Date: 21 Aug 2003

In a message dated 8/21/03 9:56:08 AM, writes:

<< But it is. Moreover, it's a deliberate, calculated insult. Insulting the book, the character, the author, and the genre was Altman's entire purpose. >>

    I think Altman is less devious and less demonic than you're making him, Jim. The fact that he stood back and played the court jester with Chandler, hard-boildness, and with Marlowe, doesn't mean that he didn't like them and appreciate their value. He had fun with them as he did with the fashion business
(a business he claims to enjoy and admire).
    As for Hooker's book MASH. Altman was not faithful to Hooker (at least not in a manner that suited Hooker.) The book MASH is "comedy at the war front," but it didn't have an ounce of anti establishment or anti-war sentiment in it anywhere. Hooker hated what Altman did in "adapting" his book.
    I guess I tend to go with Elmore Leonard's notion, that books are books and movies are movies, and when someone buys the right to make a movie "from" a book, they get to do pretty much what they want to do, and the movie stood be judged for itself and against itself.

                                Jim Blue

# Plain ASCII text only, please.  Anything else won't show up.
# To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
#  This will not work for the digest version.
# The web pages for the list are at .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Aug 2003 EDT