-------Original Message------- From: JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
> Terrill,
Re your comments below:
> I don't think Altman has ever made such a
statement
> about THE LONG GOODBYE. I believe the mandate he
was
> given by the studio and the producers was that
he
> make "A Robert Altman FILM", which he
did.
"He made the statement by calling the film THE LONG GOODBYE,
crediting Chandler with the source material, and naming the
protagonist Philip Marlowe. All of that suggests a faithful
adaptation, the director's reputation notwithstanding."
He was hired to shoot a script (written by Leigh Brackett, so
you may also want to hurl some of your criticism her way)
based on a book. The fact that they updated the story so that
it takes place in the 70's should be your first clue, using
your own set of rules, that this might not necessarily be a
"faithful" adaption. Hiring Elliot Gould to play Marlowe
should be your second.
"Moreover, in the only previous novel adaptation he'd done
before GOODBYE (that I'm aware of, anyway), M*A*S*H, he WAS
faithful to the spirit, if not the absolute letter, of
Richard Hooker's book. And Richard Hooker ain't Chandler. So
there was not necessarily a clue to his unwillingness to
"play by anyone's rules" in his previous work.
This is an amazing statement. Altman not only strayed
far from Hooker's book, he was completely off the page of the
screenplay (which, ironically, went on to win the Academy
Award without the necessity of being used much by the
filmmakers. Altman is on record as saying he hated the
script). Altman broke so many rules shooting M.A.S.H. that
most people involved with the film thought he didn't know
what he was doing. Gould and Sutherland tried to get him
fired. Then everyone saw the movie and he was hailed a
"genius." By contrast, Altman stuck pretty close to
Brackett's screenplay, if not Chandler's book. (I've read
both.)
> I'm not sure how Altman got around this
supposed
> "obligation" and slipped past the "ethics" police
to
> use his own creativity on this project and bring
us
> one of the most original and interesting films
of
> its era (and a fantastic time capsule to boot),
but
> I'm sure glad he did.
"There's no need to make snide remarks about the
"ethics police." The original question was an ethical one. Is
an artist free to bring his own creativity to a work he
adapts? I was attempting to answer that question. If you're
glad that Altman felt free from the constraints of any
obligation to the source material he purported to be
adapting, so be it. If you feel ethics have no part in art,
that's fine too. But the original question seemed to be an
ethical one.
There's no need to be sarcastic because I offered an
opinion on an ethical question."
Jim, when you write a post as dogmatic as this, you might be
prepared for "snide remarks" and "sarcasm". Certainly I feel
ethics have a place in art. But you seem to live in a far
more rigid universe than I do. I don't think Altman did
anything unethical while making THE LONG GOODBYE. I think he
updated the story (and the character) to fit the times. You
act as if he committed a crime.
> It's certainly not a rare
> event when filmmakers don't "shoot the booK"
(it's
> more often the case than not), . . .
"They may not "'shoot the book,'" but, more often than not,
they at least stay within the framework of the spirit, if not
the letter, of the source material. Even SATAN MET A LADY was
closer to the spirit of THE MALTESE FALCON than Altman's LONG
GOODBYE was to Chandler's novel. "
I just watched SATAN MET A LADY a few weeks ago and was
amazed at how absolutely terrible it was. Agressively so.
There seemed to be more of an attempt to be making a "Thin
Man" type farce than a faithful adaption of Falcon. And
everyone involved was failing miserably on both counts. I
think you better take another look at this one before you
promote it.
"And what really irritate me is that he strayed from the
novel, not because of some overwhelming artistic vision, but
because he clearly disliked the novel, the character, and the
genre."
Is this your interpretation or Altman's actual
statement?
> And if you don't like his movie, you don't have
to
> watch it.
"I don't, and if you check the archives you'll see that I've
refrained from comment on the film for the most part. Even
here, my comment was less about the film, per se, than about
a filmmaker's responsibility to the source material he's
adapting, with Altman's film
(since that was the topic) used as an example of failing,
deliberately failing, that responsiblity."
Your post read as a general attack on Altman as an elitist
artist and a specific, vitriolic attack on THE LONG GOODBYE
as a film adaption. BTW, have you actually seen the film? And
was it recently or when it first came out? Maybe it is worth
another look.
"If Altman doesn't like the genre, and wants to show it up in
all its bourgeois phoniness, fine. It doesn't mean he's
ethically free (and his being an artist doesn't free him from
the restraints of honor, ethics, or morality) to take someone
else's work and trash it, under the guise of "adapting it,"
to make his point."
And you think I was being "snide" when I referred to the
"ethics police"? Many people (some even on this list) feel
Altman didn't "trash" the book. Some even think he classed it
up. I believe they are two different experiences, each with
their own specific pleasures.
> It shouldn't be an insult that it exists.
"You're right, it shouldn't be an insult. But it is.
Moreover, it's a deliberate, calculated insult. Insulting the
book, the character, the author, and the genre was Altman's
entire purpose."
Jim, I think you've taken the film, Robert Altman, and my
post, far too seriously. Sorry if I steamed you up.
TL
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. 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 : 21 Aug 2003 EDT