Re: Film as God?
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:53:45 +1100
citycabn wrote:
> Camille writes in Re: Linklater:
>
> "No piece of art truly withstands the transition between mediums."
>
> and:
>
> "*Any* of us bananafishers would have to be lying if we said we wouldn't
go
> see it [a film of Catcher], even just for interest's sake."
... by which I meant exactly what I said in that first qualification. I'm
not saying Catcher would make the leap between book and film elegantly - I
don't at all, I think it would likely be, in best case scenario, OK, in
worst, a dreadful Movie of the Summer type Dawson's Creekorama (or the
other Evil Salingers, the revolting Party of Five kids) I think no matter
what the experience of the movie could never equal the experience of the
book. I just said ... well, put it this way. I taped `My Foolish Heart' off
cable and sat through it, didn't I? Doesn't mean I liked it necessarily. In
answer to your other questions:
> 1. Why are these "transition[s] between mediums" being made?
Because a) People want to get their own fingerprints permanently on a piece
of art they admire and b) Movies tend to make more money than books.
> 2. Why must they capture our imaginations and compel our
> attendance/support?
Well ... I guess a lot of us went out and bought the Maynard book, or at
least borrowed it from the library. We're *interested*.
> 3. Why doesn't JDS (unlike innumerable contemporary authors) see the
light
> and sell the rights?
This is a guy who has probably the strongest and strictest control over the
publication (in the true sense `being made public') of his works of anyone
in the business. Could *you* honestly see him passing Jonathon Taylor
Thomas as Holden ???
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest