RARA-AVIS: Re:lack of respect?

From: JIM DOHERTY ( jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com)
Date: 12 Feb 2007


Re your comments below:

"The research material we used primarily was Raymond Chandler Speaking, a series of letters, and I made everybody that worked on the picture read that thoroughly. I took the two main characters, both Philip Marlowe and Roger Wade, and I took character traits of Chandler and I applied them to both, and I made one the voice and the other the conscience. His plots are so complicated and so full of holes that the way he plugged the holes was to further complicate them. But he used this thread to hang about sixty thumbnail essays on, so the real interest in Raymond Chandler, to me, were those essays. We tightened the plot up; I dropped half the characters probably; then I used that line to hang a bunch of film essays on. They weren't actually lifted from Raymond Chandler so much as they were projections of him, because if Raymond Chandler were alive in 1972 he wouldn't see things the way he did in 1950 because he would himself have been that much older. I've kept the story in 1952, but set it in 1972. The goodbye is people going, not in separate directions, but going in the same direction at a different pace.'

"This hardly sounds like a lack of respect for Chandler, quite the opposite. Would someone who hated Chandler make everyone read a book of his letters? And he shows some insight into Chandler. Holes in his plots? Remember the problem with Joe Chill's murder in The Big Sleep? Plugging holes with further complications? Remember Chandler's line about sending in a guy with a gun whenever things started to lag?"

Calling Marlowe a loser than implying that Chandler was a hypocrite for not seeing what's so almight clear to Altman, and making a movie that trashes the character, shows a signal lack of respect.

And bragging about making a movie from Chandler's letters when the source material was the book sounds like he knew he was going to take heat for being so untrue to Chandler and needed to marshal his forces. Altman wasn't being unfaithful; he was just being faithful "in his own fashion."

Yeah, right.

"Seems to me Altman was trying to honor the spirit of Chandler, even if he felt he had to streamline the book to do so."

Streamlining the book is what Hanson did to L.A. CONFIDENTIAL or Zinneman did to FROM HERE TO ETERNITY.
 What Altman did, and did deliberately, was trash the book.

"As for that loser comment that pisses Jim off so much. Chandler is a loser, at least according to society's materialistic standards. A few lines after those Jim likes to quote, Chandler says of Marlowe, 'He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He will take no man's money dishonestly and no man's insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him.' So he hits someone who calls him a 'cheapie.' Sounds a bit defensive to me, like someone who's been called a loser a few times too many and is afraid it's true."

Sounds to me like someone who'll take no man's insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge. And that's specifically and deliberately the character Altman refused to depict in his movie.

"And in Raymond Chandler Speaking, the book Marlowe's interpreter used as a source, Marlowe's creator said, 'If being in revolt against a corrupt society consitutes being immature, then Philip Marlowe is extremely immature. If seeing dirt where there is dirt constitutes an inadequate social adjustment, then Philip Marlowe has inadequate social adjustment. Of course Marlowe is a failure and he knows it. He's a failure because he hasn't any money. A man who without any physical handicaps cannot make a decent living is always a failure and usually a moral failure. But a lot of very good men have been failures because their particular talents did not suit their time and place.'

"How is Chandler's calling Marlowe a failure any different from Altman calling him loser, especially when they're both referring to society's perspective, not their own? This is where Altman's career long fascination and sympathy for society's losers and outsiders that Terrill pointed out comes in. Like Chandler, Altman was interested in how and why a loser/failure' s particular talents do not suit his time and place."

Now who can't recognize irony? Marlowe's being a commercial failure doesn't make him a loser. He's a commercial failure, or at least a relative commerical failure, because of his integrity and pride, not because of his incompetence or lack of drive, as is clearly the case with Gould's characterization.

Chandler clearly doesn't regard Marlowe as a loser because he's a "failure." He regards him as a man of integrity, a winner in Chandler's view, precisely because he won't sell out his principles for commercial success.

"So it's easy to disagree with how Altman chose to highlight Marlowe's alienation, but to say he did not respect Marlowe's creator is a major stretch. Seems to me Altman studied Chandler very closely and tried to project his concerns two decades into the future by showing Marlowe even more out of place (and far more worn down for his effort to stay a winner in his own eyes)."

The stretch is asserting that Altman had a single iota of respect for Chandler, his novel, or his character. He started out believing that Chandler, who after all did nothing but create the character, was wrong to depict Marlowe as a "phony winner" and spent the whole movie trying to prove himself right.


____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Feb 2007 EST