Posted by David Pierce on April 07, 1999 at 21:55:16:
In Reply to: Re: Re:Plots/Movies posted by Drusilla on April 07, 1999 at 20:32:04:
: Cynics, Fools, Nimps! Schmeltzers!
: Have you never seen 'City of Lost Children'? Have you been priveleged to view 'Brazil'? "The Princess Bride"? Snobs, miscreants... buffoons!
: As though good movies are never made.
Excellent posting, Drusilla! Once again, this bbs has provoked me (as might passages from a Vance book) to tremendous hearty laughter. And once again, I iterate: this is our movie! Here, in your varied comments, is where real entertainment lies. But what is a "schmeltzer?" Wait--don't tell me; I'll find out on my own. Perhaps I need only scrutinize myself to achieve an "ah ha" on this subject.
Your casting choices are certainly the most intriguing posited thus far--Kline is not far off from being a decent Rhialto. The movies you mention--and I'm a tremendous fan of the cinema--were all well-done in part or in whole. But there are much, much greater films of the fantastic and meta-real: Akira Kurasawa's "Dreams;" Luis Bunuel's "The Milky Way." As I've previously stated, were Kurasawa or Bunuel alive and interested in doing a Vance, I'd still not want to see the finished product, even though it could be wonderful. Whether it's good or not is not really the issue with me, I've come to realize throughout the unfolding of this fascinating discussion.
For the books *are* the films. They are so fine in their present forms that there is no good reason to make them into movies. At least no participant on this bbs has yet presented a convincing explanation for the necessity of making films of Vance stories. You say you've long imagined Jack's works as movies--this is my point! This very process of imagination is what it's all about--not about actors trapped in celluloid. But perhaps I'm missing the obvious, which is entirely possible: a condition of mild turpitude has left me feckless.
David Pierce