As I Lay Dying

James Franco has seemingly set out to be the busiest man in Hollywood. Franco unfulfilled by just acting in recent times has taken on art, writing and adapting so called un-filmable novels with the forthcoming McCarthy adaptation Child of God premiering recently and this faithful and very intriguing adaptation of William Faulkner's revered 1930 book As I Lay Dying which had its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year.

It's clear that Franco filmed this atmospheric tale on a limited budget yet was able to recruit some serious acting talent to join him on screen as the Bundren family. Stand outs in the acting stakes are Tim Blake Nelson as toothless family head Anse and Marshall-Green as half cast and grizzled Jewel. All cast members acquit themselves well to difficult material, even Franco's real life buddy and funny man Danny McBride does well in a small cameo like roll. Franco's fine direction of fellow actors is commendable but his artistic decision not so much.

A strange choice by Franco is to put screen juxtaposition in a two frame format for roughly half of the films running time. This two pane structure comes off as merely annoying and takes away from the full screen beauty of much of the films images and natural landscape which are wonderfully captured by cinematographer Christina Voros. This technique was employed from an outsiders knowledge to portray the novels various voices and themes yet really is in no way integral to the films telling and as a finished product seems a tad on the pretentious side of things.

If you can overcome As I Lay Dying's almost tortuous opening 30 minutes where I found myself more than tempted to stop the film in its tracks there is much to admire in the film and by the last 20 minutes you will find yourself enthralled in this strange and depressing tale of a family lost in more ways than one. As I Lay Dying gives one hope that Franco will do justice to Child of God and perhaps one day his dream project of Blood Meridian.

3 concrete casts out of 5

I don't think I've ever seen a film quite like this. It was definitely one of the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen, not only in the story but the way in which it was done. The novel (written by William Faulkner) features 15 different narrators recounting the events, the film (implementing split screen) was able to show different perspectives of the same events simultaneously.

Cinematically, most (if not all) of the camera work was hand-held, and much of the lighting seemed natural. I thought the acting was great overall, and I thought it was well directed. The music was intense, almost too much at times. The novel has never been adapted to the screen previously, (I'm sure partly) due to the fact that the narrative structure is so complex. Overall, I thought it was interesting, and like I said – I've never seen a more true adaptation, as Franco employs all aspects of filmmaking to sync to the novel.

I remember, when this debuted at Cannes, a tweet from some critic which basically said "I can't wait to read the book so I can figure out what the Hell it was I just watched!" Now, I have read the book (around 13 years ago), but, man, does this ever seem absolutely impenetrable to anyone who hasn't. That doesn't necessarily effect me any as a viewer, but it should be noted. Unfortunately, even as a big fan of the book, this film really doesn't work very well. It's a valiant attempt, I think, but a failure nonetheless. Franco, clearly an amateur (though not without talent), utilizes split screens to tell his story. I can understand why, but it's just too busy. Tim Blake Nelson, who plays Anse, the patriarch of the Bundren clan, is incomprehensible. Again, I can understand why (the text clearly states that he is toothless), but he didn't need to be so impossible to understand (again, someone who is unfamiliar with the book will be utterly lost). Nelson really was a great choice to play Anse, so it's really unfortunate his performance goes down the toilet like this. The casting of the rest of the Bundrens isn't that great, either. Franco is easily the standout as Darl, but Jim Parrack and Logan Marshall-Green as Cash and Jewel respectively pretty much get lost because of their bland performances. Brady Permenter as Vardaman is a poor child actor. Ahna O'Reilly is not a bad actress, but she's 10 years older than the character of Dewey Dell, which is incredibly noticeable. Finally, there's Beth Grant (who still doubts your commitment to Sparkle Motion) as Addie. She's quite good, but, of course, dead for most of the movie. Franco also seems to miss the semi-comic tone of the novel, making it almost fully a tragedy. I mean, that final bit is kind of hilarious, but Franco doesn't play it as such. It just comes off as weird.

'AS I LAY DYING': Four Stars (Out of Five)

James Franco undertook the ambitious creative effort of trying to adapt author William Faulkner's classic 1930 book (of the same name) and partially succeeded. Franco directed the film and wrote it's screenplay. He also co-stars in the movie with a bunch of his friends; like Danny McBride, Tim Blake Nelson and Jim Parrack (he co-stars with Nelson and Parrack in another film he co-wrote and directed this year, based on a book by Cormac McCarthy, called 'CHILD OF GOD'). The film, if nothing else, is very interesting and it's great to see Franco continuously trying new and different things.

The story begins with the death of Addie Bundren (Beth Grant). She left behind her husband Anse (Nelson), daughter Dewey Dell (Ahna O'Reilly) and four sons (Franco, Parrack, Logan Marshall-Green and Brady Permenter). It then focuses on the family's efforts to transport Addie's body to the town of Jefferson, to be buried (as she wished). Each family member has their own troubles and drama. It's set in the fictional Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi (based on Faulkner's home Lafayette County).

I never read the book so I didn't know the story at all prior to seeing the movie. So for me it was really bizarre and interesting. I know a lot of fans of the book are unhappy with Franco's adaptation but there are some that think it's a good enough summary of a near impossible novel to adapt (into a movie). I liked all of the performances (I especially was fascinated by Nelson and Marshall-Green) and found all the characters to be really interesting. I really liked Franco's directing as well and think he shows a lot of promise with this film. Maybe he shouldn't try to adapt such popular and classic works of modern literature but he definitely has talent as a filmmaker. There's a lot to marvel at in the movie, for sure. It probably doesn't do the source material justice but it's still an extremely interesting film going experience.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQkUJbRVsoM

I was almost shocked when i heard that they would be making a movie out of my favorite book, and the fact that James Franco and Danny McBride would be in it did not leave me with a good feeling. I was blown away, however, at what a great adaptation it is.

In fact, i'm not sure i'd even call it an adaptation. It IS the book. I cant think of any other movie that was truer to the source material. Obviously the book is much more long winded, and is filled with long, and often puzzling monologues from all the main characters. It's more dream like, and ponderous. But i cant think of anything that the movie left out, or missed, or put it's particular "spin" on, it was all dead on.

That said, the book is a difficult read. The movie is equally difficult. You could read the entire book, and have little idea what it's about. Similarly, you could easily watch this entire movie and be completely puzzled by it. There's a lot of important plot points that gets covered, and you barely even have time to realize exactly what it is the characters are saying. Once again though, the book is the same. Questions like: why is Varadamin's mom a fish? Why is Jewel's mom a horse? Why doesn't Darl have a mom? These are sort of answered, just like in the book, but they also seem completely absurd to even ask. It's a story more about the people involved in it, and not so much about the events that take place, or even the truthfulness of anything or anyone.

I would imagine most viewers will struggle to even understand what it is that the characters are saying, as they all have thick southern accents, Anse being almost unintelligible. Adding to the confusing is the fact that most everything they say is highly complex, poetry like prose that doesn't particularly care if you're following closely or not, they're still going to say it. Once again, pretty much how the book is.

So it's a difficult to understand book, and it's a difficult to understand movie. I certainly loved it, but i suspect most viewers will hate it.