Not So Spectacle…ular

Fitzpatrick’s chapter on the “Spectacle” brought up some very familiar theories we have already discussed in class, including (and I quote): “In writing about the visual threat to writing, the novelist of obsolescence is able to create a cultural preserve.” (102) Ah, yes: content preserving a medium! Most specifically, a medium feared to be on the endangered species list. Naturally, the message of the book’s apocalypse has been proliferated through thousands (Millions! A googolplex!) of texts by now, and that is the vital medium here: the written word. A video documentary about the end of the novel is most definitely not going to have the same effect. So here, of course, novels about the end of the novel form are thereby protecting the novel form, but what does that hypothesize about the future of the medium? Does this mean the content of most novels of the future are going to proclaim the “end all” of the novel itself, since (to hell with it!) we can adapt all other content to image-based media? Does this mean that every novel in the future not regarding this content will need the stamp of approval of Oprah, who thrives on an image-based medium, in order to sell it? But who are the paranoid ones here? It’s certainly not them: the “picture-mongers” (105), those who are victims of “image narcosis” (100). They’re set for the moment. They’re not worried, and they don’t read these texts anyways, so WHY SHOULD THEY BE THE PARANOID ONES? We, the tree-flake addicts, are reading all of this material and it’s frightening the heck, the hell, the (expletive) out of us. And still, we adore our image-based culture. Example: WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW? Yes, look at the screen. Look at the screen. The bond we have with the computer monitor is really no different from that we have with television screen, come to think of it. Come on, it has to be somewhat similar. I’m reminded of Frank Zappa’s song, “I’m the Slime”:

“I am gross and perverted
I’m obsessed ‘n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I’m the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can’t look away
I make you think I’m delicious
With the stuff that I say
I’m the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I’m the slime oozin’ out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don’t need you
Don’t go for help, no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold…” (1973)

And Zappa used his own medium of music to express his concern. What’s sad is less than a decade later, Video Killed the Radio Star, and probably not pure coincidence that “Video Killed the Radio Star” was the first music video aired on MTV in 1980. And what do we have now? Music needs to be accompanied by a video in order to be somewhat popular. Further, now what do we have on MTV? No music at all: just a blur of meaningless images (or Reality MTV or whatever it’s deemed). It’s sad really. But that’s just my opinion.

Speaking of a blur of meaningless images, Fitzpatrick takes an excerpt from DeLillo’s Players:

“He wasn’t looking for something that might sustain his interest. Hardly that. He simply enjoyed jerking the dial into fresh image-burns. He explored content to a point. The tactile-visual delight of switching channels took precedence, however, transforming ever random moments of content into pleasing territorial abstractions. (16)” (99)

Translated into cyberworld, I think this type of activity can easily be equated to compulsive AOL Instant Messenger away message checking. Don’t cybershrug like you have no clue what I’m talking about; you all do it, or at least you’ve all done it. Don’t deny it. To prove I’m in this canoe with all of you as well, here are five random away messages from my friend list:

1.) everything’s gonna be all right
rockabye, rockabye

2.) gone making myself look damn good naked in order to compensate for the shortcomings of my face and personality… im exercising

3.) bed.

4.) Well now I don’t have to job search again for another 4 1/2 months…

5.) towndown

Not only do these contain terrible spelling and grammatical errors, but just imagine clicking from screenname to screenname, checking away message after away message: what do these messages really mean to us? Nothing. We may be temporarily amused, but then just as quickly we’re on to the next one. Just a way to pass the time, that’s all.

Maybe this post has all been one big ramble. But at least I got you to read it.

 

Annotate THIS!

So for my paper, I’m covering the topic of novel-to-film adaptation, using Sideways as my case study, since it’s not your typical, everyday novel-to-film case: Rex Pickett (original author of the novel) is a screenwriter by profession, Alexander Payne (director and co-writer of the screenplay) opted the novel for a movie before the novel was ever published, and the movie happened to save Pickett’s financial state, as well as have an incredible effect on California wine country following it’s release. Basically: people could have cared less for the book. Usually, the opposite proves true. I’d like to examine three topics here: the book vs. movie argument, the adaptation process, and the financial effect of both novel and film.

And now, some annotations:

 Charette, Daphne. “Creative Courage: An Interview with Rex Pickett.” The Screenplayers. <http://www.screenplayers.net/rexpickett.html>.

An interview with Rex Pickett, author of the original novel. He offers commentary on authors’ rights and filmmakers’ rights, and what leniency a filmmaker should have when adapting a novel to screen.

Franz, Michael. “‘Sideways’ Put Chill on Merlot.” The Washington Post. 11 May 2005. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-132349916.html.

An article concerning financial effects of California wine country following the movie’s release, particularly the steady decline of Merlot popularity. I’d like to examine here (a little bit) how product portrayals in motion pictures affect real-life product sales, and even contrast if with the minimal effect the book had on Merlot sales. Or for that matter, Pinot Noir sales (see below).

Gray, W. Blake. “Rex Pickett: Spilling on Sideways.” San Francisco Chronicle. 26 Jan 2007. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/26/WIGQINNPCT1.DTL>.

Another interview with Pickett, this one revealing more of his autobiographical inclusions in the content of the original text. He really seems indifferent towards the alterations made in the film: and yes, money has something to do with it.

Gunther, Marc. “Fox the Day After Tomorrow.” FORTUNE/CNN. 17 May 2006. <http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/magazines/fortune/chernin_futureof_fortune_052906/>.

Here there’s a little blurb about profits that the movie made– only after respectable award recognitions, though. Also commentary on how movies can succeed, even if no “known” actors are involved.

Macdonald, Moira. “Movie ‘Sideways’ is true to novel’s essence.” The Seattle Times. 04 Nov 2004. <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2002081409_payne04.html.>

This article offers opinions from both Payne and Jim Taylor, who co-wrote the adapted screenplay together, on (continuing topic) how much leniency a screenwriter should have when adapting a novel to film, and how little the original author should be involved.

Payne, Alexander and Taylor, Jim. Sideways: The Shooting Script. Newmarket Press, 2004.

The screenplay. This will complement nicely with the film and the novel, which I plan on using as well. I realize this is a primary source; however, there are useful commentaries from both Payne and Pickett included. It’s still in the mail, but I look forward to perusing my way through it soon.

 Pemberton, Patrick S. “Author Finds His Life is No Longer Going Sideways.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 21 Mar 2005. <http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=310801>.

An article covering the “salvation” of Pickett’s financial life after the release of Sideways; most notably: the movie, not the novel.

Peterson, Karla. “‘Sideways’ Glances: Novel Complements a Vintage Movie.” San Diego Union-Tribune. 10 Jan 2005. <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/peterson/20050110-9999-1c10karla.html.>

Commentary on the book vs. movie argument, specific to this series, so convenient for me. Peterson notes that in this case, both book and movie go together well, such as “Copper River salmon and [a bottle of] ‘96 Comte Armand Pommard,” and both do justice to their mediums.

 

Tesconi, Tim. “‘Sideways’ Film Making Pinot Noir a Star.” Santa Rosa Press Democrat. 23 Feb 2005. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=108C07B09279C6B4&p_docnum=1&s_dlid=DL0108040815383020051&s_ecproduct=SUB-FREE&s_ecprodtype=INSTANT&s_subterm=Subscription%20until%3A%2012%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_subexpires=12%2F14%2F2015%2011%3A59%20PM&s_username=santarosa&s_accountid=AC0105061516020614723&s_upgradeable=no.

More on the financial effects of Sideways on California wine country, this time dealing with the dramatic increase in Pinot Noir sales.

Updike, John. “Seen the Movie? Read the Book!” The New York Times. 28 June 1987. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDF1131F93BA15755C0A961948260>.

An insightful opinion (though twenty years old) of novelist John Updike on the theme of novel to film adaptation, including his vehement comments against these practices and their fallacies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Would Not, Could Not, On the Screen…

On the topic of film adaptation and authors’ rights, here’s another (I’m addicted) Onion article for your enjoyment:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/stop_making_movies_about_my