Sure, it's a matter of taste.
I agree that the relation of the Hitchcock movie to the
Buchan book is different from the relation of the Altman
movie to the Chandler book. Still, I think you are way too
hard on Altman. And I think my preference for Buchan's book
based on my affection for it is similar enough to your
arguments about "The Long Goodbye" to justify the
mention.
Stephen Burridge
On 7/1/07, JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 01 Jul 2007 EDT