Re: What could 3 Trillion buy?

Thanks, Jamie, for this frothy romp. . .

The main guy’s idea about nuclear reactors, though, is amiss. The buidling of them takes a lot of energy (and, as of now, would produce a lot of greenhouse gas) to begin with–but, more to the point, we don’t know what to do with the waste, which is dangerous (radioactive) and can also be used in the production of nuclear weapons. (“Waste”–like Nyodene D?) Not to mention that the more nuclear power plants we have, the more chance of a meltdown (or, as the industry calls it, an “event”), which would be catastrophic (I’ve read that the new generation of nuclear plants is much safer than the older ones [at least in terms of prevents or containing "events"], but still. . .)

LZ

The Road the movie response

Hi All,

Thanks for your really stimulating and thoughtful comments (and thanks, Helen, for provoking all this).

My two cents:

1.  The most interesting thing to me in the article was, as a few of you have astutely pointed out, its detaching the desperate state of affairs from any historcal cause: gee, it’s just an “unexplainable catastrophe.”  Though most of you are aware that I have no barnyard animals, this nonethess gets my goat.  It totally depoliticizes (dehistoricizes) the context  The book makes clear–the flash, etc.–that it’s a nuclear war that has caused this. . .   The suppression of any historical cause functions as part of the culture of denial (in this case, a denial of the extreme danger posed by our vast nuclear arsonal, and by our [the US] continuing failure to make nuclear proliferation a priority, and by. . .oh. . .you know. . .everything. . .)   Sheesh.

2.  I have mixed feelings about the prospect of the movie.  In general, I hate to see books I love be made into movies, and I don’t go see them.  But it’s not absolute, I think.  There’s no way I’d see the Oprahized Beloved.  But much depends both on the nature of the book and on who’s making it.   For me, pertinant question isn’t, “will the movie do a good job of capturing the book?” Rather, it’s a question first of examinging the move on its own (filmic) terms and only then asking what its relation to the book might be.  Another issue is that every adaptation is an interpretation, so the question isn’t “does it capture the book?” but rather “how does it interpret the book?.”  Mostly, the movie industry does awful things with books.  But not always.  John Huston, for example, has made (what I remember as being) great adaptations of Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood (a must read) and of Joyce’s story, “The Dead” (from Dubliners).  Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is better, I think, than Burgess’s novel, which is still darn good.  And great films have been made from not so great novels, of course.

In this case, I think there is some cause for (cautious) hope.  I saw the director’s other film, “The Proposition,” and while it gets very stupid at the end, it’s powerful in its dense evocation of place, and the first half or so is really good.  Nick Cave did the music for that film, too, and it’s just great–as John points out, that Cave is doing the score is really promising.  Vigo is a good actor.  So is Robert Duvall (though, for Ely, I had hoped for Levon Helms).  The movie could end up sucking, but I suspect is will try to be a really good movie (as opposed to Hollywood trying to make something awful and commercial).   I also think the book is incredibly “cinematic”. . .at least in some important ways. . .and has charged and complex dramatic scenes. . .

But I also feel that it may be “too soon” for the movie.  Let the book linger in the culture for awhile.  There’s a danger that movies can “colonize” books–preempt readers from their own imaginations.  But really good books seem to mostly evade that.  For awhile, I feared Oprah would make Beloved unteachable, but the movie came and went and book still presides. . .

Let’s not take the synopsis too seriously, as least as a indication of what to expect from the move–though it’s typical of the way complex art gets marketed in our culture (as in putting a sexy cover on Lolita).  I share Mirsa’s gagging over the account of the “new family” at the end.  Hopefully, the movie will be less nauseating on that. . .

Oh, and Hoban has resisted many attempts to sell film rights for Riddley.

I guess that’s more like 3 cents. . . .

thanks for the engaging discussion

LZ

What could 3 Trillion buy?

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/05/alternative_boondoggles.html

-Jamie

Kid of Speed

Also, thinking about all these post-nuclear-winter future worlds reminded me of this thing I saw on the internet a few years ago….it’s a photo journal of a motorcycle ride a Russian lady took through Chernobyl. It’s pretty much really cool and awesome

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

john 0

The Road the movie response

Well, the entire soundtrack is going to be original music by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis. I’ll see this movie just for that That’s a good sign, though….Nick Cave’s music will fit the mood of the Road so perfectly!

Also, Vigo is the perfect choice for the father. I’m just hoping there’s no product placement.

Oh jesus, I just remembered they found the Coke in the book. I bet the whole bomb shelter scene will be an advertisement ):

Now that I think about it, it’s pretty ironic (don’t ya think?) that they were pushing a shopping cart full of old consumer products around a desolate America!

- John O.

The Road the movie response

James, you just told me what the happy ending is going to be according to
the movie, the boy finds a new family! one with a mother, father and is it a
brother? dog too? maybe. I was so sad over the father’s death, that I did
not really focus on the end when he goes with this family, they are probably
really going to play this up and tatally make it optimistic, they are
saying there is still hope see! The happy nuclear family still exists! And
now the boy is going to live happily ever after. Of course, the boy will
have to create a false self and deny his whole past in order for this to
happen, (not likely) but the “real world” (people who go see the movie) do
not care about this. All they will see is the image of a happy family, and
that is after all the only thing that matters in our society, no?

Mirsa

The Road the movie response

I’ve got to throw my 8 cents in here as well. As a tv prof and superfan of mccarthy I have some pretty intense feelings on this.

Helen, you are more than right about the article… Unexplainable?? Really??? Why? He could have even said “scorched earth.” Whatever. anything but unexplainable.

Also. Just from the pictures alone my imagination was dashed as to who the characters looked like. (a slight aside: The first time this dissappointment happened was when I rented Pet Cemetary by Stephen King. I felt betrayed by the director that they hadn’t asked me for help on the casting! Ha!) And I thought it was a shopping cart? I don’t know if it was specified, but this cart looks, well.. different then I think it was written.

Anyway! There is a cannibal in the movie. Here is the imdb page with the cast o’ characters: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/

And here is the most dissapointing synopsis [WITH SPOILERS!!! WOOO!] EVER: (read only if you haven’t vomited yet today)
***The world is in ruins after some apocalyptic event. A father and his son are walking south in an attempt to escape the increasingly cold, endless winter. Along the way they have to avoid gangs of lawless killers. Their only weapon is a pistol with 3 shots. The father has dreams about his wife, who suicided before the story begins. On the road to a better place, they encounter cannibals and organized militants, as well as other refugees. At one point they find an intact bomb shelter filled with food and supplies. Rather than remain in this sanctuary, they continue on because they have not yet reached the coast. The only named character they encounter in the entire book is an old man who says his name is Ely. Ely is harmless and alone and they share a meal and talk for a bit. They find out Ely is not his real name and he created this false name in order to keep from being found by other refugees. They eventually part ways. The whole journey is a struggle to survive in a world no longer capable of sustaining life. They almost lose this struggle when a thief makes off with all their worldly possessions, and the Father nearly loses his struggle to hold on to his humanity in taking those possessions back. The boy is all that keeps him barely human. The boy is his warrant, in his own words. In the end, they reach the coast but find it is no different, no better than the place they left behind. The father finally succumbs to the illness that has plagued him from the beginning, dying and leaving the boy alone. But he is not alone for long before another finds him, another man holding on to his humanity — only he’s been a little more successful because he had help. Now the boy has a family.**

So. The Coen Brothers did No Country for Old Men and it was phenomenal. I’d bet that the Coen Bros just handed the book to the cast and that was their script and direction. That’s how close it was to the book. But they are phenomenal filmmakers and their entire canon is amazing.

I’m not too happy about this adaptation. Some no namer Joe Penhall did the writing adaptation. He did some amazing (who the hell knows) films such as The Undertaker and Some Voices. (Which if anyone has seen, let me know.)

And the director: Not exactly the Coen Bros. Some dude named John Hillcoat. Australian guy who works with Nick Cave (there’s a plus) and has made few films. But…. He is an ozzie which means he might know how to director a post-apocalyptic film. Might…

And the cast: Viggo is an amazing actor. He can sell anything. Chalize Theron. She’ll play a good flake. She might not even have to act. And some kid Kodi as the kid.

So my take: As long as they keep the speaking to a minimum and the action as sad as possible it MIGHT be good. But after reading the synopsis I’m guessing it will suck.

The upside? Ridley Scott (Gladiator) is directing Blood Meridien. My other fave McCarthy book. He’ll do a good job with it. Probably.

So Mirsa, you are parbly right. It’s gonna suck. And helen, if they can’t even tell the reporter what the catastrophe is, it’s gonna pretty poor. But going hollywood is No way to produce this film. This would have to be arthouse and they’ve obviously already forgone that.

Ugh.

I’ll stick to the book and avoid the movie.

Have a very pleasant day to everyone!

Jamie

The Road the movie reponse

Awesome.  Nicely done, Mirsa.  In the spirit of response…

First – Yeah…Hollywood really wants action, graphics…I dunno…Though I heard No Country For Old Men was amazing…But I haven’t seen it yet, so…

Second – I know the article says that the screenwriter did as much as he could to stay true to the actual storyline, but did anyone catch the part in the article that describes a scene where the father meets another father and his family?  They probably added a bunch of stuff.  If not, they (screenwriters, I suppose…maybe directors have something to do with it) most likely focus on all the more suspenseful stuff…the naked guy, the ship, walking through the town and getting shot at with arrows…

I would be curious to see how they treat the cannibalism stuff…

And third – I think the article is ok, too.  But the first couple of lines?  The book is set after an “unexplainable catastrophe”?
I thought that was interesting because while speaking to some people (outside our class) who read the book, I found that they were mostly confused.  One guy thought that the earth was destroyed because of forest fires.  Most plausible explanation…mainly because of all the ashes…but there are still trees so…

Why wouldn’t the writer say, “nuclear winter”?  Is it politically incorrect to do so?  Unexplainable = no words to explain…no way of coming to terms…so that’s ok because the amount of destruction and devastation that we read in the book is really overwhelming…but is the writer evading the issue?  Or is he not a very close reader?  What did Opera say it was? (kidding, almost had you on that one)

Anyway.  I agree that the catastrophe is something outside of our scope of reason, imagination…that destruction to that extent is very fucking difficult to bring language to…I leave that up to ol’ Cormac…but unexplainable?  Hardly.  I think we did a pretty good job getting into an explanation of what happened in our class…so…

Helen

The Road the movie Response

Hi all,
I am with Helen on this one, the article is ok, but I think the movie is
not going to do well. I was just thinking about this while we were reading
the book. I said to myself, they would never make a movie out of this,
nothing really happens, they are just walking and hiding. The amazing part
of the novel is the language, emotions, and relationship between the father
and son. The book was sooo beautiful and full of emotion but most people who
go to the movies want to see action and happy endings (like Oedipa says to
Metzger dr Z and anyone who has read The Crying of Lot 49) so they
probably(parbly lol) won’t go see it, or if they do they won’t like it. The
language is another thing, its so simple yet beautiful that I just do not
think that it will come through in the movie. I am not going to go see it
and have one of my favorite books ruined! Then I am going to be angry that I
wasted 10 dollars when I could have bought a book lol.

Mirsa

The Road the movie

Hello Everybody!

Good morning!  Welcome back to work!  Hope everyone’s weekend was amazing…

Just thought I’d send this out…wondering what you all think of Hollywood making The Road into a movie?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/movies/27road.html?th&emc=th

Enjoy.  Not sure how I feel about it, based on the article alone.  But my gut tells me that it has the potential to suck.

H.