I think what this circular neverending discussion boils down
to is that some devoted fans of Chandler's feel so strongly
attached to his work that any movie that's not a faithful
adaption is disrespectful. Others of us who might be also be
Chandler fans (I'm mildly one but feel more attached to the
works of Hammett, Jim Thompson, Willeford and Rex Stout than
I do Chandler), could appreciate the movie for what it was (a
great movie!)--and I for one didn't find it at all
disrespectful to Chandler, but in its own ways quite
Chandleresque. But I can understand the disappointment--when
you're that emotionally attached to a book you want the movie
to play out as you envisioned it. I've been there--and was
grossly disappointed with the first Nero Wolfe show (William
Conrad as Wolfe, please!), and thrilled with A&E's
version a few years back. What I don't get is how someone can
make the logical jump from someone not faithfully adapting a
work, or taking liberties with it, to the
director/screenwriters disrespecting the author. Seems kind
of silly to me--but this is an argument we're never going to
meet any meeting of the minds with. Although it does seem
from the responses that far more people here liked Altman's
version of Long Goodbye than despised it, so I think we do
have a RARA AVIS consensus that the Long Goodbye was a damn
good movie ;)
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, JIM DOHERTY
<jimdohertyjr@...> wrote:
>
> Miker,
>
> Re your comment below:
>
> "Art has no moral obligation."
>
> That's about the silliest thing I've ever
heard.
>
> All people have an obligation to be moral, to
do
> right, to be honest, honorable, and charitable,
and
> this applies to one's profession as it does to
all
> other aspects of one's life.
>
> Would you say that a cop has no obligation to
conduct
> himself morally? Or a physician? Or a lawyer?
We
> may not be particularly surprised if anyone in
those
> professions acts immorally, but we feel we have
a
> right to expect moral, or at the absolute
minimum,
> ethical behavior from them nonetheless, and we, as
a
> society, exact a price if they don't measure
up.
>
> Why should an artist be exempt from a standard
we
> expect of all other members of society.
>
> To say that art has no moral obligation is to excuse
a
> child pornographer as long as his photography
is
> artistic. It's to excuse a plagiarist as long as
he
> improves on what he stole. It's to say that
novel
> that's little more than a racist screed needs
no
> justification as long as it's well-written and tells
a
> compelling story.
>
> You may say that an artist doesn't have to conform
to
> MY personal standards of morality or YOUR
perosnal
> standards of morality in order to justify himself,
but
> to say that an artist need not conform to ANY
standard
> of morality when he's producing art simply
because
> he's an artist producing art is just
silly.
>
> JIM DOHERTY
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Looking for earth-friendly autos?
> Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos'
Green Center.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Feb 2007 EST