From: HisSheedness@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 21:30:06 BST
Erin, Sam,
But what the people who love a certain book and despise the movie version
because of detail omissions/changes fail to realize is that film is a
different medium than literature. Stephen King wrote the screenplay for the
film of his own book, "The Green Mile" and decided to abbreviate certain
parts in the interests of time and for better on-screen action. I thought it
worked well; I certainly would rather have watched the shortened, more
immediate version of events rather than a carbon copy of the description
given in the book. Few would argue that he "trashed" his own work. Too many
people misjudge movies based on how much they might have abbreviated from the
book, but this isn't necessarily intellectual deprivation. It is only
intellectual deprivation when the ideas themselves are so muddled by
pandering to reach a certain audience so as to become unrecognizable. Have
you ever seen what Martin Scorsese can do to books like Wiseguy and Raging
Bull? You can argue whether or not he provided a better or more focused
interpretation of events, but you can't say that he didn't get those ideas
across in the first place. I'm still waiting to see what he can do with
'Gangs of New York.'
Rasheed
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT