At 09:43 AM 6/7/98 -0600, you wrote: >Reason to consider filmic possibilities of Salinger texts may be imbedded >in the way films (or at least Holden's attitude toward them) becomes a >subject in Catcher...it seems to me that in this sense Mr. Salinger at >least seems to want readers to consider the implication that texts >and film may merge...will Peter Greenaway's _The Pillow Book_ explored this to a degree. In an interview about the film, he said he believed that after a hundred years of filmmaking as an artistic medium, films were still largely text based. _The Pillow Book_ is an expression of that: You end up "reading" the film. Your eyes are pulled all over the screen, from top to bottom, and side to side. I think the movie is out on video now, though if it's not letterboxed at the very least, a good portion of the film is going to be lost. I'd wait to see it at a revival theatre showing, if at all possible. With regard to turning any of Salinger's works into movies, I think a good job could be done. I certainly have never felt that any of his work was "unfilmable" per se, particularly _The Catcher in the Rye_, which I think would make an excellent film, in the right hands. Some of the work may end up seeming talky on the screen, like _Franny and Zooey_, for example, but _My Dinner with Andre_ and _Swimming to Cambodia_ were talky movies that were also totally compelling. Novels and films work in different ways, but this is not to say that one medium is inferior to the other because of this. They are simply different means of expression, and a good filmmaker with an understanding of how both mediums work will most likely be able to successfully adapt a literary work. I think, really, it boils down to what Salinger wants. As I understand it, he refused an offer by Elia Kazan, a fine filmmaker, to adapt the movie. I believe his reasoning then was "Holden wouldn't like it." If he doesn't want his work adapted, then why do it? No novel or literary work NEEDS to be adapted into a film or a play. Darren