Hey Friend , I'm with you 100% re book AND film .
I'd guess that Ms McCarthy took her novel to the limits of ready saleability and "acceptability" for 1954 (although Southern and Hoffenberg's "Candy" - still the most humorous book I've yet to read - was almost a "non-banner" in the late '50s . My dear spouse still considers it porn after flipping through a few pages - Oh well.) . The '66 screen write / production may have had similar issues ; just as a personal opinion , anything more graphic (for '66) might also have tended to detract / distract from the truly excellent casting / acting . Perhaps also , cinematic precision might have skewed the viewers away from the movies 30ish time frame . I find it comfortable to get "locked-in-to" the Depression decade throughout the entire film . If there were more sexually explicit scenes , I'd be "shifting gears" between the roughly three decade difference (and what a difference !) between book and film . Doubtless , from my perspective , this would be a profound detriment ; Mr Buchman might just as well have thrown in a few
"m-f"s as well ! My technically unstudied opinion is that , as the film was written for the screen , the "deletions" neither enhance nor detract - The film is simply kept true-to-form .
Thanks much for the intelligent and thought provoking post !
walt
ps: I do not waste my time (personally) by watching (voyeuristic) "soaps" on television , yet my dear wife considers that which is , at the very least , a wonderfully done study of the social mores of the decade , to be an extended version of a daytime tv offering . Again , "oh well" ... but after thirty years , we gotta' be doin' somethin' right . Happy Valentines Day ! wm
reply
share