--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King
<abrasax93@...> wrote:
>
> I get your points, Steve, but this is exactly
the
> essense of the problem. Why does Altman or any
film
> maker make a derivative film and then choose to
depart
> entirely from the original idea? Why not take the
idea
> that was inspired by the original work, call the
new
> detective Milton Pharlow or something and move
forward
> with an original story? The answer is, the
producer
> and/or the director want to glam on to the success
of
> the popular book. So I come to this film having
read
> the book at least four or five times, and I'm
not
> treated to a visual rendition of this story I
enjoyed,
> but to some different story set in a different
time
> frame, with characters I can't even recognize. And
I'm
> expected to be philosophical about this and
"enjoy"
> the film as pure cinema and because Robert
Altman
> directed it. Personally, I think that's
rediculous.
> Hollywood can be as creative as it wants with
original
> screenplays. I wish they'd make a lot more of
them.
> But if they want to leach off the hard work of
a
> writer who's created a huge readership through
trial
> and error, the least that readership can demand is
a
> faithful rendition. Altman's Long Goodbye
is
> tantamount to taking a Harry Potter novel,
making
> Harry 30-years-old, setting the story in modern
Texas,
> and changing Hogwart School of Witchcraft
and
> Wizardry, into a Piggly-Wiggly cashregister
training
> school. Rowling fans would not put up with this
and
> neither should we Chandler fans!
>
> Patrick
I have to ask: are you serious or is this a send-up?
Do you think the opinion of Chandler fans in 1973 moved the
box office at all? Of course not. So why should the producers
care? The going against the Chandler grain would have helped
the buzz-- given the reviewers something to write and been a
net positive. AChandler fan, I saw the movie when it was
released and quickly realized I was in for a far-flung trip.
I was not a fan of Elliot Gould (who, along with most
movie-goers in 1973, I considered a 'leading man' not a
character actor) but after a bit of adjustment, I enjoyed the
movie. It helped that I was a Leigh Brackett and Sterling
Hayden fan and was curious about the performance of Jim
Bouton. I bought the DVD over the holidays and hope to view
it again soon and form a current opinion.
Does the existence of "Satan Met a Lady", the 1936 film,
detract from my opinion of the Dashiell Hammett novel THE
MALTESE FALCON or the John Houston film adaptation of 1941?
Of course not. So let us celebrate or criticize the Altman
film without getting too hysterical about it.
Richard Moore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Feb 2007 EST