Speaking of eerie coincidences: In the late 1940s, Matheson was a journalism student at The University of Missouri. At the exact same time, the elderly Maude Adams was teaching drama at Stephens College. So, for several years, the two of them were literally within short walking distance of each other, but there's no evidence Matheson ever knowingly met her or knew who she was. Only 20 years later when he saw that picture of her, and became aware of who she was, did the genesis of this story happen. Matheson apparently worked this coincidence into the novel, having the character Richard remember crossing paths with an elderly Elise McKenna when he was a college student (and she apparently recognizing him). This became transformed into the famous opening scene of the movie, where the elderly Elise meets Richard and gives him the pocketwatch.
I read his novel I am Legend brilliant book, and I remember when I was a little boy I watching The Incredible Shrinking man, and thought what a wonderful film. But I didn't know Richard Mathinson wrote it and also Somewhere in time. I'm going to read more of his books.
I love both. The movie has some amazing things that aren't in the book, and the book has some great scenes that aren't in the film. I actually consider the novel more tragic than the movie, and I must say i like the format better, as the book allows you access to Richard's inner thoughts throughout the entire experience. They're both great, though.
Great interview and she asked really interesting questions. She was a bit nervous but that was probably because this whole video showed the filming process which was interesting but that’s probably why she seems nervous
Somewheres in Time was very similarity to another time travel classic Time And Again. 1. In both stories a man hypnotizes himself back in time by putting himself in an old apartment. 2. In both stories the man falls in love with a lady back in time. 3. In both stories theres a villainous man who wants the woman for herself.
@@buddhalav Time And Again has never been filmed (but it SHOULD BE! It's a far better story than Somewhere's In Time (don't get me wrong, I like both stories a lot. I like both The Time Machine (the George Pal version) and Time After Time a lot also, yet I think The Time Machine is the superior of the two in story, special effects, everything.
The film removed what I thought were rather un needed subplots in the novel (in the book Richard suffers with a brain tumour, the character of the sinister theatre agent obsessed with Else is also hinted to be a time traveller, a subplot with Richard's brother)
I don't mind removing those things for the film, because when you're adapting you have to streamline some of those things for the visual medium. But I love all that stuff in the book. Robinson isn't a time-traveler in the book, even if Richard off-handedly jokes that he might be. Richard's brother isn't really a subplot - it's just that the novel is structured as Richard's memoir of his experiences, which was published by his brother after Richard's death.
@@peteg475 The character of Robinson is a glorified gold digger. He sees his client as the path to riches. Even Elese doesn't seem to like him all that much and even tells him: "I'm involved with you I business. Nothing more." Most women realizing they have a psycho agent would fire the guy and look for representation elsewhere!
@@nicholasjanke3476 Sort of. Robinson is based on Charles Frohman, the famous legendary theater agent who had many clients including Maude Adams. He was wealthy and powerful and didn't just depend on one actor for his money or his reputation. The fact that Elise went back to him after Richard disappeared and continued her career does say something. Robinson was sort of a father figure for her, in place of her own absent father, and he was the one who went to visit her on her farm in the middle of her depression after losing Richard, and convinced her to snap out of it and get back to work. From Robinson's perspective, Richard was no different from any of the other fortune-hunting young men who had been trying to latch on to Elise over the years. Elise's mother was of like mind and agreed with Robinson. As readers, we know Richard was different and special, but Robinson had no reason to think so. He was just doing what he normally did - keeping men away from her. He's an obstacle in the story, and Richard dislikes him, but I don't see him as some sort of evil, mustache-twirling bad guy. he was just mistaken about who Richard was and what his purpose was for being there.
@@nicholasjanke3476That's an interesting comment. I haven't seen the movie, but it raises the issue of the unreliable narrator. An actress can communicate cues that convey a different character profile than the reader inferred from the information provided by the narrator of the novel. The shining is a great example of an adaptation that is starkly different from one medium to another
This guy is a little shifty. His patter seems rehearsed and not entirely extemporaneous. He seems like he's concealing something. He reveals a lot in this interview as well. I think the character portrayed in the movie is a self-insert, an idealized form of himself, and I detect a lot of built up hostility and resentment about his idealization and his reality
Single camera. Only way it can be done to have anything other than the one master shot we saw. Single cam being the same way Somewhere in Time was shot with actors being lit and doing their lines and then reversed and film also being shot out of sequence with ending scenes often before beginning scenes
My favourite movie. ❤
Speaking of eerie coincidences: In the late 1940s, Matheson was a journalism student at The University of Missouri. At the exact same time, the elderly Maude Adams was teaching drama at Stephens College. So, for several years, the two of them were literally within short walking distance of each other, but there's no evidence Matheson ever knowingly met her or knew who she was. Only 20 years later when he saw that picture of her, and became aware of who she was, did the genesis of this story happen. Matheson apparently worked this coincidence into the novel, having the character Richard remember crossing paths with an elderly Elise McKenna when he was a college student (and she apparently recognizing him). This became transformed into the famous opening scene of the movie, where the elderly Elise meets Richard and gives him the pocketwatch.
This author is brilliant. Love discovering all his works.
Love this man and his work.Maude Adams was a lovely,talented Victorian woman.Somewhere in time is a masterpiece.
Great interview ❤
I read his novel I am Legend brilliant book, and I remember when I was a little boy I watching The Incredible Shrinking man, and thought what a wonderful film. But I didn't know Richard Mathinson wrote it and also Somewhere in time. I'm going to read more of his books.
I would love to seek out the novel just to compare to the more simplified and lovely 1980 film. This was insightful to watch.
I love both. The movie has some amazing things that aren't in the book, and the book has some great scenes that aren't in the film. I actually consider the novel more tragic than the movie, and I must say i like the format better, as the book allows you access to Richard's inner thoughts throughout the entire experience. They're both great, though.
Muy bien me agrado mucho!!!
Great interview and she asked really interesting questions. She was a bit nervous but that was probably because this whole video showed the filming process which was interesting but that’s probably why she seems nervous
You had me at "Portrait of Jennie"
Somewheres in Time was very similarity to another time travel classic Time And Again. 1. In both stories a man hypnotizes himself back in time by putting himself in an old apartment. 2. In both stories the man falls in love with a lady back in time. 3. In both stories theres a villainous man who wants the woman for herself.
Time and Again you are referring to was released in which year please? Google search gives me multiple results. Thank you so much.
@@buddhalav Time And Again has never been filmed (but it SHOULD BE! It's a far better story than Somewhere's In Time (don't get me wrong, I like both stories a lot. I like both The Time Machine (the George Pal version) and Time After Time a lot also, yet I think The Time Machine is the superior of the two in story, special effects, everything.
@@nicholasjanke3476 Oh!! Thank you. I have made it a point to see both.
Wow great story. What is the title of the book?
The film removed what I thought were rather un needed subplots in the novel (in the book Richard suffers with a brain tumour, the character of the sinister theatre agent obsessed with Else is also hinted to be a time traveller, a subplot with Richard's brother)
I don't mind removing those things for the film, because when you're adapting you have to streamline some of those things for the visual medium. But I love all that stuff in the book. Robinson isn't a time-traveler in the book, even if Richard off-handedly jokes that he might be. Richard's brother isn't really a subplot - it's just that the novel is structured as Richard's memoir of his experiences, which was published by his brother after Richard's death.
@@peteg475 The character of Robinson is a glorified gold digger. He sees his client as the path to riches. Even Elese doesn't seem to like him all that much and even tells him: "I'm involved with you I business. Nothing more." Most women realizing they have a psycho agent would fire the guy and look for representation elsewhere!
@@nicholasjanke3476 Sort of. Robinson is based on Charles Frohman, the famous legendary theater agent who had many clients including Maude Adams. He was wealthy and powerful and didn't just depend on one actor for his money or his reputation. The fact that Elise went back to him after Richard disappeared and continued her career does say something. Robinson was sort of a father figure for her, in place of her own absent father, and he was the one who went to visit her on her farm in the middle of her depression after losing Richard, and convinced her to snap out of it and get back to work. From Robinson's perspective, Richard was no different from any of the other fortune-hunting young men who had been trying to latch on to Elise over the years. Elise's mother was of like mind and agreed with Robinson. As readers, we know Richard was different and special, but Robinson had no reason to think so. He was just doing what he normally did - keeping men away from her. He's an obstacle in the story, and Richard dislikes him, but I don't see him as some sort of evil, mustache-twirling bad guy. he was just mistaken about who Richard was and what his purpose was for being there.
@@nicholasjanke3476That's an interesting comment. I haven't seen the movie, but it raises the issue of the unreliable narrator. An actress can communicate cues that convey a different character profile than the reader inferred from the information provided by the narrator of the novel. The shining is a great example of an adaptation that is starkly different from one medium to another
Novelists tend to think more abstractly, not cinematically. Take this for what it's worth from a 20-year book editing professional
This guy is a little shifty. His patter seems rehearsed and not entirely extemporaneous. He seems like he's concealing something. He reveals a lot in this interview as well. I think the character portrayed in the movie is a self-insert, an idealized form of himself, and I detect a lot of built up hostility and resentment about his idealization and his reality
The end of this video, the “reaction shots,” are bizarre. I had no idea they cut them in like this; so fake, disingenuous.
I know. I never knew it was done this way. Strange indeed.
Single camera. Only way it can be done to have anything other than the one master shot we saw.
Single cam being the same way Somewhere in Time was shot with actors being lit and doing their lines and then reversed and film also being shot out of sequence with ending scenes often before beginning scenes
BINGO.
It's so faaaaaake!
@@walt1896 It still looks MASSIVELY fake.
Yeah I get the same sense from this video. Something's off. I know a liar when I see one
LOVE IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU (C)2006
@jamesmonahan1870