Here’s a very fine essay criticizing the Coen Brother’s film for omitting so much from the original Charles Portis book and adding so much also. It’s the essay our Robert Cheeks wanted to read back in January, when we pomocons went nuts over the film in several threads, and it brings out the Southern and Democratic Party sympathies of the book very nicely.
But as a thread over at Front Porch Republic is right to insist, the essay’s shortcoming is that it does not take the film’s(very great, IMO) merits on its own terms.
So you’ve got something of the classic literary situation here in which you have different versions of the same story, with Portis having the honor of being the originating Homer. I’ve read the book since January, and it’s not to be missed. In its novelistic and American way, Portis’ achievement there really is a bit Homeric. An unobtrusive little easy-to-read book that <i>sings</i>like few others, and that teaches wisdom.
August 18th, 2011 | 4:11 pm
Thanks for this Carl. That was really a great comparative analysis and left me with the desire to order the book immediately (from Abe Books). Tip-o-the-hat to the author at Anamnesis!
I just had an intimation that that story had a whole lot more to do with the Confederacy then the producers allowed though the stuff about Mattie, the bodies, vengenace, et al was outstanding work.
I’ve since bought the movie and we watch it, with every viewing revealing something, a line, or a camera angle that works really great. But, to have some idea what the author really wrote and not see it on the film, rather makes me mad at the Yankee Coens.
It’s still the best western ever made.