I find rather funny the debates about ‘what was better – the book or the film inspired by the book?’. It’s like comparing apples and oranges in my opinion. Literature and cinema are different arts, they use different means to express emotions or trigger thoughts, and books and movies cannot be judged using the same criteria. We can however compare the feelings and the memories we are left with after reading a book and seeing a film inspired by the same book. From this point of view my memories about the charming book that Patrick DeWitt wrote about the two brothers who used to be paid assassins in the Far West of the 1850s exceed by far my feelings after seeing ‘The Sisters Brothers‘ movie which is bringing to screen the same story is based on the same book. Much of the humor, complexity of the characters, their stories and family background, as well as the light atmosphere of the book went loss in translation, and not enough was added instead. A few years ago, when I read the book and I wrote about it, I was guessing who would be the best directors to undertake the task of bringing the story to the big screens. Tarantino? The Coen brothers? Unfortunately (IMO, of course) it’s the French director Jacques Audiard who undertook the task.
I am wondering why the French director whose some of the other works I liked a lot decided to make this film. Maybe I shouldn’t. Jacques Audiard is a complex film maker who explored different genres. In some of his ‘black’ action films he used themes and techniques imported from the American gangster movies, now he may have crossed the Atlantic with the good intentions to make a film at Hollywood, in the most American of the cinematographic genres, the Western, by using some of the methods of the European art cinema. It’s an interesting proposal, but the result is not that exciting, especially taking into account that Audiard enrolled some serious acting talents like John C. Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix and Jake Gyllenhaal in his exercise.
What I liked. John C. Reilly gets a great lead role and he deserves it for a long time, after many secondary character heroes that he brought to screen. His role is complex and developing as the story advances. Not so for the other roles which are more uni-dimensional, although seeing Joaquin Phoenix or Jake Gyllenhaal is always a feast and seeing both of them in the same movie is a double feast. Riz Ahmed completes a formidable quartet of actors who provide the best part of movie.
What I liked less. Most of the time, actually all the time with the exception of the scenes that take place outdoors in full daylight, the cinematography is dark and blurred, to the point of being confusing. While we learn gradually quite a lot about the characters, the process is slow to happen, and not fully accomplished. The final of the story makes a lot of sense in the book because by the time we reach it we know everything about the history and motivation of the characters. Not so in the film, the final actually may be a surprise that I doubt that many of the viewers who did not read the book will understand.
The western genre has its rules, and one of them is that one needs to be fast in deciding who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Gunmen paid with their lives being slow. Movie directors pay by making a film that cannot keep its viewers interested. Actually, if I am to resume what I felt at the end, it was that I have seen a boring western. Not really an achievement to be proud about, despite it’s many other qualities.