Tandis que j'agonise

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.

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.

I was thoroughly impressed with Franco's work. It has been so many years since I've read that book but, unlike many reviewers that said you'll be lost and confused.....not at all! I got this movie from the get go. It was fantastic and I enjoyed all of it. If you pay close attention, you can see one character in particular and his decent into madness. Frankly, how could you not after everything they go through?

These actors really played their parts well. Like many of Franco's movies, he wants you to really connect with each person and their individual stories, pain, feelings, etc. I def connected with these.

A good watch. Well done!

Addie Bundren (Beth Grant) is dying. Her son Darl (James Franco) takes his brother Jewel (Logan Marshall-Green) on a delivery. It's $3 after all despite Jewel's need to be by her side. Their wagon gets stuck while she dies. Her wish is to be buried in home town of Jefferson. The whole family struggles to bring her body to her final resting place.

There are great actors in this movie. Tim Blake Nelson and Logan are terrific. Beth Grant is also great. In general, everybody is doing good work. The question is how did James Franco do as a director. I am not impressed. The most obvious technique is the split screen. The best thing I can ascribed to the technique is that it hides his amateurish directing style. When Beth Grant screams, the other half is trained on Jim Parrack. That's the only split-screen scene that really works. The movie struggles to gain authenticity and the split screen doesn't help at all. It looks like a modern film school technique in direct conflict with the rural backwoods feel of the family. Franco should be striving for authentic poverty. He fails as he throws various things on the wall. None of it really sticks. The actors are able to keep the audience's interest but they do it despite Franco. The river crossing shows some promise that Franco is functional as a director. Maybe he's over thinking this and tries too hard with the split screen and the actors talking at the camera. Thankfully the last 15 minutes don't have the split screen. It's some of the most compelling scenes in the movie.

I always wondered why James Franco was never vastly recognised as a film director than an actor. If you ask me, I say he was always at his best who mostly pick biographies and dramas. This movie is one of the year's widely undernoticed and under-appreciated. As always, that leads me to hate critics who divert the movie fans from this movie a watch.

This was one of the best dramas I had seen that set in the rural of the early 1900s. About the family of brothers and sister who lost their mother. As being in a remote village they struggle to travel nearby burial ground that is days away to reach. So theirs quest starts to take twists and turns among siblings and the mother nature. Each of them has individual hidden secrets that not related to their mother's death, but as a character. One after another letting us know theirs another face till the adventures ends in peace.

I really liked this movie. The tone of the setting of that era was so perfect. Feels like they all went for a century back to the original time to make the movie so accurately. It was based on the novel by the same name. Might be a fictional work, though, depicts the true lifestyle and transporting system of those times. No fights, no guns, a purely family based drama which might be a little brutal in parts, but kind of realistic according to that era. Don't miss this movie, a movie based on the old era is not frequent nowadays. Movies like this now and then really give a good opportunity to the modern people to know the forgotten culture. Hope you all realise what I am saying about the movie and its material.