Conference noted::sf

Confirmed:  I just heard it was coming out on March 30th.  As a long-time
fan of Tarzan, and Edgar Rice Burroughs in general, I plan to see it ASAP!
Now if they would only do the Martian series...

				*** DARYL ***

According to STARLOG, GREYSTOKE should be out 30 March. It is supposed to
be very faithful to the (first) novel. The screenplay was written years (I
mean *years*! -- 8-10) by Robert Towne (CHINATOWN, PERSONAL BEST). I believe,
however that it's gone through many revisions since then by other people, so
I don't know if Towne will even get any credit. It has been directed by Hugh
(CHARIOTS OF FIRE) Hudson, so my hopes are up.
	One negative thing, though: The film was originally intended for
release last Christmas, but supposedly, when it was sneak previewed in the
fall, the audiences thought it was a dog, and Warner yanked it from its
schedule to work on it further.
	This doesn't necessarily mean much, though. I remember that BLADE
RUNNER got a very bad reaction from preview audiences. The reasoning I heard
was that they were expecting another Han Solo/Indiana Jones type film, and
got something completely different. I suspect that a similar thing happened
with GREYSTOKE: the audiences were probably expecting another "Me Tarzan,
You Jane" and were put off whe they got something intelligent instead (not
that I didn't like the old Weismuller flicks, but...). My only worry is
that if this is true, what might have Warner Bros. done to "fix" the film
in order to pander to this type of mentality?

(NB that this is speculation on my part from stories that I have heard or
read in various places and does not necessarily reflect reality. I hope.)

---jayembee (Jerry Boyajian)

See the Sunday (March 18) Boston Globe's Arts & Films section (page B1) for a
review of "Greystoke..."

						/mark sornson

	Casually flip through cable channels, I noticed a short spot for
GREYSTOKE (more than an ad, but less than those "Making of..." fillers
that are often shown at the end of network movies.
	The film *looks* really good, but appearanes can be deceiving.
I may sound like a cynic (considering this and my previous reply to this
note), but it's just that I don't want to get my enthusiasm up and get
crashingly disappointed. I *am* looking forward to this film -- more than
any other sf/fantasy film due this year except for maybe INDIANA JONES AND
THE TEMPLE OF DOOM.
	By the way, when credits were flashed on the screen, I noticed that
Robert Towne didn't have *any* credit for treatment/adaptation/screenplay.

---jayembee (Jerry Boyajian)

`TARZAN' REBORN...AGAIN

New film retains adventure but director takes a serious approach

By Michael Blowen
Globe Staff

   NEW YORK - When Elmo Lincoln swung silently through the rain forest in
``Tarzan of the Apes'' (1918), it's fairly certain he wasn't thinking about
Homer's ``Odyssey'' or the Old Testament.
   In Hugh Hudson's ``Greystoke:  The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes''
(opening March 30 at the Charles and suburbs), star Christopher Lambert
understands the mythological underpinnings of the Lord of the Jungle.
   The film is a serious, almost anthropological, account of Tarzan's life
among the apes in Africa and the aristocrats in England.  Like a mixture of
Jane Goodall's ape research and Francois Truffaut's ``The Wild Child,''
``Greystoke'' replaces the popular Tarzan stories with a serious, credible
account of one man's struggle to come to terms with himself and his
environment.  Despite its serious theme, ``Greystoke'' retains the dramatic,
comic and adventurous overtones of Edgar Rice Burroughs' tales.
   ``The jungle is the Garden of Eden,'' said 46-year-old director Hugh
Hudson, dressed in a white shirt and blue jeans, during a recent interview
in his suite at the Carlisle Hotel where advertising posters papered the
floor.  ``Tarzan is an innocent whose primitive instincts are pure.  He
hasn't learned how to manipulate people or hammer nature to fit his whim.
He's confronted with a classic dilemma of choosing between his natural
instincts and the laws of society.  It's an eternal, universal struggle.''
   Struggling is something that Hudson understands.  For 25 years he ground
out documentaries and commercials in England before directing his first
feature, ``Chariots of Fire'' -- winner of the 1983 Oscar as Best Picture. 
``I was very frustrated making those 30 and 60 second ads,'' said the Eton-
educated film maker.  ``I always wanted to make dramatic features.  Making 
commercials was terrible.  I was just a salesman.''
   Although he was offered the opportunity to direct several feature films 
prior to ``Chariots,'' he turned them down.  ``They were things that anyone 
could direct,'' he said, referring to ``The Omen III'' and ``The Awakening.'' 
``Movie-making is too much work and it's too hard to waste your time on 
something with which you have no sympathy.  I wanted something risky.  
`Chariots of Fire' was a big risk.  No one thought it would be successful.  
But I don't just mean risk in terms of business but risky in regard to the 
characters and the decisions they have to make.  Like `Chariots,' 'Greystoke' 
also uses the rigid English social system as the enemy.  It's about fighting 
against social conventions...and that's always risky.''
   ``Greystoke,'' which cost more than $30 million, is even a bigger risk than 
``Chariots.''  Audiences weaned on the Elmo Lincoln, Johnny Weismuller, Buster 
Crabbe, Lex Barker, Gordon Scott, Denny Miller, Jock Mahoney, Mike Henry and 
Ron Ely versions of Tarzan, will be surprised that the jungle lord cannot 
order elephant herds to attack the Great White Hunters.
   ``We wanted to create credibility with the character...to make an audience 
believe that the character could be raised by apes,'' he said.  ``We weren't 
interested in exploiting him to the point of making up phony adventures.  The 
basic story is fascinating enough.''
   In order to realistically evoke Tarzan's early years, Hudson hired special 
effects wizard Rick Baker to design the ape costumes.  Dr. Earl Hooper, a 
specialist in social psychology, advised Hudson on the plausibility of certain 
scenes and Prof. Roger Fouts, an expert in primate behavior who has taught 
chimpanzees -- including Washoe, the subject of a PBS documentary -- to use 
sign language, worked with the real chimpanzees in ``Greystoke.''
   ``If the audience doesn't believe that the boy was raised by apes, the 
whole movie falls apart,'' he said.  ``It's crucial to establish the 
believability of the animals and to evoke a convincing sense of time and 
place.''
   In one moving example of the relationship between the real chimpanzees and 
the actors in Baker's costumes, a young baby chimp became so attached to her 
actor-mother that the animal never left the actor's side.  ``They adopted each 
other,'' said Hudson.  ``They developed the kind of relationship that we 
wanted to achieve with all the animals and actors.''
   The selection of locations was also crucial.  For six months prior to 
shooting, Hudson traveled from Malaysia to the Seychelles Islands searching 
for an appropriate location.  ``We finally decided on Cameroon,'' said Hudson. 
``The rain forests are lush and overgrown.  The heat and humidity are 
oppressive there and, although it was uncomfortable, it gave everyone the 
feeling of being in a primitive place.  That was important.''
   Hudson encountered other problems aside from the weather.  The cast and 
crew were housed at five different hotels in Cameroon.  Every day was an 
adventure just getting to the set.  According to a local driver, as quoted in 
a press release, ``when a vehicle breaks down in the jungle, you can't simply 
call the Auto Club.''
   ``It was hard,'' says Hudson, ``but you adapt.  Once filmmaking begins...
once the dreams you create in the script are confronted with the cruel 
reality of production...you must adapt.  Scenes that you believe can be shot 
in a few days take a few weeks...baby chimpanzees don't always do what they're 
told...a local tribe decides that they can't perform on a particular day 
because the river gods are upset.  The unforseen difficulties are endless.''
  When the location shifted to Scotland for the scenes of Greystoke's 
introduction British society culture shock set in.  ``After spending months in 
the jungle, everything in Scotland seemed bizarre.  In a sense, we were all 
like Greystoke...trying to adapt to a culture that had become alien.''
   ``Such a simple thing as a bath...turning the faucet and watching clean 
warm water splash out...suddenly seemed the height of luxury,'' said Andie 
MacDowell, who plays Lady Jane Porter, in the ``Greystoke'' production notes.
   ``That's true,'' said Hudson.  ``When we shot the sequences in Scotland, 
after being in Africa, we had to re-adapt.  It created the feeling we needed
to make Christopher Lambert's job just a little easier.'' 
   Hudson has great respect for Lambert's performance in the title role.
``You coundn't cast someone who was known to the audience,'' said Hudson, 
running his hand through his silver hair.  ``If you cast Matt Dillon everyone 
would be seeing him run through the jungle rather than the character.  
Christopher Lambert has the eyes to play Tarzan.  As a director, you can 
change someone's body...their hair, their face...anything.  But you can't 
change the eyes and I believe Christopher has very strong, primitive eyes.  
You can tell what he's thinking through his eyes.''
   The phone rings and Hudson grabs it.  It's business.  After finishing the 
call, his mood has changed from the aims of the movie itself to its box office 
potential.
   He looked out the window at the snow from an early March storm.  ``I just 
hope that people see it for what it is...the story of a stranger in a strange 
land.  A myth...a myth about a man struggling to find his place in the 
world.''

[END]

Sill, at least it doesn't have John and Bo (the Dereks of Hazzard)
claiming that it's another artistic masterpiece.

The boys on Sneak Previews (PBS) reviewed Greystoke(...) last night.

One (who cares which one!?) gave it a lukewarm "yes", the other a
definite "no".

The "yes" voter liked the scenery, atmosphere, and loyalty to the source.

The "no" voter cited the lack of action, poor acting job by lead, and
overall boredom of the result.

Sounds like this might not be as good as we hope.

But, then again, who trusts critics?

-- Bill

PS: Is it my imagination, or does this Tarzan speak with a French accent?
I noticed that (in last night's clips) the person who finds him in the
jungle (played by Ian Holm) speaks with a definite French accent. Is this
to rationalize the Tarzan actors real accent (he picked it up from his
rescuer??). If so, double-blech!!

re. 10...Tis true...Chris Lambert is a Frenchman.  I personally like the 
french accent...you can always learn to like something.  (...I keep trying
to convince my husband that about French...mainly because I speak it fluently.
Only I've been out of practice for a few years.)

re .10 If you haven't done so already, read Burroughs' novel. Tarzan learned to
read English from picture books and primers that he found in his parents' cabin,
but, having no one to teach him how to pronounce it, he couldn't speak it. He
was eventually found by a French hunter/explorer, who, not knowing English, taught
Tarzan to speak French. I thought this a rather strange twist, that Tarzan could
read English, but not speak it, and speak French, but not read it. Eventually,
of course, he learns spoken english and written French, as well as other languages.
	I wouldn't put it past Hudson, or whoever is responsible for the casting,
to have picked Lambert (or any Frenchman, for that matter) for the role. The
French accent fits perfectly well with the part.

---jayembee (Jerry Boyajian)

I did notice in the previews I've seen that the film starts with a ship
wreck.  Now why the hell would they want to use a ship wreck instead of
the mutiny and such?  That mostly destroyed my hopes for it.  The actor
also doesn't look right (not big enough, to start with), and he was
swinging on ropes just like the old movie Tarzan.  However, I'll have to
give them some credit for the ape costumes - Tarzan's family looked
real good.  And they did show the locket, and Kala's baby's skull being
examined by someone (in more detail than implied by the book, however).
Overall I suppose it looks relatively accurate in the middle - but not
at the beginning or end.  I suppose we will soon see ...

	/dave

    I haven't read the books but I was impressed by the previews.  (Of course
they have an unfair advantage by using one of my favorite pieces of music for
background.)   If nothing else, it'll probably inspire my to read the books.
(I've made it past the embaressment of buying the mars books with all the naked 
women and swordwomen on them.  I suppose I'm up to buying "Tarzan".)  (Ever 
noticed how some good books get a bad rap?  When I got around to reading Dumas'
"Three Musketeers" a few years back, I put up with quite a bit of ribbing for 
reading it because 1) I was a woman(still am as a matter of fact) ans 2) I was 
an adult(?).  This is really strange since it's NOT a childrens book.  It's
actually got some racy scenes and lots of intrigue that would be lost on kids.)

Well enough of my neuroses.

tlh

I think the man who finds Tarzan in the jungle is a Belgian, not
a Frenchman.  Both would speak French.  (Never mind about the
Walloons, etc.)

 re:.16 Yeah, I think you're right, it was a Belgian. Ah well, details, details...

 re:.?? Having a shipwreck rather than a mutiny doesn't bother me. While a mutiny
was/is more interesting, it wasn't *that* important an element in the story, and
since a film is under some time constraints, the shipwreck is a much quicker and
easier situation to deal with. As to his swinging through the trees, it would've
been a rather difficult stunt for even seasoned stunt men to leap from branch to
branch as Tarzan (and Doc Savage, for that matter!) did in the novels. Again, the
vine-swinging is much easier and much less dangerous to pull off than the leaping.
These are mere pecadillos.

tlh: I shouldn't think that you'd garner that many strange looks by picking up
the Tarzan books, especially with a new movie out that will probably inspire many
people to buy the books. This reminds me of a guy I knew who was one of those
"one step from juvenile delinquency" tough guys. Once every one or two years, he
would read through the entire Tarzan series -- I think they were the only books
he ever read, but it was really croggling to see this guy reading Tarzan! Just
didn't seem the type, somehow...

---jayembee (Jerry Boyajian) [in temporary exile to AKOV75::]

I'm pretty sure the guy really was French - but then, it's been a few weeks
since I read the book, so I _could_ be mistaken ...

	/dave

"New 'Tarzan' mind over muscle" by Michael Blowen
[From The Boston Globe, Friday March 30, 1984 (p 13)]

    It took the film industry 66 years to get the Tarzan story right.

    In literally every "Tarzan" movie - from Elmo Lincoln's silent version in 
1918 to Ron Ely's moribund television series in the '60s - the Lord of the 
Jungle was portrayed as a capeless Superman.  He made the jungle safe for the 
animals while withstanding the slings and arrows of the natives and the rifle 
fire of the Great White Hunters.

    Hugh Hudson's "Greystoke:  The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" goes back
to the basic Burroughs story of a young lord who was raised by apes in Africa, 
discovered by a Frenchman on an expedition, educated in the English language and
sent to England to assume his rightful place in society.

    Hudson replaces the artificial chestbeating and vine-swinging with a 
serious, almost anthropological, depiction of the myth.  In fact, during the 
first hour, Hudson accomplishes the difficult task of making Greystoke's 
developmental years among the apes credible.

    Due primarily to artist Rick Baker's authentic costumes and the actors' 
ability to mimic apes, Greystoke's early years look more like a documentary from
primate researcher Jane Goodall than a Tarzan film.

    The authenticity of Greystoke's life with the apes is exquisitely detailed 
with moments of tenderness and drama.  When his adopted ape mother protects him 
from the atacks by other apes, we respond as if they were human.  When 
Greystoke, as a young man, battles a tyrannical ape for supremacy of the group, 
we root for him.  The expectations raised by the artistry of these sequences 
makes the latter portion of the movie seem hollow.

    If only Hudson was able to maintain this realistic fiction when Greystoke 
enters the aristocratic London world of the landed gentry, then "Greystoke" 
would be a remarkable masterpiece.  As it is, the non-verbal jungle sequences, 
when measured against the scenes in London, make you wish that Greystoke had 
never left Africa.

    The problem comes when Hudson turns his lens on London's rigid social 
structure and opens his microphone to record the stilted dialogue of characters 
who look like outtakes from Masterpiece Theater.  The audience, like Greystoke, 
is suddenly thrust into a mystifying environment.  However, instead of 
identifying with his dilemma, we're simply confused.

    Hudson surrenders art to a superficial dialectic contrasting the obvious 
freedom of the jungle with the stringent regulations of British society.  Should
Greystoke be re-educated to take his rightful place in life?  Should he renounce
his savage past for a life of sedate dignity?  Are his superior <italics> 
British genes strong enough to withstand the early years of living like an ape?

    Instead of dramatizing these questions as Truffant did in "The Wild Child," 
Hudson simply assembles the cast in a drawing room and leads a dull, meaningless
discussion.  No wonder Greystoke looks bored. After 30 minutes of scenes that 
limp along, we're ready to head for the jungle.  The contrast between so-called 
savagery and so-called civility is a complex issue that Hudson dismisses as if 
it were a political debate.

    Christopher Lambert is superb as Greystoke.  Unlike the muscular Johnny 
Weismuller, Lambert is lean and athletic.  His chiseled features and natural 
manner suggest the duality of Greystoke's personality.  In one of the film's 
best scenes, Lambert lets out with a primal scream after his ape mother is 
killed.  This touching moment indicts the artificiality of every Tarzan yell 
we've ever heard.  The yell has become a scream of anguish.

    In spite of its obvious deficiencies, "Greystoke" is so ambitious in scope 
that its minor sins must be forgiven.  Hudson has created a new, resonant myth 
from the silliness that was Tarzan.

Well, we went to see it this afternoon.

If you've read the book, you are liable to be disappointed.  The story
is nearly unrecognisable.OS
  Gone are the comic Esmeralda, the bumbling
professor Porter and Philander, the brave French soldiers trying to
rescue the lost, the mystery of the silent giant and the "unseen" but
articulate "Tarzan of the Apes".  In fact, Prof. Porter is never seen.
Tarzan's name is never spoken, and he does not meet Jane until D'Arnot
takes him to the Greystroke mansion (she is a ward of the family, it
seems).

D'Arnot was apparently a guide for a bunch of rather viscous hunters,
who shoot up the ape tribe before themselves being rather pointlessly
shot up by natives.  D'Arnot, shot several times with arrows, stumbles
off into the jungle and avoids the natives, to be discovered by Tarzan.
Since Clayton was only planning to be in Africa a single year, and by
all indications Alice was not pregnant (since the child is apparently
born about 10 months after their arrival), there are no primers in the
house for young Tarzan to study (although there are several child's
blocks, with "Ape" and "Boy" pictures).  Tarzan can not write or talk;
D'Arnot (in the movie is is NOT French - but in scanning through the
book again now, I see only reference to the Frenchmen, the French
Officers, etc.: D'Arnot is never picked out as being different) teaches
him to talk (apparently Tarzan is a natural mimic).

The book had so many different elements: drama, warmth, humor, all mixed
in.  The movie did OK with the drama, and some warmth in places; but
they totally missed the humor.  It was stodgy and uptight.  There was
no triumph when Tarzan finally killed old Terkoz (or was it?  Without
Jane to rescue, the context was lost).  The movie didn't succeed in
making it real.

On the positive side, Lambert did a fantastic Tarzan.  He was believable
(in the jungle) as a powerful and confident hunter.  His manner was
distinctly ape-like yet with the human enhancements he had learned.
The apes were unbelievable - or rather, they were completely believable.
If you thought 2001's apes were well-costumed, think again: Greystoke
has eclipsed them forever.  While they did move by vines instead of
travelling the branches, this was done effectively and convincingly -
no complaints there.

In short, Greystoke is an excellent movie.  It is _not_ by a long shot
the long-awaited faithful telling of Burroughs' Tarzan.  If you haven't
already read Tarzan, see the movie first.  You will like it (at least
until the English part).  _Then_ read the book: you'll like it more,
but at least you won't have spoiled a good movie by expecting too much
from it.

	/dave

    I can second that.  I had only read the first chapter or two of Tarzan
when I went to see it.  I was *very* impressed by the movie.  (Of course part
of this is because I've and chimps a lot. (I'm a user of sign language and
fascinated by the work being done with them.) The attention to detail is 
magnificent!  Several very exciting things about apes were casually thrown in.
(Use of tools like a stick to get termites out of the nest, leaves chewed up 
into a sponge to carry water,...) Also things like all the apes reaching to
the dominant male for reassurance after a fight or dominance display...  
Somebody really did his homework!)
     oops that should have been I've studied apes and chimps a lot...
    I enjoyed the movie and even saw some humor in it.  If you think the book
is even better,  then I know I'm in for a good read.

tlh

I was very disappointed by the movie. Although it is no doubt more accurate 
and better than any of its precursors (none of which I have seen) I felt 
that a talented director had completely wasted an opportunity. 

There were some good points - all the acting was good and Ralph Richardson 
was excellent. The chimps costumes were very good. I also enjoyed some of 
the early jungle sequences.

BUT

No real character development. I have not read the book (nor do I intend 
to). To be charitable maybe Hugh Hudson just followed the book too 
literally, including all its flaws. He could have taken the movie two ways 
- either as an enjoyable, more accurate, lighthearted Tarzan flick (in the 
mold of Superman/Raiders of the Lost Ark), or a serious study of the
pressures on someone who grew up in the artifical environment of the jungle
and is transferred to the equally artifical environment of the British
upper classes. In fact it fell down the middle - attempting to be serious
but failing completely. Along with a sizeable portion of the audience I
found myself laughing at the film, not with it. The movie took itself too
seriously - and failed. A waste of talent from a director who has proved
that he can do much better. 

Tim


The following is a discussion for anyone who has seen the movie or does not 
care if I give a ********************** SPOILER **************************



I am no expert on chimpanzees, but is one really likely to enter a hut and 
beat a human to death ?

The Belgian explorer after suffering a arrow in the leg and another 
piercing him completely from back to front made a remarkable recovery. he 
did not even seem to lose any blood, and when we saw him in the bar without 
a shirt there was no scar !

Greystoke's learning process was nothing short of miraculous, mastering 
English and French in an undefined, but shortish period.

Just so that I am not all negative - the bedroom scene between Greystoke and 
Jane was very good (I was quite aroused !), and the following shot of the 
flag at the top of the flag pole let us share our laughs with the director.

The scene in London ("He was my father") and the end of the movie could 
almost have come from Monty Python, or at least "Ripping Yarns".

I have no problem with movies that are not believable - I enjoy Superman, 
James Bond etc - but I do expect an internal consistency. Greystoke set 
itself up for a fall - and took it.

Tim

I tend to agree with many of the things said so far in this notesfile about
GREYSTOKE. It certainly wasn't the faithful adaptation we were lead to believe
it was! HOWEVER... it *was* true to the book in essence, and at least it tried
to bring some intelligence to the story.

What distressed me the most about it, though, was not a lack of attention to
details Burroughsian, but that it wasn't as good *as a film* as I had hoped it
would be. It was well-acted and beautifully photographed, but there seemed too
little coherence to the story, and the editing was very sloppy. The one thing
that infuriated me about the story was the all-too-common stacking of the deck
syndrome, here exemplified by making gentry life in England look like a dismal
prospect while life inn the jungle is one great lark. This reduces the conflict
between the two halves of Tarzan to a mere nothing; *any* fool would have chosen
the jungle! I felt bad for poor old deceased Lord Greystoke that his grandson
didn't go along with his "don't ever sell out" admonition.

I thought the movie was *good*, and I'm glad I saw it, but I have no particular
desire to see it again. I was really hoping for something better.

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian) [in temporary exile to AKOV75::]

PS. I thought the "bedroom scene" was erotic too, while at the same time, completely
in the bounds of good taste (the picture is PG after all).

for something better

As for the .25 comments about believability - first, they weren't chimps; the
attack in the house had a lot more precedence than the movie showed.  Among
other things, Greystoke had killed _many_ investigating apes prior to this,
not to mention other factors (ape behavior patterns) which help explain it.

As for D'Arnot's miraculous recovery, that was rediculous.  First off, in the
book, this particular tribe of natives (whose actions bore no resemblance to
the events of the book) used poisoned arrows ... one hit would have been quite
enough.  In the book they never shot him at all (though they were about to
"invite him for dinner" [in the quaint manner of social cannibals everywhere]
when Tarzan rescued him - I suppose they wanted to avoid that subject for
the movie).

Depending on your viewpoint, Tarzan's learning of language might have been either
more or less reasonable in the book.  He learned to READ and WRITE english
entirely on his own, over a period of over 10 years, from childrens' books
in the house.  Given a bright child, I don't believe this is impossible, but
it might stretch the imagination slightly.  When the europeans showed up,
they were quite puzzled, since they received a letter (posted on the door)
from "Tarzan of the Apes" in neatly printed, grammatical English - but the
only human to be found in the vicinity was a large grimy man who was kind
and helpful, but quite obviously knew no English.

After D'Arnot was determined to be missing, Tarzan figured the natives must have
gotten him, and went off to rescue him; and found him in such poor shape
that he could not be safely carried the long distance back to the shore.
He found a safe place (not near the apes, incidentally) to nurse him bck
to health.  During this period the rest of the European party gave them both
up and left.  D'Arnot and Tarzan made their way back to civilization by
themselves, and during this period D'Arnot taught him to SAY the words he
could already read and write fluently.  Unfortunately for Tarzan, since
D'Arnot was French, he taught Tarzan to pronounce the English words he
wrote - as French.  Therefore, on arriving in civilization (he sailed to
Paris with D'Arnot, and thense to the U.S. to find Jane, never actually
stopping -- much less staying -- at his family's home) he spoke French
fluently, and read and wrote English.  He was at this point slowly learning
to speak English and to write French.  The movie evidently decided that
this was all far too confusing for a movie -- probably true, when you consider
that the dialog had to all be in English anyway for our American audiences --
and just skipped the whole thing.  At least they found a French actor to
play Tarzan.

	/dave "I liked the book" butenhof

** Book vs. Movie Discussion *** SPOILT rotten by the book ***

I made the mistake of reading the book the night before I went to 
the movie.  I was impressed by the first part of the movie (growing
up with the apes), but the rest of the film I spent comparing it
to the book and wondering why they didn't stick closer to the
original plot.

The following is rather long and needs a
 ********** SPOILER ************ banner...

Throughout the movie the plot leaves that of the original for no
apparent reason, and usually to the detriment of the believability
of said plot.

In the book, Lord & Lady Greystoke were intending to go to Africa
for a period of several years and Little Lord Greystoke was a known
factor.  They packed enough material for schooling him during their 
stay.  These materials are what Tarzan learned English from.

In the movie, Lord & Lady Greystoke expect to be staying about a year.
They bring along a few baby blocks.  Thus Tarzan doesn't learn to
read and write on his own, and isn't very comfortable with a sophisticated
language.

In the book, the apes have a respectable fear of the Greystoke's hut,
which houses the deadly thunderstick.  The King of the Apes decides
he wants the thunderstick, which is why the apes approach the hut
(after they have become afraid of it).  Ms. Greystoke rescues her
husband once, shooting an attacking ape when he has forgotten his
gun.  This would have been a good suspense/action scene.  The shock
sends her off into the delirium from which she never recovers. 
Lord Greystoke senior is attacked again, when the apes make another
attempt to get the gun.  

In the movie, Ms. Greystoke gets malaria (OK, I'll live with it,
much less action than the saving the husband scene), and the apes
appear to attack for no reason.

The movie did a VERY good job with the apes.  The motivation of the
apes was a little murky, but that is to be expected.  I can't imagine
any way of getting the relations between Tarzan and the various apes
across, short of a narration or sewing name tags on the apes chests.

The book had a new Lord Greystoke (Tarzan's cousin), a professor,
the professor's daughter (Jane), and the professor's associate, and
Jane's governess (Esmerelda) coming to Tarzan's neck of the woods, in
much the same way that his parents did. Whilst marooned, we see some 
lighthearted humor and good plot development.  Jane is in love with
Tarzan's cousin, but is obligated to a man back in the States who 
lent her father the money for the expedition, etc.  They discover
Tarzan of the Apes, who leaves them written messages and meet the
wild ape man (no relation in their eyes).

The French navy comes to the rescue of the marooned people.
More action scenes... Tarzan rescues Jane and D'arnot.  
Jane falls in love with Tarzan in his natural element (having no idea
that he is Lord Greystoke). 

In the movie, we lose all these wonderful characters, and keeping a rather
flat D'Arnot.  A lot of the humor is gone.  I can see why one or two of
the characters may have been changed from the book.  Esmerelda was a large
'negress' who fainted a lot.  Making her white would have avoided the 
racism problem.  It seemed that the movie wanted to get Tarzan back
to civilization as quickly as possible, so they could dwell on Man vs.
Culture.  

The movie introduces a bunch of dull English people expounding on
culture vs. man's nature.  We meet the Greystoke family and Jane.
Jane falls in love with an uncomfortable, out-of-place
Tarzan, for no good reason.  

In the book, Tarzan doesn't even get to the family estate.  There is
no 'Gone with the Wind' speech from Gramps.  No great loss.

In the movie, D'Arnot lured Tarzan away from the jungle with a concept,
Family.  In the book Tarzan had a perfectly good reason for leaving the
jungle, he was in love with Jane (the first white woman he had ever seen).
The movie tried to get Tarzan to stay in civilization by stressing 
familial obligations (societal construct), while in the book Tarzan would
only think of staying while Jane would have him (a more primitive motive).

The movie spent far too much time trying to play up the wild man meets
society bit, sacrificing the elements that make a movie roll along in
a timely fashion : action and humour.   The second half of the movie
was deadly dull, didn't have any suspense, and seemed more like an
illustrated lecture.

The book was entertaining, but often pointed out the genes vs. upbringing
stuff.  The book maintained some suspense and mystery to the end.  It didn't
focus only on Tarzan, Jane's culture vs. instinct turmoil was studied also.
The book managed to support its plot as well.

The book is copyright 1912, but doesn't seem that dated. 

				Barbara

Went to see the movie this weekend. Some comments:

o  I agree with most of the points made previously about the films pacing
   (excellent first half, downhill from there), editing (real bad, several
   scene shifts that were *abrupt* to say the least), and acting (everyone
   fairly wooden except for Lambert and Ian Holm (D'Arnot)).

o  I thought several scenes were incomprehensible and should have been left
   on the cutting-room floor: the village scene as Tarzan and D'Arnot are
   making their way out of the jungle (you get the impression that the village
   was just on the other side of the mountain; there should have been some
   transition scenes of them making there way through the jungle); there were
   many more scenes of this ilk.

o  Who was that half-wit "boy" who attached himself to Tarzan at the estate?
   Is he in the book?? Was the director trying to say something there???

o  I think the director played up the "death of my father (or mother)" scenes
   too much. There were (by my count) three of them...

o  I found the scenes of Victorian life fascinating although mis-placed.
   I agree that anyone would rather live in the jungle.

o  Ralph Richardson was excellent in his rather abbreviated role. I was not
   aware that he had died last year until I saw the dedication in the final
   credits. A great actor!

Altogether, the previews for this film were better than the film itself.
I was surprised to find that the music from Holst's "The Planets" was *not*
used in the film. In the previews, the "Mars" theme *really* underscored the
scenes.

Ah, well, certainly better than the Dereks' effort...

Oh, yes, another point:

o  I didn't find the ape makeup to be all that good. The faces were very
   wooden and several of the "background" apes looked very artificial (part-
   icularly the one who greeted Tarzan on his return; was that the jungle's
   counterpart to the "half-wit boy"?).

-- Bill

re .30

The half-wit boy was not in the first Tarzan novel.  Tarzan didn't even
get to the estate in the first novel.  I don't know if he does get to 
the Greystoke estate in any of the later novels, I don't know if the
boy shows up in later novels either. Has anyone read any of the other 
novels?

The boy showing up just confused me, he didn't seem to have any relation
to anyone.  The continuity of the film as a whole was awful.

				Barbara

   I'm about a third to half the way through Tarzan now and I see where some of
the criticism is coming from. *However*, I do agree with some of the changes 
were made for the movie.  In reading E.R Burroughs Mars stuff and
    Oops!  Burroughs seems to try to be very scientific and rational about
the things that he rights at least as far as the background is concerned.
Witness the long explanations of how the airships of mars were able to fly.
I don't think he'd mind the changes made to the beginning based on scientific 
knowledge of apes.  Some of the changes were made to make it easier to film.
Some of them though, I haven't found a good reason for yet. (Such as the whole
schtick about Tublat his ape "father".  You can't hardly get any farther from
the story line.)
     In spite of its faults, I still liked the film, if for no other reason than
it was closer in spirit to the book than f'rinstance, the Derek abomination.

tlh
(Please forgive typos, right arm's in a sling.)

About the retarded boy: I'm not sure what Hudson (or the scriptwriters) were
trying to say with this character except that maybe the relationship between
Tarzan and the boy was to emphasize that relative to the Victorian gentry life-
style, Tarzan himself was "retarded" (socially speaking, not mentally, though
Jane's previous beau, for one, might have thought that Tarzan was mentally re-
tarded, too).

One other point: acccording to a recent STARLOG and CINEFANTASTIQUE, the P.H.
Vazak of the scriptwriting duo is a pseudonym used by Robert Towne as a means
of removing his name from the project (much like Ellison's "Cordwainer Bird").
According to a quote from hugh Hudson in the STARLOG article, the other writer,
Michael Austin, "worked on the film's British-Scottish elements." Hudson goes
on to say "Of course, the script's great power was the growing-up part of it,
.... Fundamentally, it was all Towne's idea,.... In my own way...I have been
faithful to Robert Towne."
	I infer from this that the "good parts" of the film (the jungle scenes)
were pretty much Towne's stuff, while the "bad parts" were the fault of the
other writer.

---jayembee (Jerry Boyajian)

Yesterday, All Things Considered on NPR had a brief review of the film. The
point was made that Robert Towne had been working for *years* to get this
movie made. Finally, the studio decided to make the film but took the direction
away from Towne. Pity.

I'm slightly confused. Was the old ape in the "museum scenes" really one of
Tarzan's troop? Was it really his "father", or was that just symbolism?

-- Bill

   According to the film,  he was the father.  (I even recognized the ape
before it said.  (The ape's name was Tublat meaning broken nose.  Said 
feature makes him easier to recognize.))  In the book, which I finished last 
night by the way, he kills the husband of his ape mother when he attacks her.
(He doesn't consider him his father.)
   Other things,  D'arnot is French not Belgian.  It is explicitly stated about
3 times around pp175and 176 in my edition.
   Reccomendation.  Read the book!!! It's a little slow going for the first few
pages(30-50pp.) but then picks up fast.  I was up way past my bedtime reading it
and would have gone right on to book two if it had been on hand. 
   If you've never read any E.R.Burroughs be warned the narrative style is a 
little different than what most of us are used to.  Also ERB has some 
biases that most writers wouldn't admit too even if they had them nowadays,
(english supremacy, streotypical blacks and women.)  Remember that A Princess of
Mars and Tarzan were both written in 1912 and give them achance to grab you.
They will.  I was truly impressed by how much Tarzan managed to interest me
even with all the scientific inaccuracy and outdated morals.  A good read!

tlh

As for the outdated morals and cultural biases - while its true that
Burrough's treatment of women in general and Esmeralda (Jane's black
servant) wouldn't quite pass as contemporary, nevertheless they were
far less negative than you'd see in many other novels even into the
1940s and '50s, and I found that it generally came across more as
personal weaknesses rather than racial or sexual (e.g., I don't remember
anything which told me he believed that _all_ blacks were like Esmeralda).

	/dave

See Philip Jose Farmer's "An Interview with Lord Greystoke"
for the definitive story.  The 'apes' are _not_ chimpanzees,
but homo habilis (they have a language, remember?).  This 
explains a lot.  More other good information is in the interview.

The book is better, no question.  But how many people are ever
going to read the book unless their interest is piqued by the
movie?
		---jkb

Ellison panned it,
he now doing movie reviews for F & SF (see august issue).

I found I was depressed at the end in part finding out the Actor playing
Tarzan's  grandfather had died.

-Andy-

I only wish some day somebody would do the REAL Tarzan. The makers of Greystoke
were too interested in making everything realistic. They took out all the great
coincidences, the stereotypical comic characters Like Archimedes Q. Porter, and
made the Mangani into a known species of ape, and made Tarzan over in the image
of a "realistic" feral child instead of the noble savage, or savage noble that
ERB wrote about.

JimB.

re .40 :

Hear hear!  I really missed Miss Porter's father & Phineas.  I didn't
mind Tarzan's realistic childhood in the movie, nor the way <mumble,mumble>
portrayed him as an adult.

Who should write the screenplay for the real, honest-to-goodness Tarzan?

Dino DeLaurentis would probably do a pretty good job directing/producing
it.  He understands both humor and heroic epics (witness _Flash_Gordon_
& the upcoming _Dune_).  He would also have the good sense not to create
something as boring as the second half of _Greystoke_.

			Barbara

    THIS NOTE IS COMING IN YEARS LATER BUT FINALLY SOMEONE WHO ALSO
    LIKES E.R. BURROUGHS, HE IS MY ALL TIME FAVORITE AUTHOR, THE MAN
    CAN DO NO WRONG, JUST WISH HE WAS STILL AROUND. AND THE MARTIAN
    SERIES WERE GREAT. YES THEY ARE SMALL BOOKS AND CAN BE READ IN A
    DAY BUT THEY ARE FUN READING. TALK ABOUT ESCAPING !!! ROBYN
    

    It's true that there will be no more from Burroughs, but perhaps you
    would enjoy a Burroughs-based fantasy role-playing game.  It's called
    "Space:1889," and is discussed, briefly, in ERIS::FRP, Topic 396.
    
    The general idea is an alternate history (and physics).  Around 1870,
    they successfully measured the speed of the Earth through the
    luminiferous ether.  Thomas Edison applied the resulting principles to
    invent the "ether flier."  He took this prototype spaceship to Mars and
    found it about as inhabitable as North Dakota, inhabited by chartruse,
    pointy-eared, humanoid Martians, living along the canals Percival
    Lowell had already mapped out.  In short order, the European powers
    have carved up Mars just as they were already carving up Asia and
    Africa, and "now" (in 1889) the largest holdings of the British Empire
    are India and Syrtis Lapis.
    
    The game is what you get if you stare at Kipling with one eye,
    Burroughs with the other eye, and cross your eyes.  For some reason,
    they never mention Burroughs himself.
    
    You will find the case shift and lock keys at the extreme left of the
    keyboard.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

>>>He took this prototype spaceship to Mars and
>>>found it about as inhabitable as North Dakota, inhabited by chartruse,
>>>pointy-eared, humanoid Martians, living along the canals Percival

   Speaking as someone who used to live on Mars, er ,ah North Dakota,
I resemble that remark ;-)


Fred
(former resident of Farout North Dakota)

p.s. and my ears are not THAT pointed!!

    Don't be over-sensitive about your ears.  Being chartruse,
    you must stand out in a crowd of DECies like a sore opposing digit.
    
    						Don

    Does anyone know where I might be able to find the paperback
    editions of Tarzan? (preferably within Eastern Massachusetts).
    
    I have a few of the books and would like to complete the collection.
    
    Thanks,
    B.

    Try ANNIE'S in Marlboro, rte 20, across from the Whit Hen Pantry on the
    East side of the city.  Coulda sworn there was a bunch of them there a
    month or so ago.
    							Don