Wow, no need to be so hostile.
First of all, I never said that a film adaptation should match a book word-for-word, page-for-page. There are plenty of film adaptations that I love that differ quite a bit from their source material, such as Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Life of Pi, A Clockwork Orange, and The World According to Garp, among others. While those movies add scenes that weren't in the book (as well as cut scenes that were in the books), they still keep the plot, integrity, and spirit of the stories intact, while still being able to stand on their own as a distinct work of art.
I don't see that happening with The Sound and the Fury. Since you majored in Faulkner, then perhaps you know that this book jumps around in time, that it doesn't necessarily take place in Mississippi or Massachusetts (at least until Dilsey and perhaps Jason's sections of the books), but rather inside the Compson brothers' minds. I don't think that Jason and Dilsey's sections would be difficult to film, but I will be extremely surprised if this movie manages to make something coherent out of Benjy and Quentin's sections without changing them completely. And while I agree, as I've already stated, that films often have to leave things out or change plot points to make a movie adaptation work, I just don't see how this is going to work onscreen.
Another point: I made a big deal about them filming Quentin's suicide. Yes, I realize Faulkner choosing not to show that scene is a literary device, and yes, I realize that it's certainly acceptable for a film to show something that a novel merely hints at (i.e. perhaps in a Tess of the D'Ubervilles adaptation, they might actually show the rape [but I'm not saying they should do that, that's just an example]). However, and this is just my opinion as a film-goer, I like narrative gaps, especially in the case of the deaths of important characters. I wasn't very happy, for example, with how Gatsby's death was handled in the most recent Gatsby adaptation, with a melodramatic scene of him being shot and falling into the pool with several grotesque close-ups of his face. I think the scene would have been much more effective if we had simply already seen Gatsby swimming, watched Tom walk behind Gatsby's house, and then heard the sound of a gunshot. Some deaths are handled extremely well in movies, but others fall into melodrama, and I think that Quentin's suicide could easily end up in the latter category. It's simply my opinion that subtlety is an art, and a useful one in the case of Quentin's death. His whole section is leading up to his suicide, we see him buy the weights to drown himself, we hear his family talk about his suicide--why do we actually need to see it happen? Since it's been a while since I read the book, I can't remember if he leaves a note or not, but I think it a powerful last scene for Quentin would simply be him leaving a note, putting on his suit, and leaving his dorm...or perhaps showing him staring down into the water just before he jumps in. And maybe that's what they chose to do when they filmed his suicide--at least that's what I hope. I don't want to see a scene of Quentin floundering around in the water. It just isn't necessary.
Well, that paragraph turned out longer than I expected...Quentin is just one of my favorite literary characters of all time, so I guess I'm a bit protective of him and how he's handled by these filmmakers! :P
Oh, and about my little obsession with the time period. Would you want a book set in the 70s to have its film adaptation set in the 80s? Or a book set in the 40s be filmed as if it were the 50s? Think about the major cultural shifts that occur between each decade. In 1919, America would still be recovering from WWII. In 1910, alcohol would still be legal. While perhaps there wouldn't be much difference in rural Mississippi, I think a 20s-era Boston would have quite a few differences from a 1919 Boston, where alcohol would be legal, flappers would exist, and the Great War would have just ended. I could be wrong, of course, and maybe the filmmakers, while setting Quentin's section in the twenties, won't make a big deal about it being the Roaring Twenties. At least I hope they don't.
Btw, please don't try to discredit my opinion on the basis that you have a specialized degree and I don't! In fact, please don't do that to anyone--it's pretentious and condescending and plain rude. Besides, I'm currently majoring in English and writing (and possibly minoring in film studies and philosophy if I have the time to finish those minors), not to mention I won first in the state in an essay contest my senior year of high school with an essay on The Sound and the Fury...
But anyways, you have your opinion, and I have mine, and that's perfectly fine with me. My friends and I disagree on movies all the time, and we get along just fine. I just didn't appreciate you trying to make me look ignorant when I'm not.
reply
share