-----Original Message-----
>From: jimdohertyjr <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Feb 9, 2007 9:37 PM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye
>
>Terrill,
>
>Re your comments below:
>
>> That's just not true. In the real world of books
and film, the only
>thing a filmmaker owes a novelist is a contract and a
check. If the
>movie made breaks with the spirit of the contract,
the author (or his
>estate) is free to sue the filmmakers afterwards - as
is happening
>right now with Clive Cussler. But few, if any,
producers would have
>given any novelist the kind of control Cussler had
over SAHARA. I'm
>sure there was nothing in the Long Goodbye contracts
that promised
>absolute (or any, for that matter) fidelity to the
source material.
>The cost of the rights for a book are miniscule
compared to the cost
>of making and marketing a motion picture.
>
>Was it not clear that, when I mentioned what a
filmmaker "owes" the
>shource material, I was talking morality, not
legality? I know that
>the notion that even the denizens of a place like
Hollywood should
>behave honorably may be ridiculously niaive, but
there you are.
>
What is this word you speak of, this "morality"?
>But morality aside, there's frugalisty and thrift.
Why even buy the
>material if you don't LIKE the material in the first
place? Why make
>a movie based on material you have nothing but
contempt for?
Altman didn't buy the material. The producers did. They
decided to go with Altman as the director because he was
talented and a flavor of the moment. Altman took the job - I
presume - because he thought he could make a unique and
interesting movie. Which he did.
And it is important to note that most of the differences
between the book and the movie predate Altman's involvement
and originate with Brackett's script - including the
notorious ending.
>
>> It is a "seller beware" situation. Anybody out
there who wants to
>protect their books from the shame of "misadaption"
should just turn
>down that filthy money when the producers come
calling. And they
>should leave instructions with their executors that
they never want
>Hollywood ruining their good name after they are dead
as well.
>
>Yeah, you're right. Why should the executors of a
literary estate
>assume that the author would prefer any dramatic
adaptations to be
>faithful? Certainly nothing in Chandler's past
dealings with
>Hollywood moguls or broadcast execs, nothing in his
letters on the
>subject, nothing in the articles he wrote, nothing
anywhere in the
>written record, would give them any clue about
Chandler's feelings in
>the matter.
>
Chandler sold his stuff and he benefitted both financially
and promotionally by having movies made of his work. Some of
the movies were good. Some were bad. None of them did "Star
Wars" like business. But they kept his name in the public eye
and certainly helped his book sales and built his fame. He
received value beyond the financial. It's useless and kind of
lame to take the dough, make the deal, then bitch when the
movie doesn't live up to your expectations. Very few movies
live up to a novelist's image of what his book should look
like on the silver screen. It's a trade off and Chandler took
it. He knew what he was getting into when he made those
deals. And he wasn't around to be insulted by the existence
of The Long Goodbye (if indeed that would have been his
feeling about the movie).
As John said, other novelists have resisted the siren call of
Hollywood. Sue Grafton is another who comes to mind. It can
be done.
>
>> As does your opinion to anyone sitting on the
other side of the
>aisle, Jim.
>
>Since I'm always right, and not just right, but
obviously and
>manifestly right (at least whenever I'm speaking EX
CATHEDRA), I must
>regard any and all who disagree with me with
mystification and
>puzzlement.
>
>JIM DOHERTY
>
Jim, we could probably take this show on the road like Leary
and Liddy (but for much smaller crowds). I'll never convince
you and you'll never convince me. And I think we've just been
repeating ourselves for a few days now. Bill is probably
growing as impatient with this discussion as he did with the
one about LCC. You've got your opinion to keep you warm at
night and I've got the movie I can watch any time I want.
I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us is the
luckiest.
(I know I'm the happiest. I think I'll pop that movie in the
DVD player right now and give it another viewing.)
TL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10 Feb 2007 EST