-----Original Message-----
>From:
DJ-Anonyme@webtv.net
>Sent: Nov 8, 2007 3:36 PM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Chandler's The Lady in
the Lake
>
>Jim again:
>
>"However, Altman speaks for himself when he describes
Marlowe as a
>loser, while Chandler speaks for himself whe he
describes him as 'the
>best man in his world and a good enough man for any
world' and and later
>as 'the hero . . . everything.'
>"These are incompatible visions of the character, and
the vision that
>Altman put on the screen was his vision, not
Chandler's."
>
>Chandler also wrote of Marlowe (in Raymond Chandler
speaking):
>
>"If being in revolt against a corrupt society
consitutes being immature,
>then Philip Marlowe is extremely immature. If seeing
dirt where there is
>dirt constitutes an inadequate social adjustment,
then Philip Marlowe
>has inadequate social adjustment. Of course Marlowe
is a failure and he
>knows it. He's a failure because he hasn't any money.
A man who without
>any physical handicaps cannot make a decent living is
always a failure
>and usually a moral failure. But a lot of very good
men have been
>failures because their particular talents did not
suit their time and
>place."
>
>Loser, failure, hardly seem incompatible to me. In
fact, my thesaurus
>lists them both as synonyms for "unsuccesful
person."
>
>Mark
>
Mark, don't start bringing facts into the discussion. You'll
mess up all of Jim's theories.
In a very good article about the development of the movie,
written by the screenwriter Leigh Brackett, she states that
Altman wasn't that interested in doing the movie until he
began reading Chandler's letters and essays pertaining to
Marlowe. She said that that was the starting point for the
character in the film: Chandler's own perception of Marlowe
as a man out of touch with society, a valiant loser.
(I'm paraphrasing out of memory. I'll try to find the article
if I need to back these words up with actual quotes.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 08 Nov 2007 EST