top of page
Writer's pictureIona MacPherson

THE DEVIL ALL THE TIME. BOOK TO MOVIE, SUCCESSFUL?


I have chose to discuss The Devil All The Time, written by Donald Ray Pollock. The book was originally released on 12th July 2011, it was then made into a film and was released on the 16th September on Netflix and in select theatres. It was directed by Antonio Campus, and narrated by its original author. It is based around the time of World War 2 and the Vietnam War, it is set in a town called ‘Knockemstiff’, Ohio and its neighboring areas. It focuses on a young man named Arvin Russell and the wicked forces that are threatening him and his family, other prominent characters who’s stories we get an insight to include a sinful preacher Teagardin, a twisted couple, named Carl and Sandy, a corrupt sheriff, Lee Bodecker and the Lafferty brothers, Roy and Theodore.

The text revolves predominantly around a boy named Arvin Russell and while we learn a lot about the other characters throughout he remains in the centre. I feel like this has been quite successful in its effectiveness in being translated into film as everything is how imagined and the story remains relatively the same. However I believe some key scenes have been missed which didn’t affect the film from still successfully communicating the central themes, specific scenes were able to be left out without compromising the original themes throughout the story, I believe this is due to the condensed screen time there was only around 90 mins/ 2 hours of time to run with for a book that takes around 8 hours to read, so the actual story has been edited down due to this. An example of a scene/scenes that I felt shouldn’t have been excluded was Roy Lafferty and his brothers “story” within the book Roy’s story is put on hold after he leaves Lenora with Emma and we dive deeper into Sandy and Carls story, yet in the film Roy’s story is told all at once. Rather than his death starting off the violent streak at the ending of the book, Antonio has Roy “meet his fate” almost straight after he kills his wife Helen after trying to reconnect with god. The film then just takes away Donald’s further story of the two brothers, this doesn’t cause any implications to the actual story, but due to this we don’t have much of a connection to them and don’t feel much when he dies (as his disabled brother is left in the car we don’t actually know what happens to him) . The audience wasn’t given the chance to follow along with and to understand his character and his brothers manipulating tendencies. A few more scenes which come to mind are the human sacrifice, the story with jack the dog and how Arvin confronts the preacher. Again they don’t particularly impact the story itself, it would just have been a nice addition to the characters stories.

Within this book and film we see that they both follow the same complex, non-linear narrative structure. The book to screen adaption has been done in a true and accurate manor, in the way it has communicated the story. The book starts off with a prologue in 1957, but then actually starts in 1945, then jumps to 1948 then again to 1965 so it does follow a chronological timeline yet it remains unconventional due to the nature of the storyline, as it hops through different characters stories. The book is in 7 parts each part focusing in on a certain character/ characters story, the story and the book both flip back and forward in time as the narrative changes through Coal Creek, West Virginia and Knockemstiff. Each of these parts/storylines interlace with one another, these contrasting threads in due course become tied together. They do an amazing job twisting their way through each story to the finish in such a dark sinister manor exactly like in the book.

The voice and point of view within this film was omniscient, third person narration. It is very unusual kind of narration as it we have multiple types of narration happening. If we look at it from a technical standpoint with regards to the camera work, which was shot on a 35mm. The point of view that we watch is not from a character’s point of view it’s from like an audience point of view. So we have an omniscient observer, like someone sitting in the back of the car, so the camera and the audience take an omniscient position, but with the inclusion of the voice over. This means we also have a first person narration, but to make it even further complex he is not a character from within the story. Whereas in the book it is just 3rd person narration. The lighting in the movie always remained quite dark and sinister which of course aided to the dark aesthetic of the story itself.


The locations/ settings within the book to film I feel remained as true as they could’ve possibly been. They were as how imagined, the staple locations being the prayer log, the church and the graveyard was exactly as described even including small details like Lenora’s bible and picture of her mother she’d bring with her each day when visiting the grave. As for character representation I feel like they pretty much aced it other than both Preacher Teagardin (Robert) and Carl (Jason) being described as fat and unpleasant yet both these actors are not visually like that. As well as Helen (Mia) and Lenora (Eliza) being described in the book as unattractive and plain-faced yet in reality both Mia and Eliza are quite pretty. So although they might not physically match the character descriptions within the book they embody the roles accurately and embody the same emotions and characteristics. Another main factor in the book that was mandatory in being part of the film to secure the audience in being fully immersed was the southern accent due to where the characters are from, yet some of the actors such as Tom Holland are British so they involved a vocal coach/coaches in order to achieve the desired accent to fulfil the role. The overall tone and atmospheres are carried well from book to film remaining loyal to the dark, sinister and thrilling entities in the book such as the murderous aspects and violent killings/ dark religious sacrifices.

The genres in both the book and the film remain the same, crime, drama, mystery and thriller, it keeps its dark and sinister energies. The book also stayed true to the story in the ways that it is not going to make millions at box office, it’s not a flashy super hero, mainstream Hollywood blockbuster. It is more careful and considered and faithful to the original text. The casting choice was immaculate as they are exactly how I imagined after reading the book, I felt fully immersed into the story. The accents that some of the actors had to learn to sound like really finalised how perfectly cast it was as they fully embodied their specific characters. This is not the kind of film you would go and see on a Saturday night with your family or such as it’s dark, the themes and subject matter are all very dark. It will not appeal to all members of the family, as it’s a genre piece and doesn’t have broad appeal, it has a small specific target audience being those who like the dark subject matter. The actors themselves in the movie such as Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson and Sebastian Stan will bring an audience with them as most fans will watch anything with their favourite actors in it. Yet in this instance the movie was released within the pandemic so was unable to be released worldwide in cinemas, but was globally premiered on Netflix reaching the top 10 almost instantly. The marketing of the movie was very well thought out on social media, it got lots of engagement and articles written about it/ used the articles for marketing to build the hype. This wouldn’t have had much effect on the films box office as it would’ve never made top 10 in cinemas due to the dark subject matters which as previously mentioned only appeal to a fairly small demographic and target audience.

Inconclusion, I personally feel like this book to film adaption went relatively successfully. The themes, meaning and structure of the film was conveyed efficiently. The only thing I didn’t like was that some scenes that I believe would’ve been good to include were missed out, which led us to having a smaller understanding of some of the characters. The casting in my opinion was perfect and was exactly how I imagined them to be,they all portrayed their characters so well, and the accents were necessary to immerse yourself fully into the story.

4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page