Something Bitchy This Way Comes
Yeah, this is an old story, but since it’s one of the headlines on CNN, it’s worth revisiting :
Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel “Fahrenheit 451″ without permission and wants the new documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11″ to be renamed.“He didn’t ask my permission,” Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. “That’s not his novel, that’s not his title, so he shouldn’t have done it.”
The 1953 novel, widely considered Bradbury’s masterpiece, portrays an ugly futuristic society in which firemen burn homes and libraries in order to destroy the books inside and keep people from thinking independently.
. . .
Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is “hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he’ll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title.”
. . .
Bradbury’s book was made into a 1966 movie directed by Francois Truffaut. A new edition of the book is scheduled for release in eight weeks, Bradbury said, and plans are in the works for a new film version, to be directed by Frank Darabont.
As many people have pointed out, Bradbury “borrowed” the title “Something Wicked This Way Comes” from Shakespeare and ” I Sing The Body Electric” from Walt Whitman, so it’s not like he’s got firm ground to stand on here. It’s made even more ludicrous by Ray’s insistence that Michael “give back” his book, as if Fahrenheit 451 itself was stolen.
What I think is even crazier is that I had no idea Truffaut made that movie. Is it any good? I had just assumed that the only versions of 451 that had made it to the screen were cheesy TV movies made in the 70s.
7 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
the truffat movie is great. it’s a little cheesey in retrospect (like many old sci-fi movies) but it’s still a really great movie. and a very good adaptation of the book. due to the limitations of SFX at the time, they left out Ray’s robot dogs (which i think were the cheesiest part of the book) and i think it works even better that way.
Ray’s a big cry-baby. seems like he’s just trying to drum up publicity for the re-release of his book. his whole argument is ridiculous.
Comment by tom — June 21, 2004 @ 12:12 pm
I think Ray Bradbury is worried about the damage that Michael Moore’s movie might do to his book’s reputation, people confusing the two products, which is an honest-to-goodness intellectual property worry. I don’t think he has much to worry about though.
Comment by E-Rock — June 21, 2004 @ 12:59 pm
There’s way more going on with this whole thing than just mere grumpiness. Doing my part to spread rumors and intrigue, I simply had to blog it.
Comment by Amanda — June 21, 2004 @ 2:37 pm
The movie is great.
Oskar Werner’s performance as the conflicted Montag torn between his job of enforcing ignorance and his thirst for knowledge is first rate.
Julie Christie plays both Montag’s vaccuous wife as well as his subversive, intelligent, book-reading girlfriend – the dual role dichotomy extremely effective with an actress of such range.
Cyril Cusak nearly steals the show though as Montag’s boss. Thoroughly corporatized, he argues the party line with a passion that would make even the most die-hard Bushie envious.
Truffaut’s direction is very stylized and sometimes borders on absurdism, but complements well the ‘up-is-down’, ‘firemen start fires’ theme. His creepy depiction of the sacchrine, perfect home predates the first ‘Stepford Wives’ movie by more than a decade. I especially liked the scene where Montag and his wife are watching television and she gets to ‘participate’ in the teleplay.
The script is faithful to the book but, like most adaptations, is not literal. Still, the movie perfectly captures the image of an underground resistance striving mightily to preserve the knowledge and wisdom of the past against the full tide of a totalitarian society that lauds ignorance as virtue. Bloggers take note.
____
As far as Bradbury is concerned, it sounds to me like he’s playing up his ‘outrage’ to ride the running boards of the vast publicity wagon accompanying the release of Moore’s documentary. It is perfectly plausible, as Amanda suggests, that Bradbury would use whatever ancillary notariety the title suggests to spur Mel Gibson into producing a remake, or at least sell a few more copies of the book -which is well worth the purchase if you don’t already have a copy.
Comment by Night Owl — June 21, 2004 @ 7:28 pm
Oh, come on! Farenhight 451 is a pretentious lame-o book that pompously wallows in its own fraudulent prescience.
See, it’s all about this future where intellectuality of any kind is regarded as so inherently dangerous that books are burned by the fire department so that the minds of the population at large becomes ever more crimped and defenseless by relentless entertainment distractions and disinformation.
It’s times like these that I thank God for President Ronald Reagan who ended the cold war and left office the most popular president in history and who, unlike some presidents I could name, took responsibility for his error in Iran Contra by heroically explaining that he forgot all about trading arms for hostages.
And yet people still persist in taking Bradbury seriously.
Disgusting.
Comment by Hieronymus Braintree — June 22, 2004 @ 9:30 am
I was going to add my review of F451 the movie, but everything Night Owl said is right on. Definitely one of the better sci fi films of the era.
Comment by Mark Spittle — June 22, 2004 @ 11:09 am
If you write or create for a living one can be quite attached to one’s creations. Moore is safe with a satire and social commentary as a defense but Brad has a point that his movie and book re-release are his bread and butter.
Comment by robert — June 23, 2004 @ 10:18 am