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]