Richard,
Re your response to Patrick's comments below:
"Do you think the opinion of Chandler fans in 1973 moved the
box office at all? Of course not. So why should the producers
care? The going against the Chandler grain would have helped
the buzz-- given the reviewers something to write and been a
net positive."
The Chandler fan base was sufficiently powerful that MARLOWE,
1969's adaptation of of THE LITTLE SISTER, 1975's FAREWELL,
MY LOVELY, and 1977's remake of THE BIG SLEEP, all of which
were far more faithful to their source materia than Altman
(indeed, aside from its London setting, TBS is, in some
respects, a MORE faithful adaptation that the '46 version,
for all that it's clearly not as good a film), all did better
box-office than 1973's TLG. The anti-Chandler buzz apparently
hurt it.
In any case, it seemed to me that what Patrick was talking
about was OUR response, not the effect our response would
have had on the box office.
Altman clearly despised the Marlowe character (recall his
comments about how he was depicting Marlowe as the loser he
really was, not the phony winner Chandler made him), and the
PI sub-genre in general. Does it follow that, simply because
he's a talented filmmaker, Chandler fans should swallow his
debasing of a favorite novel.
If what had Altman did to Chandler was what the Potter
producers did to Rowling, Potter fans wouldn't stand for it.
Neither should Chandler fans, and the effect it might have on
the box office isn't the point.
And, yes, filmmakers have some sort of obligation to the
works they adapt. Moreover, the history of film seems to
indicate that faithful adaptations of novels not only are
more financially successful, but are better films. Just off
the top of my head, GONE WITH THE WIND, THE MANCHURIAN
CANDIDATE, TOM JONES, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, and L.A.
CONFIDENTIAL, all made an effort, within the limits of the
medium and the time they had to fit the story into a
feature-length movie, were all faithful, at least to the
spirit, and often to the letter, of the books they were based
on. Would they really have been better films, and done better
box office, if they'd treated their source material with the
same contempt that Altman treated TLG? I doubt it.
"Does the existence of 'Satan Met a Lady,' the 1936 film,
detract from my opinion of the Dashiell Hammett novel THE
MALTESE FALCON or the John Houston film adaptation of 1941?
Of course not. So let us celebrate or criticize the Altman
film without getting too hysterical about it."
Now you're just proving Patrick's point. SMAL was a film that
had no respect for its source material. Both the '31 and '41
versions did. Both the '31 and
'41 versions are more successful as films because of their
fidelity to the source material, and, I suspect, both did
better box office. Certainly the '41 version was more
critically acclaimed, and, within the film industry, was
recognized with Oscar nominations for, among other
categories, best picture and best supporting actor
(Greenstreet's film debut as Gutman).
Patrick's point was not that Altman's film should detract
from anyone's opinion of Chandler's novel, but that Altman's
film does no more justice to the novel than SMAL did to
FALCON. Does it follow that, simply because of Altman's
talent, Chandler devotees should simply shrug their shoulders
and say, "Well, it was Altman's film and we should judge it
on that basis," and not utter the least protest that the film
very deliberately trashes Chandler's novel, Chandler's
character, and the whole PI sub-genre?
No my reaction to Altman's bringing his talent to bear on a
film that had so little reason to be made is Superman's
whenever he encounters Lex Luthor.
"If only he had used his great power for good."
JIM DOHERTY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small
Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Feb 2007 EST