Well, I'm desperately trying to find some time to watch the original movie with THE DUKE. I did watch the first thirty to forty-five minutes while I ate my lunch today. It's good so far--no Citizen Kane, though. Here are some thoughts:
1. I sure hope they never say this is supposed to be Arkansas and/or Oklahoma, cause it sure ain't. Pretty scenery, but it ain't nothin' like it looks 'round here pardner. So far, they haven't made any mention of exactly where it is; they just say "Fort Smith" and "Indian Territory." Please, I hope the Coen's make the scenery at least look a little like AR and OK.
2. It's weird to have the action of Mattie's father going off and getting killed on the screen instead of being told to us by Mattie. It really takes something away from the story. They need more exposition than they have just by showing it. I'm not sure if I'd know what was going on for the first 15 minutes if I hadn't read the book. It ruins the framing mechanism of Mattie's narrative at the beginning and the end, too.
3. You can really tell when Marguerite Robert's screenplay relies on Portis' language, which it does more than I had been led to believe, but the directing is weak and so the lines don't really "pop" like they could with a good director. The section with Rooster testifying in front of Judge Parker contains lots of exact lines. Of course, the guy that's playing Judge Parker--James Westerfield, you'd recognize him--is all wrong for the part. He just plays Parker as your stereotypical disinterested bumbling judge--more concerned with his indigestion than the trial. It would be interesting see all the movie representations of Parker--I know there are lots of them. Anybody wanna make a list?
4. I enjoyed the "bad manners" at the boarding house table--lots of smacking and chewing with your mouth open. Funny.
5. Does Rooster have a patch over one eye in the book or is that something they made up for the film? I can't remember.
Some technical stuff for the "film" people (as opposed to "movie" people):
1. Isn't it odd to have the theme song--you know the one with the vocals and all--playing over the opening titles? Don't they usually save that song for the ending? I guess that's an older technique.
2. Lucien Ballard's cinematography is great. What do we expect, though, he's Sam Pedkinpaugh's cinematographer. This kind of thing must have been second nature to him.
3. The direction, by Henry Hathaway, seems workmanlike at best. Stilted. I'm sorry, but it's just weak.
4. I'm usually a fan of Elmer Bernstein's scoring, but this seems a bit overblown and like something he had left over from another project. The opening music after the theme song seems like it was actually composed for some other film. I do like the scoring when Mattie is looking at her father's watch. Very sensitive.
Well, maybe I'll have time to watch the rest of it tomorrow at lunch.
Remember that I have three copies if you want to view the film.
In answer to question number 5....yes Rooster wore a patch over his eye throughout the book. Only one scene does it mention him not wearing it and Mattie described his eye as "all you could see was white and it looked like a half moon"
ReplyDelete