Most recent public comments by Polina Smelyanskaya https://nowcomment.com/users/23443 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640887 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640887 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. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:29:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640886 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640886 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. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:12:24 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640885 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640885 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. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:56:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640884 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640884 Tommy Lee Jones’ portrayal of Snopes lined up very well with how I imagined the character while reading the story. He brought Ab’s flatness to life and emphasized his cold and stark demeanor in a powerful way. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:53:08 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640883 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640883 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. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:56:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640881 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640881 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. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:27:33 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640880 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640880 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. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:55:38 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640879 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640879 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. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:54:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640877 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640877 “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. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:29:57 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640875 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56429?scroll_to=640875 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. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:54:12 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640874 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640874 Faulkner stresses the power of language in conveying the characters’ feelings. Having Dewey Dell scream as we watch the left side of the screen is a way to convey her emotions specifically without language. The power of film is often that it is able to relay an idea or emotion viscerally. Faulkner’s work also aims to do this, but in a way that implements language more than base emotion. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:53:32 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640871 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640871 The scene where Dewey Dell is screaming, at the 19-minute mark, and the left side is black is an example of Franco’s split screen technique that aims to relay an internal experience externally. First, we see her cover the fish and put it in the pantry, at which point the left side goes black. When the image of the fish fades back in, it is back on the table. This shows, I believe, how she is trying to compartmentalize the loss of her mother but the emotions remain on the table. In his own way, I think Franco is successful in doing this. I am not sure, though, if this is a “simulation” of Faulkner—I believe it is more of an adaptation in this case. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:54:04 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640870 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640870 Monologues are saying what the novel is saying, but this may not necessarily be the right medium to achieve Faulkner’s goal. In the novel, a monologue fits rather neatly into the overall narrative. In the film, it disrupts it. This may be desired, as a disrupted narrative would create the disjointed nature of human thought. Still, it works differently in the film than in the novel. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:47:43 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640869 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640869 Faulkner conveys the characters’ thoughts using language they would normally never say. Franco, along this vein, uses the insertion of monologue to have the characters convey these thoughts they would normally never say, in a way they would not say them. It is very inorganic to have a character looking at the camera and stating their thoughts. However, it is appropriately jarring and makes one think about the nature of how thought is perceived outside of one’s mind. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:52:02 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640863 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640863 Having a scene shot through the curtains in this way generally creates intimacy, and makes the audience feel like a fly on the wall. The audience, though, is meant to be in the characters’ minds, not only in the room. These two spaces, physical and mental, are difficult to reconcile. It appears that Franco is attempting to create as much intimacy as possible while remaining true to the characters, who are not actively in touch with their emotions. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:30:45 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640862 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640862 The idea of wanting to relay the character’s internal perception but then filming them from the outside is kind of conflicting. However, the only way to film a character is to film the character, if that makes sense. It is not quite possible to just show the scene through their eyes. I believe Franco is successful in making the audience feel like they are in the room with the characters, but I am unsure if he achieves the desired effect through this particular lens. I wonder if film isn’t the right medium for the type of work Faulkner’s novel is, or if the focus on the film needs to be adjusted in order to be as powerful as the novel. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:50:51 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640858 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640858 When the camera peaks through the curtains, it seems to create a sense of intimacy and immediacy, pulling the audience into the scene. For me, this actually creates a kind of distancing effect. I am unsure if this is intentional, since the objective of Faulkner’s narrative is to bring the reader into the character’s emotional spheres. And since Franco aims to simulate the novel, I would imagine he would aim to do the same. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 23:16:07 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640856 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640856 Looking at the scene where Anse goes into the room to see Addie after she has died, it is interesting to look at the conventional filming techniques that Franco uses. While he does use split screen, monologue, and plays with timing to create a visceral effect, he still must rely on basic camera technique to create the film. These techniques are important to look at when studying his unconventional methods. So, the way the camera peaks through the curtain to create a somewhat standard scene, versus the use of split screen throughout. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:49:19 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640855 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640855 It is interesting to think about how modern technology has changed the way film is meant to be consumed—before streaming, it would hinder a film completely if the audience could not understand a character and had to rewind, or if they had to go back to hear a confusing monologue one more time. But perhaps Franco meant for scenes to be rewatched, just as Faulkner meant for passages to be reread. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:48:18 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640854 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640854 I believe this is integral to the reading of Faulkner’s novel. And while a film can be rewinded, certain scenes rewatched, the medium of film is more conducive to watching without stopping. This is the way most people watch film, and it is generally the way film is meant to be watched. And so, this quality in the novel is somewhat at odds with its counterpart on screen. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:47:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640853 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640853 A decentered novel does not have one main focus of a character or plotline, instead telling a story, or conveying an experience, in an unconventional way. This is a decentered film in that there is no focused plot, and the story follows several points of view that do not necessarily all meet at the end. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:16:51 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640852 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640852 I wonder if “simulating” the novel kind of undermines the point of doing it all in the first place. Faulkner already created an internal world for the characters, and any other version of it is an adaptation because the medium inherently changes the effect. In my opinion, the film often creates distance between the characters and the audience’s feeling and understanding of their emotions. While the techniques used are valuable to explore, they create a different effect than the novel, which to me is more adaptation than simulation. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:01:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640851 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56433?scroll_to=640851 Adapting this novel would perhaps be an easier endeavor than simulating it. The novel creates an internal world in the characters’ minds. Faulkner’s approach is to write what the characters are feeling in a really visceral and sometimes jarring way. To adapt the novel into film would mean losing a lot of this, because an adaptation might create something new that the original work does not convey. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:11:34 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640850 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640850 The production code and film noir are often at odds with one another. The code seeks to censor subversive thoughts and behaviors, while film noir often seeks to expose them. The dynamic between the two creates a sort of sneaky way that film noir inserts subversive ideas into films in order to make it past the production code. Similarly, Victorian morality involved strict social codes and restrictions that had to be subverted in indirect and creative ways. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:20:30 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640849 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640849 That we don’t see certain characters alive on screen contributes to the immediacy of the narrative. These characters are arguably more important to the story dead than they are alive. We are not meant to see the events that transpired before Marlowe came into the picture. The story is more about Marlowe solving this mystery, than the mystery itself. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:19:27 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640847 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640847 This may be to keep the narrative moving forward. Although a successful flashback would not necessarily keep the story from flowing, it takes away from the immediacy of the story. For the action to keep moving forward, the story must remain in the moment. this might help build excitement and keep an audience engaged in the immediate aspects of the film, like fast-paced dialogue that is crucial to the story. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:18:49 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640846 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640846 It is surprising to learn that Bacall was untrained as an actor and also apparently very scared when shooting this film. She has such a command in her scenes, and I found her to be very confident and controlled. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:17:56 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640845 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640845 I am interested to see the original version, because I did find that the film remained quite true to Chandler’s novel. It seems that the few changes made in tone and dialogue really made this film a version of the novel that can both stand on its own, and work seamlessly with the original text. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:07:29 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640844 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640844 It is so interesting to consider the ways that small details can impact a film. The ways that the “tone and impact can be altered with just a few scenes” is especially crucial when thinking about the adaptation of novel to film. The message or impact of the original work can be altered tremendously with seemingly small changes to the film. The two works are then able to exist outside of one another, while still giving the audience a chance to critically consider the film with the novel in mind. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:06:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640843 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640843 It is fascinating the way that limitations, in terms of censorship, can enhance the subversive nature of a work. Because the characters cannot speak frankly about sex, they instead talk about horse racing to allude to it. This creates, in my opinion, an entirely different but still potent version of “scandalized” speech. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:04:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640842 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640842 This not to say, though, that these reshoots were not successful in maintaining the integrity of the novel. It is still important, I think, to question and scrutinize the motives behind decisions made about the film’s structure and the moments it chooses to highlight from the original work. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:04:05 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640841 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640841 The final cut of the film is based on Bacall’s reviews, which is significant. On one hand, it is perfectly understandable that a bad review for Bacall is a bad review for the film. On the other hand, though, reshooting the film based on “damaging the career of a promising star who was married to the studio’s biggest money-maker” somewhat questions the integrity of the filmmaking process. This is a good reminder of the values and priorities of the Hollywood star system. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:14:36 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640840 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640840 It would make sense that the film would be “a lust story with a plot about a lot of other things” because Hollywood executives would be interested more in bringing Bacall and Bogart onto the screen to draw in audiences than in the intricacies of Faulkner’s novel. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:25:22 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640839 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640839 This is so typical of Hollywood, though, especially at this moment in time. While the driving force of the film is not purely romance, it is surely always looming over the rest of the narrative. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:00:15 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640838 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640838 It’s about the process of the investigation, not its results. That’s how I found the novel to be, as well. I found myself wondering less and less about the final results and more just getting sucked into the narrative of the story. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:59:53 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640836 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640836 Makes you think about the nature of art, and how even the author sometimes doesn’t know “who did it” or other details about the plot. Shows that a work can live outside of the author’s perception of it. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:12:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640834 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56417?scroll_to=640834 Three adjectives I would use to describe the movie are seductive, suspenseful, and complicated Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:57:31 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56413?scroll_to=575067 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56413?scroll_to=575067 The events of this book can get a bit confusing, and it is easy to lose track of what has happened. The book forces you to tally the events because it is told from multiple perspectives, and therefore often jumps between spaces and timelines. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:01:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56413?scroll_to=575064 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56413?scroll_to=575064 I suppose that a "potent drug for the imagination" might mean that the book plants a seed that grows in the reader's mind long after finishing the actual pages of the novel. So, the book stays with and affects the reader in a way that a drug might have long-term effects. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:01:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575061 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56414?scroll_to=575061 This is an accurate description of the experience of reading this novel, in my opinion. Initially, it seemed to me that I was simply not understanding what was going on. However, the harder I tried to understand, the more disturbed I became. The imagination can be powerfully sinister when information is withheld. Sat, 17 Dec 2016 03:04:52 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564795 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564795 In contrast to the somewhat forced addition of Crawford's character, Hope's blindness might even strengthen the point of the story. It really drives home the idea in Faulkner's short story that the Americans had no idea the danger that the Englishmen were facing. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:01:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564777 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564777 What is seen as a tremendous plot revision from an artistic standpoint is regarded as a simple financial solution for the studio, and this is so crucial to consider when analyzing any Hollywood film, that not all decisions are made for the sake of the story. Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:39:16 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564772 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564772 If her dialogue did not match that of the men, then her presence in the film would feel that much more stark. Matching her dialogue would bridge the gap between her and her male costars, perhaps allowing her character to be more than just the love interest, making her a more organic part of the story. Fri, 09 Sep 2016 06:30:37 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564768 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56412?scroll_to=564768 A flashback generally does not move the action of the plot forward, instead moving backward to explain or uncover something that has already been established. So, Hawks would not want Faulkner to get caught up in a tangled form of narration if he is looking for a smooth and clear-cut story. Sun, 04 Sep 2016 20:49:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557265 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557265 I agree that he had a complicated relationship with screenwriting; he showed some distaste and wariness for aspects of the industry, but continued to work as a screenwriter (on and off) for decades afterward. Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:56:02 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557264 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557264 An incidence like this explains why Faulkner's relationship with Hollywood was so intermittent. To change the ending of his story to appease sponsors must have been difficult, especially considering the writer's inclination toward unconventional narrative and experimentation with his writing. In this sense, Faulkner as screenwriter seems almost in complete opposition to Faulkner as author. Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:24:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557262 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557262 This is a rather negative view of screenwriting, and one that is appropriately allocated to the single film that he worked on without Hawks. As an author, it is understandable that he would have a distaste for work that did not feel like his own. One thing that screenwriting did not grant much of at this time was agency, and it is telling that he did not return to Hollywood for five years after working on this film. Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:01:17 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557261 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557261 This dynamic seems especially appropriate in regards to his apparent love of working with Hawks. If there were elements of film that he enjoyed, I would be inclined to say that these were largely personal--Hawks, as an auteur, would be an appealing director to work with for a writer wary of Hollywood; Faulkner's artistic vision as a writer might be less likely to get lost in the glamour of production. Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:54:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557246 https://nowcomment.com/documents/56411?scroll_to=557246 Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:35:37 -0400