William G. Buck (petecastle@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:29:17 -0700
> Its unfortunate that such a lyrical and complicated
creation as Robicheaux
> should have been represented on screen by a
self-absorbed hambone like
> Baldwin. Worse, however, would be handing Robicheaux
off to Jones, an
even
> more self-absorbed actor who is an uncured,
unsalted, 100%
> straight-from-the-pig's-behind hambone. Someone with
a little artistic
> integrity should play Robicheaux, if he must be
played at all.
Jones is also an unmitigated prick,
if that has any bearing on it.
However, I believe that Burke, like
Dick Francis, can never be successfully transferred to the
screen. The appeal is in the writing and the inner dialogue,
which doesn't transfer well. It doesn't help either that when
you examine Burke's stories there's no "there" there. The
hardboiled shell surrounding his work holds a mushy
interior.
Lyrical and complicated, yes. Which
does not quite disguise a major flaw in his work. While I
think Burke is second to no one in his writing skills and
elegance, his books are seriously short on story and his
reliance on New Age sleight-of-hand, hallucinations, dreams,
ghosts, and other claptrap to resolve his weak stories is a
spoiler.
Jerry Buck
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat 10 Jul 1999 - 13:28:57 EDT