100. “The Magnificent Amberson’s” go to the Movies

In 1942 Orson Welles wrote a screen play for, and directed "The Magnificent Amberson’s”. This was his next movie post "Citizen Kane"* (Rosebud, Rosebud!) and apparently he hated it.

Not the movie itself, or the book, but the editing that occurred post production. He was stuck in Brazil during the editing process (stupid world war and all) and though he was consulted over the phone and through telegrams during this time, he was (again, apparently) largely ignored.

He is quoted to have said the end result looked as if "it had been edited by a lawnmower". I would have to agree.

The studio cut almost 50 minutes out of the film and rewrote the ending. All the scenes cut from the movie we’re destroyed so there is no chance of a ‘directors cut’ ever appearing.

I watched the movie last week. It was very good. Agnes Moorhead, (Endora from 'Bewitched') who played Fanny, George Minifer’s old maid aunt, is amazing. She was nominated for an Oscar for it.

But if I had not read the book prior to watching the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. Some scenes only make sense because I know about them in relationship to scenes in the book that do not appear in the movie.

I hate that about books turned to movies and it happens all the time!

In 2002 Alfonso Arau, (Like Water for Chocolate) used Orson Welles’ Screenplay to remake The Magnificent Amberson’s for TV. He wanted it to reflect what Orson Welles’ originally wanted to create.

George Minifer is played by Jonathan Rhys Meyer’s (The Tutors, Bend it Like Beckham, Gomanghast**), which let’s face it, it reason enough to watch it. Can we say hot?

well... moving on...

I watched it yesterday. I don’t know if it reflects what Orson Welles originally dreamed of, but it’s a good movie. It stick’s much closer to the book in story and dialogue. At 2 hours and 20 minutes it has more time to tell the story and it does it well.

It’s not an amazing movie, but it’s not horrible. One can watch it without having read the book and understand what’s going on; why the characters are acting the way they do and so on. Unlike the cobbled together 1942 version where this is not the case.

I’m always one to prefer the book over the movie. I encourage the reading of the book over watching a movie any day. But if someone is going to watch a movie version of “The Magnificent Amberson’s” watch the 2002 version, sorry Mr. Welles, it wasn’t your fault.

Footnote: Citizen Kane* - If you haven't watch this movie, please go do so now. Even if you know the ending. I knew the ending thanks to "Animaniacs" of all things. But it's still a great movie. It's even better when you realize how ground breaking the cinematography of this movie was for it's time in 1941. Here's a review that says what I want to say about the movie - a lot better than I can: http://www.reelviews.net/movies/c/citizen.html

Oh and the Animaniac's Citizen Kane Spoiler can be seen in this video with all the alternate endings of the theme song from one of the best cartoons ever created.

Footnote: Gormenghast, by Mervin Peak. While reading the books on this list I'm also created my own 100 list, based on my own personal opinion. "Gormenghast" is on my list. This is the case of seeing the movie before reading the book, tho, but they did a good job remaking this book!

Flipping the TV channels one afternoon a number of years ago and passing by a show on Space "The making of Gormenghast" I was fascinated, and lucky the BBC mini series was on directly after. I loved it. It's an amazing mini series. I wanted to read the book it was based on.

It turned out that it was based on the first two books in Mervin Peaks Trilogy "Titus Groan" and "Gormenghast". I love these books. Mr. Peak died before completely the third book "Titus Alone", he had only written a draft, so it's not as well written as the first two.

(My crush on Jonathan Rhys Meyers was also cemented watching this show.) See what I'm saying? Hhhhooottt!

99. The Ginger Man - Keep on reading?

So this is the dilemma, I’m only two books into this whole 100 books thing and I want to stop reading this book, The Ginger Man. It doesn’t appeal and I am not enjoying it. So what to do? Keep reading, look for the silver lining, give it my all?

Or move on?

It’s a real problem for me. I made this commitment, albeit to only myself, to read all this books. If I give up on this one, won’t it be easy to give up on the next or the next? Will this become a blog of fail?

Hhmmm... it’s a really tough call.

I’ve quite books before. Started reading any number of novels and decided part way in that I’m just not enjoying the story or the characters are annoying. I started reading a book once about Camelot and Avalon, a subject I love, but all the characters spoke in modern slang, it was too much. I dropped that book (no, I don’t remember the title).

But prior to this, all those books I was just reading for enjoyment, not to write about them. But if I keep reading books I’m not enjoying and writing about them the risk is that all my posts get really whiny. No one wants to read that.

Am I reading these books for the enjoyment of reading them or to write this blog?
These are rhetorical questions here. I really need some advice.

99. The Ginger Man Chapters 1 -7

Welcome to the wonderful world of stream of consciousness writing!

I know that is is a popular way to write, it’s the recommended way for all writers to start writing. Just write as it comes, go with the flow, etc. But generally a writer then goes make an edits it so that it makes some sense to the reader.

With some reluctance I began reading the Ginger Man yesterday, while waiting in the Doctor’s office. I made it to chapter 7 before I saw the Doctor, which either says something about how long I waited or the length of the chapters. This book will be a slog. I realized this after reading the first chapter and at the end of it had no idea what was going on.

Similar to Hemmingway when two characters get into conversation there’s is no “he said” then “she said” to accompany the dialogue, so the reader is left to keep track all on there own.

I read a conversation between the Protagonist Sebastian Dangerfield and his friend Kenneth O’Keefe, at least three times, and never really worked out who was saying what(chap 1 pg. 9). I recall having the same issue with Hemmingway in my high school English class too. For that class I ended up numbering each sentence of dialogue to work out who said what. I can't be bothered to do that in this book, and it's a library book anyway.

Now this could be a fault of me, the reader. I might be a total idiot not being able to keep track of who said what. Perhaps the writing is “beyond my troglodyte intelligence”, but somehow I doubt it. I just don't enjoy this type of writing.

I don’t get it. I don’t get how the rambling and often incoherent thoughts of an asshole is good writing.

Did I just say asshole? Yup, I did. Sebastian Dangerfield is an asshole. He’s a drunk, which doesn’t necessary make him an asshole, but he also beats his wife:

Marion, returns with her baby from a visit to her father. Sebastian was meant to pick her up at the train. Instead she finds him passed out drunk on the kitchen table (because he’s taken a axe to the mattress on the bed).

They argue and she comments, “I was trying to get father to do something for us and I come back to this.”

“You’re father. Your father is a sack of excrement, genteel excrement, as tight at they come. What had he been doing, playing battleship in the tub?”

Marion lunged, her slap landing across his jaw. The child began to scream in the nursery. Sebastian up off the table, He drove his fist into Marion’s face. She fell backwards against the cupboard. Dishes crashing to the floor. (Chap 4 pg 29)

And if that’s not bad enough, he then busts in the nursery door:

Took the child’s pillow from under its head and pressed it hard on the screaming mouth.

“I’ll kill it, God Damn it, I’ll kill it, if it doesn’t shut up. (chap.4 pg 29)”

And we’re supposed to like this guy?

What’s more bothersome to me, a 21st century feminist leaning woman is that Marion puts up with it. Later that evening they climb into bed and have sex. She’s quite willing and I kinda hate her.

Sure, it’s the 50’s, perhaps being punched in the face is what she grew up expecting to happen to her when she got married. I don’t know. But it bugs me. It bugs me that my son, when he is a young man will learn about this book and read it and perhaps think that's the way to treat women.

Not that I want to ban it or deny anyone access to it. But it’s hard to know that this is a very popular book with young men, there’s bars and pubs all over named after it. Sebastian Dangerfield is a Hero, in their minds. A wife beating, baby abusing hero.

It bugs me.

Nor do I want to imply that I think there is a direct link to the reading of "The Ginger Man" and men beating up their wives. That's crazy talk. But I doubt it helps.

Reading this book with the understanding that the way it portrays men is not a portrayal to ascribe too, would be very good thing.

I'm just not sure that happens.

and yeah, it bugs me.

Footnote: again, I mention that I do not think I am the target audience for this book, I'm probably not meant to enjoy it or be inspired by it. I totally get that. So I'm trying not to freak out because I think the book is crap.

99. The Ginger Man

The next book on the list is “The Ginger Man” by JP Donleavy. I don’t know a thing about this book and like Tarkington, until I read this list I’ve never heard of him. He’s pretty famous though, I’ve discovered now that I’ve started looking into him and he’s still alive. This is good, I like life, but it’s also odd to think that I’m going to be commenting on a book in a place where that author could end up reading it.

Given what little I’ve discovered about this book, I don’t think I’m the target audience, so I am all ready a little trepidatious about writing about it. It’s a little like when I read a review of “Twilight” or “New Moon” or of those sparkly vampire books written by a 40 year old single man. Did he like it? No. Did he have anything decent to say about the book? No, of course not. Did he have any business reading a book written for teenage girls and expect to like it? No, not really.

Sure he can read it, we have that freedom*, but if you’re not the intended audience, don’t freak out when you think the book is crap**. (I really wish I could find that review, but I can't locate it in the vast infinite of the Internet, sorry)

Anyhoo, moving on. The Ginger Man was written in 1955 and set in post WWII Ireland. It is described, on Wikipedia as “[Following] the often racy misadventures of Sebastian Dangerfield, a young American living in Dublin with his English wife and infant daughter and studying law at Trinity College.”

Hhmmm....

Dear Wiki categorizes Donleavy as similar to Hemmingway and Steinbeck.

And again we say hhhhhmmmmm...

See the thing is, I’m a young women from Western Canada. Very little in my life, culture, society, upbringing or family history etc, relates to Steinbeck or Hemmingway or any racy mis-adventuring man in the 1950’s. This isn’t to say that these writers aren’t any good. Clearly they resonate with enough people for these books to by on the list and considered prize worthy ("The Ginger Man" won the National Book Award in 1959). But will I like them? Will I find any common ground with the characters so that I can relate to them in anyway?

I did find some common ground with George Minafer in "The Magnificent Amberson's". I have read the "Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck (I thought the ending was pretty odd, but will get to that at #10), but I did feel a connection to the characters. We’ll leave my Hemmingway Stories for when we get there, #74 “Farewell to Arms”, because I didn’t find connection. I didn’t enjoy his writing or the plot of the story. I may have Hemmingway issues.

So I’m entering into reading “The Ginger Man”, leaning towards it being a struggle and possibly not enjoying it. That bothers me. It’s the reason why I’ve been purposeful in trying not to know too much about these books before reading them.

I will try to leave all of this behind, before I start the book, which I should be getting from the library today or tomorrow.

Which brings me to another thought; the Order of the Books.

I am not entirely sure if the books are in order of Best to Last, or if the order is random. I don’t think it necessarily matters what order I read the books in. I’ve chosen to read from 100 down to 1 partly because (and I think I said this before) I’m scared of James Joyce and because the first 2 books at the end, I’d never heard of before so it seemed a good idea to start with something new.

I’ve decided to stick with the order, rather than jump around, because that way I don’t go through all the ones I really want to read, leaving the less interesting ones to the end and possibly abandoning the whole project. It would just get confusing if I jumped around as well.

The exception to this rule is if I get to a book that, for me, is a real slog; just a nightmare to get through, I may, as a treat, jump to a book that I know I’ll enjoy just to get my spirits back up. I think that sounds fair, right?

The second exception is Sophie’s Choice. I’m not reading it again. I’ll write about why and my other thoughts when I get to it on the list, but there’s no chance in Hell I’ve going to go through that again. I’m still having nightmares.

*Footnote: Freedom. This book was banned in Ireland and the USA for obscenity. Which MAKES want to read it. I have a thing about banning books and censorship.

**Footnote: I haven’t read anything by Stephanie Meyer, so I have no opinion in the books and her writing. I’ve heard a lot about them and being a Buffy and Angel fan, I take issue with the ‘sparkle’ thing, so I probably won’t read them. However, they are popular and are getting a lot of teenagers to read, which is tough to do sometimes, so for that they have my respect.