I can't believe I've been sucked into this argument again,
because it WILL ONLY end in a stalemate, again.
The reasons why I hate this movie are A) It IS an update of
Chandler to the 1970's, a place where he doesn't belong and
it's incompatible with his stories. B) It is a typical Altman
inversion/perversion of the genre.
Philip Marlowe is a product of the 30's and 40's. Chandler
captures that period so beautifully, why would you want to
ruin it and put it in the disco
'70's, with Marlowe driving a flipping Volkswagon
beetle.
If Altman wants to invert the detective genre why does he
have to base it on the greatest of hard-boiled detectives?
That is my objection. He inverted teen comedy, Agatha
Christie mysteries, Popeye comics
and War movies, but none of those bother me nearly as
much as inverting Chandler. Although the Popeye movie still
stings a little.
The Big Lebowski, a movie I truly love is basically The Big
Sleep, but with a stoned ex-hippie as detective. His name is
The Dude, and he is NOT Philip Marlowe and it's a brilliant
parody/homage of the hard-boiled genre.
I think Chandler's point when writing the novels is that yes
there is corruption and vice everywhere, and it's nearly
impossible for one man to make a difference, but yet Marlowe
is still in there fighting. Does that make him a loser?
In a real life example, Elliott Ness was willing to risk his
life trying to take down Al Capone. 1930's Chicago was full
of vice and police corruption. Is Elliott Ness a loser
because he was the only cop not on the take? And yes, one man
DID make a difference.
--Chan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Nov 2007 EST