This has literally taken me two months to write, I keep walking away from it uncertain exactly of what I want to say, not really being an expert in the Beat generation, literature/cinema, Jack Kerouac et al. The more I read around the subject the more my brain began to hurt, I haven't written any essays as such since university and that was about two years ago now... My history degree is gathering dust along with the rest of my potential. Anyways, I made a concious decision to try and make a comparison between the book and film of On the Road, yeah I finally read the book! Told you I was slow, life kept happening, I swear I'm going to read more from now on.* So this is the first time I've tried to be critical and look at two things at once, my reviews/reactions are descending into laziness, I'm not even commenting very much on the films I see now, I am literally just complaining about them, my thoughts are so mundane lately. My point being, this is going to be side-creasingly bad.
So I did a review of the latest (only) film adaptation of On the Road, the seminal novel by Jack Kerouac; only the film left a bad taste in my mouth which was tempered by a strong desire to read the book. So, it's only gone and taken me about... 3 months to get the book read and now I feel better equipped to comment on the film and on my feelings towards On the Road as a whole. To start, the book is a million times better, everyone who said it was unfilmable was undoubtedly right; go figure it was always going to be this way; I will keep referring to this point throughout this blog because nothing could be more true.
I'm going to get to the nitty gritty of things by just using headings and compartmentalising my thoughts on the film and book, the differences and the difficulties and how I felt about them now having read the book. I am, by no means, an expert on either, trust me, there is no pretension in my brain that I am expert about either source or about anything in particular, these are just my opinions.
They said it couldn't be done
In accordance to Wikipedia, source of all hearsay and unsubstantiated
knowledge, apparently Kerouac would have loved to have filmed the book
way back in 1957 with Marlon Brando taking the lead of Dean Moriarty and
Kerouac himself playing Sal Paradise. This fell through as Brando
didn't respond to the request and Kerouac's agent tried to play for too
much money with the big studios. It would be Francis Ford Coppola who
bought the rights to film in 1979 and attempted to produce the film
several times over the preceding decades but the main issue would be the
script, it was impossible to get the book condensed and confined to the
big screen. So in the end the honour went to Walter Salles who also
directed the early life story of Che Guevara and his travels around
South America in the Motorcycle Diaries with critical success. It's worth noting that Francis Ford Coppola did actually produce this film, he's been trying to get this on the big screen since 1979, and this is the result of a long journey.**
Salles took his task extremely seriously going as far as taking the road trip Kerouac took himself and having discussions with Beatnik acquaintances of the author, he was trying to get the feel for the book. In doing so what Salles has produced is what he 'felt' the film should feel. It's impossible to acknowledge every person Sal Paradise meets on his travels, it would be extremely difficult to include all of the travels that take place in the film on the screen. Salles has a damn good go of it but by streamlining the book he seems to lose the impact of Sal Paradise and instead puts a magnifying glass on the importance on Dean Moriarty. His creative decisions with regards to where he pared the story down, where he felt to embellish, and how he presented the source material, I just didn't like, it just didn't work. A feeling is a hard thing to grasp, the sense of the beatnik generation is hard to condense into such a medium, and I don't think this film did it justice. It was a failed experiment, one doomed to the annals of history, it won't be remembered very well because it does not have the same impact as the book; it was a failed experiment.
Life of Paradise
My first impression when reading through the book was how little impact Dean has on the first part of the book, this describes Sal's first journey on the road and he spends several months travelling first to Denver then to San Francisco and then spends some time with a Mexican girl (Terry) around Los Angeles and spends some time living with her cotton picking and ingratiating himself with her family and way of life. This is streamlined in the film to Sal's solo adventure merely involving the section of time with Terry in the fields taking a moment to show the moment they have sex in front of her child. Perhaps it's just me but it definitely dulled the strength of Sal as a solo character not pinning too much of the focus on him. In my original blog post I moaned that the film was mostly about Dean and that Sal was merely a cipher, someone taking inspiration from Dean and feeding off his energy with no character or personality of his own, or least that was my sentiment. In the book there is a stronger feeling for who Sal is as a person, it doesn't go too deeply into his psyche but the fact that he travelled alone and spent a long time on the road alone without company is indicative of his independence and strength which is not wholly present in the film; for example his first trip alone is so small it doesn't make much of an impact apart from the fact that we notice Sal can actually get laid, unlike when Dean is around, he's a constant cock-block that boy. Well that's how I felt.
So in streamlining the book, especially in the first sections, Sal loses his strength as a character and as an anchor through the tale. Sam Riley does the best he can with what he's given but in fairness it's difficult to get a strong feel for who and Sal Paradise is when he's standing next to the blinding light that is Dean Moriarty. It's a shame because the story is supposed to be Sal's voice and although he can be heard throughout the film (voice-overs) it's difficult to know exactly what exactly his point is when the film is so intent on plumbing the mystery of his fellow player; this was a pressing concern for me at least. From reading the book it's clear On the Road is more Dean Moriarty's life and story more than anything else, and let's be fair Keroauc is as enamoured with Neal Cassady (Dean Moriarty's actual name) as anyone else and drew his inspiration from him, but it's essential to have an identifiable anchor through the chaos. The main part of the book is that it is written from Sal's perspective and by Jack Kerouac, it's his voice and it's written as such, we hear it throughout, and that's why you never lose your anchor through reading the book. It's funny actually because the book is written in something which Kerouac coined 'Spontaneous prose' which is a non-stop stream of conciousness, this was inspired by the rambling letters he used to receive from Neal Cassady, and thus the book is Kerouac's voice, strong and true throughout, with the occasional interjections from Cassady. What I'm basically getting at is that the film loses this feeling by just being a different medium, this adds fuel to the fact that the book is unfilmable as it loses it's essence by being transferred to the screen, it somewhat loses it's voice.
What to do about Mary Lou
So something which surprised and irritated me throughout the reading of the book and recalling the film was the insistent inclusion of Kristen Stewart, her character Mary Lou is barely in the book! She plays a large part in the film appearing frequently and making much more of an impact than the Mary Lou of the page, there is also the inclusion of her actually having sex with Sal Paradise which does not take place in the book but seems but something the film insists on building up to. Lest we forget that Kirsten Dunst plays Dean Moriarity's second wife Camille, in a significantly smaller part, even though Camille is somewhat more of a constant in Dean's life than his erstwhile wife, and his third wife, Inez, is not even alluded to in the film.*** I suppose it's fair to say that Kristen Stewart is providing a draw for people, and for the film to work we needed a familiar female anchor to keep us entertained, but to be honest, the way they used Kristen Stewart in the film, and briefly poor Kirsten Dunst, just seems unjustified. Plus the film seemed inclined to have both of Dean's wives have an affection for Sal, which is not alluded to in the book.**** It's apparent that because Mary Lou on a couple of occasions travels with the chaps (Camille is stationery), it's useful for her to be used more liberally as she is the female companion for the boys, plus Kristen Stewart can't be in a film without a love triangle it would seem.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't hate Kristen Stewart, I find her attitude to life somewhat bewildering, she has grown up in the film industry and from what I've seen of her seems to learn by doing in all aspects of her life it would seem. I find her vacant expressions somewhat endearing, she's not a classic beauty, there appears to be more going on under the surface, she can't convey massively complex emotions but you get a vague idea of how she feels, she is a mystery... This doesn't fit with her character as much, Mary Lou is supposed to be wild insane lusty piece of ass, she's explosive, young and impulsive*****, and to Kristen Stewart's credit she gives it her best try to be as much of a fire cracker as the youthful and crazy Mary Lou but that's not where Stewart's talent's lie as an actress; I want to say Stewart is more subtle or withdrawn, but to be honest I'm not sure where her strengths lie, this ain't it. She's simply not the girl that Dean Moriarty would drag along with him on his wild adventures, she has a good go of dancing like a loon, she's happy to get her kit off, but she's not Mary Lou; which begs the question why she is shoe-horned into the film more than anyone would deem necessary. It's not her role, she's sweet, she tried, but she's has neither the charisma, nor the raw energy to play such a character. Let's be perfectly honest, her less than sparkling performance is not the worst bit about this film, in fact in the past year I've seen much worse, but it's a pain.
Drugs, Sex and Alcohol
Let me get one thing straight, in my original review of the film I sighed and rolled my eyes about there being a lot of drug taking/sex etc. After reading the book, there's a fair bit of it in there, but it's mostly alluded to, mentioned in passing, it's never thrown in your face. In the film there is a lot of sex. Sure it was a big part of the culture, everyone does it, it's totally natural, especially when you're getting high, and you know everyone is touching each other with their minds and their hands... Steve Buscemi having sex with Dean was a bit odd all things considered, but in the book it's just briefly alluded to but it's pretty clear nothing of the sort happened, there is already gay sex earlier in the film, it seemed a bit pointless, more it gave Steve Buscemi something to do... There is also the aborted threesome in the book but we get in painful detail on screen; it's also consistently noted that Dean is having lots of sex and poor Sal not getting as much.
I've done a bit of reading around the subject and learnt that the
character of Carlo Marx was actually the Beatnik poet Allen Ginsberg who
had a strong love and affection for Neal Cassady. This
is touched upon in the book but in the film it's expressly shown that
Dean and Carlo had an intimate as well as intellectual relationship. This isn't expressed in the book but Carolyn Cassady apparently walked in on a threesome between Neal Cassady, his wife at the time LuAnn and Allen Ginsberg. So the film took liberties with it's outside knowledge by expounding on the fact that Dean and Carlo (Neal Cassady and Allen Ginsberg) had their own love affair on top of all the rest of Dean's shenanigans. So who am I to judge that there is too much sexy time in the film? They were clearly at it all the time, it wasn't something that was uncommon. Actually damnit, I'll put my foot down, I'm all for a bit of sexy time, in fact sometimes it can be quite, dare I say titillating, but I was not titillated! I didn't actually care about all the rampant sex, and this is something the film fails miserably at, getting me to actually care a tiny bit about why they at it so much... (which I will further discuss in my next point - I'll stop ranting soon, promise.)
Feeling a Moment
The book is based around the Beat Generation, the Beat Generation were all striving for something more than the humdrum existence handed down to them by the previous generation. I have no clue to be perfectly honest, but the energy, the excitement, the exuberance and thrill of it all is contagious and this is where On the Road the cinematic experience falls flat. Everything about it is pleasant to observe, the actors are attractive, the scenery is beautiful, the nostalgia of the 50s all has a nice sheen to it; nothing jumps out, nothing is electric, nothing is new, nothing is exciting... It was all a bit deflating in comparison to the book which was new thrilling and unique, even though it's a damn old book... I genuinely liked the book, it makes me want to read more amazing books! The film doesn't do anything new, it is another film adaptation which doesn't live up to the source material, therefore it's about as standard as anything else you can claim is a known disappointment. It all goes back to the fact that the book is unfilmable, in it's scope, in it's larger than life characters, the messiness of reality, the fact that it creates a feeling which can't be translated to the screen, especially when the words work so well at speaking from the page so clearly and succinctly. I know Salles' aim was to create more the feeling of the book from his own research but it just didn't work, and that's why it was a failed experiment.
I stand by my original opinion, Garrett Hedlund was a revelation, sure they didn't chop the end of his thumb off, they didn't bring him quite down to the same desperate level as the Dean Moriarty of the page; he wasn't nearly as worn down and lost, but he was still a sparkling devilishly attractive representation of what Neal Cassady stood for. He was good, in fact my favourite part of the film, from my addled memory, so it's not all bad! This has taken me so long to write I can't remember exactly what my intention was... I think I wanted to make a critical comparison, but as always I've rambled, bit of my own stream of conciousness right here.
I think I'll conclude it with something I've said about seven times now. It's impossible to make a film of On the Road, why? Because you can't capture the essence of the book on film in an arbitrary time limit, it can't be confined by the constraints of Hollywood and it shouldn't be. On the Road is a seminal book, an amazing book, it is unfilmable and should be left as a significant book instead of a sub-par film. I could say that about a lot of books I suppose... Once I've read some more books and watched the films I reckon I'll try some more comparative blogs, we'll see.
Next time: Life of Pi.
* See: Empty Promises.
** Shame.
*** Which is a shame because I thought it sweet that Inez and Camille seemed to be in contact and alked to each other about Dean frequently.
****Although in reality, Carolyn Cassady whom Camille was based on, did have an ongoing affair with Jack Kerouac for several years whilst he lived with Neal and and his wife during the 50s, this was something Neal actually encouraged... It's not mentioned in On the Road though. I find it odd that their attraction is briefly alluded to in the film but it's jettisoned for some Mary Lou love instead. More to the point, Dean sure knows how to pick his women. Carolyn being one of the more interesting, I've procured a copy of her autobiographical Off the Road: Twenty Years with Cassady, Kerouac, and Ginsberg, should be an interesting read to say the least. Y'know, if I get round to it...
*****Alright, apparently if Stewart's reputation is anything to go by, she too is a lusty piece of ass, she's also supposed to be young and impulsive, not that I've seen any evidence of it, even in those scandalous photos, she looked... bored? Call me crazy but I can't imagine her being the massively lusty type. Perhaps it's just her face but she just doesn't seem to scream firecracker.
No comments:
Post a Comment