Kevin's Watch

I just finished reading McCarthy's The Road and then watched the movie. What struck me was how impossible it was to convey the power of his words to film. Even though I thought it was a decent film, it lost its power in translation.

McCarthy's powerful description and use of vocabulary is very much like SRD's. His words take you to to another level. It has now become clear to me that there really is no way (IMO) that the trilogies could ever convey the power of these books to film. I mean, you can make a film but you can't tell the real story. I am sure many people felt the same about the LOTR.

I guess some words are better left in print, pure. (I can't believe I am saying this.)

Ah, but lorin: having watched the movie ... the words were still there.

wayfriend wrote:Ah, but lorin: having watched the movie ... the words were still there.

explain for me........there meaning still in the book or there meaning the words can be found in the movie?

Sorry, WF, I'm thick these days.

I mean that going to see the movie didn't cause the book to evaporate. The movie is not as good as the book, but you still have the book, so nothing was lost.

Lorin, how were you able to get past that neither the book nor the movie explained what caused the "end of the world".
I found that immensely frustrating and blamed the author for lacking the skill or even the idea for a cause.

wayfriend wrote:I mean that going to see the movie didn't cause the book to evaporate. The movie is not as good as the book, but you still have the book, so nothing was lost.

I see what you are saying, but even though I liked LOTR a great deal I always feel it is like chewing and not swallowing. You watch the movie and say but, but , but..........you missed the whatever

I guess the answer is to look at the book and the movie as two seperate entities and stop judging one against the other. I guess................

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Lorin, how were you able to get past that neither the book nor the movie explained what caused the "end of the world".
I found that immensely frustrating and blamed the author for lacking the skill or even the idea for a cause.

Interesting you should ask that. I found that to be one of the best aspects of the book. The book apears to "every parent and every child" which to me is why the man and the boy have no name. It makes it more personal when you insert your own minds eye into the characters. To me, the fact that they don't tell you what happened does the same thing, it makes it every man's war and every man's devastation. If you spend time writing about how the world ended you lose the meaning of the story. The story is pure, it is not about how it happened, it is about the relationship between the man and the boy. Everything else distracts from that. It is a love story, a sad and terrible love story.