TWAIN-L Archives

Mark Twain Forum


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Alan Kitty <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:59:25 -0400
text/plain (28 lines)
I know of no instances in history where Scholarship or Greed were choices for filmmakers. The choices are always “artistic value” vs. financial gain. No one would understand this better than SLC himself. 

An unbridled curiosity and uncanny awareness guided his steps, and brilliance certainly helped him arrive at his destination, but it was need that drove Twain to write commercially. Fortunately for all of us, his natural talents and personality merged with his need for commercial success. 

Scholarship exists to discover, interpret and teach or inform.  Commercial film making exists to entertain. When I read about the Stead-Bird controversy, I immediately thought “commercially-minded” author vs. education-minded author.” You turn a scholarly discovery into gold only if you understand or can create its market value and know who to work with to get the ore out of the ground. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 13, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Barbara Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, the movie option for this story is not  for John Bird's
> version.  But for the adaptation of the story made by Philip and Erin
> Stead.  Kevin Mac Donnell reviewed that version on the Forum in August
> 2017. That review is online at:
> There is yet unexplored potential for study regarding Twain's intent when
> he penned this unfinished fairy tale. I have yet to see a scholarly
> interpretation that really delves into the historical controversies at that
> time surrounding the invention of oleomargarine versus real butter.  Sort
> of like Prince (butter) and the Pauper (oleomargarine). What happened to
> John Bird and his work surrounding this manuscript is an example of concern
> for $$ (greed)  taking precedent over scholarship.
> Barb