A few thoughts on Chandler's burgher

[John Carvill]

> I don't understand the problem of calling a perfectly preterite and stylized
> character such as Philip Marlowe a product of his times

Um, who is calling him that, and who is having a problem? NOt arguing,
just not clear.

>  John Carvill[e] has already stated that
> he hero-worships the Bogie version of Marlowe—

Yikes! I said no such thing. I said I loved Bogart, and that he,
Bogart, was as close as you might get to a suitable 'hero' figure.

>which always was more about
> the elevation of the screen image of Humphry Bogart into iconic status than
> the concerns of Raymond Chandler, novelist.

Of course. Surely nobody would argue that?

> In some ways Elliot Gould's
> Marlowe is as valid as Bogart'

Yes, in some ways. But much as I love Gould's performance, he's no Bogart.

The joy of Hawks's film of The Big Sleep is that it co-exists so
harmoniously with the book. It's a great book, and it's a great film,
and although it would be going far too far to say that never the twain
meet, there's more than enough of a difference, in tone, content, and
intent, to allow each to stand alone without detracting from the
other. LIke looking at a painting and seeing the whole, then the
parts, then the whole again, you can conceive of 'The Big Sleep' as
either the book, or the film, or as a phenomenon called 'The Big
Sleep' which contains both book and film. And more besides.