Barn Burning
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Barn Burning is a forty-minute television adaptation of William Faulkner's 1939 story by the same name. It was broadcast in 1980, and stars Tommy Lee Jones as Abner "Abe" Snopes. Jimmy Faulkner, nephew of the author, also appeared as Major de Spain in this, his only acting role. The house used in the film as Major de Spain's house is historic Rowan Oak in Oxford, Mississippi, which was Faulkner's home for more than thirty years, and is now a museum in his honor, maintained by The University of Mississippi.
Is satisfactory to read how Faulkner writes, produces and gets a huge recognition due to his majestic work. And i also appreciate how time plays is this paragraph. Faulkner adapted a story from the past on his present and received a recognition in his honor on the future.
Knowing that this adaptation is infused with so much history is really interesting. His nephew’s role in it, as well as the house, really pays homage to the type of work Faulkner did. The settings of his novels, based on his hometown of Oxford, were so vital to his stories and provided a rich context for them, especially considering Faulkner wanted to shed light onto some of the more problematic aspects of the South.
Faulkner actually lived in that house from 1930s until his death in 1972. His writing were inspired by the stories surrounding his house; stories of local Indians, runaway slaves, old colonels and spinsters. He incorporated the history of his own location into his own memories of the traditional south.
I like the fact that Faulkner’s house was used in the film. Also, the fact that Faulkner’s nephew was also included as one of the actors. I feel that it gives the film more of a personal touch.
In the future, if I ever get the chance, I would definitely want to go visit his home; which is now a museum. Having read so many of his novels, maybe there might be more to learn about Faulkner by visiting his residence.
It is a very honorable way to show respect to the original creator by including his personal assets in the film. In a way, assets mean nothing, but at the same time, they are remnants of the people that have left us. Faulkner’s home was important to him, and that’s why including it is a great sentiment to the author.
Barn Burning is a dark tale of a man with no hope, only malice. Abe Snopes is a tenant farmer who, with his family, is almost constantly on the move because he likes to burn the barns of his landlords. The family members are dragged along, apparently believing, as Abe tells the boy Colonel Sartoris Snopes (the narrator) that "You stick to your own blood." Abe has a twisted sense of justice, and though he sees himself as the lowest of humans, he does not accept his own evaluation, lashing out at his betters and provoking them to even worse treatment of him. He ultimately comes to the end he seems to have been seeking as an escape from his miserable existence.
“A man with no home, only malice” is a really intriguing description of Snopes. Watching the film, I really wanted to gain an understanding of his character, or even to find some redeeming quality in his approaches. But looking at his lack of hope makes for an interesting exploration into the consistently dark character that he is.
10 year old Sarty Snopes is dragged along with his father to help him with his dirty work. The kid at that age proabably questions his fathers morals and whether he should help him in his dirty work or stop him, warn the next landlord victim and betray his dad.
He was always a time bomb waiting to go off.
There are 2 crucial moment on the film & novel where Sarty’s loyalty to his father and family is proven. First, we can see him fighting another boy for offending his father and calling him barn burner, second in the novel Sarty has a moment where he contemplates whether running away or giving the flammable material to his father and choses to help his father.
Indeed this sense of morality serves as an inner conflict for his character through the course of the story. This is reflected in his actions including the example where you mentioned whether or not running away or assisting his father.
Despite helping his father, he still does so knowing that they’re committing crimes. And maybe the thought of being on his own and disobeying his father and facing me consequences is what makes him help his dad.
I believe his character showes more hope that the father will change instead of fear, he stands his ground at the end of the novel & film and gives in his father causing his death or at least shooting
i think fear has some role in Sartoris’s loyalty to his father. We can see that Abner is the patriarch of the family and he is never questioned. Abner even slaps Sartoris when he thought he was about to tell the court that his father burned the barn.
Just in general, there are many novels that touch upon the relationship between a father and a son. And most of these novels include this fear aspect of the relationship. I think in this situation, it is no different. This complicated relationship between father and son, between right and wrong plagues the story. Innately, and on some level, Sartoris knows his father isn’t doing the right thing. But the obstacle of turning against the family, haunts Sarty’s judgement. However, at the end, he clearly overcomes this obstacle and aims to follow on the direction of what is morally right.
I feel as if gender also plays a role in this novel/film. The eldest male in the family has the most authority, in this case Abe. Sartoris is the second to his father, thus him following his father and being loyal until he no longer can take it anymore. The rest of Abe’s family who are women, never seem to stop Abe or question him. At one point in the film, where the mother tries and stops Sartoris from interfering with his father but in the end; Sartoris breaks loose from the hold and informs the landlord. From this, I felt as if women were powerless.
The hardest decision for a person is to go against their family. Sarty’s reality of his fathers destructive behavior is heightened when he seen him walk in the manure and then soil the De Spain rug. Sarty believed that since they were giving another chance, he father would change, but when he seen that he knew his father was still looking to provoke another barn owner.
Yeah exactly. At such a young age a child from that point of view would follow in the fathers path and assistance. The manipulation that his father uses on him ultimately serves as an inner conflict for the character. And this is reflected within the course of the film , for example when he confronts another young child who is talking bad of his father.
When it comes to the fight i can see it two different ways. One way is he is taking up for his father. That is the more obvious one. Another way to look at it could be Sarty was trying to cover his ass. He knew his dad was upset with him because his dad thought he was about to snitch on him.
I actually do not agree that youngsters know right from wrong all the time. Sartoris is only 10 years old. Some kids are taught or told what is right or wrong directly from their parents. Usually, kids will follow what their parents do or think is right. But in this case, Sartoris believes what he think is right.
So in regards to Sarty, he on some level knows that what is going on is wrong because the rest of his family doesn’t not accept or participate in the acts of Abe. So he knows that what his father must be doing is wrong.
..that what their doing is wrong.
I also think that kids up to a certain age will listen and follow. Up to a point when they stop looking up to their parents, is when they will have their own opinions about things.
I agree that you would expect most 10 year old kids would want to please their father but arson is a whole other thing. Even when Abe tells his son to honor the family you can see it in Sarty’s eyes that he knows what his father is doing is wrong.
But seeing something totally horrific and being a part of it along with a family member, which involves hurting people, eg killing and arson. I think they realize how terrible those things really are.
I agree, I don’t think ever witnessing killing and arson is ever the right thing to do in any given circumstance.
At the end of the movie and novel the Sarty called his father name after he was shot and never looked back. What became of his mother, siblings and aunt? I believe he went against the saying and begin to live life as he sought.
At 10 years of age, I dont believe he was trying to move away from his home, nor did he expect his father to be killed. I do believe Sarty was trying to do the right thing and maybe if he would save De Spain’s barn and that his father could finally recognize that his behavior was wrong. Sarty even told his father in court that they would not pay De Spain one cent, so this implies that he was in agreement with his father that they were innocent but not in agreement of the burning of the barns.
Well put. I am agree 100% with you on this. Sarty was too young to realize that would be the outcome of his actions. I believe he was hoping for a much different outcome. Like you said his father finally recognizing his wrongs. If he had knew his father would be shot I think he would have kept his mouth shut.
The use of children in Faulkner’s work makes you realize how well children can be used to develop other characters around them. They provide an innocence that can contrast the other characters in a way that almost makes them a control as if in a science experiment.
“You stick to your own blood” was probably a phrase that Sartoris grew up hearing. And of 10 years of age, defying a family member or in this case disobeying his father is something he is very conflicted about.
He talks about sticking to his own blood. But this kind of actions breaks any relation between he and his owns. the innocence of a boy is perturbed and creates the dilemma if he is doing right by following his father or wrong if he betrays him.
That is the dilemma Sarty faces between his family. But we also can relate to this quote as well. For example, if we ever were to not side with our parents; some would probably see it as betrayal.
Like when he threw the rug at Major de Spain’s home after he had his daughters cleaning it and he burnt it with a rock. That caused him to treat him even worse. or in the beginning of the novel when the judge told him to leave the county without concrete proof
Abner Snope joined the army not to protect his country but for the right to have sex with either side. This information tells a lot about his life. He took advantage of all that crossed his path. From the Barn owners to his family. Snopes seen the world as owing him something. He seemed to be running away from the person he was. He spoke harshly to the Blacks by calling them nigger to allow them to know he was above them. He burned barns because he knew that would cause more financial hardship. I believe Snopes death symbolized his life. He killed so many dreams by burning barns that his dreamed was killed when his son went against him to save a barn.
Snopes definitely has a twisted sense of justice, and feels a lot of hatred for de Spain and his wealth. In the film, he often appears to be apprehensive, like he is doubting himself. At the same time, though, he is stoic and unwilling to budge on his decisions. Perhaps this has something do with the fact that he “sees himself as the lowest of humans.” In the film adaptation, this appears to be evident in the prolonged shots of his face during the second trial.
The ending of the story is quite interesting. We never get to know for sure who shot the gun and who died if anyone. We know the father didn’t die as he lived on in the Snopes Triloy burning more barns. And Sarty talks about his father I’m the past tense as if he’s dead.
We know for sure that the father burned down de Spains barn. Cause we read that Sarty was running and he did see the “glare” which could be the fire. Also that he’s “looking over his shoulder” which could also have figurative meaning.
The ending was bittersweet. Satoris basically betrayed his family and caused the death of his father. However, in the end Satoris did what was right even if it meant betraying his father.
I think the ending ties the whole story together. We have this complicated situation, and the “hero” remains a blur. In the sense, Sarty is not initially a character that shines as a bold hero. But, Sarty turning in his father makes him a "honorable hero? I’m not sure if that is the appropriate label to use.
He knows that Sarty is going to run to de Spain, and he very possibly knows that the boy’s mother will not be able to hold him back. He has the option of tying up Sarty so that he can be absolutely sure he cannot get away. It is very plausible that he is “seeking an escape from his miserable existence.” Snopes is a man who has a lot of control over his family, and so the end of the story/film can be seen as a sort of relinquishing of this control, a desire for it all to end.
Faulkner's story focuses on a singular personification of evil in a man with no recourse, no hope of change or any goodness in his life. He is doomed from start to finish. Colonel Sartoris, "Sarty," represents the observant reader with a sense of balance. He both identifies with Abe, and sees Abe's misanthropy with objectivity. The family around the two hint vaguely at a better past and a worse future. But Abe seems to be evil from beginning to end.
This is interesting because Hollywood made a film where the character is tough to root for. Much like Intruder in the Dust, at the time I’m sure there was a cultural rift and ethical dilemma viewers found themselves in when watching the film in certain parts of the country.
Could this maybe this be an exception to the Hollywood structure because it was only a short story and not a full length feature film? or was it promoted as a regular film?
Yep, Abe was set as the evil character that never changes, whereas we have an innocent child whose mind slowly matures throughout.
Maybe not really mature. But Sarty definitely becomes more reluctant to follow his father and tries to get in his way.
I am intrigued by the idea that Snopes is doomed from start to finish. He is ultimately brought down by his own son, and at the beginning of the story we see this start to take shape. It starts with Sarty almost telling the Justice about the barn burning, and it ends with the boy running to de Spain’s house and screaming “Barn.” So, from the start, it is suggested that Sarty will eventually be his downfall.
I wonder how the family hints at a “better past” in the story. There is a sense of foreboding throughout the story that suggests a worse future, a fear of what their father will do next, or even what future generations of their family might look like. However, the past seems to be spoken about only in terms of what we don’t know, or vague mention of a time before Sarty’s existence.
the scene where Abe Snopes wipes his shoes full of dirt on his landlords rug is a pivotal moment. It shows that Abe hates the rich, and he is just looking for reasons to burn their barn, in order to get even. Perhaps getting even for Abe was a compromise for his miserable life.
Oh that’s an interesting example. It truly visualizes Abner’s hatred for the upper class. This superior figure in his lives serves as a means of fueling his hatred into the climax.
I agree, i thought this part highlighted the hatred quite well, in addition to his barn burning. His judgment and actions are very much consumed by hatred and i think this captured that in its essence.
Throughout the film Snopes is seen damaging other peoples properties. He burns burns and even wipes his dirty shoes on Major de Spains rug. He despises Major de Spains wealth by ruining his rug and burning his barn.
Yeah indeed the hatred consumed him. Or as the Professor stated class hatred. Especially in the position that Abner is put into both in the story and film adaptation. In terms of serving Major de Spain whom serves as the superior figure in comparison to Abner. Both characters have a negative relationship with one another which build up Abner’s hatred and serving as the climax for the adaptions.
The only character with sense of balance was Sarty his son. He believed his father was guilty yet he continued to stick by his side even when it physically hurt him. Abner Snopes felt his balance was to take from those that had to much in eyes. His remorse was minimal if not at all. His family was just a pone to him, that he even told his son not to go against him. The fire represented the anger that Snopes carried around in him until his death.
This sentence couldn’t be more true. He is evil all the way through. I kept wanting Abe to do something to right his wrongs and it just never happens. I imagine this was very true to how Sarty felt about his father too.
It is easy to sit in todays world and call him evil but there is also a chance Faulkner was making a statement about what could be done about the racist culture. Perhaps he was evil but he was the necessary evil needed to advance to where we are today.
i think Jake says that because of the inclusion that we have seen after those times where everything was segregated.Ab was sort of the result of bad practices against people of his community. i am not justifying his actions but racism is a very important fact that generate violent behavior and after seen violent behavior communities start to realize what they are doing wrong.
Ab definitely did not care whether he was right or wrong. He just wanted to take out his hatred and anger by burning barns and doing other evil doings.
Thirty-five-year-old Tommy Lee Jones is excellent in his portrayal of this very flat character, and his performance is the highlight of the film. Interestingly, this is not the only time he has played a pyromaniac. He also played a bomber opposite Jeff Bridges in the 1994 film Blown Away, which I consider to be an excellent film as well.
Barn Burning has been called boring, but its starkness left me wanting more, and if you are in my camp, it may be an excellent lead-in to The Snopes Trilogy, for which it is a prequel. Posted by Michael Davis
I can agree with calling Barn Burning boring. I thought the short story was more interesting, could be because it was more detailed
I thought then film was ok, Tommy Lee Jones was great as Abe Snopes I feel like he carried the entire film, and maybe because he was so good the focus was on him esteem of his son. But I could see how it could get boring at parts, also it was a 40min film so it’s the plot couldn’t develop much more.
This short film was quite boring. I wonder if the director realized this is why it was made into a short 40 minute film. I could be completely wrong here but keeping it short helped me stay focused.
i found the film boring as well. The film lacked star power, and relied on Tommy Lee Jones the only star to carry the film. The characters also have no depth. The characters usually have short dialogues and there was little backstory of any of the characters.
I think Tommy Lee Jones captured the whole “without heat” aspect of the character of Ab very well. Also the scene where Sarty runs to de Spain’s house and yells “Barn” was very true to the story. I believe this film does justice to the novel.
I read this novel instead of movie. really want to stop, this is too dark, I don’t like any characters in the story. especially the father, he is so conflict, he likes the hores, he burns the barn. the boy is so poor, he has a father, but better not.
Yea, agreed that the film was super dark maybe that’s why the film was only 40 mins because there was no happy moments in it.
The film’s ending, I agree, leaves you “wanting more” as Davis says. I’m not sure what this “more” would look like- not necessarily another film, but the ending leaves a desire to sit with what you have just watched for a few moments.
Even though the 1980 PBS film version, directed by Peter Warner, with screen play by Horton Foote is told from the point of view of Sarty, Tommy Lee Jones dominates this version with his powerful depiction of Abner’s icy and controlled anger. As the family begins its exile we are shown Lennie Snopes sitting at the back of the wagon holding a clock with inlaid mother-of-pearl; it is stopped but at 2:35. Viewers are only given two fleeting glimpses of the clock and only one who was concentrating on discovering when the clock was stopped would notice this detail.—Patrick Dooley
That the final shot is Sarty walking away from the camera, into the woods is an indication that the story is not quite over. At the same time, though, there is a stark finality to it. The boy is walking away from his life, and we do not know where he is going. However, the looming and malicious presence of his father is no longer controlling him.
Absolutely. And the viewer is left wondering whether he truly walks away from the experience a better person, or if by some twisted fate he becomes the very thing he abhors.
The clock being stopped at 2:35 means many things. It symbolizes that the time for the family has stopped, they are trapped and that they are unable to move forward no matter how much they try. Wherever they go, how much they move forward, they cant seem to progress.
Film ending was different from novel, I the movie you would assume he just left the family and that life behind him, but in the novel it didn’t seem like he had an option, his father and brother got shot or died, and him walking to the woods
Very terrifying for a kid. You’re only 10 years old and you already have nothing to look forward to in life. Very sad.
Yes. I completely agree. It truly symbolizes and questions the uncertainty in their lives moving forward.
I agree. They did mention that it was there 8th or 9th time moving in the year
Yes they were stuck in a loop of repeating pattern by the father, but I believe that is why the boy ran to tell De Spain, in hopes of changing his family next path.
The stopped time represents the viscous cycle the family is forced to face because of the fathers hatred for the upper class. Abner causes trouble which forces the family to relocate time and time again.
This is symbolic in the family’s journey and the uncertainty in their future. Being that they are going through this exile, it in a sense prevents them from moving forward in their lives. It’s a bit like being trapped in and contained in a cycle that is bound to repeat constantly.
Very well said, Every time he burns a burn and they have to move to a different town, Sarty hopes that the last time, but same story keeps following, until Sarty gives an end to it.
I feel that this is symbolic and metaphorical meaning that whenever the family hopes to move forward, they get stumbled again and again, no matter they move one town to another. It looks like Snopes sitting and holding a clock which can stop any time anywhere.
General Document Comments 0
As a film, it highly depends on its star power. Casting Tommy Lee Jones meants focusing more on the star and therefore the character that he portrayed.
The script focuses on the Tommy Lee Jones character because he brings more power of attention. He is known to be a big star and that catches the audiences attention to see how his character portray as. Also, the actions of the Abner character carries the story on up to the end (and Sarty too.)
Well there are a variety of reasons as to why the script focuses on the Tommy Lee Jones character. For one, it’s Tommy Lee Jones, whom of course ha a lot of credibility and reputation in his acting career. Having an actor with such a large presence is sure to initially draw in the focus and attention from targeted audiences. Especially with the character he is portraying.
Exactly, plus the presence of both characters was equally distributed between the two charachters, Abe & Sart, Which made easier to transition the main focus and allow This credible actor cary the film.
In the Novel we view the story through Sarty’s eyes, however the film is focus around Tommy Lee Jones as the main character. I believe that may have happened due to the actors strong presence and acting skills. His portrayal of Abe Snopes was powerful and captivating.
Yeah I completely agree. It’s interesting to see that Sarty is the one we get more of a view of in the novel in contrast to the films from Tommy Lee Jones. In both adaptations Abner and Sarty are practically complete opposites from one another, which is ironic in such a father and sun duo. Which is interesting to see how this is made known as these characters are developed more as the story progresses.
An otherwise flat character becomes a rich and captivating one through Tommy Lee Jones’s performance. Why focus on Tommy Lee Jones’s character? Two things: One, the character of Snopes in itself has the potential (if not arguably already is) of being the most interesting character in the story. If one can’t relate to the setting and time period of Faulkner’s story, they at least can surely relate and grasp the personification of evil that is Snopes. This makes him more interesting than the other characters who are quite withdrawn. Now if you add Tommy Lee into the mix, you get the second reason why the script focuses on his character — that is, making the palpability of Snopes’s evil more pronounced, which makes watching the movie more interesting. I believe this predicament is relatable to Fight Club and Tyler Durden.
Good Answer, Jones does make the film quite more interesting, otherwise it could have been a more boring movie.
The film centers because he is the star of the film. The Star needs to be front and center of the film. Also, the action centers around Tommy Lees character, he is the one that burns the barns and causes trouble not Satoris.
The script focuses on Tommy Lee Jones because he is the star. In the novel the story is told from the younger son point of view. When viewing the movie it was from the Fathers pov.
The main protagonist Tommy Lee Jones dominates this version with his powerful depiction of Abner’s icy and controlled anger and also known for his independence. He was cold and violent. Ab Snopes has a harsh, emotionless voice.
Tommie Lee Jones was able to play the heartless, selfish father with no regard to authority but the youthfulness of Sarty was not captured. Because of the big name star in the short film I believe took away from the desperateness of the family that is in the novel
If there’s one thing we have learned in this class it is Hollywood needs a star to focus around and in this movie it’s Tommy Lee Jones. One hell of a good actor. How they got him to do this short 40 min made for tv film I’m not sure of though.
I think Tommy Lee Jones’s portrayal of the character we spot on. His “without heat” demeanor was accurately present, evoking the nonchalant personality of Ab.
The film may focus on Tommy Lee Jones because he is a well-known actor. However, I also think that while Faulkner’s story is more focused on Sarty, the narrative still revolves around Ab. Sarty’s life revolves around the sound of his father’s “stiff foot” and his threatening presence. It makes sense, then, that the film would focus on this character. Ab is arresting and chilling, and this is part of what makes the story so compelling.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments