MovieChat Forums > The Sound and the Fury (1959) Discussion > A Bastardization of One of the Greatest ...

A Bastardization of One of the Greatest Works in American Literature

posted 17 years ago by zwillia3
17 replies | jump to latest

(Warning: Contains Spoilers of both the novel and the film.)

I haven't actually seen this film, seeing as it's nearly impossible to see due to it not being available in home formats. I have, however, read detailed synopses and other write-ups on the film. I can say, without a doubt, that this film completely undermines the importance and overall message of the work it's based on. It paints Jason Compson IV as a sympathetic man who gave his charge, Miss Quentin, tough love to make her a self-sufficient woman. Readers of the book know very well that Jason is a pathetic man, only caring for material possessions and wealth. Also, remember that in the book, the only hope for the Compson family at all rests solely in Dilsey. Not one of the Compson children is capable of bringing the Compson family back to prominence. Miss Quentin has most likely fallen into the same trap as her mother, Caddy. Jason, left with none of the money he STOLE from Caddy, will most likely descend into alcoholism as his father did. Also, Jason is basically incapable of loving another human being because of his lust for money, so the idea of an heir is out the window. Ben is castrated and severely incompetent in all mental faculties. In short, the film has strived too hard for the happy ending, and defeats the purpose of the novel in the first place: showing the decline of once prominent southern families after the Civil War and their inability to cope.

[–] MrsTrevorMoore 17 years ago

All I can say to you is: thank you. Thank you so so much. The Sound and the Fury is my ALL TIME favorite novel and a film adaptation completely destroys the mesage. THANK YOU for posting this.

Somebody like you can really make things all right for me.

[–] IceboxMovies 17 years ago

I just read Faulkner's book and thought it was great, although I admit that there were two things I didn't catch onto until looking it up on Wikipedia after finishing the book:

a) I didn't know that Benjy was castrated

b) I knew that Quentin Compson killed himself by drowning, but I didn't know that he did it by loading those flat-irons into his jacket

Now I am looking up the movie to see if it's supposed to be very good... and it sounds awful. Miss Quentin is the "hero" of the movie? What the hell; she is probably the most obnoxious character in the whole story (despite her being a victim of Jason's penny-pinching) and the movie should be told from the viewpoints of the original Compson children. Who cares about Miss Quentin's stuggles for independence?

Yul Brynner as Jason? I don't get it. Jack Warden as Benjy? I don't get that, either.

Is the Quentin Compson character even in the movie? Or is only Miss Quentin in it?

Haven't seen this movie yet, but I've got my fingers crossed. And yes, this sounds like a huge bastardization of Faulkner's stunning masterpiece.

************************************
"This is no mine. It's a tomb."

[–] cmashieldscapting 9 years ago

"b) I knew that Quentin Compson killed himself by drowning, but I didn't know that he did it by loading those flat-irons into his jacket"

One of many changes in the movie, in which Miss Quentin said her namesake uncle blew his head off in his mama's best bedroom after being disappointed in love, though perhaps that was hyperbole on her part to impress her date. When Jason abruptly left the table with Miss Quentin in tow, I thought maybe he was going to force her to view the scene of the crime as some sort of warning.

[–] justpeechy11 17 years ago

i'm in the process of reading The SOund and the Fury and though I have never seen the movie, this sounds terrible! There's no Quentin/Caddy's brother, who I feel is the heart and soul of the novel. Also, Jason and Quentin (Caddy's daughter) as protagonists just disgusts me. They are the two most revolting characters of the book. This sounds almost as bad as the movie of the Scarlet Letter!

[–] mff8785 17 years ago

TMC ran it at 3 or 4 in the morning about 3 months ago. I found it entertaining because it was anything but Faulkner's "The Sound and The Fury." It was an atrocity!

[–] tmart-2 17 years ago

Amen. A previous poster said it perfectly. This IS my favorite all-time novel...truly amazing...and it simply can't be brought to film.

So...I understand there's a new version in the works, due out in '08? (gack)

[–] timalytle-1 15 years ago

Just watched it on Youtube and it's a piece of junk. Problems with it: Yul Brynner's wierd Russian accent; the actress playing Miss Quentin looks to be about thirty; Mrs. Compson is a French import who is bossy instead of miserably pathetic and bed ridden; Benjy just sits and stares instead of being the crying, blubbering, drooling moron he is in the novel; Uncle Maury is called Uncle Howard; the branch (creek) looks fake; it focuses entirely on the Miss Quentin/Jason part of the story; brother Quentin and the whole Quentin/Caddy "thing" are not even touched upon.

This novel would be impossible to faithfully bring to the big screen. And the question is: why bother? It exists as great literature. Leave it alone. You don't try to turn a great painting or sculpture into a film, why does every great novel have to be attempted in film?

[–] maryborrege 14 years ago

re--timalytle

Big deal. Benjy sits and stares instead of drooling. Uncle Maury is called Uncle Howard. The branch creek looks fake. The movie focuses on Quentin/Jason. Boohoo

This film never pretended to be anything but loosely based on the book.
GET over it. Most books when adopted to the screen edit out half the book.

Ditto a lot of entertaining films were bastardizations of their source material. SO WHAT. Especially for those who never read this "literary masterpiece" (i.e. 99.9% of the population) this version had a lot of fun with the WEIRD Compson tribe & it was certianly more coherent than Faulkner's originial which would have made a lousey commercial film anyway. Probably the reason no one so far has invested in that venture.

So, dry your tears. There will always be the book. Surely, from your point of view that is what should be important.

[–] jac91604 13 years ago

timalythe-1- the actress has a name it is Joanne Woodward, a very gifted actress.

You may not like the film, but Woodward is very talented.

[–] SoupcanBoy 10 years ago

In response to timalytle:

Although I agree that this looks like a terrible adaptation and that the original novel is probably not a novel that should be adapted (and if so, definitely not by Hollywood). However, I take exception to the idea that there should not be adaptations ("voiced through your why does every great novel have to be attempted in film?" comment).

A lot of classic films were adapted from novels. Here's a short list to demonstrate:

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Shining
To Kill a Mockingbird
The Graduate
No Country for Old Men
Gone with the Wind
A Clockwork Orange
Stand by Me
The Silence of the Lambs
Psycho
The Godfather
Goodfellas

Maybe you do not like all of these films but you cannot argue that they are not all considered classics, and in some cases have managed to transcend the novels they were based on. It is similarly true that most (if not all) of these films differ from the novels they were based on- sometimes significantly- but as has been stated before film and literature are different mediums that convey different things, and it is these differences that I would argue make every great novel worthy of consideration for an attempt as a film.

Anyway, I'm aware you posted your original comment back in 2009 and I myself made this comment more out of boredom than anything else. I also mean no animosity, I just wished to point out that, objectively at least, there is nothing wrong with films adapted from books, even if they can result in disasters such as this particular film.

[–] film-collector 15 years ago

Say what you will about this film, but there is ONE redeeming value. Margaret Leighton's Caddie has to be one of the best performances ever put on film. Completely mesmerizing (sp).
I wish they would remake it, preferably as a week long novel for television/mini-series type of production as, from what Ive read here, there is just too much material to cram into a 2-3hr running time slot.
However, I just can't see ANYONE playing Caddie as briliantly as Miss Leighton.

[–] wansze_theresa 15 years ago

I couldn't imagine anyone playing Jason other than YUL BRYNNER as well...I wish he and Margaret had worked more together

[–] crazyj89 15 years ago

While I do not think this is a great film, I must say one thing about novels and movies based on novels. They are two completely different mediums which convey information in two completely different ways. Therefore any film based on any novel will not completely "do justice" to the book, nor will the experiences ever be the same. Part of novels is the way the words are put together, which, most of the time, cannot be conveyed in film. (Just as in film, images are used, which are not literally parts of novels.)

The only crossover between novels and films based on the novels is the general story or plot, but otherwise I would say that to compare them is somewhat impossible as they are two completely different things.

When I go see a movie based on a book, I do not expect to have the book come alive on the screen. It's hard sometimes, especially if it's your favorite book or there's those parts of the novel that you absolutely love, but I think films should be judged on their cinematic merit first, and then the adaptation.

That said, The Sound and the Fury did not (in my opinion) have much merit as per the filmmaking (besides a few good performances). I think it did an adequate job of covering the Jason section of the book, but I still have trouble comparing films to books.

Okay, that was my snobby, pompous speech of the day. :D

[–] ames0826 15 years ago

The only issue I want to make with the OP (who I essentially agree with) is his/her assertion that:

"Jason, left with none of the money he STOLE from Caddy, will most likely descend into alcoholism as his father did"

The epilogue to the novel makes it pretty plain that Jason achieves a certain amount of success and prosperity as a cotton dealer after he no longer has a family to support. But he's still a lousy human being.

[–] LightningLad 12 years ago

It is really bizarre and bad...I taped it back in the eighties and thought it was kind of hilarious in the sense that it really epitomizes "Hollywoodizing" - and made Jason more sympathetic yet much less interesting. The ways of explaining away Brynner's accent were hilarious, but really got away from Faulkner's intention, since suddenly Jason wasn't a real Southerner. The good thing is, it really won't mar your impression of the book because it's so far afield.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mortal-Creeps-ebook/dp/B006LO3TCA

[–] ktowny 9 years ago

"I haven't actually seen this film....."

This is not the best opening statement when discussing a movie. Despite your having read the synopsis and other write ups, perhaps you should take the time to watch it before you pass judgement. Otherwise, you are merely parroting other people's opinions and not your own.

"Loves turned to lust and bloods turned to dust in my heart"