Child of God

Based in the novel of the same name written by Cormac McCarthy (No Country For Old Men, The Road). This is very dark film and certainly not for everyone, but I would recommend it to cinephiles based on the incredible, visceral performance by Haze. He is Lester Ballard. As despicable and vile as his behavior is, there is buried within him a human quality. He just wants what all humans desire – to be accepted and loved.

The film sticks very closely to the book, with only 2 scenes expanded from the original text. It is most definitely one of the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen. The direction is fairly solid, the use of long takes and natural action is apparent, making everything on-screen seem genuine. All of the camera work is hand-held, which can be disorienting at times but it, in a way, adds to the aesthetic of the film. The music used is subtle yet appropriate. Overall, like I said , a very dark film with very strong subject matter, but it's well done.

When word broke out that James Franco, wannabe wunderkind who has taken to adapting classic American literature to the big screen to, well, mixed results, would be adapting my favorite author's work, I prickled with righteous indignation. I don't care much for Franco and indeed find him to be a jack of all trades but indeed master of none: he is a subpar actor, his writing leaves a LOT to be desired, and his direction feels a little too over-reliant on flashy tics that add an unnecessary layer of pretension to the proceedings. And here he is, adapting the work of the master: Cormac McCarthy.

At first, Franco announced he would be tackling McCarthy's masterpiece, the ultraviolent scalp- hunter saga "Blood Meridian", but after a while, he decided to cut his teeth on a smaller -- but by no means lesser -- work of ol' Cormac's. And this is how he came to deliver "Child of God" onto the masses.

Despite its brevity, "Child of God" is by no means an accessible novel: it's lean, mean and has a soul blacker than night. The novel is just like its protagonist, Lester Ballard, a loner who skulks about the Tennessee backwoods like a dog suffering the early onset of rabies, indulging in varying degrees of vicious activities, from assault to necrophilia to, eventually, murder. Ballard is not your typical protagonist, and yet the way Cormac McCarthy approached him, he was made both revolting and at the same time strangely empathetic, as he managed to submerge the reader into Ballard's festering brain. "A child of God much like yourself" is how McCarthy's opening lines describe Ballard, signifying that the madness and malice that ferments within the man is a seed to be found in any of us. And despite its grim premise, "Child of God" is astoundingly, gut-bustingly funny, like the worst sort of dead-baby joke.

Unfortunately, I feel that Franco has missed the levity, instead emphasizing the straight serial- killer premise. This isn't to say that Franco doesn't hew close to the novel; if anything, he is a little too faithful, even relying on having blocks of text from the novel playing out on the screen. It's an admirable slice of avant-garde, even if I feel that Franco is forgetting the first rule of filmmaking: show, don't tell. Even though McCarthy's prose is magic, Franco should've known (as the Coen Brothers and John Hillcoat knew before him) that McCarthy's words can be translated visually to bring the same harrowing, to-the-bone effect.

That said, Franco does show a great deal of passion for the material. But even beyond the use of McCarthy's words, the most crucial aspect of an adaptation of "Child of God" is the man who will be playing Lester Ballard. And in this film, Ballard is played not by Franco, but by his buddy and frequent collaborator Scott Haze. Whether or not you approve of Haze's performance, you can't say he doesn't go for broke in his portrayal of Ballard. Haze's Ballard is beyond laconic; he speaks in strangled, guttural inarticulations that sound almost caveman-like. I do think that there are times that he lays it on a bit too thick, and I think his drooling, leering presence lacks any of the bizarre charm that made Ballard such a fascinatingly funny character in the book. Haze plays Ballard like a "Deliverance" refugee, and while it isn't bad work on its own, I do feel that Haze is a bit too superficial in his take on one of McCarthy's greatest creations. He makes up for it in intensity, though, gotta give him that.

It also doesn't help that Franco's film has a cheap aesthetic to it, lacking any of the grim Gothic atmosphere of the book. It's my biggest issue with Franco as a director: he has no real concept of effective mise-en-scene, instead opting to point the camera and let things play, cutting an odd times that feel far too arrhythmic to be deliberate. Much like last year's interesting-but- too-shallow "As I Lay Dying", Franco gets the story right but tells it in the most simple, A-to-B- to-C way possible. It's worth the watch for Haze's performance (and also for Tim Blake Nelson, who feels like he should've featured in any and every Cormac McCarthy film before this), but it only serves to prove that we're lucky that we dodged a "Blood Meridian" adaptation by James Franco.

Lester Ballard (Scott Haze) is a disturbed man living in the rural mountains of Tennessee in the 60s. His father killed himself and his mother ran away. His father's property is auctioned off and he becomes a recluse. He gets in trouble with Sheriff Fate (Tim Blake Nelson) after he struggled with a drunken woman. He steals and is a general nuisance. He runs across a young couple dead in their car. He has sex with the dead girl and steals her body away.

I think this is the only movie where a character is actually taking a dump. I've got to say that it's disturbing and gross. It sets the tone for the whole movie. Scott Haze is terrific in his performance. The main problem is that the movie is uninvolving. After awhile, Lester's insanity feels repetitive and lifeless. His isolation infiltrates into the movie. This movie needs more time for Sheriff Fate. I also wonder why the sheriff can't put him away longer and how bad the dead body smells. These are the little things that nag at me when the movie stops being compelling. James Franco's directions are workable but they need to energize the plot more.

well done, Mr. Franco. after watched this film, i have to say that you are indeed got something we called 'talent'. this film has put you in a totally different category and level. the original story created by the author of 'no country for old man' was such a weird one but in other word, a very very disturbing and sad one. we got a crazy, stone-cold bloody killer in 'no country for old man', now we got a half crazy, half idiotic lone-wolf-like loco hilly-billy roaming aimlessly day and night. we saw him gradually deteriorated, became crazier, became a more and more violent sociopath. he at first was not a rapist but was imprisoned as a rapist, that jail time had changed him into another unsalvageable rapist and a serial killer, an incurable social disease. Scott haze had successfully performed an Oscar level character, very convincing, very intense, very pitiful dejected person who step by step turned into a half human, half animal like tragic role. what made this novel and the adapted film unique is although the 'lester' guy did a lot of unthinkable crimes, we, the viewers, seemed not be able to hate him as we usually hate a vicious killer, murderer or a rapist. this character has gently affected us to sympathize him as a victimized victim. after watched this film, i have found that i could not judge or blame him as a bad person by all means, even he had caused lot of troubles and deaths, i seemed to still consider him as another kind of victim.

this is a great viewing experience.

This film is about a woodsman who is violent and lonesome. He is a disturbed individuals disowned and disliked by the village.

The main character is a man who is wildly different from the other villagers. He cannot relate to other people, and lives in a world of his own. Despite him being a child of God, his behavior becomes increasingly erratic and violent. He's not a character to like, and not just because of his horrid behavior but also of his appearance. I guess "Child of God" is a good film because it evokes a reaction in the mind of viewers, and provoke thoughts on how a person can descend to such lowly depths. It's not a film to like, but to admire for its artistic achievements.