Favorite Hitchcock movie
thehotdog
What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
Anthony Kanner
Suck? did you mean to put great?
Anthony
===================================
Web Site:
http://www.pacificnet.net/~kanner/
==================================
Cal Rice
thehotdog (theh...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
: suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
first few of them that you saw "sucked"?
Favorite: 'North By Northwest'. Witty, suspenseful, spectacular,
attractive personalities, good plot twists, classic scenes, hilarious
ending, exciting music. Hitchcock at his height of form.
-cr
--
Scott Promish
In article <6cd1ne$k...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, os...@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>thehotdog (theh...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
>: suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
Personally, I thought all three of those were vastly overrated. 'Psycho' is
too iconic to be very suspenseful (you already know everything about the film
even if you've never seen it). 'The Birds' is just plain silly, and 'Vertigo'
just didn't do anything for me.
> Favorite: 'North By Northwest'. Witty, suspenseful, spectacular,
> attractive personalities, good plot twists, classic scenes, hilarious
> ending, exciting music. Hitchcock at his height of form.
I'd probably choose that as my favourite too. 'Rear Window' is also up there.
Justin Siegel
thehotdog wrote:
>
> What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
Whatever, silly dude.
The BEST OF HITCH...
01. Vertigo
02. Rear Window
03. Psycho
04. Notorious
05. The Trouble with Harry
Jaime Lou Robledo
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, thehotdog wrote:
> What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
>
> One of my faves that few have seen is The Lady Vanishes.
Broca
Scott Promish (sco...@DONTSPAMcris.com) wrote:
: In article <6cd1ne$k...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, os...@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
: >
: >thehotdog (theh...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: >: What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
: >: suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
: Personally, I thought all three of those were vastly overrated. 'Psycho' is
: even if you've never seen it). 'The Birds' is just plain silly, and 'Vertigo'
: just didn't do anything for me.
:
: > Favorite: 'North By Northwest'. Witty, suspenseful, spectacular,
: > attractive personalities, good plot twists, classic scenes, hilarious
: > ending, exciting music. Hitchcock at his height of form.
:
: I'd probably choose that as my favourite too. 'Rear Window' is also up there.
>< I remember seeing "Strangers on a Train" when I was very young, and
that final scene on the out-of-control carousel scared me silly. Just
something about something so innocuous becoming so threatening. And I
recall really enjoying one of his less successful films, "Stage Fright"
probably because Alastair Sim always comes of as being slightly nutty.
"Rear Window" is probably my favorite. BTW, I heard they're doing a
remake of 'Dial M For Murder' (different title) with Gwyneth Paltrow
and Michael Douglas.
J. Rubino
DEATH OF A DJ
FRUITCAKE
Coming in August '98- CHEAT THE DEVIL
All from Write Way Publishing
L. Bangs
I have to agree. North by Northwest is THE Hitchcock movie to see,
especially on the big screen.
For money, Vertigo is the most over-rated film of all-time, but I
understand the political/artistic trends currently in vogue that bolster
its praise. I just don't give rip about how revealing the movie is
about Hitchcock's obsessions or how the film champions the auteur
theory, only if it is good.
Of course, some people actually enjoy it for what it is, and that is
cool. I didn't.
Gary
thehotdog wrote:
>
> What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
'North by Northwest'
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly . . . take a stress
pill and, think things over."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't eat the venetian blinds, I just had them
installed on Wednesday."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Lima
GL...@Prodigy.net
Gary
Scott Promish wrote:
>
> In article <6cd1ne$k...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, os...@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
> >
> >: What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> >: suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
>
> too iconic to be very suspenseful (you already know everything about >the film
> even if you've never seen it).
I find this statement to be completely rediculous. No one knew anything
about the film when it was released. It was completely original and
propelled the slasher genre. I supose having advanced knowledge of
Verbal being Keyser Soze is grounds for calling the ending of 'The Usual
Suspects' predictable.
thehotdog
Anthony Kanner wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:49:35 -0800, thehotdog
>
> >What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> >suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
>
>
> Anthony
> ===================================
> Web Site:
> http://www.pacificnet.net/~kanner/
> ==================================
Of course I meant to put "suck"!
Justin Siegel
Gary wrote:
>
> Scott Promish wrote:
> >
> > In article <6cd1ne$k...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, os...@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
> > >
> > >: What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> > >: suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
> >
>'Psycho' is
> > too iconic to be very suspenseful (you already know everything about
>the film
> > even if you've never seen it).
>
> I find this statement to be completely rediculous. No one knew anything
> about the film when it was released. It was completely original and
> propelled the slasher genre. I supose having advanced knowledge of
> Verbal being Keyser Soze is grounds for calling the ending of 'The Usual
> Suspects' predictable.
Anyone who finds this post hysterically funny and drop-dead ironic is
probably my soul-mate. (Just think about it.)
Maria S. Castellanos
Haven't seen that many, but of the ones I've seen, the one that really
blew me away was REBECCA. What a great, suspenseful movie -- and one that
worked using pure psychology (versus being a slasher movie). I also like
that you can make a great suspense movie in a completely domestic setting.
Another one I liked (can't remember the name now) was with joseph cotten
as the "merry widow murderer" (or something like that) -- his name is
charlie, and his niece charlie (a teenaged-girl) figures out he's the
murderer. saw that for a film class -- another great psychological
thriller.
I've also seen some others that I don't like as much -- one with cary
grant (North by Northwest, maybe?) that I thought was a little boring (so
much so that i can't remember the title or plot for the life of me). "Dial
M for Murder" -- that was okay, but not as cool as the first two I
mentioned. (although grace kelly is mesmerizing.)
* * * * * * * * * * *
Maria S. Castellanos
Five-College Minority Dissertation Fellow
Mount Holyoke College
Perry Melchor
Jaime Lou Robledo wrote in message ...
>> One of my faves that few have seen is The Lady Vanishes.
I've seen it, and I think it's perhaps the most perfect little movie I've
seen in my life.
However, my favorite (the one I'd include on a "desert island" list) is
"Shadow Of A Doubt". Not quite as well oiled as "The Lady Vanishes", but
creepier, and that's what Hitchcock is all about.
Anson Craig Tucker
Personally, I thought that Lifeboat, was Hitchcock's best work, until I
saw Stranger's on a Train. But comparing Lifeboat to Strangers on a Train,
is like comparing apples to oranges. Both movies are on 2 seperate
pyscological levels.
A.T.
*****************************************************************************
Okay, that does it! Now listen!
Why is it that everything today has
involved things either going in or
coming out of my ass?!
-Eric Cartman
*****************************************************************************
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Anthony Kanner wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:49:35 -0800, thehotdog
> <theh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> >suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
>
eirias
I have a fondness for Notorious and 39 Steps.
Anson Craig Tucker <sfpk...@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.95.980217221824.3512C-100000@scfn>...
Franknseus
> What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
One Hitchcock film that even you might like is Troll. Or did somebody else do
that? I'm pretty sure that Hitchcock either did Troll or Troll 2. But even if
I'm wrong, I highly suggest you check out these flicks.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center - http://www.bucketheadland.com
***For lucky best wash, use Mr. Sparkle!***
Jackie
thehotdog wrote:
>
> What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
My favourites were "Lifeboat" and "Witness for the Prosecution" and
"Dial M for Murder"
I think my least Favourites were "The Man who knew too much" and "Topaz"
Cheers from The Thunder from DownUnder
Jackie
Jackie
Maria S. Castellanos wrote:
>
<snipped>
> Another one I liked (can't remember the name now) was with joseph cotten
> as the "merry widow murderer" (or something like that) -- his name is
> charlie, and his niece charlie (a teenaged-girl) figures out he's the
> murderer. saw that for a film class -- another great psychological
> thriller.
It was called "Shadow of a Doubt" and I thought it was very good too :)
Cal Rice
Someone mentioned 'Witness For the Prosecution'. If you are referring to
the Charles Laughton/Marlena Dietrich version, that was not made by
Hitchcock. It was directed by Billy Wilder.
-cr
--
hot dog
Clarice Fung wrote:
>
> thehotdog wrote:
> >
> > Anthony Kanner wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:49:35 -0800, thehotdog
> > >
> > > >What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> > > >suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
> > >
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > > ===================================
> > > Web Site:
> > > http://www.pacificnet.net/~kanner/
> > > ==================================
> >
>
What part of suck don't u understand?
Maria S. Castellanos
what part of that question didn't you understand? it's pretty clear that
people are asking you what it is about those movies that you didn't like.
(just saying they "suck" is pretty vague -- doesn't really make for a
discussion about what exactly is good or bad about them.)
Cal Rice
hot dog (theh...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: What part of suck don't u understand?
Could you give us at least a clue about what is wrong with
Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds?
-cr
--
thehotdog
Why don't you try watching some of the films? Then you would see that
they are all unwatchable crap from a fat, bald, stuffed shirt Euro.
You people are fucking incredible. Isn't a man entitled to his oppinion
any more?
Maria S. Castellanos
Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. But I think the point is that other
people are wondering WHAT SPECIFICALLY you don't like about the movies.
So, perhaps you can ELABORATE on what aspects of those movies lead you to
say that they suck. I think people are just curious what it is exactly
that you don't like about them. (Clearly, other people have watched them
and didn't think they were "unwatchable crap.")
Are you really that dense? How hard is it for you to explain what it is
you don't like about a movie? Was it the script? The actors? The plot? Was
it that they seem, from a '90's perspective, not that scary? Did they seem
cliched? Did you hate the black and white? Do you have issues with your
mother, which made you hate PSYCHO? Do you hate old movies generally?
Do you always hate movies by fat white male directors? WELL???
thehotdog
don't put my e-mail address on your crap post!
hot dog wrote:
>
> Clarice Fung wrote:
> >
> > thehotdog wrote:
> > >
> > > Anthony Kanner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:49:35 -0800, thehotdog
> > > > <theh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> > > > >suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
> > > >
> > > > Suck? did you mean to put great?
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > > ===================================
> > > > Web Site:
> > > > http://www.pacificnet.net/~kanner/
> > > > ==================================
> > >
> > > Of course I meant to put "suck"!
> >
> > Could u just explain a bit further why "suck"?
>
thehotdog
Clarice Fung
thehotdog wrote:
>
> Anthony Kanner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:49:35 -0800, thehotdog
> > <theh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> > >suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
> >
> > Suck? did you mean to put great?
> >
> > Anthony
> > ===================================
> > Web Site:
> > http://www.pacificnet.net/~kanner/
> > ==================================
>
> Of course I meant to put "suck"!
Could u just explain a bit further why "suck"?
Jann
--
-PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE---Subway
-Cinema never saved anyone's life, it is not a medicine that will save
anyone's life. It is only an aspirin---Luc Besson
My LEON (THE PROFESSIONAL) Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/5850/index.html
Esimer
Strangers on a Train!
Elisabeth
Justin Siegel
thehotdog wrote:
>
> don't put my e-mail address on your crap post!
Dude... relax. Just... try to be cool, here, man. Take a breather and
maybe go for a walk or something... yeesh.
>
> hot dog wrote:
> >
> > Clarice Fung wrote:
> > >
> > > thehotdog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Kanner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:49:35 -0800, thehotdog
> > > > > <theh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> > > > > >suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
> > > > >
> > > > > Suck? did you mean to put great?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony
> > > > > ===================================
> > > > > Web Site:
> > > > > http://www.pacificnet.net/~kanner/
> > > > > ==================================
> > > >
> > > > Of course I meant to put "suck"!
> > >
> > > Could u just explain a bit further why "suck"?
> >
Justin Siegel
thehotdog wrote:
>
> Do this again and I will forward this message with full headers to
> ab...@prodigy.net!!!
Huh? I don't get it. Nobody made any personal attacks on you, dude. Not
*one.* You're the one being pissy here.
Tulisan
Esimer wrote in message <19980219045...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>Strangers on a Train!
>
>
>Elisabeth
Psycho forever!
tulisan
Mylene Smith
"The Trouble with Harry"
Damn funny movie. But I've enjoyed just about all of his movies. He is
my favorite director.
pr...@earthlink.net
In article <34E9E9CF...@earthlink.net>,
thehotdog <theh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
>
The movies that you mentioned are his best movies. add "Rear Window"
and you got yourself a fun weekend of great movies to watch.
JM
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Hajaj
On 17 Feb 1998 22:47:21 GMT, sco...@DONTSPAMcris.com (Scott Promish)
wrote:
>In article <6cd1ne$k...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, os...@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>>
>>thehotdog (theh...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>>: What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
>>: suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
>
>Personally, I thought all three of those were vastly overrated. 'Psycho' is
>too iconic to be very suspenseful (you already know everything about the film
>even if you've never seen it). 'The Birds' is just plain silly, and 'Vertigo'
>just didn't do anything for me.
'Psycho' is the original basis for those icons you complain about.
'Vertico' was very innovative in it's cinematography. Many of the
dolly tecniques used were invented for that movie. If they seem dated
now it's because they have been copied many, many time in later years.
I agree that 'The Birds' was pretty silly, although it was also
innovative in it's F/X.
Hajaj
Den Blaa Kurér Copenhagen
chrell...@post3.tele.dk
remove '06660' to reply
Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Hajaj
thehotdog wrote:
>
> What's your favorite Hitchcock movie? Personally, I think they all
> suck, expecially "Psycho", "The Birds" and definitely "Vertigo".
You is weird.
I haven't seen any for a while but as I recall my favorites are:
Vertico
The Unlocked Window (?) the one about a nursing home and a serial
killer.
Notorious
thehotdog
Someone is forging my e-mail address so I'm telling that person to
stop. I don't think (s)he'll do it again.
thehotdog
Justin Siegel wrote:
> Dude... relax. Just... try to be cool, here, man. Take a breather and
> maybe go for a walk or something... yeesh.
Okay...wait a minute, I hear voices. The voice is telling me to take
this gun and aim it at my head! I can't control myself. Help! Oh
SHI...........BANG!
Daniel R. Baker
L. Bangs wrote:
> I have to agree. North by Northwest is THE Hitchcock movie to see,
> especially on the big screen.
I was disappointed by NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Not that it's an actually bad
movie, but I was expecting The Best Hitchcock Ever and didn't get it. It
was much more light-hearted and comic in tone than I was expecting and
didn't have the kind of suspense I anticipated from the guy who goes around
with the title Master of Suspense. Some of the action scenes are just too
pat, too unnatural for me to like, such as where Cary Grant gets caught
holding the knife, and the Mount Rushmore scene that abruptly converts into
a wedding.
I haven't seen much Hitchcock; the ones I have seen, I'd rank like this:
1. NOTORIOUS
2. REAR WINDOW
3. DIAL M FOR MURDER
4. NORTH BY NORTHWEST
5. THE 39 STEPS
6. TOPAZ
That's all I've seen of the Master's oeuvre: just three excellent movies and
three pretty good ones.
Respectfully,
Daniel R. Baker.
(Disclaimers ad nauseam).
Justin Siegel
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another youth gone astray. I'm gonna cry.
Norman Wilner
Daniel R. Baker wrote in message <34ECFE9C...@hg-law.com>...
>
>I was disappointed by NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Not that it's an actually bad
>movie, but I was expecting The Best Hitchcock Ever and didn't get it. It
>was much more light-hearted and comic in tone than I was expecting and
>didn't have the kind of suspense I anticipated from the guy who goes around
>with the title Master of Suspense. Some of the action scenes are just too
>pat, too unnatural for me to like, such as where Cary Grant gets caught
>holding the knife, and the Mount Rushmore scene that abruptly converts into
>a wedding.
>
>I haven't seen much Hitchcock; the ones I have seen, I'd rank like this:
>
>1. NOTORIOUS
>2. REAR WINDOW
>3. DIAL M FOR MURDER
>4. NORTH BY NORTHWEST
>5. THE 39 STEPS
>6. TOPAZ
>
>That's all I've seen of the Master's oeuvre: just three excellent movies
and
>three pretty good ones.
"Vertigo".
"Psycho".
"Strangers on a Train".
"Rear Window".
"Rope".
Rent them now. You won't be disappointed.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Norman Wilner
Norman Wilner wrote in message <34ed2...@nemo.idirect.com>...
>>
>>1. NOTORIOUS
>>2. REAR WINDOW
>>3. DIAL M FOR MURDER
>>4. NORTH BY NORTHWEST
>>5. THE 39 STEPS
>>6. TOPAZ
>>
>>That's all I've seen of the Master's oeuvre: just three excellent movies
>and
>>three pretty good ones.
>
>
>"Vertigo".
>"Psycho".
>"Strangers on a Train".
>"Rear Window".
>"Rope".
>
>Rent them now. You won't be disappointed.
Whoops - sorry, I told you to see a movie you'd already seen. Please replace
"Rear Window" with the Jimmy Stewart version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much".
It's too damn late to type.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Hajaj
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:29:55 -0500, "Maria S. Castellanos"
<mcas...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, thehotdog wrote:
>> Cal Rice wrote:
>> >
>> > hot dog (theh...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>> > : What part of suck don't u understand?
>> >
>> > Could you give us at least a clue about what is wrong with
>> > Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds?
>>
>> Why don't you try watching some of the films? Then you would see that
>> they are all unwatchable crap from a fat, bald, stuffed shirt Euro.
>>
>> You people are fucking incredible. Isn't a man entitled to his oppinion
>> any more?
>
>Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. But I think the point is that other
>people are wondering WHAT SPECIFICALLY you don't like about the movies.
>So, perhaps you can ELABORATE on what aspects of those movies lead you to
>say that they suck. I think people are just curious what it is exactly
>that you don't like about them. (Clearly, other people have watched them
>and didn't think they were "unwatchable crap.")
>
>Are you really that dense? How hard is it for you to explain what it is
>you don't like about a movie? Was it the script? The actors? The plot? Was
>it that they seem, from a '90's perspective, not that scary? Did they seem
>cliched? Did you hate the black and white? Do you have issues with your
>mother, which made you hate PSYCHO? Do you hate old movies generally?
>Do you always hate movies by fat white male directors? WELL???
>
Well said Maria.
Hajaj
>don't put my e-mail address on your crap post!
Are you saying that you didn't post the message about Hitchcock
sucking?
Hajaj
>L. Bangs wrote:
>
>> I have to agree. North by Northwest is THE Hitchcock movie to see,
>> especially on the big screen.
>
>I was disappointed by NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Not that it's an actually bad
>movie, but I was expecting The Best Hitchcock Ever and didn't get it. It
>was much more light-hearted and comic in tone than I was expecting and
>didn't have the kind of suspense I anticipated from the guy who goes around
>with the title Master of Suspense. Some of the action scenes are just too
>pat, too unnatural for me to like, such as where Cary Grant gets caught
>holding the knife, and the Mount Rushmore scene that abruptly converts into
>a wedding.
>
It is a bit strange. But you gotta remember that it was made in 1959,
action and suspence, not to mention visual f/x, have evolved a lot
since then.
thehotdog
Hajaj wrote:
> Are you saying that you didn't post the message about Hitchcock
> sucking?
I never posted any message about Hitchcock sucking. He's probably a
fine man. I posted the original message of Hitchcock MOVIES sucking.
rupert...@virgin.net
Greetings,
I've just discovered this site, and it's not bad...sort of, i think.
Anyway, do any of u have any info. on Richard E. Grant's new/forthcoming
projects, (after Spiceworld)?????? I'm a big fan, and I'd be most grateful for
ya replies.
On a rather different note, what is your opinion on the British film
industry? Personally, i think its' so-called revival is only temporary. I can
envisage just 2 possible outcome of our present position: Scenario1: Hollywood
et al. invests big time in the over-hyped Brit. film industry, and soon it
starts churning out mindless trash, but with that "quaint British feel" - ("Up
n' under" and "Downtime" could well be the start of this trend.)Scenario2:
Hollywood et al. becomes bored with the Brit. craze, that is occurring now,
with the Full Monty & chums, being forgotten, so once again, our film industry
becomes ludicrously depleted.
I honestly can't see a bright future for our films!
A.J.Rimmer
China Blue
Dear Rupert Hoyle,
Films are supposed to represent your society, and the British film industry
is one of the most influential in the world. Just think about all the
British directors who are willing to take risks, make something different,
(eg. Mike Leigh, Kenneth Branagh) and all you do is critisize it! Although
Richard E Grant is a fantastic actor, he isn't the best - think more about
the work of Judi Dench or Denholm Elliot. And Helena Bonham Carter, Emma
Thompson, Kenneth Branagh, Judy Davis, Rupert Graves...More recently Brenda
Blethyn and Marianne Jean-Baptiste in 'Secrets and Lies', which i think was
one of the most powerful and important British films in history.
So stop slagging of your own film industry! Where I live in New Zealand
our film industry is only just starting to reach the international market,
whereas the British film industry has been established for years.
'Heavenly Creatures', 'Smash Palace', 'Meet The Feebles' and 'Once Were
Warriors' were all landmark New Zealand films, and even though we
occasionally produced some rubbish films, the good ones far surpass the bad
ones in terms of quality and diversity. I've always had confidence in our
small film industry and I even though there is a small body of work that
reaches worldwide audiences, it's important that your film industry
recieves support.
rupert...@virgin.net wrote in article
<6coval$c13$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
Jackie
China Blue wrote:
>
<snipped>
the work of Judi Dench or Denholm Elliot. And Helena Bonham Carter,
Emma
> Thompson, Kenneth Branagh, Judy Davis, Rupert Graves...More recently Brenda
While I agree with a lot of what you said Judy Davis is Australian!
Cheers from The Thunder from DownUnder
Jackie
rupert...@virgin.net
Yo china or ne1 else out there!
In article <01bd3f83$daebe400$a7f0d4cf@stimpy>,
"China Blue" <sti...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Dear Rupert Hoyle,
>
> Films are supposed to represent your society, and the British film industry
> is one of the most influential in the world.
Second most influential!!
Just think about all the
> British directors who are willing to take risks, make something different,
> (eg. Mike Leigh, Kenneth Branagh) and all you do is critisize it! Although
> Richard E Grant is a fantastic actor, he isn't the best
oh yes he is. Look at his performance in 'How to get ahead in
advertising', or even 'Withnail and I'.
- think more about
> the work of Judi Dench
It is difficult to justify her as an established screen actress -
having only really made 3 appearances, 2 of which were cameos in the Bond
films.
or Denholm Elliot. And Helena Bonham Carter,
Denham who????!!!! Helena cardboard-box, though, cannot be justified
as a good actress having only appeared in period dramas. A good actress is
believable in many roles - eg Minnie Driver.
Emma
> Thompson, Kenneth Branagh,
Yes, the golden two!
Judy Davis, Rupert Graves
Rupert Graves, yes, promising but unfulfilled potential so far,
having been the highlight of only a couple of otherwise average US comedies.
What about Ewan Macgregor/Robert Carlyle, etc.
...More recently Brenda
> Blethyn and Marianne Jean-Baptiste in 'Secrets and Lies', which i think was
> one of the most powerful and important British films in history.
Many critics have panned it as sentimental rubbish. I myself honestly
fell asleep during it. I found it crass, pretentious and akin to a British
soap, in many ways. The script was very contrived, rather than being
realistic, flowing or darkly comic.
> So stop slagging of your own film industry!
Free speech! grrrr...
Where I live in New Zealand
> our film industry is only just starting to reach the international market,
> whereas the British film industry has been established for years.
> 'Heavenly Creatures', 'Smash Palace', 'Meet The Feebles' and 'Once Were
> Warriors' were all landmark New Zealand films, and even though we
> occasionally produced some rubbish films, the good ones far surpass the bad
> ones in terms of quality and diversity.
Agreed. Heavenly creatures was a masterpiece. Note Kate Winslett
gave a very powerful, moving performance, unlike her, errr... more recent
role. Heavenly creatures really was, though, one of the great black
comedies...
I've always had confidence in our
> small film industry and I even though there is a small body of work that
> reaches worldwide audiences, it's important that your film industry
> recieves support.
>
I didn't say our industry wasn't good at the moment, look at Neil
Jordan's 'The Butcher's Boy', out this week for instance. It's just that apart
from the period dramas, i can see our industry becoming a 'little america',
producing only a minority of good films amongst a deluge of trash!
I'll be back...
The Cat
Derek Janssen
rupert...@virgin.net wrote:
>
> On a rather different note, what is your opinion on the British film
> industry? Personally, i think its' so-called revival is only temporary. I can
> envisage just 2 possible outcome of our present position:
> Scenario1: Hollywood
> et al. invests big time in the over-hyped Brit. film industry, and soon it
> starts churning out mindless trash, but with that "quaint British feel" - ("Up
> n' under" and "Downtime" could well be the start of this trend.)
> Scenario2:
> Hollywood et al. becomes bored with the Brit. craze, that is occurring now,
> with the Full Monty & chums, being forgotten, so once again, our film industry
> becomes ludicrously depleted.
>
> I honestly can't see a bright future for our films!
Scenario 3 [may already be in works]:
British film industry tries TOO hard to capture mainstream overseas
Hollywood market on its own by dumbing down their films to overworked
American "imitations"--a la "Life Less Ordinary" and "101
Borrowers"--leaving American moviegoers disillusioned and bemoaning a
now non-existent source of good off-mainstream films--
(--At least with scenarios 1 and 2, it HAD a future!...)
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Tim Norton
It is really hard to make this selection because I've enjoyed so many of
Hithcock's films. Psycho still effects my showering habits, Strangers on a
Train is always fun, To Catch a Thief is pure Grant, but I'll have to go
with Rear Window.
IrishRose
North by Northwest: It has *swoon* Grant, and that terrific/terrifying
scene when he's being chased by the plane out in the middle of nowhere.
Linda
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
"Not Everything that is beautiful is good.....
But everything that is Good is beautiful"
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
D.A. Cajucom
In "The Poetics", Aristotle distinguished between two types of fictional
narratives:
I.) Mimesis (showing) - where events "tell themselves";
II.) Diegesis (telling) - a story told by a narrator who is sometimes
reliable, sometimes not.
Cinema combines these forms of storytelling making it a more complex
medium, with a wider range of narrative techniques at its disposal.
Can a movie, translating a classic novel into a film, do it justice?
Use the film Great Expectations.
Lets see all you smart-ass brains out there in cyberworld answer this one.
Remember, this is for an assignment I probably wouldn't hand in without
any input.
Deanna
Justin Siegel
D.A. Cajucom wrote:
>
> In "The Poetics", Aristotle distinguished between two types of fictional
> narratives:
> I.) Mimesis (showing) - where events "tell themselves";
> II.) Diegesis (telling) - a story told by a narrator who is sometimes
> reliable, sometimes not.
> Cinema combines these forms of storytelling making it a more complex
> medium, with a wider range of narrative techniques at its disposal.
>
> Can a movie, translating a classic novel into a film, do it justice?
> Use the film Great Expectations.
> Lets see all you smart-ass brains out there in cyberworld answer this one.
> Remember, this is for an assignment I probably wouldn't hand in without
> any input.
>
> Deanna
Well, I did it, and I don't really consider myself a "smart-ass brain."
--
Justin Kristopher Siegel
"Everything our parents said was good
is bad: sun, milk, red meat, college"
-- Woody Allen, Annie Hall
Peter Lowry
My favorite Hitchcock movie is REAR WINDOW.. I loved the idea of
watching along with the main character as he was peeping into everyone
else's lives. It was really exciting.. especially in the end.
Peter
Derek Janssen
D.A. Cajucom wrote:
>
> Can a movie, translating a classic novel into a film, do it justice?
> Use the film Great Expectations.
>
(--Well, you could've just *asked* me!) ; )
Sure, if you're talking about the 1946 David Lean "Expectations"--
And apart from the Ray Bradbury script for the 1956 "Moby Dick", it's
hard to think of a good filmed novel that captures the author's
philosophical intent, as opposed to just the plot--
Except for maybe Steve Tisch and George Roy Hill's complete redrafting
of John Irving's "World Accdg. to Garp"...
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
David Roy
Derek Janssen wrote in message <34F5AD...@ultranet.com>...
I'll go along with that. And toss in The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers
and The Magnificent Ambersons, just for the sheer eclectic hell of it.
(BTW, for all that the ending tacked onto Ambersons by the studio is
horrible and out of keeping with the film, it isn't actually an injustice to
the book, which has an even worse ending... That came as a complete
surprise to me when I finally read it.)
David
Kelley P Swilley
True, being faithful to a book isn't easy, and no matter how hard you
try, chances are you'll be criticized for it, because your image of the
novel's world is going to be different from the pictures others have
dreamed up from the novel. Movie versions usually have to make cuts
somewhere. But a few movies I've seen have captured the spirit, if not
the letter, of the original novel:
To Kill a Mockingbird
Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion
A Tale of Two Cities (1936)
Another vote for Great Expectations (1946) and also Oliver Twist (1948)
When I see these films, I can tell the director, screenwriter,
etc. loved the source novels. When I see, quite by mistake, films like
the recent Scarlet Letter, I can tell just the opposite.
lisa
I agree with you completely....I know there will always be differences
in the translations, but you can tell when people want to stay true to
the novel and use what appealed to them about the book in the first
place to make a successful movie. I agree with the films you mentioned
also...
lisa
IrishRose
Kelley P Swilley wrote:
>
> True, being faithful to a book isn't easy, and no matter how hard you
> try, chances are you'll be criticized for it, because your image of the
> novel's world is going to be different from the pictures others have
> dreamed up from the novel. Movie versions usually have to make cuts
> somewhere. But a few movies I've seen have captured the spirit, if not
> the letter, of the original novel:
> To Kill a Mockingbird
> Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion
> A Tale of Two Cities (1936)
> Another vote for Great Expectations (1946) and also Oliver Twist (1948)
> When I see these films, I can tell the director, screenwriter,
> etc. loved the source novels. When I see, quite by mistake, films like
> the recent Scarlet Letter, I can tell just the opposite.
One of the best film adaptations of a book I've seen is The Princess
Bride...it captured the spirit and the letter.
I agree with your assertion that you can tell how much the director,
etc. really loved the source literature by how well they transfer it to
screen. Some "adaptations" are merely rapes of literature for a story.
Linda
--
Karen Bonfield
"The Man who Knew Too Much" What a great film, with the usual bizarre
cast! Every twist and turn was used, misunderstandings, kidnapping,
foreign espionage,mistaken identity, murder plots. A GREAT rental for a
dull Saturday night!! Karen
PShug39980
Of course this begs the question, Which one? the Peter Lorre one or the Jimmy
Stewart one? Both were directed by Hitchcock.
:-)
Peter@Thrills T-Shirt Co.
9722 Great Hills Trail #138
Austin TX 78759
All true wisdom is found on T-shirts.
Jamie
In article <6d6ko8$iau$2...@ultranews.duc.auburn.edu>,
swi...@mail.auburn.edu (Kelley P Swilley) wrote:
>True, being faithful to a book isn't easy, and no matter how hard you
>try, chances are you'll be criticized for it, because your image of the
>novel's world is going to be different from the pictures others have
>dreamed up from the novel. Movie versions usually have to make cuts
>somewhere. But a few movies I've seen have captured the spirit, if not
>the letter, of the original novel:
>To Kill a Mockingbird
>Sense and Sensibility and Persuasion
>A Tale of Two Cities (1936)
>Another vote for Great Expectations (1946) and also Oliver Twist (1948)
> When I see these films, I can tell the director, screenwriter,
>etc. loved the source novels. When I see, quite by mistake, films like
>the recent Scarlet Letter, I can tell just the opposite.
Any thoughts on how the hell they're going to try to give justice to
"Breakfast of Champions"? I'm bracing myself for the horror, personally.
Jamie
Dave Pittman
Sometimes a great movie can be based on a bad novel. For example, "The
Name of the Rose" was an unreadable novel. It became one of the best
movies I have ever seen.
A classic novel can also become a classic movie if the screenwriter
understands what made the novel a classic. For example, Ayn Rand's
adaptation of her own novel "The Fountainhead"
Dave
Hajaj
>
>In "The Poetics", Aristotle distinguished between two types of fictional
>narratives:
>I.) Mimesis (showing) - where events "tell themselves";
>II.) Diegesis (telling) - a story told by a narrator who is sometimes
>reliable, sometimes not.
>Cinema combines these forms of storytelling making it a more complex
>medium, with a wider range of narrative techniques at its disposal.
>
>Can a movie, translating a classic novel into a film, do it justice?
>Use the film Great Expectations.
>
>Lets see all you smart-ass brains out there in cyberworld answer this one.
>Remember, this is for an assignment I probably wouldn't hand in without
>any input.
>
>Deanna
>
The short answer, IMHO, is yes, it is possible for a movie to do
justice to a classical novel but it is very difficult to do.
Depends on the novel. I haven't read Great Expectations, but from
what Dickens I've read, I'd say it would take at least a 12 part
series to do any of his novels 'justice'.
Besides I have a real problem with the term: 'do it justice'. Who is
the judge?
The audience?
The readers?
The critics?
The director?
The author, if he's still around?
You'll have to be more specific.
The Sentinal
Dave Pittman wrote:
>
> Sometimes a great movie can be based on a bad novel. For example, "The
> Name of the Rose" was an unreadable novel. It became one of the best
> movies I have ever seen.
>
I agree, I loved "To Have and Have aNot"- (1945) written by Earnest
Hemmingway is said to be his worst novel. Maybe it was because it
had the most gorgeous woman in acting (ever) Lauren Bacal.
Carrie Pruett
Dave Pittman <jhug...@mail.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<34FD7A...@mail.lig.bellsouth.net>...
> Sometimes a great movie can be based on a bad novel. For example, "The
> Name of the Rose" was an unreadable novel. It became one of the best
> movies I have ever seen.
I read an interesting article in the Wash. Post a while back -
I think it was Jonathan Yardley, but I'm not sure. Anyway,
the author suggested that it's virtually impossible to make
a great film from a great novel (he cited Lean's "Passage
to India" as *almost* accomplishing this, but not quite
managing to be a great film) and that most of the
great films that have been based on books were
based on average or good, but not great books
(he mentioned "The Godfather" and a few
"pulp fictions" that had been made into classic noirs).
any thoughts on this, pro or con? What *are*
the great films, if any, that have come from great
novels?
--
If you ain't never pick up the sword, you ain't never
have to worry about fallin' on it - Meldrick Lewis
Maria S. Castellanos
On 5 Mar 1998, Carrie Pruett wrote:
> Dave Pittman <jhug...@mail.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
> <34FD7A...@mail.lig.bellsouth.net>...
> > Sometimes a great movie can be based on a bad novel. For example, "The
> > Name of the Rose" was an unreadable novel. It became one of the best
> > movies I have ever seen.
>
> I read an interesting article in the Wash. Post a while back -
> I think it was Jonathan Yardley, but I'm not sure. Anyway,
> the author suggested that it's virtually impossible to make
> a great film from a great novel (he cited Lean's "Passage
> to India" as *almost* accomplishing this, but not quite
> managing to be a great film) and that most of the
> great films that have been based on books were
> based on average or good, but not great books
> (he mentioned "The Godfather" and a few
> "pulp fictions" that had been made into classic noirs).
>
> any thoughts on this, pro or con? What *are*
> the great films, if any, that have come from great
> novels?
I guess it depends on what you think is a "great" novel (or a "great"
movie, for that matter). For instance, I thought Puzo's THE GODFATHER was
"great," even though Wardley didn't think so.
I also thought GONE WITH THE WIND was a "great" novel, AND a "great" film
-- the film did an excellent job capturing the spirit of the novel,
although it obviously could not capture every detail (the novel is pretty
damn long).
How about LA CONFIDENTIAL? I haven't read the book, but those who have
feel (including the author) that the movie does capture the novel well.
And (as I've posted elsewhere), I thought this movie was GREAT.
Any thoughts?
care
Carrie Pruett wrote:
> I think it was Jonathan Yardley, but I'm not sure. Anyway,
> the author suggested that it's virtually impossible to make
> a great film from a great novel (he cited Lean's "Passage
> to India" as *almost* accomplishing this, but not quite
> managing to be a great film) and that most of the
> great films that have been based on books were
> based on average or good, but not great books
I suppose "Room with A View" was chopped liver?
Diva
Dragan Antulov
Rich Handley wrote in message ...
>Ever since the travesty that resulted out of the decision to make a
>movie of the novel "Memoirs of an Invisible Man," I've had little
>faith in film-makers' abilities to do justice to great novels.
OTOH, sometimes relatively inferior literary works later turn out to be the
basis for the great movies, like _Rollerball_.
Drax
Fido: 2:381/100
E-Mail: dragan....@st.tel.hr
dragan....@altbbs.fido.hr
Catherine Flynn
VERTIGO is the best, hands down. If you think they all sucked, then you must
either be immature or have deep psychological complexities. The man was the
greatest gift to film since a camera.
JkxKnight
My Favorite would have to be a tie between North By Northwest and Rear Window.
I am a big Cary Grant fan. and NBNW doesn't let up until the very end. As for
RW, It's one of the better stylish mysteries ever made.
John D Porter
Kubrick's "Lolita" is both a brilliant adaptation of an excellent novel and a
great film in its own right.
care <ca...@passport.ca> wrote in article <34FEEC...@passport.ca>...
--
J.P.
poetry homepage: http://www2.netcom.com/~jdporter
What will end your suffering?
Poetry. You Lack Poetry.
Tanya Donelly, "Bum" (1997)
from "Lovesongs for Underdogs," Reprise, 1997.
Oi
Carrie Pruett wrote:
>
> I read an interesting article in the Wash. Post a while back -
> the author suggested that it's virtually impossible to make
> a great film from a great novel (he cited Lean's "Passage
> to India" as *almost* accomplishing this, but not quite
> managing to be a great film) and that most of the
> great films that have been based on books were
> based on average or good, but not great books
> "pulp fictions" that had been made into classic noirs).
>
> any thoughts on this, pro or con? What *are*
> the great films, if any, that have come from great
> novels?
>
> If you ain't never pick up the sword, you ain't never
Well, there's a running joke that you take the Booker Award Winner for a
particular year (the English equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize), cast
Ralph Fiennes, and you win Oscars... :)
Schindler's Ark = Schindler's List
English Patient = English Patient
Oscar and Lucinda? = No dice here, so much for the theory. ;)
Award winning book, award winning movies....just a thought. Not
inclusive of my own slants on any of the aforementioned works.
Oi!
Dave Pittman
I agree that "Gone With The Wind" was both a great novel and a great
movie. The screewriters understood the theme and the characters of the
novel plus they understood the requirements of the different media.
Most importantly, they understood that, properly speaking, movies are a
subcatagory of literature. These is something many seen to forget.
pet...@ms.com
In article <Pine.ULT.3.96.980305...@axis.mtholyoke.edu>,
"Maria S. Castellanos" <mcas...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 1998, Carrie Pruett wrote:
>
> > Dave Pittman <jhug...@mail.lig.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
> > <34FD7A...@mail.lig.bellsouth.net>...
> > > Sometimes a great movie can be based on a bad novel. For example, "The
> > > Name of the Rose" was an unreadable novel. It became one of the best
> > > movies I have ever seen.
> >
You can prolly argue with whetheror not great can be applied to these
but I would say grea for both the book and movie of..
Nightmare Alley
The Malese Falcon
The Thin Man
The Great Gatsby (w/ Robert Redford, Mia, etc.)
The Old Man And the Sea
Lost Horizon
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (if I can throw in a play)
but almost any adaptation of a Shakespeare tragety because they
generally have to use his words. The comedies don't seem to come
off so well.
Dunga Din (if I can throw in a poem)
Slaughterhouse Five.
More, but the point is, IMO, all of these movies faithfully portray
what the author of the book tried to tell.
Pjk
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Carrie Pruett
John D Porter <jdpo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bd48c5$69d3fe60$b9d523c7@faraday>...
> > Carrie Pruett wrote:
> > > I think it was Jonathan Yardley, but I'm not sure. Anyway,
> > > the author suggested that it's virtually impossible to make
> > > a great film from a great novel (he cited Lean's "Passage
> > > to India" as *almost* accomplishing this, but not quite
> > > managing to be a great film)
> > I suppose "Room with A View" was chopped liver?
Now, I was just quoting this article - I personally haven't
even seen "Passage," and I didn't care for the
book, although I can see that "Passage" and (my
personal favorite Forster) "Howards End", have
a better claim as "great" novels than "Room with
a View" or "where angels fear to tread" (both made into
terrific movies)...and I guess I should
make it clear that what the article was talking
about was not outstanding novels or films but
the very best novels, which he argued are rarely made
into the very best films. "Lolita" seems like a possible
exception (though I'm only making this statement
based on reputation - I'm not familiar with the book
or the movie).
Anyway, "Room with a View" is one of my very favorite
movies and a very enjoyable book, but I'd hesitate
to label either work as "great." A lot of people may disagree,
of course...such an argument is by its nature subjective
(how's *that* for a copout)
Paul J. Adams
> I suppose "Room with A View" was chopped liver?
That was my impression.
Paul J. Adams
Carrie Pruett <pru...@wlu.edu> wrote in article
<01bd47fe$81ab62c0$39f3...@userid.student.wlu.edu>...
> any thoughts on this, pro or con? What *are*
> the great films, if any, that have come from great
> novels?
Considering how many movies are based on novels, I was surprised to
suddenly realize how few of my favorite movies are based on books. Perhaps
my favorite movies from books would be _One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest_,
and _A Clockwork Orange_. I haven't read either work. I've heard that
_One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest_ wasn't quite as good in book form as it
was as a movie. My experience reading Anthony Burgess' _The Clockwork
Testament_ caused me to admire him as an author, but he's far from my
favorite.
Oh, I know! Orson Welles' movie of _The Trial_ was excellent. It's still
not as good an experience as reading the book by Kafka, but I can't imagine
a better attempt to adapt it (certainly the later version with Kyle
McLaughlin was far inferior). This is my old standby for the books into
movies argument, but I nearly forgot it this time.
I lean towards the belief that if you start with an excellent book, no
movie can ever equal the novel's accomplishment. An imaginative approach
can result in a great movie, but obviously there is such a great difference
between the media that direct translation from the page to the screen is
impossible. But let's see, what other example's can I come up with?
Ooh, I got another one! _Wild at Heart_ was a good movie based on a book.
I don't think Barry Gifford is widely acknowledged as a great author, but I
haven't read him yet. Anyone got any input on this one?
_Mother Night_ was pretty good, but not up to my expectations based on the
novel. The same is true of _Slaughter House Five_.
_1984_ fell far short of my expectations, despite some very talented
actors.
Neither film version I've seen of _All Quiet On The Wester Front_ passed
muster, but if I had to choose between them I'd favor the one starring
Richard "John Boy Walton" Thomas.
The TV miniseries based on _The Odyssey_ was a fair effort. But there was
no castration, and you just can't do the Odyssey without castration...
The HBO version of _Gulliver's Travels_ was an abomination. It did a good
job on the visual presentation of the story, but it completely
reinterpreted Gulliver's character, and tacked on an insulting framing
story which violated the story's original intent.
I believe that Josef von Sternberg's movie version of _The Blue Angel_
starring Marlene Dietrich is well regarded, but I prefered the book by
Heinrich Mann.
Kurosawa did a pretty poor job of adapting Dostoevsky's _The Idiot_. I say
this despite the fact that Kurosawa is among my favorite film directors.
He does good Shakespeare, but this film was an odd fluke for him.
_Little Big Man_ was a good movie. Anyone read the book?
_The Unbearable Lightness of Being_ was a terrible movie (plenty of people
disagree with me on this, but they're wrong), which nearly prejudiced me
against Milan Kundera. When I finally read the book, it turned out to be
quite good. Everything that was good about the book was lost on the film.
Well I'm running out of ideas. So far, my best bet for the "great movie
based on a great book" is Orson Welles' adaptation of Kafka's _The Trial_,
and so I will leave you with this recommendation: read the book, and see
the movie.
Aretese
>>_The Unbearable Lightness of Being_ was a terrible movie (plenty of people
disagree with me on this, but they're wrong), which nearly prejudiced me
against Milan Kundera. When I finally read the book, it turned out to be quite
good. Everything that was good about the book was lost on the film.<<
I have no qualms about calling Kundera's book the best of the century, but
since it doesn't have the exquisite audiovisual possibilities of something like
The English Patient, all was lost. The social philosophies, so accessible and
free in the book, could never be put in another medium.
Paul J. Adams
Aretese <are...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980310022...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
I agree (except for the superlative part). This book was not at all suited
to a film adaptation. I can't imagine a good movie being made from it,
though I could probably imagine a better one than the one which was
produced.
care
That was my impression.
Then you know how good chopped liver can be!
Diva
Paul J. Adams
Sorry to be so snide, but is dance also a subcategory of literature? It's
true that most movies begin as written works, but then again so do most
buildings (if a blueprint or project proposal can be considered "writing").
Every medium has its own unique properties, and though prose fiction has
many similarities to narative film, there are many differences as well. I
don't think either can reasonably be considered a subcategory of the other.
Paul J. Adams
There are clearly many things which a movie can do which a novel can't.
There are many things a novel can accomplish which a movie can't. These
differences contribute to the great difficulty of translating from one to
the other. In the case of many of the greatest books, there is no way to
make them into a great movie except by stripping them down to the barest
bones, and then building up a new, original work which bears a marginal
resemblance to the original. The device which translates most directly is
plot, but plot often plays only a small part in the quality of a great film
or great book. Even plot can be hard to adapt because many books contain
more plot than can be reasonably conveyed within the scope of a film.
Also, some plots are intimately connected to the narrator's interpretation
of events. They may contain ambiguity, or may be drawn out in a sketchy
form.
For the sake of argument, let me give an example of a short passage from a
book by Celine, _London Bridge_. This passage describes two amateur
scientists experimenting with gas masks and a fictional poison gas called
"Ferocious 92":
"Our two intrepid scientists sniffed the whole thing at one go, one ton per
nostril! Flash reaction! So quickly that they'd charged at each other,
purple, red with rage, and went at it, first whaling away at each other
with their fists and then with whatever implements lying around they could
lay their hands on, all the equipment in the joint, horrendously
ransacked... the Colonel, so full of misgivings, afraid of getting
hoodwinked, dubious about the reports, so suspicious about Ferocious, well,
he had had his proof now! two three hundred punches' worth right in the
kisser, that's how savagely the other guy went after him!... just one small
catch though, those two precious masks of theirs, with valves and feathers,
were totally knocked out of shape... into smithereens... the workshop left
in an awful shambles, the roof kissing the floor, not a single tile left,
not one retort, every device reduced to slag, ground down, plastered
against the floor... A revolting spectacle... out-and-out kill-crazy
mania... the way they'd slugged the hell out of each other was totally
outrageous, demented, truly mind-boggling... without knowing why or how...
mangling carving they left sweeping slashes across each other's faces from
the tips of the noses to the napes of their necks, skin, flesh, tearing off
everything! stabbing with scissors, trying planes, slicing away bloody
shreds, using graters to hack away huge hunks of ear. They came out of
their fit all cruddy, staggering like scarecrows!... even their dogs turned
tail, and the servants were even worse, shrieking, the cook blacked out...
they could already see all fingers pointing at them for having hatched some
sort of plot to murder their masters... Ah! it was a bad scene! They
wanted to inform the police, bring the whole story to light straightaway to
keep tongues from wagging... The Colonel nixed the idea, he'd come back to
his senses, regained his composure, his cocksureness, and even that
pisser's tick of his, hollering out of the blue with absolutely no warning
"England rules the gasses!" his right arm shooting high into the air, rigid
at attention! and always at the most off-the-wall moments, and then
following it up with a triple chorus of "Hip! Hip! Hurray!" Black and blue
all over, crown covered with gashes, mouth solid red with clots of blood,
Sosthene didn't let himself be outdone... he echoed the Colonel and put his
whole heart into it... "Hip! Hip! Hurray!" at the top of his lungs three
times in a row!.. Not a hint of hard feelings between them over that
furious scrap, on the contrary it looked like it had brought them even
closer, better buddies than before... they had to have a toast, celebrate
this right away... at least three flasks of whiskey."
How long would this scene take in a film (in screen time)? This is one
page of text from a 450 page novel. It is not an especially significant
scene. It's not a pivotal moment in the plot. The book is a constant
stream of brawls, psychotic visions, perverse infatuations, natural and
supernatural occurances, many of which are nearly impossible to interpret
in a strict literal sense. Yet this scene quoted above consists of little
more than action, which ought to be the easiest thing to bring to the
screen. How would the scene be handled? How could it be done without
losing the poetry of Celine's description, which is every bit as important
to an appreciation of the work as the actual events described, if not more
so?
I conjecture that a screenplay would reduce this to "The Colonel and
Sosthene fight, wrecking their shop and equipment." It would keep the
"Hip! Hip! Hurrays!" and perhaps the drinking of whiskey (if there was
enough time to keep such a trivial detail). Then it would build up a bit
of substance from that. Perhaps there would be a stab or two with
scissors, or a violent explosion of sorts which would rip off the roof, if
the filmmakers decided to keep to the hyperbole of the scene. But the
scene would necessarily be a new creation containing little more than the
skeletal framework of the original. This is only one simple scene. To
successfully fit together all the elements of the novel into a cohesive
whole without killing the novel's spirit would be a far more monumental
task.
An overall approach to making such a movie would be to keep the "mood"
alive, populating the film with wreckless, deranged, depraved characters,
and keeping up a chaotic jumble of violent action. But this would be an
interpretation separate from the original. At best it would result in a
work "inspired by" _London Bridge_ containing the most easily understood
elements of the plot, almost a summary of the work.
The question to ask is, if a filmmaker was up to the task of doing this,
might not his or her energy be best expended by creating an original film
which embodies a similar mood, but which doesn't get bogged down in the
plot related details which are so small a part of the book to begin with?
I can imagine a good movie based on a book like _London Bridge_, but even
if it played well as a film it would be lacking so much of the original
that it could never provide so great an experience as the reading of the
novel. Whereas I presume that a movie written directly for the screen
could make the best use of the unique properties of filmmaking.
If I may provide another argument against the adaptation of novels, I'll
say this: it gives a lazy filmmaker plenty of oportunity to be unoriginal.
A creative and original thinking filmmaker can possibly do a good
adaptation, but for many filmmakers it seems easy enough to conform to the
plot of a book and call that a success. Where's the originality it that?
What has the filmmaker contributed to the world of any worth? The only
thing you could say is that the book has been given a new audience in its
adapted form. But if the plot which is communicated to the audience is no
more than a summary, then hasn't the novel suffered greatly in translation?
Only a talented artist is capable of a good adaptation, but talented
artists are only at the top of their form when they are creating something
original.
r...@adelphia.net
On 9 Mar 1998 21:27:29 GMT, "Paul J. Adams" <ada...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>_The Unbearable Lightness of Being_ was a terrible movie (plenty of people
>disagree with me on this, but they're wrong), which nearly prejudiced me
>against Milan Kundera. When I finally read the book, it turned out to be
>quite good. Everything that was good about the book was lost on the film.
how can anyone not like the unbearable lightness of being????
that is amazing.....
>Well I'm running out of ideas. So far, my best bet for the "great movie
>based on a great book" is Orson Welles' adaptation of Kafka's _The Trial_,
>and so I will leave you with this recommendation: read the book, and see
>the movie.
have to agree.... (they have finally restored the print (and the sound
thank god) and it has been running nonstop everywhere for a few
months....
to add my own two cents here... aside from the trial as number one i
would add-
two later Sirk movies
Tarnished Angels (based on faulkners Pylon and easily the best faulker
based movie...)
and
A time to love and a time to die (based on Erich Maria Remarque's
book..... tho more based on sirks own search for his son in some
ways.)
IrishRose
Paul J. Adams wrote:
> _Little Big Man_ was a good movie. Anyone read the book?
Yes, they are similar in scope and quality, although, of course, the
book was much better with details, especially about Jack's time with the
"human beings", and less emphasis on Mrs. Pendergrast's importance in
his life.
Linda
--
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
"Not Everything that is beautiful is good.....
But everything that is Good is beautiful"
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
Dave Pittman
Our difference of opinion is clear and the basis of it it revealed by
your statement:
"The device which translates most directly is
plot, but plot often plays only a small part in the quality of a great
film or great book."
I do not think either a novel or a movie can be great unless there is a
strong plot. No, dance is not a subcatagory of literature. But a stage
play is. And the elements of literature must be used to judge a novel,
a play or a movie if they are to analysed and judged in any depth.
Along this line I am reminded of Aristotle's complaint in The Poetics
that the most popular plays of his day were the ones with the emphasis
more on spectacle than plot or character. But we know now, over two
thousand years later that it is the plays with plot and character that
have survived and are still enjoyed today.
I understand that some people enjoy the spectacle of special effects
more than story, plot, character or style. But I do not think such
emphasis can make a great movie. Not if greatness is given honest
meaning. For example, strip Jurassic Park of it's effects and you will
see that it is far from great. It is mediocre at best.
That's all I mean, that a great movie must have a great plot and well
developed characters and these are the essential elements of great
literature.
Sincerely,
Dave Pittman
Jeffrey Davis
Paul J. Adams wrote:
> _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_ was a terrible movie (plenty of people
> disagree with me on this, but they're wrong), which nearly prejudiced me
> against Milan Kundera. When I finally read the book, it turned out to be
> quite good. Everything that was good about the book was lost on the film.
My experience is the exact opposite. I loved the movie and looked
forward to reading the book. The book turned out to be flat and
cartoonish. I assume that the novel is better in Czech, but the
translation had almost nothing going for it. The movie does have some
dull patches -- I could do w/o most of the Lena Olin parts, particularly
her lover in Switzerland -- but by the time we're looking through the
windshield at the end...great stuff.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> Lots Available
Jeffrey Davis
Dave Pittman wrote:
>
> I do not think either a novel or a movie can be great unless there is a
> strong plot.
Proof by counter-example.
La Soufrierre by Werner Herzog. A short film of Herzog wandering around
a island in the Carribean which had been abandoned because of an
impending volcano eruption. Herzog had heard that one man had refused to
leave, and he wanted to find that guy. They (Herzog and his cameraman)
find him and in turns out he is a mystic who refuses to try and outrun
the hand of God. They also find an alcoholic (one assumes) so far gone
they can't rouse him, a man who had been asleep during the evacuation,
and a lot of deserted island. They go up to the top of the volcano where
the volcano is venting hot gases where a slight shift of wind would kill
them. They go down the mountain, decide _not_ to go back to fetch
Herzog's glasses, then leave. It is a great film. No plot. It looks and
feels like no other movie ever made. Yes, it's a documentary, but the
making of the film itself -- all of its calculated, loony daring -- is
also part of the film.
As for novels w/o strong plots, I think you can just about reach into a
grab bag of the 100 best novels ever written and more likely than not
you'll pull out a book w/ almost no plot at all: Huckleberry Finn,
Ulysses, Tristram Shandy, Don Quixote, Tom Jones, David Copperfield,
etc. Novels w/ strong plots, like The Scarlet Letter or Crime and
Punishment, are pretty much the exception.
Dave Pittman
Granted you can have a great documentary film without a plot. When I
referred to great movies as requiring plot I perhaps should have made it
clear that I was referring to movies which present a fictional story. I
assumed that this was understood simply because the subject under
discussion is Novels into Movies.
As far as your example of great novels without plot we must have a vast
difference of opinion as to what the term plot refers to. And what
constitutes a great novel. Ulysses has no plot, true, but it is not a
great novel. It is a pretensious waste of paper. As to Tristram Shandy
I offer no comment, being unfamiliar with it. But the other novels you
refer to as being without plot,i.e., Huckleberry Finn, Don Quixote, Tom
Jones and David Copperfield, all have plots. So what do you mean when
you say they do not? What does plot mean to you? Perhaps we should
define our terms. A plot is the series of events leading to a change of
circumstances and resolution of a conflict.(This is a paraphrase of
Aristotle's explantion of plot.) Please explain your understanding of
the term. Then we can pursue the discussion with mutual understanding.
MuseMalade
Dave Pittman wrote:
>
> Granted you can have a great documentary film without a plot. When I
> referred to great movies as requiring plot I perhaps should have made it
> clear that I was referring to movies which present a fictional story. I
> assumed that this was understood simply because the subject under
> discussion is Novels into Movies.
>
> As far as your example of great novels without plot we must have a vast
> difference of opinion as to what the term plot refers to. And what
> constitutes a great novel. Ulysses has no plot, true, but it is not a
> great novel. It is a pretensious waste of paper.
It's startling how much intellectual hubris you can find on Usenet.
Let's see, ULYSSES is considered one of the great Twentieth Century
novels by an overwhelming number of scholars and writers -- people who
devote their lives to the study of literature. On the other hand, some
guy (who is under the illusion that great movies *must* have strong
plots) thinks he can dismiss these folks' collective genius and
erudition with one pithy statement? Instead of ULYSSES being a
"preten(t)ious waste of paper", may I suggest two other possibilities:
1), you've not read the novel and used the novel's difficult reputation
as your launching pad, or 2) you've tried reading it and couldn't get
past say, the "Calypso" chapter. Okay, I'll give you some credit and
say you almost got through "Nighttown". Hey, no shame. Marilyn Monroe
couldn't get through it, either.
Good rule of thumb to follow, people: understand what the hell it is
you're attacking before you prove your, ahem, intellectual mettel by
firing off at the canon. That'll save us from the "Citizen Kane sucks"
statements that pop off from time to time, usually from people who've
not seen more than three movies from pre-1985.
MuseMalade
Matthew Butcher
MuseMalade wrote:
>Dave Pittman wrote:
>>Ulysses has no plot, true, but it is not a great novel. It is a
>>pretensious waste of paper.
>Instead of ULYSSES being a "preten(t)ious waste of paper", may I
>suggest two other possibilities: 1), you've not read the novel and
>used the novel's difficult reputation as your launching pad, or
>2) you've tried reading it and couldn't get past say, the "Calypso"
>chapter. Okay, I'll give you some credit and say you almost got
>through "Nighttown".
Way too much credit, I think. Even "Calypso" would imply that he'd
made it through "Proteus." My guess is that he once saw the final
few paragraphs from "Penelope" in the back of a prose anthology and
got pissed off by the lack of commas.
--
Matthew Butcher | Could I calm her down by throwing stones at her?
but...@math.ubc.ca | -- Roy Wood
Dave Pittman
I form my on judgment. I don't judge a novel as great simply because
"an overwhelming number of scholars and writers -- people who
that it is great. Pray tell, why, in your own judgment, do you
consider it great? Compare ULYSSES to a truly great work of literature
such as LES MISERABLES, (which has been filmed at least 25 times), and
ask yourself serious questions about the nature and purpose of art.
What does ULYSSES offer the reader and is there anything good in it that
can not be found ten times over in LES MISERABLES? So what is the
standard of value by which the term great is judged? If ULYSSES is to
be deemed great then do we not need a new superlative to describe LES
MISERABLES, since by in honest and objective standard it is vastly
superior?
Instead of letting "experts" decide for you, make up you own mind and
try to not only know what you believe but why. To again paraphrase
Aristotle, if you can't put it into words it isn't knowledge you have.
Think about all the crap that art experts have claimed
Jeffrey Davis
Dave Pittman wrote:
> What does ULYSSES offer the reader and is there anything good in it that
> can not be found ten times over in LES MISERABLES?
The interior life of Leopold Bloom?
MuseMalade
Dave Pittman wrote:
: I form my on judgment. I don't judge a novel as great simply because
: "an overwhelming number of scholars and writers -- people who
: devote their lives to the study of literature" have collectively decreed
: that it is great. Pray tell, why, in your own judgment, do you
: consider it great? Compare ULYSSES to a truly great work of literature
: such as LES MISERABLES, (which has been filmed at least 25 times), and
: ask yourself serious questions about the nature and purpose of art.
: What does ULYSSES offer the reader and is there anything good in it that
: can not be found ten times over in LES MISERABLES? So what is the
: standard of value by which the term great is judged? If ULYSSES is to
: be deemed great then do we not need a new superlative to describe LES
: MISERABLES, since by in honest and objective standard it is vastly
: superior?
Wrong answer, buddy. ULYSSES' reputation, like CITIZEN KANE's reputation, begs
for a little more comprehensive criticism than your little pithy statement.
Your decrees that "LES MISERABLES is better than ULYSSES" indicates nothing to
me except that you know the title of those two books. If you don't have the
will or the time put into critical thinking and writing, don't make meaningless
blanket decrees. I could care less whether you *liked* ULYSSES or not, but I
suspect that for the life of you, you cannot come up with a good *argument* why
it's a "pretentious waste of paper". In other words, chutzpah is no
replacement for thought.
MuseMalade
Dave Pittman
An inner life not worth living, much less worth reading about. If
Leopold Bloom sat next to you on a plane and started rambling on about
every random thought that entered his head due to vague associations I
will bet that you would find yourself bored and annoyed within minutes.
Why someone finds value in reading such things is beyond me. Why does
anyone prefer a reflection of something common rather than something
noble? Such literature offers no challenge to the reader's imagination
or sense of morality. When I see praise heaped on art that reflects the
common and vulgar rather than the grand and glorious I always wonder
why. What motivate someone to write such stuff? And what motivates a
reader to pretend to find such ramblings profound and meaningful. I am
reminded of an encounter I had with my former partner's former wife some
years ago at the Los Angeles County Art Museum. She was standing in
front of a large painting by a famous painter of non-objective art, (I
don't remember who the painter was but it is not important.) She was
looking at the work as though she had a deep understanding and
appreciation for it. When I expressed the opinion that a painting
should have an object, i.e., that it should be a painting of something
and that squiggles of paint on a canvas did not properly qualify as art
she told me that it made her think. I simply replied, "Yeah, what does
it make you think about?" She had no answer, and she never forgave me
for exposing her pretense of intellectual depth.
The same principle applies to literature that is assumed to have a
profound meaning due to the fact that it has no meaning.
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
>Dave Pittman writes:
>When I expressed the opinion that a painting
>should have an object, i.e., that it should be a painting of something
>and that squiggles of paint on a canvas did not properly qualify as art
>she told me that it made her think. I simply replied, "Yeah, what does
>it make you think about?" She had no answer, and she never forgave me
>for exposing her pretense of intellectual depth.
Here's a problem: the idea that Art "should" have an object. You say this in
order to denigrate non-objective art. Why do you get to decide what Art is?
You can gesture to a landscape painting and say "Now, *that's* Art," and I can
just as easily insist that landscape's aren't art, only representations of
people are art. My brother could demand that the only true art was that which
was consecrated to the Gods, and maybe a bystander could throw us back to the
far distant past by insisting that if it ain't a Fertility Idol, it ain't Art.
Books, TV Shows, Films--none of them "should" be anything in particular,
except that if they want to appeal to people (whether commerically,
intellectually, aesthetically, etc.) they might want to keep in mind the taste
of their audience. Non-objective films are out there, and while they won't
grab the audience of an Independence Day, I don't think you're in a position
to declare them Non-Art. We can't all be Humpty Dumpty and decide what the
words mean.
One of the great things about the 20th century was the opening up of
categories. Art could be non-objective, women could vote, music could include
sycopated rhythms, books could be published on-line, etc., etc.
Ashley Lambert-Maberly
Catherine Flynn
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a much better novel.