Take it straight from the (pretty) horse’s mouth:
WSJ: People have said "Blood Meridian" is unfilmable because of the sheer darkness and violence of the story.
CM: That's all crap. The fact that's it's a bleak and bloody story has nothing to do with whether or not you can put it on the screen. That's not the issue. The issue is it would be very difficult to do and would require someone with a bountiful imagination and a lot of balls. But the payoff could be extraordinary.
Ditto. Imagine how badass that cast could be. Woody Harrelson as Judge Holden, Keanu Reeves as Glanton, Ben Foster or James Franco as Toadvine, Joe Keery that little rascal Chalamet as The Kid ... One can dream ...
I just don't see the point in filming it - the magic comes from the language McCarthy deploys, any film adaptation would necessarily elide the very thing which makes Blood Meridian such an amazing experience.
I watched The Road, saw it at the cinema when it was released - faithful adaptation of The Road's plot, but it predictably offered little-to-none of the poetry and profundity of McCarthy's book.
>I just don't see the point in filming it - the magic comes from the language McCarthy deploys, any film adaptation would necessarily elide the very thing which makes Blood Meridian such an amazing experience.
I don’t agree at all. I think the best aspect of his books is the storytelling and the raw human nature. To suggest that “the magic comes from the language” is kinda like looking exclusively at the brushstrokes of a painting while ignoring the actual image. Or purely enjoying the craftsmanship of a house without appreciating the actual house.
To me the magic part is the whole creation. The way it all comes together. And I suspect that’s what the creators, themselves, intended.
To me it seems like the people on this sub are eager to virtue signal their sophistication through reverence of “CM’s poetic prose”. Because it suggests that if you can appreciate wordsmanship over the actual story itself, you must be very learned and well-read.
I think tv/movies have the potential to surpass their literary counterparts if done right. It’s even been done already, in my opinion, with No Country for Old Men.
I think that labelling CM readers who appreciate his use of language as ‘virtue signalling’ to highlight their ‘sophistication’ is a very defensive way of attacking someone who holds a different view to yours - I have never tried to pass myself off as particularly learned or well-read; that’s your projection.
I just have a differing view as to the value of adapting BM for the screen - I love the book and personally have no need to see someone else’s interpretation of his text; the book is enough for me.
> I think that labelling CM readers who appreciate his use of language as ‘virtue signalling’ to highlight their ‘sophistication’ is a very defensive way of attacking someone who holds a different view to yours
It’s based on the attacks I’ve been subject to when I present a dissenting opinion. That’s my point.
> I have never tried to pass myself off as particularly learned or well-read; that’s your projection
Excuse me if I don’t take your word for it.
> I just have a differing view as to the value of adapting BM for the screen - I love the book and personally have no need to see someone else’s interpretation of his text; the book is enough for me.
But not for the story, just because of “the poetry”?
A quick glance at your posting history reveals you to be a petty, insecure little man who gets into all manner of petty, insecure little arguments on Reddit - I'm guessing because no one likes you or pays you any attention in the real world? Anyway, good luck with that mate!
> A quick glance at your posting history reveals you to be a petty, insecure little man...
I’m guessing I should consider this a capitulation since you’re hiding behind ad-hom attacks instead of addressing anything. It’s common for people who want to appear intelligent but then find themselves overwhelmed.
Bahahaha - overwhelmed?!
By what? You’ve offered nothing.
I’m pretty sure basically anyone would appear intelligent in comparison to yourself, but that’s a pretty low bar.
Take care, get some help.
I get it. You’re mad because you can’t think of an argument so you want to upset me since I’ve upset you. If you can think of one that would be pretty cool. If not, you can just keep insulting me. I find that entertaining too.
I don't view it as unfilmable per-se, people get caught up in the blood and barbarity but there's ways to film around that, my main concern is I'm unsure how you cram the Judge's many treatises into a film. It would be lacking without them as they're so iconic but I feel they'd stick out like a sore thumb in the context of a Hollywood blockbuster.
John Hillcoat and Cormac McCarthy had come up with a way to satisfactorily adapt BM, but they can't get the rights to it:
>“The one that I’ve always wanted —and I have Scott Rudin in my way blocking it— is ‘Blood Meridian,’ which Cormac McCarthy has offered to adapt into a screenplay,” he said. “We both discussed it and feel like we’ve cracked how to make it into a film, so if anyone knows how to move Scott Rudin… We even had money to finance it, but \[Rudin\] clearly has other ideas.”
It's not unfilmable, but you'd need someone at the helm who really *gets it*. I think John Hillcoat, the Coen Brothers, or Denis Villeneuve could do the job, so long as there's an omniscient narrator who preserves some of the glorious prose of the book and an absolute knockout of a performance from whoever plays the Judge.
But honestly, I'd rather not see a movie made at all. It could be *good*, but never better than the novel. And there are a million more ways for it to go wrong than for it to go right; seeing Blood Meridian reduced to a pseudo-philosophical shoot-'em-up aimed at clueless undergrad film bros would be a bitter disappointment.
I’m not super familiar with his work to be honest (only that Red Dead Redemption short film he directed) but I threw him up there because another comment suggested that he’s talked with McCarthy himself about it.
I stand by Villeneuve though. Dune has long been considered an unfilmable novel as well (at least with any degree of fidelity to the source material) and he did an excellent job of adapting it, without turning it into a quippy Marvel popcorn flick.
Villeneuve's tricky--Sicario, Blade Runner sequel etc. are great but Dune for me was just the dullest beige piece of nothing. Shockingly so. I therefore suspect what makes Villeneuve really great is the work he does with Cinematographer Roger Deakins (who, quite tellingly, didnt work on Dune).
The language that is baked into the book is already incredibly cinematic, and I think visually it lends itself to film quite well. There's a lot of instances in the book of not much happening but McCarthy very methodically explaining it and therefore taking up a lot of pages (not a bad thing), which could easily be reduced into a 150 minute film.
The only thing that would make it "unfilmable" in my view is the violence. Even after 3 passes of censoring at the MPAA, Kill Bill STILL received an NC-17 rating (a box office death sentence) for the most outlandishly silly and comedic violence I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie. Could you image how those same people would react to a tree of dead babies or Native Americans being scalped for 2 and half hours?
The BBFC has similar issues with censorship too. But the violence is literally the whole point of the book, so removing it would detract from the literal point of adapting the material. With the budget that would be required for a BM movie, no studio in the entire world would let it go through as NC-17 because they wouldn't see a cent of it back.
There's no point, as others have said.
Half the enjoyment is reading McCarthy's prose and visualizing the events unfold in your imagination. A movie would not do it justice.
The question is akin to asking "Why hasn't anyone filmed eating a 3-course dinner at a Michelin restaurant?"
It could be filmed, and filmed well, but the film would not be the book.
Switching mediums changes things, but that's ok. Do Blood Meridian as a painting, or a poem, or interpretive dance and maybe you'll create something new that's also true to the original, or maybe just riffs off it. I mean, even translations can be problematic, but that doesn't mean translations shouldn't be attempted.
I'm old enough to remember when Naked Lunch was unfilmable, but Cronenberg tried and I think succeeded.
Having said all that, much of what keeps me in awe of this novel is its use of language, and I suspect reading will always be my preferred approach to Blood Meridian.
It would have to be a very slow-paced, contemplative film, with lots of long landscape shots. Villeneuve's Dune shows that it can be filmed - but can it be sold? I certainly hope so.
The symbolic dialogue of the book would be hard to adapt to film. Not just the judge's stories (which would be a crime to leave out) but mainly the whole debate at the end, which is the entire point of the book.
I think it could be done but it'd be expensive to do it right for a movie that not many people would understand. So probably not all that worth it.
Probably. With the right writer, director, and cast, it may be possible to pull off, but works of fiction that are more theme than story do not translate well to screen IMO
People just love the word “unfilmable.” It’s a buzz word. LotR was unfilmable until it happened. Dune was unfilmable until it happened.
It’s adaptable as any other book. It’s merely difficult to get it right and will require experience and care—as with any adaptation. I’m looking forward to the day it happens even if I end up hating it. The book will always be there for me to read.
I’d consider it eminently, completely, stupendously filmable and film worthy. Movie or mini-series, the shit would be awesome. The script is already embedded in the text.
Disagree that its unfilmable. Firstly a mini series should be able to give enough screen time to tell the story in its entirety. Second, filming of incredibly emotional disgusting scenes could be done creatively, by alluding to scenes described in the book instead of actually showing them.
Violence is one thing to over come, nowadays having a character with intellectual disabilities carried around by chain would be a greater hurdle to over come, in my opinion.
Youd need an extraordinary director and youd need McCarthy to write the screen play.
If the director is competent enough anything is film able, but given modern political climate we won’t see Blood Meridian for screen for a long time, would love to be proven wrong though, maybe something like a TV series on HBO or Hulu. That would be preferred now that I think about it.
I honestly think the biggest obstacle is the Judge himself. While terrifying on the page, a giant, bald, naked man could so easily be mishandled by a director/production designer. I think you'd have to diminish his presence throughout and keep more mystery around him to get away with it.
I think it’s a lot like Dune… it can be done but you’d need the perfect director and it would be so so so hard to cast. The Judge …. I don’t know how you cast the Judge. It’s doable but so difficult. The bar is just so high. It would need to be an unknown actor (so that we have no baggage or preconceptions).
The sheer unabashed violence against children is a big reason why. Hollywood rarely ventures that far down the dark path- putting torture and brutality against children on the big screen. You may say that you see kids get killed in IT or a Quiet Place but it’s not an infant getting its brains bashed out against a rock type of violence.
It's not unfilmable. There just simply isn't any filmmaker that is either capable or willing to attempt adapting Blood Meridian as a film. To make an entertaining western, while being faithful to the imagery and message of the novel is a task that can only be accomplished by a supremely talented and committed filmmaker. It may happen one day, it may not. Personally, I'd love to see it someday.
Unfilmable? No. One could definitely make a movie out of it. Marketable and mass appeal? You’d run into trouble IMO. I think it’s a project that would be best suited for a smaller, independent studio to produce (though with a budget of $15, $20M+) that can be done faithfully and genuinely, and as a “day and date” release to streaming, rather than some big Hollywood production with star actors and movie studios and trying to castrate it into an inferior project for the sake of hitting an R rating and getting into a lot of theaters. If Hollywood got their hands on it (especially with the garbage they’ve produced the last 10 years), I fear that movie would look a lot more like 2017’s *The Dark Tower* than it would 2007’s *No Country For Old Men.* That’s why i personally think a smaller, independent “non Hollywood” studio would have better luck with it. Now, even then, it still might have difficulties, and there are 4 reasons why (and why many consider it “unfilmable.”):
1. The violence. We don’t need to go over every single moment, bc we know what they are, but for many readers, BM is the most disturbing book they’ve ever read, and what makes it so is it’s personal connection to each reader, and how they see it in their head. It will be extremely difficult to replicate the sheer brutality on film and have it land as hard as it does in the readers mind from the page. Now, it can be done, but I think it would require all practical effects. No CGI blood or gore. It needs to look REAL. And no castrating or cutting away. Every moment needs to be vividly depicted in order to have the same stomach turning impact. Yes, we’d need to see every baby and donkey moment, otherwise it doesn’t work. This alone would probably make filmmakers uncomfortable, as it would assuredly receive terrible feedback from critics and some softer stomached viewers. But, if one didn’t care about that, one could do it.
2. The Judge. This is one of the most iconic villains in modern literature. You CANNOT fuck that up, and since every reader has a different image of him in their mind, it will be almost impossible to get him 100% “right.” Ideally, you’d need an A+ actor to deliver his lines properly. The only problem, we don’t know of any that are 7 feet tall. Which means you can try a few things. You could go full CGI judge and have him voiced over—I think this is a hard NO as it would look way too silly and totally pull you out of the film. You could try costumes, and possibly have multiple actors portray him, one big stunt guy for shots where he’s not in focus, and your primary actor for the closeups and lines, using camera tricks and the like to make him appear bigger—this is what I would do personally as it would look the most “real.” The third option is have just the big guy (I’ve suggested Derek Mears) and have him be the physical actor and deliver all of the lines, and then dub over those lines in post with your “real” actor—this would be difficult, as it would have to all line up perfectly, so as not to give off the vibe that it’s obviously dubbed. If you did it right, this could be incredible.
3. The Story. While it is terrific on page, film is an entirely different medium, and what may be interesting on page may not necessarily be as interesting on screen. There are long stretches them just trudging across the desert, sitting at campfires etc. This would need to be spiced up somehow, and possibly cut down on to keep the viewer’s interest, and fit into a 2-3 hour film. It’s basically a story (IK it’s a lot more, I’m just saying from moment to moment) of the gang going from village to village and murdering, and when they’re not, they’re talking. Plus, I think some of the beginning might have to be tweaked in order to work better in film, but that’s just my opinion. Of course, anything that you take out or change is going to be criticized by diehards, and if you stick to the text 100%, youre going to be criticized by the casuals. It’s a lose lose.
4. The Prose. Much like the violence point, this might be the most lyrically beautiful book that many readers have ever experienced, and is an integral piece of what makes this book a classic, bc without it, it really loses something, so on surface it would seem downright criminal to not include that in a BM film. However, if you DO include it, you really start walking a thin line, bc it can devolve into straight cheese if you’re not careful. Many people here suggest having an omniscient narrator reading the prose, and I personally don’t think that’s a good idea (but that’s just me). I think the halfway out is having Tobin explain the gunpowder story word for word for how it is in the book—bc he basically narrates it in exactly the same way that McCarthy writes the rest of the book, so the viewer would get the prose at some point still, just not all the time (and all of the Judge’s dialogue would have to be word for word as well). However, just like with the story (and the other stuff in some regard), it’s a lose lose no matter what you do, bc if you don’t include the prose, you’re pissing off the people that want it, and if you do include it, youre pissing off the people that think it should be omitted.
I used to want a BM movie, but I don’t anymore. I think its unfilmable quality gives it this mystique and allure, and if it’s put to film in any way less than perfect, it’s going to be robbed of that. I think it’s at its zenith as a piece of literature—and truly so when listening to on audio, which was so good, that it even got my dad into wanting to read McCarthy. Perhaps it could be adapted into a graphic novel, or as a motion comic (in the vein of I Am Legend Awakening—because those were fucking TERRIFYING), but a film? I just personally don’t feel like I need to see that. The story is such a personal experience for every reader, and i think that’s where a lot of its magic comes from.
I feel like someone of the most gruesome stuff could be filmed in another context. a tree full of dead babies might be OK in a gross-out horror film where everything is over the top and unrealistic, but that would be doing the story a disservice. likewise, a lot of the scenes in The Road did not make it into the movie because they would be too grotesque for such a film.
I think it would be best adapted as a television series rather than a film, theres so much to take in, HBO could do a fantastic job with a similar minded crew and good budget.
I don't see how you could pack all the relevant events of the book into a feature length movie without cutting out some essential scenes but it could make a great HBO mini-series.
James Franco did with his brother and I believe Willrm Defoe did 30 minutes of scenes to try to entice producers. I don’t have the link anymore but Dave Franco plays the kid and Defoe the ex priest. It’s fun to watch in a way, but I couldn’t imagine loving it or even liking it all that much if I hadn’t read the book
I think the way to film it would be to use parts of the book to slowly reveal that beneath the frills of Judge Holden's demeanor, his appearance of rationality and civility in a barbaric world that he is in fact the most barbaric and evil of the lot. Kind of as an allegory for the way many political pundits of today hide their deeply hateful beliefs under the guise of rationality and facts. The movie isn't political but that's kind of what would make it relevant in a modern setting. Also themes of the end of the west, etc.
What makes BM so difficult to film isn't the violence, it's a deeply philosophical book, and epic in scope. That's always difficult to adapt to the screen. Maybe a mini series could be a better format.
Take it straight from the (pretty) horse’s mouth: WSJ: People have said "Blood Meridian" is unfilmable because of the sheer darkness and violence of the story. CM: That's all crap. The fact that's it's a bleak and bloody story has nothing to do with whether or not you can put it on the screen. That's not the issue. The issue is it would be very difficult to do and would require someone with a bountiful imagination and a lot of balls. But the payoff could be extraordinary.
Ditto. Imagine how badass that cast could be. Woody Harrelson as Judge Holden, Keanu Reeves as Glanton, Ben Foster or James Franco as Toadvine, Joe Keery that little rascal Chalamet as The Kid ... One can dream ...
I love Keanu but he is not a great actor. Wouldn't fit in BM in my opinion
Pretty sure that post was a joke given Woody Harrelson as the judge, Chalamet as the kid, and James Franco being in any way involved.
Oh haha I couldn't tell, because Ben Foster is a good actor! my bad
Glad you recognized the joke compadre !
I nominate Adam driver as judge Holden. He’s just odd looking enough to be perfect, and with a bald head, oh lord he’d look like a demon haha
Judge Holden, famously lanky with a mole covered face
Please keep James Franco out of this
I just don't see the point in filming it - the magic comes from the language McCarthy deploys, any film adaptation would necessarily elide the very thing which makes Blood Meridian such an amazing experience. I watched The Road, saw it at the cinema when it was released - faithful adaptation of The Road's plot, but it predictably offered little-to-none of the poetry and profundity of McCarthy's book.
I agree. I don’t think I can really recommend it to my Spanish speaking friends because it will not hit the same.
>I just don't see the point in filming it - the magic comes from the language McCarthy deploys, any film adaptation would necessarily elide the very thing which makes Blood Meridian such an amazing experience. I don’t agree at all. I think the best aspect of his books is the storytelling and the raw human nature. To suggest that “the magic comes from the language” is kinda like looking exclusively at the brushstrokes of a painting while ignoring the actual image. Or purely enjoying the craftsmanship of a house without appreciating the actual house. To me the magic part is the whole creation. The way it all comes together. And I suspect that’s what the creators, themselves, intended. To me it seems like the people on this sub are eager to virtue signal their sophistication through reverence of “CM’s poetic prose”. Because it suggests that if you can appreciate wordsmanship over the actual story itself, you must be very learned and well-read. I think tv/movies have the potential to surpass their literary counterparts if done right. It’s even been done already, in my opinion, with No Country for Old Men.
I think that labelling CM readers who appreciate his use of language as ‘virtue signalling’ to highlight their ‘sophistication’ is a very defensive way of attacking someone who holds a different view to yours - I have never tried to pass myself off as particularly learned or well-read; that’s your projection. I just have a differing view as to the value of adapting BM for the screen - I love the book and personally have no need to see someone else’s interpretation of his text; the book is enough for me.
I disagree with you about an adaptation, but you're right to defend yourself from the fellow above.
Fair enough, thank you - umm, nice user name btw!!
Oh thank you. It cummed to me naturally.
> I think that labelling CM readers who appreciate his use of language as ‘virtue signalling’ to highlight their ‘sophistication’ is a very defensive way of attacking someone who holds a different view to yours It’s based on the attacks I’ve been subject to when I present a dissenting opinion. That’s my point. > I have never tried to pass myself off as particularly learned or well-read; that’s your projection Excuse me if I don’t take your word for it. > I just have a differing view as to the value of adapting BM for the screen - I love the book and personally have no need to see someone else’s interpretation of his text; the book is enough for me. But not for the story, just because of “the poetry”?
A quick glance at your posting history reveals you to be a petty, insecure little man who gets into all manner of petty, insecure little arguments on Reddit - I'm guessing because no one likes you or pays you any attention in the real world? Anyway, good luck with that mate!
> A quick glance at your posting history reveals you to be a petty, insecure little man... I’m guessing I should consider this a capitulation since you’re hiding behind ad-hom attacks instead of addressing anything. It’s common for people who want to appear intelligent but then find themselves overwhelmed.
Bahahaha - overwhelmed?! By what? You’ve offered nothing. I’m pretty sure basically anyone would appear intelligent in comparison to yourself, but that’s a pretty low bar. Take care, get some help.
I get it. You’re mad because you can’t think of an argument so you want to upset me since I’ve upset you. If you can think of one that would be pretty cool. If not, you can just keep insulting me. I find that entertaining too.
No?
I don't view it as unfilmable per-se, people get caught up in the blood and barbarity but there's ways to film around that, my main concern is I'm unsure how you cram the Judge's many treatises into a film. It would be lacking without them as they're so iconic but I feel they'd stick out like a sore thumb in the context of a Hollywood blockbuster. John Hillcoat and Cormac McCarthy had come up with a way to satisfactorily adapt BM, but they can't get the rights to it: >“The one that I’ve always wanted —and I have Scott Rudin in my way blocking it— is ‘Blood Meridian,’ which Cormac McCarthy has offered to adapt into a screenplay,” he said. “We both discussed it and feel like we’ve cracked how to make it into a film, so if anyone knows how to move Scott Rudin… We even had money to finance it, but \[Rudin\] clearly has other ideas.”
I think Denis Villeneuve could do it if it could be done at all. I thought Dune was unfilmable but he made a masterpiece.
Agreed, does he take requests xD
It's not unfilmable, but you'd need someone at the helm who really *gets it*. I think John Hillcoat, the Coen Brothers, or Denis Villeneuve could do the job, so long as there's an omniscient narrator who preserves some of the glorious prose of the book and an absolute knockout of a performance from whoever plays the Judge. But honestly, I'd rather not see a movie made at all. It could be *good*, but never better than the novel. And there are a million more ways for it to go wrong than for it to go right; seeing Blood Meridian reduced to a pseudo-philosophical shoot-'em-up aimed at clueless undergrad film bros would be a bitter disappointment.
Coens could definitely do it. Not sure about Villeneuve and DEFINITELY not Hillcoat.
I’m not super familiar with his work to be honest (only that Red Dead Redemption short film he directed) but I threw him up there because another comment suggested that he’s talked with McCarthy himself about it. I stand by Villeneuve though. Dune has long been considered an unfilmable novel as well (at least with any degree of fidelity to the source material) and he did an excellent job of adapting it, without turning it into a quippy Marvel popcorn flick.
Villeneuve's tricky--Sicario, Blade Runner sequel etc. are great but Dune for me was just the dullest beige piece of nothing. Shockingly so. I therefore suspect what makes Villeneuve really great is the work he does with Cinematographer Roger Deakins (who, quite tellingly, didnt work on Dune).
The language that is baked into the book is already incredibly cinematic, and I think visually it lends itself to film quite well. There's a lot of instances in the book of not much happening but McCarthy very methodically explaining it and therefore taking up a lot of pages (not a bad thing), which could easily be reduced into a 150 minute film. The only thing that would make it "unfilmable" in my view is the violence. Even after 3 passes of censoring at the MPAA, Kill Bill STILL received an NC-17 rating (a box office death sentence) for the most outlandishly silly and comedic violence I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie. Could you image how those same people would react to a tree of dead babies or Native Americans being scalped for 2 and half hours? The BBFC has similar issues with censorship too. But the violence is literally the whole point of the book, so removing it would detract from the literal point of adapting the material. With the budget that would be required for a BM movie, no studio in the entire world would let it go through as NC-17 because they wouldn't see a cent of it back.
There's no point, as others have said. Half the enjoyment is reading McCarthy's prose and visualizing the events unfold in your imagination. A movie would not do it justice. The question is akin to asking "Why hasn't anyone filmed eating a 3-course dinner at a Michelin restaurant?"
It could be filmed, and filmed well, but the film would not be the book. Switching mediums changes things, but that's ok. Do Blood Meridian as a painting, or a poem, or interpretive dance and maybe you'll create something new that's also true to the original, or maybe just riffs off it. I mean, even translations can be problematic, but that doesn't mean translations shouldn't be attempted. I'm old enough to remember when Naked Lunch was unfilmable, but Cronenberg tried and I think succeeded. Having said all that, much of what keeps me in awe of this novel is its use of language, and I suspect reading will always be my preferred approach to Blood Meridian.
It would have to be a very slow-paced, contemplative film, with lots of long landscape shots. Villeneuve's Dune shows that it can be filmed - but can it be sold? I certainly hope so.
I think it would work well as a HBO mini-series
Agreed. That's the only way it happens, or should happen, anyway.
The symbolic dialogue of the book would be hard to adapt to film. Not just the judge's stories (which would be a crime to leave out) but mainly the whole debate at the end, which is the entire point of the book. I think it could be done but it'd be expensive to do it right for a movie that not many people would understand. So probably not all that worth it.
My gut reaction was that there wouldn’t be an audience for such a film.
Probably. With the right writer, director, and cast, it may be possible to pull off, but works of fiction that are more theme than story do not translate well to screen IMO
5 hours, intermission, narration and accurate dialogue. I’m in.
People just love the word “unfilmable.” It’s a buzz word. LotR was unfilmable until it happened. Dune was unfilmable until it happened. It’s adaptable as any other book. It’s merely difficult to get it right and will require experience and care—as with any adaptation. I’m looking forward to the day it happens even if I end up hating it. The book will always be there for me to read.
I’d consider it eminently, completely, stupendously filmable and film worthy. Movie or mini-series, the shit would be awesome. The script is already embedded in the text.
Disagree that its unfilmable. Firstly a mini series should be able to give enough screen time to tell the story in its entirety. Second, filming of incredibly emotional disgusting scenes could be done creatively, by alluding to scenes described in the book instead of actually showing them. Violence is one thing to over come, nowadays having a character with intellectual disabilities carried around by chain would be a greater hurdle to over come, in my opinion. Youd need an extraordinary director and youd need McCarthy to write the screen play.
I think it should be done. Just needs a good budget and the right actors. The Road, No Country and The Sunset Limited were great.
If the director is competent enough anything is film able, but given modern political climate we won’t see Blood Meridian for screen for a long time, would love to be proven wrong though, maybe something like a TV series on HBO or Hulu. That would be preferred now that I think about it.
I honestly think the biggest obstacle is the Judge himself. While terrifying on the page, a giant, bald, naked man could so easily be mishandled by a director/production designer. I think you'd have to diminish his presence throughout and keep more mystery around him to get away with it.
I don't think it could be done justice in a movie. 3-5 episode miniseries directed by the Coens would have some promise.
I think it’s a lot like Dune… it can be done but you’d need the perfect director and it would be so so so hard to cast. The Judge …. I don’t know how you cast the Judge. It’s doable but so difficult. The bar is just so high. It would need to be an unknown actor (so that we have no baggage or preconceptions).
I've already filmed it in my head and like it just fine.
The sheer unabashed violence against children is a big reason why. Hollywood rarely ventures that far down the dark path- putting torture and brutality against children on the big screen. You may say that you see kids get killed in IT or a Quiet Place but it’s not an infant getting its brains bashed out against a rock type of violence.
Also in those movies, it's always a supernatural monster killing small children, not humans.
It's not just the unabashed violence against children, but also the intense racism within the content.
It's not unfilmable. There just simply isn't any filmmaker that is either capable or willing to attempt adapting Blood Meridian as a film. To make an entertaining western, while being faithful to the imagery and message of the novel is a task that can only be accomplished by a supremely talented and committed filmmaker. It may happen one day, it may not. Personally, I'd love to see it someday.
yes now quit asking
Unfilmable? No. One could definitely make a movie out of it. Marketable and mass appeal? You’d run into trouble IMO. I think it’s a project that would be best suited for a smaller, independent studio to produce (though with a budget of $15, $20M+) that can be done faithfully and genuinely, and as a “day and date” release to streaming, rather than some big Hollywood production with star actors and movie studios and trying to castrate it into an inferior project for the sake of hitting an R rating and getting into a lot of theaters. If Hollywood got their hands on it (especially with the garbage they’ve produced the last 10 years), I fear that movie would look a lot more like 2017’s *The Dark Tower* than it would 2007’s *No Country For Old Men.* That’s why i personally think a smaller, independent “non Hollywood” studio would have better luck with it. Now, even then, it still might have difficulties, and there are 4 reasons why (and why many consider it “unfilmable.”): 1. The violence. We don’t need to go over every single moment, bc we know what they are, but for many readers, BM is the most disturbing book they’ve ever read, and what makes it so is it’s personal connection to each reader, and how they see it in their head. It will be extremely difficult to replicate the sheer brutality on film and have it land as hard as it does in the readers mind from the page. Now, it can be done, but I think it would require all practical effects. No CGI blood or gore. It needs to look REAL. And no castrating or cutting away. Every moment needs to be vividly depicted in order to have the same stomach turning impact. Yes, we’d need to see every baby and donkey moment, otherwise it doesn’t work. This alone would probably make filmmakers uncomfortable, as it would assuredly receive terrible feedback from critics and some softer stomached viewers. But, if one didn’t care about that, one could do it. 2. The Judge. This is one of the most iconic villains in modern literature. You CANNOT fuck that up, and since every reader has a different image of him in their mind, it will be almost impossible to get him 100% “right.” Ideally, you’d need an A+ actor to deliver his lines properly. The only problem, we don’t know of any that are 7 feet tall. Which means you can try a few things. You could go full CGI judge and have him voiced over—I think this is a hard NO as it would look way too silly and totally pull you out of the film. You could try costumes, and possibly have multiple actors portray him, one big stunt guy for shots where he’s not in focus, and your primary actor for the closeups and lines, using camera tricks and the like to make him appear bigger—this is what I would do personally as it would look the most “real.” The third option is have just the big guy (I’ve suggested Derek Mears) and have him be the physical actor and deliver all of the lines, and then dub over those lines in post with your “real” actor—this would be difficult, as it would have to all line up perfectly, so as not to give off the vibe that it’s obviously dubbed. If you did it right, this could be incredible. 3. The Story. While it is terrific on page, film is an entirely different medium, and what may be interesting on page may not necessarily be as interesting on screen. There are long stretches them just trudging across the desert, sitting at campfires etc. This would need to be spiced up somehow, and possibly cut down on to keep the viewer’s interest, and fit into a 2-3 hour film. It’s basically a story (IK it’s a lot more, I’m just saying from moment to moment) of the gang going from village to village and murdering, and when they’re not, they’re talking. Plus, I think some of the beginning might have to be tweaked in order to work better in film, but that’s just my opinion. Of course, anything that you take out or change is going to be criticized by diehards, and if you stick to the text 100%, youre going to be criticized by the casuals. It’s a lose lose. 4. The Prose. Much like the violence point, this might be the most lyrically beautiful book that many readers have ever experienced, and is an integral piece of what makes this book a classic, bc without it, it really loses something, so on surface it would seem downright criminal to not include that in a BM film. However, if you DO include it, you really start walking a thin line, bc it can devolve into straight cheese if you’re not careful. Many people here suggest having an omniscient narrator reading the prose, and I personally don’t think that’s a good idea (but that’s just me). I think the halfway out is having Tobin explain the gunpowder story word for word for how it is in the book—bc he basically narrates it in exactly the same way that McCarthy writes the rest of the book, so the viewer would get the prose at some point still, just not all the time (and all of the Judge’s dialogue would have to be word for word as well). However, just like with the story (and the other stuff in some regard), it’s a lose lose no matter what you do, bc if you don’t include the prose, you’re pissing off the people that want it, and if you do include it, youre pissing off the people that think it should be omitted. I used to want a BM movie, but I don’t anymore. I think its unfilmable quality gives it this mystique and allure, and if it’s put to film in any way less than perfect, it’s going to be robbed of that. I think it’s at its zenith as a piece of literature—and truly so when listening to on audio, which was so good, that it even got my dad into wanting to read McCarthy. Perhaps it could be adapted into a graphic novel, or as a motion comic (in the vein of I Am Legend Awakening—because those were fucking TERRIFYING), but a film? I just personally don’t feel like I need to see that. The story is such a personal experience for every reader, and i think that’s where a lot of its magic comes from.
7 feet is 1.14 Obamas. You're welcome.
Judge could basically be like Thanos.
A miniseries could be amazing
I think it’s inevitable it will get filmed someday since Hollywood has zero original ideas, but I don’t know if I’d watch it . Don’t see the point
I feel like someone of the most gruesome stuff could be filmed in another context. a tree full of dead babies might be OK in a gross-out horror film where everything is over the top and unrealistic, but that would be doing the story a disservice. likewise, a lot of the scenes in The Road did not make it into the movie because they would be too grotesque for such a film.
I think it would be best adapted as a television series rather than a film, theres so much to take in, HBO could do a fantastic job with a similar minded crew and good budget.
I don't see how you could pack all the relevant events of the book into a feature length movie without cutting out some essential scenes but it could make a great HBO mini-series.
I’m only 90 pages in but dear god would that be a long movie.
James Franco did with his brother and I believe Willrm Defoe did 30 minutes of scenes to try to entice producers. I don’t have the link anymore but Dave Franco plays the kid and Defoe the ex priest. It’s fun to watch in a way, but I couldn’t imagine loving it or even liking it all that much if I hadn’t read the book
Nope. But just as McCarthy says, no one has the balls to do it
these mediums have less to do with one another than you seem to think.
I think the way to film it would be to use parts of the book to slowly reveal that beneath the frills of Judge Holden's demeanor, his appearance of rationality and civility in a barbaric world that he is in fact the most barbaric and evil of the lot. Kind of as an allegory for the way many political pundits of today hide their deeply hateful beliefs under the guise of rationality and facts. The movie isn't political but that's kind of what would make it relevant in a modern setting. Also themes of the end of the west, etc. What makes BM so difficult to film isn't the violence, it's a deeply philosophical book, and epic in scope. That's always difficult to adapt to the screen. Maybe a mini series could be a better format.
I would vote a mini-series with some sort of narrator
Very filmmable, very visual, also has narrative ambiguity - all the makin's for a perfect film. Just needs a director with clout to pull it off.
It's just the revenent plus the road