-----Original Message-----
>From: jimdohertyjr <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Feb 11, 2007 5:10 PM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye
>
>dave,
>
>Re your comments below:
>
>
>
>> "If you don't go in expecting Chandler or a
straight detective
>yarn,
>> you may well fall madly in love with this
oddball Long Goodbye. Not
>> Altman's "best" or most ambitiously original
work, but definitely
>my
>> favorite."
>>
>> A corollary to this statement I guess would be
if you go in
>expecting
>> Chandler you may well madly hate this
film...
>
>And I do. Not only because I was expecting Chandler,
but because I
>thought, and think, that I had every right to expect
Chandler, and
>that Altman had NO right to shit all over this
perfectly just
>expectation.
I can't believe he didn't consult with you before filming
commenced.
Sounds like you'd like to get your hands on him and make him
pay for the oversight.
I can't believe that scamp got away with another one. He was
a wiley sumbitch.
And while you may hate the movie, Altman, and perhaps even
cats, I don't think you can honestly make a claim that he
defecated on you or your expectations since he didn't know
you at the time.
(I would like to think Altman might quote Marlowe (as spoken
to Marty Augustine) if he had been given the option though,
"I wouldn't think of doing that. Maybe some other time,
though, you know.")
>
>> Like Terrill, I don't necessary take Altman
thinking of Marlowe as
>> a loser as a negative or an indication that
Altman was trying to
>> disparage Chandler's work. Hell, Rockford Files,
which I always saw
>> as the heir apparent to Marlowe, had Jimbo
pretty much as a loser
>> also, but in a sympathetic way, somewhat
endearing way.
>
>Altman disparaged Chandler treatment of the
character, and, whether
>or not Altman finds losers sympathetic isn't the
point. The point is
>Marlowe is NOT a loser.
He's says he is at the end of the movie. He even says that he
lost his cat.
But he still gets the last shot in. Isn't that good for
something?
Looks like he's the winner to me. As much as he can be one in
the world in which he lives.
>
>And, while you're right about Jim being an heir
apparent to Marlowe,
>it's not Gould's Marlowe he's heir to, but Garner's
own turn as the
>character in the film version of THE LITTLE SISTER,
and infinitely
>better movie than TLG, for all that it's much less
ambitious.
>
Now you're talking crazy talk. The only thing that movie has
going for it is the first scene with Bruce Lee. (The second
scene is incredibly stupid.)
That movie is good evidence that Altman was right.
It's tolerable, but pedestrian.
>And you misread Rockford if you see him as a loser.
He triumphs much
>more often than he loses. He's handy with dukes. He's
handy with
>his gun. He's fast-talking and fast-thinking. And
he's really
>damned good at basic detective work. Sure he takes
his lumps, but he
>bounces back. He lives life on his own terms and is
basically
>happy. Finally, speaking as one who was blessed with
a great dad, no
>one who has a father like Rocky is a loser. And no
one who can go
>through the experience of being convicted of a crime
he didn't commit
>and emerge with as positive an attitude as Rockford
does is a
>loser.
>
>Gould's Marlowe, by way of sharp contrast, is none of
these things.
>He's just an ineffectual nebbish who spends most of
the movie getting
>pushed around while muttering that, "It's OK with
me."
>
>JIM DOHERTY
That may be his mantra through most of the film, but by the
end I think we all understand that it WASN'T okay with
him.
Perhaps you take dialogue too literally. Occasionally, in
more complex works, people say things they do not mean. And
mean things they do not say.
TL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Feb 2007 EST