tomcervo wrote: They're not re-making the book; they're re-making the
movie.

EK: No one claimed that.

tc: No one judges the movies in comparison to the novel.

EK: Well, I'll admit to being in the minority on this, but I do like
to reference the original sources to see what has been neglected or
suppressed.

AS: Some wonderful imagery and symbolism that would really make for a
boring
art film, if put onto the screen.  

EK: In many cases, such as multiple adaptations of "Eyre," about one-
third of the plot gets trimmed - well beyond the abandonment of a few
passages of wordplay.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm describing it. There is great artistic
wordplay, and there is useless babbling wordplay; but it's still
wordplay.

That's true for Dickens adaptations as well, yet there have been a few
brilliant Dickens movies over the years.  

mute... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 3, 12:59 pm, al... at (no spam) chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:

That's true for Dickens adaptations as well, yet there have been a few
brilliant Dickens movies over the years.  

The choice of actress sucks, but as long as this isn't the subject, it
would be interesting to see an adaptation of this interminable
novelfilm that asked the question: What the Hell is the second part of
the book about? (Rhetorical question, partly; it's about Charlotte
Bronte's inability to choose between St. John and Rochester.)  St.
John has always been either discarded completely or reduced ad
absurdum.

And more importantly, why are they making *another* one when we didn't
even notice the Franco Zefferelli/William Hurt version twelve years ago?

The one with Charlotte Gainsbourg? It was actually pretty good.

And more importantly, why are they making *another* one when we didn't
even notice the Franco Zefferelli/William Hurt version twelve years ago?

On Sep 3, 12:59 pm, al... at (no spam) chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:

That's true for Dickens adaptations as well, yet there have been a few
brilliant Dickens movies over the years.


The choice of actress sucks, but as long as this isn't the subject, it
would be interesting to see an adaptation of this interminable
novelfilm that asked the question: What the Hell is the second part of
the book about? (Rhetorical question, partly; it's about Charlotte
Bronte's inability to choose between St. John and Rochester.) St.
John has always been either discarded completely or reduced ad
absurdum.

mutefan at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 3, 12:59 pm, al... at (no spam) chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:

That's true for Dickens adaptations as well, yet there have been a few
brilliant Dickens movies over the years.


The choice of actress sucks, but as long as this isn't the subject, it
would be interesting to see an adaptation of this interminable
novelfilm that asked the question: What the Hell is the second part of
the book about? (Rhetorical question, partly; it's about Charlotte
Bronte's inability to choose between St. John and Rochester.) St.
John has always been either discarded completely or reduced ad
absurdum.

And more importantly, why are they making *another* one when we didn't
even notice the Franco Zefferelli/William Hurt version twelve years ago?

On Sep 4, 7:35 pm, Derek Janssen

And more importantly, why are they making *another* one when we
didn't even notice the Franco Zefferelli/William Hurt version twelve
years ago?

That version sucked too. William Hurt is a woman-beater and has been
typecast, since this fact has been public (only, like, for twenty-five
years) as increasingly wild basket cases.

mutefan at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:35 pm, Derek Janssen
And more importantly, why are they making *another* one when we
didn't even notice the Franco Zefferelli/William Hurt version twelve
years ago?
That version sucked too. William Hurt is a woman-beater and has been
typecast, since this fact has been public (only, like, for twenty-five
years) as increasingly wild basket cases.

That's not true at all. Not even remotely.

Alric Knebel wrote:
mutefan at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:35 pm, Derek Janssen
And more importantly, why are they making *another* one when we
didn't even notice the Franco Zefferelli/William Hurt version
twelve years ago?
That version sucked too. William Hurt is a woman-beater and has been
typecast, since this fact has been public (only, like, for
twenty-five years) as increasingly wild basket cases.

That's not true at all. Not even remotely.


Are you new to mutefan's posts?

On Sep 3, 12:59�pm, al... at (no spam) chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:



That's true for Dickens adaptations as well, yet there have been a few
brilliant Dickens movies over the years. �

The choice of actress sucks, but as long as this isn't the subject, it
would be interesting to see an adaptation of this interminable
novelfilm that asked the question: What the Hell is the second part of
the book about? (Rhetorical question, partly; it's about Charlotte
Bronte's inability to choose between St. John and Rochester.) �St..
John has always been either discarded completely or reduced ad
absurdum.