![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[As an aside, anyone else having troubles with lj today? Been very slow and I had at least two error messages getting into it. ]
Don't know why feel compelled to write in journal today, maybe my mind is just far too busy and I need to download thoughts, make sense of them. I blame living alone and too much time talking to myself. Hee.
Did consider going to a movie today - but long lines and well, wasn't quite in the mood. Did not want to see Brokeback Mountain or Memoirs of A Geisha badly enough to wait in a long line. So after going to book store, where I flirted with Elizabeth Bear's WorldWired (decided should read Hammered first, but good news is Bear has now made not one but two of my local booksellers - the indie Book Court, and the big chain Barnes & Noble. Now if only they'd carry Caitlin Kieran and Charles Lamb, all would be right with the bookselling universe, also wouldn't mind Iron Dragon's Daughter - which I cannot find), - instead bought CJ Cherryh's Cyteen (yes, I'm a Cherryh fan - goes back to adolescence), and Charles De Lint's "Forests of the Heart" - which appears to be a Native American Fantasy - rare that. Usually fantasy novels take place in medieval Europe. Haven't read Charles De Lint before, but someone mentioned him on correspondence list recently and I got curious. Been flirting with Cyteen since it was mentioned on ATPO back in 2004. Pricey, hence the delay. Yes, I know I should read what I have first or, go to the library. I buy books like some women buy shoes or paintings. It's my thing - I like knowing they'll be there for me to read whenever without any imposed financial deadline. No one telling me when I have to finish. I like to meander my way through books, languish inside the pages, take my time, ruminate, re-read sentences. No speed-reader am I, but you no doubt figured that one out by now.
Came home and started watching the extras on my new Chicago DVD, and during it started ruminating about cultural purism - actually it had an annoying way of interrupting my enjoyment of the DVD, distracting me. To the point, that I feel compelled to write this entry. To share my frustrations on the topic.
I should start off by stating that I am as far from a cultural purist as one can get. Well, okay, not that far, I appreciate the need to preserve original works of art and the need for copyright and trademark law to exist - laws that protect the authenticity of original works of art in the marketplace - keep them from being unduly altered or changed. By the same token, I like it when someone takes an original work and spins a whole new interpretation of it. I love derivative works - as they are called in copyright law - sometimes better than the original, sometimes the same as, I believe the derivative adds to the original, not taints or contaminates or erases as the purist may fear.
A few years ago, I remember discussing this topic with a Video Store owner - his store is long gone now and it specialized in genre and hard to find films. The age of DVD's sort of drove him out of business. At any rate, we had a discussion about Hollywood remakes - this was around the time period that Hollywood remade The Haunting of Hill House which was a book by Shirly Jackson, then a film by Robert Wise, then a TV Movie by the BBC that aired on PBS in the 1970's, and then finally a film starring Catherine Zeta Jones and Liam Neeson by one of Spielberg's cronies. The video store owner feared the remake would make the original hard to come by. Better rent it now, he warned me, once the remake is released, you'll never see it again. It's not as if he doesn't have reason for this fear - there have been other movies that were remade over the years - making it difficult to locate the original - but, but, you can always find it. I've seen all the versions I've mentioned by the way and even read the book. None are the same, each adds a new twist. My favorite is the one version I cannot locate - the PBS TV movie that scared the bejeesus out of me and my kidbrother as children, to the extent that kidbro had recurring nightmares about it. Never found it again.
Had the discussion again recently on Pride and Prejudice - another film based on a book that has been made several times. I've seen every version. The book, the 1930s movie with Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier,
the 1980's 4 hour PBS version, the 1990's A&E six hour presentation, the Ballywood version, and of course the most recent one with Keira Knightly. I have the A&E version on video tape. I want to own the Ballywood and Kiera Knightly ones as well. Can't find the 1980's one. Which is my favorite? Hard to say - all are different. All show a new twist and all make me see the story in new and wonderful ways. I do not understand why anyone believes that only one version should be made or feels that any of the above is horrid or shouldn't be there?
Why must there just be one? Oh yes, the argument, to make room for new things, new ideas. But there is room.
Isn't there? And what's wrong with wanting to see variations on a theme?
There was an artist - that I forget the name of, but read about while researching my first novel - he taught art as well as did it, and felt that when his students did a piece of artwork off of one of his paintings this was the sincerest form of flattery. He signed the best works. Making it impossible for collectors in later years to determine which works were the artist's originals and which were his students. I always found the story vaguely amusing.
Another argument I've had off and on, with comic book fans this round and trust me there is no one more stubborn and critical and elitist than a hard-core comic book fan - was about whether the X-Men should never have continued past the hey-day of the 1970's of Kirby and Claremont and Stan Lee. I strongly disagree with this view.
I liked the variations on the characters and often found some of the later interpretations just as valid, and possibly as interesting if not more so than the originals. Each were representative of the time period, each showed a different aspect of our culture and what young people were struggling with, fantasized about.
But, the cultural purist argues - why not come up with a new idea, a new line? Yes, but there aren't any new ideas, just new ways of telling old ones. And are you saying that fanfic, vidding and all those other things should not exist? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument, reading it too literally - too narrowly, and for that my apologies - feel free to correct me, but nicely please.
Then there are the theatrical works that become films and the films that become theatrical works. Like I said before I enjoy derivative works. If I love something - I will hunt for all its variations. I have seen two versions of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels - the film and the musical theater piece, two versions of Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the film and the musical on Broadway. For Dirty - preferred the musical, for Monty Python - preferred the film, but to be honest I'm not sure it's fair to compare the two. Same with the musicals Cabret and Chicago - for Cabret, I saw the Bob Fosse choreographed movie and then the decidely non-Fosse choreographed revival at Studio 54 (I love both for vastly different reasons and am glad they are so different), for Chicago - I saw the Bob Fosse choreographed theater presentation with Bebe Neuwirth, and the decidedly non-Fosse choreographed film with Catherine Zeta Jones - that I now own. I adore both for vastly different reasons.
I do not understand why people think that Cabret and Chicago should only have Fosse choreography, because that goes against everything I know about theater - theater is about collaboration, change, innovation, no performance is the same, each one different - each a moment in time - that's the wonder of the theater, it is momentary, it's not like film or a book - it constantly changes. You can see the same play or musical 50 times with the same cast and never see the same performance twice - that's the magic. Why revive something, if you can not fiddle and change it? Add something new? Isn't that a compliment? Showing the timelessness of the material?
You can do it the original way as well. Plus it gives those who may not like Fosse's dance stylings or Robbins or whoever, a chance to appreciate the piece. I happen to love Fosse - seen Dancin', Sweet Charity (film version), All That Jazz, Damn Yankees, Chicago, documentaries, the doc on Chicago and Fosse, Fosse filmed for PBS, and of course Cabret. Also watched a friend do a choreography based on Fosse's Mein Herr from Cabret for a musical I danced and sang in College. I wasn't in the Cabret one, not that good a dancer. Fascinating experience.
But, I like to see variations - Fosse at times grates on me. I get bored. Complete dilettant. I know. I'll see everything someone has, love it. Then want to see how others interpret it and change it.
La Femme Nikita is another example. Fell in love with Luc Besson's film when it first came out way back in the early 1990s, I believe. Could be wrong, I suck at dates. Then saw Point of No Return, the remake, which softened it a bit - more similar to Alias in style. Then the fascinating and quirky TV series, which by the way changed TV and influenced programming - 24 and Alias borrow heavily from La Femme Nikita's style. Both are slightly lighter in tone though. The TV series was unlike most TV series on at that time, dark, gritty, you were never sure who was the good guy or the bad guy. Imagine Syd never joining the CIA and working for SD6 for the entire run of the series, until she finally takes it over - and you have an inkling of how dark Nikita was. It also pulled away a little from Besson's more romantic vision - TV Nikita never escapes the prison. Innocent of the crime, she becomes a weapon. While in Besson's vision - she is a cold-blooded killer who rediscovers her innocence and is redeemed. Why deprive an audience of all three?
Everytime I hear the cultural purists talk, I think about Shakespeare who borrowed and adapted liberally from his co-horts. Romeo and Juliet was adapted from an Italian play or novel I believe. Hamlet from Dutch history.
Heck, Marlow and Shakespeare borrowed from one another all the time. We do not create in a vaccume, we borrow from one another, invert, change.
Think of the books that are variations on classics? Ahab's Wife - a variation of Moby Dick. Mists of Avalon - a retelling of the King Arthur tales. Jasper Foord's literary books starring literary figures. Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, or even Alan Moore and Frank Miller's retellings of comic superheroes - such as Miller's Dark Knight Returns - a dark vision of Batman and Superman in the future. How about Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings, which was first done as a series of animated films by Raph Baksi (sp?)? Or the TV series House that has created a character based on Sherlock Holmes, right down to the address 221B. And then there's the new TV series BattleStar Galatica, which is a retelling of the old 1980's TV show. If the cultural purist had their way - this tv series would never exist. Or Galaxy Quest - which is riff on Star Trek and fan conventions.
And films adapted from books - oh if we didn't have this, we'd be missing out on the following: Psycho by Hitchcock adapted from Ira Levin novel, Rosemary's Baby, The Godfather - yes that was originally a book as well,
Adaptation - the film based on Orchid - a nonfiction story, The Constant Gardner, etc.
Did you know the X-Files came from Kojak The Night Stalker? One of the writers, not Chris Carter, the other one, admitted he borrowed heavily from Kojak and even cast Darren McGavin in an episode of the series as a homage to that show.
Then there's the Producers and Rent. The Producers - Mel Brooks has told three times. As a movie - that is the only one I saw by the way, but I hear the musical and new movie version are excellent as well. And Rent - I've seen both the film and the musical and enjoy both for separate reasons, find things to love in both and flaws in both. But I would not want to live in world where both cannot co-exist.
I don't understand the mentality of someone who thinks only one version should exist. And only the one they like.
I have no problems with not liking something, don't get me wrong. There's quite a few things I don't like and quite a few things I do not for the life of me understand why they were remade - Psycho (Gus Van Sant's version) or King Kong (three times now, plus a weird movie in the 80's about Kong's baby, that aired on TV this week), or even The Haunting - the Spielberg version. But by the same token, I want people to be able to do it. I want the options and choices to see them. I no longer fear losing the original as a result, for experience has taught me that a derivative work does not taint or hurt the original version - if anything it compliments it, makes it more accessible more available more known. It does not take it's place. If you don't believe me - check out how many times they've made Dial M for Murder or Pride and Prejudice or look at fanfic and vids - borderline and possibly illegal derivatives.
My five positive things for today, yesterday and Sat - I'm doing a bad job of keeping up with this:
Today
1. Got laundry done.
2. Had a yummy lunch
3. Read the New Yorker at the laundramat
4. Took a nice walk and bought two cool books
5. Did not punch out anyone at laundramat or lose my temper
Yesterday
1. Read fascinating article in New Yorker
2. Had a lively discussion on lj
3. Yummy lunch.
4. Watched DVDs
5. Slept in and did not have to do laundry
Sat
1. Had lovely New Years celebration with wales
2. Received fresh tulips
3. Drunk champagn, had nice feast, made brownies (okay that may be three together)
4. Bought socks that I needed
5. Relaxed watching TV.
Okay lame list, but hey I came up with five things.
Okay public for now...somewhat nervous about it - since I sort of well, tone in the above is a little dicey.
I blame my workplace for this new agressive tone. I have to be more clipped at work, more assertive in writing style and methinks it bleeds into my journal at times. Apologies in advance.
Don't know why feel compelled to write in journal today, maybe my mind is just far too busy and I need to download thoughts, make sense of them. I blame living alone and too much time talking to myself. Hee.
Did consider going to a movie today - but long lines and well, wasn't quite in the mood. Did not want to see Brokeback Mountain or Memoirs of A Geisha badly enough to wait in a long line. So after going to book store, where I flirted with Elizabeth Bear's WorldWired (decided should read Hammered first, but good news is Bear has now made not one but two of my local booksellers - the indie Book Court, and the big chain Barnes & Noble. Now if only they'd carry Caitlin Kieran and Charles Lamb, all would be right with the bookselling universe, also wouldn't mind Iron Dragon's Daughter - which I cannot find), - instead bought CJ Cherryh's Cyteen (yes, I'm a Cherryh fan - goes back to adolescence), and Charles De Lint's "Forests of the Heart" - which appears to be a Native American Fantasy - rare that. Usually fantasy novels take place in medieval Europe. Haven't read Charles De Lint before, but someone mentioned him on correspondence list recently and I got curious. Been flirting with Cyteen since it was mentioned on ATPO back in 2004. Pricey, hence the delay. Yes, I know I should read what I have first or, go to the library. I buy books like some women buy shoes or paintings. It's my thing - I like knowing they'll be there for me to read whenever without any imposed financial deadline. No one telling me when I have to finish. I like to meander my way through books, languish inside the pages, take my time, ruminate, re-read sentences. No speed-reader am I, but you no doubt figured that one out by now.
Came home and started watching the extras on my new Chicago DVD, and during it started ruminating about cultural purism - actually it had an annoying way of interrupting my enjoyment of the DVD, distracting me. To the point, that I feel compelled to write this entry. To share my frustrations on the topic.
I should start off by stating that I am as far from a cultural purist as one can get. Well, okay, not that far, I appreciate the need to preserve original works of art and the need for copyright and trademark law to exist - laws that protect the authenticity of original works of art in the marketplace - keep them from being unduly altered or changed. By the same token, I like it when someone takes an original work and spins a whole new interpretation of it. I love derivative works - as they are called in copyright law - sometimes better than the original, sometimes the same as, I believe the derivative adds to the original, not taints or contaminates or erases as the purist may fear.
A few years ago, I remember discussing this topic with a Video Store owner - his store is long gone now and it specialized in genre and hard to find films. The age of DVD's sort of drove him out of business. At any rate, we had a discussion about Hollywood remakes - this was around the time period that Hollywood remade The Haunting of Hill House which was a book by Shirly Jackson, then a film by Robert Wise, then a TV Movie by the BBC that aired on PBS in the 1970's, and then finally a film starring Catherine Zeta Jones and Liam Neeson by one of Spielberg's cronies. The video store owner feared the remake would make the original hard to come by. Better rent it now, he warned me, once the remake is released, you'll never see it again. It's not as if he doesn't have reason for this fear - there have been other movies that were remade over the years - making it difficult to locate the original - but, but, you can always find it. I've seen all the versions I've mentioned by the way and even read the book. None are the same, each adds a new twist. My favorite is the one version I cannot locate - the PBS TV movie that scared the bejeesus out of me and my kidbrother as children, to the extent that kidbro had recurring nightmares about it. Never found it again.
Had the discussion again recently on Pride and Prejudice - another film based on a book that has been made several times. I've seen every version. The book, the 1930s movie with Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier,
the 1980's 4 hour PBS version, the 1990's A&E six hour presentation, the Ballywood version, and of course the most recent one with Keira Knightly. I have the A&E version on video tape. I want to own the Ballywood and Kiera Knightly ones as well. Can't find the 1980's one. Which is my favorite? Hard to say - all are different. All show a new twist and all make me see the story in new and wonderful ways. I do not understand why anyone believes that only one version should be made or feels that any of the above is horrid or shouldn't be there?
Why must there just be one? Oh yes, the argument, to make room for new things, new ideas. But there is room.
Isn't there? And what's wrong with wanting to see variations on a theme?
There was an artist - that I forget the name of, but read about while researching my first novel - he taught art as well as did it, and felt that when his students did a piece of artwork off of one of his paintings this was the sincerest form of flattery. He signed the best works. Making it impossible for collectors in later years to determine which works were the artist's originals and which were his students. I always found the story vaguely amusing.
Another argument I've had off and on, with comic book fans this round and trust me there is no one more stubborn and critical and elitist than a hard-core comic book fan - was about whether the X-Men should never have continued past the hey-day of the 1970's of Kirby and Claremont and Stan Lee. I strongly disagree with this view.
I liked the variations on the characters and often found some of the later interpretations just as valid, and possibly as interesting if not more so than the originals. Each were representative of the time period, each showed a different aspect of our culture and what young people were struggling with, fantasized about.
But, the cultural purist argues - why not come up with a new idea, a new line? Yes, but there aren't any new ideas, just new ways of telling old ones. And are you saying that fanfic, vidding and all those other things should not exist? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument, reading it too literally - too narrowly, and for that my apologies - feel free to correct me, but nicely please.
Then there are the theatrical works that become films and the films that become theatrical works. Like I said before I enjoy derivative works. If I love something - I will hunt for all its variations. I have seen two versions of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels - the film and the musical theater piece, two versions of Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the film and the musical on Broadway. For Dirty - preferred the musical, for Monty Python - preferred the film, but to be honest I'm not sure it's fair to compare the two. Same with the musicals Cabret and Chicago - for Cabret, I saw the Bob Fosse choreographed movie and then the decidely non-Fosse choreographed revival at Studio 54 (I love both for vastly different reasons and am glad they are so different), for Chicago - I saw the Bob Fosse choreographed theater presentation with Bebe Neuwirth, and the decidedly non-Fosse choreographed film with Catherine Zeta Jones - that I now own. I adore both for vastly different reasons.
I do not understand why people think that Cabret and Chicago should only have Fosse choreography, because that goes against everything I know about theater - theater is about collaboration, change, innovation, no performance is the same, each one different - each a moment in time - that's the wonder of the theater, it is momentary, it's not like film or a book - it constantly changes. You can see the same play or musical 50 times with the same cast and never see the same performance twice - that's the magic. Why revive something, if you can not fiddle and change it? Add something new? Isn't that a compliment? Showing the timelessness of the material?
You can do it the original way as well. Plus it gives those who may not like Fosse's dance stylings or Robbins or whoever, a chance to appreciate the piece. I happen to love Fosse - seen Dancin', Sweet Charity (film version), All That Jazz, Damn Yankees, Chicago, documentaries, the doc on Chicago and Fosse, Fosse filmed for PBS, and of course Cabret. Also watched a friend do a choreography based on Fosse's Mein Herr from Cabret for a musical I danced and sang in College. I wasn't in the Cabret one, not that good a dancer. Fascinating experience.
But, I like to see variations - Fosse at times grates on me. I get bored. Complete dilettant. I know. I'll see everything someone has, love it. Then want to see how others interpret it and change it.
La Femme Nikita is another example. Fell in love with Luc Besson's film when it first came out way back in the early 1990s, I believe. Could be wrong, I suck at dates. Then saw Point of No Return, the remake, which softened it a bit - more similar to Alias in style. Then the fascinating and quirky TV series, which by the way changed TV and influenced programming - 24 and Alias borrow heavily from La Femme Nikita's style. Both are slightly lighter in tone though. The TV series was unlike most TV series on at that time, dark, gritty, you were never sure who was the good guy or the bad guy. Imagine Syd never joining the CIA and working for SD6 for the entire run of the series, until she finally takes it over - and you have an inkling of how dark Nikita was. It also pulled away a little from Besson's more romantic vision - TV Nikita never escapes the prison. Innocent of the crime, she becomes a weapon. While in Besson's vision - she is a cold-blooded killer who rediscovers her innocence and is redeemed. Why deprive an audience of all three?
Everytime I hear the cultural purists talk, I think about Shakespeare who borrowed and adapted liberally from his co-horts. Romeo and Juliet was adapted from an Italian play or novel I believe. Hamlet from Dutch history.
Heck, Marlow and Shakespeare borrowed from one another all the time. We do not create in a vaccume, we borrow from one another, invert, change.
Think of the books that are variations on classics? Ahab's Wife - a variation of Moby Dick. Mists of Avalon - a retelling of the King Arthur tales. Jasper Foord's literary books starring literary figures. Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, or even Alan Moore and Frank Miller's retellings of comic superheroes - such as Miller's Dark Knight Returns - a dark vision of Batman and Superman in the future. How about Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings, which was first done as a series of animated films by Raph Baksi (sp?)? Or the TV series House that has created a character based on Sherlock Holmes, right down to the address 221B. And then there's the new TV series BattleStar Galatica, which is a retelling of the old 1980's TV show. If the cultural purist had their way - this tv series would never exist. Or Galaxy Quest - which is riff on Star Trek and fan conventions.
And films adapted from books - oh if we didn't have this, we'd be missing out on the following: Psycho by Hitchcock adapted from Ira Levin novel, Rosemary's Baby, The Godfather - yes that was originally a book as well,
Adaptation - the film based on Orchid - a nonfiction story, The Constant Gardner, etc.
Did you know the X-Files came from Kojak The Night Stalker? One of the writers, not Chris Carter, the other one, admitted he borrowed heavily from Kojak and even cast Darren McGavin in an episode of the series as a homage to that show.
Then there's the Producers and Rent. The Producers - Mel Brooks has told three times. As a movie - that is the only one I saw by the way, but I hear the musical and new movie version are excellent as well. And Rent - I've seen both the film and the musical and enjoy both for separate reasons, find things to love in both and flaws in both. But I would not want to live in world where both cannot co-exist.
I don't understand the mentality of someone who thinks only one version should exist. And only the one they like.
I have no problems with not liking something, don't get me wrong. There's quite a few things I don't like and quite a few things I do not for the life of me understand why they were remade - Psycho (Gus Van Sant's version) or King Kong (three times now, plus a weird movie in the 80's about Kong's baby, that aired on TV this week), or even The Haunting - the Spielberg version. But by the same token, I want people to be able to do it. I want the options and choices to see them. I no longer fear losing the original as a result, for experience has taught me that a derivative work does not taint or hurt the original version - if anything it compliments it, makes it more accessible more available more known. It does not take it's place. If you don't believe me - check out how many times they've made Dial M for Murder or Pride and Prejudice or look at fanfic and vids - borderline and possibly illegal derivatives.
My five positive things for today, yesterday and Sat - I'm doing a bad job of keeping up with this:
Today
1. Got laundry done.
2. Had a yummy lunch
3. Read the New Yorker at the laundramat
4. Took a nice walk and bought two cool books
5. Did not punch out anyone at laundramat or lose my temper
Yesterday
1. Read fascinating article in New Yorker
2. Had a lively discussion on lj
3. Yummy lunch.
4. Watched DVDs
5. Slept in and did not have to do laundry
Sat
1. Had lovely New Years celebration with wales
2. Received fresh tulips
3. Drunk champagn, had nice feast, made brownies (okay that may be three together)
4. Bought socks that I needed
5. Relaxed watching TV.
Okay lame list, but hey I came up with five things.
Okay public for now...somewhat nervous about it - since I sort of well, tone in the above is a little dicey.
I blame my workplace for this new agressive tone. I have to be more clipped at work, more assertive in writing style and methinks it bleeds into my journal at times. Apologies in advance.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-02 11:31 pm (UTC)Art always happens on the margins, the borderland between forms. The Strauss waltz, jazz, rock, rap were all denounced as bastardized musics, something unclean, something impure. But as each generation passed, all these were incorporated in the official canon, and each has had purists to carry the banner and denounce the next bastardized art form to come along.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 03:18 am (UTC)But hybrids or reinterrpretations are cool.
I think the same can be said about music. Don't change the original, build upon it. Create something new.
Then again, I'm falling into the trap of wanting to be definitive, to classify. Do this, not that. And I'm beginning to realize when it comes to art and human beings, this may not be such a good idea.