The book
It was imensely superior to the movie, and was probably the greatest, or atleast the most emotional book ever written. If you haven't read it, read it, you won't regret it.
shareIt was imensely superior to the movie, and was probably the greatest, or atleast the most emotional book ever written. If you haven't read it, read it, you won't regret it.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I wish they had put in the movie the trouble Old Lodge Skins had with rabbits. It was in the book and was funny.
For people who don'y have the book the paragraph
.... but so ran his luck that he never saw any of the animal brothers that assisted his magic - such as Rattlesnake or Prairie Dog - but rather only Jackrabbit, who had a grudge against him of long standing because he once had kept a prairie fire off his camp by exhorting it to burn the hares' homes instead. Which it did, running away from his lodges after coming so close that the tepee-skins were scorched. Ever since the incident the rabbits all knew him, and when encountering him alone would stand up on them enormous legs and say: "We think bad thoughts for you." They would also call him by his real name, which is as malicious as you can get, and go bounding off, showing white or black tail as the case may be, for both families had it in for that particular Indian.share
And I say this: I never in my life saw more examples of that animal than when in the company of Old Lodge Skins. Let the toe of his moccasin protrude from the tepee, and up they'll leap for miles about, numerous as sparks when you throw a houseshoe in a forge.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I have read the book, after seeing the movie many times, and agree that they are both superb. I found the film more emotionally stirring, and the book more humorous.
I hadn't realized till I picked up the book that Thomas Berger had also written "Neighbors", upon which a (lame) film was based starring John Belushi. In that case, the book is excellent and the film pretty much blows.
One big difference between LBM, book vs. film, is that the book implies that Jack Crabb may be exaggerating, telling half-truths, or flat-out lying about certain parts of his story. That's why it comes off as a just-believable Tall Tale. However, I'm pretty sure that the film intends you to believe that every word Crabb says is true (at least in the world of the film).
Still, thoughm, that may reconcile the historical disputes some people have with this film--that is told thru the eyes of Crabb, who is a) 121 years old and b) biased and not an objective historian. I think the character of the historian is important in order to show the contrast between the academic researcher and the historical interviewee.
"They say God lives in the left eye of a woman. D'you think that's idolatry?"-- Pompatus of Love
every word as true?
Why is Cloud 9 so amazing? What is wrong with Cloud 8?