How many perfectly conceived works of literature, art or cinema can you think of? Understand that by 'perfectly conceived' I don't necessarily mean productions of great originality or profundity, Grosskunstwerke that will last the ages. I mean books, films or paintings that achieve exactly what they set out to achieve, even if that goal is quite modest in scope.
I have been thinking about this having just reread and rewatched the novel and 1973 movie adaptation The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth. I make no sweeping claims about either; Forsyth is not likely to join the Western Civ canon anytime soon, and the movie is quite conventional in style. But I think 'Jackal' is a - the - perfectly conceived thriller, whatever that is worth. I am assuming that most people here will have already seen it or perhaps even read it, but as a quick recap, the story is about a mysterious professional assassin (codenamed the Jackal) who in 1963 is hired by the OAS (a group of extreme-right French ex-servicemen and civilian sympathizers furious about the 'abandonment' of Algeria) to kill President de Gaulle. The novel and movie follow the killer's plot, from his initial extensive pre-planning to the final execution of the hit; a parallel manhunt story develops as the French police get wind of the scheme and desperately seek out the Jackal before he can get within rifle-shot of the President. As I say, there is nothing particularly notable about Forsyth's literary style, either on the page or in its onscreen incarnation. But I defy any thoughtful viewer not to be utterly compelled by the story. There is little overt violence, and many of the details - the Jackal's assumption of various disguises and his preparation of false passports and papers, etc. - are quite pedestrian in themselves. But there is something fascinating about the slow, slow build-up of tension. Everyone behaves intelligently in the story, which is not to say that they always make the right decisions; but their decisions make sense given the limited information that they have, and there are no MacGuffins or outrageous coincidences thrown in to keep the plot on track. Everything seems to unravel in a way that makes you think: yes, this is really how it would have been. I should add that there is one critical red herring which is only revealed in the closing moments of the story, and which demonstrates that one can be on completely the wrong track and yet still draw, more or less by accident, the correct conclusion anyway. If I had to draw up a 'desert island' list of books or movies and I wasn't trying to impress anyone then Jackal would be on it every time.
Other suggestions for minor but perfectly conceived stories/films etc.?
UPDATE: Click here to hear Forsyth discuss the book in a 2004 BBC World Service interview.
Posted by Alan Allport at February 23, 2005 11:54 AMI skipped a load of classes one Autumn day in 1972, sitting in a dorm lounge and reading The Day of the Jackal. I saw the film years later and found it didn't engage me on an emotional level, which probably was the point.
Funny you mention the lack of MacGuffins because the one film I have always considered perfectly realized is Hitchcock's Rear Window.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at February 23, 2005 12:41 PMthe movie is quite conventional in style
The movie is not conventional in style and is quite brilliant.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at February 23, 2005 01:09 PMWhy can't it be conventional in style and brilliant?
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at February 23, 2005 01:12 PMWhat I mean, Alan, is that there's nothing cinematically 'clever' about it - no spectacular or innovative shots, nothing out-of-the-ordinary about the dialogue, etc.
Posted by: Alan Allport at February 23, 2005 01:13 PMWhy can't it be conventional in style and brilliant?
Sorry if I gave the impression somehow of holding such a stupid view. Pretend I said "not conventional and what's more it's brilliant" or something to that effect. Can never be too careful in the Blogosphere about such things.
What I mean, Alan, is that there's nothing cinematically 'clever' about it - no spectacular or innovative shots, nothing out-of-the-ordinary about the dialogue, etc.
By clever I think you mean flashy, don't you? I can certainly agree with you there.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at February 23, 2005 01:32 PMI'm trying to understand if the measure Alan A. has in mind for "perfect" here is wrt structure rather than writing quality. If so I wonder if the Harry Potter series might qualify. It was reputedly plotted out from start to finish before the actual writing even started, and it suceeds beautifully in punching a huge number of high-fantasy and adventure-story buttons that were designed and built by other storytellers long ago. So the quality of the actual sentences doesn't matter to most readers.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at February 23, 2005 01:43 PMJackal The Movie has an amusing bit at the beginning when De Gaulle's car comes out of some gates and two extras realise that it's De Gaulle and HILARIOUSLY overact their recognition with pointing and looking at each other. Unusually sloppy for Zinneman. It's a good film to come across on late night tv.
Jackal the book: Surprised at Al taking it to a desert island. I remember standing in the WH smith's at Victoria when I was about 18 and buying that because the first page grabbed me hard. Only ever read it once but i've met people who've re-read it. He makes heavy weather of his research. The Odessa File is a gripping read too.
Dial M For Murder is a great film for watching Ray Milland's carefully worked out scheme, and the fatal flaw. Hitchcock buffs don't always rate it but I am always hooked.
Posted by: Airbrushed By The Commissars at February 23, 2005 02:46 PMI never liked how rushed and sloppy the "courtroom" scene was in Dial M. As if it were this inconvenience that had to be dealt with. But the scene where Milland squeezes the murderer into the plot is Hitchcock playing his best game.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at February 23, 2005 03:36 PMIt succeeds beautifully in punching a huge number of high-fantasy and adventure-story buttons
Is there such a thing as low fantasy? (No, really, is there?)
Posted by: Alan Allport at February 23, 2005 03:41 PMAnyone have a Hitchcock film they particularly hate? Mine is Spellbound. That one was pretty bad.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at February 23, 2005 04:32 PMIs there such a thing as low fantasy? (No, really, is there?)
Probably. Setting aside the ruder ideas about "low fantasy" that spring to mind, there's the idea that "high fantasy" is the stuff involving grammatically correct Middle English, adventures extrapolated from real-world epics, and heroes who can be distinguished from villains by their conduct as well as the color of their hats. By comparison with which, low-grade outer-space-war stories for example are, yes, low fantasy.
The grammar matters, as does the subject-matter. This is LeGuin in my favorite essay of hers, "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie":
...After all these metaphors and generalities, let us get down to some examples; let us read a little fantasy.
This is much easier to do than it used to be, thanks very largely to one man, Lin Carter of Ballantine Books, whose Adult Fantasy Series of new publications and reprints of old ones has saved us all from a lifetime of pawing through the shelves of used bookstores somewhere behind several dusty cartons between "Occult" and "Children's" in hopes of finding, perhaps, the battered and half-mythical odd volume of Dunsany. In gratitude to Mr. Carter for the many splendid books, both new and old, in his series, I will read anything his firm sends me; and last year when they sent me a new one, I settled down with a pleasant sense of confidence to read it. Here is a little excerpt from what I read. The persons talking are a duke of the blood royal of a mythical Keltic kingdom, and a warrior-magician -- great Lords of Elfland, both of them.Of course it might be argued that LeGuin is talking about what is and isn't high fantasy, not what's high and what's low. If so, then maybe I'd better ask a different question: is there such a thing as *good* low fantasy? Am wondering e.g. if the cyberpunk genre (Blade Runner/William Gibson) would count as "low fantasy" or even the *1984* kind of dystopia, or *A Canticle for Leibowitz* -- the "I have seen the future and it's busted" approach. Whadda people think?"Whether or not they succeed in the end will depend largely on Kelson's personal ability to manipulate the voting.""Can he?" Morgan asked, as the two clattered down a half-flight of stairs and into the garden."I don't know, Alaric," Nigel replied. "He's good -- damned good -- but I just don't know. Besides, you saw the key council lords. With Ralson dead and Bran Coris practically making open accusations -- well, it doesn't look good.""I could have told you that at Cardosa."At this point I was interrupted (perhaps by a person from Porlock, I don't remember), and the next time I sat down I happened to pick up a different kind of novel, a real Now novel, naturalistic, politically conscious, relevant, set in Washington, D.C. Here is a sample of a conversation from it, between a senator and a lobbyist for pollution control."Whether or not they succeed in the end will depend largely on Kelson's personal ability to manipulate the voting.""Can he?" Morgan asked, as the two clattered down a half-flight of stairs and into the White House garden."I don't know, Alaric," Nigel replied. "He's good -- damned good -- but I just don't know. Besides, you saw the key committee chairmen. With Ralson dead and Brian Corliss practically making open accusations -- well, it doesn't look good.""I could have told you that at Poughkeepsie."Now, I submit that something has gone wrong. The book from which I first quoted is not fantasy, for all its equipment of heroes and wizards. If it was fantasy, I couldn't have pulled that dirty trick on it by changing four words. You can't clip Pegasus' wings that easily -- not if he has wings...
Pls btw forgive wordiness. It has been a difficult day. I just barely caught myself typing "chief counsel lords" in the above.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at February 23, 2005 08:35 PMI never liked how rushed and sloppy the "courtroom" scene was in Dial M.
That's what I like about Hitch (I don't know whether he toned it up or down from the play): the little boring bits are ruthlessly smoothed down. The classic example of this is when Cary Grant pulls Eve Marie Saint up from Mount Rushmore and onto the train in North By Northwest, thus finishing the film with great style and brevity.
Psycho's an example of something that does what it sets out to do perfectly.
Chinatown would go on my list.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at February 24, 2005 08:33 AMI too was going to mention Rear Window. But was beaten to it by Bobby. I think it is quite brilliant. Most Hitchcock films are flawed in some way or other in a way that people either ignore or choose to ignore. This isn't.
It is also, btw, the best ever WatchingInBed film. Probably because it is all from James Stewart's perspective - laid up and powerless to do anything but observe.
Haven't seen Dial M for Murder in a long long while, so cannot comment on that.
Posted by: Nigel Nichols at February 24, 2005 10:46 AMIs it possible the 1970s film innovations were made out of frustration with the need to be "perfect" in this manner? Something like "Five Easy Pieces" or "McCabe and Mrs. Miller," for example -- those films have oversize goals that they fulfil *almost* well enough and if you can see the gaps -- well, on a good recording of a guitar solo you can hear the slapping and gliding sounds of fingers on the strings along with the music and that's actually OK.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at February 24, 2005 10:59 AMI mean books, films or paintings that achieve exactly what they set out to achieve, even if that goal is quite modest in scope.
I seem to remember Vonnegut line saying something once about every artist needing to come to terms about what he can't do on the canvas. Many books, movies, paintings, even television shows succeed, not because they are flawless, but because their creators resist the temptation to rise to the level of their incompetence.
I seem to remember Vonnegut line saying something once
me talk pretty some day
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at February 24, 2005 01:11 PM[I]s there such a thing as *good* low fantasy?
I certainly think that the early Myth series by Robert Asprin would count, before it got smarmy, anyway. Though for me it has to avoid my pet peeves, or else I refuse to touch it.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at February 24, 2005 01:26 PMWot's Robert Asprin like or do I want to know?
And would Michael Moorcock qualify as "low fantasy"?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at February 24, 2005 01:48 PMHe does humor that's not as pun-centric as the Xanth series. And none of the characters have names like "Gr'Whug" indicating their mystical bond with some stupid aardvark or something.
At any rate, I remember enjoying it, but it's hard to evaluate books you discovered in your teens.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at February 24, 2005 04:52 PM