Re you comment below:
> As I recall, Hemingway's "The Killers" bears
> resemblance to the
> movie, acting as little more than prologue. In the
> book, it's all about the
> waiting, knowing the killers are coming and not
> doing a damn thing about it.
> In the movie, it's all backstory and told almost
> completely in flashback.
Your memory's fairly accurate. However, I disagree that the
1946 film bears little or no resemblance to the story. In
fact the first 20 minutes is virtually a word-for-word replay
of the story. It IS treated as though it's the first chapter
of a novel, rather than a self-contained short story, but
it's a very faithful rendition.
What follows is, for all practical purposes, an original
screenplay, with Edmund O'Brien as a Continental Op-like
insurance investigator (another Hmmett/Hemingway connection,
though the character's resemblance to the Op may have been
coincidental) trying to fathom the reason's behind the
victim's murder. It's not Hemingway (though it does make use
of Hemingway's reference to the victim having been a
prizefighter), but it's very good. In fact I'd say it's one
of the best PI films ever made.
Hemingway is reported as having thought that THE KILLERS was
the best film adaptation of any of his work.
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # email@example.com. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Mar 2002 EST