Initially, I thought it was very unusual that this was written (partly) by Faulkner. Humphrey Bogart doesn't strike me as a Faulknerian actor, but that doesn't mean I don't think he is awesome. I read that it was based on a book by someone else, and the screenwriters were told not to mess with the script too much-- to just stick to the book, so I guess it wouldn't have as much of a Faulkner influence as needed to make it apparent. Maybe?
As a movie, though, I liked it and thought it was entertaining. As I watched, though, it became a bit more confusing with all of the different characters entering unexpectedly and then all of the dying, and that's where I finally saw Faulkner's influence. But I think it was just the book that had a Faulkner flair. I feel I am not making sense. The plot was hard to follow at times, it seemed to meander a bit, but the movie was entertaining, nonetheless.
This movie had some really great lines in it. Of course, delivered by Humphrey Bogart.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What you say? "The plot was hard to follow at times, it seemed to meander a bit, but the movie was entertaining, nonetheless." If that's not Faulkner I don't know what is? One can pin point some things about Faulkner's work,but ultimatly one never knows what to expect from this guy, which is why I like his work so much! He challenges me as a reader.
ReplyDelete