Okay... let's try again...
Repeat the question...
I'll post it again for you. Now, remember: Forget about your dazzling comments about my "attitude" or my "emotions". Here's the question. I don't really care if you post a response that I disagree with; I'm more concerned that you actually post a response, instead of ducking the questions.
Here it is again:
How is Michael Moore naming his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" somehow worse than Ray Bradbury naming a short story "Usher Two"?
Well, it's getting late. I see that you're not going to reply, so I think I'll go to bed.
Responses like yours, Nard, would have been expected of the blind masses in "Fahrenheit 451" -- not of someone who has read the book and admires Bradbury.
Well, to start off...
You just don't do that kind of thing...in the industry. It's a business. A publishing business. A film business. A business.
Segments of artistic endeavor, more creativity than business, find those where everyone seems to step on everyone's toes and everyone seems to make do.
I think Moore quite possibly did it without realizing what he did. I think that a very good possibility. When Bradbury called him on the carpet about it, some 7 months ago...(if Moore got the information that Bradbury had called him on the telephone about it)...he probably didn't answer back right then and there because he didn't know how to answer.
And I would conjecture that he felt that it would all work out and Ray wouldn't mind.
Also, it's a today thing.
Fahrenheit 451 has been on the best seller list in Los Angeles recently, a remake of Fahrenheit 451 is being put together by Mel Gibson's company, with the screenplay having just been completed last few weeks.
There's a long following of Fahrenheit thru the last 50 years !! It's required reading in many schools.
And in the publishing/ film business, Bradbury and the word Fahrenheit have been connected thru quite a few decades. It's really a little more complicated than you might think.
So far as I know, Robert M. Pirsig is still very much alive, and so far as I know, Ray Bradbury did not ask his permission before publishing "Zen in the Art of Writing," the title of which was obviously inspired by Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."
In motion pictures, there have been eleven movies or television productions entitled "Cleopatra" between 1917 and now, and another eleven with "Cleopatra" as part of the title, such as "Cleopatra Jones." Another eleven movies or TV shows have borne the title "The Last Days of Pompeii," some of which have no resemblance (thankfully) to Bulwer-Lytton's novel. During that time, seven movies have borne the title "Hercules."
Other examples of duplicate, triplicate, etc. titles in movies and television, as well as in literature, are too numerous to mention. The usual convention is that if two works are about to be released at nearly the same time, one or the other producers will alter the title to avoid confusion, out of consideration for the audience. Thus, the director's name was added to "Fellini-Satyricon" at the last minute, though the producers of "Satyricon (1968)" were not entitled to any legal consideration or even a courteous gesture, since Fellini's production company had not known of the existence of the slightly earlier work.
It is pertinent to this discussion that although "Fellini-Satyricon" remains a popular and acclaimed masterpiece, the 1968 "Satyricon" has vanished into obscurity; quality will out. If "Fahrenheit 451" is required reading in more high schools than Huxley's "Brave New World," I suspect that this may be because too many teachers don't trust their students to be able to handle the more supple, nuanced, and artistically truthful "Brave New World."
There have been two short motion pictures whose title began with "Zen and the Art of" since Pirsig published his book, and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of books besides Bradbury's have been published in that time whose title began with the words "Zen and the Art of" or "Zen in the Art of."
I don't know much about Pirsig, but I doubt he is pouting, publicly or otherwise, that Ray Bradbury, and so many others, stole his title.
Yeah, that's what I wrote. Or is the word "stole" only valid when Bradbury uses it? Or was it perhaps also invalid when Bradbury used it?
If Pirsig happens to be distressed about anything in our world, a more likely candidate for the cause would be something like Richard Clarke's reporting, repeated in "Fahrenheit 9/11," that George W. Bush began planning to invade Iraq, on whatever pretext he could find, almost from the first day of his presidency, and that Bush ignored the repeated warnings of Clarke and others, again almost from day one, that a comprehensive program of intelligence gathering on Al Qaeda needed to be put into place.
And now, if I may do a little emotional grandstanding of my own, I am going to ask my readers once again: people, please, PLEASE try to have some sense of perspective here. On the one side, you have one author's hurt feelings regarding a book he wrote about burning paper. Arrayed on the other side, I want you to envision burning bodies. Lots and lots of them. That includes soldiers and civilians, Americans and their allies, Iraqis, Afghanis, infants, children, the well-off and the poorest of the poor. Almost all of them should be considered innocent and undeserving of their fate.
Which side of the picture most makes you want to scream?
Have any of the "regulars" on this board seen MM's film yet? If so, I would value your objective critique (Sorry if you have already done this;I've not read all of the posts).
I'm going to try to go this week and report back(if I can handle the violence). I don't have my head in the clouds, it's just that I get too much reality tv on the news.
You took off too quickly last night. You know, I'm not the fastest typist on the planet....
Awaiting your reponse to my above reply...
I've seen it. But I wouldn't want to influence your perception of it in any way before you see it yourself. Make an effort and watch it then we can have a discussion about it.
Just found this article. Moore is still(and will probably remain)in the hot seat because of the allusion to RB's movie title. Moore's calling the media a "lazy press" and offers forth the same stale arguments we've read over and over on this board. Can't wait to watch RB on the Dennis Miller's show! Thanks for the heads-up, F451.
Translator, I am crystal clear on what your opinion is, I was referring to some of the older "regulars" on this board.
Thanks for the excellent link. I might note that Moore makes the same argument that many of his supporters have (That Bradbury used lines/titles from others.) Great minds think alike, I guess.
to show you that you probably did not know what I thought of it, I'll let you on a bit. I was dissapointed.
Well, disappointment is as disappointment does, I should think. It depends a lot on your expectations. F911 is not the enormous masterpiece that its most fervent supporters would claim, but it's a far, far cry from the piece of garbage its slanderers claim. Far closer to "masterpiece" than its opposite.
I was a bit disappointed by the movie version of "The Illustrated Man," but only because no movie could ever possibly hope to capture the sheer, awe-inspiring, elegant magic that is "The Illustrated Man."
Check this out: http://www.fahrenhype911.com/
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 12 13 14 15|