I was really worried since I hate James Franco's other directorial efforts, but this is definitely his best. The main actor is shockingly effective and really sold it for me. People in the theatre were literally dry heaving due to his actions.
share*WARNING - non-plot oriented spoiler in following post
I agree. I saw it at TiFF this weekend and thought it was a decent adaptation of the book. Also got a chance to ask Scott Haze a couple questions after the show. He confirmed that they filmed a full ending of the book but that it was cut short in editing. He also confirmed that he actually defecated on camera for the film.
I respectfully disagree. It's easily the worst film I've ever seen at the NYFF, and I would go as far as to call it one of the worst films I've ever seen.
I don't want to troll this board, so I'll just say my piece and move on, so as to warn wary Cormac McCarthy fans away from this.
Yes, it's a pretty faithful adaptation of 'Child of God,' though it ends much differently (with Ballard on the run, apparently free and happy). However, the production values are student-film quality, and I'm not just saying that because it's not a blockbuster like some people say that. I mean, this is actual student-film quality production values - I'm talking laughable anachronisms which Franco barely tries to hide (there wasn't a heck of a lot of effort put into this film, it appears, even as student films go), no sound mixing so you can hear sounds like the hum of highways, airplanes overhead, and that 'home video sound' you get when you get with old camcorders, a high-pitched whir - the camera motor? There is absolutely no skill in directing displayed whatsoever. All the shots are poorly-composed, ugly, handheld and cheap-looking. The most accomplished thing Franco does here is not drop the camera.
Actually, Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep (contrarily, one of the best films I have ever seen) was a student film. So that's really no excuse. This is a really poor student film which would never have seen the light of day beyond a close circle of friends and the people who made it, if the student in question had not been James Franco. If I were a teacher of his film class I would give it a very poor grade and say it reflects a real lack of effort on Franco's part.
Scott Haze - to be blunt I don't think he's a good actor at all, but he does give this performance his all, which is more that can be said about anyone behind the camera.
Anyway...my two cents. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself and make up your own mind, of course. But I don't think many people will like this.
I haven't seen it yet but truly looking forward to seeing it, and even Cormac McCarthy seems happy to support this on his facebook pages.
"It's easily the worst film I've ever seen at the NYFF, and I would go as far as to call it one of the worst films I've ever seen.", everyone is entitled to their opinion (it will be a split verdict with some audiences, and I'm not surprised with the nature of the subject matter but critics have even stated that it is a masterpiece), though some critics and fans who have seen it, truly seem to love it.
Here are some positive critics views:
"This is a tough sell, a heavy-duty Southern gothic that makes the Coen brothers' No Country for Old Men seem lightweight." - Kent Turner, Film-Forward.com! Anyone, who says that about a movie has my interest, as No Country for Old Men is an Oscar winning classic in my book.
"Franco's powerful adaptation, directed with discipline and intelligence, captures McCarthy's mordant darkness. It reveals the humanity buried beneath animalistic behavior." - Caryn James, James on screenS!
"Franco makes a number of other creative choices that work better for the film. McCarthy is known for his prose, even in his more sparsely written novels. Franco chooses to physically put McCarthy's words on screen to help set the tone of the film, introduce us to its vocabulary. We're not talking huge passages here, just the odd sentence or two. He also utilizes voiceover to fill in Lester's backstory. Unseen characters relay anecdotes of who Lester was to help us better understand the man he has become. It is a refreshing alternative to flashbacks. It also gives the film a sense of the literary that is so often missing in these types of adaptations.", plus "Seriously, Haze's performance here is a *beep* powerhouse. If it weren't for the squeamishness of the Academy, I'd say he was a shoo-in for a Best Actor nom. He carries the film like it weighs nothing." - Joshua Chaplinsky, twitchfilm.com!
"In spite of Haze's genuinely affecting and often downright bravely brilliant performance, there might be something a tad more egregious than "full retardation" to keep him from a date with Oscar.", plus "Well, he does what no Oscar-winning performance will ever be acknowledged for. And he does it repeatedly - only subsequent recipients of his man-juice are not stupid enough to die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Luckily for Lester, he's mighty handy with a shotgun.2" - Greg Klymkiw, http://klymkiwfilmcorner.blogspot.co.uk/
Again "Child of God is a genuine triumph. Franco handles the picture with verve and style. He even manages to utilize chunks of McCarthy's prose in a series of odd "conversational" voice-overs and literal title cards splashing across the screen. I loved this technique. It was fun AND rooted the film in the glorious American literary tradition of Southern Gothic. Franco elicits a wide range of great performances and his actual coverage and composition of the dramatic action feels like the work of someone who's been directing movies his whole career. The movie is grotesque, at times sickening and often shocking, but it is rooted in genuine humanity and is easily one of the best movies of the year." - Greg Klymkiw,http://klymkiwfilmcorner.blogspot.co.uk/
From what you say yourself, "Yes, it's a pretty faithful adaptation of 'Child of God,'", I would think that's ALL the FANS OF THE BOOK truly care about (most audiences complain that it's never nothing like the book), plus the wider audience who like these kinds of films giving it a chance to see it too.
Franco made this movie with his own money, as he generally tends too with all his directing efforts, so I give him credit for being passionate enough to invest in his own projects and undertaking it how he truly likes (not what the big studios want).
The reviews above don't seem to suggest that it is a student like movie (but as I stated some might agree with you, depending on tastes and whether you like Franco or not) but very raw and a possible cult classic with some.
However, as Xan Brooks from theguardian.com puts it "But Child of God has merit and should be judged on its own terms. If this director were half as clever as he thinks he is, he would take his name off the credits and give his critics a taste test. Tell them the picture is the work of an unschooled, first-time film-maker, born and raised in Tennessee. Many, I'm betting, would be easily convinced. They'd lap it up, smack their lips and ask for more.".
I hope this film gets a distributor and gets a big screen release and I agree with you that audiences should see it for themselves and make up their own minds (like everything some will love it and some will not but this movie will not be forgotten easily from what I hear).
Before, they do either read the book first (not necessary with some but some audiences might appreciate it), or read some reviews (be clear that some critics hate Franco to the point that they don't actually review this movie but just talk about Franco for the sake of it AND clearly haven't read the book) but don't go in blindsided otherwise, you will be truly shocked (not a comedy).
Well, OK. First of all, those critics are all internet film critics, some of whom are just writing from their personal blogs. I don't think the professional film critical community at large will be kind to this film at all.
I have to say, what they are praising Franco for are some of the reasons among many I thought the film was execrable. Like putting McCarthy's prose on the screen. That's a creatively bankrupt move. It shows he has no idea how to find a cinematic correlation for McCarthy's literary style. And, well, it looked ridiculous.
The narration was inconsistent and used as a crutch to convey information. The above blogger you cite says it's a refreshing alternative to boring flashbacks. That's basically saying that apparently telling is better than showing. They were also delivered by actors with incredibly poor Southern accents.
Naturally Franco put his own money behind this. It's obviously a personal project of his, and I imagine he's very wealthy. I'm not criticizing the low budget, just the lack of effort and complete artlessness on his part.
I disagree that all a book fan wants is a faithful adaptation, nothing more. If the quality of the production is ridiculously poor then it does injustice to what's on the page. One would rather just read the book again, which stands perfectly well on its own, and let your imagination do the work.
I couldn't disagree with Xan Brooks more. Without Franco's name attached, not even diehard Cormac McCarthy fans would have heard of this.
Well, OK. First of all, those critics are all internet film critics, some of whom are just writing from their personal blogs. I don't think the professional film critical community at large will be kind to this film at all. Cleary, you have made up your mind about Franco and this movie will not be able to change your opinion of him.
However, you seem to be forgetting the most important facts here; whether, it comes from internet film critics or professional critics, they're still giving opinions on a movie, which some take as validation to see the movie, or just ignore and go anyway (again, depending on each individual taste).
The keyword you used is 'think' because none of as know? Will the professional film critical community judge this movie on whether some hate Franco (including some non Franco fans in general) and looking forward for him to fail constantly (because he's doing something right) or be 100% fair and see him as a director, who just made this movie?
However, the most important thing to Franco, I would only presume to guess is what the actual audience thinks by actually watching his movies. Professional critics have hated movies before, which have been successful hits or even classics. It's the core audience which likes the book or interested in this type of movies again, that will judge even with a split verdict this movie will generate some fans (who just want to watch a movie no matter what they think of Franco), who may come to think Franco actually achieved a great goal.
Meaning, to bring something on screen, that most great experienced directors didn't even bother to try (with some saying it's too difficult to bring Cormac McCarthy books to life in general, especially this one) but yet Franco did just that, and did it well.
Like putting McCarthy's prose on the screen. That's a creatively bankrupt move. It shows he has no idea how to find a cinematic correlation for McCarthy's literary style. And, well, it looked ridiculous. See, that's your opinion and some might agree with you but others from the above examples clearly don't. It's ridiculous to you but not to them and possible others.
The narration was inconsistent and used as a crutch to convey information. The above blogger you cite says it's a refreshing alternative to boring flashbacks. That's basically saying that apparently telling is better than showing. They were also delivered by actors with incredibly poor Southern accents. I recently watched Jane Eyre (1943) with the great Orson Welles/Joan Fontaine, and in that movie, Joan Fontaine as Jane had the book open and used narration from key elements to drive the story forward, which worked perfectly.
As I haven't seen the movie yet, you may be correct about the inconsistency but some say its 100% fine, the same with the actors and their Southern accents. Again, all I truly wanted to know was whether Scott Haze would nail his performance as the lead (the most important role to me anyway), and apparently so, from various festival reports, some even suggesting at least an Oscar nomination for him. Franco as a director brought some direction in Haze that basically some are saying is Oscar worthy, which means Franco did something right.
In terms of "just the lack of effort and complete artlessness on his part", we can all say many things about Franco but lack of effort is not one of them. Not when, he put his own money into this movie and apparently, Sean Penn had the book rights 15 years ago and was going to make this movie with Tim Blake Nelson as the director but because of funding it didn't happen. Meaning, it might be artlessness on his part to you and possibly many others sharing your thoughts but I repeat some have stated he nailed it 100% and should be extremely proud (or you could argue at least he tried).
I disagree that all a book fan wants is a faithful adaptation, nothing more. If the quality of the production is ridiculously poor then it does injustice to what's on the page. One would rather just read the book again, which stands perfectly well on its own, and let your imagination do the work. Once more, you 'think' it's ridiculously poor but others have stated not so, including stating it is a raw masterpiece and how the book should look on screen.
The fact that you mention "Yes, it's a pretty faithful adaptation of 'Child of God,'", I repeat means one of things you saw in the movie that was right by Franco was the faithfulness - it wasn't "injustice to what's on the page", which to me (may be not all book fans - I can't speak for everyone after all) is an important factor. Yes, the quality and whole package of the movie is important also (no movie is ever perfect) to a point but some have suggested he accomplished this, whilst clearly you disagree (some don't).
At the end of the day, Franco and his team made a movie that they wanted to do and hopefully, people get to see it themselves and judge him fairly as a director only. We could go back and forth but pointless - thanks for your input, you didn't like it, it's pretty clear. Again, I will wait to see it and judge for myself but glad some did enjoy this movie.
"Well, OK. First of all, those critics are all internet film critics, some of whom are just writing from their personal blogs. I don't think the professional film critical community at large will be kind to this film at all."
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/02/venice-2013-child-of-god-review
http://www.cine-vue.com/2013/08/venice-2013-child-of-god-review.html
http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/child-of-god-review/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/child-god-venice-review-618828
Those are reviews posted by somebody in a different thread on this board. So far the professional reviews have been pretty solid. I haven't seen the film myself, but most of what has been said by the random bloggers has been more or less in line with The Guardian and The Hollywood Reporter.
I'll take your thoughts into account along with the raves. It sounds to me from these descriptions that I may take those attributes in a sort of like warm way, but I'll decide for myself when I see it.