After a few week listening to an eclectic range of
comments/viewpoints/ideological predilections, etc., I have decided
to enter the fray. I find the discussion group very interesting -
although the Hitchcock versus Van Sant debate seems to be going
around in circles. Personally, I find the idea of a shot-by-shot,
scene-by-scene remake rather borish and distasteful (from an
aesthetic point of view). However, I do not know what alterations
have been made to dialogue, nor do I know whether the same lenses,
shutter-speeds and , i.e. are there steadicam shots that we not
available to Hitch? Is there such a thing as a perfect remake?
Also, I must reserve judgement until I've actually seen the bloody
film: despite the fact that it will be invariably (and unfavourably)
compared with the work of the great auteur himself - regardless of
his myriad neuroses - I still want the chance to 'compare',
'contrast', '(re)evaluate'. Surely the process of filmmaking and
film criticism is static without dialectical approaches!?
yours,
Jason Mulloy.
"Walking the deck with quick, side-lunging strides, Ahab commanded
the t'gallant sails and royals to be set, and every stunsail spread.
The strange, upheaving, lifting tendency of the taffrail breeze filling
the hollows of so many sails, made the buoyant, hovering deck to feel
like air beneath the feet; while still she rushed along, as if two
antagonistic influences were struggling in her - one to mount direct to
heaven, the other to drive yawingly to some horizontal goal. And had
you watched Ahab's face that night, you would have thought that in him
also two different things were warring. While his one leg made lively
echoes along the deck, every stroke of his dead limb sounded like a
coffin-tap."
Herman Melville, Moby-Dick; or, The Whale.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|