Some thoughts:
1) "Trash" is such a values-laden verb in this context that
it forces the conclusion you wish to reach. Therefore, I
don't accept your verb.
2) As noted earlier, I disagree that Altman was being
"disrespectful," but even if he was, so what? Chandler is not
sacrosanct.
3) Whether or not you can understand how Chandler fans can
appreciate Altman's effort, obviously many do. This puts you
in a position of cognitive dissonance, surely, but the fact
remains the same. If you mean to suggest that those
particular Chandler fans are not true Chandler fans, that's a
lame attempt to solve the dissonance.
4) There were those at the time when West Side Story first
appeared who felt that it was indeed sacrilegious to
Shakespeare, that placing the "star cross'd lovers" in a
contemporary, urban, ethnic context was quite
disrespectful.
5) I don't understand why "parody" would be exempt from your
strictures while what Altman attempted is not.
6) I also don't understand why actors' performances being
identifiably the same character matters one way or another.
Acting is interpretation. Some performances of the same
characters or same texts will be similar, others will not
be.
7) I don't think my reasoning is particularly "tortured."
Surely you've heard of paradox?
8) For the record and as a Tolkien fan, I intensely dislike
what Peter Jackson made of The Lord of the Rings -- it
doesn't correspond with my view of the novel at all, and I
believe that it trades Tolkien's British charm for a modern
CGI-monster/horror movie tone that is wildly unidiomatic. But
that doesn't mean that I think that Jackson was deliberately
trying to
"trash" Tolkien, or that he committed a heinously
unforgivable aesthetic sin. He's a talented director; I
admire Heavenly Creatures enormously. I just don't like his
take in this instance. But I'm not losing sleep over it the
way you seem to be over Altman.
Best regards, Mark
On 12/5/07, JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> A more serious response to your comments
below:
>
> "Besides, if Chandler is that great himself
(no
> argument from me there), then certainly he should
be
> able to withstand any kind of insult. Consider
the
> sins (if they be sins) that have been
committed
> against Shakespeare in the name of adaptation
and
> updating. A purist could have issued a fatwa
against
> Leonard Bernstein, Arthur Laurents, Stephen
Sondheim,
> and Jerome Robbins for the 'sacrilege' against
'Romeo
> and Juliet' that is 'West Side Story.'
But
> Shakespeare seems to have survived just fine (and
so,
> for that matter, has the brilliant 'West
Side
> Story')."
>
> This really isn't a good analogy. Bernstein, et
al,
> weren't deliberately trying to trash
Shakespeare.
> They were taking a familiar Shakespearean plot
and
> putting it in a modern setting.
>
> The characters weren't wildly divergent from
their
> orginal inspirations. Tony, for example, wasn't
an
> unromantic uggo deliberately patterned to be
the
> opposite of Romeo. Neither was Maria a
harsh,
> unattractive strumpet totally unlike the
beauteous
> innocent that was Juliet.
>
> Arguably, Shakespeare himself did a far greater job
of
> trashing his own ROMEO & JULIET with the
"Pyramus and
> Thisby" sketch in MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM
than
> Bernstein ever did. Of course, that was an
outright
> parody, not a supposedly straight adaptation.
And,
> IIRC, MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM actually precedes
R&J,
> so, technically, I suppose, R&J trashed
P&T.
>
> Altman, by contrast, said right out that it was
his
> intention to portray Marlowe as a loser, a REAL
loser
> unlike the heroic figure cast by Chandler,
and
> further, implied that, by making Marlowe
heroic,
> Chandler was somehow selling out.
>
> One can look at Richard Beymer's performance in
WSS
> and, comparing it to, say, Leonard Whiting's,
Leo
> DiCaprio's, Laurence Harvey's, or Leslie Howard's,
can
> see that we're looking at essentially the
same
> character.
>
> One can't honestly compare Elliot Gould's
performance
> to Dick Powell's, Humphrey Bogart's, Robert
Mitchum's,
> or Powers Boothe's, and conclude that we're looking
at
> essentially the same character.
>
> To me that seems obvious on its face.
>
> "It could be that Altman's apparent disrespect
for
> Chandler is actually a mark of the highest respect
--
> a riff on a the work of a fellow master.
That's
> certainly what I think."
>
> The fact that you acknowledge that
Altman's
> disprespect for Chandler is apparent shows how far
one
> has to twist and turn to reach the conclusion that
his
> version of TLG is somehow a faithful, or at least
a
> "respectful," adaptation.
>
> I prefer to take things at face value.
Altman's
> dispresepct is apparent (and, moreover,
stated
> outright), therefore it is real, and not, by
some
> tortured reasoning, a sign of "true"
respect.
>
> You like the film? Well, fine. That's a matter
of
> taste. For myself, quite aside from the fact that
it
> pisses all over the book, I found it dull and
listless
> with no characters I really cared about. But
some
> people like chocolate and some like
vanilla.
>
> What I'll still never understand, though,
whatever
> virtues the film may or may not possess, is how
anyone
> who purports to be a Chandler fan can claim to enjoy
a
> movie that so deliberately trashes his most
ambitious
> novel.
>
> And this is not, as has been suggested, a case of
a
> "cult of personality." Chandler, after all, was,
in
> many ways, not an altogether nice man. And it may
be
> that Altman was a prince. I don't know.
>
> I DO know, however, that if Chris Columbus had done
to
> Harry Potter, or Peter Jackson to Frodo Baggins,
what
> Altman did to Marlowe, that Rowling fans and
Tolkien
> fans would have howled to the high heavens. So
the
> acquiesence of Chandler fans to Altman's "riff" on
THE
> LONG GOODBYE really does puzzle me.
>
> JIM DOHERTY
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>
-- Mark R. Harris 2122 W. Russet Court #8 Appleton WI 54914 (920) 470-9855 brokerharris@gmail.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Dec 2007 EST