Captain Blood

The story of Peter Blood is one I've been familiar with for a while, mostly due to the fabulous black and white film adaptation starring Errol Flynn. I took the opportunity to reread Rafael Sabatini's original for the first time in several years today, however, and the differences between the book and the film stand out strongly. Therefore, today's post shall not be a review of Captain Blood (though I may, eventually, write one), but an analysis of what Hollywood tends to do when adapting books for the silver screen. Or at least used to do - my conscience forces me to admit that the film was made in 1935, and their habits may have improved.

But I doubt it.


Step One: Strip out half the interesting content. 


A good third of Sabatini's original novel covers the exploits of Captain Blood as he terrorises the Caribbean. It's really great stuff - admittedly, Sabatini nicked half his exploits from real life buccaneer Henry Morgan, but at least he has the guts to indirectly admit it within the text. Not only is this what guys really want out of an adventure story - I know that my younger brother, for one, would much rather read about that sacking of Maracaibo than he would about Peter pining for Arabella Bishop - but it provides a valuable, hands-on depiction of how good a pirate Peter Blood really is. It follows the age-old rule of show, not tell - show us why Peter's crew will remain loyal no matter what, show us why his name's feared throughout the Caribbean Sea, and show us how awesome he is in action.

In the film, we get a montage of battle scenes with some very melodramatic silent-era-style captions informing us that he's "carving out a crimson career". He then spends the rest of the film being emo over Arabella, with only one fight scene. Uh? I admit that putting it all in would have made the film an hour longer, but considering that the similar-era epic Gone With the Wind was so popular and the length of the modern Lord of the Rings films, I don't think anyone would have minded much. 

That wasn't the only content that was cut, which leads me to ...

Step Two: Combine or cut characters - sometimes rather important ones. 


In the novel, Sir Julian Wade is a young, handsome diplomat who offers Peter a commission in the navy (which Peter very promptly ditches, but it's the thought that counts), provides romantic competition and therefore a target for jealousy, and is later yet another antagonist. You could say he's rather an important character, right? But in the film, they combined him with Lord Willoughby, a character who does exist in the book but is an elderly emissary who shows up to tell everyone that James II has been deposed. Bang goes any romantic competition. (They also dropped Peter leaving Port Royal, instead having him become governor directly after receiving the commission instead of months later after a brief return to piracy.)

And because we can't have a girl for Arabella to hate when Peter's rival has been cut, the French governor's daughter, whose name escapes me right now, was deemed unnecessary as well. Instead, Arabella replaces her as the young lady whom Peter must save from Levasseur, and Lord Willoughby replaces her brother (so that's three characters combined to make the Willoughby of the film). Admittedly, it's more dramatic when it's Arabella in danger, but the whole point was that Peter would fight to save the innocent when he had no thought of personal gain. That's one of the reasons Arabella loves him in the book, and by making her the one in distress instead of having Peter save a girl he doesn't care about, it lessens the whole "selfless heroism" aspect that was the point of the scene in the first place.

Interestingly, the film put far more spotlight on characters that are barely in the book: such as Governor Steed, who has about three lines in Sabatini's original, and Mr. Nuttall, who disappears as soon as Peter sets sail. Both of these are comic relief characters - so, basically, 1930s Hollywood valued comedy over drama and artistic integrity. Unsurprising, but vaguely tragic all the same.

Step Three: Simplify anything complex about the protagonist. 


In the book, Peter Blood is an emotionally complex character who gets mad unjustifiably, spends months in a pretty much constant state of drunkenness, and goes along with plans he knows are wrong simply because he can't be bothered interceding. He even cries when his beloved ship sinks. Not even Jim Kirk or Jack Sparrow were man enough to do that.

In the film, Peter Blood is a heroic hero who does heroic stuff. He doesn't actually do anything wrong (although he does attack English ships though the Peter of the book does not) and is generally heroic. Wait, I think I may have mentioned that already. And he certainly doesn't cry. While he's very entertaining to watch, he's not nearly as complex or believable as a man.

That, and they severally diminished the Irishness, which is very sad.

Step Four: Still, somehow, manage to make it awesome. 


The film is not Rafael Sabatini's Captain Blood. It's an uber-distilled, hugely simplified version that, if you squint sideways, looks a bit like the book. Yet it's very enjoyable for what it is - a swashbuckler rather along the lines of Errol Flynn's version of Robin Hood - and is definitely on my list of favourite movies.

But I like the novel best and, sometimes, I wish someone would do a more faithful adaptation. I've stopped trusting Hollywood. How about ITV? Oh, no, wait, they did almost exactly the same thing to Hornblower.

Forget it. I'll just curl up with a book.