For someone who has never read the book “As I lay dying”, watching the film adaptation would be very confusing and disorienting. Even for someone who has read the book like myself, the film adaption that we saw in class was frustrating to say the least. It is very slow-paced (even though some of the transitions from scene to scene are abrupt) and serious and leaves the viewer with a weird feeling just like the book does. For one, it seems like the film narrative is flaunting its control over what it can throw at the viewer. The use of the split screen to show various characters and perspectives is interesting and unique but also confusing because its purpose is unclear and seems to be different in various scenes. Sometimes it seems like each screen is just showing two different perspectives of the same scene whereas other times it seems like one screen is showing a flashback from another time period. For example: In one scene, one screen is showing a dying Addie telling her story while the other screen appears to be a younger version of herself having an affair with Whitfield.
It's the viewers job to try and understand what is being shown. In this particular case, it isn't obvious if the younger woman is Addie but we make that assumption in order to understand the film more fully. Not to mention, the split screen isn't even a part of the entire movie as the film jumps from full screen to split screen over and over again which makes this even more difficult to follow. Many of the fragmented monologues in the book are shortened or even rendered in voice-over which can be confusing because it is even unclear who is talking at certain times or where the voices are coming from.
The split screen approach to the movie definitely emphasized the isolation of the characters as we get images of their faces alone more often than we see them interacting with one another. Additionally, the film does a good job of portraying the dynamic roles of Cash, Darl, and Jewel, and through the split screen we can clearly see how Jewel is different from the other two characters in both appearance and conduct. The zoomed in faces make this easily noticeable and I would imagine that it would be harder to notice Jewel being different without the split screen style.
I agree that the split screen was kind of disorienting and even annoying at times. In my opiniom, the film seemed like it was trying too hard to be artsy and different. However, I did like that the split screens didn't always have the same purpose or effect. I thought that aspect of it made it more interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Cash, Darl and Jewel are presented pretty faithfully in the film adaptation. The tension between the three of them is obvious and Jewel's separation is made very clear with the split-creed thing. I also agree that it would have been pretty impossible to figure out what was going on if the viewer hadn't already read the novel. Though the split screen was sometimes irritating to try and follow, I think it well-represented the confused, trippy feeling I was left with after reading the book. A fragmented, bizarre novel warrants a fragmented, bizarre film adaptation. Also, the final scene (where you want it to be over but the credits keep cutting back to the Bundrens leaving town) was kind of a perfect reflection of what is so frustrating about the Bundren family; they just don't get stuff done.
ReplyDelete*Split-screen not split-creed
DeleteI think that the movie does a good job capturing the novel. The split screen, voiceover, and scenes where a character talks to the camera all serve to maintain the confusion of the novel. It also sort of shows how Darl narrates things that he shouldn't know, like at the beginning with Jewel riding the horse.
ReplyDeleteLike people said above, the split screen was extremely disorienting. I don't know if that was Franco's motive--to make it feel like the novel. If so, then he succeeded because the novel is also confusing. But like Raya said, I think Franco did a good job overall with representing the novel. The split screen shows the multiple perspectives, the voiceover gives the feeling of narration, and the weird sounds and noises in the background immerses you in the South where the novel took place.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that the lighting were gray/dark tones, making the film seem somber and serious. It seems that Franco saw the novel as less of a comic fiasco and more of a tragic, epic journey.
Yeah I agree that the movie definitely does a great job of portraying the novel. I think it is important to note that the movie is disorienting in a sense but so is the book so they resemble one another in that sense as they should.
DeleteThe movie seemed so pretentious to me (remember, James Franco directed it and he said that he is "Gay in my art but straight in my life). The split screen was disorienting, and the movie was poorly done. The most recent example I can think of with respect to well-done split-screen was Janelle Monae and Grimes' video for Venus Fly (although that was more of a mirrored screen). The big difference between Venus Fly and As I Lay Dying is that As I Lay Dying seemed to just be one huge circlejerk for James Franco.
ReplyDeleteLol I completely agree that the movie was poorly done. I saw Venus Fly and I too found that movie to be a much better example of the split screen style.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile I agree that the film was frustrating, I would say that it is pretty realistic. I feel like Faulkner went a little over the top in making each of the characters a little too quirky and different -- to the point that it broke the suspension of disbelief for me. It made it too hard to keep up with everyone. The movie however allowed to see the characters a little better and I found it a little easier to follow.
ReplyDeleteGood post Varun! I agree that the movie would be extremely frustrating to watch for someone who has never read the book. In almost every scene I found myself only knowing what is going on by searching for a scene in the book to match it to. If I didn't have those scenes of the book in my mind I would be at a complete loss to most of the subtleties of the plot and the reason for the use of the split-screen.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the movie would be very difficult to follow for someone who hasn't read the book before. Having read the story, I still had a really hard time (especially towards the beginning) understanding what the heck was going on. The split screen was disorienting, and Anse's mumbling in a thick southern accent trying to sound like he had no teeth successfully made me not understand a word he said. I feel like this movie was an interesting experiment, but the story could have been pulled off in so many different ways, and this one is just too disorienting for so many people to have been the right one.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the film is confusing, but the split-screen was still a great way of portraying what happened in the book. I liked that the film didn't try and adapt the book to follow one character and even though that made the movie more confusing, it made it better. Despite this, I am definitely glad that the split-screen is not a current norm for movies.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the split screen in the movie. Before we watched it, I was wondering how the film was going to account for all the different points of view. I think the split screen captured that really well. I agree that this film technique made the characters feel isolated like they were in the book. The entire film had this eerie sad quality to it that the book also had.
ReplyDelete