Although Cary Grant did play a very credible, complicated and bitter tough guy in Hitchcock's Notorious. Very different from the usual debonair figure we associate with him.
I was just reading an article by someone who described the act of reading as esentially a passive experience. I think that is exactly wrong. I would guess that we all have "our" version of Marlowe and Archer in our heads. The fact that they are not described very clearly allows us to fill in the details as it pleases us. A good book invites us in and allows us to, in effect, be the cinematographer and casting director of the fictive experiences unfolding in our minds. It obviously invoves some really peersonal choices which is probably while we all feel so indignant when we find that Hollywood has blown it's casting of a much loved character.
James
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Kennedy
To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 15:04
Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Harper about to come on - TCM
Regarding the character Newman plays in 'The Moving Target', I meant that he was
very unlike the rather bland Archer of the novels in character, a bit too smart
alecky and humorous. You're right, though, in noting that Bogart, from the bits
and pieces of description peppering Chandlers books in the mouths of others and
self-deprecatingly in his own, was far too small in stature to be a perfect
physical Marlowe. His delivery of the Chandler dialogue, though, remains
unequalled.
Chandler himself, perhaps only half-jokingly, wrote that if you were to remark
that Marlowe was as handsome as Cary Grant, Marlowe might not feel flattered.
All I can say to that is, thank God the studios never got the idea of Cary Grant
playing Marlowe into their heads -- almost, but not quite, as bad a notion as
Dick Powell, or Robert Montgomery, for that matter, as Marlowe.
By coincidence, Ian Fleming also regarded Cary Grant as his ideal actor to play
Bond. Makes you kinda wonder whether authors know anything after all, doesn't
it?
Patrick
________________________________
From: Dick Lochte <dlochte@gmail.com>
To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 22 August, 2010 19:24:00
Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: Harper about to come on - TCM
Patrick mentioned that Paul Newman did not resemble the Lew Archer of the
novels. But does Macdonald ever tell us what Archer looked like? Does
Chandler gives us much of a description of Marlowe, except for his height
(which is where Bogart falls short -- sorry)? Describing the physical
aspects of your hero isn't easy to do when you're writing first-person
narration. Though Hammett managed to put the image of the Op in our minds.
And MacDonald gave us a complete picture of Travis McGee, using McGee's
often annoying self-referencing. I'm wondering if it might not be better to
let the reader fill in the blanks. Any opinions?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Aug 2010 EDT