Stephen,
Re your comments below:
"I think 'Saboteur' and 'North By Northwest' are too far from
'The Thirty-Nine Steps' to be considered versions of the same
source material, even if the form of the story is roughly
similar."
Well, I'm not sure if Buchan's estate ever sued for
plagiarism, or whether they would have been successful if
they had, but to me (and I'm far from the only one) all three
films seem to have essentially the same plot. Innocent
bystander is unwittingly swept into espionage caper, wrongly
accused of a crime, and must simultaneously dodge cops and
catch the real villains before SOMETHING REALLY BAD
happens.
The main difference seems to be setting and time period.
STEPS (the novel) is set in Britain during, or just before,
WW1, STEPS (the film) in Britain between the wars (but closer
to the start of WW2 than the end of WW1), SABOTEUR in the
States during WW2, and NBN in the States during the Cold
War.
Sure each iteration moves a little farther from the novel,
but they all have essentially the same plot.
In fact, the differences are essentially the same as the
differences between the '30's version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO
MUCH and the 1956 version, which IS an official remake.
"Which indirectly leads to the issue of how faithful a movie
should be to the novel on which it's based and from which it
takes its title and characters etc. I gather from your posts
to this list that you feel passionately about this issue in
the case of 'The Long Goodbye.' I'm on the other side of that
question: I like both the novel and the quite different
Altman movie and I have no problems with the liberties Altman
took. I think the movie maker is entitled to do as he wishes
with the source material."
Not just about GOOODBYE. Understand, I don't say a filmmaker
should be bound to doing nothing but a scene by scene literal
translation of the source material. ALlowances have to be
made for the difference in medium if nothing else.
Even Robert Penn Warren's adaptation of his own novel, ALL
THE KING'S MEN, into a stage play has plenty of differences,
differences that come about primarily because of the
differences in the mediums.
What I DO say is that any filmmaker who has no respect for
the source material, as Altman clearly (and, based on his own
comments, explicitly) had no respect for Chandler, his
character, or his novel, has no business using the source
material to trash the source material.
A filmmaker should at least try, to the best of his or her
ability, to be true to the spirit of whatever is being
adapted.
"However, I have to admit that in the case of 'The 39 Steps'
I had to watch it a few times before I was able to get past
its differences from the novel. I read the book for the first
time when I was pretty young, and knew it well by the time I
saw the film. I'm a fan of Buchan's stories, with all their
weaknesses and ugly aspects. I think this is the root of my
sense that the novel is 'better.' The movie, for all its
energy and humour and cleverness, doesn't deliver the
storytelling magic I associate with the book. And the
screwball comedy-type 'romantic tension' is utterly alien to
the spirit of Buchan."
Well, I read the book first, too. And my take is just
different from yours. While I was aware of the differences, I
got the same sense of movement, verve, suspense, and
adventures from both versions. I thought the film, while not
a literal translation, was quite faithful to the spirit of
Buchan's original.
Significantly, from what I've been given to understand,
Buchan did, too.
Leaving aside Buchan's opinions about the film and/or its
faithfulness to his novel, however, liking the film or not
liking the film is just a difference of speicific opinion,
not a difference of philosophy,
(though I gather from your earlier comments that there's a
difference in philosophy, too).
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from
someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 01 Jul 2007 EDT