GR (the movie)

[jeremias at sover.net]

Andrew Dinn writes:

>I don't want to see a film of GR. I would not mind seeing a film which
>tries to be as daring, original, eccentric, all-embracing, scolarly,
>populist etc. etc. (actually I think I have seen one or two of those
>films and they generally have nothing to do with books). But GR is a
>book and films just aint the same beast. As for `occasionally
>cinematic', that's the main reason it makes no sense to talk of
>filming GR, just as it makes no sense to make a TV mini-series of
>Vineland. These books deliberately ape film/TV *in words*. That's
>another one of TRP's amazing feats, the ability to give text the ring
>of another medium. Translating to these other media would necessarily
>be self-defeating. So, the idea that GR would make a great film
>because of all the film technique and imagery in it (ditto
>Vineland/TV) misses the boat entirely.

I agree, this is why (as I stated in an earlier post) I think Pynchon could
write a screenplay. One having nothing to do with any of his books but a
completely new creature written directly for the screen. And as Andrew says
if TPR's books give text the ring of another medium perhaps TPR's films
could give *film* the ring of text!