SCREEN-L Archives

May 1996, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: your mail
From:
Paul Ryersbach <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 6 May 1996 19:13:10 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<v01520d00adb08c5fa325@[204.177.1.29]> from "Mark Allen" at May 3, 96 09:13:17 pm
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines) 
> I was thouroughly impressed with the adaptation and view the two as two
> completely different works of art.  There were two holes in the new script
> I didn't care for much, but overall, I was hugely impressed and
> disappointed that the writer didn't receive the acclaim he deserved.
 
 
Could you please elaborate on this critique? Given that you were so
impressed with the film, I would like to know what things didn't fly with
you.
 
 
Much obliged,
              paul ryersbach
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2