Mark,
Re your comments below:
> Deconstruction does not mean the genre no longer
has
> an audience. It's
> just a stage of evolution. Genres evolve or
they
> die.
As far as Altman was concerned, it meant that it SHOULDN'T
have an audience.
And it's not a question of whether or not genres evolve. It's
a question of whether they maintain their audience. Genres
maintain their audience or they die.
> And I'd claim at least two of the movies you
name
> fall within the
> evolution of the genre -- Shaft and Chinatown. As
a
> matter of fact,
> John Cawelti uses the latter to explore the
notion
> in his article,
> Chinatown and Generic Transformation.
Furthermore,
> while it may ave
> been the most extreme, Altman's Long Goodbye was
not
> an anomaly in its
> approach. There were numerous other films that
were
> questioning the
> genre, one of the best of which was Night
Moves.
They weren't questioning the genre. They were telling
straightforward genre stories. That the characters may have
been more complex, or different from what had gone before,
may or may not have been to their credit.
But it wasn't those filmmakers' intentions to trash the
genre by trashing one of its most revered
practitioners.
> A good case could be made for Parker's engaging
in
> generic
> transformation. Parker is well aware of the
genre,
> but he is equally
> aware of the changes he has made to it, not
the
> least of which are the
> split of the hero into Spenser and Hawk and
the
> exploration of the hero
> in a monogamous relationship (yes, there
were
> precedents, but he made it
> a new standard). Crime lit paralleled the
film
> transformations.
> Hansen, Paretsky, Grafton, Lewin, Valin,
Crumley,
> Pelecanos, Schutz,
> etc, were all questioning the nature and limits
of
> the genre and in the
> process renewed it, making it vital to a whole
new
> generation. None of
> these characters was Chandler's Marlowe; some
were
> damn close to Gould's
> Marlowe.
They weren't questioning the genre. They were telling stories
within the framework of the genre that reflected their own
individual personalities. That's different from what Altman
was doing in TLG.
> I'd also place Harry O in the field of
generic
> transformation. How is
> Harry O any less a loser than Altman's
Marlowe?
Harry O knows enough to charge more than $50 a day plus
expenses for his services. Harry O is actually a good
detective. Harry O has the respect and friendship of
colleagues in official law enforcement. Harry O, being a
disabled policeman who was crippled in the line of duty, is
regarded as a hero by society.
Harry O is attractive to members of the opposite
sex.
Harry O is a property owner. Harry O, being a retired
policeman, has a pension that is sufficient to support him;
as a consequence any PI income is gravy and he is free to
pick and choose his cases. Harry O has enough intestinal
fortitude to keep on keeping on despite his physical
disability and the loss of a profession he loved.
That's off the top of my head.
> It's not enough that
> you don't like the
> film and are sorry you ever saw it. You think
it
> never should have been
> made and that no one else should ever see
it,
> either.
I've already said that I think what Altman did to TLG was
ethically wrong. In fact, that, and not TLG's merits or lack
of them, was what I originally weighed in on. It must follow
that, if I think an act is wrong, I must think that it would
be better if that act had not been committed.
Now if you disagree that a filmmaker has some ethical
responsiblity to the source material he is adapting to the
film medium, fine, we can discuss that. But thinking that an
act that I believe was wrong shouldn't have been committed in
the first place doesn't make me an intolerant
curmudgeon.
> Don't you even
> allow for the possibility that some others
might
> legitimately value
> things you don't, that as Jay McInnerny
wrote,
> Taste, after all, is a
> matter of taste?
I allow for the possiblity that people may enjoy things I
don't. You seem to object to my having strong opinions, and
when I am unswayed from those opinions by your arguments, you
pronounce me dogmatic.
Your main problem here seems to be that I find no value
in TLG, while you do.
I'm not dogmatic, but I AM emphatic. Why does that bother
you? If you like TLG so damned much, why should it matter to
you that I don't? And if I choose to say so, and say so
emphatically, why should you care? If you're secure in your
own opinons and likes and dislikes, why should you work so
hard to change mine?
> Of course, you have always tended
> to be dogmatic in
> terms of definition.
What I've been, as I said, is emphatic. Unnuanced opinion
really seems to bother you. Feel free to disagree, but don't
get so upset if you fail to change my mind.
> Once a genre has gelled, that
> is what it must
> remain. You have always refused to recognize
the
> possiblity of generic transformtion . . .
I've never said anything like that. The definition I've
suggested for hard-boiled, that is "tough and colloquial,"
(and by the way, I wasn't the first to use that phrase on
this list), is expansive enough to allow for a wide variety
of characters, plots, settings, and approaches. What is there
in "tough and colloquial" that fails to allow for "generic
transformation."
> -- witness the film noir argument.
> What I call
> evolution, what Cawelti calls transformation,
you
> pronounce "other,"
> something completely different because it no
longer
> falls within the
> tunnel vision of your definition of
genre.
What I said was that film noir wasn't a genre at all. It was
a STYLE that was used to tell stories in a variety of crime
sub-genres. Anything outside of that style IS "other." I
never said that anything that was
"other" wasn't worthwhile (as you seem to be implying). But
whether I'm right or wrong, what difference does it make? If
you enjoy the films that you call "evolved noir," and Cawelti
calls
"transformed noir," why should it matter to you that I call
them "other?"
> So would Altman's film have been okay if he
had
> changed the title and
> the characters' names? Are you offended by
the
> messing with Chandler or
> the messing with the genre? Or both? Can
you
> separate the two? I'd
> say not only can they be separate, but they must
be.
I'm offended by both. I'm offended by his contempt for the
genre, by his using Chandler as a vehicle to express that
contempt, and by the fact that the final product, in any
case, wasn't particularly entertaining anyway.
> Chandler was
> great, still is, but he was of his time. If
someone
> like Pierre Menard
> tried to rewrite Chandler today, it would not
read
> the same. Just as
> the mean streets change, so must the man or
woman
> who walks down them.
> I, for one, prefer a genre that evolves
and
> interacts with its own time
> to one that becomes marginalized as nothing
more
> than nostalgia.
I've never said that crime fiction, of any sub-genre,
shouldn't interact with its time. I've never said all crime
fiction, whether hard-boiled or not, should retain a
Depression-era world-view. I've never said that no one's
written anything worthwhile since Chandler. I've never even
IMPLIED any of that. And I'm at a loss to understand where
you could have drawn that inference.
All I said, when this discussion began, regarding the
question of how much artistic license a filmmaker has when
adapting a prose work to film is that there was an ethical
responsibility to be faithful to the source material. You
yourself said that Altman wasn't.
If you disagree with that assertion, well and good. But my
thinking that a filmmaker has a responsibilty to the source
material he's adapting does not translate into an inability
to abide any crime fiction produced in any medium since
1953.
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 : 22 Aug 2003 EDT