The Sound and the Fury

This film tells the story of a family with four children, whose family fortunes steadily decline in the 1800's USA.

I have not read the book, and I am not familiar with the story. Honestly, after watching the film, I really have very little idea what it is about. The first segment is the easiest to understand, as it is about the intellectually challenged son called Benjy. It tells the story of his hidden existence on the ranch, against a backdrop of racial divide. The other two segments made me super confused. Firstly, I thought Quentin was the bespectacled guy, and only in the third segment did I discover my mix up. By then, it was too late to understand the story. I find the pace super slow and snooze inducing. Actually within thirty minutes I find my eyelids very very heavy. I managed to keep myself awake and finished the film, but I cannot say I understood it or enjoyed it.

This movie was a complete waste of time. This movie keeps on repeating itself throughout its entirety. He should whether he believes in god or not pray for forgiveness for this piece of garbage. If I had to hear "She smells like the trees." or some crap like that one last time I would have went full mental just like Franco did in the movie.

I was a huge fan of Franco's earlier Faulkner adaptation, "As I Lay Dying," so I checked this one out even though I wasn't aware of it's existence until just recently.

As with his earlier Faulkner adaptation, it's extremely difficult to understand. This is mainly because Faulkner's original book, The Sound and the Fury, is equally difficult. You can read the book, or watch the movie, and easily have no idea what it's about. This is the nature of the beast with Faulkner, and as I get older I start to wonder if he ever meant these stories to make sense. I'm leaning towards no, but I don't think it really matters as his stories aren't about coherence, they're more about emotion and pondering this strange existence we all seem to be stuck in, not logic or reason as perhaps is hinted at by Mr. Compson's nihilistic boozy monologues.

I don't envy the task of making The Sound and the Fury into a movie, but I think it was done about as perfectly as could be expected when you're talking about one of the most disjointed, out of time, and at times rambling and incoherent stories ever told.

I only have one major complaint, in that the black servants of the Compson family are barely depicted in the film. In the book they're much bigger characters and form a sort of moral, and even hopeful element to the story, as is somewhat hinted by the movie scene of the church choir.

A few other plot points are changed, to no real harm. The final thing that struck me was that Franco's adaptation has a slightly different ending, which doesn't really make any sense. Of course, the original book ending doesn't make any more sense...not that it should. We are, of course, all living a story told by an idiot.

I watched this movie today in a blizzard mainly because it was a classic novel and because James Franco was in it. I never read it so I had no idea what I was in for. Right from the beginning I had a feeling of doom looming over this family. While I will admit it was very confusing there was an undercurrent that consistently led me to believe something terrible was about to happen. The score of the film took one even deeper into this morose feeling. When it was over I actually felt ill and had a raging headache. Now I must read this novel. I feel this alone makes this film earn a ten star rating.

I feel Mr Franco was successful in allowing you to peer into the subconscious of the characters and let your mind fill in the fine details. I suppose this is the way it was written. This film took me someplace I did not want to be but I could not turn away. I found it fascinating and am looking forward to reading the book.

Filming ordinary books is easy; it's the stuff of the film business. Filming one of the greatest English language novels of the 20th century is really hard. Really hard.

The script is a worthy and very creditable effort which makes concessions to film and audience comprehensions; something Faulkner flouted when he forced readers to deal with the opening sixty pages of this remarkable book.

The telling is true enough, it keeps to the thread of the stories; the compromises between book and film are understandable; the portrayals are strong and the director has Faulkner's echo to work with. It is a solid entry to the book and no doubt it will be the thing students use instead of reading it.

The question is whether it works in its own right and that is more problematic because if one comes to the film via the book the comparisons are interminable. If a viewer sees it as is they could quibble with its purpose and narrative, still atypical, especially in these conventional times.

The essential quality of Faulkner's prose is effaced; it has to be as the camera replaces the text, and that is a huge loss for multifarious reasons, in particular the extreme subjectivity which must be diluted through the objective lens.

Even so, the film is admirable for its talent and effort; nor does it waste the viewer's attention.