name='penfold']I thought it a bit odd that the writer was quoting as examples of British writing plundered by filmmakers abroad such British works as Henry James' Turn of The Screw (for the Innocents) and Washington Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow.
And as for the end comment, that Hollywood is serious about cinema...sorry, that's simply laughable.
Why do films have to be adaptations?? He complains that British filmmakers don't sniff out promising properties, and invokes, of all people, Emeric Pressburger whose best work was 100% original writing, and struggled more for inspiration when adapting ...no-one would argue for Gone to Earth, Battle of The River Plate or Ill Met By Moonlight to be the equal of the wartime films, only The Small Back Room really hitting the bulls-eye....and if you read the novel, Emeric really didn't have to do much....it's no coincidence Nigel Balchin turned to screenwriting later...his novel practically reads as a script.
The writer doesn't seem to realise that cinema is an artform that can be original in concept, and that the best cinema generally is original, not a visualised book or a stage-freed play.