-----Original Message-----
>From: jimdohertyjr <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Feb 9, 2007 7:27 PM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye
>
>What I did say is that a filmmaker making a movie
based on source
>material from another medium owes some fidelity to
that source
>material.
That's just not true. In the real world of books and film,
the only thing a filmmaker owes a novelist is a contract and
a check. If the movie made breaks with the spirit of the
contract, the author (or his estate) is free to sue the
filmmakers afterwards - as is happening right now with Clive
Cussler. But few, if any, producers would have given any
novelist the kind of control Cussler had over SAHARA. I'm
sure there was nothing in the Long Goodbye contracts that
promised absolute (or any, for that matter) fidelity to the
source material. The cost of the rights for a book are
miniscule compared to the cost of making and marketing a
motion picture.
It is a "seller beware" situation. Anybody out there who
wants to protect their books from the shame of "misadaption"
should just turn down that filthy money when the producers
come calling. And they should leave instructions with their
executors that they never want Hollywood ruining their good
name after they are dead as well.
If he has contempt for the material, why make the
movie?
>Why not make a movie from an original screenplay that
he believes
>in? Or make a movie from a novel/play/whatever that
he believes in?
>Why make a movie based on a novel he has contempt
for, by a novelist
>he has contempt for, featuring a character he has
contempt for?
Maybe he has something to say about all of that as well. Who
said all art must be generated out of respect?
(And for the record, I believe you are putting a lot of words
in Altman's mouth.)
>
>The film may be good or bad depending on the skill of
the director,
>cast, and crew, but that's not the point.
>
I beg to differ. That IS the point exactly.
>The point is what the filmmaker owes to the
originator of the
>material, and for members of a list devoted to the
work of people
>like Chandler to defend as meretricious a piece of
crap as Altman's
>film on the basis that "It's good in its own right,
and, anyway we
>can't really expect a director like Altman to do a
faithful version
>of Chandler and have to judge it on its own merits,"
quite frankly
>mystifies me.
>
As does your opinion to anyone sitting on the other side of
the aisle, Jim.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I like both the
book and the movie, but for completely different reasons. I'm
not sure why they can't co-exist in our universe, but hell,
I'm just vacationing here anyway.
TL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Feb 2007 EST