|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
They have followed McCarthy's blueprint scrupulously, even slavishly, and have bountifully harvested his lip-smacking dialogue; and the major unconventionalities in this mostly conventional thriller are all his. For better or for worse. To have kept the lawman as an observer and commentator, forever a step behind the hunter and hunted, never getting in on the action, feeling helpless and "overmatched," is not just different but meaningful. On the flip side, when we've been privy, every step of the way, through one close shave after another, to the hunted's point of view -- and in fact we identify with this character to the exact extent that if we ourselves had found $2 million in a bag, we'd want to hang onto it -- it's not just different, but perverse, to lose touch with him at a climactic point near the end. (Under the rules of professional conduct, I can't be more specific, but anyone who has seen the movie will know what I mean.) That this comes straight from the book is no justification. On screen it inescapably stacks up as a bigger gaffe than on the page, where, in the nature of the medium, our physical connection with the characters is always more tenuous, illusory, ghostly. Our image of them there, immured in our mind's eye, is limited to verbal description only. If that. Books, in a manner of speaking, are strictly secondhand; movies, firsthand.
[There's more...]
Follow Ups:
Of course Duncan Shepherd's reviews will invariably cut the mustard with some, presumably due to the laughably pretentious nature of Duncan's over the top critical narrative (reading Shepherd's stereotypical opinions is reminiscent of watching Peter O'Toole's Anton Ego food critic character in Ratatouille). Hey, as long as you saw the film we're discussing I won't take issue with the linking of your favorite critic's opinions.
FTR, it appears that I place a higher value on the source literature being appreciated as a separate and distinct form of cultural expression than Mr. Shepherd. He sees a novel as merely a vessel in which to hold the more valued film-going experience. Well, Duncan is paid for his film criticism so I guess a little bias is reasonable, but how we approach the two mediums might provide a better understanding of why things work better in novels than they do in film at times.
It would appear that Mr. Shepherd considers Cormac McCarthy's book further removed from reality than the film by the very nature of it's action taking place in the mind of the reader, and I would agree. However, I also consider all novels as more contemplative and controllable by design. Books allow the reader to absorb an author's intent at the readers own pace. This provides novels with a distinct advantage over film in some respects, but more importantly it also reinforces the need for film adaptations to be constructed on a different blueprint than the source literature.
Ciao,
AuPh
./
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
;0)
.
;^D
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
;0)
Girt = gurt
Mongolian tent where edta apparently lives now.
.
Complicit Constapo Talibangelical since MMIII
And he likes "art" films. Feh!
clark
... superior to the broad consensus. Like I said, his reviews have all the appeal of a smug Anton Ego trying to squeeze the life out of simple pleasures that elude him.
> > > "And he likes 'art' films. Feh!" < < <
That depends upon his appreciation of it or the lack thereof.
AuPh
with its adherence to the structure of the book out of the way and then once more to appreciate it for what it is.
I'll be seeing it again and am curious to see if I get more out of it.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
Things are looking great
And they're only getting better
You are quite right. Perhaps some people would be better served by knowing the ending in order to better grasp the story.
;)
I'm not sure about that critic's critique. Did he not know that Llewelyn's fate was cast the moment he left with the bag? Llewelyn's character is a good example of a plot line that demonstrates tragic inevitability. It was never a question of "if," it was a question of "when."
If the critic wants to whine about losing a character midstream, I wonder how he felt about Pulp Fiction?
Is he still wondering what the Hell happened to Ophelia in Hamlet?
As I posted waaaaaaay down below and a long time ago, I never thought the Coens were setting us up for a showdown.
And the movie ain't about Llewelyn. :-)
a
about my points, that is :-)
To wit...
"One thing that pulled me out of the film a little was the anticlimax of Luellens (sp?) demise. After being with him for basically all of the cat and mouse with Bardem it was strange to be so far from him when they had their final showdown. Suddenly the movie was all about Tommy Lee Jones.
It was an interesting and kind of bold choice but for me at least it had a slightly negative impact."
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
...Tommy Lee's honorable man and his take on a changing era from the gitgo. That's why his narrative opens the movie. New drugs, new greed utterly changes his world...remember when this film is set.
Yes, I liked and identified with Lewellyn's charcter and his "bad decision" is a key point that sets the movie plot in motion. We spend a lot of time with him. But I never thought the movie was *about* him.
And I never thought the filmmakers ever set the movie up for a showdown either.
I was certainly aware of TLJ's place in the movie and the importance of that opening narrative but as the movie went along I got caught up in the Lewellyn/Bardem storyline and it's not that I felt we were set up for or expected a showdown (except, maaaybe a little, by Lewellyn's wife and stepmother's encounter with the Mexican gangster dude) it was the way we came upon what was obviously a showdown - involving the person we'd been experiencing most of the movie thru/with - and we were basically left out of it. It's not like it ruined the movie for me (or even came close to doing so) but it did have an effect. I'm looking forward to a 2nd viewing.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
c
The abrupt left turn was less of an issue on the page.
On the screen, I think it appealed mightily to the Coen's sense of the fatalism and the absurd. I can see where it frustrated audiences who were expecting a bit more of a conventional structure. Or Blood Simple. Always tough with a likable character too. But thats...Cohenland. And McCarthyland too.
I was expecting the left curve.
I will see this movie again.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: