In a message dated 8/21/03 9:56:08 AM,
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com writes:
<< But it is. Moreover, it's a deliberate, calculated
insult. Insulting the book, the character, the author, and
the genre was Altman's entire purpose. >>
I think Altman is less devious and
less demonic than you're making him, Jim. The fact that he
stood back and played the court jester with Chandler,
hard-boildness, and with Marlowe, doesn't mean that he didn't
like them and appreciate their value. He had fun with them as
he did with the fashion business
(a business he claims to enjoy and admire).
As for Hooker's book MASH. Altman was
not faithful to Hooker (at least not in a manner that suited
Hooker.) The book MASH is "comedy at the war front," but it
didn't have an ounce of anti establishment or anti-war
sentiment in it anywhere. Hooker hated what Altman did in
"adapting" his book.
I guess I tend to go with Elmore
Leonard's notion, that books are books and movies are movies,
and when someone buys the right to make a movie "from" a
book, they get to do pretty much what they want to do, and
the movie stood be judged for itself and against
itself.
Jim
Blue
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # 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 : 21 Aug 2003 EDT