From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT (SPOILERS)
Summary: Life -> Book -> Movie -> Review
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:06:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.074724.13703@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu (Not A Random Name) writes:
> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Nov11.222550.16196@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
> >> >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
> ...
> >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 in the father - as described in the article - brought about the
> >novelist and professor?
> 
> >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.
> 
> You spend a lot of time talking about ONE article you read that gave you 
> an unfavorable impression of Rev. McLean.  FIrst of all, if this has you
> so upset, perhaps you should check with some OTHER sources?  Perhaps you
> should read the book?  Perhaps you should see the movie?  Parhaps you should
> know what you are talking about before you prejudge?
> 

How many articles do you want me to read?  How many articles have
been written about the life of the McLeans?  And if I read two articles,
one that said the Rev. was a creep and the other that said he was a 
saint - are you suggesting I should believe the latter and not the former?
What other sources are there?  You mention the book - but as I have
already told you - the book is not an objective biography but a
santized and self-justifying attempt to gloss over the truth.

> What the Rev. McLean was actually like is not important to the discussion
> of A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT.  THe movie is based on a fictionalized account
> of Norman's childhood.  It was never presented as being non-fiction and
> it shouldn't be judged as such.
> 

I suggest you do the following.  Pick a famous family - and write
a "ficitional" account of their lives, but use the real names,
real settings and many of the real things that they did.  But instead
of glossing over bad actions - make them up.  Include bad things that
they never did and make them look like bad persons. Then, when you
are sued (and you will be), tell them "It was never presented as being
non-fiction and  it shouldn't be judged as such."

> If you want to believe that Rev. McLean was a horrible person I suppose that's
> up to you, after all he's been dead a long time and your opinion probably 
> won't bother him too much.  But if you want to judge the film, at least see
> it first; else you are no better than the Christian Fundamentalists who
> condemened THE LAST TEMPATION OF CHRIST sight unseen.
> 

A lot of bad people have been dead a long time, and many attempts have
been made to sanitize their images - that doesn't mean we have to
accept it.  I'm not judging the film but the story - which has been
adequately publisized. Unlike the Christian Fundamentalists you mention
I am not condemning studio heads or even Robert Redford for making
a skin deep movie.  I am condeming the story line - which is so
obviously different from the ugly reality McLean didn't choose to
face, or to allow the world to see.


marc colten

Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:32221 alt.cult-movies:10041