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.