Terill,
Re your comments below:
> 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.
Updating the film isn't, by definItion, unfaithful. MARLOWE,
an infinitely better film than TLG, was set in the late '60s
and still tried to be faithful to the novel. Gould is capable
of playing tough guys believably (e.g. that film he made with
Bobby Blake where they're both vice cops), so castin him is
no more of a clue that he means to be unfaithful than casting
Dick Powell (a pretty boy tenor in Busby Berkeley musicals
until MMS) was a clue that Dmytrick and Paxton were going to
savage and gut FAREWELL, MY LOVELY.
> This [M*A*S*H being a relatively faithful
> adaptation] 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.)
Hooker's book was, in tone, a fairly typical "miltary service
comedy" like MR. ROBERTS or SEE HERE, PRIVATE HARGROVE. The
movie that emerged was a well-done, service comedy, with
citizen-soldiers complaining about the Regular Army (just
like in the book), resisting authority (just like in the
book), cheating on their wives (just like in the book), and
trying to stay alive and sane in a dangerous situation (just
like in the book). For all the "counter-culture" references
and improvisational scenes, it remained faithful to its
genre, and, to a much greater degree that TLG, to its
source.
TLG, by contrast, turned Marlowe from a hero to a nebbish,
and made concepts like honor and courage seem outmoded and
useless.
> > 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.
> Jim, when you write a post as dogmatic as
this
> [re the ethics of adaptation], 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 think people charged with adapting a work to a different
medium have an responsibility to the original source
material. Altman doesn't. If that makes me rigid, then I'm
quite happy to be rigid.
> 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.
Not a crime. Just a sin.
> 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.
I wasn't promoting it. I was comparing it to Altman's TLG,
and pointing out that, even as bad as it was, it still was
closer to the spirit of Hammett's original novel that
Altman's version of TLG was to Chandler's.
> "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?
Altman, in interviews has talked referred to Marlowe as a
loser, and tut-tuts Chandler for making him seem like a
winner, and goes out of his way to make adherence to some
sort of code of honorable behavior seem ridiculous. Even if
his movie wasn't ample evidence of the contempt he feels for
the genre, his own commentary would be.
> > 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.
The discussion was originally about TLG. Chris asked if an
artist isn't free to adapt according to his artistic vision.
I said adaptation, by definition, constrains the artist to
produce something that is faithful to the source material,
and since TLG was the original object of discussion, and
since Mark explicitly said (and Chris by inference agreed)
that TLG was NOT faithful, I went on to say that Altman, by
failing to meet the minimal obligation of being faithful to
the source material, was violating that
(to me) quite obvious ethical standard. If I was forceful, it
was because neither Chris nor Mark seemed to think there was
anything wrong with being unfaithful to the source
material.
And yes, I've seen the movie. And no, it's NOT 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.
That wasn't snide (or, anyway, it wasn't meant to be) because
there was nothing ironic in it. Altman DID trash the book,
and that was exactly what he intended to do. He's the one who
said Chandler was a cop-out for making a loser like Marlowe
seem like a winner. He's the one who set out to remake him as
a loser. And I think doing that was ethically wrong. If he
had no respect for the source material, and he's the one who
said he didn't, he shouldn't have made the film.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo!
SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
-- # 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