|
|
Post by kijii on Dec 12, 2018 0:03:07 GMT
During my 20s and 30s, I read a lot of William Faulkner's works. I think I did this because I thought it was "good for me" rather than that I truly enjoyable reading them. His works do vary in complexity, often with a high degree of literary symbolism, mythology, and stream of consciousness. However, he could weave a good tale from time to time, (ie, The Reivers).
As I go though my Martin Ritt viewing phase, I notice that Ritt has directed two movies based on Faulkner's works: The Long, Hot Summer (1958)--this supposedly is the movie made while Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward were falling in love with each other. (Ritt would go on to use the two performers, either together or individually, for a long period of time.) But, I digress-- Ritt's two Faulkner-based movies were: 1) The Long, Hot Summer (1958), which is based on and The Hamlet and the short story, "Barn Burning." I like this movie very much. It has that deep Southern steamy feeling combined with some great drama and a bit of mythology.  2) Ritt's The Sound and the Fury (1959), on the other hand, fails to capture the complexity of Faulkner's novel.
This is not hard to imagine since the "novel's" structure is a big part of its message: Four totally characters relating one story from four different viewpoints as if the story were a relay from one person's view with another person's view. To even try to translate this complex story, one might try to watch James Franco's TV movie, The Sound and the Fury (2014). But, word of warning--this ain't easy to grasp anymore than Faulkner's book was. Tony Richardson's Sanctuary (1961) www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMnzFM_Sq8s, based on Faulkner's novels, Sanctuary, and Requiem for a Nun like Stephen Roberts' The Story of Temple Drake (1933) is ok, but not great. But, which movie captures these novels better and why? Mark Rydell's The Reivers (1969) is just a good old fashion yarn, with character and comedy mixed in--very enteraning. Douglas Sirk's The Tarnished Angels (1957) presents Faulkner's Pylon.
But, one of my favorite Faulkner-based movies is Clarence Brown's underrated Intruder in the Dust (1949). Here we have Claude Jarman Jr.'s character, Chick Mallison, relating a coming-of-age recollection of a young boy from the Jim Crow South. And, it is also the story abut a proud black man's way of escaping a lynching for something he didn't do. The proud land-owning black man is Lucas Beauchamp played by Juano Hernandez--great stuff. I do appreciate James Franco's attempts as portraying Faulkner's more complex novels such as, As I Lay Dying (2013) and The Sound and the Fury (2014), but the movies are no easier to understand than the novels were. What are some other movies based Faulkner's stories and how good are they? |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Dec 12, 2018 0:15:18 GMT
This is obscure but worth seeing. Billy Bob Thornton must've seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Dec 12, 2018 18:19:24 GMT
I haven't seen the movie version of The Long Hot Summer 1958, but the TV two-parter from 1985.
I've seen and liked Intruder in the Dust 1949 and The Reivers 1969.
I might have The Tranished Angels 1957 in my Douglas Sirk box that I had totally forgotten about until just now.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Dec 12, 2018 18:47:32 GMT
I'm not a big fan of Faulkner outside of "A rose for Emily". It probably did me no favors that the only screen adaption I've seen is Brynner's Sound and the Fury. Pretty boring movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Dec 12, 2018 18:55:10 GMT
This is obscure but worth seeing. Billy Bob Thornton must've seen it. Robert Duvall seems perfect as a Faulkner character!! This movie looks interesting : Tomorrow (1972) / Joseph Anthony
Horton Foote play based on a Faulkner story.
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Dec 13, 2018 16:39:56 GMT
I think Faulkner's one of those writers who's terribly difficult if not impossible to adapt. I have yet to see TOMORROW, INTRUDER IN THE DUST, or the Franco versions, so I can't speak to those. Of those I have seen, I like THE TARNISHED ANGELS and THE LONG, HOT SUMMER the best, though I think they were both "de-Faulknerized" to a great extent. Have to be; he's simply too difficult to translate. A favorite that he wrote and that I would love to see adapted is his novella, "The Bear," published in a collection called "Go Down Moses." I love that one so much, but it's another that I think is impossible to successfully translate. He's a tough one, Faulkner. That he ever made any contributions to Hollywood screenplays never ceases to amaze me, and he wasn't very happy doing it. There's a story about his work in Hollywood that pretty much sums it up: After a series of meetings about the material (I think maybe it was on TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT), he asked if he could go home to write. They said yes, of course, thinking he meant back to the hotel. Instead he went home to Mississippi. I totally agree that it is hard to translate his works into movies.. Of the American Nobel Prize winners, Faulkner was probably the most difficult to transfer (although James Franco keeps trying): Ernest Hemingway never worked in Hollywood but approved or disapproved of the screenplays based on his novels. John Steinbeck was successful in Hollywood and sometimes wrote original screenplays: e.g. Viva Zapata! (1952) Peral S. Buck only wrote the screenplay for one of her novels: The Big Wave (1961). Toni Morrison hasn't written any screenplays, yet. Sinclair Lewis wisely let others write the screenplays for his novels and short stories. Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote some of the richest and most wonderful novels and short stories--so rich that they would be hard to be made into movies. Yentl (1983) is the only movie based on his works that I can think of--thank you Barbra Streisand for your efforts there. Joseph Brodsky--nothing I can think of. Saul Bellow--Seize the Day (1986), screenplay written by Ronald Ribman. Eugene O'Neill--A lot of good movies there--many just used his plays directly. What do you think? Long Day's Journey Into Night (1962) Mourning Becomes Electra (1947) Strange Interlude (1932) and another version for TV, etc.
Bob Dylan?
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Dec 14, 2018 0:37:59 GMT
I think Faulkner's one of those writers who's terribly difficult if not impossible to adapt. I have yet to see TOMORROW, INTRUDER IN THE DUST, or the Franco versions, so I can't speak to those. Of those I have seen, I like THE TARNISHED ANGELS and THE LONG, HOT SUMMER the best, though I think they were both "de-Faulknerized" to a great extent. Have to be; he's simply too difficult to translate. A favorite that he wrote and that I would love to see adapted is his novella, "The Bear," published in a collection called "Go Down Moses." I love that one so much, but it's another that I think is impossible to successfully translate. He's a tough one, Faulkner. That he ever made any contributions to Hollywood screenplays never ceases to amaze me, and he wasn't very happy doing it. There's a story about his work in Hollywood that pretty much sums it up: After a series of meetings about the material (I think maybe it was on TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT), he asked if he could go home to write. They said yes, of course, thinking he meant back to the hotel. Instead he went home to Mississippi. A agree, Spiderwort. Faulkner's works are "literary" in the extreme,--and don't let's argue over what literary means--in his use of language, his convoluted narratives, his emphasis more on character than action, on big moments, when they happen, that are so exquisitely written, beautifully drawn, extremely difficult to put on film, although I personally can visualize a Faulkner tale I tend to resent the way he's don on screen. The best looking and feeling Faulkner adaptation is probably the Clarence Brown production of Intruder In The Dust. I do,--go figure  --like the Martin Ritt The Sound And The Fury. A lot about it works for me; some good Faulkner moments, not that good a movie overall. |
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Dec 14, 2018 2:11:13 GMT
Hi telegonus, I haven't seen you for a while--
Have you ever seen The Reivers (1969)?
As I remember, this was a fairly entertaining movie.
I presents a good tale, much like Intruder In The Dust does.
I think that Faulkner could write in a normal tale-telling fashion, just like Steinbeck did. It's just that he usually didn't.
Both Steve McQueen and Oscar-nominated, Rupert Crosse seem to make a good old Southern tale about:
|
|
This is not hard to imagine since the "novel's" structure is a big part of its message: Four totally characters relating one story from four different viewpoints as if the story were a relay from one person's view with another person's view. To even try to translate this complex story, one might try to watch James Franco's TV movie, The Sound and the Fury (2014). But, word of warning--this ain't easy to grasp anymore than Faulkner's book was.
Tony Richardson's Sanctuary (1961) www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMnzFM_Sq8s, based on Faulkner's novels, Sanctuary, and Requiem for a Nun like Stephen Roberts' The Story of Temple Drake (1933) is ok, but not great. But, which movie captures these novels better and why?
Mark Rydell's The Reivers (1969) is just a good old fashion yarn, with character and comedy mixed in--very enteraning.
Douglas Sirk's The Tarnished Angels (1957) presents Faulkner's Pylon.
But, one of my favorite Faulkner-based movies is Clarence Brown's underrated Intruder in the Dust (1949). Here we have Claude Jarman Jr.'s character, Chick Mallison, relating a coming-of-age recollection of a young boy from the Jim Crow South. And, it is also the story abut a proud black man's way of escaping a lynching for something he didn't do. The proud land-owning black man is Lucas Beauchamp played by Juano Hernandez--great stuff. 
I do appreciate James Franco's attempts as portraying Faulkner's more complex novels such as, As I Lay Dying (2013) and The Sound and the Fury (2014), but the movies are no easier to understand than the novels were.
--like the Martin Ritt The Sound And The Fury. A lot about it works for me; some good Faulkner moments, not that good a movie overall.