Re: Heroin, the movie

blah b b blah (jrovira@juno.com)
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:31:39 -0400 (EDT) 

Ok, first off, yes, ha ha Camille, your joke was funny and now I get it. 
(PS I picked up on Scottie's immediately).  I think the problem with all
the responses was that we take it for granted people are going to
misspell words in e-mail and simply overlook the wrongly spelled words,
trying to get at what was Meant to be said.  I don't read posts with
copy-editing closeness (I'd drive myself crazy if I did, and now
understand Scottie's ire a bit more :) ) if you want to know the truth,
so humor that's based on that will pretty well shoot right by me :)

Sorry if it somehow seemed to be a slam on your life experiences or
Australian life.

>And by the way Jim, I certainly didn't confirm your opinion of Nabokov 
>as a
>jackass.

No, you did Camille.  See, I was expressing **my own opinion** of the
Nabokov quote you provided, not attempting to reflect **your** opinion. 
Have a boundary problem here, hmmm?

The Nabokov quote is a quote from a jackass, in my opinion.  He doesn't
allow people to progress through stages (you're either highly advanced or
"not a good reader"), he doesn't allow people to approach fiction in more
than one way, he basically isn't allowing anyone to be any different from
himself without being "lesser." 

Grade-A jackass.

 Quite the opposite I confirmed my opinion of Adrian Lyne and
>Jeremy Irons as jackasses.

That was probably the opinion you intended to express, yes, but I don't
recall anything about Jeremy Irons.  I'll have to go back and look.

 As I travelled home from the movie I hoped, 
>with
>no little fear, that my second-favourite book wouldn't be ruined for 
>my by
>the movie. I grabbed it from my book case, and as soon as I plunged 
>into
>that wonderful cascade of Nabokov's sublime prose I knew that 
>Everything
>Would Be OK. If anything, it confirmed my opinion of him as a genius, 
>for
>works of genius never quite survive the translation from their native
>`tongue'. And certainly don't mistake the Kubrick version as coming 
>from
>Nabokov's pen - about 1% of his script made it in to the finished 
>film.

I never said Kubrick's version was more faithful to Nabokov than the
later version :)  On that basis, the later version must be better than
Kubrick's, because far more than 1% of the book was in there.  That's a
leap you're making about Why I may have speculated about your preference
to Kubrick over the later verison, one that betrays the fact that you
didn't really understand my post.  

All I did was speculate about the reason you may have preferred Kubrick's
to the later version based on my own experience (a speculation knowingly
based on my own expereince).  

You also have to remember I have a different opinion of the original than
you.  I hated the book -- well really, just about the first 95% of it. 
It had No Redeeming Qualities whatsoever until the end, really.  I saw it
as little more than a tedious study in desire up to that point.  

>
>A friend of mine told me this week that before Lyne got the rights to 
>the
>book, David Lynch had been bidding for them, to star John Hurt as 
>Humbert
>Humbert. I nearly sobbed when I heard this. It would have been SO GOOD 
>!!!
>
>Camille

Maybe, but I think it would fail, being a "translation from the native
tongue" of Nab's "genius" :)

Jim

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]