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]