That is the history of entertainment.  Unfortunately, people go into the

movie business to make a very good living.  None of them ever take an

oath to have any artistic senseability.  That is what makes finding a great

film all the more special.  Idealism is wonderful, but it don't pay the

rent in L.A.

 

On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, lang thompson wrote:

 

> You've probably heard that there's a new film version of The Scarlet

> Letter.  You've probably also heard that this time there's a happy

> ending not to mention Indian fights, flashbacks, sex scenes and other

> such goodies.  Makes you wonder why people even bother to parody

> Hollywood filmmaking.  I haven't seen it so i can't comment on the

> film; maybe it's a solid, thoughtful work.  My question, though, is why

> bother to adapt a book--especially a familiar one--if you're going to

> alter it so radically?  The filmmakers seem to have completely

> misunderstood Hawthorne, if indeed they cared at all.  (And has anybody

> seen Wenders' version?)  Was it the allure of an acknowledged "classic"

> that attracted them?  A period drama with no pedigree would probably

> sink, Demi Moore or not.  So take something with name value, spice it

> up a bit and voila!  Money in the bank.  (Not to knock Hollywood too

> much:  British and American theatrical companies went crazy with

> similarly gaudy adaptations in the 19th century.)  After all, you can

> stay fairly close to a book's plot and still completely miss the point.

>  Endless Love (the American Story of the Eye?) and The Committments

> come to mind.  Thoughts?

>

> ----

> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L

> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

>

 

----

To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L

in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]