NP but Barth

[Charles Albert]

Dammit!

Beat me to it......

love,
cfa


On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>  >>>>>>>>>
>  Steven Soderbergh<http://www.latimes.com/topic/entertainment/movies/steven-soderbergh-PECLB003735.topic>plans to direct a 12-hour adaptation of John Barth's 1960 novel "The
> Sot-Weed Factor." The book is a 768-page epic -- a satirical epic -- set on
> a Maryland tobacco farm in the 18th century.
>  “I was going to do it as a movie, but I couldn’t figure it out. So now
> I’ve had it adapted as 12 one-hour episodes,” Soderbergh tells<http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/03/29/soderbergh-sot-weed/>Entertainment Weekly.
> The adaptation was done, at least in part, by James Greer, the novelist
> and former Guided by Voices bassist who lives in Los Angeles when not on
> tour with his band Détective <http://www.detectivemusic.com/>.
> In 2011, in a piece about Barth for the Los Angeles Review of Books, Greer
> provided a window into his work on the project.
>  "I've spent an inordinate amount of time with John Barth's writing over
> the past two years, having been hired to adapt 'The Sot-Weed Factor' —
> Barth's labyrinthine historical parody set in 18th century Colonial
> Maryland — into a full-length filmic extravaganza, consisting of eleven
> one-hour episodes and one feature-length finale," Greer wrote<http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=657&fulltext=1>.
> "Kind of like Fassbinder's 'Berlin Alexanderplatz,' but with pirates and
> whores and venereal disease and bumptious alcoholics and someone in almost
> every episode soiling his or her (usually his) pants. In other words,
> almost exactly like 'Berlin Alexanderplatz.' "
>  He continued, "I ended up with a script longer even than the book,
> because the adaptation required certain additions, rather than subtractions
> (for instance, a voice-over to take the place of the omniscient narrator in
> the novel). 'The Sot-Weed Factor' is entirely constructed of plot: You
> can't remove any of its many threads without unraveling the whole thing.
> It's a marvel of construction, as intricate as a rainforest ecosystem —
> but, you know, funny."
> The massive project and period setting could easily mean big production
> bucks -- but Soderbergh has a plan. “I don’t want to make a ... $85
> million, 12-hour comedy set in the [1600s],” he tells EW. “I think I’ve
> come up with a solve to do it cheaply. It’s bold. If it works, it’ll be
> super cool. And if it doesn’t, you won’t be able to watch 10 minutes of it.”
> Cheap is good -- as long as it's not simple. "I start every new project
> saying, 'This one’s going to be simple, this one’s going to be simple.' It
> never turns out to be," Barth told the Paris Review<http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/2910/the-art-of-fiction-no-86-john-barth>in 1985. "My imagination evidently delights in complexity for its own sake.
> Much of life, after all, and much of what we admire is essentially complex.
> For a temperament such as mine, the hardest job in the world — the most
> complicated task in the world — is to become simpler."
> Watching a cheap, complex 12-hour screen version of "The Sot-Weed Factor"
> would be exciting. But it might take a while before it comes to screens --
> via Netflix<http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/media-industry/netflix-inc.-ORCRP010656.topic>serial, cable channel, traditional TV or innovative distribution deal --
> which might leave just enough time to read "The Sot-Weed Factor" in its
> entirety.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130404/60f1004e/attachment.html>