Different Cut???
Hoffman was denied the final cut after filming and sued Warner Bros for it, saying that they ruined the film.
Does anyone know how Hoffman would have made it different?
I don't know too many details, but he does say on the DVD commentary that he wanted the film to begin with Max in prison, showing the pretty comfortable life he had made for himself inside.
It sounds like he probably wanted the film to stay closer to the tone of the book- grittier and less melodramatic.
"He does say on the DVD commentary that he wanted the film to begin with Max in prison, showing the pretty comfortable life he had made for himself inside."
I would have loved that scene too, because it'd make the movie closer to the novel, which I loved reading.
The bit in the commentary when he said he'd have a prison "fish" rubbing oils on his back made me smile. :)
Did you guys really think the movie as is was that melodramatic? I've read Eddie Bunker (though, not yet No Beast So Fierce) and I thought the flick was appropriately edged. The only thing I can really see as verging on melodramatic would be Gary Busey's final moment. Even Harry Dean Stanton's death was pretty low-key.
shareRelatively speaking to most movies, even the cinema of the 70s which is the edgiest and most realistic Hollywood has ever been, no, it was definitely NOT melodramatic. But compared to the novel, I do think they added some melodramatic elements. They may have been necessary to move it from page to screen, it's hard to tell.
For instance, Max's need to keep pushing the time on the robberies, that was not in the book (he was always looking for opportunities for scores, and he made a few impulse moves, but overall he was very alert and professional as a thief). It's like the movie couldn't trust the audience to understand his character without depicting him as an action junkie. This might be reinforced by the last line (and thanks for answering in that thread) which I think you're right- he does say "I wanna get caught".
But it's kind of like when Bukowski saw Barfly, which he wrote the screenplay for, and which strived hard to create that world unflinchingly, he griped about the few details they got wrong. It's like they see this chance to really show these people and this life as they know it, one that's never been seen in movies, and it's Hollywooded up just enough for the real cons (or drunks, or whoever) to see the difference. Part of you can't help but think "you were so close, but just missed."
I'm not trying to diminish the movie at all- I love it. But I think it could have used just a little more of whatever 'Fat City' had.
*Part of you can't help but think "you were so close, but just missed."*
Yea man I totaly agree! Tho I thought the movie was good it wasn't anywhere near as f ucking great the book was! Hoffman delivered the frustration of Max with his parole officer although they dint give enough of the reasons why Max f ucking hated his PO so much E.g when Max was left in prison for so long in jail after he had the drug test and when he came out and his PO just said "Oh sorry you were in there for so long, I've just got back from holiday" things like that and when Max was acting like a noob criminal being too long robbing and for killin willy just for losing his nerve, in the book he kills him because he sold him to the cops, or he thought he did.
So whats the commentary like, is it worth buying the DVD?
I just finished reading NBSF and its great. It has Dustin Hoffman on the cover even though the title is not Straight Time. It's "No Beast So Fierce"