From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT  (SPOILERS)
Summary: But it WASN'T fiction
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:03:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.222550.16196@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.200829.6097@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >I've been avoiding talking about this film, and I have no doubt it's
> >beautifully filmed and all, but the story is making me sick to my stomach.
> >
> >I've never heard of Norman McLean, and I've never read his books, but
> >recently Smithsonian Magazine did a piece on the man, his book, his
> >family and the film, and then I saw Siskel and Ebert review it
> >and I've got to say SOMETHING.
> >
> >First, Norman McLean's family was the sickest thing I've ever heard of.
> > . .  .
> >Rev. McLean was a bully, living vicariously though his sons and I
> >never had any doubts as I read this article that Paul would wind
> >up being beaten to death in a bar fight.  
> 
> I know nothing of McLean's family other than what he wrote in "A River
> Runs Through It", and some other supposedly true incidents that appeared
> in the film version.  Therefore, I cannot comment on their real lives.
> However, since you haven't read the book, and I have, I thought it worth
> saying that the book is beautifully written, and does not, perhaps, have
> the moral or theme you think it does.  It's a short work, and not hard
> reading, so I recommend it to you.  There's a reason the book has a
> "cult" following, even among those who know little and care less about
> fly fishing.  McLean manages to use a rather obscure sport to say some
> very interesting things about grace, skill, and love.  He says them
> very eloquently, too.  The book is sold as fiction, and McLean never
> claimed it to be pure fact.  If his real childhood was nastier than
> depicted in the book, that has no bearing on the quality of the book.
> 

I don't doubt that the book was beautifully written, but it was
not fiction - not really.  There really was a Rev. McLean and
a Paul and a Norman.  I mentioned Kenny Hardwick, and maybe he's
not famous (or infamous) nationwide but he's about to go on trial
for murdering his infant daughter.  If he did write a book about
it and it was beautiful and he was a heroic figure - would you say
that it was just fiction and we should idolize him and ignore
the ugly reality?

> >The article said that McLean wrote his book after a lifetime of mourning
> >for his lost brother.  I wonder if in all that time he could admit
> >to himself who was really responsible for that loss.  
> 
> Note that Norman, the elder son, did not end up getting beaten to death,
> and, in fact, ended up as a college professor.  While clearly their
> upbringing had a great deal to do with his brother's death, his brother's
> character, wherever that comes from, did, too.
> 
Okay 50% of children survived - but the other 50% didn't.  From
what the article described it sounds to me that Norman McLean became
what he was despite his father, while the other son was more influenced.
What in the father - as described in the article - brought about the
novelist and professor?


> >The other thing that really annoys me about this film is the
> >film critics who are leaping over backwards trying to ignore some
> >obvious truths.  Ebert even went so far as to say that this was not
> >really a story of Montana Protestants and fly fishing - but a 
> >"universal" story.  What a crock!  Tell the cult surrounding this
> >book that you were going to make movie of the book, but since it
> >was so universal you were going to move it to Brooklyn, make the
> >main characters a Rabbi and his sons and take out the fly fishing
> >and see how "universal" the story is to them.
> 
> The story would not be the same if it wasn't set in Montana, around the
> turn of the century, in a Scottish Presbyterian family whose male members
> were obsessed with fly fishing.  In spite of that, it does have a great
> deal to say to people who don't live anywhere near Montana, who live in
> the modern era, in a variety of family types, whether or not they care about
> fly fishing.  It's worth remembering that, in art, details are usually
> not trivial, but that doesn't mean the art is completely about the details.
> 

I think you've just agreed with me about it's phony "universalism".
It may have a lot to say about families other than the McLeans, but I
just think what it has to say is mostly bad.

marc colten

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies