Mark,
Re your response below:
> 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.
Of course it's a value-laden term. Why shouldn't it be? Your
not accepting doesn't make it any less appropriate. In fact,
your rejection of it seems to be based on the fact that it's
inarguably what Altman was doing, and if you admit that,
you've lost the argument.
> 2) As noted earlier, I disagree that Altman
was
being "disrespectful," but
> even if he was, so what? Chandler is not
sacrosanct.
I never said he was sacrosanct. I said, and still say, that
if he didn't respect Chandler, why make the movie? Why buy
the film rights to in order to make a film that shows nothing
but contempt for the source material?
As for whether or not Altman was being disrespectful, you're
the one who had to twist and turn to make Altman's film a
mark of signal respect. I'm just taking his film, and his
comments about his intent, at face value.
> 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.
I'm not suggesting anything other than my inability to
understand some Chandler fans' admiration for something
that's so clearly contemptuous of Chandler's work.
> 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.
The custom of doing Shakespeare in modern dress, or reusing
the plots of Shakespearean plays in new ways was already
well-established by the time WSS came along.
The reception of both the stage production and the film,
critically and popularly, would seem to indicate that those
in the "sacriligious" camp were in the minority.
That doesn't seem to be as true of Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE.
To the degree that the people who go to movies based on
Chandler novels are Chandler fans, then THE LONG GOODBYE's
financial and critical failure
(and it was a flop in both respects when first released),
contrasted with the financial and critical success of, say,
FAREWELL, MY LOVELY two years later, suggests that there were
far more Chandler fans who disliked TLG, than Shakespeare
fans who disliked WSS.
> 5) I don't understand why "parody" would be
exempt
from your strictures
> while what Altman attempted is not.
Because "parody" is, first of all, supposed to be
disrespectful, second of all, is usually affectionate, and
third of all, is doing it for the sake of comedy.
Altman was making a film directly based on the book, which
would indicate to the average filmgoer that it was going to
be a straightforward adaptation
(something Altman IS capable of; see NIGHTMARE IN CHICAGO,
his TV-movie version of William P. McGivern's short story
"Killer on the Turnpike," or THE CAINE MUTINY COURT-MARTIAL,
another TV-movie adapted from Herman Wouk's novel and stage
play). And he wasn't doing it for laughs, but to make a
serious statement about the kind of story Chandler
told.
> 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.
But if the actor is true to the character as written,
something of the creator's view of that character will come
through, no matter how individualistic the interpretation.
Hence Powell, Bogart, Heflin, Mohr, Garner, Mitchum, Boothe,
Caan, and, yes, even the two Montgomerys, are all
recognizable, at some level, as Chandler's character, while
Gould is not. Why? Because Powell, Bogart, et al, within
their own individual interpretations, are trying to convey
Chandler's image of the character, and Gould, following the
directions of his director, is doing just the opposite.
> 7) I don't think my reasoning is
particularly
"tortured." Surely you've
> heard of paradox?
Yeah, but Altman is no G.K. Chesterton. And if disrespecting
a great novel is sign of ultimate respect, then, using he
same tortured logic, trashing
(hate to use such a values-laden term, but I don't have
Thesaurus handy) an honest man's reputation for integrity is
a sign of ultimate respect for that integrity.
Surely YOU'VE heard of Occam's Razor. Altman's stated
intention was to make a film that's contrary to Chandler's
vision of the story and protagonist, and the resulting film
was, in fact, a version that's contrary to Chandler's vision
of the story and protagonist. So, as I said, I'll just take
it at face value, and leave the apologists to look for some
kind of paradoxical "compliment" to Chandler.
> 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.
Well, most Tolkien fans, from what I understand, disagreed
with you. I've never been able to get through the trilogy
(I've tried a few times, but I just get bogged down in the
song lyrics), so I can't speak from my own experience.
It is my sense, though, that Jackson was TRYING to be true to
Tolkien, and nothing you say suggests that he wasn't. In
fact, you flatly state that, in your opinion, being untrue or
disrespectful was NOT his intent.
Altman, by sharp contrast, was deliberately trying to be, and
succeeding at being, untrue to Chandler's novel and to his
vision of his character.
And thanks for your concern about my nocturnal rest, but
Altman's movie has never lost me a night's sleep.
However, for some reason, my rejection of it seems to have
disturbed the slumber of several people here at R/A.
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Dec 2007 EST