“For me, it was quite clear in the book that he was dark skinned,” director Andrea Arnold told Film4. “He gets called a little Lascar, which would have been an Indian seaman, and Nelly says, ‘Who knows but your father was Emperor of China, and your mother an Indian queen’… I think his difference was certainly very important in my story and very important in the book.”
The movie’s trailer is atmospheric, with many shots of the moors and only glimpses into the story. It shows the young actors who play Catherine and Heathcliff, Shannon Beer and Solomon Glave, playing; Glave being beaten; and Howson as Heathcliff returning to the area and meeting Catherine as an adult.
“Wuthering Heights” has a 79 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and many reviewers noted how different the movie was from a usual costume drama. Some approved of this deviation, while others did not. Time reviewer Mary Corliss called the adaptation “faithful and bold” and said that casting a black actor in the role of Heathcliff was the project’s main strength.
For some critics, however, the dynamics between the leading couple were a problem. “What I found more of a problem was the faint stiffness and self-consciousness of the acting and the crucial lack of chemistry between the adult Heathcliff and Cathy,” Guardian reviewer Xan Brooks wrote. “We need to believe in this love in order for Arnold's gloriously bruised and brooding vision to properly hit home and I never did, quite.”
Telegraph reviewer Robbie Collin said he “loved it” and that “Andrea Arnold’s film certainly boasts the bonnets, romance, shots of the English countryside and 19th-century source material that are the form’s hallmarks; but it’s also strange, profane.”
However, Daily Mail critic Chris Tookey said that Brontë wouldn’t have intended her protagonist Heathcliff to be black and that because this decision made the story about race, not class, the story isn’t what the author would have wanted.
“Along with believability, period accuracy and faithfulness to the novel, Arnold sacrifices clarity. The performances are poor and opaque, so it’s hard to know what, or whether, anyone is thinking,” he wrote.
Think David Foster Wallace is untouchable?
Think again. “American Psycho” author Bret Easton Ellis tore into the late author of the critically acclaimed “Infinite Jest” and “The Pale King” on Twitter last week, and in true Ellis fashion, he didn’t hold back.
“Reading D.T. Max’s bio I continue to find David Foster Wallace the most tedious, overrated, tortured, pretentious writer of my generation,” Ellis tweeted. “David Foster Wallace was so needy, so conservative, so in need of fans – that I find the halo of sentimentality surrounding him embarrassing.” In several more tweets, he continued, “DFW is the best example of a contemporary male writer lusting for a kind of awful greatness that he simply wasn’t able to achieve. A fraud.”
Ellis’s comments came on the heels of a new biography of the late author, D.T. Max’s “Every Love Story is a Ghost Story: A Life of David Foster Wallace.” (See our review of the biography here.)
In the midst of reading the bio of Wallace, who took his own life in 2008 after a lifelong battle with depression, Ellis told his 300,000 Twitter followers, “OMG is the solemnity of the David Foster Wallace myth on a purely literary level sickening.”
He then turned his attention to DFW fans, saying: "Saint David Foster Wallace: a generation trying to read him feels smart about themselves which is part of the whole bullsh** package. Fools.”
Who does Ellis think he is “being exceptionally hostile and ungenerous toward a tragically tormented writer who, having hanged himself, is in no position to defend himself,” writes Salon.com’s Gerald Howard (who, incidentally, edited both Ellis and Wallace when they were starting out).
For starters, anyone familiar with Ellis knows he’s no stranger to the shock-and-awe method of courting controversy.
He is, after all, the guy who in 2010 suggested women are inherently ill-equipped for directing movies. The guy who just last month declared Matt Bomer unfit for playing the title role of Christian Grey in the film adaption of “50 Shades of Grey,” because he is gay. And the guy who, hours after J.D. Salinger died, tweeted, “Yeah! Thank God he’s finally dead. I’ve been waiting for this day for-****ing ever. Party tonight!”
But there’s more here than meets the eye. Ellis and Wallace are literary rivals that go way back, and Ellis’s hostile tweets are just the latest in a two-decades-old exchange of literary beef.
In 1988, Wallace criticized Ellis’s first published essay, calling Ellis and his category of novelists “Catatonics” for their “naïve pretension,” according to Slate. “Wallace’s argument, characteristically, defies easy summary,” Slate’s Forrest Wickman writes, “…but, in the context of literary critical essay,” is damning.
A few years later, Wallace laid into “American Psycho” in an interview with Larry McCaffery, saying it “panders shamelessly to the audience’s sadism for a while, but by the end it’s clear that the sadism’s real object is the reader itself…You can defend ‘Psycho’ as being a sort of performative digest of late-eighties social problems, but it’s no more than that.”
“Alternating between PR stunt, outright bullying, vigorous intellectual debate, and exercise in ego-bashing and boosting, literary feuds are nothing if not pure bibliophilic entertainment,” we once wrote in a post on Paulo Coelho’s attack on James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” calling the feuds “as old as literature itself.”
Perhaps, but we’re more inclined to heed the reasoning of The Guardian’s Barbara Ellen.
“It could be that they’re feeling a bit bored, their lives and careers aren’t as exciting as they once were,” she writes, “the coffee is cold, the croissant not delicious enough, and mischievous people are encouraging them, telling them that their bratty behavior and ill-thought-out rantings are 'a breath of fresh air!'”
“They mouth, off, in the process,” she continues, “making themselves look ridiculous and just a tad obsessed with their targets.”
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.
Public bookshelves have come to New York City, courtesy of architect John H. Locke.
Starting last year, Locke has repurposed four New York City phone booths by fitting them with bookshelves. Passers-by are free to borrow or take the books on the shelves as they like. Locke has an acquaintance in Brooklyn cut the shelves and he paints them, then installs them in the pay phone area.
Locke says the shelves remain there for a certain period of time, then vanish.
“It’s a spontaneous thing that just erupts at certain locations,” he said of the shelves in an interview with The New York Times. “People like it, people are inspired by it, but then it disappears again.”
He prefers early mornings for installing the shelves.
“There aren’t a lot of people out,” Locke said. “You can just go down, find a good booth, carry it out, latch it in. It takes seconds.”
Last October, Germany saw various public bookshelves spring up in cities all over the country.
Late Thursday, Federal Judge Denise Cote approved a settlement between the Justice Department and three major publishers in a landmark opinion in the e-book price-fixing case.
The settlement includes Hachette Book Group, Simon & Schuster, and HarperCollins and orders the three publishers to terminate their contracts with Apple within a week. It also orders them to terminate contracts with “most favored nation” clauses, which prohibit other retailers from selling books for less. The publishers must also refrain for two years from entering any new contract that puts limits on a retailer’s ability to price e-books.
The settlement comes as a result of the Justice Department’s accusation that Apple and five publishers illegally conspired to fix the price of e-books in an attempt to unseat Amazon from market dominance. Penguin Group USA, Macmillan, and Apple did not agree to the settlement and will fight the suit in court next summer.
Judge Cote’s decision came despite “voluminous and overwhelmingly negative” comments on the case and the proposed settlement, but Cote defended her decision.
“Some comments were filled with extreme statements, blaming every evil to befall publishing on Amazon’s $9.99 price for newly released and bestselling e-books, and crediting every positive event – including entry of new competitors into the market for e-readers – on the advent of agency pricing,” Cote wrote in her 45-page opinion. “Even if Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing, this is no excuse for price-fixing,” she continued, asserting that “the familiar mantra regarding ‘two wrongs’ would seem to offer guidance in these circumstances.”
The decision comes as a decisive victory for Amazon, whose pricing model Apple and five publishers attempted to topple with its agency pricing plan. The e-retailing giant is expected to drop the price of many e-books back to $9.99 or lower following the decision, pressuring competitors to do the same.
But Cote’s opinion was seen as a blow for hundreds of other parties, including the Authors Guild, the American Booksellers Association, Barnes & Noble, and other e-book retailers who opposed the settlement. In their formal complaints, these parties predicted the settlement would return the e-book marketplace to where it was several years ago when Amazon controlled close to 90 percent of the market and other retailers were marginalized.
“It’s devastating to bookstores,” executive director of the Authors Guild Paul Aiken told the Wall Street Journal. “For two years the settling publishers must allow vendors to discount e-books at any price they want. The court acknowledges that this restores the status quo conditions before 2010, when Amazon was able to capture 90 percent of the e-book market. The Justice Department is reshaping the literary marketplace without submitting a single economic study to the court to justify its actions.”
As for consumers, the jury’s still out. Critics of the settlement say it will harm consumers in the long-run by creating an e-book market monopolized by Amazon. But readers will see an almost-immediate benefit: restitution for e-books purchased between April 1, 2010 and May 12, 2012, and more importantly, rapidly falling prices on e-books.
“The approval opens the door for Amazon and other retailers to steeply discount e-book titles,” the WSJ reported, which, means “other retailers, like Barnes & Noble, could feel pressure to respond,” added the New York Times.
“I think everybody competing with Amazon in the e-book market had better fasten their seat belts,” Mike Shatzkin of the Idea Logical Company, a consultant to publishers, told the NYT. “I would expect Amazon to be leading the charge to cut prices on the most high profile e-books as soon as the decision allows them to do so. As soon as that starts to happen, all the books that are competing with them will have to reconsider their prices.”
As the Atlantic’s Adam Martin wrote, “Hello, e-book price war.”
Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.
Jeff Bezos, the Amazon CEO, introduced the new devices during a press conference in Santa Monica, Calif. yesterday. In addition to the Kindle Paperwhite, a black-and-white device that lets you read in the dark and which Bezos described as “thinner than a magazine and lighter than a paperback,” the company is adding a Kindle Fire HD device, which will come in models that are 7 inches and 8.9 inches, respectively.
The 7-inch model will be 16GB and the 8.9-inch version will be available as a 16GB model, both of which will be with Wi-Fi, or one with 32GB, which will come with 4G LTE connectivity.
The Kindle Paperwhite is available in both Wi-Fi and 3G options. The Wi-Fi version will come in at $119 and the 3G model will cost $179. The 7-inch Kindle Fire HD will be $199, while the 16GB model of the 8.9 inch version will be $299 and the 32GB will be $499.
The Kindle Fire originally released by the company will now be $159 and have double the RAM and an upgraded processor that is expected to give speeds that are 20 percent faster.
The Kindle Fire HD will include new features such as the X-Ray option for movies, which allows users to tap on an actor in a film and be taken to his or her IMDb page to see other credits. X-Ray for textbooks is also available, in which a reader can select a word and be taken to its Wikipedia entry, videos on YouTube related to it, and other Internet instances of the word.
The Kindle Touch device will now be $69 but also contain advertisements.
Toronto-based Kobo announced Thursday it is launching a new tablet and e-reader in the coming months as it seeks to expand its US market share and compete with Amazon and Apple, both of which are expected to unveil new tablets soon.
Though Kobo’s US market share in the e-book segment is currently in the “low single digits,” Kobo CEO Mike Serbenis said it’s aiming to capture more than 20 percent of US market share – and even more of the global market.
“Our overall objective is to be No. 1 in the world,” Serbenis told Reuters in an interview. “That may sound preposterous today, but it sounded a lot more preposterous two and a half years ago when we first started. We have proven that we can be No. 1, as we are here in Canada or in France. It is going to take some time, but we are in this for the long haul.”
In its battle for the US and the world, Kobo recently announced its weapons.
First up is the Kobo Arc, a 7-inch Android-based device with a high-def display and front-facing camera. The Arc will be available in November and will retail for $199 (8 gigabyte) and $249 (16 gigabyte).
Kobo is also launching the Kobo Mini, a pocket-sized 5-inch device with e-ink touchscreen, micro USB, and 2 gigabytes of storage. Available in October, the Mini is priced to match Amazon’s least expensive Kindle, at $79.
The Kobo Glo is “an improved version of its flagship e-reader,” writes Reuters, and features a 6-inch e-ink touchscreen, adjustable front light, and 2 gigabytes of storage. It’s priced at $130 and will also hit shelves in October, says Kobo.
Last week Kobo announced a new partnership with the American Booksellers Association whereby ABA members, including many indie bookstores, can sell Kobo devices and e-books. This partnership replaces Kobo’s alliance with the now-bankrupt Borders Inc. and illustrates Kobo’s strategy for moving into new markets.
“While Apple and Amazon use their online heft to sell their products and huge amounts of multimedia content, Kobo’s rapid growth has been built by forming partnerships with local retailers in different countries, where it has focused on bibliophiles,” writes Reuters. “Unlike its bigger rivals, Kobo positions itself as the local option for users in every market in which it operates, by partnering with local bookstores that often market the device as their very own reading platform.”
And indeed, Kobo is marketing itself as the book-lover’s e-reader. “There are players in the market – Amazon being one of them – that have Apple envy and they are going after this general purpose tablet market,” Kobo CEO Serbenis told Reuters. “We remain focused on the book lover and are really making a bet on the book lover. It is certainly the road less traveled, but what we have proven having just crossed over 10 million readers across the world in a matter of 32 months is that we have a great solution for those book lovers.”
We’re eager to track Kobo’s progress in the American tablet wars and gauge whether it really is the “book lover's e-reader.” Stay tuned.
Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.
Almost nine decades ago, the Democrats got together in New York City and tore themselves apart.
They fought over civil rights and the Ku Klux Klan. They fought over religion. They fought over legalizing liquor. And they did it for more than two whole weeks while botching everything from the music to the celebratory fire sirens.
The Democratic National Convention of 1924 remains the most destructive of all time. "During its 16 days and 103 ballots, the party virtually committed suicide," writes historian Robert K. Murray.
The players included a future president who'd lose that November, a Catholic governor, a KKK sympathizer and the ultimate nominee, a man who described the chaos, in a bit of understatement, as "a three-ring circus with two stages and a few trapeze acts."
The best and most deliciously readable account of the Mammoth Mess at Madison Square Garden appears in Murray's 1976 book The 103rd Ballot. As the Democrats anoint their nominee in Charlotte tonight, here's a look back at the ultimate height of conventional dysfunction, courtesy of a master historian:
Hey! Let's Insult the South, Part I: When a favorite son from Virginia was nominated, the convention band struck up an awkward selection: "John Brown's Body Lies A-Mouldering in the Grave," a favorite of the North during the Civil War.
It was not, as you can imagine, a chart-topper in the Old Dominion. The band quickly changed its tune, literally, to "Carry Me Back to Old Virginny."
Hey! Let's Insult the South, Part II: Later, during a discussion about the KKK, the band played "an ancient hymn of hate" of the Union Army called "Marching Through Georgia." This "monumental gaffe" infuriated the Southern delegates, who were less than pleased to be reminded of the work of General Sherman.
The Sound of Flee-Dom: After a man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged his fellow Democrats to support Al Smith, the New York governor, the "Garden turned into a cauldron of sound and movement."
That's not unusual at a political convention. But this was: a man had hired a bunch of people to turn on battery-powered fire sirens, which turned out to be an extremely bad idea. The noise was so sharp and loud that "men and women sitting in front of these machines were blown out of their seats and staggered around shell-shocked. Children in the audience screamed with fright."
The sirens blared for more than 30 minutes. A radio announcer was so disturbed by the din that he told listeners he worried the hall's skylights would fall in.
Tangled Up over Racism: One top hopeful, former secretary of the treasury and Californian who had the unlikely name of William Gibbs McAdoo, played footsie with the Ku Klux Klan and even got support from it. He didn't turn it down because he wanted the South's support.
That wasn't all. The delegates actually debated the KKK, even though nobody actually wanted to come near the issue. This did not go well: "No paradise of human understanding at best, Madison Square Garden now turned into a pit of crouching hates and simmering prejudices."
The vicious KKK debate finally ended in a chaotic two-hour vote that produced the most "prolonged pandemonium in an American political gathering."
"The delegates engaged in fist fights, arguments, name calling, wrestling matches, and brawls, while the galleries howled and stomped their feet." The fighting veered toward a riot that was only averted when 1,000 NYC cops hurried to the scene.
Sit Back, Stay a While: The balloting to choose the nominee went on. And on. And on. Will Rogers complained, as Murray put it, "that New York had invited the delegates as visitors, not to live there."
One day featured a whopping 19 ballots, the most ever taken on a single day of a major political convention in U.S. history.
Meanwhile, on Independence Day, 20,000 Klansmen and their families met to rally in nearby New Jersey. They built an effigy of Smith, the Catholic governor, and smashed it with baseballs at a nickel for three throws.
This Was No Magic Number: Finally, after 102 ballots, just two candidates remained in the running. One was "an eastern Wall Street lawyer" from West Virginia. The other was, of all things, a "wet anti-Klan southerner."
The lawyer, John W. Davis, got the nomination on the 103rd ballot. He was a compromise and, ultimately, a loser. The incumbent, Calvin Coolidge, would be elected president with 54 percent of the vote. Davis couldn't even reach 30 percent.
Davis would eventually abandon his party and embrace the GOP.
Smith, the New York governor, would try for the nomination again in 1928 and get it. But Herbert Hoover would wipe the floor with him.
And FDR? He'd run, and lose, on the 1924 ticket with Davis as a vice presidential candidate. He'd roar back, older and wiser, eight years later and win the White House.
So why bother reading about 1924? It turns out that there's more here than a few amusing and appalling tales. The havoc at the convention represents the era's battle over who gets to enjoy the full benefits of being an American.
"(E)very shade of opinion, every prejudice, every fear, every division which could be found in American society as a whole was duplicated in Madison Square Garden in 1924...," Murray writes. "Marking the first concerted attempt to reach a political consensus on many of these matters, the Garden convention was a failure."
Still, the convention and its aftermath "provided eloquent testimony to the tenacious belief of the American public in the efficacy of the democratic process and to the Democratic party's persistent search for a workable political consensus."
The Democratic party, strong enough to survive this epic prize fight in Madison Square Garden, would stick around for another 88 years (and counting). And American democracy, no delicate flower, would keep on thriving.
Randy Dotinga is a Monitor contributor.
You may not have heard of him, but British crime writer R.J. Ellory’s “ability to craft the English language is breathtaking.” One of his crime novels has been called “a modern masterpiece” that “will touch your soul.” He is, in fact, “one of the most talented authors of today.”
That is, at least, according to R.J. Ellory.
Over the Labor Day weekend, the bestselling British author was caught praising his own books on Amazon using a number of pseudonyms while slamming the books of his competitors. Ellory used at least two pseudonyms, including "Nicodemus Jones" and "Jelly Bean," to heap praise on his works, including “A Quiet Belief in Angels,” an award-winning 2008 book which the author himself called “a modern masterpiece,” and “chilling,” saying, “Whatever else it might do, it will touch your soul,” according to industry newsletter Shelf Awareness.
Astonishingly, this practice went on for the past 10 years before fellow British thriller writer Jeremy Duns pieced together a case against Ellory and shared his suspicions via Twitter. Confronted, Ellory admitted to using pseudonymous handles to write his own glowing reviews on Amazon, a practice known as "sock puppeting."
“The recent reviews – both positive and negative – that have been posted on my Amazon accounts are my responsibility and my responsibility alone,” Ellory said in a statement. “I wholeheartedly regret the lapse of judgment that allowed personal opinions to be disseminated in this way and I would like to apologise to my readers and the writing community.”
Since then, writes the LA Times, “a furor has erupted in England over sock puppet Amazon reviews” and quickly spread to American shores. A group of 49 British authors wrote an open letter to the Daily Telegraph condemning sock puppeting.
“These days more and more books are bought, sold, and recommended online, and the health of this exciting new ecosystem depends entirely on free and honest conversation among readers,” the authors, who included Ian Rankin, Lee Child, Val McDermid, Susan Hill and Helen FitzGerald, wrote. “But some writers are misusing these new channels in ways that are fraudulent and damaging to publishing at large.... We unreservedly condemn this behaviour, and commit never to use such tactics.” They added, “The only lasting solution is for readers to take possession of the process.... Your honest and heartfelt reviews, good or bad, enthusiastic or disapproving, can drown out the phoney voices, and the underhanded tactics will be marginalised to the point of irrelevance.”
Ellory is just the latest subject in a string of review scandals to hit the literary world. Two years ago, historian and writer Orlando Figes was similarly accused of vaunting his own books and skewering rivals’ works on Amazon. More recently, another bestselling thriller writer, Stephen Leather, has admitted to using pseudonyms online, even holding online conversations with himself, to build excitement about his novels. And hardly a week has passed since The New York Times ran “The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy,” which told the tale of literary entrepreneur Todd Rutherford, who raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars selling fake reviews through his business, GettingBookReviews.com, which we blogged on last week.
The incessant spate of literary lying has us wondering, is 2012 the year of deceit?
One thing’s for sure, the anonymity of the Internet and social media, combined with the publishing industry’s ravenous pursuit for buzz, has helped to create this monster of a problem, an iceberg of deception of which we suspect, we’ve only seen the tip. (How many more fake reviews are out there? University of Illinois, Chicago data mining expert Bing Liu estimates one-third of online reviews are fake, according to this NYT piece.)
And yet, it turns out, literary lying, sock-puppeting, and blatant self-promotion are nothing new. Lest you think our ethics have warped and waned with the times, consider this: Walt Whitman was “one of history’s most unrepentant self-promoters," according to the Atlantic. “He anonymously submitted glowing reviews of his own poetry collection ‘Leaves of Grass’ to newspapers across New York,” writes the Atlantic’s David Wagner, including this gem:
“An American bard at last! One of the roughs, large, proud, affectionate, eating, drinking, and breeding, his costume manly and free, his face sunburnt and bearded, his posture strong and erect, his voice bringing hope and prophecy to the generous races of young and old. We shall cease shamming and be what we really are. We shall start an athletic and defiant literature. We realize now how it is, and what was most lacking. The interior American republic shall also be declared free and independent."
And, well, look where it got him.
Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.
As the “Fifty Shades of Grey” trilogy – along with various copycat titles coming in its wake – continues to dominate the sales charts, books on the opposite end of the spectrum are still selling well.
How opposite? Try quilting bees instead of handcuffs.
Amish fiction, a literary genre that began in the late 1990s and has sold well ever since, features romances more old-fashioned in their values than E L James’ S&M story – books that keep the reader outside the bedroom door. The genre kicked off with Beverly Lewis’s 1997 book “The Shunning,” which featured a heroine who longed for a life outside the Amish community. The title has since sold over a million copies. Since then, writers like Jerry Eicher, Marta Perry, and Sarah Price have all penned tales of girls in Amish communities looking for romance.
Vice president of marketing for Christian publisher Bethany House Steve Oates says that he thinks the appeal of Amish fiction for many readers is the return to simpler values.
“The books are aspirational,” Oates told Deborah Kennedy, who published an interesting survey of the genre in Salon this month. “It’s the ‘I wish my family were like this’ kind of thing.”
And while sales have slackened over the past couple of years, the genre is still a big draw.
“If you put a head covering on the woman on the front, you’re going to sell a lot more copies,” Oates said.
Author Lori Copeland started out writing racier romance novels like “A Taste for Temptation,” but switched over to Amish and Christian romances in 1995. Bodice-rippers and more conservative romances can co-exist just fine, said Copeland.
“Some want the rich, decadent flavors to sweep them away from the ordinary world,” Copeland told USA Today. “Others like to be swept away but find sugar and cream a little rich for their personal values…. The Christian market and my personal faith values allow me to write … wholesome stories about men and women of faith falling in love.”
The legal troubles between Paramount Pictures and the family of “Godfather” author Mario Puzo continue, with Puzo's family and Paramount Pictures meeting in court late last week.
Paramount, which was behind the “Godfather” movies, sued Mario Puzo’s son Anthony Puzo in an attempt to stop publication of the “Godfather” prequel “The Family Corleone” this winter, despite the fact that “Corleone” had been approved by the Puzo family. The Puzos filed a counterclaim stating that the studio had been given plenty of notice about the publication of the book and requested $10 million in damages.
The book “The Family Corleone” was written by author Ed Falco, uncle of “The Sopranos” actress Edie Falco, and was published in May despite the lawsuit.
Paramount claims that it bought all copyright interests and rights as well as “literary rights” to “The Godfather” from Mario Puzo in 1969, which the studio says would include rights to the “Godfather” characters in other books. Paramount says the Puzo family can only release the book "The Godfather” as well as any adaptations of that original story.
The Puzo family says the original agreement did not include book rights and is now asking the court to affirm that they have the rights to any “Godfather” sequels and that the studio does not have film rights to any possible movie adaptations of sequels.
US District Judge Alison Nathan presided in federal court in Manhattan on Thursday, when oral arguments were made, but did not issue a decision on the case or state when a verdict would be made.
Paramount said in a statement that it had “tremendous respect and admiration for Mario Puzo" and that it has “an obligation to and will protect our copyright and trademark interests.”
A lawyer for the Puzo family, Bertram Fields, told Reuters that if a new film adaptation of a “Godfather” sequel became a possibility, the Puzos would be disinclined to work with Paramount on a movie.