Wright Movie

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
rgrant

Post by rgrant »

I am not impressed by Toker's research, and neither is Don Hoffmann, whose own book on Fallingwater is far better. Toker seems determined to be controversial. Like Gill, he imposes his own personality on the book. He also does not do a good job of examining the architecture of the house. He makes a lot about the stepped rail of the exterior stair to the third floor and some sort of imagined relationship to native American design. I would question everything in that book. E. J., Jr. was his own man, much more impressive than his father, and there is no good reason to doubt what he says.

Reidy
Posts: 1571
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Post by Reidy »

What is the word on Toker's book? He's too eager to find what he's already decided, and thus he draws stronger conclusions than his evidence will warrant, but has anyone found any serious inaccuracies?



The lack of architectural examination doesn't bother me. We have so much good material on this already, such as Hoffman's book and Edgar Jr's, but social history in this degree of detail, if it's accurate, is new and welcome.



PR

PNB GUEST

Post by PNB GUEST »

Ernest Borgnine as Olgivana - thats hillarious! :P

JimM
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

rgrant wrote:Oldham is too young to portray FLW in the 30s


True, but we are talking Hollywood, and I agree that his looks and performance in Immortal Beloved was uncannily Wrightesque. Hoffmans voice would have to be dubbed!



This is only one period in Wrights life and agree that a story about the house while more fascinating than those involved (other than Wright), would be difficult to market. Now if you went back to the prairie days....ego! fire! scandal! A natural.



I'd rather see a quality, comprehensive "biopic", especially after being disappointed by Burns. I imagine this has not been done due to both the unusual, long, and complicated career and personna of Wright.

rgrant

Post by rgrant »

There was a very fine biography done by BBC in the 80s, produced by Scotsman, Murray Grigor, narrated by none other than Anne Baxter. The only factual error in the entire film was that retractable skylight in the living room of Hollyhock House legend. It may be hard to find, since it was made before DVDs came onto the market, and probably has not been reissued in that format, but occasionally a copy shows up. Grigor did one thing that Burns did not: When showing the interior of a FLW house, he kept the camera moving, which gives a much more accurate image than a still photograph. He also did not interview Brendad Gill.

Guest

Post by Guest »

More mindless fun. By the way, Happy New Year to all. This morning's Chicago Tribune Magazine (p. 6) had the results of the poll on who should play Wright in a supposedly upcoming movie. Two good choices cited may be John Mahoney who according to the article lives in Oak Park of all places and Jeff Bridges. Bridges demeanor is perfect but his size may be a problem. However, I would think the film makers could deal with that.

jrdet10
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Detroit MI USA

FLW movie

Post by jrdet10 »

This isn't terribly constructive, but neither is eating potato chips ... and this isn't fattening.

How about Jeff Bridges not as FLW but as EK?

John Mahoney is a character actor, not the type I would expect to be able to carry a typical Hollywood production ... but for some reason I think he could get the job done in a small-budget indie.

I'd hire Dustin Hoffman or, if I wanted to go way outside the box, Robin Williams. And if Bridges has been suggested for FLW's part, then why not Christopher Walken?

Guest

Post by Guest »

One could not overcome Mr. Walken's NY accent. Spacey still a good choice.



Although this may appear as a mindless topic, if such a movie were

made and it was a considerable success, it could have implications for contributions, FLW home sales, course offerings... The Burns piece had such an effect to a lesser degree being a documentary and being offered on PBS. It also may be too bad that the proposed film will focus on a single period rather than a broader look at his life and work.

Bill Pardue

Post by Bill Pardue »

The Chicago Tribune magazine asked readers to suggest who should play Wright. See http://tinyurl.com/882ju. I thought Patrick McGoohan was an interesting suggestion.



What I'd really love to see is a film about life/work in the Oak Park studio. Besides Wright, I'd be fascinated in seeing who played Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony (especially!). Maybe Nicole Kidman with some extreme prosthetics (to play up the Aussie connection!).



--Bill Pardue

Bill Pardue

Post by Bill Pardue »

Missed the post a couple above mine...perhaps I need to read more closely! :?



Anyway, I did add the link for the article, so I hope that's considered a mild contribution!



--Bill Pardue

guestnow

Bruckheimer film

Post by guestnow »

I always figured that Jerry Bruckheimer could do a film about an earlier period in Mr. Wright's life than the Fallingwater period: the first Taliesin period. You've got murder and fire, which Bruckheimer would add his own "touch" to to make it seem as if Taliesin was filled with TNT when it burned: luxurious slow-motion fireballs taking up 1/3 of the film. If it "blows up real good", it is enough to satisfy the American film audience.

guestnow

Bruckheimer movie

Post by guestnow »

Also, in the climax of this film, you'd have a fistfight between Wright and the villain atop the "Romeo and Juliet" windmill that ends with the villain dangling by his fingers on the edge, eventually falling to his doom.



The film would also feature those trendy slo-mo "bullet time" action sequences of architect's pencils hitting the paper.

Guest

Post by Guest »

Not to mention the lurid * scenes between Wright and Ms. Chaney after he fled to Europe. Maybe imagined scenes of him visiting Geisha houses during his trips to Japan. Or sitting around the hookah in Baghdad with whoever was in charge back in the days when he was working on the plans for that city...

Spring Green

Re: Bruckheimer movie

Post by Spring Green »

*laughs*


guestnow wrote:The film would also feature those trendy slo-mo "bullet time" action sequences of architect's pencils hitting the paper.


Gene Masselink runs into the dining room and yells breathlessly, "Mr. Wright is drawing the commission for EJ!"



All the apprentices race out of the room to stand in awe outside the drafting studio.





"Jesus," Gene says, "I've never seen someone draw that fast!"



[ok, we're back into Fallingwater, but I suppose you could take the same scene for Midway Gardens, or the Arch Obeler cottage, or any # of others.]

guestnow

Post by guestnow »

Anonymous wrote: Or sitting around the hookah in Baghdad with whoever was in charge back in the days when he was working on the plans for that city...


If directed by Oliver Stone, Wright's visit to Baghdad would be a cover for some sort of proto-CIA operation that ends up putting in place an exact plan to bring about both Gulf/Iraq Wars decades later.

Post Reply