Blood Meridian

Given he, Logan, cut out an important scene in The Road, don't have a warm fuzzy about this. The scene in question was the cannibalism of a new born.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Belwolf,

I’m reading Blood Meridian right now.

It’s my third Cormac McCarthy book. I loved No Country for Old Men and The Road.

But, Blood Meridian? Not so much so far.

They're going to try to film it. I think this is the third or fourth attempt to get it going. This was happening before McCarthy died.

In my opinion, the book is not filmable. Almost all of the book is narration and internal dialogue. Viewers won't understand what they are being shown. It will be a mess.

See my comments on the book here: https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0043994?r=9650075994

A 1992 NYT article on McCarthy: https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0098994?r=2290098994

A Blood Meridian derived movie could be excellent if we resist the urge to compare it to the book. I would love to see Judge Holden in the hands of a talented actor and director, and the real story of the Glanton Gang would add visceral color to everything. It could be great, it just won’t be Blood Meridian.

I'd rather not see this phenomenal (and I do not use that word lightly in this instance) book butchered by trying to put it on the screen.

Not only will the film makers fail, it will be pearls-before-swine in a big way with the audience, most of whom have not read any of McCarthy's work. I think the general audience just won't get it, in film form. You gotta read the book and then read a book about the book.

I think this book is of such stature, there should be a reverence demonstrated for it by film makers- people who think of themselves as artists.

This is not to say I wouldn't give it a look if they do succeed in presenting a film, and I would dearly love to be wrong in my assessment.

We need to know who's directing. Nothing else really matters unless they get an excellent director that believes in the source material.

The edition I bought has a introduction by Harold Bloom.

If you have the same edition, I highly recommend NOT reading it unless you want the ending spoiled.

I'm so mad about it I haven't finished the book because some pompous academic thinks his opinion is so important he can ruin the book for some of its audience. Fuck you, Harold.

I'll get around to finishing it, but I'll never read an intro again.

As for the movie, yeah good luck!

I have a copy of Bloom's Modern Critical interpretations on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. It's a series of essays by university professors, and there is an introduction by Bloom. In it, Bloom reveals key points of Conrad's story. However, I think the assumption is (and rightly so) that anyone reading a critical analysis of one of the most widely-read short stories in the English language would have already read the story.

In the case of an introduction for a story or novel itself, yes, I find it quite odd that the ending of the story in question would be discussed in any but the most vague of terms. I can't say I've encountered such a thing.

Bloom wrote more than three dozen volumes of literary criticism, and, just as with Pauline Kael's film criticism, there seem to be no neutral opinions about him. I think he suffered the same malady as countless others in academia: pedantry. It seems he was akin to an automobile mechanic who thinks cars are manufactured solely for the purpose of being repaired.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
We need to know who's directing. Nothing else really matters unless they get an excellent director that believes in the source material.

In the collaborative art of film-making, all begins with the script. A poor director may have great luck once in his life and do his best job of directing. Amateur or non-actors may have a feel for their roles and shine through in spite of all, but without a good script, the film will be unremarkable.

John Hillcoat is directing, he directed the adaptation of "The Road", John Logan is writing the script.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
We need to know who's directing. Nothing else really matters unless they get an excellent director that believes in the source material.

In the collaborative art of film-making, all begins with the script. A poor director may have great luck once in his life and do his best job of directing. Amateur or non-actors may have a feel for their roles and shine through in spite of all, but without a good script, the film will be unremarkable.[/QUOTE]

At this point, all the script does is advertise a project to attract talent. Once the director is on board is when the script becomes make or break because there's now a vision to the project and he can leverage getting a better writer than John Logan to fix the so-so screenplay he's likely written to one worthy of the project.

However....

quote:

John Hillcoat is directing, he directed the adaptation of "The Road", John Logan is writing the script.

There's not much of a filmography to look at, so I have no idea how this will end up. The only big film he did was "The Road." I also get the feeling this is also going to cost more than $25 million which seems to be the average his previous movies have received. I would definitely feel better if John Logan wasn't doing to bulk of the screenplay.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DanH,

Another article

Here

I finished the book yesterday.

Wow. It is an amazing book.

To be honest, I was hating it until the end. The last two chapters, however, blindsided me and set me back on my heels. So much so, that I read the final two chapters again today. It completely changed my perspective on the book.

I need to read this book again from the beginning.