I get your points, Steve, but this is exactly the essense of
the problem. Why does Altman or any film maker make a
derivative film and then choose to depart entirely from the
original idea? Why not take the idea that was inspired by the
original work, call the new detective Milton Pharlow or
something and move forward with an original story? The answer
is, the producer and/or the director want to glam on to the
success of the popular book. So I come to this film having
read the book at least four or five times, and I'm not
treated to a visual rendition of this story I enjoyed, but to
some different story set in a different time frame, with
characters I can't even recognize. And I'm expected to be
philosophical about this and "enjoy" the film as pure cinema
and because Robert Altman directed it. Personally, I think
that's rediculous. Hollywood can be as creative as it wants
with original screenplays. I wish they'd make a lot more of
them. But if they want to leach off the hard work of a writer
who's created a huge readership through trial and error, the
least that readership can demand is a faithful rendition.
Altman's Long Goodbye is tantamount to taking a Harry Potter
novel, making Harry 30-years-old, setting the story in modern
Texas, and changing Hogwart School of Witchcraft and
Wizardry, into a Piggly-Wiggly cashregister training school.
Rowling fans would not put up with this and neither should we
Chandler fans!
Patrick
--- Steve Novak <
Cinefrog@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dear Patrick,
>
> I think you take my comment much too seriously and
I
> thought that my
> Œscotch¹ asides were jazzing up the
atmosphere...but
> your e-mail follows two
> or three others along the same avenues...
> Fundamentally any adaptation of any book into
film
> has to be looked at as a
> film and not against some kind of meter on how
much
> it is ³faithfull to the
> book...to the character...to the plot...to
the
> genre...whatever...²...Does
> it work as a film is the fundamental question and
in
> the case of The Long
> Goodbye, as a film, and also as a Bob Altman
film
> (sub category here), it
> works very well for some people...like myself
or
> Etienne B. as he just
> mentioned in a recent e-mail to us all.
> I of course concede that it may not ³really
captures
> the essense of
> Chandler's LA² but is that the question?...and
who
> owns finally ³the essence
> of Chandler¹s LA²....who owns the SF of
Hammett...in
> my book the ŒHammett¹
> of Wim Wenders...who owns the Œessence of
London²:
> the wrestling gym of
> Night and the City or the West India docks of
The
> Long Good Friday of John
> McKenzie...???...
> In the same vein, is Bogart more ŒHammettian¹
than
> Frederic Forrest...my
> vote goes for Forrest...and that¹s purely because
he
> sticks closer in my
> mind to the image I have of the writer of
Red
> Harvest, since that novel is
> my benchmark on the character...and the
writer...
> Gould is very much Œaway¹ from the
accepted
> perception, granted...but it
> captivates you and you want to see it several
times
> to get more every
> time...
> ...at least I do...
> ...sorry I don¹t do popcorn...just single
malt...or
> Cahors, Madiran or
> Iroul駵y...or the occasional gimlet...
>
> Sylvestre (Steve) Novak
>
Cinefrog@comcast.net
>
> On 1/26/07 4:50 PM, "Patrick King"
> <
abrasax93@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stve Novak wrote:
> > "I¹d be less gentle than Jim B...Jim D. you
need
> to
> > watch it, and watch it
> > again, and again...and maybe in between
repeated
> > viewings you need some
> > Glenfiddish or Lagavulin... or
somethin¹...because
> the
> > film is excellent!"
> >
> > Frankly, Steve, if one has to watch it over
and
> over
> > and alter one's consciousness too, in order
to
> > appreciate it, how good can it be? I find
Altman's
> The
> > Long Goodbye a dull, half hearted attempt
made
> > primarily to help Elliott Gould change his
image.
> Even
> > in this, the film is a failure. The only film
that
> > really captures the essense of Chandler's LA
is
> > Bogart's The Big Sleep, and even this was
ruined
> by
> > the Hayze Office and their censorship
policies.
> These
> > stories can all be remade with fidelity to
the
> plot
> > and the era to great advantage. Anything less
will
> be
> > the usual Hollywood 'rush with the flush,'
and
> others
> > will be having this same discussion 20 years
from
> now
> > about how good the originals are and how
stupid
> > producers are to screw with their basic
elements.
> >
> > Patrick King
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have
been
> removed]
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the
Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Feb 2007 EST