Let me weigh in with Jim, here. I bought Robert Altman's "The
Long Goodbye" starring Elliott Gould sight unseen on DVD. It
is at best a
'loose' adaptation of Chandler's novel. But that's not the
reason I don't like it. I don't like it because it's
meandering, poorly plotted, plodding, pedestrian, and
outright boring. Even the half-naked chicks doing thier nude
exercises next door to Marlowe's pad couldn't revive my
flagging interest in this turkey. It's sad, too, because
Gould's a good actor, Brackett's a superb writer, and Altman
seems to just left it rudderless. The film has no direction.
The best screenplay in the world can't save something where
the director refuses to show up.
Avoid it. Failing that, rent it before you buy it.
All the best,
Brian
At 04:20 PM 8/21/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Terill,
>
>Re your comments below:
>
> > He was hired to shoot a script (written by
Leigh
> > Brackett, so you may also want to hurl some of
your
> > criticism her way) based on a book. The fact
that
> > they updated the story so that it takes place
in the
> > 70's should be your first clue, using your own
set
> > of rules, that this might not necessarily be
a
> > "faithful" adaption. Hiring Elliot Gould to
play
> > Marlowe should be your second.
>
>Updating the film isn't, by definItion,
unfaithful.
>MARLOWE, an infinitely better film than TLG, was
set
>in the late '60s and still tried to be faithful to
the
>novel. Gould is capable of playing tough
guys
>believably (e.g. that film he made with Bobby
Blake
>where they're both vice cops), so castin him is
no
>more of a clue that he means to be unfaithful
than
>casting Dick Powell (a pretty boy tenor in
Busby
>Berkeley musicals until MMS) was a clue that
Dmytrick
>and Paxton were going to savage and gut FAREWELL,
MY
>LOVELY.
>
> > This [M*A*S*H being a relatively
faithful
> > adaptation] is an amazing statement. Altman not
only
> > strayed far from Hooker's book, he was
completely
> > off the page of the screenplay (which,
ironically,
> > went on to win the Academy Award without
the
> > necessity of being used much by the
filmmakers.
> > Altman is on record as saying he hated the
script).
> > Altman broke so many rules shooting M.A.S.H.
that
> > most people involved with the film thought he
didn't
> > know what he was doing. Gould and Sutherland
tried
> > to get him fired. Then everyone saw the movie
and he
> > was hailed a "genius." By contrast, Altman
stuck
> > pretty close to Brackett's screenplay, if
not
> > Chandler's book. (I've read both.)
>
>Hooker's book was, in tone, a fairly typical
"miltary
>service comedy" like MR. ROBERTS or SEE HERE,
PRIVATE
>HARGROVE. The movie that emerged was a
well-done,
>service comedy, with citizen-soldiers
complaining
>about the Regular Army (just like in the
book),
>resisting authority (just like in the book),
cheating
>on their wives (just like in the book), and trying
to
>stay alive and sane in a dangerous situation
(just
>like in the book). For all the
"counter-culture"
>references and improvisational scenes, it
remained
>faithful to its genre, and, to a much greater
degree
>that TLG, to its source.
>
>TLG, by contrast, turned Marlowe from a hero to
a
>nebbish, and made concepts like honor and courage
seem
>outmoded and useless.
>
> > > I'm not sure how Altman got around this
supposed
> > > "obligation" and slipped past the "ethics"
police
> > to
> > > use his own creativity on this project and
bring
> > us
> > > one of the most original and interesting
films of
> > > its era (and a fantastic time capsule to
boot),
> > but
> > > I'm sure glad he did.
> > Jim, when you write a post as dogmatic as
this
> > [re the ethics of adaptation], you
> > might be prepared for "snide remarks" and
"sarcasm".
> > Certainly I feel ethics have a place in art.
But you
> > seem to live in a far more rigid universe than
I do.
>
>I think people charged with adapting a work to
a
>different medium have an responsibility to
the
>original source material. Altman doesn't. If
that
>makes me rigid, then I'm quite happy to be
rigid.
>
> > I don't think Altman did anything unethical
while
> > making THE LONG GOODBYE. I think he updated
the
> > story (and the character) to fit the times. You
act
> > as if he committed a crime.
>
>Not a crime. Just a sin.
>
> > I just watched SATAN MET A LADY a few weeks ago
and
> > was amazed at how absolutely terrible it
was.
> > Agressively so. There seemed to be more of
an
> > attempt to be making a "Thin Man" type farce
than a
> > faithful adaption of Falcon. And everyone
involved
> > was failing miserably on both counts. I think
you
> > better take another look at this one before
you
> > promote it.
>
>I wasn't promoting it. I was comparing it to
Altman's
>TLG, and pointing out that, even as bad as it was,
it
>still was closer to the spirit of Hammett's
original
>novel that Altman's version of TLG was to
Chandler's.
>
> > "And what really irritate me is that
> > he strayed from the novel, not because of
some
> > overwhelming artistic vision, but because he
clearly
> > disliked the novel, the character, and the
genre."
> >
> > Is this your interpretation or Altman's
actual
> > statement?
>
>Altman, in interviews has talked referred to
Marlowe
>as a loser, and tut-tuts Chandler for making him
seem
>like a winner, and goes out of his way to
make
>adherence to some sort of code of honorable
behavior
>seem ridiculous. Even if his movie wasn't
ample
>evidence of the contempt he feels for the genre,
his
>own commentary would be.
>
> > > And if you don't like his movie, you don't
have to
> > > watch it.
> >
> > "I don't, and if you check the archives you'll
see
> > that
> > I've refrained from comment on the film for the
most
> > part. Even here, my comment was less about
the
> > film,
> > per se, than about a filmmaker's responsibility
to
> > the
> > source material he's adapting, with Altman's
film
> > (since that was the topic) used as an example
of
> > failing, deliberately failing, that
responsiblity."
> >
> > Your post read as a general attack on Altman as
an
> > elitist artist and a specific, vitriolic attack
on
> > THE LONG GOODBYE as a film adaption. BTW, have
you
> > actually seen the film? And was it recently or
when
> > it first came out? Maybe it is worth another
look.
>
>The discussion was originally about TLG. Chris
asked
>if an artist isn't free to adapt according to
his
>artistic vision. I said adaptation, by
definition,
>constrains the artist to produce something that
is
>faithful to the source material, and since TLG was
the
>original object of discussion, and since
Mark
>explicitly said (and Chris by inference agreed)
that
>TLG was NOT faithful, I went on to say that Altman,
by
>failing to meet the minimal obligation of
being
>faithful to the source material, was violating
that
>(to me) quite obvious ethical standard. If I
was
>forceful, it was because neither Chris nor Mark
seemed
>to think there was anything wrong with
being
>unfaithful to the source material.
>
>And yes, I've seen the movie. And no, it's NOT
worth
>another look.
>
> > "If Altman doesn't like the genre, and wants to
show
> > it
> > up in all its bourgeois phoniness, fine. It
doesn't
> > mean he's ethically free (and his being an
artist
> > doesn't free him from the restraints of
honor,
> > ethics,
> > or morality) to take someone else's work and
trash
> > it,
> > under the guise of "adapting it," to make
his
> > point."
> >
> > And you think I was being "snide" when I
referred to
> > the "ethics police"? Many people (some even on
this
> > list) feel Altman didn't "trash" the book. Some
even
> > think he classed it up. I believe they are
two
> > different experiences, each with their own
specific
> > pleasures.
>
>That wasn't snide (or, anyway, it wasn't meant to
be)
>because there was nothing ironic in it. Altman
DID
>trash the book, and that was exactly what he
intended
>to do. He's the one who said Chandler was a
cop-out
>for making a loser like Marlowe seem like a
winner.
>He's the one who set out to remake him as a
loser.
>And I think doing that was ethically wrong. If he
had
>no respect for the source material, and he's the
one
>who said he didn't, he shouldn't have made the
film.
>
>JIM DOHERTY
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>--
># 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/
.
-- # 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