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]