On The Road – After. Short Answers

So nine days ago, I finally saw the film of On The Road.  I had posted a list of things I would be looking for in the film.  I’m ready to talk.  First—my short answers on what I saw.  Second—in another post, my long questions about the film.  Here’s my original list, and the short answers about what I saw.

How much of the film is based on the scroll version rather than the finished book?  Some.  The scroll version is closer to the actual events—and so is the film.

An overall theme.  In the book, Sal and friends sense someone walking towards them.  At the end of the book, an old man with long white hair walks past Kerouac in a parking lot and says, “Go moan for man.”  Is anything like this included in the movie?  No.  The theme of the film seems to be Dean’s irresponsibility.

Is Dean Moriarty presented as a new American saint, an irresponsible sociopath, or…?  In keeping with what I just said, Dean is presented as almost completely irresponsible.  At a poetry reading last Thursday, in the wake of the film, I heard one poet sharply denounce Neal Cassady (ie. Dean).

The relationship between Mary Lou and Camille.  Kristen Stewart has suggested that her character (Mary Lou) is the pivot of the film.  But the novel exists in a tension between the two.  I can see why Kristen Stewart (“Luann”) felt she was the pivotal character; she appeared as Dean’s soul mate while Kirsten Dunst (“Camille”) was relegated to a minor role.

What is the role of Carlo Marx?   One film reviewer has said:  “Lose Carlo!”  Is Carlo a true prophet?  A true poet?  A bore?  Pretentious?  Carlo was portrayed as doting and clingy, following Dean around.  His prophetic voice has been removed.

How do they handle that brothel scene in Mexico…?  Superficially, like much else.

Speaking of Mexico—How does the film portray minorities in general?  More specifically, Mexicans and Blacks?  We seem impersonal, societal references:  A sign on a gas station that says “We serve whites only”—and a sign at a roadside grocery that says “We do not sell alcohol to Indians.”  That’s it.  Neither of those signs are in the book.

What about sexism?  Do men utterly run the show?  Pretty much, although Camille does seems pretty independent.  We see the women scrubbing Bull Lee’s floors.

How are the 1940s presented?  How well does the film represent the 1940s, and does it matter?  Though the book is set in 1947-51, most people associate it with the mid-to-late 1950s, when the book first appeared.   We hear bop and see weird jazz musicians.  We hear passing remarks about President Truman.  That’s it.

How homo- or bi-sexual is the book?  How sexual is the relationship between Sal and Dean?  Not very.  Can’t tell how Dean feels about Carlo.  Dean does try to get money out of a gay man by offering sex (That scene is in the scroll version).

 How does Old Bull Lee and family come across?  Funny??  Disturbing?  Simply weird?  Weird—but not nearly weird enough(!).

Does the film include Sal’s vision, in San Francisco, of reincarnation and nonlinear time?  Nope.

How does the film deal with Sal’s relationship to his mother?  Significant, but not significant enough.  But the family is French-Canadian, as in real life.

How is America presented?  America??

Does Dean care about anything besides sex and kicks?  He cares about his children, apparently.  Maybe.

How many people and events are cut out of the movie??  Oh…lots.  But then, the novel includes a lot of characters in very minor roles.

So.  Those are the short answers.  Stay tuned for the long questions!

Anticipation: On The Road, The Film (1)

Finally found out where On The Road, the film, will be premiering in the U.S. on Dec. 21^st:  New York and Los Angeles.  But so far I have not discovered where exactly in Los Angeles it is showing.  It’s tempting to drive down—400 miles—to see the movie, and drive back—400 miles.  But no; I think not.

It actually may have actually been shown at the Marin Film Festival back in May—it was advertised, but I cannot tell that it actually was.  There is probably a story behind that.

I stumbled on a story from early this year, speculating on the distributors chosen for the U.S. release.  The thought was, they aren’t known for large releases.  It was suggested this means that the film won’t make as much money as it might have.  But I’m not familiar, at this point, with this aspect of the business of the film industry.

Meanwhile, I continue to fret about the screenplay, the adaptation, the actors.  How will Kristen Stewart do?  I’ve already seen two quotes from the film that aren’t in the book.  Dean Moriarty, in the film, apparently exhibits a conscience, self-doubt, and even (perhaps) remorse.  This changes the tone 

significantly.  I’d been wondering how they would squeeze the events into a movie time-frame.  What would they leave out?  But the movie apparently runs about 2 hours and 20 minutes—that should give them a fair shot at a reasonably complete treatment.

Still, I see characters listed that I don’t remember from the book.  Perhaps they have simply given names to some of the characters who aren’t given actual names in the novel.

My suspicion is that I will leave the theater disappointed—and then, slowly, the film will grow on me until I buy my own DVD copy and watch it semi-regularly.

I think of other films, the blockbusters, that are advertised for months ahead of their release; and think of how little PR I’ve seen for this film in the months since it was released in Europe and South America.  I hope it does not sink upon release.  A lot of folks are deeply excited and looking forward to it.  The novel, deceptively simple, has become a meaningful part of our lives.  We want to film to succeed.  But then, ever since the book first appeared, in 1957, it’s been loved by many and dismissed by many.  And maybe we shouldn’t worry so much about such things.