Crime Fiction Dossier (Old)

Roger Ebert 1, Rob Schneider 0

Roger Ebert, my colleague at the Chicago Sun-Times and favorite film critic, nails Rob Schneider with his scathing review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. Referring to the first film in the series, Ebert writes:

The movie created a spot of controversy last February. According to a story by Larry Carroll of MTV News, Rob Schneider took offense when Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times listed this year's Best Picture Nominees and wrote that they were "ignored, unloved and turned down flat by most of the same studios that ... bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to 'Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo,' a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic."

Schneider retaliated by attacking Goldstein in full-page ads in Daily Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. In an open letter to Goldstein, Schneider wrote: "Well, Mr. Goldstein, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won. I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind ... Maybe you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter Who's Never Been Acknowledged by His Peers."

Reading this, I was about to observe that Schneider can dish it out but he can't take it. Then I found he's not so good at dishing it out, either. I went online and found that Patrick Goldstein has won a National Headliner Award, a Los Angeles Press Club Award, a RockCritics.com award, and the Publicists' Guild award for lifetime achievement.

Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks.

But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray," "The Aviator," "Sideways" and "Finding Neverland." As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.

Thanks to Lee Goldberg for the tip. Best review I've read all year.

Jack Reacher on the big screen?

Variety reports that Paramount Pictures has optioned the latest Lee Child thriller (One Shot) for a hefty mid-six figures.

The project will be a co-production with Tom Cruise's company, C/W Productions. (Never fear, that doesn't mean that Tom Cruise will be playing Jack Reacher. Chances are he wouldn't actually have anything to do with any eventual film, other than his company being marginally involved.)

One of the previous books in the series, Killing Floor, was set-up at New Line a couple years ago, and even had a script written that Lee said was pretty good. Before the producers could get a greenlight, though, the option expired.

So Lee gets to "sell" the property all over again! Ain't Hollywood grand?

Keeping in mind that a Jack Reacher film is still unlikely to get made, and that it would likely stink if it did, this is still good news. I love to see a guy like Lee, one of the true gentlemen of this business, get a nice payday. Well done!

Adapting books into films

Making a good film is a difficult proposition. Making a good film that will please the fans of the book that inspired it is all but impossible. What’s more, it’s a bad idea even to try.

The thing to always remember about books and movies is that they are two very different and distinct mediums. You can't expect a film adaptation of a book to resemble its source material in anything more than surface ways. If you watch a film expecting it to somehow capture what made the book special in your mind, it is inevitable that you will be disappointed.

What makes a book special is not its plot, nor the physical attributes and actions of its characters. Not the dialogue, nor the pacing, nor the setting. Rather it’s all of those things put together in the author’s own unique way. Translating that from the page to the screen is impossible. It makes about as much sense as drawing a picture of a symphony.

In order for a film to be any good, it has to reflect the style, talent and artistic personality of its creators -- and the author of the book is not one of those creators. It must work on its own, as a motion picture. To the extent that the book, and the author’s vision behind it, can be used to contribute to the making of that film, so much the better. But above all, the film must be the unique creation of the filmmakers.

The chances of a reader being disappointed by any eventual film version of a book they love are nearly overwhelming. There is just no way that any filmmaker can capture what it is that you see in your mind when you read the book, no way they can duplicate that magical connection between the reader and the author. This is especially true because that vision and that experience are unique to each reader.

The only reasonable way to view these projects is simply to think of them as fun, disposable pieces of entertainment, almost completely separate from the books that inspired them. That and a fat paycheck for the writers, most of whom are pretty cool people.