Posted on 02/02/2006 8:23:41 PM PST by MrBallroom
Good post. (#99)
Do you?
That tells me everything I need to know.
Indeed? What *is* the function of a production company? It *produces* the film, does it not? What *is* the function of a distribution company? To distribute the film, no? Without these, the spoiled brat "stars", and the equally spoiled brat "directors" would have no reason to exist, period. That *does* make them inseparable, your snide condescension aside.
That foreign distribution companies are trying to edge into the US market is irrelevant, almost as irrelevant as your elitist attitude. Grow up, pal...
the infowarrior
Welcome to FR.
I think what Haemo was trying to say is that the "management structure" in Hollywood is changing again. The first time it changed, it went from the "Studio System" in which everyone from the actors to the guy who brought coffee in the morning was an employee of the studio to a system in which everyone is "freelance." Now it is changing again to a system that is more competitive, global and fragmented.
All that aside, Hollywood is not going to "fail." There is a huge worldwide infrastructure out there of theaters, video rental stores, television cable companies etc. etc. etc. Feeding that pipeline with "product" will remain highly profitable far into the future.
Sorry. I've never found Capote to be an important writer. "In Cold Blood" was a horrifying tale, in which he previewed the liberal obsession with identifying with the murderer instead of the innocent family which the two bums butchered. Look at Norman Mailer's defence of Gary ? who was released and then committed more murders.
Harper Lee's work was a little more refined, but I must plead ignorance, having only read "To Kill a Mockingbird".
All crime writing, from its start, always focused on the perpetrators and their crime(s)rather than the victims. You're looking for political motivation/pathology where none exists. Capote, for his part, was afraid and appalled by the act portrayed in In Cold Blood. However, he broke new ground in the way that he told the story. At the time, Mailer was one of his most outspoken critics, then later copied the style with the Gary Gilmore book, Executioner's Song.
Also, most people forget that Capote was at his core a "country boy" and particularly well-suited to tell the story. As it turns out, he was singularly unsuited for NYC and the environment he aspired to and eventually found himself in. Most people remember his "queer act" from television talk shows and public appearances. I saw him once, a few years before his death, and his manner was entirely different. The voice was at a lower pitch and the fluttering hands not in evidence. He was discussing a book in detail and seemed to be "all there," but sickly.
Harper Lee only wrote the one book, but for millions of school children it's the book that has served as their introduction to modern American literature
p.s.
You could make the argument that Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Great Gatsby and O'Hara's Butterfield-8 are essentially companion pieces. If you read all three at the same time, it's difficult to tell which is the best told story.
Well well well...talk about tripe? You signed up today to give us this wisdom? Crawl back under your rock--and I think you misspelled your screen name.
Well, you certainly have lived up to your designation.
What is the difference between your post and her article? She got published. You only posted.
Typical response of a troll. Your post was simply an attack of the author without specifics. If you take exception to what the author wrote you might try expressing an actual idea and explain specifically what you take exception to.
That would depend on what you define as Hollywood, and what you define as fail. If by Hollywood you mean an entire concept, and system for producing motion pictures (or whatever their equivalent technological replacements will be), and fail as meaning to become extinct, then clearly not. If, on the other hand, you mean Hollywood as the current system, and fail as not continuing unchanged, then that's not as safe a bet...
the infowarrior
OH Boy, I never knew that Capote wrote "Breakfast at Tiffany's" which I loved as a movie! BTW, you are right about the true crime novels, but I thought he sympathized a bit too much with the criminals rather than the family they slaughtered.
It's been years since I read it (in high school) but I also remember being repelled by his graphic descriptions of the kid's murders. Seemed to take too much enjoyment in it.
The book Breakfast at Tiffany's is a lot different than the movie. However, one bit of trivia about the movie -- Capote insisted (fought actually) that Hepburn should sing Moon River. Another bit of trivia, which may or may not be true, Capote never attended college. But he did get a job as a lowly clerk at The New Yorker. One of his supposed duties was helping a very cranky James Thurber get dressed after meetings with his mistress. In a fit of vengeance for the unpleasant task, he helped a nearly blind Thurber put his socks on -- inside out -- to tip off his wife.
Oh yeah, Capote was repelled by the killers and the murders. But the thing is, he was fascinated by secret lives -- the things that are hidden from view. This may be from his upbringing in a small southern town or being an outsider most of his life.
The guy really is interesting and very much like Fitzgerald and O'Hara in many ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.