I think we have probably reached the point of diminishing
returns, since I don't agree with your premises, wording,
definitions, or conclusions, and you don't with mine. Our
points of view are sufficiently aired at this point.
Mark
On 12/5/07, JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
-- 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 : 06 Dec 2007 EST