MovieChat Forums > On the Road (2012) Discussion > Perhaps this is why it didn't work on fi...

Perhaps this is why it didn't work on film


I loved Kerouac's books, but was disappointed by this film. To Salles' defense, I have no idea how to make it any better, other than to take the Heart Beat route and film a script based upon the lives of Kerouac and Cassidy.

What we may want to remember is a lesson I took from a smart professor years ago. High school kids hated reading Shakespeare, because Shakespeare wasn't written for people to read. It was written to be performed.

Using that same logic, I'll present that Kerouac's books were written to be read. They were not written to be made into a film.

Just an idea.




Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle. You've gotta tell them. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

reply

[deleted]

Well, Kerouac should have known better. I agree with the OP. The film was as good as it possibly could have been, but it just doesn't work as a film.

reply

[deleted]

Writers don't necessarily know squat about making a film. That's like saying a good director would make a good writer, perhaps, but definitely not certain. Books work with words, films work with images and sounds. They don't translate very well. Also people can pick up a book and start and stop whenever they want. That's not true of movies, or at least it doesn't work as well with movies.

---------------------------------------
Giggidy! Giggidy!

reply

[deleted]

How profound. But quite untrue. Books translate very well to film and there is a very long list of cinematic adaptations of great novels that prove this.


Yes, but not all books work on film.








reply

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

reply

"On the Road" didn't work on film? Really? You could have fooled me; i thought it was an excellent film, which beautifully and vividly captured the feel and scope of the book. It's all a matter of personal taste I suppose..

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

reply



"...Shakespeare wasn't written for people to read. It was written to be performed.

Using that same logic, I'll present that Kerouac's books were written to be read. They were not written to be made into a film."

blameline,

I really like that - it makes a lot of sense to me. I might even repeat it to others, and try to pass it off as my own. Thanks

reply

The part of Sal was miscast.

reply

Definitely. Sam Riley did a poor imitation of Jack Kerouac's alter-ego.

reply

Thanks for the reply jerrellejames.

reply

[deleted]

blameline, I agree. Just as with the newest bad film version of "The Great Gatsby", a book like "On the Road" doesn't really work as a film because the art of such books lies not merely in the story being told, but the way in which the story is told. The language, the tone, the atmosphere, the lyricism of the prose -- it's almost impossible to capture that on film, although I suppose a truly gifted filmmaker might come close. But that's highly unlikely. Kerouac always compared his prose to jazz, and how do you put on film what jazz is conveying? "On the Road" is a great story, yes -- but its greatness lies not in the plot, but the exuberence & energy of the writing itself, the specific vision of the artist.

reply

True. And also the book a lot about feeling, Kerouac uses his lyric prose to communicate a certain kind of feeling: freedom, exuberance, depth, spirituality. There's only so much you can do with images to depict the inner feeling of a character. You can see the actors struggling, but it just doesn't come across. Frantically snapping their fingers at a jazz-concert, wide open eye-staring, sex, it all goes over like a lead-balloon, they come of as melodramatic frat-boys. That psychological state that Kerouac describes isn't about beer and sex, it's about freedom and epiphanies and they couldn't translate it to film at all.

reply

High school kids hated reading Shakespeare, because Shakespeare wasn't written for people to read. It was written to be performed.


What? Utter nonsense. You realize you have to read the play to perform it, right? It's the same thing. If you can't capture the students imagination with Shakespeare, you are a failure of an English teacher (not you, but the hypothetical one).

The reason this film failed was because it was populated by sh*tty actors with a sh*tty director. No great mystery.

A director is only as good as their last film.

reply

Yes. It is that simple. The book always left me with a hopeful feeling and the film left me feeling hopeless. The book wasn't entirely rainbows and sunshine but the film focused more on the sexual freedom and melodramatic parts than the exhilarating experiences. Predictably, the movie flopped.


* I killed god! Well... me and the internet.

reply

I tend to find that books with a unique narrative 'voice' lose something when they're adapted. Sure, you can take the best quotes and have characters repeat them or stick it in some voice-over, but you're still going to lose what made the book special in the first place.

With On the Road, there's a rhythm and flow to the words that's hard to replicate in film. The writing is really poetic.

I think a better example is Catch-22. I enjoyed the film. It did a good job of portraying the absurdity of war. It was funny. But it wasn't half as funny as the novel because there's so many ways that Heller plays with language so much via repetition and contradiction, like in the excerpt below.

'Major Major’s father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a longlimbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major’s father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbors sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore wise. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” he counseled one and all, and everyone said, “Amen.”
Major Major’s father was an outspoken champion of economy in government, provided it did not interfere with the sacred duty of government to pay farmers as much as they could get for all the alfalfa they produced that no one else wanted or for not producing any alfalfa at all. He was a proud and independent man who was opposed to unemployment insurance and never hesitated to whine, whimper, wheedle and extort for as much as he could get from whomever he could.


Whereas something like The Godfather or A Song of Ice and Fire are easily adapted into film/TV because the focus is predominantly on story and not writing style. They aren't written in any kind of special way.

(One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a great example of an adaptation of a uniquely-written book, but it could only do it by moving a lot of the focus away from Bromden).

reply

On one hand I agree with you. There are some books that I love that I can't imagine how they would ever make a good movie out of them.

But on the other-hand..."Trainspotting," "Fight Club," "A Clockwork Orange," and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"

Like "On The Road" those are four truly wonderful books that, when you read them you wonder how on earth would someone think its a good idea to make a movie out of them? They are just too out there to translate into a movie...

And yet they all translated into great movies, particularly "Trainspotting," which out of the four seems the most impossible to turn into a decent flick. Still, they ALL seemed to work in the transition.

Danny Boyle, Terry Gilliam, Stanley Kubrick, and David Fincher with screen writers Jim Uhls and John Hodge helping the translation from prose to film along the way.

I'll admit that "On the Road" seems like an insane thing to turn into a movie and a monumental task to translate into that genera...but it's been done in the past with candidates just as unlikely and transformed into movies just as great as the books themselves...if not highly interpreted.

It can be done, the evidence is there, you just need the talent and brass enough to step up to the challenge. "On the Road" had the brass but lacked the talent.

"Few people understand the psychology of dealing with a highway traffic cop."

reply