Directed by: Michael Winner (The Jokers)
Starring: Robert Mitchum, Sarah Miles, Candy Clark, Oliver Reed, James Stewart
The 1978 film version of Raymond Chandler’s novel The Big Sleep is wrongheadedly transported to London and just as wrongheadedly updated to the era in which it was made—both of which were undoubtedly commercial considerations. But at the same time, Michael Winner’s film comes far nearer to preserving the plot and the tone of the source material than the celebrated 1946 Howard Hawks film with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall ever did. That’s not wholly surprising, since the novel had to be censored almost out of existence to be filmed in 1946, resulting in a narrative that only sort of was Chandler’s story. (The elements of pornography and drugs are so hinted at that you have to know they’re there to even spot them.) More inexplicable was the decision to remove the book’s trademark Philip Marlowe narration—and let’s face it, that’s what people read Chandler for in the first place. Whatever else Winner did or didn’t do with his film, he kept the plot and the cynical, world-weary narration.
The film marked Robert Mitchum’s second time on-screen as Marlowe, and he’s more than up to the task. But really, if you can get past the update and the location, so is everybody else—with the possible exception of Candy Clark, in what is, honestly, an impossible role (Martha Vickers was no better in the original). All the actors bring a little something to the table—including people like James Stewart, who really needn’t have given the production more than his name value, and Oliver Reed, who was mostly there as a favor to old friend Michael Winner. The problem with the film, more than anything, is getting beyond the idea of it not being Bogie and Bacall up there on the screen. If you can do that, then you’re a long way toward being able to see what a credible version of the novel it actually is.
Commenters email addresses are never displayed. Please do not insert HTML code.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (without http://) and it will be active.
|
this remake is shit and I’m pretty certain it’s easier/cheaper to find the Bogey version (or God forbid the actual BOOK). why would someone even take the time to screen this crap? who’s going to watch it? |
Jul 17, 2008 |
|
Well, I don’t think it’s shit and I’ve never been that impressed with the Bogie/Hawks version, which is only a vague approximation (on the occasions when it makes sense) of the book, and I do have a pretty good opinion of the book. And, yes, I have read the book—three times, if memory serves. Obviously, you disagree with my take that there’s some significant merit in the film—as both a version of the book and as a work of interest to anyone taking a look at Winner’s films—and that’s okay. But, you know, I’m not really asking for anyone to look for it or buy it, so I’m unclear what that’s about. As for who’s going to watch it, you’ll have to ask the Hendersonville Film Society who showed up, I guess. |
Jul 17, 2008 |
|
What is it about Michael Winner’s films that sparks such violent reactions? When people don’t like his movies they REALLY don’t like them. Of course remaking a beloved classic is just asking for it but as remakes go this one is of more than passing interest. Director Winner says in his DVD commentary (Region 2 only alas) that he wanted to film Chandler’s story not remake the Bogie/Bacall/Hawks version. Although shooting it in 1978 London removes the film noir elements and has created most of the hostility towards it, this version does allow Chandler’s portrayal of corruption, degradation, and loyalty to stand on its own. While not the classic the 1946 version is (the pre-release 1945 version is even better), having Chandler’s narrative with Mitchum/Marlowe narrating and the strong supporting cast (Oliver Reed, Richard Boone, and James Stewart each deliver their lines in their own unique ways) make it a worthy successor. As to how many people show up, we’ll find out late Sunday afternoon. So far the Michael Winner series has had better than average attendance and no one has walked out yet. Perhaps the more controversial Winner films (THE NIGHTCOMERS, DEATH WISH, THE SENTINEL, DIRTY WEEKEND) could make an interesting library series someday. |
Jul 17, 2008 |
|
I don’t necessarily hate Winner’s films....the DEATH WISH series hold a lot of merit with me (especially the third one...it’s way cool), but this version of Chandler’s classic novel is, in my eyes, a bastardization of the story |
Jul 18, 2008 |
|
Maybe the updating and the location change could be said to betray or undermine the story, but how can a version that follows the plot and to a large degree the dialogue/narration qualify as a bastardization of the story? The Hawks version—regardless of any other merits it may have—is far nearer a bastardization. |
Jul 18, 2008 |
|
For the record 43 people attended this afternoon’s screening. No one had seen it before. Nobody walked out and afterwards no one complained about the change of scenery or updating it to 1978. Several did say that they would like to see the 1946 original again and that it had been a long time since they had seen it. |
Jul 20, 2008 |
|
For the record 43 people attended this afternoon’s screening. That’s a pretty respectable turn-out for a special showing. |
Jul 20, 2008 |
|
Some came to see Mitchum and many came because of Chandler. The Winner series has drawn well but that’s because of the stars involved not the director. |
Jul 20, 2008 |
|
Oh, I fully expected that. |
Jul 20, 2008 |
|
>>>this remake is shit and I’m pretty certain it’s easier/cheaper to find the Bogey version Both versions are available at Amazon.com, along with millions of other movies. Very easy to get. |
Aug 06, 2008 |
