[Rimbaud]

The question is more truly constituted thus: what comprises 'a film'/'a movie'?

Some have argued that a book may be accurately represented on film, a viewpoint that I, with my customary thousand qualifiers, tend towards. This project however would be unlike any definition of 'film' propounded by Hollywood et al in the modern era. It would necessarily be very greatly long. It would need to contain numerous and probably distinct voice-overs and faintly laborious expository scenes.

An accurate translation onto film would not create a good piece of art, in my opinion, although I think it might be possible.

A book, or at least a good one, cannot be made into 'a film' however, as defined (as earlier described, it may be rendered onto film). A 'mini-series'...would have a better chance but no truly accurate rendering of a book onto film would be shown by any television network on this planet.

A screen-play can be good however and a good film made from a good screenplay can be good art.

Once one has ascertained that a good film cannot be made from a book, one asks - can a good screenplay be derived from a good book? Well, yes, and it has been done before and maybe it will be done again, but I consider this not to be either a translation or a rendering of the book. Any similarities are likely to be mainly superficial.

In short, I should have remained true to my beliefs, and not seen a film whose profits go to AOL Time Warner, a truly horrendous monster if there ever was one, especially not one with source material close to me. My naivete surprises me, but I'll allow I got a little carried away in my hatred of the film. My dislike should have nothing to do with the books, but be directed purely at the film's poorness as a screenplay and as a work of art.