Before reading this book, my only exposure to Mark Twain's classic tale was the Bing Crosby movie version produced in 1949. It has been quite awhile since I've seen the movie, but I was pretty sure while reading that the book and the movie had little, if nothing, to do with one another. I had a hard time imagining Bing Crosby crooning through the pages of Twain's original work. Having just finished the book, I did a quick look up on Amazon to get a review of the movie, which I will post as follows:
"A half-century later, Mark Twain's yarn still doesn't seem like an ideal vehicle for Bing Crosby, and Jimmy Van Heusen and Johnny Burke certainly wrote better songs than those offered up here. Still, this droll 1949 musical, like its star, has an easygoing charm and affability that'll win over young and old alike. Der Bingle plays Hank, who wakes up in A.D. 528, rousted by palooka-like Sir Sagramore (William Bendix).
At Camelot, not even Hank's impending doom--not to mention the temporal disconnect--can stop him from making eyes at Alisande (Rhonda Fleming). Codgerly, chronically allergic Arthur (Cedric Hardwicke) is impressed with Hank's hubris and dubs him Sir Boss. Problems arise when Hank woos Alisande to Sir Lancelot's ire, while Merlin (Murvyn Vye) has it in for virtually everyone.
A too-convenient deus ex machina and truncated finale mute the happy ending. The story and the performances are understated amid the pomp of the lavish production values (Ray Rennahan's vivid camerawork handily takes it all in), but in these days of virulently overheated storytelling (even in family films), the casual nature of the work here seems a distinct virtue."
Yet another reason to be annoyed with Hollywood -- even if they did involve good ol' Bing.
To be honest, I had a hard time getting into the book. I found the dialogue boring and the story kind of hard to follow. It wasn't until Hank took off on his "quest" with Sandy that I started to become interested. After that, I was hooked.
I thought the most interesting thing about this book was that most of the time in stories dealing with time traveling, the characters traveling back in time are concerned about what they expose the earlier culture too. There seems to be a consciousness involved of not "jumping the gun" shall we say? The main character, Hank, shared no such scruples. He was interested in making Arthurian England as modern as possible, with little thought to the consequences. I was wondering how Twain would conclude this, as he remained silent on the issue of pre-exposure the entire book. I thought he had an interesting way of dealing with the problem in the end. (In case you haven't read it and/or finished it - I won't give it away.)
Right now I can't believe I've based my ideas of the story on
Bing, as Twain was rather dark and depressing at times. I don't remember becoming choked up over the movie. I was bothered when the 18 year old mother was executed for stealing a piece of linen in the book. In a way, this book was rather similar to
The Prince and the Pauper after Arthur decided he must disguise himself and join Hank in mingling with the masses. The same tales of woe and torture seem to spring out of the pages, very reminiscent of
Prince and the Pauper. However, despite the similarities, I still enjoyed the story.
With all due respect to Mr. Crosby, whose talents I have enjoyed, he didn't do justice to the book
at all.
