Mark,
Re your questions below:
> Define faithful. Is it an aspect of plot? If
so,
> Long Goodbye is
> pretty faithful, except for the final scene. Is
it
> an aspect of
> character? If so, Long Goodbye is not at
all
> faithful. The latter is
> how I was using the term. And that was why I was
so
> offended by the
> movie when I first saw it.
For crying out loud, Mark! You know what "faithful" means. It
means fidelity to the source material. It DOESN'T mean
strictly following the plot. It DOES mean attempting to
convey, within the framework of a different medium, the same
reaction in the audience that the source material did from
ITS audience.
> However, even you used the term "deconstruct,"
which
> is most certainly
> what Brackett and Altman were doing. They
were
> examining how the old
> ways fit into the new times. And frankly, I
think
> it works a lot better
> than the ridiculous Mitchum Big Sleep set
in
> swinging London.
I never saw the Mitchum remake of THE BIG SLEEP. But, as for
TLG, there was no reason for Altman & Co. to
"examine" how new ways fit into old times. As I said earlier,
it was a movie, not a thesis. Their job was to tell the
story, not examine whether or not the story was worth
telling. If they thought the story wasn't worth telling they
shouldn't have told it. If they thought the character wasn't
worth spending time with, they shouldn't have spent time with
him. And they certainly shouldn't have tried to change him
into something he wasn't just to make his "loser" status more
evident to the audience.
> Would you feel the same way about this movie if
it
> had a different title
> and Marlowe had a different name? Is your
objection
> to the movie as
> Chandler adatation or to the movie per se? How
do
> you feel about other
> deconstructions, like Chinatown, for instance?
And
> what about parodies?
My objection was to the movie as a Chandler adaptation, but
aside from that, I found it pointless, long, and boring.
Simply removing Chandler from the equation wouldn't have made
me like it better.
CHINATOWN wasn't a deconstruction; it was a straightforward
PI movie.
If a parody makes me laugh, I like it. If it doesn't, I
don't.
> What do you think of McCabe and Mrs.
Miller?
I despise it to the length, and depth, and breadth, and
marrow of my soul.
> Never
> having read the
> novel, I can't say whether or not it is
"faithful,"
> but it certainly
> deconstructs the genre.
Which is why I despise it to the length, and depth, and
breadth, and marrow of my soul.
> But is it contemptuous of
> the western?
Yes.
> Not Altman, but is Cat Ballou? The Lee
Marvin
character
> certainly makes the
> gunfighter figure look ridiculous, more
ridiculous
> than Gould renders a
> PI.
Mark, CAT BALLOU is a comedy. In comedies, the characters are
SUPPOSED to look ridiculous. That's how they elicit laughs
from the audience.
TLG wasn't a comedy. It made Marlowe (and by extension, all
PI characters) look ridiculous within the framework of a
serious drama. That's something else altogether.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo!
SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Aug 2003 EDT