1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
|
Salmon fishing in the Yemen
###########################
:date: 2016-10-12T11:30:00
:status: draft
:category: faith
:tags: review, movie
Most movies are just faint shadows of what the original book was,
but in case of “Salmon fishing in the Yemen“ it is more true than
it is convenient. My story with this story started by reading
`the review by Roger Ebert`_ I left the reading of the movie with
a mixed feelings. On the one hand obviously Roger pointed out
flaws which were real. On the other hand, comments on the review
are firestorm of criticism explaining that Roger completely
missed the point of the movie, and he is also factually mistaken
in couple of points.
In the end I was so intrigued by the review and its comments,
that I have watched it myself. I liked both main actors (Emily
Blunt and Ewan McGregor), but I was sorely disappointed with the
script. So, I wrote this comment:
[…] I saw the movie, and I have to say it was a huge
disappointment. Yes, pictures were nice, but still it seemed
awkward … like the original idea of the movie is “how to get
Arabian sheik fishing in Scotland into the movie?”.
But more disappointed I was with the plot. My hope with the
British movies is that they are not always completely
stereotypically made by the Hollywood template (I love “The
Englishman Who Went up a Hill but Came down a Mountain”, for
example), but this was 100% boilerplate … “Guy meets girl;
both of them kick off their current friend/spouse for no
particular reason, and they love each other for ever and
ever”.
What if something was different than the boilerplate? Couple
of ideas. What if Robert actually did die (sealed coffin not
to show just the pieces returning from Afghanistan would look
lovely) and Harriet actually went through real mourning? Or
what if the movie ended á la “Once” … “I actually care more
about my marriage! Yes, I need partner in rebuilding the
project, and she is my wife!” (she was some kind of manager
as well, wasn't she?) or “F**k the sheik! I want to be
fisher expert on fish in Le lac de Genève and try to rebuilt
my marriage again”. There are many options how not make movie
boring, but they just went cheap way for the boilerplate.
Then I read the book. And I was surprised to find that its author
was actually closer to some of the points I have suggested than
the script writer. Yes, the Robert (and many others) in the book
actually did die, and no, Alfred and Mary did not get divorce,
and no, Albert and Harriet don’t fall into each other arms in the
end. Although, the result is a way more complex (and better) than
what I was suggesting.
Also, the business of movie making and cynicism of it:
The screenplay for Salmon Fishing in the Yemen was written by
Simon Beaufoy, based on the novel by Paul Torday. Beaufoy
acknowledged, “I just love adapting material that allows room
for creativity and allows room for me to be very present in
the process, I suppose. Sometimes when you’re adapting
something classic and famous you have to adopt a different
attitude, to something like Salmon Fishing where it had such
an unusual narrative and such an unusual structure, that you
got quite a free reign [sic] to do interesting things with
it.”
Couldn’t Beaufoy see that he sounds *exactly* like Peter Maxwell
when looking at the farmed salmons and not recognizing between
fake and the real thing? That what he actually said was “Who
cares that the author won awards for this book, I know better,
I won’t follow the story of the book, and write my own trash
instead!”
So much for the obvious problems with the movie. However, there
is more. The thing missed in the same manner by Roger Ebert,
director Lasse Hallstrom, and especially Mr. Beaufoy, is that the
book is not a comedy at all. Mr. Ebert for example was bitterly
disappointed that Kristin Scott Thomas’ person was the only
comical figure in the movie, and he seemed to me really
preferring the movie be kind of remake of “Four Weddings and
a Funeral”. Yes, it is a satire, but I don’t think it was meant
to be any more funny than “Graduate” (the book) for example (or
Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver's Travels”). Fuel for the book seems
to me more passionate dislike for the likes of Alastair Campbell,
rather than effort to make readers laugh. Also, Peter Maxwell in
the book is a way less funny than Ms. Thomas in the movie, he is
more disgusting than anything else.
Now from complaining to the really positive part of the book
(which was mostly missed by the movie). The book is actually
mostly about faith. Not exactly the religious kind, more faith is
put in salmons (and only indirectly sheik mentions Allah), but it
is one of more `authentic expressions of faith`_ I have met in
a long time. $$$ FIXME
.. _`the review by Roger Ebert`:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/salmon-fishing-in-the-yemen-2012
.. _`authentic expressions of faith`:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYP2EJb1nTQ
|
