Don Satz wrote:

>Whatever else the movie was intended to do, its basic intent was to make
>money - it's a commercial film.  A focus on creativity would likely be a
>money loser.  With films of this type, I try my best to go in "ignorant"
>and accept the movie on its own terms.  I don't even compare the movie with
>the book; there's no way that a movie can duplicate the pleasures of an
>excellent book.  This might be "dumbing down" on my part; I just see it
>as my way of enjoying a film.

Of COURSE it's a commercial enterprise.  But with stuff like "Shakespeare
in Love" and "Elizabeth" out there (not to mention "Amadeus" and "Immortal
Beloved"), I get weary of explaining to folks who ask what is history,
what is art, and what is commercial film.  (Hint: usually damned little
history, debatable art, and a WHOLE lot of "commercial".) I don't think
anyone is debating the virtues of the movie versus the book here, either.

(I should note that I almost always avoid "historical" or "biographical"
films because of the inherent conflict of commercialism and history.  Even
the most well-intentioned ones, like "Schindler's List", are painfully
disappointing.  Even "The Right Stuff" fell short.  ;-(

Mark
[log in to unmask]