“The book is better!» #3
To date, I can say with confidence that the novels of Kormak McCarthy receive the best adaptations. Cinema, taken based on his books, does not just transfer the atmosphere he created to the screen, but complements and enhances the understanding of his works. The film of the same name based on his novel “Road” was for me a discovery and standard, how to film books. When my gaze fell on his novel “The Old Men is None of the Place”, which was filmed by the Cohen brothers, I hoped that a film that would not shame this magnificent book should be released, and glad that my hopes were justified. I received a second evidence that from books you can make excellent films.
Two best film adaptations for me today.
Of course, it all depends on the works and on how they approach the creation of the film. First of all, as the Coenes themselves note that the book itself asks for the screen and when reading there is a feeling that this is a draft script sketch. McCarthy features in many ways – rejection of punctuation marks. He uses only points and, in extreme cases, commas. You think this makes it difficult to read and understand? Yes, but only at the beginning. After reading a couple of pages, you already fully understand the essence of what has been written and you do not have to constantly re -read. This technique gives some sense of the reality of what is happening, speech becomes more tangible, since we do not arrange punctuation marks during conversation, and all our remarks can be divided into semantic parts.
The story told in the “old people here is not a place” is happy at its core. Luellin Moss, an ordinary hard worker from Western Texas, finds a case with a huge amount of money in the steppe, in the middle of a gang of crushed Mexicans and a large batch of heroin. In order to return the case after him, they send the hired killer Anton Chigura. On the train of the corpses of those left behind them, the Sheriff Bell is going on, trying to figure out the situation and save Moss. The story briefly looks like this, but the talent of the feed is in detail and memorable images.
Three main characters are three key figures to betswagger casino uk the disclosure, which Coena approached with care and respect for the original.
I’ll start with the character that caused me the greatest sympathy. Anton Chigur. He is the person whose existence is impossible to believe. On the one hand, it is difficult to trace its motivation. He pursues his goals, absolutely do not control and do not predict. He is the personification of the inevitability of death, although we will say more accurately that he is death itself. In psychology, there is a point of view that the driving forces of a man is a “tanatos”, a desire for death. That is, in the nature of a man, an inclination to violence is originally inherent. Anton is a person who has this desire to be elevated to the Absolute. The very fact of the murder does not bring pleasure to him, it is simply laid in it, an integral part of it. This is his fundamental, he does not stop at anyone, who stands in his way. Moreover, its goal can be formulated,
as unlimited control over life. In the book, this moment is revealed when he comes to the leader of one of the criminal groups, and becomes his partner as a result of a short dialogue. In general, dialogs in the novel are a highlight of a work that decorates the film. Dialogues of heroes with Chighur are especially distinguished. His detachment and confidence in his own worldview are caused by fear and despair among the interlocutors. They clearly begin to realize that they are dealing with uncontrolled animal force. However, Chigur has a sense of his own justice when he gives his victim a chance to surrender to the will of chance, throwing a coin. Thus, he emphasizes the power of fate over his opponent.
Javier Bardem in the image of Chigura is incomparable. Bardem showed his game the mystery and mystery of Anton Chigura. Both in the book and in the film, we will learn about him about his past, the image of sterile in terms of background. The only grain of his life, about which we learn that he served in Vietnam, but unlike other heroes, both main and secondary, we do not know the part where he served, or his title. Everyone knows about Chigura, but no one knows who he is. Thanks to the acting game Havier Bardem, Chigur on the screen and Chigur in the book are mirror copies of each other.
Sheriff Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones, a completely different character. The opposite of Chiguru, the sheriff is far from old age, but he is already beginning to age. He is that old man who is not a place here. It no longer has the vital energy that was before. He is the embodiment of experience, wisdom. It is not for nothing that his thoughts are accompanied by his thoughts in the book. When you get older, you think more about the past, about already passed, lived. You evaluate your life as you lived it. In contrasting other characters who act more based on instincts, the sheriff speaks precautions and rationality. He cannot cope with such a criminal as Chigur. During his career, Tommy Lee Jones already played sheriffs in Texas, where he was born and raised, so he is harmonious in this role.
Sheriff is no longer ready to risk himself.
Between these contrasting characters, stands Luellin Moss. The dynamics of this character manifests itself, not only in the context of his actions, but also in his soul. In my opinion, the image played by Josh Brolin in the film was not completely revealed. He is slightly lacking to the image from the source. More precisely, the lack of a scene, with a young hitchhiker, breaks off his development. Moss transforms throughout the book, at the beginning, possessing that energy of Chigur, primitive instinctiveness, in the end he becomes closer to the character Tommy Lee Jones. This is just not in the film. Therefore, his death becomes more similar to the result of a random gathering
circumstances.
In general, the picture is a blood saturated with blood on Texas of the 80s. Both in the book and the film are given a significant place for weapons. The feeder describes exactly who shoots from what. It helped a lot when creating a film. I can say that after reading and viewing, I had an interest in firearms.
The approach of the Cohen brothers to the scenes of violence is impressive. Already starting from the first scene of the film, which is almost a direct retelling of the book, you can see respect for the original and the thoroughness with which they show death and blood on the screen. The book is a cruel romance, but it does not roll into Chernukho. So we can say about the film.
As a result, I decided to assess the adaptations of books. On the one hand, in order to put a point in my attitude to film adaptation, and on the other, in order to build on something in the future when comparing other works. Therefore, my assessment of the film adaptation of the novel “The elderly is not a place”: 10/10.