i thought kirk douglas was great as ulysses! not at all self conscious as that bloom fella' in the book. and in the film the sirens and circe were much prettier than i imagined molly was in the book.
sure, some creative license occurred in writng that screenplay, but on the whole a rip-roaring sea-faring yarn!
The barroom scene was particularly effective.
Kirk Douglas? What about Steve Reeves?
Edgar:
Why see the movie? Why not read,read,read!
New Haven
I work the job of a much younger man 40+ hours per week - much of it very strenuous. I have a multitude of personal projects going simultaneously. I still read, and Finnegan's Wake would be a bit like my first encounter with Ulysses; that is to say a whole new universe of brilliant language and characters to appreciate - but the time it requires to do the work justice is simply not there. As Joyce said, paraphrasing, It took a lifetime to write it; one should spend a lifetime reading it. In short, it's out of the question.
Edgar:
One day of the week should be peace and quiet for you. On that one day spend 2-3 hours reading. Not a command from me, only a little suggestion.
This is getting tiresome. newhaven. Got anything new?
No one has mentioned that the Cohen brothers used Ulysses as the basic plot in "Wherefor Art Thou, Brother." They have already
Richette and all, I had the good fortune of seeing Zero Mostel in the broadway production of "Ulysses in Night Town." I remember how light-footed the roly-poly Mostel was. And, for some reason, I remember Molly's "Yes" speech. Perhaps it is because the gorgeous actress playing Molly was reclined on a bed totally nude. No, it couldn't have been that.
Merry Andrew, Lightwizard,
I have always thought that one test of whether a play was uniquely a workof theatrical art was whether it adapted well to film. If it does, it's probably not a good/great piece of theatre. Albee's "The Zoo Story" and Becket's "Waiting for God" come to mind as uniquely theatre The same goes for musicals. While there are a few great exceptions ("My Fair Lady" "The Sound of Music"), most stage musicals seem awkward on film.
Good point, Billy Falcon. Can you imagine 'Cats' on the screen? I can't. In fact, I shudder.
The "Cats" that was taped onstage for PBS was reasonably good but the best of the video musicals was "Sunday in the Park With George" with Mandy Pantinkin and Bernadette Peters. This is a bit off subject -- it takes a auteur of extreme talent to put together a stage musical or a great novel on the screen. They either have the vision or they don't.
The film's name is "bl,.m". For a trailer go to the link I provided in the first post in this thread. It has been completed and should be released on "Bloom Day".
I believe Bloom's Day is June 16th.
I believe you're right, edgar. I recall that a number of years ago I set that date as a deadline for myself to finish reading the Joyce opus cover-to-cover. Prior tothat, I had only dipped in it because it had been required reading in a world literature course I had taken. I made it by June 16th with about 24 hours to spare. And came away convinced that this magnificent piece of literature can never be filmed and still do the original justice.
I appreciate the logistics of filming a work that complex. At the same time I applaud the effort. If it helps one person appreciate Joyce enough to read his work it will have been worth it. Of course, there can be the reverse effect: I recall watching the Henry Fonda version of War and Peace shortly after reading the novel. I have always been glad that I encountered them in that order, for I never would have read it if I had seen the film beforehand.
Good point, edgar. A poor film, made from a good book, can ruin one's appreciation for the book. There's another factor here, too, though. Sometimes a very good movie can induce one to read the book on which the movie is ostensibly based and then leave you baffled. The book, it turns out, is fine, too, but has hardly any relationship with the movie. I'm thinking now of To Have and Have Not as a perfect example. It's vintage Bogart and it introduced Lauren Bacall to the movie-going audience. And it is, supposedly, based on the best-selling (at the time) novel by Ernest Hemingway. The only things that the movie and the book have in common are the title and the name of the main character, played by Bogart.
To some extent, this happened with the Milo O'Shea version of Ulysses as well. It's a good movie, but it ain't Joyce.
Faulkner's Sanctuary is another example of the movie ain't the book.
I have to say I have been aware of the film, Ulysses', faults, yet, I enjoyed it for the most part. Severely limited in scope and far too short to tell the tale, I appreciated the fact somebody even gave it a try. I was disappointed with many scenes, wondered why they didn't do this or that, but, when it is all over, we still have the book intact to return to.
The Examiner and The Guardian have written reviews of the film:
http://www.ulysses.ie/newsArticle.asp?NID=226&Nav=&W=
Thank you for those links, Edgar. Wonder when we'll see a release in the States?
I don't think distributers are beating a door to its path.
Bloom has gotten a limited run in the USA and elsewhere.
http://www.ulysses.ie/thefilm/default.asp
Then it's straight to DVD still in June.
