Kev,
Re your comments below:
"Now we're counting tickets sold to justify art?"
I never said selling tickets justified art. One might point
out that art that doesn't get seen by people is wasted and,
in that sense, a great movie that is also very popular is
better art than a great movie that nobody sees, but that's a
philosophical argument entirely apart from what I was saying.
My point was something different altogether
Let's put this in context. Mark brought up WEST SIDE STORY
and compared my response to TLG to the reaction of some
Shakespeare purists to WSS.
My response was to point out that the popular AND critical
acclaim given to both the stage and film versions of WSS were
an indication that those Shakespeare purists Mark was
comparing me to were apparently in the minority.
By contrast, TLG was a critical (yes, critical) and popular
flop. 1975's FML, by contrast, was a critical and financial
hit. To the degree that at least as many of the people who go
to movies based on Chandler books are likely to be Chandler
fans as the people who went to WSS were likely to be
Shakespeare fans, the greater success of FML was an
indication that more Chandler purists objected to TLG than
Shakespeare purists objected to WSS.
It was a response to a specific argument Mark made that
suggested that my view of TLG was iconoclastic
(like that of the Shakespeare purists who disliked WSS), and
was not meant to suggest that box office equaled quality, but
that my view of TLG, on the contrary, was far more mainstream
than those Shakespeare purists Mark was comparing me
to.
"And who's driven to discuss FARWWELL MY LOVELY with much
passion these days. It's a nice enough piece of well-mounted
and well-crafted fluff that I find quite enjoyable, but let's
face it: Mitchum got to the party thirty years too late and
the fussy attention to detail makes it seem like a museum
piece at times. It's Marlowe in aspic."
Well, that's not ALL that far from my view, though it seems
that I like it a lot better than you. And, while I agree
Mitchum's performance leaves you aching for the awsome
Marlowe he could've been in his prime, his late middel-aged
version is still light years better than Gould's.
But, then, how hard is that? Even Robert Montgomery's is
light years ahead of Gould's.
"And it pales in comparison to the Dick Powell version,
probably the best adaptation of Chandler so far."
Well, I don't know about PALES. I like the Powell version
better, and agree that it's probably the best of all Marlowe
adaptation, but the Mitchum version, incorporating parts of
the novel left out of the Powell version, actually makes a
great companion piece. Between the two movies, you pretty
much get the whole book.
"And as for THE LONG GOODBYE being a supposed critical flop,
that's not necessarily so either. Granted, it got several
mixed and guarded reviews, but it also got the thumbs up from
some fairly well-respected critics
(if anyone can respect a critic) such as Roger Ebert and
Pauline Kael.
'Don't be misled by the ads, The Long Goodbye is not a
put-on. It's great fun and it's funny, but it's a serious,
unique work.'
-- The New York Times"
The majority critical opinion was clearly on the thumbs-down
side. A few examples:
"You don't have to admire Raymond Chandlr to regret the movie
but it helps."
-- L.A. TIMES
"Any resemblance between Chandler's book and this movie is
not only coincidental but probably libelous .
. . Altman's lazy, haphazard put-down is without affection or
understanding . . . It is a curious spectacle to see Altman
mocking a level of achivment to which, at his best, he could
only aspire."
-- TIME MAGAZINE
"Depending on one's degree of charity towards director Robert
Altman, his film version of Raymond Chandler's THE LONG
GOODBYE is either clumsy, failed parody or a plain,
old-fashioned, stupidly bad film . . . It seems downright
contemptuous of its alleged source, dowright contemptuous of
its audience, and, indeed, downright contemptuous of the
film-maker's art."
-- COAST MAGAZINE
"And since then, it's certainly weathered a lot of the
original knee-jerk criticism from Chandler fetishists, who
seem to have no problem liking Hawks' BIG SLEEP, in its own
way as much a diversion from the source material as THE LONG
GOODBYE."
Oh come on, Kev! Chandler himself thought THE BIG SLEEP was a
faithful adaptation, and particularly praised both Bogart's
performance and Hawks's direction, so who are "Chandler
fetishists" to disagree.
As for TLG, as far as I can tell, those who like it are still
in the minority. I still hate it, and, as we all know (but so
many refuse to admit), that pretty much settles the
question.
"I mean, Marlowe as a stud, trading double entendres,
flirting with a cabbie and boinking a bookstore clerk on the
floor of her shop during surveillance? Compared to that,
Altman and Brackett's Rip Van Marlowe actually seems more
faithful to the spirit and essence of the character in many
ways, even if the world Marlowe finds himself in has been
stood on its head."
You're really stretching here. The gorgeous babes who show up
everywhere were, I grant you, not as plentiful in the novel,
and the beefing up of Vivian's role was clearly a way of
taking advantage of the on-screen chemistry between Bogie and
Bacall, but the book store scene was actually pretty faithful
to the counterpart scene in the book. Turning her into
another dish was just something that made it fit into the
rest of the movie.
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 : 08 Dec 2007 EST