Chris Strompolos, of Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation called me today, concerned about some things in my post about interviewing him and seeing the film. I posted a comment to the post summarizing his concerns while we were talking on the phone and will mark up the post as soon as I post this entry.
While he and his partners were pleased by the Stranger piece, he was concerned about my perceptions of “economic advantages,” which he – and his partners – strongly dispute. It’s clear that Chris and his partners felt the pinch of divorce. It’s commonly noted that divorced families experience diminished economic prospects, and though I won’t make a linking citation, mothers with custody suffer that economic burden moreso than do, unsurprisingly, fathers without custody.
In my defense, I must note the economic advantages I was thinking of were more along the lines of advantages that may pertain to members of an economic class, as opposed to the specific economic pinch that Chris and his friends were experiencing.
So on this point, it’s a matter of opinion, and I do not mean to deprecate the particular economic hardships the kids experienced.
However, Chris pointed out to me that my critical eyes straight-up failed in the matter of a particular part of my viewing of the film.
I said (in part):
“The only other appearance of a person of obviously African descent comes at the end of The Adaptation. The crate apparently containing the Ark of the Covenant is wheeled into a vast warehouse. In the theatrical film, the worker who wheels the ark to its, um, current resting place, is not clearly racially identifiable, as he’s seen in longshot. In The Adaptation, the worker is clearly black, and while his warehouse is impressively huge…”
Except, you know, of course… THAT HE’S NOT.
The worker is played by none other than Chris Strompolos, which more or less deflates a fine bit of critical speculation I had going. So for my next trick, I’ll be deflating my bad self on that post.
A big “thank you” to Chris for calling me on this (both literally and figuratively)!
Now, enjoy the spectacle as I eat some crow, kinda. I mean, I’m not unhappy to be factually corrected. But alas for my tower of theory!
And finally, as I told Chris on the phone, mea culpa. My mistake, and happy to set the record straight.
Hello!
I did not read what you wrote, only your admitting a mistake you made when talking to Chris Strompolos. The above thing I’m reading said you spoke to him about interviewing him and seeing his film.
Did you see it?
I hope so. It’s awesome!
After reading the Vanity Fair article I freaked out and absolutely HAD to see the film.
I can be quite focused and will not stop until I get what I want. After weeks of obsessive searching and quite a lot of work, I managed to track down a copy in a tiny little video store that specialized in rare and out of print films.
I loved it! I was so impressed, in fact, with what the boys had done, that I tracked down Chris Strompolos and ratted out the video store. I just didn’t think it was right that this store had a clearly bootlegged copy. I know, I should mind my own business, but I am a stickler for rules. ( I won’t go one mile over the speed limit or use expired coupons. )
I hate to speculate on the original piece you wrote or something you said, but in the above piece you wrote something about economic advantages? You explained what you meant, and I am probably going to put my foot in my mouth because i’m really not sure the context, but I must stick up for the filmmakers in any way I can.
If you’ve seen the film, it is clear that the boys made the movie for love, not money.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with letting them make a little money now! It’s 20+ years later!
They did not seek out money- The Vanity Fair article set all these wheels in motion. They all have separate lives and families and had all but forgotten their chilhood adventures.
I have kept in contact with Mr. Strompolos and I understand that most or all of the proceeds from their various screenings all over the world has gone to charity.
Scott Rudin has purchased their life rights to make a movie and given them, what, 6 figures? Awesome! More power to them!
If you saw the film, you would have seen all the hard work, love and detail that went into their production and I think that they desreve any money they can possibly make. And how fun to make some dough off something they did 20+ years ago- when they weren’t expecting a dime!
Anyway, I’ve probably put my foot in my mouth and am probably wrong about the context in which you meant economic advantages, but if you meant they just want money, I have to disagree and stick up for them in any way I can.