On the Road (Walter Salles)

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://www.slashfilm.com/on-road-trailer/)

I was wondering when this would come out.

The trailer is pretty generic, but Viggo Mortenson as William S. Burroughs is inspired casting.

[Boner M]

pretty generic
Walter Salles, yo.

[Irish]

Gotta disagree. Burroughs was a pencil necked geek, an east cost aristocrat, gay when it was more dangerous to be so, and a junkie and a thief. Morgen is a fine actor but all wrong for it; he's far too animalistic, masculine, and aggressive in his persona.

This movie is going to be pure shit. It'll go the same way as Henry and June, Howl, and Factotum --- movies based on unfilmable books. It'll WBify the source and rely heavily on Eureopean inspired, film school photography and direct quotes from the source.

The book has no plot. Its main attraction is in the use of language and the message, which was ground breaking 1957 but meaningless and naive in a post rave, TSA inspired world.

[Boner M]

Morgen
Vittosen Morgen?

[Irish]

Vittosen Morgen?

:lol: I blanked on his name and just winged it.

[Milky Joe]

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Agree with everything Irish said.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulllllllllll.

[Pop Trash]

Right, I mean as a story, On the Road aint so hot, but the prose and youthful exuberance for life is what makes it a classic. That prose will apparently be blasted out as a V.O. all through the movie, just making you want to go read the book. Cinematography is nice though. I'll give it that.

[Raiders]

Just reading Walter Salles' name bores me. It's true that this is a near-impossible book to film, but god why did it have to be him?

[Ezee E]

This has a wonderful cast of people we'll be hearing about for the next 20 years.

But yeesh, looks pretty boring.

...Just like the book.

[Morris Schæffer]

Don't think it looks bad. One thing I never realized is that there is such a thing as an Anti-Walter Salles group. I mean, wasn't Central Station supposed to be a critical darling? And deserved Oscar-winner?

[Raiders]

Don't think it looks bad. One thing I never realized is that there is such a thing as an Anti-Walter Salles group. I mean, wasn't Central Station supposed to be a critical darling? And deserved Oscar-winner?

Meh. It's a nice film and the performances are very good, but I wouldn't say it is anything terribly unique or special and something like Pixote is much more memorable. Plus, The Motorcycle Diaries is uber-dull. This looks to be much more like that film.

[number8]

NO.

[Qrazy]

I wasn't big on Motorcycle Diaries but from one film alone I don't feel I have any right to pass judgment on Salles. I'll see a few more first. I also don't agree the book is unfilmable at all. It certainly has verbal flourishes but it's also a very narratively driven novel with plenty of dialogue and set pieces.

[number8]

You didn't see the Dark Water remake?

[Qrazy]

You didn't see the Dark Water remake?

Nope, it was really bad?

[Grouchy]

I didn't like The Motorcycle Diaries either and Gael GarcÃ*a made for a terrible Che. Dark Water remake was ok.

This just looks too slick and Hollywood for a Beat movie. I haven't read the novel although I want to.

[Qrazy]

I didn't like The Motorcycle Diaries either and Gael GarcÃ*a made for a terrible Che. Dark Water remake was ok.

This just looks too slick and Hollywood for a Beat movie. I haven't read the novel although I want to.

It's a fast read, I think you'd like it. Not really great lit but it has it's place.

[megladon8]

I really don't get much at all from beatnik culture, this novel included.

[Irish]

I also don't agree the book is unfilmable at all. It certainly has verbal flourishes but it's also a very narratively driven novel with plenty of dialogue and set pieces.

No. Really? Just no.

The book is all about the spontaneous bop prosody bullshit Kerouac talked about for the rest of his life. It's beautifully done and almost borders on great poetry, but this book has no story. It's autobiographical fiction. In fact, the idea of narrative runs contrary to the book's message.

And set pieces? No. Memorable scenes (I just know they're going to do the cold cream in the car bit) isn't a set piece. This isn't Jerry Bruckheimer.

[Qrazy]

No. Really? Just no.

The book is all about the spontaneous bop prosody bullshit Kerouac talked about for the rest of his life. It's beautifully done and almost borders on great poetry, but this book has no story. It's autobiographical fiction. In fact, the idea of narrative runs contrary to the book's message.

And set pieces? No. Memorable scenes (I just know they're going to do the cold cream in the car bit) isn't a set piece. This isn't Jerry Bruckheimer.

It's full of characters dialoguing and travelling to different locations. Perhaps it doesn't have a story that you find interesting but it certainly has a story. To deny this is to be in utter ignorance of the words on the page.

Also...

"In film production, a setpiece is a scene or sequence of scenes the execution of which requires serious logistical planning and considerable expenditure of money. The term setpiece is often used more broadly to describe any important dramatic or comedic highpoint in a film or story, particularly those that provide some kind of dramatic payoff, resolution, or transition. Thus the term is often used to describe any scenes that are so essential to a film that they cannot be edited out or skipped in the shooting schedule without seriously damaging the integrity of the finished product."

"Alfred Hitchcock referred to setpieces as crescendoes or "bumps" and tried to put three of them in each of his movies. In Psycho, these are the shower murder, the murder on the stairs, and the discovery of "Mother". One of the most well known setpieces is the "Ride of the Valkyries" helicopter attack scene in Apocalypse Now."

---

In On the Road off the top of my head there's Market Street and Mexico.

[Ezee E]

Riding down the mountain with the car in neutral could be one.

There's most definitely a story btw.

[number8]

This is assuming that a book has to have an obvious narrative in order to be "filmable," which is of course nonsense.

[Qrazy]

This is assuming that a book has to have an obvious narrative in order to be "filmable," which is of course nonsense.

Heck they made a movie of Finnegan's Wake. I haven't seen it but lWilson85 back in the RT days liked it a lot.

[Irish]

It's full of characters dialoguing and travelling to different locations. Perhaps it doesn't have a story that you find interesting but it certainly has a story. To deny this is to be in utter ignorance of the words on the page.

Your definition of "story" is so broad as to be meaningless.

By these terms, I could narrate a series of vacation slides and call that a story. ("And here's a picture of Grandma on the beach. Seconds after this photo was taken, a seagull stole her hat. We chased it without luck, and later that night Gram had a terrible sunburn."). That's not a story, it's an anecdote.

Autobiographical novels are not self contained stories. Factotum, Tropic of Cancer, and On the Road rely completely on voice. They're heavy on internal dialogue and first person points of view. They're filled with unrelated anecdotes which play to a singular, thematic whole. They can be read out of order and still make sense, because each piece speaks to that whole. All of this plays to a novel's strengths as a medium.

Movies, on the other hand, rely completely on exterior action. There is no way to shove a camera into a character's head and roll film. But that's where autobiographical novels take place, the scope of a single person's mind. Movies cannot capture that, and that's why these kind of books are unfilmable.

Films require more than simply capturing any exterior action represented in the novel. Finnegan's Wake and Ulysses, both shot on film, fail as examples. By trying to capture that exterior action, the filmmakers misunderstand the point of the novel.

The act of simply committing something to celluloid doesn't make a movie in of itself.

[Irish]

Also, congratulations on being able to use Wikipedia. Your mother must be very proud.

There's a difference between act breaks and set pieces. In action movies, these can overlap, but in dialogue heavy, small, personal movies "set pieces" don't really exist.

The definition is narrower these days. From your quotation, the big reveal in Psycho wouldn't fit because that didn't take a lot of money or logistical planning to pull off.

Likewise in On the Road, there isn't a single event (outside of Ezee's cited car ride) that would qualify.

[Qrazy]

I used wikipedia because it is the simplest. I suggest you use any source at all to inform yourself on terminology so that you don't look like a complete fool the next time you engage in a conversation.


1a : a composition (as in literature, art, or music) executed in a fixed or ideal form often with studied artistry and brilliant effect
1b : a scene, depiction, speech, or event that is obviously designed to have an imposing effect

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/set%20piece

"SET-PIECE
A scene or sequence with escalated stakes and production values, as appropriate to the genre. For instance, in an action film, a set-piece might be a helicopter chase amid skyscrapers. In a musical, a set-piece might be a roller-blade dance number. In a high-concept comedy, a set piece might find the claustrophobic hero on an increasingly crowded bus, until he can’t take it anymore. Done right, set-pieces are moments you remember weeks after seeing a movie."

http://johnaugust.com/2004/mcguffin-and-set-piece-defined

"Set pieces vary according to genre. Consider “that� scene in “When Harry Met Sally�. It was vocal, unforgettable and funny. Perfect for a romantic comedy. As importantly, it defined the characters and theme of the film; namely whether men and women can really be friends. At the time it defined the morality of society, since men and women wanted to get married as soon as possible. It was a contemporary twist on the genre at the time.

Consider a key set piece in “The King’s Speech�; a crescendo, when King George VI makes his virtually stutter-free speech when war erupts between England and Germany. It is the pinnacle of the film, when King George VI overcomes his handicap, finds his courage and purpose and becomes a real king.

A major set piece in “The Social Network� occurs when Zuckerberg tries to friend his ex-girlfriend on facebook. Despite its subdued nature, it is critical to the movie because the socially inept guy creates a social revolution. His goal has been fulfilled and his character arc reaches its natural conclusion. Many films conclude with a set piece because it’s the last thing an audience sees before they leave the theater, assuming they leave without watching the credits."

http://gideonsway.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/what-is-a-movie-set-piece/

[Qrazy]

Your definition of "story" is so broad as to be meaningless.

By these terms, I could narrate a series of vacation slides and call that a story. ("And here's a picture of Grandma on the beach. Seconds after this photo was taken, a seagull stole her hat. We chased it without luck, and later that night Gram had a terrible sunburn."). That's not a story, it's an anecdote.

Autobiographical novels are not self contained stories. Factotum, Tropic of Cancer, and On the Road rely completely on voice. They're heavy on internal dialogue and first person points of view. They're filled with unrelated anecdotes which play to a singular, thematic whole. They can be read out of order and still make sense, because each piece speaks to that whole. All of this plays to a novel's strengths as a medium.

Movies, on the other hand, rely completely on exterior action. There is no way to shove a camera into a character's head and roll film. But that's where autobiographical novels take place, the scope of a single person's mind. Movies cannot capture that, and that's why these kind of books are unfilmable.


You really don't understand film, do you? The goal of the vast majority of interesting films is to imbue the audio-visual experience with a psychological component. Enter the Void and Tree of Life would be a few recent examples of this.

I'll break down On the Road's story for you since you didn't get it. At it's core it's about the friendship between two men and three journeys across the country. It's about how this friendship changes over time as a result of these journeys and the passage of time. They encounter a number of characters on their journey in this road movie, a surprisingly popular genre actually! Are all road movies plotless to you? It's also about the search for God.

Reichardt's Old Joy semi-recently tackled similar issues about the dissolution of a friendship.

[Irish]

SET-PIECE
A scene or sequence with escalated stakes and production values, as appropriate to the genre. For instance, in an action film, a set-piece might be a helicopter chase amid skyscrapers. In a musical, a set-piece might be a roller-blade dance number. In a high-concept comedy, a set piece might find the claustrophobic hero on an increasingly crowded bus, until he can’t take it anymore. Done right, set-pieces are moments you remember weeks after seeing a movie."

http://johnaugust.com/2004/mcguffin-and-set-piece-defined

This is the only definition that's worth a damn. The others conflate dramatic climaxes and act breaks with set piece, which I think is misguided and not entirely useful.

What's interesting in August's definition is how it related to the content of On the Road, which is not at all. The book doesn't contain big, complicated dance numbers or action sequences. Nothing in his entry contradicts what I said earlier, because the bulk of the novel doesn't involve more than half a a dozen people at any one time, and usually just two. (So there goes your logistics.)

Further, because the novel is plotless, it can't have heightened stakes because there aren't any stakes at all. That's partially the point of the thing: that you can get into your car and just go, without sacrificing your identity and relationships.

And not for nothing, but I can't think of a anything more foolish than an Internet pendant whose understanding is wholly limited to what he finds via Google.

Try more thinking and less copy pasting.

[Qrazy]

This is the only definition that's worth a damn. The others conflate dramatic climaxes and act breaks with set piece, which I think is misguided and not entirely useful.

What's interesting in August's definition is how it related to the content of On the Road, which is not at all. The book doesn't contain big, complicated dance numbers or action sequences. Nothing in his entry contradicts what I said earlier, because the bulk of the novel doesn't involve more than half a a dozen people at any one time, and usually just two. (So there goes your logistics.)

Further, because the novel is plotless, it can't have heightened stakes because there aren't any stakes at all. That's partially the point of the thing: that you can get into your car and just go, without sacrificing your identity and relationships.

And not for nothing, but I can't think of a anything more foolish than an Internet pendant whose understanding is wholly limited to what he finds via Google.

Try more thinking and less copy pasting.

Jesus Christ. A set-piece is a term which has a meaning which is NOT DEFINED BY YOU. I have cited you numerous sources which clarify what a set-piece is. Note the one in the quotation you left off, a character on an increasingly crowded bus. The execution of the scene expressing the increasing anxiety of the character is what creates the set piece. There doesn't have to be more than a half dozen people for it to be a set piece. The last set piece in The Terminator is a chase involving three people. The murder sequence in Psycho features two people, in fact most of Hitchcock's murder set pieces don't have many people.

This is my last post about this, I'm done explaining what a set-piece is to you, seeing as you are willfully ignorant.

[Irish]

You really don't understand film, do you? The goal of the vast majority of interesting films is to imbue the audio-visual experience with a psychological component. Enter the Void and Tree of Life would be a few recent examples of this.

First, "interesting" is debatable; that slides into the realm of personal opinion.

Second, this isn't that movie. When you cast Aragorn and Bella Swan, you're not trying to reach the Gaspar Noe crowd.

Third, this is based on one of the most famous American novels of the last century, as opposed to something written directly for the screen by the director.

The kind of movie you're taking about -- European inspired, small, art film -- has its place, and we can debate the values of those kinds of films, but that isn't this movie. (Or really, this book, because while the book is directionless, it isn't all that subtle.)


I'll break down On the Road's story for you since you didn't get it. At it's core it's about the friendship between two men and three journeys across the country. It's about how this friendship changes over time as a result of these journeys and the passage of time. They encounter a number of characters on their journey in this road movie, a surprisingly popular genre actually! Are all road movies plotless to you? It's also about the search for God.

You've got a chunk of story, some themes, and a premise. What you don't have is a movie.

Interesting interpretation, though, I guess. I think it's an altogether narrow view of the book.

[Derek]

The book is great, but definitely not unfilmable. Pretty sure Walter Salles will turn it into a dramatic flatline though, much like Motorcycle Diaries.

[Irish]

Jesus Christ. A set-piece is a term which has a meaning which is NOT DEFINED BY YOU. I have cited you numerous sources which clarify what a set-piece is. Note the one in the quotation you left off, a character on an increasingly crowded bus. The execution of the scene expressing the increasing anxiety of the character is what creates the set piece. There doesn't have to be more than a half dozen people for it to be a set piece. The last set piece in The Terminator is a chase involving three people. The murder sequence in Psycho features two people, in fact most of Hitchcock's murder set pieces don't have many people.

Unsurprisingly, in your typical Harold Beale "I'm right and I'm not going to take it anymore!" fashion, you've missed the point. Tantrum much? Does baby need his bottle?

If you say, well, a set piece is any scene which requires a bigger budget, a score of extras and walk ons, and a helluva lot of logistical planning (like the imagined bus scene or the diner bit in Harry Met Sally), then I challenge you to find anything in On the Road that really operates on that scale.

The problem I have with your defining "set piece" so broadly, across every genre, is that the term loses its meaning.

You'll notice (or wait, you didn't) that I didn't disagree with all of your references, just most of them. Again, look at August's definition and explain to me how that applies to a talky, character driven piece like Kerouac's novel.

PS: I look forward to the big dance number where Sal and Dean break out into a Buzby Berkeley inspired number, complete with back up dancers and a band. Good times.

[Raiders]

I always fail to see the reason why your conversations always devolve into rudeness and dickishness. There is most certainly a common denominator.

[Qrazy]

If you say, well, a set piece is any scene which requires a bigger budget, a score of extras and walk ons, and a helluva lot of logistical planning (like the imagined bus scene or the diner bit in Harry Met Sally), then I challenge you to find anything in On the Road that really operates on that scale.

I'm not defining a set piece that way, you are.

I already provided you with two such sequences.


The problem I have with your defining "set piece" so broadly, across every genre, is that the term loses its meaning.


It's not my definition, it's the definition of the term. Period.

[Qrazy]

Interesting interpretation, though, I guess. I think it's an altogether narrow view of the book.

It's not my view of the book, it's a clarification of the PLOT of the novel so that you can understand the story that will be told in the film.

[Irish]

I'm not defining a set piece that way, you are.

I already provided you with two such sequences.

Uh, no, I'm not. Several of your quoted references specifically mentioned budget and logistics. Part of logistics is dealing with a big group of extras and day players.

That's really the closest I can come to agreeing with you, thinking about stuff like the stateroom scene in A Night at the Opera.

And for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with On the Road.


It's not my definition, it's the definition of the term. Period.

This might come as a shock, but the ability to use Google & link to Wikipedia doesn't make you right.

In case that's not clear: Yes, I'm saying a few of your references are wrong, or at least misguided.

[Irish]

It's not my view of the book, it's a clarification of the PLOT of the novel so that you can understand the story that will be told in the film.

You weren't discussing the plot. The book has no real plot, and is driven purely by time. On the Road isn't about plot -- autobiographical novels, as a rule, aren't -- which is part of the reason it's unfilmable.

What you were talking about was a bit of story and a bunch of debatable themes.

--

Annnnnnnnnd here we go, gearing up for round #5 of Useless Semantic Arguments, with your host, Qrazy.

Ding Ding!

[Qrazy]

Uh, no, I'm not. Several of your quoted references specifically mentioned budget and logistics. Part of logistics is dealing with a big group of extras and day players.

That's really the closest I can come to agreeing with you, thinking about stuff like the stateroom scene in A Night at the Opera.

And for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with On the Road.



This might come as a shock, but the ability to use Google & link to Wikipedia doesn't make you right.

In case that's not clear: Yes, I'm saying a few of your references are wrong, or at least misguided.

Cool well you write some emails to wiki, merriam-webster, and a slew of other sources as to the definition of the term and be sure to let them know the way in which you define it so they can correct their entries.

[Irish]

Cool well you write some emails to wiki, merriam-webster, and a slew of other sources as to the definition of the term and be sure to let them know the way in which you define it so they can correct their entries.

Wait, just so we're clear --

You mean the Wiki, editable by anyone, overseen by pendants, in an article tht contradicts itself, references 50 year old films, and makes no allowances towards language changing over time?

Or the Wordpress hosted screenwriting blog written by a guy who, as far as I can tell, has no movie credits?

Or the Meriam definition which doesn't reference movies in is primary definition, but defines scenes of "imposing effect" so broadly it becomes meaningless?

Those are some ace sources right there, chief. I'll get right on that. In the meantime, you can post right here, right now, about how this has got anything to do with Kerouac's novel or the upcoming film.

[Qrazy]

Wait, just so we're clear --

You mean the Wiki, editable by anyone, overseen by pendants, in an article tht contradicts itself, references 50 year old films, and makes no allowances towards language changing over time?

Or the Wordpress hosted screenwriting blog written by a guy who, as far as I can tell, has no movie credits?

Or the Meriam definition which doesn't reference movies in is primary definition, but defines scenes of "imposing effect" so broadly it becomes meaningless?

Those are some ace sources right there, chief. I'll get right on that. In the meantime, you can post right here, right now, about how this has got anything to do with Kerouac's novel or the upcoming film.

Have fun slogging through countless definitions of the term which all affirm your ignorance. (https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=set+piece+film+definition&oq=set+piece+film+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=2104l17759l0l17956l6l6l 0l0l0l1l106l414l4.1l5l0&gs_l=hp.3..0i15.2104l17759l0l1 7956l6l6l0l0l0l1l106l414l4j1l5 l0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf .osb&fp=1262b3690f101b68&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1536&bih=746)

In relation to your bolded comment you are the one who initially attacked me concerning the definition of a set piece. Your bait and switch tactics and utterly hollow rhetorical devices may work on people who have shit for brains, but I don't, so better luck next time. You're going to need it.

[soitgoes...]

Annnnnnnnnd here we go, gearing up for round #5 of Useless Semantic Arguments, with your host, Qrazy.

Ding Ding!Against my better judgment, but you probably shouldn't have questioned his usage of certain words if you didn't want to get into an argument over semantics.

[Pop Trash]

GOOD READ YOU TWO! KEEP IT UP!

[Irish]

Have fun slogging through countless definitions of the term which all affirm your ignorance. (https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=set+piece+film+definition&oq=set+piece+film+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=2104l17759l0l17956l6l6l 0l0l0l1l106l414l4.1l5l0&gs_l=hp.3..0i15.2104l17759l0l1 7956l6l6l0l0l0l1l106l414l4j1l5 l0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf .osb&fp=1262b3690f101b68&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1536&bih=746)

In relation to your bolded comment you are the one who initially attacked me concerning the definition of a set piece. Your bait and switch tactics and utterly hollow rhetorical devices may work on people who have shit for brains, but I don't, so better luck next time. You're going to need it.

How lovely. In your almost autistic, machine like way, you've linked to Google yet again.

Nobody said you had shit for brains, Q., and I don't think you're stupid. Far from it. But you are tediously unimaginative and seem to lack the capacity for critical thought. Which in my mind is far worse than stupidity.

I'm not sure why you ascribe "bait and switch" tactics , or some kind of underhanded motive, to me. Do you think I'm trying to trick you? Are you really this paranoid?

I'm the one who attacked you? Listen, you intellectual pimple, when I attack you, you'll know it. I originally posted a terse response, where I thought you were waaaaay off the mark. That's an attack? What is this Mickey Mouse playground shit?

I noticed you've still yet to defend your statement that Kerouac's book is narratively driven, or chock full of "set pieces" in the context you've described. If the best you can do is continually link to Google, that's fine. There's a certain intellectual safety is reciting facts that never change (even when they're wrong).

But don't try to play like I'm the one here being intellectually dishonest, because we both know that's pure bullshit.

You forced the conversation into a corner, where it was safe for you, and made sure it wasn't about stories, ideas, novels or the movies, because those conversations require facilities which you do not have.

To play to your low abilities, I'll leave you with a Google link of my own. Happy clicking!

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=fuck+you+ya+cunt&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

[Kurosawa Fan]

Autobiographical novels are not self contained stories. Factotum, Tropic of Cancer, and On the Road rely completely on voice. They're heavy on internal dialogue and first person points of view. They're filled with unrelated anecdotes which play to a singular, thematic whole. They can be read out of order and still make sense, because each piece speaks to that whole. All of this plays to a novel's strengths as a medium.

Movies, on the other hand, rely completely on exterior action. There is no way to shove a camera into a character's head and roll film. But that's where autobiographical novels take place, the scope of a single person's mind. Movies cannot capture that, and that's why these kind of books are unfilmable.

I don't want to jump in the middle of this, but does this mean you believe Jane Eyre is unfilmable? Because that's just absurd. Fictional autobiography can most certainly be filmed, and done well.

[number8]

I quite liked the Tropic of Cancer movie. IIRC, Henry Miller did, too. Not as vivid as the book, obviously, but then again, even the so-called "filmable" novels rarely are, either.

[Melville]

Fictional autobiography can most certainly be filmed, and done well.
Yeah, but it has to be a small art film. And those don't count.

[Robby P]

What is an example of a novel that absolutely cannot be translated to film? I really can't think of one.

[number8]

What is an example of a novel that absolutely cannot be translated to film? I really can't think of one.

They've been trying to do Confederacy of Dunces for years. I still think it's doable, though.

Heck, I liked Tristam Shandy.

[Irish]

I don't want to jump in the middle of this, but does this mean you believe Jane Eyre is unfilmable? Because that's just absurd. Fictional autobiography can most certainly be filmed, and done well.

Entirely different. Books like Jane Eyre, Of Human Bondage, The Sun Also Rises, This Side of Paradise are fictions have their basis in their authors lives, but the stories are wholly fictionalized.

They are in a different class from the modern and post modern stuff like Tropic of Cancer, Factotum, and On the Road, where the lead characters are understood to be direct stand ins for the author, and the content is made up almost entirely of interior monologues and self reflection and almost operate more as straight memoir than novel. (They're also trying to serve a different purpose, between telling a straight narrative and playing with language or taking an entire book to underline a single theme. And let's face it: I don't think anyone has seriously confused Jacob Barnes for Ernest Hemingway or Jane Eyre for Charlotte Bronte, but Henry Miller goes so far as to call his lead Henry Miller and Bukowski made next to no effort to hide himself).

As a medium, the strength of a novel is directly opposed to film's biggest weakness. There can't be an 1:1 correlation. Two different mediums, two different sets of requirements and needs.

Sure, people can try and cheat it (hi, VO, good too see you again) but it never works.