Polanski was true to the era he was working in and he made a
great movie, not a medocre re-hash. I was unaware of the
changes in the script. I think it's a different thing when
you buy a writer's script and make changes that will direct
on film more effectively, than when you buy the rights to a
popular story already on the public radar and change it
around to suit whatever you're trying to say. These are two
different types of creative license. One can get away with
the former more easily than the latter.
Patrick King
---
DJ-Anonyme@webtv.net wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
>
> "Take a look at Polanski's much more
successful
> Chinatown. Polanski
> openly stated he was trying for the
Chandler
> mystique."
>
> A sleazy PI who specializes in divorce cases
is
> hardly Chandler's noble
> knight.
>
> "Unlike Altman, though, Polanski didn't have to
pay
> for the rights!"
>
> I'm sure Robert Towne didn't come cheap.
>
> However, it's interesting that you'd raise
Chinatown
> to counter a movie
> that is notorious for changing the ending of
its
> source material. To
> Towne's great dismay (although it didn't stop
him
> from accepting an
> Oscar for the original screenplay),
Polanski
> radically changed the
> ending of Chinatown, and producer OB Evans
backed
> him. He also rewrote
> several other key scenes. Now because this
was
> based on an (at that
> time) unpublished screenplay, few had read
the
> source material,
> sidestepping readers' expectation of
faithulness,
> but Polanski did
> exactly the same thing to Chiatown that Brackett
did
> to Long Goodbye.
>
> Mark
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the
free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 Feb 2007 EST