No country for old men, book vs film
I read this book months ago. I've read most of Cormac McCarthy's books. He has a way of writing about awful things that pushes the awfulness deep into the reader's heart and soul and mind (if those are different things, which I doubt). He challenges (or annoys) the reader by omitting quotation marks and using untranslated Spanish. His sentences are skeletal. He carves with a glittering blade that goes deep and wastes nothing.
Somebody messed up making the film.
When the aging lawman visits the old man in the wheelchair, his uncle, they talk about the past. The uncle describes a cold-blooded shooting, and in the film the description is followed by a statement that "this" (the cold, relentless, unstoppable violence driven by the drug trade and the huge amounts of money involved) is "nothing new."
Hearing this, I was startled. It rang false. It went completely against what I thought was the point of the story, it's reason for being. Thinking I might have misremembered or misread this part of the book, worried that I had completely misunderstood the story, I took myself to a bookstore. I was going to buy it anyhow for my son, but before sending it I took it to lunch (Italian) and read that part again.
No, I had not misremembered it. It had been altered, thus spoiling the story's message, its impact, its theme! That one change ruined the film for me.
Putting McCarthy on the screen is already too slippery. His pacing is lost. The power of his writing is diminished by the rapid pace and smooth transitions of film. But to castrate the story? That is too much.
The villain's hair style also bothered me, but maybe that's all right. Thinking back, I can picture him combing and smoothing it in the morning, fastidious and pleased with himself. It fits.
I finished the book weighed down with the stark image of a violence that was so evil, so irrational, so inhuman, that brave men toughened by life in a hard land could only shake their heads in despair at a world that had changed so much they had become impotent, irrelevant. The film fell far short of that.
See the film for the acting, for the skillful rendering of priceless dialogue so bleak and funny it makes life livable in the face of senseless death and destruction. But for the full monty, read the book.
Somebody messed up making the film.
When the aging lawman visits the old man in the wheelchair, his uncle, they talk about the past. The uncle describes a cold-blooded shooting, and in the film the description is followed by a statement that "this" (the cold, relentless, unstoppable violence driven by the drug trade and the huge amounts of money involved) is "nothing new."
Hearing this, I was startled. It rang false. It went completely against what I thought was the point of the story, it's reason for being. Thinking I might have misremembered or misread this part of the book, worried that I had completely misunderstood the story, I took myself to a bookstore. I was going to buy it anyhow for my son, but before sending it I took it to lunch (Italian) and read that part again.
No, I had not misremembered it. It had been altered, thus spoiling the story's message, its impact, its theme! That one change ruined the film for me.
Putting McCarthy on the screen is already too slippery. His pacing is lost. The power of his writing is diminished by the rapid pace and smooth transitions of film. But to castrate the story? That is too much.
The villain's hair style also bothered me, but maybe that's all right. Thinking back, I can picture him combing and smoothing it in the morning, fastidious and pleased with himself. It fits.
I finished the book weighed down with the stark image of a violence that was so evil, so irrational, so inhuman, that brave men toughened by life in a hard land could only shake their heads in despair at a world that had changed so much they had become impotent, irrelevant. The film fell far short of that.
See the film for the acting, for the skillful rendering of priceless dialogue so bleak and funny it makes life livable in the face of senseless death and destruction. But for the full monty, read the book.
posted by Cranky Ol' Lady at 7:47 PM
5 Comments:
Thank you for posting this. I was beginning to think I was the only person in the world who was disappointed in this film. I'm a huge fan of McCarthy and the Coen Brothers, and I when I heard they were making the film I thought that finally the story would be vindicated from all the lazy, dismissive reviews that ruled the book "minor" and "merely a thriller." I found it to be subtly profound and one of the most (perhaps even the most) apposite, compelling depictions of the modern state of humanity in any art form - it was far better than "The Road", anyway. And you're right - the movie missed it by inches. The whole point was lost in the few sentences of dialogue they omitted, as well as the nameless guy in the book who Chigurh eventually brings the money to. I thought that scene was really important to the story and message, and couldn't imagine why they left it out. All those telling little details that gave the story so much weight were cast off. Plus, I always thought that what was really scary about Chigurh (in the book) was that he was not a psychopath - he was the calmest, most reasonable and clear-headed individual in the whole book, not some maniac on a killing spree but a force of nature, the "true living prophet of destruction." But in the movie it felt like he was taken down a notch, just a badass drug courier, not statistically the most dangerous man on earth (another crucial point they left out of the film). I'm glad someone else caught all of this, I was starting to feel lonely in my opinions. But I would advise that you go see "There Will Be Blood" as soon as you can. Just judging from your taste, I think you'll find what I did - not only does it handle some of the same themes as McCarthy handles (and the Coen brothers either missed or ignored) as deftly and subtly as possible, but it stands up to any great film you can think of: The Godfather, Raging Bull, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Oh, and sorry to write such a long response - I'm not trying to invade your blog, I just wanted to let you know, there's someone out here who agrees with everything you said.
Oh, you noticed lots more than I did! Thank you for the comments.
I just take issue with one thing you wrote. You say he's not a psychopath, and then you describe him with what is virtually a classical description of a psychopath. I suggest you read up on that subject.
I have to agree that I was disappointed with the film after reading the book. My father and brother saw the film before I did and they said to me "I don't understand the ending" after I watched the movie, I understood why they didn't understand the movie. Very important dialog was left out of the film.
First off, in the book I think Moss's character was more human, he was more conscience of the sudden turn of events the led him to this moment of truth.
I didn't like how Ed Tom character didn't face the same inner conflict he did in the book, which makes the ending so important.
I didn't like that the 15 year old hitch hiker part was left out and how his wife thought it was shady.
I didn't like how they left out Ed Tom visiting Chirguar father.
I didn't like how they left out the whole conversation that took place between Wells and Chirguar before Wells was killed.
I didn't like how the conversation between Ed Tom and his Uncle Ellis left out many important parts especially how he felt guilt for getting the metal in the war after leaving his war buddies behind.
There was more but I can't think of it now. I found the theme very similar to The Road. Trying to make sense out of total chaos. The end of No Country for Old Men reminded me of the end of the Road. After his fathers death in the road the son has to go on knowing his father is still there. Ed Tom talks about the dream with his father. Maybe its just me.
Ed Tom visited with LLewelyn's father, not with Chigurgh's.
Ed Tom visited with LLewelyn's father, not with Chigurgh's.
Post a Comment
<< Home