JD101 wrote:Still-Rather-Timid wrote:Johnny's strategy of studying Hunter so intensely to play the role may have resulted in Johnny's Raoul being more Hunter than Raoul in the book.
Whoa! I had never thought of this! You have a very good point.
Reading the book before seeing the movie, I had no idea what Raoul (or Hunter, for that matter) really looked like other than a strange bald man on the back of a book jacket. I didn't know what he sounded like or what his mannerisms were. Now when I re-read the book I picture Johnny and Johnny is imitating Hunter. Are Hunter and Raoul that similar? I know RD had been described as a thinly veiled version of the author himself. I wonder how much of Johnny's portrayal is Raoul and how much is Hunter?
What was the question?
Oh, too little or too much information...
I think for Johnny, both are good. Too little info gives him the freedom to draw from his own personal sources and create something altogether new. That's gotta be fun!
Although it's probably more nerve wracking creating a character from the traits of a real live person, there must also be great satisfaction in creating a character close enough to the original that the original recognizes himself and admires and acknowledges the actor's work. Johnny got that with both HST and George Jung.
I remember when I first saw the movie, I thought it was funny and Johnny was very good--only because it was such a different role for him. What bothered me, though, was the fact that he mumbled so much. Then I saw Hunter for the first time in Breakfast With Hunter. Then it all became clear. And my admiration for Johnny went up a few more notches--as if it could go much higher. We'll say he went from a 4.0 to a 4.5 gpa. I wonder, though, what it would have been like to read the book first, without any preconceived notions.