Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye

From: Terrill Lankford ( lankford2000@earthlink.net)
Date: 10 Feb 2007


-----Original Message-----
>From: jimdohertyjr < jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Feb 9, 2007 9:37 PM
>To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye
>
>Terrill,
>
>Re your comments below:
>
>> 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.
>
>Was it not clear that, when I mentioned what a filmmaker "owes" the
>shource material, I was talking morality, not legality? I know that
>the notion that even the denizens of a place like Hollywood should
>behave honorably may be ridiculously niaive, but there you are.
>

What is this word you speak of, this "morality"?

>But morality aside, there's frugalisty and thrift. Why even buy the
>material if you don't LIKE the material in the first place? Why make
>a movie based on material you have nothing but contempt for?

Altman didn't buy the material. The producers did. They decided to go with Altman as the director because he was talented and a flavor of the moment. Altman took the job - I presume - because he thought he could make a unique and interesting movie. Which he did.

And it is important to note that most of the differences between the book and the movie predate Altman's involvement and originate with Brackett's script - including the notorious ending.

>
>> 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.
>
>Yeah, you're right. Why should the executors of a literary estate
>assume that the author would prefer any dramatic adaptations to be
>faithful? Certainly nothing in Chandler's past dealings with
>Hollywood moguls or broadcast execs, nothing in his letters on the
>subject, nothing in the articles he wrote, nothing anywhere in the
>written record, would give them any clue about Chandler's feelings in
>the matter.
>

Chandler sold his stuff and he benefitted both financially and promotionally by having movies made of his work. Some of the movies were good. Some were bad. None of them did "Star Wars" like business. But they kept his name in the public eye and certainly helped his book sales and built his fame. He received value beyond the financial. It's useless and kind of lame to take the dough, make the deal, then bitch when the movie doesn't live up to your expectations. Very few movies live up to a novelist's image of what his book should look like on the silver screen. It's a trade off and Chandler took it. He knew what he was getting into when he made those deals. And he wasn't around to be insulted by the existence of The Long Goodbye (if indeed that would have been his feeling about the movie).

As John said, other novelists have resisted the siren call of Hollywood. Sue Grafton is another who comes to mind. It can be done.

>
>> As does your opinion to anyone sitting on the other side of the
>aisle, Jim.
>
>Since I'm always right, and not just right, but obviously and
>manifestly right (at least whenever I'm speaking EX CATHEDRA), I must
>regard any and all who disagree with me with mystification and
>puzzlement.
>
>JIM DOHERTY
>

Jim, we could probably take this show on the road like Leary and Liddy (but for much smaller crowds). I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me. And I think we've just been repeating ourselves for a few days now. Bill is probably growing as impatient with this discussion as he did with the one about LCC. You've got your opinion to keep you warm at night and I've got the movie I can watch any time I want. I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us is the luckiest.

(I know I'm the happiest. I think I'll pop that movie in the DVD player right now and give it another viewing.)

TL



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10 Feb 2007 EST