The difference between Real Wars and Internet Wars.
June 17th 2009 08:02
God, bloggers are hard to kill!
Much of Cormac McCarthy’s No Country For Old Men is about the decay of modern society. McCarthy’s novel begins with ageing sheriff Ed Tom Bell on the verge of retirement, reminiscing about the old days and the not-so-old days, making observations on the present and his expectations and premonitions of a worse future for America than the one he is currently experiencing – one he feels he, or anyone for that matter, is incapable of dealing with.
The storyline itself is very simple: Psychotic sociopath and free-agent mercenary, Anton Chigurh, relentlessly pursues local Texan hick, Llewelyn Moss, in order to recover stolen money from a drug-exchange gone bad near the Mexican border, and kill the man who has “inconvenienced” him, and whomever it is he is working for. This bad drug deal happens in Sheriff Bell’s county.
Throughout the novel, Sheriff Bell frequently interrupts the simple storyline to make a point about this or that.
I’ve read a lot of reviews on the novel. Certain reviewers dislike Sheriff Bell’s “interruptions” or monologues, and think the novel would be better without them. I don’t . I like them. They make the novel what it is - a novel.
The novel itself is set in 1980. We know this because Chigurh places a coin on the counter of a Sheffield filling station, and refers to it by saying to the gas station owner: It’s nineteen fifty-eight. It’s been travelling twenty-two years to get here.
There’s so much in McCarthy’s novel above-and-beyond the decay of modern society. Coin tosses feature prominently. It’s as though he’s questioning: Is life decided on a coin toss? But that’s a subject for another post.
In Chapter 7 (pp 196-197), Sheriff Bell talks about how much society has degenerated in less than 40 years since WWII, and he finishes one of his many monologues by narrating the following incident:
Here a year or two back me and Loretta [Sheriff Bell’s wife] went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talking about the right wing this and the right wing that. I aint ever sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the sayin goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was sayin smoethin bad about em, but of course that’s a high compliment in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I don’t like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I don’t think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I dont have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation. – McCarthy, C. (2007) No Country For Old Men. 2nd Edition. London; Picador.
Sheriff Bell’s anecdote is omitted from the Cohen Bros film No Country For Old Men. But then, much of Sheriff Bell’s narration is excluded due to the film being an adaptation of the book, not the entire book being turned into a Thespian dramatisation of McCarthy’s novel.
It is, however, an interesting anecdote in relation to the theme of the book. The Cohen Bros film is a very faithful adaptation of the novel, but the novel contains extra bits, as novels usually do. Extra bits that don’t necessarily make the novel better than the film, but make you appreciate the film more.
I found Sheriff Bell's conversation with the woman interesting in relation to how bloggers interact. If you can call what bloggers do interacting, rather than warring, that is: It begins with the subject of a real war (WWII) turns into a conversation about abortion, then turns into a short verbal war. Then ends. Abruptly.
Just like the film does.
And just like euthenasia does. Perhaps Blogging is no information superhighway for old men?
I’m BobB. And you wish you were.
| 36 |
| Vote |
Comment by jimmy
cyberperson
It wouldn't be the same book without Sheriff Bell's commentary. It wouldn't be anywhere near as good. Sheriff Bell is the heart&soul of the book.
In the film Sheriff Bell's character has much less to say. This seems like a major difference but the film remains essentially true to the book. I'm trying to work out how this can be BobB.
Teresa
Comment by BobB
FILMENATOR
EveryPictureTellsaStory
You certainly made me think. I’m not sure I could adequately answer the question you posed:
"In the film Sheriff Bell's character has much less to say. This seems like a major difference but the film remains essentially true to the book. I'm trying to work out how this can be BobB. "
It’s a tough question to answer because I’m not a filmmaker, but I can give you a few thoughts though.
I imagine it would be a tough task to adapt a novel into a screenplay, then produce a film and yet remain true to the book.
Novels are often littered with characters’ thoughts. We get into their heads while we read the novel. Filming the inside of someone’s head is probably not great cinema unless it’s a film about neurosurgery. That’s a joke. Narration is one way of including a character’s thoughts, and the Coen Bros have kept a few Sheriff Bell’s musings. But there’s far too many of them to keep them all. I think it would clutter the film and bog it down like a lame horse caught in Texas quicksand. Another way is to have a lot of eyebrow acting. Fill the film with ponderous close ups. Put the entire text of the book up in subtitles. Or have the character just stand there with the book and read out his thoughts. But I don’t think that would make for very good filmmaking.
Sheriff Bell’s thoughts about where modern society is heading relate to the action that happens in the novel – sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly - but littering the film with his thoughts in narrative form would probably slow the pace of the film down, and involve a lot of unnecessary flashbacks, for he often talks about former times and characters which don’t demand necessary inclusion in the film. One example that comes to mind is how he talks about how charitably his wife treated the prisoners in former times, how he sanctioned such treatment, and how some of them came back to thank her. Such details are interesting in terms of establishing what sort of character Bell is and what sort of relationship he has with his wife, but it would seem superfluous in the film. We get a really good grasp of Bell’s character in the film, and I think the final scene shows the type of relationship he has with his wife. I agree with you that he is the heart and soul of the novel, but he’s also the heart and soul of the film. Most of the other main characters are pretty heartless and soulless.
In my opinion, there’s a couple of things that contribute to Bell being the heart and soul of the film. One is, the Coen Bros had a firm grasp on his importance and role in the story, and used a very accurate selection process. The other is, Tommy Lee Jones brings a lot of that heart and soul to the screen by his performance and understanding of the character McCarthy created.
I don’t think the film suffers from omitting many of Sheriff Bell’s musings, but the book would suffer if they were omitted.
There is one example where the Coen Bros have taken a small portion of Sheriff Bell’s musings and included it in the film in another manner. In Chapter 5, he is talking about reading the newspapers and how bizarre modern crime has become. Then he says: You can’t make up such a thing as that. Then adds: That’s all right. I laughed myself when I read it. This musing is in the film but not in narrative form. It involves him having a conversation with his deputy.
I hope you don’t plan on asking tough questions all the time. They take quite a while to answer. Fortunately tonight my girlfriend is hiding under the blankets pretending she doesn’t snore, so I had a bit of time to answer that curly one.
BobB
Comment by jimmybyjimmy
I think we got blocked again! Or banned. What's the difference.
This place was getting suffocating, anyway. Way way too restrictive. Like a tiny picturesque principality with a thousand rules and severe punishments. Like Hong Kong, I imagine - tho I've never been there.
Darling? I think you're fascinating. It's been lovely conversing with you.