MovieChat Forums > Under the Volcano (1984) Discussion > Huston: 'Under the Volcano' isn't a grea...

Huston: 'Under the Volcano' isn't a great book.

posted 15 years ago by balthazar_bee
7 replies | jump to latest

I don't recall exactly which of the Criterion special features included this comment (some sort of radio interview?), but it certainly took me by surprise. I'm a great admirer of the novel, and I have a growing fondness for the movie, but I fail to see (a) why Huston would deny the book's greatness, and (b) what would make him, in that case, interested in filming it.

These questions were probably answered by the man himself -- but I haven't watched the DVD in a while, and I just wondered if anyone else was startled by the man's comment.

Incidentally, if you don't own it already, the included Lowry documentary alone makes it well worth purchasing. Listening to the great Richard Burton read from the man's work almost makes me wish he had been available for the part in '84. Of course, then we wouldn't have Finney.

[–] zurichpoet 14 years ago

I took it as he was trying to say it wasn't easiest book to adapt for the screen.

[–] balthazar_bee 14 years ago

I rewatched the supplements, and Huston was clearly saying he didn't think it was the great piece of literature that so many claimed. In particular, he mentions that Lowry seemed to use seemingly random bits collected from his own experiences -- that he "gathered" material rather than creating it -- and as a result his work suffered from limited scope and a lack of overarching design. He then speculates that may have been the reason he only managed to complete one genuine novel in his lifetime.

[–] vegytarian 11 years ago

I spoke to Huston prior to the filming of the novel. He asked a question that caught me off guard: "Why does the Consul drink?" This is indicative of Huston's approach, ie. his interest in simple answers to complex issues. The Consul drinks for a variety of reasons. Part of the novel's greatness is based on the intricacies and complexity (psychological, visual, and thematic) that Malcolm Lowry added in layers upon layers as he composed the book year after year, draft after draft. With the help of Margerie, his wife, of course, once he was living in British Columbia, Canada.
Huston sought simplifications throughout the process of adapting and directing UTV. This is perhaps the most important reason his film is such a disappointing adaptation of the novel.
"Under The Volcano" as published in 1947 still stands as one of the most, if not the most brilliant shooting script ever published! With the appropriate writer and director attached, hopefully, some day it will be translated into a film again and its brilliance will shine!
Note: I was a close friend of Margerie Lowry and her older sister, Priscilla Woolfan, for several years in Los Angeles during the 1970s. Those were the days!

[–] balthazar_bee 11 years ago

Thanks for the informative reply! I too would love to see another director take a crack at it -- someone with the appropriate ratio of balls and brains.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cdncritic 9 years ago

I'm inclined to agree that Under the Volcano is a greatly overrated novel. One of the earliest criticisms in '47 accused it of being derivative, and it is - the novel is essentially a composite of fashionable writing themes and styles. He rips off Ulysses' basic structure of a story taking place within a day, told within a stream of consciousness narrative. He jams it full of classical Greek mythology (something that had gone out of fashion at least twenty years earlier), and writes without any respect for the readers need for a lucid narrative. The book is so dense that it's hard to lift, but without any collateral purpose. And I'm convinced the impenetrable sentences, something attributed to his mastery of language, was simply the result of him being a drunk. The book serves no useful purpose, contains no universally recognizable or sympathetic characters, and not surprisingly contains an anti-climax with the main character's death.

[–] balthazar_bee 8 years ago

This summer I revisited the book a third time and (last night) Huston's film, and I have to say my appreciation for the former has fallen somewhat, but the latter has increased.

You're right about the Joycean influence. And, unlike Joyce, Lowry seems at times to be overreaching in his attempts to record the poetry of the day's monotonous minutiae. The biggest problem with the book is that it tries the patience in a way Ulysses rarely does -- I frequently found myself muttering, "Get on with it".

It has passages of real greatness, and the story as a whole fascinates, but it's just so overwritten.

The movie, on the other hand, is comparatively breezy. I always seem to forget just how much Finney goes for it in his performance. It's rare to see any actor suspended so high above the Earth without a tightrope. Plus, the sheer amount of drinking the consul does in the movie seems to have been increased (or maybe it's because the movie feels shorter) -- to the point of it being a recurring punchline, one that's funny until it isn't. The book is so damned defeatist and morose; the movie is delirious and unstoppable.