Fiction vs. Fiction: Mr. Sardonicus (1961)

 A random bit of luck got me a copy of the original Short Story that become William Castle's Mr. Sardonicus.   It came in a big old Book from 1987 that I paid a whole $1 for.

Nobody demanded this but screw it.

Let's see what Mr. Castle and company changed for the Screen...

VS

What's the Same?

The Story is pretty much the same between both versions.

A Doctor is called to a far-off land at the behest of a former love.  He meets her Husband- a Lord with a strange disfigurement.

He's pressed to cure him...or else.

He says that he uses a weakened form of poison to fix his face, but it was a lie.  It was just water and his own guilt over robbing his Father's grave.

The pair go on to live happily ever after, while Sardonicus is punished by fate, unable to eat or drink.

What's Different?

So... there are a few key differences.

That shot of Guy Rolfe in his mask is one of the iconic parts of the Film.
It is not in the Book.

At all.

In addition, the weird Butler/Assistant is in the Book.
In the Film, however, he's partially disfigured as a result of a punishment from Sardonicus.

This plays into his later betrayal as part of the 'Punishment Poll' Ending in the Film.

Another big one- what makes the Doctor help Sardonicus.

In the Film, the Butler (below), he threatens to disfigure the woman.
In the Book, Sardonicus explains that (like in the Film), it is a marriage in name only.
If he won't fix his grin, he will *ahem* consummate the marriage against her will.

Good change, Mr. Castle.

Last big change....

In the Film, we learn that the Doctor was *faking* the deaths of these dogs used to find the right amount of poison to not kill Sardonicus, dragging them out visibly for the charade.

In the Book, he was just actually killing the dogs with poison.
Damn!
Why?!?

In the Book, the Doctor mentions that he heard the legend of a 'starving man' wandering the lands.
In the Film, he is betrayed by the Butler, who doesn't tell him that he was really cured.

What a twist!

Final Thoughts

The Film version is honestly a bit better. 

It gives more nuance to everyone involved.  The random Butler has a back story, for instance, and ties into the ending.
In the Book, he's just a guy who shows up once and that's it.

The Film is certainly more lurid than the Book- aside from the you-know threat of forced marital relations- and that may not be your preference.

The Book has some good parts to it, of course, and you wouldn't have a Film without it.

Now go on Etsy to start selling these already- the Copyright has no doubt lapsed.

The Story is still a fun one, so track it down.  The Film is just a more expanded and interesting version.