THE KILLER INSIDE ME (no spoilers)
moviePig
Imo, there's no more natural-seeming actor today than Casey Affleck,
and Michael Winterbottom is an intelligent and uncompromising
director. So,of course THE KILLER INSIDE ME is a tour de force. But
it's a force whose irresistibility surely won't be to everyone's
delight. Affleck plays a likable small-town Texas deputy
sheriff ...with issues, and uncharacteristic fluidity in resolving
them. Despite such normalizing co-stars as Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson,
and Ned Beatty, KILLER is an unconventional, violent narrative that
many will find not only hard to watch but unrewarding if they brave it
anyway. (Did I mention its sly humorous streak?) Although only for
those who tend to appreciate good work irrespective of product, THE
KILLER INSIDE ME is recommended.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
makento
Its odd that you were unaware The Killer Inside Me is a Jim Thompson
movie, hence, for legions of pulp fiction addicts, a major cinematic
event.
I also find it unbelievable you wouldnt have mentioned how
winterbottom's
remake compared to the Stacey Keach 70's version?
irrelevant? .
In any event, 'irrespective of product,' as you so delicately
phrased it,
both Kubrick and Peckinpah thought Thompson
a literary genius...and both translated his work to the screen. (The
Killers &
The Getaway). Then there was 'The Grifters', Paths of Glory (Kubrick
again)
and the french film version of 'pop 1280.'
How many others have i forgotten?
For the definitive biography on jim thompson read "Savage Art' by
Robert Polito..
moviePig
Well, certainly from an "average-viewer" perspective I'll call it
'irrelevant'. But the fact is also that I was ignorant of it.
Probably especially good that I didn't know about GRIFTERS and PATHS
OF GLORY, because I'd have had to struggle to resist positive bias.
And, fwiw, I'd still suggest KILLER INSIDE ME be approached with much
more caution than, say, either of those two... (but maybe not if
Michael Winterbottom had made them in 2010...)
nick
But the book – which is every bit as extreme and upsetting as the film
– has been around since as long ago as 1952. Amazing how you can get
away with so much more in books without people really noticing. "Oh,
it's a book, it must be good for you." Well, this book is certainly
not good for you. I remember reading it and thinking – should I be
reading this, should anyone read this? It is a horrific trip inside
the mind of a cold-blooded psychopathic sadist, who is nevertheless
good company and at times unnervingly funny. Not in a flip, post-
Tarantino way; this is very disturbing and upsetting stuff. There is
never any question as to where Thompson stands – the narrator is a
monster. We watch his destructive relations unfold and discover the
reasons for his condition from the reading equivalent of "behind the
sofa". Unlike a lot of modern writers who go into this area in a sort
of gleefully voyeuristic adolescent way that is entirely fake (stand
up Brett Easton Ellis). Jim Thompson lived the life. He understood
these people and fought many demons of his own. He is my favourite
author by a long chalk, and this is an extraordinary book, but it's
also certainly one of the most extreme (and extremely upsetting)
things I've ever read.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep/08/charlie-higson-top-10-horror-books
nick
>
>
>
>
>
> > Imo, there's no more natural-seeming actor today than Casey Affleck,
> > and Michael Winterbottom is an intelligent and uncompromising
> > director. So,of course THE KILLER INSIDE ME is a tour de force. But
> > it's a force whose irresistibility surely won't be to everyone's
> > delight. Affleck plays a likable small-town Texas deputy
> > sheriff ...with issues, and uncharacteristic fluidity in resolving
> > them. Despite such normalizing co-stars as Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson,
> > and Ned Beatty, KILLER is an unconventional, violent narrative that
> > many will find not only hard to watch but unrewarding if they brave it
> > anyway. (Did I mention its sly humorous streak?) Although only for
> > those who tend to appreciate good work irrespective of product, THE
> > KILLER INSIDE ME is recommended.
>
> > --
>
> Its odd that you were unaware The Killer Inside Me is a Jim Thompson
> movie, hence, for legions of pulp fiction addicts, a major cinematic
> event.
> I also find it unbelievable you wouldnt have mentioned how
> winterbottom's
> remake compared to the Stacey Keach 70's version?
>
days of VHS. I'm not satisfied with any adaptations of Jim Thompson's
work though and maybe he's unfilmable.
moviePig
Shit. Having just borne up through Updike's final 'Rabbit'
installment, I've been relaxing with a couple of old Donald E
Westlakes. Now it appears I'll have to climb back into the
bathysphere with a Jim Thompson...
william
>
> Shit. Having just borne up through Updike's final 'Rabbit'
> installment, I've been relaxing with a couple of old Donald E
> Westlakes. Now it appears I'll have to climb back into the
> bathysphere with a Jim Thompson...
>
Cornell Woolrich) sometimes produce crap. First, don't look for the
novel Paths Of Glory by Thompson since he didn't write it. Humphrey
Cobb did. Thompson wrote some of the dialog for the film. The Killers
was written by Ernest Hemingway (the film was directed in 1946 by
Robert Siodmak and in 1964 by Don Siegal). The Killing was never a
book and the screenplay is by Kubrick with Thompson writing the
dialog.
Second, Thompson -- as noted previously -- can be tough stuff to read.
I'd recommend The Killer Inside Me, Recoil, Savage Night, and A Swell-
Looking Babe to start off.
As for films based on his novels, there are plenty with more on the
way. I haven't seen the most recent Killer Inside Me but the French --
who were reading Thompson while his books went OOP in the US -- made
two winners: Série noire based on A Hell of a Woman and Coup de
torchon based on Pop. 1280. For US films, After Dark My Sweet -- from
a novel of the same name is a good version in my opinion -- as is The
Kill-Off based on the novel of the same name.
The Grifters wasn't much of a book and the film is effing silly and
The Getaway is good Peckinpah and totally misses the point of
Thompson'd novel. This World, Then The Fireworks, the re-make of The
Getaway, and Hit Me are all dreadful.
Have fun,
William
william
> The Grifters wasn't much of a book and the film is effing silly and
> The Getaway is good Peckinpah and totally misses the point of
> Thompson'd novel. This World, Then The Fireworks, the re-make of The
> Getaway, and Hit Me are all dreadful.
>
PS. The Stacy Keach version of The Killer Inside Me directed by Burt
Kennedy is a rageless mess. Don't bother. Really.
William
art...@yahoo.com
> both Kubrick and Peckinpah thought Thompson
> a literary genius...and both translated his work to the screen. (The
> Killers &
> The Getaway). Then there was 'The Grifters', Paths of Glory (Kubrick
> again)
> and the french film version of 'pop 1280.'
>
> How many others have i forgotten?
"After Dark My Sweet" was pretty good.
"This World, then The Fireworks" is plenty lurid. But so is the story
from which it came
>
> For the definitive biography on jim thompson read "Savage Art' by
> Robert Polito..
I would also read Thompson's autobiographical "Roughneck"
makento
> On Oct 3, 6:17 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> >
> The Killers
> was written by Ernest Hemingway (the film was directed in 1946 by
> Robert Siodmak and in 1964 by Don Siegal). The Killing was never a
> book and the screenplay is by Kubrick with Thompson writing the
> dialog.
>
thanks for the correction. of course i meant to say thompson wrote
'the killing'...
...definitely not 'the killers'.
btw, for those interested, quite a bit of controversy still surrounds
who should
get lion's share of credit for the screenplay to 'The Killing'. Not
Kubrick's
finest hour, I'm afraid. From 'Savage Art:'
"As the credits rolled--Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick with Additional
Dialogue by Jim Thompson--
he (Thompson) was livid. "My father nearly fell out of his seat when
he saw that," his daughter
Patricia recalls. "He couldnt believe that Stanley would cheat him
out of his credit"
c.
william
> btw, for those interested, quite a bit of controversy still surrounds
> who should
> get lion's share of credit for the screenplay to 'The Killing'. Not
> Kubrick's
> finest hour, I'm afraid. From 'Savage Art:'
>
> "As the credits rolled--Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick with Additional
> Dialogue by Jim Thompson--
> he (Thompson) was livid. "My father nearly fell out of his seat when
> he saw that," his daughter
> Patricia recalls. "He couldnt believe that Stanley would cheat him
> out of his credit"
>
I'm not arguing with you because obviously no one has the facts until
the script revisions are found and that might not clear it up either.
I'm a fan of Kubrick and Thompson and both had problematic
personalities. To say that the credit sharing for "The Killing" isn't
Kubrick's "finest hour" refers to facts not in evidence. Other than
this anecdote, is there anything else to support the idea that
Thompson was shorted in the credits?
William
moviePig
Hah ...seems my library's not enamored of Thompson. Looks like I'll
be watching COUP DE TORCHON (for Tavernier), and reading then watching
After Dark My Sweet. Thanks for the info (though we're yards apart on
GRIFTERS).
makento
>
>
> I'm a fan of Kubrick and Thompson and both had problematic
> personalities. To say that the credit sharing for "The Killing" isn't
> Kubrick's "finest hour" refers to facts not in evidence. Other than
> this anecdote, is there anything else to support the idea that
> Thompson was shorted in the credits?
>
controversy in 'Savage Art'. Mostly recollections of other
people
involved. Because the author discreetly refrains from taking
sides,
you are forced to read between the lines and reach your own
verdict.
Some things that swayed me to take Thompson's side:
(a) Kubrick's first film 'Killer's Kiss' was considered-despite
the staggering, awesome, visuals--to have lacked diallogue
and a story. In short, a weak film that lacked a well crafted
script.
(b) The Killing-with each scene tensely plotted in a "raw
eloquent
American vernacular" that would make it a cult masterpiece
-seems more in line with Thompson's talents
than Kubrick's.
(c) It was said that Kubrick would DISCUSS WHAT HE WANTED
IN A PARTICULAR SCENE, and then Thompson would go
off and write it. (anecdotal)
(d) Thompson's daughter's anecdote has the ring of truth
to it (IMHO). If Thompson had agreed with Kubrick on an
Additional
Dialogue Only credit, then why would he (Thompson) have
'almost
fallen out of his chair' when he saw it on the screen?
c.
william
>
> Some things that swayed me to take Thompson's side:
> (a) Kubrick's first film 'Killer's Kiss' was considered-despite
> the staggering, awesome, visuals--to have lacked diallogue
> and a story. In short, a weak film that lacked a well crafted
> script.
But Kubrick didn't write the screenplay. Howard Sackler did although
he was uncredited. I'm just playing devil's advocate so don't look at
this as an argument. So you break fifty-fifty on that one. The
implication that Kubrick can't write is lost but that someone went
uncredited is a point in your favor.
> (b) The Killing-with each scene tensely plotted in a "raw
> eloquent
> American vernacular" that would make it a cult masterpiece
> -seems more in line with Thompson's talents
> than Kubrick's.
That's not so compelling. Thompson isn't known for his plots, tense or
otherwise. Crazy sheriff in the heartland isn't a plot.
> (c) It was said that Kubrick would DISCUSS WHAT HE WANTED
> IN A PARTICULAR SCENE, and then Thompson would go
> off and write it. (anecdotal)
That breaks more in Kubrick's favor than Thompson's. If the over-
arching story and characters are Kubrick's, then he wrote the script
and Thompson fleshed it out with dialog. If Kubrick wrote any of the
dialog, Thompson's contribution would be considered additional. The
Writer's Guild probably has a guideline for this but I don't know it
off the top of my head. Granted, it's odd that it was broken down this
way,
> (d) Thompson's daughter's anecdote has the ring of truth
> to it (IMHO). If Thompson had agreed with Kubrick on an
> Additional
> Dialogue Only credit, then why would he (Thompson) have
> 'almost
> fallen out of his chair' when he saw it on the screen?
>
Because most of the people who work on movies have inflated notions of
what they actually did on a film. I don't think this is an isolated
incident in terms of credits in movies. Look at all the people who
didn't get *any* credit on films they worked on and that list includes
directors as well as writers. Thompson may have thought he wrote the
script because he wrote most (let's say for the sake of argument) of
the dialog. That plot -- on the other hand -- isn't the kind of
material he produced in his novels. So I find this anecdote the least
compelling of your -- or the author of Savage Art -- argument.
William
trotsky
Wouldn't "at rest" have been a better choice of words?
moviePig
Not for most who've read it, I bet.
makento
William...
you actually made me do some research here. here's what i found.
imdb shows kubrick with screenplay credit (story) for 'killer's
kiss'. sackler
shown as 'uncreditied'. It seems safe to assume kubrick was pretty
much satisfied
with what was in reality an extremely weak script if he was willing
to take credit for it. (imo)
Something else I failed to mention. The Killing screenplay was a
page
by page transcription of a pulp novel, Clean Break, by Lionel White.
According to Polito, "the powerful stylistic signature of the film--
constantly returning
to the same point in time, and then bringing each character forward
again-emerged
intact from the novel."
So this bit of info would obviate the claim that Kubrick was the
mastermind behind
the film's overarching concept. Politio also mentions the two had a
symbiotic
relationship (love-hate, i assume). They both needed each other
badly. Kubrick
paid off a lot of Thompson's debts. Thompson gave Kubrick's films
something
they had previously lacked.
Besides contributing the 'gritty american' dialogue, Thompson did
change most
of the characters in the novel to ones of his own invention (e.g.
audrey totter's role
and timothy carey's...the crazy guy who shot the horse ).
Thompson's origninal draft also contained
what i consider a more typical thompson ending: He had Sterling Hayden
chase
down the runway after the money when he accidentally stumbles into
the propellor of a taxiing plane. (!!!)
cheers,
c.
william
>
> William...
> you actually made me do some research here.
As I mentioned before, I don't have a dog in this fight. And I don't
dispute your point although I think Kubrick did go on to a pretty good
career that substantiates that he knew what to do with a script. My
whole point is that it's extremely difficult to substantiate stories
that come out of -- for want of a better word -- Hollywood. This came
up recently on this ng with "Gone With The Wind" and the use of "damn"
and I spent a good two weeks finding out why James M Cain didn't write
the screenplay for "Double Indemnity." There are many published
stories why and all of them are nonsense. The history of Hollywood --
it seems -- is nothing more than codified gossip. So, you may be right
about Thompson's contribution to "The Killing" -- although I think
Kubrick's ending is more satisfying. Ultimately, what difference does
it make?
William
makento
>
> > although I think
> Kubrick's ending is more satisfying. Ultimately, what difference does
> it make?
>
produced one of the best noirs of all time.
c.
william
Period. You might want to see:
http://www.williamahearn.com/don.html
Sorry. Just one of those itsy things that set me off.
William