Mark Price Lecture

Our Common Text 2004-2005

ROUGHLY EDITED COPY

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OCTOBER 13, 2004.
COMMON TEXT SERIES.
PRESENTER: MARK PRICE

********
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
********

>> Mark Price: HI, EVERYBODY.

MAKE SURE YOU GET AN OUTLINE

COPY OF MY TALK.

>> Linda Reinfeld: GOOD

EVENING.

I'M LINDA REINFELD, A MEMBER

OF THE LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

DEPARTMENT AND CHAIR OF THE

COMMON TEXT COMMITTEE.

WELCOME TO THE SECOND OF THREE

EVENTS HELD TO ACCOMPANY OUR

READING OF "HOUSE OF SAND AND

FOG."

NEXT WEEK, AS YOU PROBABLY

KNOW, AUTHOR ANDRE DUBUS III

WILL BE HERE, SAME TIME, SAME

PLACE, INGLE, 7:30 AT NIGHT

WEDNESDAY NIGHT, TO SPEAK TO

US ABOUT HIS WORK.

TONIGHT, IT IS MY PLEASURE TO

INTRODUCE PROFESSOR MARK

PRICE, WHO WILL LECTURE ON THE

NOVEL AND FILM OF "HOUSE OF

SAND AND FOG," ADAPTATION AS

TRANSLATION.

PROFESSOR MARK PRICE IS IN HIS

42nd YEAR OF COLLEGE TEACHING,

35 OF THEM SPENT AT RIT IN THE

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

DEPARTMENT OF THE COLLEGE OF

LIBERAL ARTS.

DURING HIS CAREER HERE, MARK

HAS DEVELOPED SUCH NEW CORPSES

AS THE AMERICAN DREAM, SUCCESS

OR COLLAPSE, ROMANTICISM,

AESTHETICISM AND DECADENCE, AND

CONTEMPORARY FILM, A COURSE

WHICH MARK PIONEERED IN 1972

AND HAS TAUGHT SUCCESSFULLY

FOR 32 YEARS.

MARK HAS ACTED AS WELL IN

INSTITUTE GOVERNANCE, HAVING

SERVED AS CHAIR OF THE SENATE

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,

WHICH INTRODUCED MINORS AND A

NEW ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY TO

RIT.

MARK WAS ALSO THE SENATE

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER AND

PRESENTLY SERVES AS THE SENATE

VICE-CHAIR.

HE HAS CHAIRED MANY OTHER

COMMITTEES, INCLUDING THE

COMMON NOVEL COMMITTEE AND THE

TENURE AND COMMOTION COMMITTEE

OF THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL

ARTS.

HIS CHIEF ACADEMIC INTERESTS

ARE POETRY AND FILM.

HIS CHIEF HOBBY IS BEING A

MANIACAL ANTIQUE DEALER AND

COLLECTOR, AND HE PROMISES YOU

THAT IF YOUR FAMILY IS HAVING

A GARAGE SALE NEXT SUMMER, HE

WILL BE AT YOUR DOOR AT 7:00

IN THE MORNING.

LET US WELCOME MARK PRICE.

(Applause)

>> Mark Price: THANK YOU,

LINDA, FOR THE KIND

INTRODUCTION, AND FOR ANY OF

MY STUDENTS ARE WHO ARE IN MY

CLASS AND WHOSE PARENTS ARE

HAVING A GARAGE SALE NEXT

SUMMER, THERE MIGHT BE SOME

DISPENSATION ON YOUR FINAL

GRADE IF I CAN GET EARLY INTO

THAT GARAGE SALE.

ALSO I WANT TO INTRODUCE

MARIUM LERNER AND CATHY

DERRICK, WHO WILL BE OUR

INTERPRETERS TONIGHT.

AND GOOD EVENING AND THANK YOU

FOR ATTENDING.

AS A PROFESSOR OF LITERATURE,

I AM MINDFULLY AWARE THAT ALL

OF US IN ATTENDANCE HERE,

TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND OTHER

GUESTS, HAVE PROBABLY SEEN FAR

MORE FILMS THAN WE HAVE READ

NOVELS.

THIS IN NO WAY DIMINISHES THE

IMPORTANCE OF NOVELS AND THE

ENJOYMENT OF READING THEM.

IT IS SIMPLY A RECOGNITION

THAT FILM IS THE DOMINANT

POPULAR ART FORM OF OUR TIME.

WHAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW IS THAT

AN ESTIMATED 70% OF ALL

NARRATIVE FILMS ARE DERIVED

FROM NOVELS.

THUS NARRATIVE FICTION HAS

ALWAYS PROVIDED A RICH SEA BED

FOR NARRATIVE FILM, AS IS THE

CASE FOR ANDRE DUBUS III's

"HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG" AND

THE FILM VERSION OF HIS NOVEL,

DIRECTED BY VADIM PERELMAN AND

STARRING BEN KINGSLEY AND

JENNIFER CONNELLY.

TONIGHT I FIRST WISH TO SPEND

SOME TIME COMPARING AND

CONTRASTING NARRATIVE FILM AND

NARRATIVE FICTION AS SEPARATE

AND DISTINCT ART FORMS.

I THEN INTEND TO EXAMINE A BIT

HOW WE AS PARTICIPANTS ARE

DIFFERENT IN OUR PERCEIVING

AND EXPERIENCING OF THESE TWO

ART FORMS.

I WILL THEN TURN TO DUBUS'

NOVEL, FOCUSING IN PARTICULAR

ON HOW THE CONCEPTS OF BOTH

CLASSICAL AND MODERN TRAGEDY

CAN BE APPLIED TO HIS WORK;

AND I ALSO WISH TO EXAMINE THE

DIFFERENT NARRATIVE STRATEGIES

WHICH DUBUS USES IN THIS NOVEL

AS WELL.

FINALLY I WILL CONCLUDE WITH

AN EXAMPLE OF PERELMAN'S FILM,

USING A FEW ACTUAL FILM CLIPS

FOR ILLUSTRATION.

BECAUSE NARRATIVE FICTION AND

NARRATIVE FILM USE ESSENTIALLY

TWO VERY DIFFERENT FORMS OF

LANGUAGE SYSTEMS, IT IS MY

CONTENTION THAT FILM

ADAPTATIONS OF NOVELS SHOULD

MORE PROPERLY BE LABELED AS

TRANSLATIONS.

FILM IS A VISUAL AND AUDITORY

TECHNICAL ART FORM, CREATING

BOTH AN ILLUSTRATION OF

MOVEMENT AND AN ILLUSTRATION

OF DEPTH.

BECAUSE THE HUMAN EYE ACCEPTS

24 FRAMES OF AN IMAGE PER

SECOND.

ACTUAL MOVEMENT AND SKILLFUL

CAMERA ARRANGEMENT AND FOCAL

LENSES CAN CAUSE A

TWO-DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION TO

APPEAR AS A THREE-DIMENSIONAL

ONE.

AUDIENCES THEN BELIEVE THAT

THEY ARE WATCHING CHARACTERS

AND OBJECTS MOVE IN ACTUAL

SPACE AND DEPTH, ALTHOUGH

THESE VISUAL EFFECTS ARE

GREATLY MAGNIFIED IN SIZE.

AUDITORILY, SOUND IN A MOVIE

MAY BE BROKEN DOWN INTO

DIALOGUE, MUSIC AND SOUND

EFFECTS, AGAIN HIGHLY

MAGNIFIED IN VOLUME.

FILM IS A COLLABORATIVE ART

FORM, DEPENDENT ON THE TALENTS

OF MANY PEOPLE TO ACHIEVE THE

FINAL PRODUCT.

I ALWAYS ADVISE MY STUDENTS TO

LOOK AT THE FINAL FILM CREDITS

TO APPRECIATE THE

COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF

PUTTING A FILM TOGETHER.

AND BY THE WAY, ALL OF THESE

PEOPLE IN THE CREDITS HAVE TO

BE PAID.

FILM IS A HIGHLY COMMERCIAL

COST VENTURE, AND THIS

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION FORCES

A STRONG CONTROL OVER THE

ENTIRE FILM.

I WILL RETURN TO THIS POINT

LATER IN MY LECTURE.

FILM IS A FORMAL AND COMMUNAL

ART FORM, TRADITIONALLY

COMPOSED WITH THE EXPECTATION

THAT IT WILL BE SEEN BY LARGE

GROUPS OF PEOPLE, OFTEN

STRANGERS FORMALLY DRESSED FOR

A PUBLIC EVENT WHEN THEY BEGIN

WATCHING THE FILM, BUT

HOPEFULLY DRAWN CLOSER INTO A

BOND OF COMMUNITY WHEN THE

FILM ENDS, WHETHER IT BE COMIC

OR SERIOUS.

I SAID TRADITIONALLY COMPOSED

FOR GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF VIDEOS

AND DVDs NOW ABLE TO BE

WATCHED INDIVIDUALLY IN ONE'S

OWN HOME BUT WITH A MUCH

SMALLER SCREEN SIZE AND RATIO,

IT MAY BE THAT THE PROCESS OF

ARTISTIC FILM COMPOSITION MAY

BE POISED FOR SOME TYPE OF AN

EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE.

AS EXPERIENCES OF A FILM, WE

ARE SUBJECTED TO A CONTINUOUS

RUNNING OF IT, IN SEQUENCE AND

IN A NON-STOPPING TEMPORAL

MODE.

LOUIS GIANNETTI, THE AUTHOR OF

THE HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL FILM

TEXT "UNDERSTANDING MOVIES"

REFERS TO AN EARLY FILM CRITIC

WHO DESCRIBED WATCHING A MOVIE

AS BEING, QUOTE, "CHAINED TO A

ROLLER COASTER."

IT MAY BE THEN THAT FILM

DEMANDS THE CLOSEST SCRUTINY

OF AND ATTENTION TO ITS

CONTENTS SINCE IT RUNS

UNSTOPPING AND IS USUALLY SEEN

ONLY FOR A FIRST VIEWING.

NOW SOME CRITICS FEEL THE

OPPOSITE, THAT SINCE THE

AUDIENCE IS GIVEN SO MUCH

VISUAL AND AUDITORY MATERIAL,

THEY BECOME PASSIVE AND

ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE LESS.

IN ANY EVENT, FEW AUDIENCE

MEMBERS AT A COMMERCIAL

THEATER WOULD SIT THROUGH FOR

A SECOND VIEWING, NOR WOULD

THEY BE ALLOWED TO.

AGAIN THE RELATIVELY NEW

PHENOMENON OF WATCHING FILMS

AT HOME, THE ABILITY TO PAUSE,

FREEZE OR FLASH FORWARD, MAY

CHANGE THIS TRADITIONAL

DYNAMIC OF A ONETIME

CONTINUOUS EXPERIENCE.

IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THE

TOTAL COST TO PRODUCING A FILM

TO RANGE FROM 25 TO $100

MILLION, SINCE THE WRITER,

PRODUCER, DIRECTOR, ACTORS,

CINEMATOGRAPHER, EDITOR, SET

DESIGNER, COSTUME DESIGNER,

MUSICAL COMPOSER, SOUND

EFFECTS, SOUND MIXING, DIGITAL

EFFECTS SPECIALISTS, PLUS

ASSISTANTS TO ALL OF THESE

PEOPLE, AND THE LIST GOES ON,

ALL MUST BE PAID.

IT BECOMES IMPERATIVE THAT THE

FILM RETURN THIS MONEY AND

HOPEFULLY A PROFIT TO ITS

VARIOUS INVESTORS.

HENCE THERE IS A NEED THAT THE

FILM HAVE A BROAD APPEAL TO

THE MASSES, OR AT LEAST TO A

LARGE TARGET CONSTITUENCY, WHO

WILL BE WILLING TO SUPPORT IT

AND PERHAPS PROMOTE IT BY WORD

OF MOUTH.

BY CONTRAST, THE BASIC MEDIUM

OF A NOVEL IS WRITTEN

LANGUAGE.

THE AUTHOR OF A NOVEL IS

VIRTUALLY THE SOLE CREATOR OF

IT, ALTHOUGH HE/SHE MAY ENGAGE

IN SOME DEGREE OF

COLLABORATION WITH A SKILLFUL

EDITOR.

IF YOU NOTICED AT THE

BEGINNING OF "HOUSE OF SAND

AND FOG" DUBUS DOES CREDIT HIS

EDITOR FOR MUCH HELP.

AS READERS OF WRITTEN

LANGUAGE, WE APPLY TO THAT

LANGUAGE OUR OWN PRIVATE

ASSOCIATIONS, OUR OWN CULTURAL

BACKGROUNDS AND EVEN OUR OWN

PRIVATE BIASES.

THROUGH THE USE OF OUR

IMAGINATION WE CONSTRUCT IN

OUR MINDS OUR OWN UNIQUE VIEW

OF THE WORLD OF THE NOVEL.

READING A NOVEL IS NOT A

FORMAL COMMUNAL EXPERIENCE; IT

IS PRIVATE, OFTEN EXPERIENCED

BY US PERHAPS CASUALLY DRESSED

IN THE INFORMAL ATMOSPHERE OF

OUR OWN HOME.

NOR ARE WE FORCED TO

EXPERIENCE THE NOVEL IN A

CONTINUOUS TEMPORAL AND

SEQUENTIAL MODE.

IN FACT IT IS MORE COMMON TO

READ THE NOVEL IN SEPARATE

BLOCKS OF TIME, AND WE ARE

FREE TO REREAD A PASSAGE FOR

ANY REASONS WE WISH.

BECAUSE THE NOVEL IS BASICALLY

NON-COLLABORATIVE IN NATURE,

THE START-UP COSTS TO PRODUCE

AND PROMOTE IT COME NOWHERE

NEAR THE COST OF PRODUCING AND

PROMOTING A FILM.

THE PURPOSE, THEN, OF THE

DISCUSSION TO THIS POINT IS TO

HIGHLIGHT TO YOU WHY FILMS AND

NOVELS ARE REALLY QUITE

DIFFERENT AND WHY ANY FILM

VERSION OF A NOVEL MUST BE

DIFFERENT AS WELL.

INDEED BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING

WITH A CONVERSION OF A WRITTEN

LANGUAGE SYSTEM, CREATED

BASICALLY BY ONE AUTHOR, INTO

A CINEMATIC LANGUAGE SYSTEM

WHICH USES THE TALENTS OF MANY

FILM SPECIALISTS, FILM

VERSIONS ARE REALLY FAR MORE

TRANSLATIONS THAN THEY ARE

ADAPTATIONS.

VARIOUS CRITICS HAVE COMMENTED

ON THE, QUOTE, CLASSICAL

TRAGEDY QUALITY OF DUBUS'

NOVEL "HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG."

SINCE CLASSICAL TRAGEDY

ORIGINATES AS A TERM APPLIED

TO THE DRAMA, IT IS

INTERESTING THAT MANY OF US,

INCLUDING MYSELF, WOULD APPLY

THIS TERM TO A NOVEL.

BUT A LARGER QUESTION TO

EXPLORE IS WHOSE DEFINITION OR

ILLUSTRATION OF CLASSICAL

TRAGEDY IS BEING APPLIED?

ATHENIAN GREEK, RENAISSANCE,

SHAKESPEAREAN, OR PERHAPS THIS

NOVEL EVEN EMBRACES THE

QUALITIES OF MODERN TRAGEDIES

FOUND IN THE WORKS OF SUCH

PLAYWRIGHTS AS EUGENE O'NEILL

OR ARTHUR MILLER.

OF COURSE WE CANNOT BE SURE

WHAT TRAGEDIES DUBUS

CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY

HAD IN HIS MIND WHEN HE WROTE

"HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG."

THE POET AND CRITIC T.S. ELIOT

ONCE WROTE THAT NO WRITER

EXISTS ALONE SEPARATED FROM

HIS OR HER CULTURE, SO IT IS

SAFE TO ASSUME THAT DUBUS HAS

ABSORBED MANY TRADITIONS AND

EXAMPLES OF TRAGEDY IN HIS

NORMAL MATURATION.

I FIND HIS NOVEL TO CONTAIN A

DISTILLATION FROM A NUMBER OF

SOURCES.

THE MOST OBVIOUS SOURCE IS THE

THEORY OF TRAGEDY FOUND IN

ARISTOTLE'S "THE POETICS,"

WRITTEN WE THINK IN

APPROXIMATELY 341 B.C., ABOUT

100 YEARS AFTER THE GREAT

ATHENIAN GREEK PLAYS WERE

WRITTEN AND PERFORMED IN FIFTH

CENTURY ATHENS B.C.

SINCE THERE WAS NO GREECE AT

THE TIME BUT ONLY SMALL CITY

STATES SUCH AS ATHENS, THE

PLAYS ARE FORMALLY DESIGNATED

AS ATHENIAN BUT TODAY

GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS

GREEK.

ARISTOTLE, IN HIS TREATISE,

FORMALLY DEFINED THOSE

CHARACTERISTICS HE FOUND

PRESENT IN A TRAGEDY, AND HE

USED PERHAPS THE MOST FAMOUS

GREEK PLAY OF THEM ALL,

"OEDIPUS THE KING" FOR ONE OF

HIS EXAMPLES.

ARISTOTLE DESCRIBES TRAGEDY AS

THE IMITATION OF A SINGLE

ACTION, THE STORY OCCURRING IN

A SINGLE PLACE AND IN REAL

TIME, THE TRAGIC USUALLY MALE

PROTAGONIST BEING A NOBLE, AT

THAT IS ARISTOCRATIC OR

UPPER-CLASS PERSON, WHO FALLS

FROM FORTUNE TO MISFORTUNE.

THE PROTAGONIST POSSESSES AN

HAMARTIA, AN AIR OR FRAILTY OF

CHARACTER WHICH AFFECTS HIS

JUDGMENT AND THUS CONTRIBUTES

TO HIS DOWNFALL.

THE TRAGEDY WILL CONTAIN A

PERIPETEIA, A MOMENT OF

REVERSAL WHERE THE CATASTROPHE

MIGHT STILL BE TURNED AROUND,

FOLLOWING SHORTLY WITH THE

PROTAGONIST'S SOMBER

RECOGNITION THAT IT IS TOO

LATE.

THE TRAGIC EVENTS HAVE

SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL.

ARISTOTLE INFORMS US AS WELL

THE TRAGEDY WILL IMITATE

EVENTS WHICH EXCITE OR AROUSE

PITY AND FEAR, WHICH WILL BE

PURGED WHILE WATCHING THE

PLAY.

HE REFERS TO THIS PURGATION AS

A CATHARSIS.

I THINK WE CAN SEE HOW MANY OF

ARISTOTLE'S OBSERVATIONS CAN

GENERALLY BE TO THIS NOVEL.

CLEARLY BEHRANI HAS FOUND A

HOUSE WHICH HE CAN PURCHASE

CHEAPLY AT A FORECLOSURE

AUCTION.

BEHRANI PROVIDES US WITH MUCH

DETAIL, NARRATED FROM HIS OWN

FIRST-PERSON PERSPECTIVE OF

THE TRIALS AND DIFFICULTIES HE

AND HIS FAMILY HAVE

EXPERIENCED SINCE THEIR HAVING

TO FLEE IRAN EARLIER, AT THE

TIME OF THE OVERTHROW OF SHAH

PAHLAVI'S REGIME.

THE QUARREL OVER THE OWNERSHIP

OF THE HOUSE, WHETHER IT

BELONGS TO THE BEHRANIS OR

KATHY NICOLO, BECOMES THE

PRINCIPAL WHICH DOMINATES THE

NOVEL.

CLEARLY PRIDE, ANGER, A SENSE

OF SUPERIORITY, AND A SAVAGE

BELIEF THAT HE IS JUSTIFIED IN

PROTECTING HIS FAMILY IN ANY

WAY HE CAN, COMPRISE SOME OF

BEHRANI'S TRAGIC ERRORS OR

FRAILTIES.

THESE FRAILTIES PROPEL THE

DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF MISFORTUNE

FOR HIM AND MISS FAMILY.

DESPITE A MOMENT WHERE, TOO

LATE, HE TAKES PITY ON KATHY

AND REGRETS HIS AGGRESSIVE

ACTIONS TOWARDS HER.

HIS FINAL DECISION TO TAKE

BOTH HIS AND HIS WIFE'S LIFE,

AFTER THE SHOCKING DEATH OF

THEIR SON ESMAIL, IN HIS

RECOGNITION THAT IT IS NOW TOO

LATE TO ALTER OR CHANGE THE

CATASTROPHE THAT HAS OCCURRED,

IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF HIS

OWN CHOICES AND ACTIONS.

HE WILL SAVE NADEREH FROM THE

KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR SON'S DEATH

AND THEY WILL ALL ONCE AGAIN

MEET IN PARADISE.

THERE ARE OTHER FORCES WHICH

PROPEL THIS TRAGEDY DOWNWARD

AS WELL: THE ACTIONS AND

CHOICES OF BOTH KATHY NICCOLO

AND HER LOVER, DEPUTY SHERIFF

LESTER BURDON.

COLONEL MASSOUD BEHRANI

HOWEVER REMAINS MY CHOICE AS

THE PRIMARY PROTAGONIST.

PLEASE NOTE I'M NOT YET USING

THE TERM HERO.

THAT TERM COMES INTO USE LATER

IN BOTH TRAGIC DRAMA AND

LITERARY CRITICISM, WELL AFTER

ARISTOTLE.

I VIEW KATHY AS ONE WHO REACTS

MORE TO WHAT IS DONE TO HER AS

OPPOSED TO ONE WHO REACTS ON

HER OWN AND TAKES DECISIVE

ACTION.

AND LESTER BURDON, A VERY

IMPORTANT AGENT IN THE WEB OF

CATASTROPHIC EVENTS, IS NOT

REALLY A STRONG TRAGIC

PROTAGONIST.

IN FACT NEITHER KATHY NOR

LESTER POSSESS THE, QUOTE,

LARGENESS WE ASSOCIATE WITH A

CLASSICAL TRAGIC PROTAGONIST.

ONLY COLONEL BEHRANI

QUALIFIES.

AND I FULLY REALIZE THAT

POSITION IS OPEN TO DEBATE.

LATER SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA

DEMONSTRATES MANY OF THE

TRAGIC CHARACTERISTICS WHICH

ARISTOTLE DESCRIBES, BUT

SHAKESPEARE IN HIS

CONTEMPORARIES ROUTINELY

VIOLATE THE UNITIES OF TIME

AND PLACE, AND SHAKESPEARE'S

PROTAGONISTS BEGIN TO INVITE

THE TERM OF HERO, A CHARACTER

WHO MARRED WITH WEAKNESS AND

WHO MAKES TRAGIC MISTAKES

STILL EARNS OUR ADMIRATION

THROUGH HIS/HER HONEST

RECOGNITION OF WHAT IT IS THE

STRUGGLE AND BE HUMAN.

EUROPEAN CRITICS OF THE LATE

18th AND EARLY 19th CENTURY

DEEPLY ADMIRED SHAKESPEARE,

AND IT IS THEY WHO ARE

PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

TERM "HERO" BEING APPLIED TO

THE MAIN CHARACTER OF A

TRAGEDY.

IN ADDITION, OTHER

SOCIOHISTORICAL FORCES

OCCURRING AT THIS TIME LAID

THE GROUNDWORK FOR A NEW

CONCEPT OF ART.

THE EXAMPLES OF THE FRENCH AND

AMERICAN REVOLUTIONS, THE

TOPPLING OF EUROPEAN

MONARCHIES, AND THE GROWTH OF

DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGED

ARTISTS TO CONSIDER MIDDLE AND

EVEN LOWER-CLASS CHARACTERS AS

THE MAIN SUBJECTS FOR A

PAINTING, A NOVEL OR A PLAY.

THE CHANGING OF EUROPEAN

ECONOMIES FROM AGRARIAN OR

FARMING TO URBAN AND

TECHNOLOGICALLY BASED

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

PLACED POPULATIONS IN LARGE

NEW SPRAWLING CITIES, WHICH

BECAME THE BACKDROP FOR MODERN

NEW MIDDLE-CLASS SOCIAL

DRAMAS.

IT IS THESE FORCES WHICH I

FEEL INFORM A DUBUS NOVEL AS

WELL.

PERHAPS THE LOGICAL AND

ULTIMATE EXTENSION INTO THE

20th CENTURY IS ARTHUR

MILLER'S LANDMARK 1949 PLAY

"DEATH OF A SALESMAN."

THE MAIN CHARACTER, WILLY

LOMAN, IS HARDLY FROM THE

NOBLE UPPER CLASS.

HE IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PLAY'S

TITLE DESCRIBES: A SALESMAN,

LIVING IN A SMALL BROOKLYN

HOUSE, DWARFED BY LARGE

APARTMENT BUILDINGS ALL AROUND

HIM.

AT THE OPENING OF THIS PLAY,

HE'S NOT EVEN DOING A VERY

GOOD JOB AT SELLING.

IN FACT HE'S NOT SELLING AT

ALL.

HE'S ON STRAIGHT COMMISSION.

HE IS SUICIDAL AND IS

PARTIALLY DIVORCED FROM

REALITY.

YET THE PLAYWRIGHT ARTHUR

MILLER, IN HIS IMPORTANT ESSAY

ENTITLED "TRAGEDY IN THE

COMMON MAN," MAKES THE CASE

THAT WILLY IS THE MODERN

TRAGIC HERO, THAT HE POSSESSES

A CERTAIN INTEGRITY THAT NO

ONE CAN TAKE FROM HIM, AND

THAT HE WILL PURSUE THE

AMERICAN DREAM UNTIL HE IS NO

LONGER HERE TO TRY.

IT IS ON THIS LAST POINT THAT

I FEEL THAT DUBUS HAS ACHIEVED

A MASTERFUL BLENDING OF

COLONEL BEHRANI AS BOTH A

CLASSICAL NOBLE AND MODERN

DEMOCRATIC TRAGIC HERO.

BEHRANI FANCIES HIMSELF AS

STILL UPPER CLASS, A FORMER

FRIEND TO GENERAL POURAT, A

COLONEL WHO THREE TIMES KISSED

THE HAND OF A SHAH, A MAN OF

PRIVILEGE WHO IN HIS OWN

COUNTRY WOULD NOT EVEN LOOK ON

THE LIKES OF AN INFERIOR

WOMAN, A GENDER SUCH AS KATHY

NICCOLO.

IN ACTUALITY BEHRANI WORKS AS

THE GARBAGE MAN AND ALSO TAKES

A SECOND JOB WORKING NIGHTS

SELLING CIGARETTES AND CANDY

IN A SMALL CONVENIENCE STORE.

HE IS HARDLY NOBLE, BUT IN

REALITY IS AS COMMON AS A MAN

CAN BE.

YET DESPITE HIS BEING

DOMINEERING AND ON MORE THAN

ONE OCCASION PHYSICALLY

ABUSIVE TO HIS WIFE, BEHRANI

STILL POSSESSES A CERTAIN

INTEGRITY WHICH READERS ARE

PERSUADED TO ADMIRE.

IN HIS OWN WAY, HE REMAINS

DEVOTED TO HIS FAMILY AND IS

DETERMINED THAT THEY WILL

SHARE THE AMERICAN DREAM,

WHICH HAS LARGELY ELUDED THEM

SINCE THEIR HAVING FLED IRAN.

BY SELECTING FOR HIS CENTRAL

CHARACTER AN EXILE FROM THE

IRANIAN DIASPORA-- DUBUS-- AND

I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE

BABAK ELAHI, FOR INTRODUCING A

NEW 21st CENTURY MODEL OF

ARTHUR MILLER'S COMMON MAN,

THE IMMIGRANT WHO HAS KNOWN

AND LOST SUCCESS AND NOW HOPES

TO RECLAIM IT IN AMERICA, THE

LAND OF MILK AND HONEY.

BEHRANI'S DUAL CONFLICTING

PERCEPTION OF HIMSELF IS WHAT

DRIVES THIS NOVEL AND CAUSES

MUCH OF THE SUFFERING AND

TRAGEDY.

WHEN WE SPEAK OF POINT OF VIEW

IN A PIECE OF FICTION, WE ARE

REFERRING TO WHAT FORM OF

NARRATION IS BEING USED,

BASICALLY EITHER AN I

FIRST-PERSON FORM OF

NARRATION, OR A NUMBER OF

VARIATIONS ON A THIRD-PERSON

HE/SHE POINT OF VIEW.

IT IS INTERESTING THAT DUBUS

CHOOSES TO HAVE COLONEL

BEHRANI AND KATHY NARRATE

THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES IN FIRST

PERSON, BUT LESTER'S STORY,

WHICH OCCUPIES MUCH OF THE

LATER PORTION OF THE NOVEL,

LATTER PORTION OF THE NOVEL,

IS NARRATED FROM A

THIRD-PERSON LIMITED POINT OF

VIEW.

WE NEED TO ASK WHY DUBUS MAKES

THIS NARRATIVE SHIFT WITH

LESTER.

THE ADVANTAGES OF FIRST PERSON

INCLUDE OUR BEING ABLE TO

CLOSELY IDENTIFY WITH THE

DIRECT SUBJECTIVE THOUGHTS AND

FEELINGS OF THE CHARACTER.

THE KEY WORD HERE IS

SUBJECTIVE.

NO HUMAN BEING IS CAPABLE OF

SELF-OBJECTIVITY.

WE ALL PROTECT OURSELVES FROM

HARMFUL SELF-TRUTHS WHICH

MIGHT MAKE OUR DAILY LIVES TOO

DIFFICULT TO BEAR.

THUS IT IS A BIT OF A

CHALLENGE TO KNOW WHETHER OR

NOT WE CAN TRUST WHAT A

CHARACTER IS SAYING ABOUT

HIMSELF OR HERSELF.

DOES BEHRANI SEE HIMSELF AS

CLEARLY AS WE SEE HIM?

I DOUBT IT.

THE LENGTHS TO WHICH HE

JUSTIFIES PROVIDING FOR AND

PROTECTING HIS FAMILY, MOST OF

US WOULD REGARD AS EXTREME AND

CRUEL.

YET FOR BEHRANI, THE CHOICES

HE MAKES AND THE ACTIONS HE

TAKES ARE NORMAL.

SIMILARLY KATHY, POSSIBLY IN A

MORE OPEN AND CONFESSIONAL

MANNER THAN BEHRANI, SHARES

WITH US THE DETAILS AND EVENTS

THAT HAVE BROUGHT HER LIFE TO

THE POINT OF COLLAPSE, EVEN

BEFORE SHE RECEIVES THE COUNTY

NOTICE THAT HER HOUSE IS TO BE

AUCTIONED OFF.

KATHY HAS BEEN IN EXTENSIVE

THERAPY FOR HER ADDICTIONS,

AND SHE IS A RATHER OPEN AND

STRAIGHT-ON NARRATOR.

HOWEVER, WHY HAS SHE NOT

OPENED HER MAIL FOR MONTHS?

WHY DOES SHE CHOOSE A

BASICALLY UNAVAILABLE MARRIED

MAN TO BE HER LOVER AND

PROTECTOR?

AND WHY DOES SHE TRAIL OFF

ONCE MORE INTO HER ALCOHOL

ADDICTION?

KATHY DOES ADDRESS THESE

CONCERNS, BUT HER OWN

SUBJECTIVITY DOES NOT ALLOW

HER TO SEE FULLY WHAT A

PAINFULLY DEPENDENT AND

SELF-DESTRUCTIVE PERSON SHE

IS.

WE SEE KATHY BETTER THAN SHE

SEES HERSELF.

BUT WITH LESTER BURDON, DUBUS

CHANGES TO A THIRD-PERSON

LIMITED POINT OF VIEW.

IN GREAT DETAIL, THE NARRATOR

INFORMS US ABOUT LESTER'S

EARLY LIFE, HIS RELATIONSHIP

WITH HIS FATHER, HIS FIRST

TENTATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A

YOUNG CHICANO WOMAN, AND THE

WAVES OF UNCERTAINTY AND LACK

OF CONFIDENCE WHICH HAVE

CONTINUED INTO HIS ADULT

YEARS.

CHOOSING LAW ENFORCEMENT OVER

TEACHING HAS GIVEN HIM

LITERALLY A BADGE OF

AUTHORITY, BUT UNDERNEATH THAT

BADGE IS A MAN IN AN UNHAPPY

MARRIAGE AND A LAW OFFICER WHO

CAN BE EASILY FRIGHTENED BY

THOSE WHOM HE HAS TO ARREST.

BEHRANI RIGHTFULLY INFORMS HIS

SON ESMAIL THAT LESTER IS

DANGEROUS BECAUSE HE IS A WEAK

AND FRIGHTENED MAN, AND THE

COLONEL IS CORRECT.

WE CAN FURTHER ARGUE THAT IT

IS LESTER WHO REALLY UPS THE

VIOLENT ANTE OF THE TRAGIC

EVENTS OF THIS NOVEL.

UNFAIRLY USING HIS POSITION AS

A LAW OFFICER, HE CONFRONTS

AND ATTEMPTS TO SCARE THE

BEHRANIS OUT OF THEIR LAWFULLY

ACQUIRED NEW HOME.

IT IS LESTER WHO IMPRISONS THE

BEHRANI FAMILY AGAINST THEIR

WILL, AND IT IS LESTER'S

FORCING BEHRANI AND HIS SON TO

THE COUNTY TAX OFFICE WHICH

REALLY PROVIDES ESMAIL HIS ONE

DESPERATE CHANCE TO ATTEMPT TO

RESCUE HIS FATHER AND FAMILY.

THE RESULT, OF COURSE, IS

ESMAIL'S DEATH AND THE

SUBSEQUENT DEATH OF BOTH THE

COLONEL AND HIS WIFE, NADEREH.

ALL OF THE ABOVE MAY BE THE

INDIRECT BUT PRIMARY REASON

WHY DUBUS SHIFTS TO THIRD

PERSON FOR LESTER'S PORTION OF

THE NOVEL.

IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE

CAUSES FOR LESTER'S BEHAVIOR

AND HIS PART IN THE TRAGIC

ENDING OF THIS NOVEL BE CLEAR,

OBJECTIVE AND CORRECT, WITH NO

SUBJECTIVE FILTERING FROM HIS

PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW.

THE MANY SUPPORTIVE DETAILS

WHICH ENRICH A LENGTHY NOVEL

ARE SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO

RETAIN IN A COMMERCIAL

NARRATIVE FILM.

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE OR

SURPRISE THAT THE FILM VERSION

OF "HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG"

MEASURES OUT AT 2 HOURS AND 6

MINUTES.

IN FACT MOST FEATURE FILMS WE

SEE USUALLY ARE 90 MINUTES TO

ROUGHLY TWO HOURS LONG.

WHY?

IS THERE A SACRED RULE ON HOW

LONG THE, QUOTE, WELL-MADE

FILM SHOULD BE?

OR DOES THE TIME SPAN REFLECT

HOW LONG A VIEWER CAN SIT

BEFORE HE/SHE LOSES

CONCENTRATION?

THE ANSWER TO BOTH QUESTIONS

IS NO.

THE REAL ANSWER LIES IN THE

COMMERCIAL NATURE OF FILM,

WHICH I PROMISED EARLIER THAT

I WOULD RETURN TO FOR

DISCUSSION.

MATH.

A TWO-HOUR FILM, SHOWN SEVEN

TO EIGHT TIMES A DAY, TIMES

ALL THE MULTIPLEX THEATERS IN

A GIVEN METROPOLITAN AREA,

TIMES ALL THE MULTIPLEX

THEATERS IN THE UNITED STATES

YIELDS THE BEST CHANCE TO

RETURN THE LARGE START-UP

COSTS AND A PROFIT AS WELL TO

THE INVESTORS OF THE FILM.

I CONTEND THAT THE STRONG

FINANCIAL NECESSITIES ARE THE

PRIMARY REASON THAT "HOUSE OF

SAND AND FOG" UNDERWENT THE

EXTENSIVE STORY PRUNING AND

CHANGES WHICH WE SEE IN HIS

FILM TRANSLATION.

PROBABLY THE LARGEST

DIFFERENCE WE NOTE IN THE FILM

IS THE REDUCTION OF

INFORMATION AND TIME SPENT ON

THE CHARACTER OF LESTER

BURDEN.

NOW I'LL OFFER MY THEORY FOR

THIS CHANGE A BIT LATER IN MY

DISCUSSION AS WELL.

AS YOU MAY KNOW, BEFORE THE

FILM WAS EVER MADE, THAT

PERELMAN'S WIFE SENT A COPY OF

DUBUS' NOVEL TO BEN KINGSLEY,

AND KINGSLEY, GROUNDED IN

YEARS OF PERFORMING

SHAKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY, BECAME

HIGHLY ENTHUSED IN APPEARING

IN A FILM VERSION OF THIS

NOVEL.

I JUST WANT TO SHARE A QUICK

ON-LINE INFORMATION FROM LAST

NIGHT, THAT DURING THE FILMING

OF THE MOVIE, BOTH ELDARD, WHO

PLAYS LESTER BURDEN KINGSLEY,

FELT VERY DEEP THAT THEY WERE

PERFORMING GREEK CLASSICAL

TRAGEDY.

DUBUS EVEN ADMITS THAT HE HAD

KINGSLEY IN MIND WHEN HE WROTE

THE NOVEL.

SIMILARLY PERELMAN ASSURED

DUBUS THAT THE FILM SCRIPT

WOULD BE BASICALLY FAITHFUL TO

THE NOVEL AND THUS DUBUS

HIMSELF BECAME ENTHUSIASTIC

ABOUT A FILM VERSION.

IN FACT THIS FILM SHARES SOME

OF THE CLOSENESS OF VISION,

WHICH DIRECTOR ANTHONY

MINGHELLA AND AUTHOR MICHAEL

ONDAATJE ENJOYED WHILE WORKING

ON THE FILM TRANSLATION OF "AN

ENGLISH PATIENT," WHICH BY THE

WAY WON BEST FILM OF THE YEAR

IN 1996 AND ENJOYED A LARGE

BOX OFFICE SUCCESS.

I WILL DISCUSS THE BOX OFFICE

RECEIPTS AND GENERAL RECEPTION

OF "HOUSE AND SAND AND FOG" A

BIT LATER AS WELL ALSO.

IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE,

HOWEVER, THAT AUTHORS OF

NOVELS AND FILM TRANSLATORS

AMICABLY REGARD EACH OTHER'S

WORK.

THERE ARE COUNTLESS EXAMPLES

IN HOLLYWOOD OF NOVELISTS

BITTERLY COMPLAINING THAT

THEIR WORK HAD BEEN GUTTED, OR

EVEN WORSE CHANGED BRUTALLY TO

PANDER TO A LARGE COMMERCIAL

AMERICAN AUDIENCE.

THE AMERICAN AUTHORS F. SCOTT

FITZGERALD AND WILLIAM

FAULKNER BOTH WORKED STINTS IN

HOLLYWOOD AS SCRIPT WRITERS

AND BOTH HAD LITTLE POSITIVE

TO SAY ABOUT THE PROCESS.

TO EXPLAIN WHY I THINK LESTER

BURDON'S STORY AND SCREEN TIME

ARE GREATLY REDUCED, I NEED TO

FIRST TALK ABOUT A

SOCIOPSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON

AND ECONOMIC REALITY.

THE ENTERTAINMENT STAR SYSTEM.

THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND WELL

BEFORE THE ADVENT OF FILM,

AUDIENCES HAVE SELECTED

SPECIAL ENTERTAINERS TO

ADMIRE, EMULATE AND EVEN ON

OCCASION WORSHIP.

BERNHARDT, BARRYMORE,

DUSCHINSKY, CARUSO,

RUBINSTEIN, MONROE, REDFORD,

TOM CRUISE.

ALL THESE NAMES EVOKE SPECIAL

ASSOCIATIONS WHICH CAN

VIRTUALLY GUARANTEE THAT AN

AUDIENCE WILL PURCHASE TICKETS

IF THIS PERFORMER IS PRESENT.

AND AGAIN THE KEY TERM IS

PURCHASE.

GRANTED THAT NEITHER BEN

KINGSLEY NOR JENNIFER CONNELLY

MAY HAVE AN ICONIC PRESENCE

BUT BOTH ARE OSCAR WINNERS,

KINGSLEY FOR "GANDHI" AND

CONNELLY FOR "A BEAUTIFUL

MIND," AND THUS THEY ARE BOTH

VERY BANKABLE COMMODITIES,

STARS, WHOM IT WOULD BE HOPED

WOULD DRAW AUDIENCES IN.

TRUTH BE TOLD, THERE ARE MANY

FINE ACTORS WHO MIGHT BE ABLE

TO HANDLE MANY FILM ROLES, BUT

GIVEN THE FINANCIAL STAKES,

PRODUCERS SIMPLY WILL NOT TAKE

A CHANCE.

GO WITH THE BANKABLE STARS.

PAYING THE SALARIES FOR

KINGSLEY AND CONNELLY PROBABLY

WAS ALL THAT WAS WILLING TO BE

FINANCIALLY EXTENDED.

RON ELDARD DOES AN APPRECIABLE

JOB PORTRAYING LESTER BURDON.

HE IS A GOOD WORKING

PROFESSIONAL ACTOR, BUT BY

REDUCING HIS SCREEN TIME, THE

PROMOTERS AND ADVERTISERS

COULD THEN MERCHANDISE THE

FILM AS A CLASH OF WILL

BETWEEN TWO WELL-KNOWN FILM

STARS AND OSCAR WINNERS.

OF COURSE THERE MAY BE MORE

FOOTAGE THAT WAS LEFT OUT OF

THE FILM.

THERE'S ALWAYS WHAT WE CALL A

SHOOTING RATIO, WHAT YOU SEE

IN ALL THE BITS OF FILM THAT

NEVER GET IN.

THIS IS USUALLY THE CASE.

THE DVD FILM VERSION SHOWS A

FEW CUT SCENES AND WE CAN

ASSUME THAT THERE WAS SOME

MORE CUT FOOTAGE AS WELL.

I WANT TO NOW SHOW FOUR BRIEF

SCENES FROM THE FILM, AND I

WILL ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE

HOW WRITTEN LANGUAGE IS

TRANSLATED INTO CINEMATIC

LANGUAGE.

PLEASE NOTE I'M NOT SUGGESTING

THAT EITHER THE NOVEL OR THE

FILM ARE BETTER OR WORSE THAN

THE OTHER; THEY ARE SIMPLY BY

VIRTUE OF THEIR NATURES

DIFFERENT.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO

REMEMBER THAT A PASSAGE WHICH

WORKS WELL IN A NOVEL MAY NOT

BE SUITABLE FOR FILM.

OFTENTIMES FILMS WORK BEST

CAPTURING CHARACTERS IN

ACTION.

FOR EACH EXAMPLE, I WILL USE

SOME CINEMATIC TERMS THAT ARE

COMMON TO THE ART OF

FILMMAKING, AND IN MOST CASES

THE STANDARD POINT OF VIEW IN

A FILM IS FIRST PERSON.

THE FIRST EXAMPLE IS A FULL

SCENE.

A SCENE MAY BE DEFINED AS A

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL SHOTS OR

TAKES, ALL UNITED BY A COMMON

IDEA OR OFTEN A GEOGRAPHICAL

PLACE.

THIS SCENE OCCURS AT THE

BISGROVE STREET BUNGALOW.

LESTER ARRIVES AND HIS

INTENTION IS TO INTIMIDATE AND

FRIGHTEN BEHRANI INTO GIVING

UP THE PROPERTY.

A NUMBER OF CINEMATIC ELEMENTS

ARE FUNCTIONING HERE.

THE TWO MEN ARE FIRST

SEPARATED BY THE SCREEN DOOR,

BUT THEN THE FRAMING BECOMES

TIGHT BETWEEN THEM.

CAMERA ANGLES ALLOW LESTER TO

SLIGHTLY DOMINATE BEHRANI.

NOTE THE SUMPTUOUS DECOR WHICH

LESTER REGARDS WITH

RESENTMENT, ALONG WITH HIS

EXAMINATION OF THE BEHRANI

FAMILY PICTURES.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE THEORY

OF PROXEMICS, HOW HUMANS REACT

TO TERRITORIES AND SPACE,

CLEARLY SHOWS THAT BEHRANI'S

SPACE IS THREATENED BY LESTER.

NOTE AS WELL THE REACTION TO

THE FAMILY AS THEY HEAR

LESTER'S THREATS OF

DEPORTATION.

THESE SHOTS ARE CALLED

REACTION SHOTS THROUGH THE USE

OF WHAT WE CALL CLASSICAL

CUTTING, CUTTING TO A

CHARACTER OR AN OBJECT FOR

EMOTIONAL EMPHASIS.

MUCH OF THE DIALOGUE IS

FRAUGHT WITH WHAT WE CALL

SUBTEXT.

BENEATH THE SURFACE LEVEL OF

THE DIALOGUE IS A DARKER LEVEL

OF WHAT THE TWO MEN ARE REALLY

SAYING.

LESTER IS SUBTEXTUALLY SAYING

I HATE YOUR GUTS; I WANT YOU

OUT OF HERE.

BEHRANI IS SUBTEXTUALLY

SAYING, HOW DARE YOU THREATEN

MY FAMILY AND IMPROPERLY USE

YOUR BADGE OF AUTHORITY?

WE AS HUMANS INSTINCTIVELY

RECOGNIZE THE SUBTEXT.

FINALLY NOTICE LESTER'S FINAL

WITHDRAWAL INTO THE BACK OF

THE FRAME TOWARDS HIS CAR.

MANY SCENES, INDEED MANY FILMS

END WITH SUCH A WITHDRAWAL.

WOULD YOU SHOW THE CLIP,

PLEASE?

MORE VOLUME, PLEASE.

(Clip played)

>> Mark Price: THE NEXT

EXAMPLE, ALSO A SCENE, IS A

VERY, VERY BRIEF CINEMATIC

EXTENSION FROM THE NOVEL OF

CAROL'S, LESTER'S WIFE,

FRUSTRATION AND THE BURDON

CHILDREN'S SHOCK AND

DISENCHANTMENT WITH THEIR

FATHER.

HERE THE CINEMATIC PRINCIPAL

OF MISE-EN-SCENE, THE

ARRANGEMENT OF OBJECTS IN

UNIFIED SPACE, COME INTO PLAY.

NOTE HOW THE COMPOSITION SHOWS

LESTER DOMINATING CAROL AND

HER ANGER AND DEJECTION,

CAROL'S BEING PHOTOGRAPHED IN

PROFILE INDICATES HER

SEPARATION AND DISTANCING FROM

LESTER.

NOTE AS WELL THE SEPARATION

THROUGH THE GLASS OF THE

CHILDREN FROM THEIR FATHER.

THE SCENE IS QUITE BRIEF BUT

VERY EFFECTIVE.

SHOW THE SECOND CLIP, PLEASE.

>> YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE

DOING TO THIS FAMILY.

THE CHILDREN, THE DAMAGE

YOU'RE CAUSING.

>> NOT THE TIME.

>> WHEN?

WHEN IS THE TIME?

>> WHEN I'M NOT ON MY WAY TO

WORK!

(Grunting)

STOP IT!

DO YOU WANT TO GET ARRESTED?

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

>> YOU WANT TO APRIL REST ME?

GOD, GO AHEAD.

ARREST ME IN FRONT OF OUR

CHILDREN, GOD!

>> DADDY!

PLEASE.

>> OH, GOD, I DIDN'T MEAN TO

DO THIS.

>> DON'T GO.

PLEASE DON'T GO!

>> Mark Price: FINALLY THE

LAST TWO SCENES WHICH I HAVE

EXCERPTED AND COMBINED TO SHOW

TOGETHER, ARE PARTS OF WHAT WE

CALL A LARGER SEQUENCE, A

NUMBER OF SCENES ALL CONNECTED

BY A COMMON THEME OR EVENT.

I WOULD LABEL THIS SEQUENCE

"THE DEATH OF ESMAIL."

HERE I WISH TO SHARE WITH YOU

THE TRANSCENDENT ACTING BY BEN

KINGSLEY, TRANSCENDENT.

THE FIRST SCENES DONE IN ONE

TAKE.

HERE IT'S NOT THE IDEA OF A

SINGLE PIECE OF FILM BUT ONE

TAKE MEANS THEY JUST GOT IT

THROUGH IT ONCE, AND DIDN'T DO

IT OVER.

CLINT EASTWOOD DIRECTING SEAN

PENN, OTHER ACTORS.

MANY OF THEIR SCENES THEY GOT

IT THE FIRST TIME THROUGH.

THIS IS GOOD SOMETIMES BECAUSE

WHEN YOU HAVE TO DO A LOT OF

EMOTION, YOU DON'T WANT TO

HAVE TO MIMIC IT OR COME UP

WITH IT FOUR OR FIVE TIMES BUT

PERELMAN WAS EXQUISITELY HAPPY

WITH KINGSLEY DOING IT ONCE.

THE FIRST SCENE WAS DONE IN

ONE TAKE AND KINGSLEY CAPTURES

ALL THE FRUSTRATIONS OF A

FATHER WITH A WOUNDED AND

POSSIBLY DYING SON.

THE GENERAL CINEMATIC STYLE,

AND INDEED OF THE ENTIRE FILM,

IS WHAT WE CALL REALISM.

REALIST FILMS DO NOT ATTEMPT

ANY GREAT TYPE OF DISTORTION.

THEY ATTEMPT TO PRESENT

REALITY AS IT IS COMMONLY

PERCEIVED, ALTHOUGH ALL

FICTION NARRATIVE FILMS ARE OF

COURSE ARTIFICES AND NOT REAL.

BUT REALIST STYLE FILMS

PROVIDE THE LARGEST SCOPE FOR

ACTORS TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR

SKILLS.

IN THE FIRST SCENE, NOTE THE

PACE OF THE EDITED SHOTS, THE

REACTION SHOTS OF THE

CHARACTERS, THE SCREEN WHICH

SEPARATES AND CONSTRICTS

KINGSLEY IN THE BACK OF A

POLICE CAR, THE FINAL SHOT

WHICH DOLLIES IN ON LESTER'S

ANGUISHED REACTION.

THE MUSICAL BACKGROUNDS

COMPOSED BY JAMES HORNER, BUT

FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

THE GIFTED AND INSPIRED ACTING

OF BEN KINGSLEY.

IN THE SECOND SCENE, NOTE THE

OVERHEAD SHOT WHICH CONVEYS

KINGSLEY'S POWERLESSNESS, AND

THEN THE TIGHTLY FRAMED

CLOSE-UP AS HE KNEELS AND BEGS

FOR HIS SON'S LIFE.

SHOW THE LAST CLIP, PLEASE.

(Music)

>> MOVE IT, COLONEL.

COME ON.

YOU, TOO, ESMAIL.

>> SHERIFF BURDON.

SIR?

I KNOW YOU'RE BUSY.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY I

APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'VE

TAUGHT ME.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANKS.

>> HEY, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU, BRIAN.

(Music)

NOW YOU LISTEN TO ME.

WHEN WE GET IN THERE, YOU AND

ESMAIL HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO

HAVE TO HEAR ME A WHOLE LOT

BETTER.

YOU HAVE TO DO EXACTLY AS I

TELL YOU.

>> STOP!

SOMEBODY CALL POLICE FAST!

>> MY NAME IS ESMAIL, NOT

ISHMAEL.

>> HELP!

SOMEBODY CALL POLICE!

ESMAIL, PLEASE, DROP IT!

DROP IT NOW!

I SAID DROP IT!

(Gunshot)

(Screaming)

ESMAIL!

>> GODDAMN IT!

THE KID IS GOING TO BLEED TO

DEATH.

(Behrani screaming)

>> I WANT ONLY MY SON!

I WANT ONLY MY SON.

>> SIR...

>> I WANT ONLY MY SON!

I WANT ONLY MY SON!

I WILL KILL YOU!

(Siren)

(Tires screeching to a halt)

ESMAIL, I AM HERE.

(Siren)

I AM HERE.

I AM HERE!

>> WHAT IS YOUR NAME, DEPUTY?

SIR?

>> WHAT?

>> WHAT IS YOUR NAME?

(Music)

>> TO MY SON.

(Music)

>> BURDON CORROBORATES THE

WHOLE DEAL.

>> Mr. BEHRANI, YOU'RE FREE TO

GO.

THIS IS YOUR RECOURSE.

YOU CAN PRESS CHARGES AGAINST

DEPUTY BURDON.

>> TAKE ME TO HOSPITAL,

PLEASE.

>> YOUR SON'S AT St.

VINCENT'S.

IT'S THREE BLOCKS FROM HERE.

YOU CAN GET A POLICE ESCORT.

(Music)

I WANT ONLY MY SON.

EMERGENCY!

MY SON, HE IS HERE.

HE HAS BEEN SHOT.

>> NAME?

WHAT'S HIS NAME, SIR?

>> BEHRANI.

ESMAIL.

>> HE'S IN TRAUMA.

YOU CAN WAIT IN THE LOUNGE.

(Music)

>> PLEASE, GOD, DON'T TAKE MY

SON.

I WILL GIVE EVERYTHING TO ONE

OF THE LESS FORTUNATE.

I WILL MAKE IT-- PLEASE, GODS,

I AM MAKING OFFER TO KATHY

NICOLO.

IF YOU CAN HEAL MY SON, I WILL

SELL THE HOUSE.

I WILL GIVE ALL THE MONEY I

HAVE.

ONLY FOR MY SON.

ONLY FOR MY SON!

I BEG YOU.

I WILL DO WHATEVER IS YOUR

WILL.

I WILL FIND AN AMERICAN

MOSQUE... I WILL LET THE BIRD

COVER ME AND TAKE OUT MY EYES.

PLEASE, GOD, MY LIFE IS IN

YOUR HANDS.

(Music)

>> Mark Price: WHAT DO I SAY

AFTER THAT?

THE FINAL COMMENT I WISH TO

MAKE IS ON THE RELATIVE

FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF THE NOVEL

VERSUS THE FINANCIAL SUCCESS

OF THE FILM.

IN TRUTH IT CAN BE SAID THAT

THE NOVEL HAS REALLY SOLD

BETTER THAN THE FILM HAS SOLD

TICKETS, OR AT LEAST THE NOVEL

HAS RETURNED A MUCH HIGHER

PROFIT THAN HAS THE FILM.

TO THIS DATE, DUBUS HAS SOLD

CLOSE TO 2 MILLION COPIES OF

HIS NOVEL.

EVEN HE ADMITS THAT OPRAH

WINFREY'S RECOMMENDING IT

IMMEDIATELY DROVE UP SALES.

BY CONTRAST, AFTER 14 WEEKS

FROM THE OPENING OF THE FILM,

IT ONLY TOOK IN A LITTLE UNDER

$13 MILLION, VERY LOW FIGURES

FOR A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE.

RENTALS AND SHOWINGS IN OTHER

COUNTRIES MAY BOOST THESE

REVENUES.

I THINK THERE ARE FEW REASONS

FOR THESE LOW NUMBERS.

THE FILM WAS ORIGINALLY SET TO

BE RELEASED IN OCTOBER OF 2003

BUT WAS THEN DELAYED UNTIL

DECEMBER FOR BOTH THE HOLIDAY

CROWD AND POSSIBLE OSCAR

NOMINATIONS.

REVIEWS OF THE FILM WERE MIXED

AND ON OCCASION UNKIND.

CERTAINLY A FILM RELEASED

DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS

ABOUT A WOMAN LOSING HER HOME

AND AN ENTIRE FAMILY KILLED IS

NOT A PLEASANT CHRISTMAS

MEMORY.

ON A MORE SOBER NOTE, I WOULD

SUGGEST THAT AGAINST THE

BACKDROP OF 9/11, A STORY

ABOUT A NATURALIZED IRANIAN

MUSLIM MALE, WHO TAKES A HOUSE

AWAY FROM A SEEMINGLY HELPLESS

U.S.-BORN AMERICAN WOMAN,

COULD ONLY SERVE TO STIR THE

PREJUDICES AND UNRESTS WHICH

WE PRESENTLY FIND IN THIS

COUNTRY.

SO ON BOTH COUNTS, THE TIMING

OF THE FILM'S RELEASE AND THE

FILM'S SUBJECT MATTER MAY HAVE

ALIENATED THE TRADITIONAL

FILM-ATTENDING POPULATION,

WHICH I WILL ARBITRARILY

SEPARATE FROM THE TRADITIONAL

NOVEL-READING POPULATION.

IT IS A SHAME THAT THIS VERY

FINE FILM, WHICH LIKE THE

NOVEL ELICITS BOTH A SENSE OF

CLASSICAL AND MODERN TRAGEDY,

DID NOT FARE BETTER AT THE BOX

OFFICE.

OF COURSE IT IS UP TO YOU TO

JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT YOU JUDGE

THE FILM TO BE SUPERIOR TO THE

FILM OR VICE VERSA.

BY NOW YOU ARE PROBABLY AWARE

THAT I AM RELUCTANT TO MAKE

SUCH JUDGMENTS BECAUSE I VIEW

EACH AS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT

ARTISTIC CREATIONS.

SOME YEARS AGO I POSITED A

THEORY ON FILM TRANSLATIONS

WHICH I LABELED "THE TYRANNY

OF THE FIRST EXPERIENCE," AND

ON THE OUTLINE PASSED OUT

UNDER FINAL REFLECTIONS YOU

MIGHT WANT TO WRITE THIS DOWN:

TYRANNY OF FIRST EXPERIENCE.

MY THEORY CLAIMS THAT WHATEVER

ART FORM YOU EXPERIENCE FIRST

WILL ESTABLISH A PATTERN IN

YOUR MIND AND AFFECT YOUR

OPINION WHEN YOU EXPERIENCE

THE SECOND ART FORM.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU READ

THE NOVEL FIRST AND FORM THAT

WORLD IN YOUR MIND, YOU MAY

NOT BE PLEASED WITH THE VISUAL

AND AUDITOR ELEMENTS SUPPLIED

BY THE FILM TRANSLATION.

CONVERSELY, SEEING THE FILM

FIRST PRESENTS POWERFUL VISUAL

AND AUDITOR ELEMENTS WHICH MAY

CONFLICT WITH YOUR THEN

READING THE NOVEL.

AND I NOW WISH TO BUILD ON

THAT THEORY A BIT MORE BY

SUGGESTING THAT ONCE BOTH ARE

EXPERIENCED, THEY MAY

INEXTRICABLY INTERLOCK AND

BLEND IN YOUR MEMORY, EACH

PERHAPS SUPPORTING THE OTHER

BUT MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO

JUDGE EITHER AS SEPARATE AND

DISTINCT.

FOR EXAMPLE IF WE READ THE

NOVEL FIRST AND SHARE MUCH OF

KATHY'S PAIN, WHICH SHE

NARRATES IN FIRST PERSON, WE

MAY THEN REGARD JENNIFER

CONNELLY'S ANGUISHED AND

SILENT LOOKS INTO THE CAMERA

OR HER SILENT PROFILE SHOTS AS

A GREAT REPRESENTATION OF

KATHY'S PAIN.

BUT IT MAY BE THE NOVEL

SUPPLYING THAT DEPTH OF

ANGUISHED INFORMATION, NOT

CONNELLY'S ACTING IN AND OF

ITSELF.

I HOPE, THEN, THAT I'VE SERVED

TO HIGHLIGHT AND ILLUMINATE

FOR YOU SOME OF THOSE

QUALITIES WHICH SEPARATE THE

NARRATIVE NOVEL FROM THE

NARRATIVE FILM AND THAT YOU

WILL NOW BE BETTER ABLE TO

ASSESS AND ENJOY BOTH DUBUS'

NOVEL AND ITS CINEMATIC

TRANSLATION.

BOTH THE NOVEL AND THE FILM

CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT THE

CATASTROPHIC EVENTS ASSOCIATED

WITH TRAGEDY ARE REALLY NOT

THAT EXAGGERATED.

THESE THINGS CAN AND DO

HAPPEN.

THANK YOU.

(Applause)

ARE THERE SOME QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS?

THERE'S ROVING MICS OUT THERE.

ANYONE WANT TO STAY AROUND FOR

SOME MORE TALK, IT WOULD BE

GREAT.

RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WANT TO

MAKE A COMMENT.

>> MARK, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF

PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY FOUND

THAT THIS WAS A DEPRESSING

NOVEL OR A DEPRESSING FILM,

NOT JUST TRAGIC, BUT AS THEY

SAY IF THEY WATCH A

SHAKESPEARE PLAY OR A

CLASSICAL DRAMA, THERE'S A

SENSE OF CATHARSIS AND

POSSIBLY UPLIFT AT THE END AND

THEY DON'T GET THAT HERE.

TO WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE THAT,

OR DO YOU THINK IT'S A

MISPERCEPTION?

>> Mark Price: WELL, I DON'T

KNOW IF IT'S ANY REALLY MORE

UPLIFTING WHEN HAMLET'S DEAD

ON THE STAGE AT THE END OF

"HAMLET," LINDA, BUT WHAT IS

UPLIFTING IS THAT HE STRUGGLED

AND ACHIEVED SOMETHING AND

HE'S PERHAPS LIVED MORE THAN

THE REST OF US WILL LIVE, AND

IN A VERY TRAGIC SOBER SENSE

HE'S AN ADMIRABLE CHARACTER.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE BEHRANI

FAMILY, THE COLONEL PRIMARILY,

FOUGHT FOR SOMETHING,

STRUGGLED FOR SOMETHING AND

ADHERED TO VALUES WHICH WERE

DEAR TO THEM, AND WHEN THOSE

VALUES COULD NO LONGER BE

CONTINUED, IT WAS A CHOICE.

IT WAS A CHOICE THAT LIFE

SHOULD NOT GO ON.

BUT I DON'T FIND IT ANY MORE

PARTICULARLY DEPRESSING THAN

THE TYPE OF EVENTS WE FIND IN

OTHER TRAGEDIES.

>> MARK, I HAVE THE MICROPHONE

SO I'LL ASK YOU A QUESTION.

I WAS REREADING THE NOVEL

AGAIN EARLIER TODAY, AND I SAW

A KIND OF OVERLAP OF IMAGES,

AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT

COMMENT.

THE SCENE WHERE KATHY STEPS ON

THE NAILS OUTSIDE OF THE

CONSTRUCTION OF HER FORMER

HOME, WOULD YOU CALL THAT A

SLY REFERENCE TO OEDIPUS,

WHICH TRANSLATES AS PIERCED

FOOT OR CLUBFOOT?

>> Mark Price: NO.

>> WHY NOT?

>> Mark Price: WELL, I THINK

IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU FIND

IT.

ONE WAY I MIGHT ANSWER, IF IT

IS ON DUBUS'S PARTS, I WOULD

ARGUE IT'S PROBABLY

UNCONSCIOUSLY ON HIS PART.

OF COURSE WE CAN SETTLE ALL

THIS NEXT WEEK.

WE CAN ASK DUBUS, RIGHT?

>> SURE.

>> Mark Price: BUT THEN IF

IT'S KATHY WITH A SWOLLEN

FOOT, THEN YOU'RE SUGGESTING

THE REASON I WAS PROBABLY

RESISTANT TO NO IS YOU'RE

SUGGESTING THAT SHE'S SOME

TYPE OF A FILL-IN FOR AN

OEDIPUS CHARACTER.

>> SURE.

>> Mark Price: I DON'T SEE

THAT, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO

EXPLICATE IT A LITTLE BIT, I'D

LOVE TO HEAR IT.

>> THE MORE I LOOKED AT THAT

SCENE, IT HAPPENED JUST AFTER

THE COLONEL IS TALKING ABOUT

THE TRADITIONAL IRANIAN

MARRIAGE CEREMONY, WHERE THEY

SACRIFICE A SHEEP ON THE

DOORSTEP, AND SHE'S BLEEDING

ALL OVER THE DOORSTEP.

AND I COULDN'T HELP BUT SEE A

CONNECTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO

THINGS.

>> Mark Price: THAT'S VERY

INTERESTING.

I'M PROBABLY MORE BARE-BONES

PLOT GUY.

ONCE SHE STEPS ON THE NAILS,

SHE'S GOING TO GET INSIDE THE

HOUSE, YOU KNOW.

AND DUBUS HAS TO PROPEL THE

ACTION FORWARD.

I DIDN'T SEE THAT, BUT IT'S

VERY INTERESTING, ANDY.

WE OUGHT TO PURSUE THAT WHEN

DUBUS IS HERE NEXT WEEK.

>> OKAY.

>> Mark Price: SOMEBODY ELSE?

>> THANK YOU.

WOULD YOU COMMENT ON LESTER

BURDON AS TO WHETHER YOU SEE

HIM AS A TRAGIC PROTAGONIST

HERO PERHAPS, OR JUST LOSER?

(Laughter)

>> Mark Price: WELL, I THINK

I-- I BELIEVE I MENTIONED IN

MY TALK THAT I DID NOT SEE HIM

THAT WAY.

YOU CAN MAKE A CASE-- I

WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF SOME

STUDENTS OR PEOPLE HERE OR

SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD

MAKE A CASE THAT HIS MAKING

BAD CHOICES AND FALLING, BUT

(Sigh)

YOU REMEMBER I SAID EARLY--

I'M GOING TO BE KIND OF

PERSONAL HERE.

I MENTIONED A POINTS THAT WE

BRING OUR PRIVATE BIASES TO

TEXT.

LESTER HAS MADE A CHOICE TO

NOT WORK ON A MARRIAGE, WHICH

I MIGHT-- I MEAN IT'S HIS

BUSINESS, BUT THAT MARRIAGE IS

SAVABLE.

THE WIFE IS WILLING.

HE'S HURTING HIS CHILDREN.

I REGARD LESTER AS A VERY

SELFISH MAN.

I'M NOT SAYING A SELFISH

PERSON COULDN'T BE A TRAGIC

HERO.

I FIND VERY LITTLE ENNOBLING

ABOUT LESTER.

HE'S DOING LITTLE TO PROTECT

HIS FAMILY.

MAYBE HE WANTS A LIFE WITH

THIS WOMAN AND THAT'S

JUSTIFIABLE, BUT LESTER IS OUT

FOR LESTER.

AND IF YOU RECALL I MENTIONED

THE LONG PASSAGE OF THIRD

PERSON.

AT THE END, HE'S A WEAK

FELLOW.

HE'S A DANGEROUS FELLOW, AND

HE CAUSES AN AWFUL LOT OF HARM

IN THIS NOVEL.

YOU KNOW, HE'S A VERY

RESPONSIBLE AGENT.

SO I JUST CAN'T SEE HIM-- I

DON'T KNOW IF I'D CALL HIM A

LOSER.

I DON'T THINK HE'S TERRIBLY

ADMIRABLE AND FOR ME HE'S

DEFINITELY NOT A TRAGIC

PROTAGONIST OR ANYTHING.

HE'S IMPORTANT TO THE STORY,

OF COURSE.

>> MARK, MAY I-- I'M OVER

HERE.

>> Mark Price: HEY, BABAK.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID

REALLY INTERESTED ME.

DID I HEAR YOU RIGHT THAT

DUBUS WAS THINKING OF KINGSLEY

WHEN HE WAS WRITING THE NOVEL?

OKAY.

I FIND THAT REALLY

FASCINATING.

ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK

ABOUT SOMETIMES READING

CONTEMPORARY NOVELS IS TO WHAT

EXTENT WRITERS OF FICTION,

NOVELISTS, PROSE WRITERS, ARE

NOW INFLUENCED BY FILM.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A

REAL ANSWER MYSELF BUT SINCE

YOU'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT

THIS STUFF SO MUCH, I WONDER

IF YOU'D COMMENT ON THAT, YOU

KNOW, HOW FAR BACK DOES THAT

GO?

I MEAN COULD WE THINK OF

FAULKNER, FOR EXAMPLE, AS

BEING INFLUENCED BY FILM?

>> Mark Price: WELL, IN MANY

WAYS IT'S AN UNANSWERABLE

QUESTION.

WE'D HAVE TO ASK THAT WRITER:

DID YOU HAVE A CHARACTER IN

MIND WHEN YOU THOUGHT OF--

WHEN YOU WERE WRITING?

I'LL ANSWER IT IN A ROUNDABOUT

FASHION.

YOU RECALL I SAID EARLIER,

NONE OF US LIVE IN ARTISTIC

VACUUMS.

WE LIVE IN CULTURE.

WE'RE INUNDATED WITH ALL TYPES

OF MEDIA DAILY.

THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD WRITE A

TRUE NOVEL WITH NO INFLUENCE

WOULD BE TO BE PUT IN A ROOM

FOR 30 YEARS AND BE GIVEN A

DICTIONARY AND SEE WHAT YOU

COME UP WITH.

SO I'VE NOTICED IN SOME OF THE

FICTION AT LEAST OF THE '20s

AND '30s WITH HEMINGWAY AND

FAULKNER, YOU CAN CERTAINLY

SAY IT'S CINEMATIC, SO YOU

KNOW THAT THEY ARE INFLUENCED

BY FILM.

NOW YOU CAN KEEP GOING DOWN

THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE AND SAY,

WELL, IF IT'S CINEMATIC AND

THEY-- I MEAN REALLY THE

MOVIES WERE A BIG THING, AS

YOU KNOW, TO POPULATIONS OF

THE '20s TO THE '40s, SO IT'S

ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT

FAULKNER WOULD HAVE SOMEONE IN

MIND.

ALTHOUGH A LOT OF FAULKNER'S

STUFF WAS MADE MUCH LATER IN

HIS LIFE.

I HAD A FRIEND WHO WAS IN

SANCTUARY WITH LEE REMICK, AND

THAT WAS A MEMORABLE MOMENT HE

NEVER FORGOT.

HE HAD TWO LINES WITH LEE

REMICK AND SHE WAS SO LOVELY,

HE FORGOT HIS LINES.

(Laughter)

BUT I THINK DISTINCTLY

FAULKNER AND FITZGERALD, THEY

GENERALLY HATED THE WAY THE

STORY WAS BUTCHERED, PANDERED

TO SEX AND SO FORTH AND

VIOLENCE.

YOU KNOW THOSE LONG

DISQUISITIONAL PASSAGES THAT

WE ADMIRE FAULKNER FOR ARE

IMPOSSIBLE IN A FILM.

SO I DON'T THINK CERTAIN

WRITERS WOULD LIKE THAT AT

ALL, BUT I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY

POSSIBLE THEY MIGHT THINK OF

PEOPLE THEY LIKE WHEN THEY'RE

WRITING.

IT'S A CREATION, THOUGH.

IT'S A-- FLANNERY O'CONNOR WAS

WRITING A STORY.

NONE OF YOU ASKED ME TONIGHT

WHY ESMAIL DOES WHAT HE DOES.

MY ANSWER TO THAT IS WHEN

FLANNERY O'CONNOR WAS WRITING

A STORY ONE TIME ABOUT A BIBLE

SALESMAN, SHE DIDN'T KNOW

UNTIL-- AHEAD IN THE STORY,

SHE ONLY KNEW TWO PARAGRAPHS

BEHIND THAT THE BIBLE SALESMAN

WOULD STEAL THE WOODEN LEG OF

THE MAIN CHARACTER.

IT JUST-- IT JUST HAPPENED.

FACTORY USED TO SAY MY

CHARACTERS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT

THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

ONDAATJE, WHEN HE WROTE "IN

THE SKIN OF A LION" SAYS HE

STARTED WITH FIVE NUNS ON A

BRIDGE AND THE WHOLE NOVEL

SPUN OUT.

THEY BECOME CHILDREN OF YEARS.

SO I THINK THE CREATIVE ACT IS

YOU HAVE-- YOU'RE CREATING

LIVING THINGS, AND THEY'RE

MOVING ABOUT OFF YOUR WORD

PROCESSOR OR YOUR HAND, AND

THEY HAVE A LIFE.

NOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU ATTACH

THAT LIFE TO A MAIN STAR OR

SOMEONE YOU'VE SEEN, I DON'T

KNOW.