While I enjoyed *The Pillow Book* I have to say my aesthetic
judgment of the film is not at all what Mr. Daniels' is.  For me it is
interesting as a Greenaway film:  one could spend hours pointing out devices
which the film shares with his other films:  sex and violence, art and the
body, etc.  I, however, found the multiple screen techniques less successful
than Mr. Daniels did.  It *is* exhilarating to see this kind of technique,
since one wonders if it's going to become a permanent part of the cinematic
vocabulary.
        I do agree that Mr. Greenaway's idea of "adaptation"--if that is
really the word--is quite interesting.  Greenaway seems to construct a kind
of paratext which both cites and replays issues from the text he's
"adapting"--using?  relying on? operating upon?  This to me seems like a
very rich topic within the hoary old topic of "cinematic adaptation," as
well as within the newer, trendier topic of "postmodernism."
        I found *The Pillow Book* less emotionally engaging than some of
Greenaway's other films, such as *ZOO* or *The Cook, the Thief....*
        All this for what it's worth.
Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
UCLA
 
 
At 12:12 PM 6/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>For those who haven't yet caught it, Peter Greenaway's latest is most
>definitely THE GOODS. You must see it at once. A wonderful film. Do
>NOT wait to rent it. Seeing it on a large screen is essential.
>
>I think directors like Greenaway (Atom Egoyan is another) are the
>main hope for cinema considered as an art form. (Not that I dislike
>popular cinema, but there are other possibilities, as here we see).
>The split-screen experimentation (Yes, I know, but it's no cliche in
>Greenaway's hands) that seemed such a muddle in PROSPERO'S BOOKS is
>here used with absoulute artistic control and ravishing visual
>results. Each image is firmly related to the others, and all of them
>are  subordinated to the artistic idea they gradually disclose. Which
>is? Go see. Text = image = thing = life; drawing on paper/flesh =
>living life itself; literature and experience are not two but one.
>All that and a good deal more. Plus a grim tale about a man who
>couldn't write a book but became one.
>
>Greenaway incorporates the experience of literature without being in
>thrall to it. He does not mount a book as THE ENGLISH PATIENT did. He
>encompasses literature within a vocabulary of images; this is a truly
>(and purely) cinematic realisation of an idea.
>
>Must, must, MUST see.
>
>Wayne
>
>----
>To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
>in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>
>
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the 
University of Alabama.