"Außerdem studierte er abstruse Bücher, die aus chaldäischen Bibliotheken
gestohlen worden waren, wenn Fafhrd auch aus langer Erfahrung wusste,
dass der Mausling selten über das Vorwort hinauskaum (obwohl er oft die
letzten Kapitel aufrollte und neugierig hineinschaute und beißende Kritik

Fritz Leiber, Das Spiel des Adepten

Donnerstag, 20. Juni 2013


Rasch eine kleine Richtigstellung zu meinem letzten Blog-Eintrag: Genau genommen existierte noch eine fünfte Verfilmung von Nineteen Eighty-Four. Nigel Kneales Script wurde nämlich 1965 ein weiteres Mal von der BBC verfilmt. Wenn ich recht informiert bin, so ist diese Fassung jedoch leider verloren gegangen.  Der Autor selbst hatte allerdings keine besonders hohe Meinung von dem Remake, wie aus einem Interview, das Andrew Pixley mit ihm führte, hervorgeht:
I don't know how it came about. Somebody thought that a few years had gone by and they would try again to see if it had the same sensational effect as the first one. It didn't. The script was almost exactly the same, except I think for the extreme opening, and we had certain additional benefits, but not a lot. The music for the original version was written by John Hotchkis and he conducted it himself with an orchestra in the second studio. The synchronisation, which was done live, had to be very, very finely timed. In the second production, the 1965 version, there was also an orchestra with specially written music by Wilfred Josephs. He conducted it, but I think it had been pre-recorded. I don't think we had the same awful problem of synchronisation. It was a skilful version, but for me the acting was much less good. The performance that I did like as an interesting variation was Joseph O'Conor as O'Brien, the Inner Party chief. In the original version, Andre Morell had played that part in a very alarming, authoritative, powerful performance. O'Conor played it in a different but equally effective way as a very religious man turned inside-out, which is a subtle observation on the kind of fanatic that O'Brien would have been. I think both performances were quite excellent, and hugely interesting because they were so different. There was of course no great reaction, and I'd put that down partly to some of the performances - which were pretty null - and also because the audience was much less suprisable and shockable. In 1954, it was a fairly new phenomenon - television. In 1965, it wasn't. You had two channels and a much, much bigger audience and they simply got used to the whole thing.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen