the soldiers with the guns) to what Arronax, Conseil and Ned Land experienced?

Flesicher and Disney's own version of Nemo's final words- not to mention the final words uttered in the entire film- also comes into debate. Rather than stick to Nemo's defiance of God as depicted in the Verne novel, Mason ends up saying something like: "there is hope for the future. When the world is ready for a new and better life, all this will someday come to pass, in God's good time."

Notice that not only do both versions of Nemo's finals words have differening perspectives about what the intended fate of the Nautilus will be, but they also have differing perspectives of... God! Verne seems to depict Nemo as a rebellious atheist who, broken down over the loss of his family, takes it out on the heavens. Flesicher and Disney only go so far as to direct Nemo's anger towards the warships, but they dare not let him go any further than that. I'm guessing that they did this as a way of avoiding criticism from the strict Christian family audiences who came to see their film at that point in time.

I especially object to the "in God's good time" quote being repeated at the end of the film. Verne, on the contrary, ended his novel with Arronax uttering viewpoints that once again demonstrate that he still doesn't know if Nemo is alive, but that is the least of his concerns:

"However strange his destiny may be, it is also sublime. Did I not experience and understand his destiny? Did I not live that unnatural existence for ten whole months? So, to that question, asked six thousand years ago by the Book of Ecclesiastes: "Who has ever fathomed the depths of the abyss?" two men, among all men, have the right to reply: Captain Nemo and I".

Those final words give me chills every time I read them. And once again they suggest that Nemo's fate is uncertain and not definite. If he is dead, then he cannot join Arronax in his "reply", but if he's ALIVE, then Arronax's hopes still have a possibility of being fulfilled.

Flesicher and Disney take a less subtle approach, discard Arronax's final words, and repeat their maneuver of pounding into the ground a theory that, by their standards, must be universally correct: forget the exploration of the sea for now and destroy anything that has attempted to go through it, because mankind is not ready for that kind of war with nature.

Yet doesn't this cancel out what Verne himself envisioned and foretold?
_____________________
"It's the frost, it sometimes makes the blade stick."

[–] Teach417 16 years ago

Just to answer one of the questions you raise here: Nemo definitely survives in the book, as he appears in two subsequent Verne novels, having now invented a flying machine. If I remember correctly (I read the books some fifty years ago) it was a multi-purpose boat/submarine/airplane combination vehicle. I believe the title of one of the books is "Master of the World." I think the paperback copy I had included both of the novels under that one title.

[–] IceboxMovies 16 years ago

Oh yes, that's quite true. Admittedly I haven't read the follow-up books. Do they clear up what happened to the Nautilus?

Anyway, the one alteration of the Disney movie that really irritates me is that it changes Nemo's faith. Many users here claim that the movie "could not possibly fit the whole book in without losing entertainment value". I agree with that sentiment, but what excuse does it give Fleischer and Disney to tamper with the religious conflicts of the story?

In my opinion, if they weren't willing to deal with Nemo's hatred of God (the supreme driving force of his anger and cruelt, as a result of the loss of his family), they shouldn't have gone through with the making of this movie.
_____________________
"It's the frost, it sometimes makes the blade stick."

[–] Teach417 16 years ago

Disney? Make a movie challenging mainstream religious beliefs? In the fifties? When Walt was alive and still very much at the helm? I can only assume you weren't alive at the time, or you'd know how impossible that would have been. As for not making the movie because they didn't want to deal with that theme, not gonna happen either. Not when they had a chance to change it into a Kirk Douglas adventure movie for the kiddies. This was fifties America, buddy, the America of Disney and Eisenhower and McCarthy and Willie, Mickey and the Duke. Also the America of that other Duke, John Wayne. Fortunately, it was also the America of Elvis and Little Richard and Jack Kerouac and James Dean and Marlon Brando and Allan Ginsberg, all of which would bear fruit in the sixties. But don't get too upset over one movie's failure to deal with a controversial theme, that was the least of our problems back then.

[–] IceboxMovies 16 years ago

Not when they had a chance to change it into a Kirk Douglas adventure movie for the kiddies. This was fifties America, buddy, the America of Disney and Eisenhower and McCarthy and Willie, Mickey and the Duke. Also the America of that other Duke, John Wayne.

But Douglas was also responsible for the blacklisted Dalton Trumbo's billing in the opening credits of Spartacus a decade later, so I doubt he would have been against any dealings with religious issues had they been put in this movie. Like I said, if Disney and Fleischer weren't willing to deal with the novel's important religious issues, they shouldn't have made this movie.
_____________________
"It's the frost, it sometimes makes the blade stick."

[–] Teach417 16 years ago

No question that Douglas stood up and did the right thing as the producer of Spartacus. On 20,000 Leagues, though, he was the actor, not the producer, and his main concern apparently was to make sure his tough guy, womanizing image was preserved in what was otherwise basically a kiddie's flick. And when it came to making movies of Jules Verne's books, that's essentially what Hollywood did, made kiddie movies. Any serious themes in the books got dropped. I understand why this would be disappointing to you, but it's not realistic to expect to find those themes in a fifties Disney movie, which was the point I was trying to make in my previoius post.

[–] tom_amity 15 years ago

Nemo doesn't appear in the pair of Verne novels about the flying machine that's invented by Robur. Robur is an advanced genius somewhat like Nemo, but he's not the same character. The two Robur novels together were adapted into a film called Master of the World starring Vincent Price as Robur.

Nemo does, however, survive the ending of the novel 20,000 Leagues, though he dies in the movie. He reappears in Verne's novel Mysterious Island, which is therefore something of a sequel.

It is perfectly true that Nemo's last words in the film are quite different from those in the book.

[–] Slopmaster4001 14 years ago

I just looked up "The Mysterious" island on wikipedia and I will read it soon as I get a chance. My question is why didn't Jules Vern write a complete sequel to "20,000 Leagues"? I mean he certainly left it wide open for a sequel.

[–] BobH12370 8 years ago

I listened to it on Audible. Mysterious Island is A LOT different in novel form than the movie adaptation. Nemo isn't in it for very long, but it is definitely worth a read. The book is actually a lot better than the movie adaptation of it. It tells who Nemo is, and seals his final fate. You'll have to read it so I don't spoil it for everyone.

I am listening to 20,000 Leagues now.

[–] holtor 8 years ago

"20.000 leagues" takes place between 1866 and 1868, which is reiterated many times during the novel. The first sentence is

"The year 1866 was signalised by a remarkable incident".

And the Nautilus disappears in the Maelstrom on June 2, 1868.

"The mysterious island" takes place right after the american civil war and starts 1865. Its Nemo dies on Oct. 15, 1868. Thus the latter cannot be regarded as a sequel, albeit Nemo says there explicitly that he met Aronnax 16 years ago. The two books are different stories with different, but similar Nemos.

[–] joe_538 7 years ago

The two books are different stories with different, but similar Nemos.

Or Verne didn't take the details of his earlier story into account. It's sloppy, but it happens.

[–] IceboxMovies 8 years ago

I sure hope a remake would do justice to Verne.

[–] chrismovieman 7 years ago

Fans of original novels will often have grievances with the films which adapt them, especially when those films don't stick rigidly to the source material.

Consider classic films like 'Jaws' and 'Psycho' (SPOILERS AHEAD)

In the novel 'Jaws', the shark becomes tangled in some ropes, slowly suffocates, and disappears beneath some murky water. The movie 'Jaws' likely would not have become the greatest (and first) blockbuster film of all time if Speilberg had stuck to the novel's ending. There are also subplots in the novel that only detract from the focus of the shark as the villain of the film- like shark scientist Matt Hooper sleeping with the police chief's wife.

Screenplay writer Joseph Stefano was tapped by Alfred Hitchcock to adapt the novel 'Psycho'. In Robert Bloch's novel, Norman Bates is a creepy, overweight alcoholic devoid of much sympathy. In Stefano's screenplay, Bates is young, handsome, vulnerable, and sympathetic. Before we learn of the shocking twist at the end, we almost sympathize with his misguided desire to cover up the crimes of his 'mother'. We see a character that reveals something deeply disturbing: psychopaths can often be young, handsome, even manipulative people whom we sympathize with if we don't know their secrets. Thats the strength of one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films!

Should Speilberg have resolved to make an inferior movie just out of religious-like devotion to the author's original vision? Should Hitchcock and Stefano simply put their own creative talents aside and strived to make author Robert Bloch the sole contributor to the story/characters? Or should we applaud Speilberg, Hitchcock, and Stefano for making the material their own? No one can truly answer this question. Its a fundamental question of books vs. movies. Should movies be nothing more than direct interpretation of an author's stories? Should screenplay writers and directors merely be slaves beholden to merely reconstruct an author's vision using the art of cinema, rather than using any of their own creative talents to make what may (in some cases) be improvements?

Oral traditions existed for millennia in human history. But the existence of these traditions meant that the story often evolved over time. Not every oral storyteller took an oath to transmit the story exactly as he had heard it the first time. As a result, the original story may be lost forever to the sands of time. But the stories we know and love today still exist. (Many say HUNDREDS of years passed before Homer's Odyssey was written down) This is the very nature of storytelling itself.

I love the ending to the 1954 film adaptation of '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea'! But of course, that doesn't mean anyone else needs to. If someone has a grievance with the film's deviation from Jules Verne's source material, then I respect their opinion. But we cannot expect every film to rigidly adhere to the story in every book. Film is its own art form. But unlike Homer's original oral tradition of the Odyssey, Verne's novel is alive and well in many languages. Anyone who wishes to read the book needs merely to find a copy!

[–] IceboxMovies 7 years ago

I'm not arguing that movies should be 100% faithful to books. I'm arguing that it's problematic when movies miss the theme behind a book.

Hitchcock and Spielberg may have changed certain things with their movie adaptations, but -- as you yourself mentioned -- they actually enhanced the motivations of the characters. Hitchcock got us to empathize with Bates, Spielberg got us to empathize with Quint and his "Indianapolis" speech, etc.

But Disney's 20,000 Leagues movie misses the point that Nemo is at war with God. He blames God for everything terrible that has happened to him in life. That's why his final words in the book are, "Almighty God! Enough!"

By taking away Nemo's spiritual anger, the movie makes Nemo less complicated and, thus, less interesting.

[–] chrismovieman 7 years ago

But Disney's 20,000 Leagues movie misses the point that Nemo is at war with God. He blames God for everything terrible that has happened to him in life. That's why his final words in the book are, "Almighty God! Enough!"

A fair point. Though I must say that I always felt, as deeply moving as the novel's final lines are, the novel ends on an ambiguous cliffhanger. The film, in contrast, offers decisive closure and a thrilling climax - not to mention some intellectual/mora'/philosophical implications when Nemo says, "and when the world is ready". Its all a matter of opinion I suppose and I certain respect your opinion. Nemo's anger at MAN is profound and disturbing in my opinion. That is used to great effect in the film. (Though you are right that his conflict with God is not explored)

On a side note, I wonder if "Hear of Darkness" and its final lines "the horror" may be influenced by Nemo's final words?

I love film and novels both. Many criticized the excellent adaption of "War of the Worlds" in the 1950s for its departure from the book. Indeed, the aliens are in flying machines (not three legged tripods) and the narrator evokes God in the conclusion of the film. (HG Wells was very much an atheist). Even so, I think the novel and film are both GREAT in their own ways, despite being quite different.

[–] IceboxMovies 7 years ago

Nemo's anger at MAN is profound and disturbing in my opinion. That is used to great effect in the film. (Though you are right that his conflict with God is not explored)

I should mention that I think James Mason gives a very good performance in the movie; yes, his anger against Man is paplable, particularly in the scene where he argues with Arronax. But I do hope that whenever the inevitable remake appears, it explores Nemo's conflict with God.

On a side note, I wonder if "Hear of Darkness" and its final lines "the horror" may be influenced by Nemo's final words?

Yeah, it's possible.