Patrick wrote:
"I was unaware of the changes in the script. I think it's a
different thing when you buy a writer's script and make
changes that will direct on film more effectively, . .
."
How do you define "direct on film more effectively"? The
changes were narrative, involving who shot whom, and could
have been directed just effectively, been just as
cinematic.
Polanski was pretty clearly presenting a world view of his
own, one that was contrary to Towne's, just as Altman is
accused of altering Chandler's. It's just ignorance of
Towne's original ending that makes it different from the
audience's perspective -- for the writer and director, the
situation was the same.
On a side note, I had a writing professor who believed
Chinatown as proof positive that an artist should not deal
wih personal trauma too soon in his or her art, that
Chinatown is deeply flawed because Polanski was so
heavyhanded in dealing with his wife's murder. While I got
his point, I never figured out how it applied to Chinatown,
which is as perfect a movie as I've seen.
Though I have been defending Long Goodbye, I don't think it's
anywhere near as good a movie as Chinatown, which is my
favorite movie of all time. And it's Polanski's rewrite that
makes it great in my mind. If Polanski had shot Towne's
screenplay straight, it probably still would have been very
good, but not great. Compare Chinatown to Tequila Sunrise or
The Two Jakes if you want a glimpse of the difference of
perspective between Polanski and Towne.
". . . than when you buy the rights to a popular story
already on the public radar and change it around to suit
whatever you're trying to say. These are two different types
of creative license. One can get away with the former more
easily than the latter."
So art is what you can get away with and how well you can
hide your source material from comparison?
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 Feb 2007 EST