Craig Cadwallader's abortive attempt to film London Fields. (Site manager's note: the following discussion is culled from the Martin Amis Discussion Web; to read or write postings on Craig Cadwallader's London Fields web site, click here).
Re: filming London Fields
From: Craig Cadwallader
MartinAmis: Amis's Works
Date: 3/30/99
Time: 10:49:21 PM
Remote Name: 206.111.218.109
Just a simple question, but very tough to answer simply. Basically, we love the book, we're in the business, and we'd like to see a filmed version of London Fields. Yes, this is a major challenge, but then again, if it wasn't we'd not be interested. As you know, there is always the possibility that the film will not meet your "mind's-eye" version of the book, and I dare say that no film will ever do so, but there have been many great films adapted from novels, so why not London Fields? And, please, don't use The Rachel Papers as the reason to damn all attempts at film adaptations of novels.
A filmed version of London Fields is just one possible interpretation of the novel, and just represents one additional way to enjoy this wonderful work by Martin Amis. It's a different medium that should be judged on its own merits, not on how faithfully (or unfaithfully) it reproduces your own unique interpretation of Martin's work.
Re: filming London Fields
From: Aaron
MartinAmis: Amis's Works
Date: 3/30/99
Time: 10:04:06 AM
Remote Name: 195.50.84.99
With a bit of work, London Fields could be one of the few occasions where the film is better than the book.
Re: filming London Fields
From: stephenjones
MartinAmis: Amis's Works
Date: 3/30/99
Time: 10:35:52 AM
Remote Name: 130.159.248.35
Aaron, it could never be "better" than the book, they're different media, you can't really say that the same thing rendered in a different form is better or worse than in another only that you prefer it. For example, it's kind of like live fotball versus tv highlights. you might prefer going to the match but if you'd rather do something constructive of a saturday afternoon (like counting all the peas in a 1kg bag) the highlights will do. What i mean is different forms suit different people and I wouldn't be suprised if the film version was the form to suit you, as to make a film of LF they'd have to simplify it a great deal by taking out all the tricky bits that your "reading" of the novel has so many problems with.
Re: filming London Fields
From: Aaron
MartinAmis: Amis's Works
Date: 3/30/99
Time: 10:47:11 AM
Remote Name: 195.50.84.99
That's a fair point.
Re: filming London Fields
From: Jim M
MartinAmis: Amis's Works
Date: 3/31/99
Time: 5:10:14 AM
Remote Name: 158.152.137.68
I'm glad to see you acknowledging other people's points, Aaron.
I've already harped on and on about why the London Fields film is sacrilege, and wish (sorry, Craig) to reiterate once more how this book fundamentally relies on the fact it's a novel. The whole point of Samson is going to be rendered 2-dimensionally on film. Yes, I guess you can do it, but it won't work as well. I love film, more than literature really, but one thing I find it doesn't do very well is convey different contexts.
Take, for example, the new McKellen film Gods & Monsters . . . super film, with a lovely subtle performance from the great man, but the bits that really didn't work for me were the reminiscences. Why? Because you have to convey them literally in film. You have to show them, depict them, and reminiscence in real life isn't so corporeal.
This ties in with why London Fields won't work. There will be nothing to distinguish the bits of Samson's novel from the bits that aren't...different lighting, all that kinda thing, will only be superficial. This of course will render the twist less thrilling. If Samson's always been there in the film, on the same 2D plane as the other characters, it won't be so alarming that he becomes the murderer. And without that, I think the mainstream cinema audience will be turned off. Like Aaron, they'll be saying 'Where's the narrative thrust?'
What works in literature won't necessarily work in film. Not at all. Still, Craig's going to make it, and so that's that. We don't have to go and see it (although of course we will! With bags of cabbages. Because we all love something to get scandalised about). I do however contest the fact that he says 'it's just one interpretation'. As I've said to him before, it's not. Not really. Because film is such a global and permanent medium.
There will, in all likelihood, only be ONE London Fields film ever made. And film goes out to far more people than books do. So in many eyes, this film will BE London Fields. It's far more than 'just one interpretation'. I keep thinking of the recent Jacqueline du Pre film Hilary & Jackie which portrays her as unremittingly selfish. Yes, it's only 'one interpretation' but again, there are hardly going to be a whole slate of 'other interpretations' of her life in that medium, so it becomes a sort of indelible portrait of her, even though it quite clearly goes against what so many of her friends, colleagues and relatives say she was really like.
But Craig's already heard me rant on about this, so I won't say anymore. I'm very much looking forward to the Dead Babies film, though. I think that's a completely different kettle of fish. This doesn't make my points hypocritical...I just think that one doesn't rely intrinsically on the fact it's a novel, like The Fields does.
Jim
Re: filming London Fields
From: Samuli K.
MartinAmis: Amis's Works
Date: 3/31/99
Time: 6:52:28 AM
Remote Name: 192.98.1.211
Let's not be too harsh on Craig & co. Great literary works are indestructible. Both Kubrick and Lyne tried to kill Lolita and Cronenberg made a mess of Naked Lunch, but the novels are still here. The Bonfire of the Vanities is the only case I can think of where the fiasco of the filmatization at least partly tainted our memory of the original novel (so let's hope that Craig won't cast Melanie Griffith as Nicola Six, Tom Hanks as Guy Clinch, Bruce Willis as Keith Talent and - in a really inspired and off-the-wall piece of casting - Morgan Freeman as Samson Young). If Craig with his pals can capture even some of Amis's eloquence on screen, they have made a favour both to the author and to the general public. Although I reserve the right to throw those Jim's cabbages at the premier if the result doesn't please me.
Has anybody heard anything about the film rights to Money? When I interviewed Amis for a Finnish magazine in 1997, he told me that Gary Oldman had bought the rights and wanted to both direct and starr in the movie. Oldman had already perfected the John Self cough but had said that he would have to gain at least fifty pounds for the role.
Marty via the movies: Thumbs Up
From: Brooklyn
MartinAmis: Amis's Works
Date: 5/5/99
Time: 10:12:54 AM
Remote Name: 207.238.28.10
I don't get all the hullabaloo about London Fields: The Movie. When it comes out I'll be one of the first in line. It's almost too good, just to see it attempted. Granted, one is likely to be annoyed at the outcome, but for those who have read the book just listening for certain lines or hearing lines & recognizing them will make it a much cooler movie than most others. Of utmost importance is that they keep the movie UNDER 2 HOURS. My huge hemorrhoid prone ass can't take anything over.
Drew Barrymore as Nicola Six, Daniel Day Lewis as Keith (sort of a Last of the Mohicans type role), and the rest some no-names. Hopefully they get a MA look-alike to play MA (I'm assuming he's not going after the role himself). I think the greater imaginative threat is seeing the movie before tackling the book, but like the movie guy (Cadberrywaller?) said, if it increases the public's exposure to Marty's work, then it's a plus.
Now what about Dead Babies? The most recent Web update says that it was waiting on some type of national art funding. Is it moving forward? It has huge neo-brat pack potential. Although DiCaprio would be a perfect Quentin (I think he gets too much shit for his Titanic role, the guy can definitely act - Basketball Diaries, Gilbert Grape).
