-----Original Message-----
>From: JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Feb 12, 2007 2:12 PM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye
>
>Terrill,
>
>Re your comments below:
>
>"He kills a man who has brutally beaten his wife
to
>death, escaped to Mexico and made Marlowe his
fall
>guy. He kills a man who would certainly kill him
if
>Marlowe tried to drag him back across the border
to
>civilized justice. Marlowe's disgust when he says
he
>saw the photos of the murder scene and
Sylvia's
>condition tells us all we have to know about where
his
>heart is. And just because Marlowe doesn't
allow
>Terry to fire first, like Bogart does with Canino
(who
>he pretty much sets up to be tricked and
slaughtered)
>, doesn't mean he has made a huge leap away
from
>Chandler's creation. It just means the story
is
>taking place in a modern world for the time the
movie
>was made."
>
>I can almost see a situation where the ending of
the
>film would have seemed appropriate and true to
the
>spirit, if not the precise letter, of
Chandler's
>original. But there would've had to have been
some
>foreshadowing that Marlowe was the kind of man
who
>cared enough about justice to want to do
something
>about it.
I think Marlowe acts morally throughout the film. And it is
foreshadowed in everything he says and does.
>
>Gould's Marlowe is simply someone who gets pushed
from
>pillar to post with little protest and
then,
>unexpectedly, erupts at the end, less, it seemed
to
>me, because he was disgusted at the murder,
than
>because of Lennox's betrayal.
You need to watch the scene again, then.
>
>And all Canino had to do was give up when
Marlowe
>braced him. Instead he came up shooting.
Supposedly
>a member of the old NYPD stakeout team once said
that
>stakeouts are set up to be executions in the hope
that
>they turn out to be nice, quiet surrenders. Do
you
>really think Marlowe would have shot Canino,
however
>much he may have deserved it, if Canino had
dropped
>the gun and given up?
He knew he wasn't going to do that. And he sets him up
because he wants to kill him. Because Canino killed Harry
Jones and Canino was definitely going to kill Marlowe.
Marlowe is pissed and wants to have a semi-justifiable shoot
out. But he lays in wait and tricks Canino who really never
has a chance of surviving. I've always thought it was a
pretty brutal ambush scene. But I never got insulted by it
thinking it was beneth Marlowe's dignity. By your standards,
I think it was.
>
>That's not just the passage of time; that's a
material
>difference in the way the situation is handled.
One
>shot down an armed man in self-defense. The
other
>shot down an unarmed man in cold blood.
If you say so (see above). If the Hays code was still in
effect, Terry would have had to have shot first. But even Han
Solo shot first in 1977, even if Lucas decided to clean up
his act for the remastered version of Star Wars to the dismay
of nerdlingers across the land.
For awhile there, filmmakers and audiences understood that in
real life shooting first could mean the difference between
life and death and they didn't mind seeing the Hays code
convention turned on its ear.
I miss the 70s.
>
>
>"You sir, are very easily entertained."
>
>If I was that easily enteratined, Altman wouldn't
have
>had such a hard time entertaining me.
Yeah, but it must be hard to be entertained while being
defecated on. Unless you like that kind of thing.
>
>". . . in the 70s that would mean he'd have to be
dead
>by the third or fourth reel. It would be a little
hard
>to believe that Marlowe could 'push back' against
five
>or six thugs and survive. Especially if one of
them
>was the Terminator."
>
>Why? He was pushing back against the same kinds
of
>thugs just 3 years earlier in MARLOWE.
He lets Bruce Lee demolish his office and never says a word
about it or takes a swipe at him. He had to finally pull a
gun on him, but he never touches Bruce Lee in response to his
two attacks on him. In the second attack the filmmakers were
wise enough to realize Marlowe wouldn't have a chance against
this guy and he merely tricks him into jumping off the
building. (Which is where the incredibly stupid part comes
in.)
The rest of the film is not memorable enough for me to know
what kind of pushing back he does. But I doubt he ever takes
on six thugs.
Who do you think he is? Bruce Lee?
Had things
>changed that much in 4 years.
No. Audiences had over the nearly thirty years between the
time Marlowe first hit the screen and when The Long Goodbye
was made. Two dimensional heroics were not in favor then,
unless the hero was James Bond (or Bruce Lee!).
Harry Callahan faced
>multiple thugs in DIRTY HARRY, just 2 years
earlier.
Harry never minded shooting first.
>The point is, Callahan, and Marlowe as depicted
in
>MARLOWE, were portrayed as men you COULD believe
might
>prevail against superior odds, and, in any case,
were
>portrayed as men who wouldn't simply knuckly
under.
>Just two years AFTER TLG, Mitchum's Marlowe was
facing
>down multiple thugs in the remake of FAREWELL,
MY
>LOVELY, and, while it was SET in the '40's, do
you
>really think '70's-era thugs were that much
more
>dangerous?
As I said before, it's not about the thugs. It's about the
maturation of the audience. And Mitchum never takes on six
thugs. I think he even gets his ass beat by two. Of course,
one of them is Rocky. (What's with these future movie icons
shoving Marlowe around? I say we keep an eye on the
background players in the upcoming Marlowe films for a clue
to our stars of tomorrow.)
>
>It's unbelievable for Gould's Marlowe-the-Nebbish
to
>fight back precisely because he's depicted as
a
>nebbish instead of the archetype of the
hard-boiled
>PI.
>
>"And most of us knew he was speaking ironically
from
>the very beginning. The bullet was just an
exclamation
>mark. One that I would think would
guarantee
>clarification for the few confused stragglers
out
>there who hadn't gotten it yet."
>
>I didn't think he was being ironic, even after
the
>bullet. Just insincere. He was trying to
avoid
>getting pushed around by acquiescing, even if it
was
>clear he didn't want to acquiesce. He was
the
>Chamberlain of private eyes, going along in the
hope
>that it would forestall violence instead of
stadning
>up to evil and, by opposing, end it.
So you're saying he was smarter than the average
Marlowe?
>
>And, in the end, all he was able to do was shoot
down
>an unarmed man.
>
>What a guy.
>
>JIM DOHERTY
>
In the director's cut it is clear to see that Terry is
holding a loaded mint julep in the uncut scene. He had it
coming.
TL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Feb 2007 EST