To expand, Matthau had a real gift for a certain kind of comedy.

I like it because it's a throwback to the leading man roles he used to get earlier in this career before he was confined to comic curmudgeondom.

I love that he wound up marryiing the real-life inspiration for Holly Golightly.

I'm curious about Let's Scare Jessica To Death. Anyone seen it? Good? Bad?

The Onion AV Club had a feature on it a couple of weeks back.

Wise Blood (Brad Dourif's greatest role! Perfectly cast. Doesn't quite get all the way to the book, because as Huston himself lamented, he didn't have Flannery's faith. Shot on the cheap and looks it. Awesome cast though).

Oh, what did Huston say exactly?

I think the problem with Wise Blood the film was that it couldn't come sidelong with the book without heaps and heaps of voiceover or experimental visuals or whatever'd be necessary to capture the characters' precise psychological processes.

Let's Scare Jessica To Death.

What a great title.

Safe

A friend of mine I saw that with has a habit of turning to me, without provocation, and doing that whimpering cough for minutes on end.

Oh, what did Huston say exactly?

I don't remember exactly, but I do remember reading a giant multi-generation biography of the entire Huston family many years ago, in which John talked about a woman coming up to him during filming to tell him how much she was looking forward to the film, how glad she was that he was directing it, and that he'd be in her prayers. He was a vigorous lifelong atheist, and was short and just almost rude to her; looking back, he said he regretted that, that even if he totally disagreed with her beliefs, her offer of prayers was kindly meant and he regretted that he'd been an asshole.

He also admitted that, after all, she had a worldview in common with O'Connor that he didn't, and that he thought, looking back, that his active resistance to that worldview had interfered a little with his approach to the film. Not that he for a second regretted his atheism, but he did regret his unwillingness to engage with the novel on its own terms.

Huston was an atheist? And he adapted Wise Blood? But, but, but it's a trenchant criticism of atheism.

So, er, he was either oblivious to the book's meaning (which I could believe 'cause, as fond as I am of the film, it's faithful only to the plot) or he adapted it with the intention of inverting it and that aspect flew over my head entirely (which I could believe 'cause it's me).

I'm just going to hide under a big pile of coats and hopes this goes away.

So, er, he was either oblivious to the book's meaning (which I could believe 'cause, as fond as I am of the film, it's faithful only to the plot) or he adapted it with the intention of inverting it and that aspect flew over my head entirely (which I could believe 'cause it's me).

A third possibility is that he deliberately adapted a story that advocated a position completely opposed to his own. Just because you believe a certain way doesn't mean you can't attempt to present a different viewpoint, and do it honestly, without inverting it to your own point of view.

It's good intellectual exercise, really.

Coincidentally to the list, I have The Parallax View out from Netflix. I just watched it, and can duly report that it's murky, abrupt, and completely ridiculous. I suspect deeply that it would have gotten a much more favorable review from people to whom Watergate was a life-changing event; it requires that you not have a skeptical bone in your body.

Also, wow have airline rules changed. Not only does some Evil Dude put a bomb into checked luggage without (a) it being inspected or (b) getting on the plane himself, but Our Hero just runs right on out to the tarmac, gets on the plane, and buys his one-way ticket from the stewardess. No kidding. In cash. After the airplane has taken off. She asks him his name, but not for ID.

Hello!!

Well, I didn't propose that because JZ's anecdote seemed to suggest that he didn't make it in good faith. Though, in saying that, I gave what JZ said a fairly ill reading and I shouldn't have suggested that Huston was either obtuse or subversive (in the ways I outlined) since he seemed to be only inconsistent.

I think Huston's motive was what Sean said; he was very aware of the text and the author and what she was aiming at, and despite his fundamental disagreement with her he liked the story, the characters, the dry Southern snark of the whole thing, and he wanted to try that intellectual exercise. He just felt, looking back, that he'd had some baggage he hadn't been willing to acknowledge at the time, that got in the way between him and the text.