Vantage+Point

Well, I don't know if anyone else saw the movie //Vantage Point// that came out this weekend, but I couldn't help but think that the movie was based off Faulkner's unique narration technique. Basically, the President of the United States was murdered or so you think, but there were all these twists and turns. However, it is unlike most movies for you witness life beginning at 11:59:57 A.M. from the point of view of the President, a body guard, an assassin, a random man, etc. The movie begins from the exact same time in each of these characters' lives sort of like how several incidents are told several times but from different narrators in //As I Lay Dying.// In addition, in the movie you were forced to put each of the characters' stories together to figure out what actually happened just like in the book. Does anyone else see this connection? Do any other books or movies resemble this same narration technique? 1203990882

I also thought that this was an interesting way to tell a story. It is so unusual to have a story without the third person narrator, but I liked this technique because it allowed the reader to get into the minds of each character completely. With the third person narrator, there are times when we know what the characters are thinking, but it's not nearly as in depth as this writing style. And what allowed us to understand the character even further was with his changing writing styles for each character. It let us see not only what the character was thinking, but how he/she was thinking at each moment. 1203993148

I also saw the movie vantage point this weekend, what a coincidence. Anyway, I do see the connection. I couldn't help noticing the similarities in its reliance on the meshing of many different points of view on the same event. The movie kept jumping back to the assasination attempt, but each time it was new and you got more information about what really happened. It was very entertaining and I think "As I lay dying" was also entertaining for much of the same reason. When I was reading as I lay dying, I stoped taking things at face value. I began to mistrust certain characters and their points of view on different events of the novel. I was always dying to see another point of view to see what I missed. It was very suspenseful. In both vantage point, and as I lay dying, characters betrayed eachother that you thought were good. Some characters saw things that made them think the wrong things and only become more confused. It was great. I'm glad you posted this because I wouldn't have thought of it. The similarities are uncanny.1204052369

Good comparision, I've seen the previews but not the movie. I think it is a refeshing idea to tell a story from the perspective of more than one narrator. In the typical story, we are so often blinded by a narrator's bias (especially if it's written in first-person) that we don't get the real story most of the time. That was one of my favorite things about //As I Lay Dying//. Not only did the change in narration make the story go by a bit quicker for me, but it also showed us how different people saw the same event. We became more and more aware of certain people's biases as the story went on. For example, in the beginning, I thought that Cora Tull was a pretty reliable narrator, but I came to realize that she was judgmental and exaggerating. Perhaps the only way to really get the heart of the meaning of a story is to see it from multiple perspectives. 1204064504

I saw the movie this past weekend as well (and I thought it was excellent), but what perfect timing! It does remind me of the connection between all people involved in one event, such as the trip the Bundrens are on to bury Addie. I love the way the movie and the novel parallel when it comes to the different points of perspective and how each writer told the story. For the movie, we were taken back to the same moment every time we met a new character. In the novel, however, the timeline continues forward in each chapter. I don't know which one I like more at this moment, but I'd have to say that it does make a difference. What if Faulker had repeated the same event through six or seven different peoples' viewpoints every time something significant occurred? It might sound boring, but to think that "pieces" of a story would be missing without everyone's input. What do you think? 1204068748

I actually didn't end up seeing this movie this weekend, but I can see how it links up to the novel and I actually like this idea of different perspectives. As a reader, it kept me on my toes because I constantly had to remind myself as to who was talking, but it helped that each narrator had different subtleties about his chapters that helped differentiate the characters. Sometimes when I'm reading a book I might get bored because the story might start to drag, but I felt that even in the more mundane moments of the novel that the constant change in narration perspective kept me actively interested. It was nice to actually lose a singular narrator's bias and instead get the biases of I believe 15 different people with 15 different sets of feelings, goals, and thoughts on the events of the novel. Without this constant change in narration, I don't think we would have been able to understand Darl's "insanity" problems as well and we probably would have never been able to actually experience Addie's real feelings about marriage and her life as a Bundren. It was a refreshing way of writing a novel and I actually enjoyed it because the constant change in narration just somehow kept me interested and intrigued.1204079445

In response to Beth’s question, if Faulkner told the story through the narration of just one character I would have definitely been missing huge chunks of the story. If Anse just narrated we would have gotten a totally different picture of the events that transpired while on the way to Jefferson and if we had had Darl as the sole narrator we would have a better glimpse into his madness and the cause of it. Having different narrators also worked with what Faulkner wanted to do. Part of him wanted to show readers the type of people who lived down south in backwards parts of the country were and how they thought and interacted as well as the challenges they faced. By using different characters as narrators we got a broad range of points of views and Faulkner was able to show us all sorts of types of people who live in the backwards parts of the country. I think it would have been better in some ways to keep the characters narrating the same parts of the story. Like have Anse narrate his part and then Cash narrate the same events but from his perspective. I think we would have gotten a better glimpse into everyone’s personal perceptions and biases but in the interest of time, I think that it was necessary to keep the plotline moving through different events through different views. 1204151245

Actually, that's very interesting to think that some of the movies of today are borrowing strategies of some of the great writers of the past. I have not seen the movie, but from your description it sounds very similar, but is each vantage point shown for the same time period? If so, then I think there is a significant difference because for most of the events in the novel we are only allowed one viewpoint. Anyways, I do remember a similar topic that was started for this way back during Oedipus, comparing some of the great literary works to Disney movies and how they were influenced. It's nice to know that in our society that can be very ignorant of our pasts, that people still have the sense to learn from the past and fit it to today's needs.1204176573