Well, since Paul Newman's performance in HARPER struck me as
anomalously bad
(in an "I can't believe I'm doing this" camping kind of way),
I'm hoping he'd decided to take the material more seriously a
decade later in THE DROWNING POOL. Certainly he wasn't nearly
as self-charming in HUD (where, of course, he's a stupid cad,
not Lew Archer/Harper) nor THE STING.
THE UNDERGROUND MAN is a pretty minor novel, but I wonder how
many other sins are concealed by your brief, tactful
assessment. TM
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Beaver [mailto:
jumblejim@prodigy.net]
I like HARPER a lot, despite the name change. It is very
Sixties, of course, which means a certain amount of Connery
Bondism rubbed off on the character. I also like THE DROWNING
POOL a good deal. Newman isn't really my idea of Archer, but
I don't think anyone's going to make a movie about my idea of
Archer.
Peter Graves just isn't the actor to carry off Archer (or
much of anything else except Joey's dad on FURY), but that's
just the beginning of the problems with THE UNDERGROUND
MAN.
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Jun 2001 EDT