O, Walter, Where Art Thou?

[Nobert]

So I suppose most people already know this, since I'm about as media-savvy as some of the cave-dwelling species of newts, but apparently there is a new film version of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, with Ben Stiller in the lead. It is about a guy who daydreams. Other than that, the preview makes it obvious that it has about as much to do with the Thurber story as My Best Friend's Wedding is based on a Jane Austen novel. I found this preview as I was meandering about YouTube. I could link to it, I suppose, but I'd rather not give it that kind of tacit encouragement. I prefer to talk about it behind its back. I'm catty that way.

This must be the latest sign of Hollywood's chronic torpor. Even when not firing up the sequels, remakes and "gritty reboots," they apparently are just writing a story and then sticking a sign on its desk that bears a familiar name. I know that the guy who wrote Benjamin Button came up with it before he knew that Fitzgerald had already had the idea.

It actually doesn't look like the world's worst movie, it's mostly the title graft that leaves me horror and struck.

 

[Zombie_61]

I'm not defending this remake but, except for the basic premise, the 1947 movie starring Danny Kaye wasn't exactly faithful to Thurber's short story either. And, as far as I can tell from the trailers, the main difference between the two movies (except, of course, for the cast and the modern-day setting) is that Mitty in this remake makes a conscious decision to embark on the real-life adventure, where in the 1947 version he's drawn into it more involuntarily.

Besides, it could have been worse--at various times during it's development Jim Carrey, Owen Wilson, Mike Myers, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Will Ferrell were considered for the lead role. :doh:

 

[Nobert]

I actually never saw the Danny Kaye film, though I know Thurber washed his hands of it. I can't say why Ben Stiller rubs me the wrong way, only that I have disliked him in everything except for Mysterymen.

If one was going to cast a true "Thurber Man," a middle-aged, harried type would work better. I can't think even think of anyone current who would fit my mental image. Maybe that guy who played the Dad in Alf, though he must be getting on these days.

 

[Zombie_61]

If you're interested, the Danny Kaye version is currently scheduled to be on Turner Classic Movies on December 26th at 8:00 p.m.. It's been quite some time since I've seen it, and I can't say it's one of my favorite movies, but in my opinion it's worth seeing at least once.

 

[Stanley Doble]

There is a problem most people never think about, when you make a movie someone is sure to pop up and say "they stole my idea" or script. Since it is practically impossible to write a movie script that does not vaguely resemble some other script, the guy usually has a case that can be annoying and costly to fight.

The solution is to put right on the movie, that it was based on some novel or play or movie and pay a small sum up front for the rights. This spikes the guns of any lawsuit happy writer. It doesn't matter if the movie is a million miles away from the original, it is necessary as lawsuit repellent.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Puppy biscuit."

 

[Stanley Doble]

Would the original story even make sense today? The henpecked husband who lives a rich fantasy life in his imagination?

The modern equivalent would be playing video role playing games in his mom's basement.

 

[Stanley Doble]

That man said "puppy biscuit" to himself *edges away* ha ha ha

 

[Zombie_61]

Would the original story even make sense today? The henpecked husband who lives a rich fantasy life in his imagination?

The modern equivalent would be playing video role playing games in his mom's basement.

I don't see why it wouldn't. True, in today's world there are a number of ways (such as video games) for people to temporarily "escape" a life they find unsatisfying or unfulfilling that weren't available in Thurber's day, but haven't deviations such as written stories, plays, sports, gambling, alcohol and/or drugs, affairs, prostitution, and so on, existed for centuries? Mitty simply used a method that was relatively safe and harmless--his vivid imagination.

 

[Feraud]

Would the original story even make sense today? The henpecked husband who lives a rich fantasy life in his imagination?

The modern equivalent would be playing video role playing games in his mom's basement.

I don't think this digitally tethered generation can fathom the idea of "imagination".

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't think this digitally tethered generation can fathom the idea of "imagination".

For that matter, does anybody even understand how to write humorous fiction anymore? Where are the Thurbers and the Wodehouses of this century? Joke-a-minute sitcoms are a poor substitute for real character comedy such as you used to find every week in The New Yorker or The Saturday Evening Post. Garrison Keillior tries, and probably comes the closest, but he's way too precious and self-consciously cute for my tastes.

 

[rjb1]

The present generation certainly does not know who James Thurber is. I use one of his stories, "The Night the Bed Fell", as a starting point for an engineering-design exercise for a senior engineering class, and I always ask if *anyone* has ever heard of James Thurber. So far (over a number of years), the number is zero.
I haven't seen the ads for the movie, yet, but if they are counting on the "James Thurber name" to draw crowds they will be very much out of luck.

(My students are in the top-1% (by their test scores) at a fairly-exclusive private university, so they are *not* culturally or economically deprived by traditional standards.)

 

[Nobert]

Mr. Doble: You make a good point, but I think that the concept is broad enough that copyright infringement wouldn't have to be an issue in this case. The reason that story works is that it crystalized a widespread phenomenon and gave it a name: Mitty. But I've seen plenty of film/T.V. approaches to the subject. Wasn't there a whole kid's cartoon devoted to a boy who had elaborate fantasies?

I agree that the story doesn't really carry a movie-length narrative to begin with. My first post alluded to the making of the first movie. After reviewing the script, Thurber ventured to Sam Golwyn that it seemed action-heavy. "You're right, Mr. Thurber," replied the famous producer and malapropist, "It's much too blood and thirsty." Thurber later said that Golwyn's response left him "horror and struck."

If there is humorous fiction being written nowadays, I have missed it. The last writer I know of in that firmament was Douglas Adams. And Thuber's humor probably wouldn't play as well in these times. It took me years to develop an appreciation for him.

As to the comments that fantasizing has been supplanted by electronic diversions, I don't think that's entirely true. The power of the human brain to spin scenarios has, I hope, a bit more tensile strength. Even on those days when I spend hours zoning out in front of the T.V., I find myself concocting scenes in which I interact with the characters and help resolve the plot conflicts. I think people must still use those pixelated worlds as jumping-off points for their own daydreaming. After all, they have to go to school or work sometime.

As a slight side step, to avoid dancing this thing into a cactus: this is, to the best of my knowledge, the only footage of the man himself in the whole, wide, YouTube.

[video=youtube;74jZJqT4vwg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74jZJqT4vwg[/video]

 

[Stanley Doble]

You misunderstand me. The point of using Mitty as a jumping off point for a new movie, is that they can buy the rights cheap and prevent someone else from claiming plagiarism of a different story. It doesn't matter to the studio that the movie they make has little or no resemblance to the original.

 

[Wally_Hood]

I like the original story; it was read very well by, I think, Dick Cavett on the Selected Shorts podcast. I have not seen the Danny Kaye version, but what you have is a whimsical short story that stands on its own within its genre boundaries and does not lend itself to an hour and a half film version. I am not planning on seeing the most recent version which apparently has only the title in common with the story; I would rather read more Thurber ( and Perelman, and Benchley, and maybe Wodehouse) and limit my film viewing time to something that doesn't start off on the wrong foot with me by making a movie out of something that was perfectly fine by itself.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's the thing -- it's very rare that any book or short story can be adapted into a movie or a play or whatever other format without losing something meaningful in the translation. It's not impossible, but as far as Hollywood is concerned it's the exception rather than the rule.

The Danny Kaye version is a great Danny Kaye movie, because that's what it overtly is -- a showcase for Kaye's particular schtick. It's the same kind of movie Goldwyn used to make with Eddie Cantor in the thirties -- the plot and the setting are just an excuse for the star's usual bag of tricks. But in becoming that kind of movie it leaves behind what it was that made the short story great. Thurber himself disavowed the picture, and there was never really a worthwhile adaptation of his works or his style until "My World and Welcome To It" in the early seventies.

Benchley works very well in most of his short films because he's basically playing himself acting out his own works. He's not so hot in features because usually he gets stuck into somebody else's story and loses his personal distinctiveness in the process -- he's just some character actor with a moustache, a taller, heavier Hobart Cavanaugh, and not *Robert Algonquin Round Table Benchley.*