Yeesh. We got a bit behind in July. In order to stay on track for the year, I need to read at least 37 and ideally 39 more books. We'll see what happens. The two years worth of American Scholars that I salvaged definitely did not help matters, and neither did Bleak House and its 900 pages. Time to kick it up a notch again.
Dashiell Hammett's The Glass Key was definitely the most enjoyable read I had during my Europe trip. It is basically just classic noir of the non-detective variety. It is short, but well-crafted, as you would expect from Hammett. I'd say that this one is less about the twist, per se, and more about the main character's journey. Even that doesn't feel quite accurate, exactly. It's not that he changes as a character, more that his circumstances change and he adapts, and in some ways it's almost as though he expected this change. It's a very cynical novel, of course.
I feel like I should have more to say, but I read it about a month ago now, and though it was a fun read, it was essentially your basic noir. Nothing particularly unusual about it. After I finished it I did start to try to cast a movie version with current actors. They did make a movie of it in 1942, which I have not seen, and which is not available in any format on Netflix. Sad face.
Onward now to Bleak House. I personally find it easier to tolerate this one if I put the emphasis on house rather than bleak. I suggest trying that if you ever decide to read this one.
There's really nothing wrong with Bleak House; it's quintessential Dickens, as you would imagine. I'd suggest David Copperfield or Great Expectations over this one, but overall it's fine. There were some really funny parts, and I think I tolerated Esther more than some (you need to groove with her or you are in trouble). I'm sure many papers have been written about Dickens' treatment of and perspective on women, and this would provide some fodder for that.
The thing is, though, that this is a really, really long book; having read so much Dickens already, this really contributed nothing new. I am Dickensed out, ladies and gentlemen, and that is all there is to say. Yes, it does have spontaneous human combustion, but it's not what you think. It really could have been replaced with pneumonia, say, and would have made little difference.
Showing posts with label Hammett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hammett. Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 2011
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Movies Part II: With Thin Man, Watchmen, and The Three Musketeers’ Spoilers
Thin Man
This one is particularly complicated for me. On the one hand, I absolutely love the film version to death. I can re-watch this one at any time. Nick and Nora are such a wonderful, hilarious, couple; they show that you can have a film/film series about a married couple that is truly in love without having it be at all dull/have their relationship be at all dull. Mona Loy and William Powell have amazing chemistry (and Mona Loy looks so beautiful). The second one is almost as much fun as the first (the Nick/Nora interactions are as fun, and the twist is excellent, but the overall story is not as good or well plotted); they go a bit off the rails after that, but still fun.
On the other hand, I have a passion for the book as well. It is darker, more noir. Dorothy in particular is less of an innocent victim, and has her own instabilities with which to grapple. The non Nick and Nora characters ring more true, and the psychology of the novel is more complex. I would love to see a remake of the film that emphasizes the darkness of the book (though it can leave out the cannibalism excerpt; still not sure what to make of that).
Watchmen
Sigh. I actually enjoyed the movie of this, which I saw before I read the graphic novel. I wasn’t at all familiar with the source material, and I particularly enjoyed the Laurie/Daniel romance, perhaps in part because of my love for Patrick Wilson. I remember I had an absolutely horrific headache after seeing it (which is not unusual for me; I spent more time recovering from the headache I got at Atlantis than I did watching that unfortunate piece of cinema), but all in all I had fun.
But, after reading the graphic novel, I can see why a) critics/fans were disappointed, and b) Moore thinks you can’t really adapt his works for film. The power and the pain of the graphic novel seemed to be missing in the movie somehow. It’s been awhile since I saw it, but the movie doesn’t capture the raw despair of the novel nor the desperate hope that keeps propelling the novel forward.
In the novel, every little cruelty seems to matter, you can see how Dr. Manhattan is shattered by those around him and how he is unintentionally cruel beyond words to those he claims to care about; the film doesn’t capture that. For example, I was most struck by his relationship with Laurie in the novel (not Daniel’s, though again, that may be a Patrick Wilson issue), and the incredible pressure he places on her to be all of humanity for him, even when he chooses to save the world. So, yeah, the film disappoints. The graphic novel doesn’t.
The Three Musketeers
Okay, I’m a terrible person, but I still really enjoy the Disney film version. Yes, it is not really The Three Musketeers at all, but I still love it, all right?
Maybe it’s because the King and Queen have such a sweet, adorable relationship. It certainly is not historically accurate at all, but I’m not really looking for that in this movie. They are just too cute, particularly at the end when they finally connect; yes, it is an overly rose-colored glasses version of arranged marriages, but hey, I’m cool with that because I ship them.
Similarly, while Athos is a better character, with more depth and complexity in the novel, I prefer Sabine in the film. This may because the women get modernized in the movie, but again, I can live with that. She is a more compelling ,interesting character when she is not pure evil from the beginning but really was betrayed by Athos, and it makes him have a certain depth as well (which is so ironic, considering that he is more complex/interesting in the novel; I can’t explain that).
On the other hand, the Cardinal is a much more interesting character in the novel; I appreciate that it is not as black and white, and it makes significantly more sense. The novel manages the difficult task of not having one main story arc but several little ones while maintaining momentum. The friendship among the four is better developed, and d’Artagnan is less shallow/less of just a pretty-boy hero.
I do think it is interesting that the male characters in the novel are more interesting/complex/three dimensional, while the women are much more interesting/complex/three dimensional in the film. Whether this reflects a better ability to portray women, or the fact that I can just more easily identify with these modernized women is an interesting question.
Still need to see Cider House Rules, Dr. Zhivago, and The French Lieutenant’s Woman. And I’m excited to see Never Let Me Go when it comes out this fall, so there will be another movie post soon.
This one is particularly complicated for me. On the one hand, I absolutely love the film version to death. I can re-watch this one at any time. Nick and Nora are such a wonderful, hilarious, couple; they show that you can have a film/film series about a married couple that is truly in love without having it be at all dull/have their relationship be at all dull. Mona Loy and William Powell have amazing chemistry (and Mona Loy looks so beautiful). The second one is almost as much fun as the first (the Nick/Nora interactions are as fun, and the twist is excellent, but the overall story is not as good or well plotted); they go a bit off the rails after that, but still fun.
On the other hand, I have a passion for the book as well. It is darker, more noir. Dorothy in particular is less of an innocent victim, and has her own instabilities with which to grapple. The non Nick and Nora characters ring more true, and the psychology of the novel is more complex. I would love to see a remake of the film that emphasizes the darkness of the book (though it can leave out the cannibalism excerpt; still not sure what to make of that).
Watchmen
Sigh. I actually enjoyed the movie of this, which I saw before I read the graphic novel. I wasn’t at all familiar with the source material, and I particularly enjoyed the Laurie/Daniel romance, perhaps in part because of my love for Patrick Wilson. I remember I had an absolutely horrific headache after seeing it (which is not unusual for me; I spent more time recovering from the headache I got at Atlantis than I did watching that unfortunate piece of cinema), but all in all I had fun.
But, after reading the graphic novel, I can see why a) critics/fans were disappointed, and b) Moore thinks you can’t really adapt his works for film. The power and the pain of the graphic novel seemed to be missing in the movie somehow. It’s been awhile since I saw it, but the movie doesn’t capture the raw despair of the novel nor the desperate hope that keeps propelling the novel forward.
In the novel, every little cruelty seems to matter, you can see how Dr. Manhattan is shattered by those around him and how he is unintentionally cruel beyond words to those he claims to care about; the film doesn’t capture that. For example, I was most struck by his relationship with Laurie in the novel (not Daniel’s, though again, that may be a Patrick Wilson issue), and the incredible pressure he places on her to be all of humanity for him, even when he chooses to save the world. So, yeah, the film disappoints. The graphic novel doesn’t.
The Three Musketeers
Okay, I’m a terrible person, but I still really enjoy the Disney film version. Yes, it is not really The Three Musketeers at all, but I still love it, all right?
Maybe it’s because the King and Queen have such a sweet, adorable relationship. It certainly is not historically accurate at all, but I’m not really looking for that in this movie. They are just too cute, particularly at the end when they finally connect; yes, it is an overly rose-colored glasses version of arranged marriages, but hey, I’m cool with that because I ship them.
Similarly, while Athos is a better character, with more depth and complexity in the novel, I prefer Sabine in the film. This may because the women get modernized in the movie, but again, I can live with that. She is a more compelling ,interesting character when she is not pure evil from the beginning but really was betrayed by Athos, and it makes him have a certain depth as well (which is so ironic, considering that he is more complex/interesting in the novel; I can’t explain that).
On the other hand, the Cardinal is a much more interesting character in the novel; I appreciate that it is not as black and white, and it makes significantly more sense. The novel manages the difficult task of not having one main story arc but several little ones while maintaining momentum. The friendship among the four is better developed, and d’Artagnan is less shallow/less of just a pretty-boy hero.
I do think it is interesting that the male characters in the novel are more interesting/complex/three dimensional, while the women are much more interesting/complex/three dimensional in the film. Whether this reflects a better ability to portray women, or the fact that I can just more easily identify with these modernized women is an interesting question.
Still need to see Cider House Rules, Dr. Zhivago, and The French Lieutenant’s Woman. And I’m excited to see Never Let Me Go when it comes out this fall, so there will be another movie post soon.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
That’s on the List?!?
I get that question not infrequently. I didn’t include it on the FAQ, since it tends to be more work specific rather than applicable to the list/project as a whole. My general response is that it is the list of 1001 books to read before you die, not the 1001 best books, greatest books, or even most important books. I stand by that answer, though without more of an explanation it is a bit of a cop out. Plus, 1001 is quite a lot.
Without further ado, I present works whose place on the list has been questioned and why I think it was put on the list (the book that goes with the list actually discusses this, too, but I’ve never ready that book - it isn’t on the list after all; thus, I don’t know what it has to say on this topic).
The Virgin Suicides. I think the most commonly cited reason for this book being on the list is its satirical portrayal of the hollowness of suburban life/ middle America, and the destructive forces it brings on those caught in that life, using our anxiety about sexuality, primarily female sexuality as its impetus. I personally think the main reason to read this book is for the collective first-person perspective of its narrator(s). Having read books with so many different types of narrators, perspectives, and narrative constructions, I can say that this one stands out as unique, at least thus far, making Virgin Suicides worth reading for that alone.
American Psycho. I feel like I pick on this one all the time. Really, it wasn’t that bad! If you like your murders graphic, sudden, and frequent. In all seriousness, I think this one’s main contribution is the way it epitomizes the hallow violence of the 1980s Wall Street culture it indicts.
Casino Royale. Okay, this one isn’t exactly War and Peace or even The Golden Notebook, but on the other hand, James Bond is iconographic. With this novel, Ian Fleming created a character that would span a book and movie industry, and create an archetype (or tap into one and revitalize it, if you prefer) that has impacted countless other works, including parodies.
The Cider House Rules. I think this one suffers from mainly being associated with the movie, and thus seen as light weight, which strikes me as unfair. The world Irving created is sharp, Dr. Larch is fascinating, what it does with storytelling adds this layer that still impresses me, and of course, it explores issues of abortion in an unflinching, honest way. I do think it loses steam in the middle and the character of Melody is a bit much to take, but still, worthy of the list.
The Black Dahlia. I got nothing. Truly, I don’t, aside from a minor gripe. This list is heavy on the noir. It may mostly be my perception, since I might have read more noir than I should have from a proportional perspective, but it still feels heavy on the noir. Chandler and Hammett I can get behind, but still.
No one has ever demanded that I explain why X work isn’t on the list. I think that’s less because people don’t have quibbles with the list in that direction, more that people don’t realize that they do, since it’s such a rather long list.
Without further ado, I present works whose place on the list has been questioned and why I think it was put on the list (the book that goes with the list actually discusses this, too, but I’ve never ready that book - it isn’t on the list after all; thus, I don’t know what it has to say on this topic).
The Virgin Suicides. I think the most commonly cited reason for this book being on the list is its satirical portrayal of the hollowness of suburban life/ middle America, and the destructive forces it brings on those caught in that life, using our anxiety about sexuality, primarily female sexuality as its impetus. I personally think the main reason to read this book is for the collective first-person perspective of its narrator(s). Having read books with so many different types of narrators, perspectives, and narrative constructions, I can say that this one stands out as unique, at least thus far, making Virgin Suicides worth reading for that alone.
American Psycho. I feel like I pick on this one all the time. Really, it wasn’t that bad! If you like your murders graphic, sudden, and frequent. In all seriousness, I think this one’s main contribution is the way it epitomizes the hallow violence of the 1980s Wall Street culture it indicts.
Casino Royale. Okay, this one isn’t exactly War and Peace or even The Golden Notebook, but on the other hand, James Bond is iconographic. With this novel, Ian Fleming created a character that would span a book and movie industry, and create an archetype (or tap into one and revitalize it, if you prefer) that has impacted countless other works, including parodies.
The Cider House Rules. I think this one suffers from mainly being associated with the movie, and thus seen as light weight, which strikes me as unfair. The world Irving created is sharp, Dr. Larch is fascinating, what it does with storytelling adds this layer that still impresses me, and of course, it explores issues of abortion in an unflinching, honest way. I do think it loses steam in the middle and the character of Melody is a bit much to take, but still, worthy of the list.
The Black Dahlia. I got nothing. Truly, I don’t, aside from a minor gripe. This list is heavy on the noir. It may mostly be my perception, since I might have read more noir than I should have from a proportional perspective, but it still feels heavy on the noir. Chandler and Hammett I can get behind, but still.
No one has ever demanded that I explain why X work isn’t on the list. I think that’s less because people don’t have quibbles with the list in that direction, more that people don’t realize that they do, since it’s such a rather long list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)