Friday, September 18, 2009

Adaptation

Michael Chabon wrote The Mysteries of Pittsburgh when he was a young man and it has many of the flaws of a young man's novel. I loved it when I first read it, even more on the second reading, but have since come to find it irritatingly precious and occasionaly mawkish. But its narrator is a sentimentalist, and though it's a bit of a scam to drape authorial sentiment on a sentimental character precisely in order to avoid the charge, it can be done well, and so forgiven. (That Chabon is in cahoots with the McSweeney's gang and is the mate-consort of the truly execrable Ayelet Waldman are likewise traits that talent alone excuses, if just barely.) In any case, Mysteries is a very good first novel, assured of its voice and certain of its intentions, although it rushes headlong into a too-brief epilogic coda at the very end and engages in some too-neat writerly tricks on the way.

The opening paragraphs take a virtuoso turn:

AT the beginning of the summer, I had lunch with my father, the gangster, who was in town for the wekeend to transact some of his vague business. We'd just come to the end of a period of silence and ill will--a year I'd spent in love with and in the same apartment as an odd, fagile girl whom he had loathed, on sight, with a frankness and a fury that were not at all like him. But Claire had moved out the month before. Neither my father nor I knew what to do with our new freedom.

"I saw Lenny Stern this morning," he said. "He asked after you. You remember your Uncle Lenny."

"Sure," I said, and I thought for a second about Uncle Lenny, juggling three sandwich halves in the back room of his five-and-dime in the Hill District a million years ago.

I was nervous and drank more than I ate; my father carefully dispatched his steak. Then he asked me what my plans were for the summer, and in the flush of some strong emotion or other I said, more or less: It's the beginning of the summer and I'm standing in the lobby of a thousand-story grand hotel, where a bank of elevators a mile long and an endless red row of monkey attendants in gold braid wait to carry me up, up, up through the suites of moguls, of spies, and of starlets, to rush me straight to the zeppelin mooring at the art deco summit, where they keep the huge dirigible of August tied up and bobbing in the high winds. On the way to the shining needle at the top I will wear a lot of neckties, I will buy five or six works of genius on 45 rpm, and perhaps too many times I will find myself looking at the snapped spine of a lemon wedge at the bottom of a drink. I said, "I anticipate a coming season of dilated time and of women all in disarray."

My father told me that I was overwrought and that Claire had had an unfortunate influence on my speech, but something in his face said that he understood. That night he flew back to Washington, and the next day, for the first time in years, I looked in the newspaper for some lurid record of the effect of his visit, but of course there was none. He wasn't that kind of gangster.
Now that is a fine opening, and of all the many, many flaws in Rawson Marshall Thurber's lousy adaptation, the greatest wasn't his elimination of characters, his butchering of others, his clumsy condensations, his inexplicable changes of scenery, his tin ear for dialogue, nor even his casting of Sienna Miller, who is as stiff as a cum rag on the morning after; it is, rather, that he didn't pay attention to what these paragraphs are saying about Art Bechstein and his father. In particular, Thurber never quite gets that Art, Sr. is right when he calls his son overwrought, nor does he allow that Art, Jr. is right to think that in some small way, his father does understand.

Of course, he engages all those other errors as well. Fans of the book especially hated Thurber's elimination of one of the most central characters, Arthur Lecomte, the catalyst which brings all the main characters together and the man who becomes Art Bechstein's lover for a spell. They felt it needlessly toned down the novel's gayness in order to avoid the deadly gay genre in filmmaking. This scarcely needed any effort. The film succeeded at failing quite well on its own, and it barely found a distributor. I didn't find the movie any less gay, exactly--well, perhaps a little, but muddle-headed bisexuality marks Bechstein in book and movie alike, so whatevs--but I did find the decision inexplicable except as an exercise in pure laziness. What is interesting about Art Bechstein and Arthur Lecomte is not that they are romantically coupled, but that they are a couple of liars, both liars by omission. Art is slumming it, and Arthur is pretending to be a rich kid, and it is the reciprocal foil of their paired dishonesty that lends a tragic undertone to the . . . well, slightly overwrought proceedings.

The failure to speak honestly is the tragic flaw of all the book's characters, and while Thurber doesn't make his characters any more truthful than Chabon, he pitches it wrong. His Art is just a dissipated loser chafing under his gruff father's dominion. His Art, Sr. is just . . . gruff, without a hint of understanding or camaraderie with his son. His Cleveland, the apprentice cryptogangster whose hijinks drive the plots of both the movie and the book, is merely a wild-child. His Phlox, one of Art's love interests, is a mere cipher (although, to be fair, she is the book's least successful character, a sort of collage of quirks and affectations with no flesh to her). "The beautiful Jane," as the novel had it is . . . Sienna Miller. (Note to Rawson Thurber: do not allow Sienna Miller to pretend to play the violin. Ever. Again.)

Interesting, Curtis Hanson winningly adapted Chabon's other and better Pittsburgh novel, Wonderboys, which required much more condensing, as it is a modest whale of a book. This suggests to me not only that everything is better with Robert Downey, Jr., nor simply that Michael Douglas, for his faults, beats Nick Nolte nine times out of ten, but that adaptation is better accomplished by someone who appreciates a work than someone who loves it so much that he wants to improve it.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

quelle tendresse!

k-sky said...

Sometimes I think of you as LeComte.

nony said...

Wow, that is a great opening. Gotta read it now. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Your link to "lousy adaptation" is broken.

Anonymous said...

Haven't read the book or seen the movie, so I'm curious as to what you mean by "muddle-headed bisexuality".

IOZ said...

Link fixed. Thanks.

Rowan said...

Coincidentally, The Onion AV Club (avclub.com) is doing this book for their book club feature next week. There'll be several articles and a chat starting Monday.

TGGP said...

What's wrong with McSweeney's?

Michael Dawson said...

It'll be interesting to see what happens when Downey plays Holmes for (choke) Guy Ritchie. I give the latter props for escaping Madonna, but I'm fearful nonetheless.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

When I read about how Thurber changed the novel for the screen, I refused to see the movie. Yep, the novel has the flaws you mention, it is indeed precious in annoying ways, but it carried some good psychological heft as Artie sorted out his friendships with Phlox, Arthur and Cleveland. It also carried a good sense of place to me, as someone who has spent time visiting Pgh (but not living there).

Thurber's adaptation sounded/read to me like more than eviscerating the gay story... more like a thorough Wonder-Bread-and-Velveeta conversion of what was previously an interesting sandwich.

Anonymous said...

TGGP:

Note IOZ said the "McSweeney's gang". Shallow sentimentalism, facile precocity, and faux intellectualism, mostly. And all the people that think they're going to be the next Dave Eggers. A soi-disant literary movement that's entirely composed of hangers-on.

McSweeney's itself isn't /all/ bad. The humor pieces were very funny, in their early days, and they have published (and republished) some fine books.

Rixt Rassman said...

Shame the adaptation fails so hard. Weirdly, this otherwise lame-sounding mixed martial arts flick WARRIOR may actually represent the Burgh well onscreen, we shall see.

Does talent alone, if just barely, excuse this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA7jpXdSFfk

Orwell absolved Wodehouse for his Nazi radio broadcasts, saying he was "politically naive", beyond which Wodehouse was a POW at the time, unlike Chabon, beyond which the radio bits are pretty entertaining, while Chabon's rhetoric just irritates the lining of my stomach. The dude writes good, though, and respects comics and SF, unlike, say, the Atwood and the Vonnegut, bless his soul. Haven't read Chabon's Nebula-winner yet, any thoughts on that?

Looks like transcription typos on "moneky attendants" and "where thye keep the huge dirigible".

Really dug this and the Hacker post. I know sound thrashings are the meat and potatoes around here, but I'd dig reading more reviews of "Shit We Like" if you feel like writing them.

Peace in space.

george said...

This team would have known not to cut Arthur.

NutellaonToast said...

I agree that movie failed so hard, but I think it's biggest failure was to completely remove the "mystery" of Pittsburgh. A central part of the novel was the scenery, the quirks of Pittsburgh and it's strange construction. Instead of a steam generator plopped in a strangely isolated ravine situated in the middle of a metropolis, the focal point is an abandoned factory in the country side. How fucking mysterious.

I don't agree about Wonderboys, though. The novel was all about the main character (whose name escapes me) being confused over what he wanted, but in the movie Douglass just pines for his bosses wife the whole time. It made no sense. The entire point of the book was him trying to make a decision, not just waiting for his lover to finally agree to continue to be with him.

It was a decent movie, but resembled the book much more in plot than in theme.

IOZ said...

NoT, you've got a real future at Big Hollywood.

Anonymous said...

Rixt - you can wish for more of IozTheCritic till Khruschev bangs his shoe at the UN again - wont' do you any good. IOZ didn't learn withholding from his Dad for nothing, you know.

NutellaonToast said...

Naw, BigHo is too liberal for me.

Seriously, though, what do you disagree with? I admit it's not as trenchant as your analysis, but we can't all be pulitzer prize winners.

BTW, we've been over this, the NoT goes at the end. That way everyone recognizes that it's sarcasm.

J said...

Eh. ChabonSpeak seems like another iteration of Salinger, though with some hip, laguna-style cartoons added.

New Pynchon noir has arrived. That be virtuoso--anything which bothers New Yawkers has got to be fairly copacetic.

Rixt Rassman said...

So, the new Pynchon noir is fucking killer? And if it bothers New Yawkers, they must hate having fun for some reason?

Anonymous said...

Will have to look for this one at the local library. I've only read one by Chabon - "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" - and it was a great ride.
Thanks IOZ.
Good luck this week!
(It is this week, right?)

Prof. Obvious

Ken said...

When are you going to review the new Dan Brown?