Jim Doherty wrote:
> Terrill,
>
> Re your question below:
>
> "Jim, who are these nameless people who
supposedly
>knew Spillane so well that you can speak for
him
>through their words?"
>
>I admit I'm getting this second-hand, and perhaps
I
>shoudn't have used "people" in the plural
sense.
>
>The person who said this, and said it publicly,
was
>Max Allan Collins, to whom Mickey gave
responsibility
>for his unfinished manuscripts. Al said this at
a
>Bouchercon panel devoted to Spillane in
Madison,
>Wisconsin, on which both Richard Moore and I
were
>participants.
I assume that by "Al" you mean "Max Allan Collins," and "Al
Guthrie," who was also in attendance at Madison's
Bouchercon.
>IIRC, Al said that Mickey admitted this at some
kind
>of public forum, though maybe Richard recalls
better
>than I.
So it's hearsay from one person, then.
>It's possible that Al, known as both a
Spillane
>devotee and a devotee of Aldrich's film, may
be
>recalling an admission from Spillane that
really
>didn't get made in quite so unequivocal a manner
as
>Collins describes.
Or he could have recalled it the way he'd have liked it to
be. I do that sort of thing with conversations I've had all
the time.
>When I talked about Spillane's admission I did use
the
>term "even" because his long-time disdain
for
>Aldrich's film is well-known.
>
>As for my speaking for Chandler, I speak only
for
>myself when I give my opinion of Altman's THE
LONG
>GOODBYE. However, Altman speaks for himself when
he
>describes Marlowe as a loser, while Chandler
speaks
>for himself whe he describes him as "the best man
in
>his world and a good enough man for any world" and
and
>later as "the hero . . . everything."
Jim, could you give us a source on that quote of Altman? I've
never heard it anywhere else.
>These are incompatible visions of the character,
and
>the vision that Altman put on the screen was
his
>vision, not Chandler's.
You know, one guy's "best man in his world" is another guy's
"loser." That's literature for you.
>He transformed Marlowe into an ineffectual
nebbish,
>and this was certainly his intention. So he
was
>successful at what he was trying to do.
My own opinion of the film (hated it) is well-documented in
the discussions we had the last time this subject came up on
this list. I would like to say this, though: although I found
Gould's mantra of "It's okay by me" a bit hippy-dippy, and I
don't much like the way the film feels rudderless and
meanders through the entire second act, I did recently go
back and watch it again, and I don't think that your
perception here is accurate.
After watching it this last time (I own a copy, go figure), I
honestly think that Altman was attempting not a murder, but
an update. Take a look at the scene where Marlowe's getting
shaken down by the cops in his own place and then gets
dragged downtown, sweated and then tossed into the clink. How
is that really any different than what Chandler did? For me,
the action was pretty much the same. The dialogue was
different and Gould was more diffident in his presentation,
but it was the early 1970s, not the mid-1950s, and if Altman
had played it as something that might have starred Dick
Powell in the middle of all of those sideburns and stove-pipe
legged pants, it'd have been a laugher (and not an
intentional one).
As for your statement that Altman transformed Marlowe into an
"ineffectual nebbish," like I said, the hippy-dippy mantra
notwithstanding, what does/doesn't Marlowe accomplish in the
book/movie?
Let's see:
He helps Lennox skip town in both.
He goes to jail for days and days rather than give up his
friend in both.
He helps Roger Wade get out of the quack's drunk-tank in
both.
He is not able to keep Roger Wade from being murdered in
both.
He is not able (or perhaps just not willing) to keep Eileen
Wade from committing suicide in the book. She doesn't attempt
it in the movie.
Menendez is far more menacing in the movie than in the book,
and yet Marlowe succeeds in keeping his hide intact in his
run-ins with that guy and his crew (and the scene with the
flat Coke in the green bottle in the movie IS
hilarious.).
Let's take it one step further: look at the ending. Altman
updated it, Lennox doesn't get away with murder (because
Marlowe shoots him after tracking him down in Mexico), as
opposed to Chandler's ending where Marlowe actually talks to
Lennox and doesn't do anything to stop him from getting away
with the perfect crime.
So who's the ineffectual nebbish? How is letting Lennox get
away with (which I thought was a brilliant touch in the
novel) BETTER, less nebbishy than tracking the guy down in
his new digs in Mexico, and shooting him down like a
dog?
How is that last bit the act of an "ineffectual
nebbish"?
It seems to me that your problem is with the presentation,
rather than with Altman's plot, which over all, is incredibly
faithful to Chandler's book.
>I don't happen to think that what he was trying to
do
>was worth doing. I suspect Chandler wouldn't
have
>either, but I freely admit that this is
speculation.
Just because Chandler might not have liked it, that's no
reason not to do it.
>Since I don't think that what Altman was trying to
do
>was worth doing, I thoroughly dislike the
film
>precisely because he was so successful at
realizing
>his vision.
Jeeze Jim, since when is watching a film a moral decision? In
the aggregate I still agree with you in overall disliking the
film. As I said I think it meanders too much in act II, and
some of the scenes feel slapped-together.
That said, it's *art*. Some of the best art ever made has
been considered "immoral" by would-be censors.
Your Mileage May Vary.
All the Best-
Brian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Nov 2007 EST