[Kalimac]

Wow, I come back from a long day of listening to insureds complain to me all day at work and find that this thread has exploded . (Just kidding, guys, I love you all). There's no way to respond individually to all of these so just a few thoughts based on the concerns that are being aired here:<P>Arrogance: Humility in the artist is a great idea, but it's also rather impractical on a worldly basis. The world of filmmaking especially is ruthless; you're as good as your last production and that's pretty much it. No screenwriter/actor/producer/director/best boy/coffee-fetcher is going to get one step further in the business - or even maintain the position they currently hold - by modestly downplaying their own achievements: they have to promote and build themselves up as shamelessly as they can, and in order to do this they have to believe very strongly in what they are doing. Philippa Boyens probably did not get to where she is - co-screenwriter of one of the best movies on the planet - by being shy and retiring about her talents. I'm not saying it's a good thing to be arrogant, just that without the screenwriters' strength of character and willingness to invest a big portion of their lives in a project which was a huge and expensive gamble (and arrogance could be seen as an unfortunate symptom of this strength) the movies would never have gotten made in the first place. <P>As for saying that JRRT was lacking something: In this instance, I disagree with her (though I'll say that I love both the movie and the book scene; they changed it, but in a good and believable way - which is why I'm not terribly worried about the love triangle thing). But since when is it true that the only person who can criticize an artist's perceived or real lacks is the artist himself? It's like saying that if I think William McGonagall lacked poetic talent, I can't say so because I'm not actually McGonagall. <P>Ms. Boyens entitled to her opinion, and if she thinks that JRRT was weak when it came to delineating some moments of emotion (hardly an outrageous opinion) then she's welcome to think that. It's not like all of us here don't have enough debates about whether A, B, or C should have been explained more or maybe some of the descriptions go on a bit long. It doesn't mean that we disrespect the books at all; in fact, that kind of close analysis is a sign of very great respect. You don't spend time poring over books for details and noticing things like that unless you like them very much indeed. <P>One more thing; usually in movies what happens is that respect for the author is completely thrown aside and the screenwriters just try to make a sound and light show out of their book, something that will sell. While obviously the screenwriters here wanted this movie to sell (they'd be insane if they didn't) the fact that they were thinking so deeply about their OWN emotional responses ("I wanted more" when she read that scene) as opposed to market current wisdom or numbers ("Statistics say that 75% of moviegoers think tears at a death scene are a bigger draw) means a lot. Not to mention the fact that too much fidelity to an author - while it rarely happens - can actually kill the movie since ultimately they ARE different life forms. The Harry Potter movies, for example, are very close to the books - too close, in fact; if you hadn't read the books they'd be hard to follow; instead of works of art in their own right they've become gigantic, expensive illustrations of the book - nice, but impossible understand without it. [NOTE: I'm not trying to divert this into a Harry Potter thread. Just trying to say that if the screenwriters had been so worshipful of Tolkien that NOTHING could be cut or altered if they didn't find something in his writings that somehow implicitly approved of it, the movie would have been dreadful and incomprehensible]. <P>Sorry for rant. My $0.2 1/2 cents .<p>[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]