I guess when Saperstein employed "Woody and many others" to make "What's Up Tiger Lily," he knew in advance that his decision to remake someone else's picture would make film history. If he did, why couldn't he do it all himself?

Sapperstein is not satisfied anymore with a comedy classic, and money; he wants to sell it all off as a creative and talented business decision.

Ted Turner as a business decision decides to colorize pictures because TV revenues will increase from these pictures, and besides, he likes it that way. Turner expresses his creative business talent.

Out of all this, one thing is clear: business and creation are mutually exclusive; choose one or the other. Ask Picasso, Dali, Van Gogh, Hemingway, even Dr. Armand Hammer.

You can't make creative decisions through business criteria; if this could happen, then every big-name motion picture would have been a success, and we all could read about the guarantees of movie success for $4.95.

When something in the creative field works, it works because it is one person's passions and sensibilities that make it work, plus grandmother Luck. Why it worked can never be outlined through business criteria, or understood by committee.

Now who steps forward to take all this credit, who is the one person whose passions and sensibilities made "What's Up Tiger Lily?" work? Who is the one man shooting off at the mouth, demanding his credit?


Van Nuys

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World