From: Jim M
Category: Amis
Date: 7/16/99
Time: 9:49:00 AM
Remote Name: 195.11.50.201
Well I just LOVE this John Simon guy, whoever he is. Marvellous chap, and I do think his comments can be applied to the 'London Fields' film, no question. It is a great book.
As for voiceovers, I'm with Jezz here. Terrence Malick showed us all with THE GREATEST FILM OF THE NINETIES, 'The Thin Red Line', (just trying to be contentious there, sorry)...he showed us just how legitimate and utterly spellbinding voiceover can be. I think the trick, as he illustrates, is not to go too narrative with yer voiceovers. That can make it all rather patronising.
Craig, I was wondering if you could answer this: (I don't mean to pose this at you specifically about 'London Fields', but seeing as you're a film producer, and you happen to be present...) perhaps you could tell us why you think film-makers choose to adapt novels and then change them? I guess the very word 'adapt' there explains why you have to make certain compromises in transplanting something from one medium to another (as I've said, 'Rosemary's Baby' withstanding, which stunningly lays Ira Levin word for word on the big screen), but why make actually CHANGES (as you've implied you've done at the end of your 'Fields' screenplay, say?) Could one not perceive that as a bit of a sleight to the original? An inference that it's not good enough or something? I'm really just asking this out of sheer interest, not provocation. I just wondered what your thoughts on that were.
Best wishes,
Jim M
(To keep this thread relevant, can anyone tell us what's happening with the 'Dead Babies' film which I read quite frequently is definitely underway....?)