79.14: Difference between revisions

Line 11:

Mailer later wrote the screenplay for the film version of 79.14, which was nominated for an Emmy. The four-hour adaptation, staring Tommy Lee Jones and Eli Wallach, appeared on NBC-TV on 28 and 29 November 1982. Rpt: Three sections of the narrative appeared in a different form in ''Playboy'' ([[79.10]], [[79.19]], [[79.33]]). Excerpts from five chapters are reprinted in ''The Time of Our Time'' ([[98.7]]). See [[68.8]], [[78.4]], [[:Category:Works in 1979|1979 entries]], [[81.5]], [[82.22]], [[94.3]], and [[13.2]], 503-22, 528-36.

~~Mailer:~~

{{cquote|You know, a painter may find something on the street that he thinks is incredible. Sometimes he'll glue it right into the painting. It becomes part of the work. In ''The Executioner's Song'', newspaper stories became part of the painting and part of the transcript of the trial—a lot of found objects. I felt acted upon, in a funny way, while doing this book, by painting terms. It was as if I'd shifted from being an expressionist, not an abstract expressionist, but an expressionist—like [Charles] Munch, or Max Beckmann . . . those kinds of painters who worked with large exaggeration and murkiness and passionate power—into now being a photographic realist, even a photographic realist with found objects. The reason, I think, is that a painter like a writer sometimes gets to a point where he can no longer interpret what he sees. Then the act of painting what he literally sees becomes the aesthetic act.|author=Norman Mailer |source=[[80.10]]}}

{{cquote|You know, a painter may find something on the street that he thinks is incredible. Sometimes he'll glue it right into the painting. It becomes part of the work. In ''The Executioner's Song'', newspaper stories became part of the painting and part of the transcript of the trial—a lot of found objects. I felt acted upon, in a funny way, while doing this book, by painting terms. It was as if I'd shifted from being an expressionist, not an abstract expressionist, but an expressionist—like [Charles] Munch, or Max Beckmann . . . those kinds of painters who worked with large exaggeration and murkiness and passionate power—into now being a photographic realist, even a photographic realist with found objects. The reason, I think, is that a painter like a writer sometimes gets to a point where he can no longer interpret what he sees. Then the act of painting what he literally sees becomes the aesthetic act. ([[80.10]])}}