Gun. Drugs. Blood. Money. Power.
Greeks and Russians have their tragedies. This is the recipe for the truly American tragedy.
First, the movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes long, which in ADD years, that translates into two weeks. However, director Ridley Scott does a pretty decent job of moving things along, sometimes a little slow, other times not slow enough. But Ridley proves again that he is the master of intense/suspense without having to use slow motion.
Denzel stars as Frank Lucas, the man who put the scourge on Harlem with his pure heroin brought in from Thailand. By going straight to the source, Frank cuts out the middle man and can sell a better product at a lower price. And the crooked cops and Mafia aren't too enthused about this.
Russel Crowe plays Richie Roberts, a tough-as-nails cop, studying to be a lawyer, who happens to be an honest cop - this last trait evoked at the beginning of the movie when he turned in nearly 1 million dollars of evidence instead of keeping it all for his partner and himself. He has family issues and friend issues (the godfather of his son is a crime boss's nephew) and now no cop trusts him because he isn't on the take.
And thus the movie takes us on a collision course with these two. Denzel does a fantastic job at being at once charismatic, charming, and lovable, while at the same time, ruthless and brutal. Every time he was on screen I was on the edge of my seat waiting for him to explode into rage, which he does more than a few times, smashing heads in pianos, blowing a man's head off on a public street.
Crowe does a decent job at playing what has now become a cliched character. The problem is, there are dozens of actors who could have played this part, mostly because there isn't a lot of depth. Oh, they try to get some depth and scope of Richie Roberts, but by going back and forth between Frank and Richie, it does not allow a full story arc for Richie to ever develop. And so, we are left with perfunctory scenes which don't add much to his characterization and take away from the flow of the movie. Likewise, there are a few characters and bit story lines in Franks story arc that are superfluous. Cut out these points, and the movie could be roughly 2 hours of a quite possibly brilliant film.
For example, there is a phenomenal scene where we see Frank Lucas and his wealth and comfort interposed with several shots of junkies hooked on his product, overdosing with weeping children on their lifeless bodies, unconscious on a filthy, cold bathroom floor. It was brilliant. It was powerful. It was the dichotomy that was missing throughout most of the film.
Overall, I didn't waste my money (funny side note, since I was a little late, the movie was sold out, so I bought a ticket to Bee Movie and went into American Gangster anyway. Someone was saving me a seat). This was a very good film. Denzel's performance was worth the price of admission. I just wish they would have cast a much hotter girl to play his wife.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
MIchael Clayton
After a two-month hiatus, I'm back. For all two of you who read this, I'm sure that will give you much needed solace as you seek slumber. So, on to this post's topic - Michael Clayton.
First, I must disclose that I have never been a big fan of Clooney's, mostly because I submit that he only plays himself in movies. But at least he's believable. However, this is clearly his best role yet. Finally, after 20+ years, he has learned that overacting isn't always the answer. He does more solid acting with subtle facial expressions and sullen comportment in this movie than in all three Ocean's movies combined.
Now, on to the story - the meat of the movie. It is worth mentioning though, before we get into the fleshy part of the movie, that Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton are both incredible in this movie. Also, I will not waste your time summarizing. That's what IMDB is for. But here is a trailer to give you the gist:
Ok, so, Clooney is broke, a compulsive gambler, an amoral "fixer" in a high-powered law firm. Wilkinson's character, Arthur, has a mental breakdown while working on the firm's most lucrative case...but it really isn't a breakdown, it's a crisis of conscience. Arthur learns of the dastardly deeds (and no, I don't mean to sound like the narrator of the Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon) and he won't whore himself out on devil's errands any longer. Enter Michael Clayton. And thus ensues the movie.
This is a very good movie. Almost great. There are some key problems here, and thankfully you have me, Wunder Word, the idiot savant of storytelling, to weed through it all for you.
First, Tony Gilroy, the writer/director, starts off the movie with a scene leading to the attempt on Clayton's life (the car explosion in the trailer) then back tracks four days. It is gimmicky and completely alters the story arc. It is 10 minutes that should have been spent on establishing Arthur and Clayton's relationship. We don't get a true sense of what is really between these two, only what comes out of Clayton's mouth, so it is all expository. And not even good exposition. There is no story, for example, that Clayton tells about Arthur saving his life, mentoring him, being a god-father to his kid. It is matter-of-fact. And Clayton's relationship with his loser brother is a peripheral story that fractures the natural progression of the story when the brother is used as some sort of catalyst for Clayton to finally reach out to his son.
If Clayton's relationship with Arthur had been established and we could have felt it, it would have allowed us to fully engage in Clayton's struggle. Also, more time with his son, thus leading to his desire to do right by Arthur would have made Clayton's character arc so much more powerful. As it is now, is just too precipitous. A man who has spent a lifetime skirting responsibility, blurring moral lines in the name of money, doesn't just become moral. The dots are there, so we can connect them. But it is not nearly as powerful, engrossing and complete as it could have been.
But it was at least worth the $10.
First, I must disclose that I have never been a big fan of Clooney's, mostly because I submit that he only plays himself in movies. But at least he's believable. However, this is clearly his best role yet. Finally, after 20+ years, he has learned that overacting isn't always the answer. He does more solid acting with subtle facial expressions and sullen comportment in this movie than in all three Ocean's movies combined.
Now, on to the story - the meat of the movie. It is worth mentioning though, before we get into the fleshy part of the movie, that Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton are both incredible in this movie. Also, I will not waste your time summarizing. That's what IMDB is for. But here is a trailer to give you the gist:
Ok, so, Clooney is broke, a compulsive gambler, an amoral "fixer" in a high-powered law firm. Wilkinson's character, Arthur, has a mental breakdown while working on the firm's most lucrative case...but it really isn't a breakdown, it's a crisis of conscience. Arthur learns of the dastardly deeds (and no, I don't mean to sound like the narrator of the Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon) and he won't whore himself out on devil's errands any longer. Enter Michael Clayton. And thus ensues the movie.
This is a very good movie. Almost great. There are some key problems here, and thankfully you have me, Wunder Word, the idiot savant of storytelling, to weed through it all for you.
First, Tony Gilroy, the writer/director, starts off the movie with a scene leading to the attempt on Clayton's life (the car explosion in the trailer) then back tracks four days. It is gimmicky and completely alters the story arc. It is 10 minutes that should have been spent on establishing Arthur and Clayton's relationship. We don't get a true sense of what is really between these two, only what comes out of Clayton's mouth, so it is all expository. And not even good exposition. There is no story, for example, that Clayton tells about Arthur saving his life, mentoring him, being a god-father to his kid. It is matter-of-fact. And Clayton's relationship with his loser brother is a peripheral story that fractures the natural progression of the story when the brother is used as some sort of catalyst for Clayton to finally reach out to his son.
If Clayton's relationship with Arthur had been established and we could have felt it, it would have allowed us to fully engage in Clayton's struggle. Also, more time with his son, thus leading to his desire to do right by Arthur would have made Clayton's character arc so much more powerful. As it is now, is just too precipitous. A man who has spent a lifetime skirting responsibility, blurring moral lines in the name of money, doesn't just become moral. The dots are there, so we can connect them. But it is not nearly as powerful, engrossing and complete as it could have been.
But it was at least worth the $10.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The Bourne Ultimatum - I for one choose death
Why? I've been asking myself this question a lot lately. But never more so than with all the hype and great reviews and unflinching adoration and loyalty surrounding the Bourne Ultimatum. On one IMBD post one paramecium brained writer states that Ultimatum is the best movie he's seen in a looooonnnnnnnnng time. I sincerely pity this poor movie goer, as he's probably wallowed in the muck of such films as Spider Man 3 and Shrek 3.
But back to why. Why? Because these three letters could solve a lot of Hollywood's rut.
Why make the Bourne Ultimatum almost identical to the Bourne Supremacy?
Why re-use lines from the previous two movies? (i.e. "Look at what they make you give.")
Why is the CIA operative in Spain even talking to the reporter?
Why is the reporter assassinated in the open?
Why is there absolutely no one in the CIA who can string together even the tiniest iota of intelligence and deduce simple conclusions?
Why hint at a past with Julia Stiles character Nicky when it obviously doesn't fit with the first two films?
Ok, I'll stop, but I could go on for hours. This movie was such an abysmal failure, I'm ashamed of Matt Damon. For a Harvard educated writer, he should know better. There is very little causality leading to ridiculous amounts of precipitous actions, that this is one discombobulated mess of a movie. I will note that the one attempt they do give at causality is with Nicky. Why would she help Bourne? The writers give us some half-a$$ed, lame attempt at a subtle hint of a relationship that occurred between Bourne and Nicky. What? She is not a trained killer, yet she hands out the assignment to have him killed mercilessly in the Bourne Identity. She NEVER even mentions their history in the Supremacy when he has a gun to her head. It's so juvenile and moronic. It's a gimmick. And any dim-witted teenager could have come up with it.
But the action is cool. And the fight scenes are sweet. And the car chase is rad.
BUT WE SAW ALL THAT IN THE FIRST TWO MOVIES! And there were far too many holes in the Bourne Supremacy as it was.
There was no progression here. No development of characters. Luckily Damon, Joan Allen, and David Straitham are great actors, because the dialog in this movie is so cliched and self aware, it physically hurt me.
Exchanges like:
Pamela Landy: When does the killing stop?
Noah Vosen: Until we win!
Monkeys can fling their feces onto paper and create better dialog and stories. I only paid $6 but that was still too much. To anybody who reads this, don't waste your money. Just rent the Bourne Supremacy. It's way better than the ripoff that is the Bourne Ultimatum.
Oh, and one more thing: THIS MOVIE WAS AWFUL!!!
But back to why. Why? Because these three letters could solve a lot of Hollywood's rut.
Why make the Bourne Ultimatum almost identical to the Bourne Supremacy?
Why re-use lines from the previous two movies? (i.e. "Look at what they make you give.")
Why is the CIA operative in Spain even talking to the reporter?
Why is the reporter assassinated in the open?
Why is there absolutely no one in the CIA who can string together even the tiniest iota of intelligence and deduce simple conclusions?
Why hint at a past with Julia Stiles character Nicky when it obviously doesn't fit with the first two films?
Ok, I'll stop, but I could go on for hours. This movie was such an abysmal failure, I'm ashamed of Matt Damon. For a Harvard educated writer, he should know better. There is very little causality leading to ridiculous amounts of precipitous actions, that this is one discombobulated mess of a movie. I will note that the one attempt they do give at causality is with Nicky. Why would she help Bourne? The writers give us some half-a$$ed, lame attempt at a subtle hint of a relationship that occurred between Bourne and Nicky. What? She is not a trained killer, yet she hands out the assignment to have him killed mercilessly in the Bourne Identity. She NEVER even mentions their history in the Supremacy when he has a gun to her head. It's so juvenile and moronic. It's a gimmick. And any dim-witted teenager could have come up with it.
But the action is cool. And the fight scenes are sweet. And the car chase is rad.
BUT WE SAW ALL THAT IN THE FIRST TWO MOVIES! And there were far too many holes in the Bourne Supremacy as it was.
There was no progression here. No development of characters. Luckily Damon, Joan Allen, and David Straitham are great actors, because the dialog in this movie is so cliched and self aware, it physically hurt me.
Exchanges like:
Pamela Landy: When does the killing stop?
Noah Vosen: Until we win!
Monkeys can fling their feces onto paper and create better dialog and stories. I only paid $6 but that was still too much. To anybody who reads this, don't waste your money. Just rent the Bourne Supremacy. It's way better than the ripoff that is the Bourne Ultimatum.
Oh, and one more thing: THIS MOVIE WAS AWFUL!!!
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Apocolypto and other observations
First, Apocolypto. Now, I avoided seeing this when it first came out because I thought, who wants to see a dude running naked in the jungle? Now for some of you faithful readers, I'm sure there are those that are jumping up and down right now with your hand proudly thrust high in the air, "Me, me, I do, I do". Fair enough. But, after all of these reviews came back saying Mel may have personal problems but the boy can make great films, I thought, well, I'll rent it then.
Lesson learned - I should stick with my gut, judging a book by its cover, 'cause it hasn't failed me yet. The movie didn't suck, it was beautifully shot, great cinematography, and some pretty sweet action scenes. But it was boring, ridiculously slow in a few long chunks, and pretty uninteresting. Although, there is one scene where a woman gives birth to a baby in water and we see the kid shoot out like a torpedo. That was pretty awsellent. Not quite sweetastic, but still awesellent.
Random thoughts and observations
I hate cab drivers. They drive like the world is their own personal bumper car ride. And they are almost always foreign...except for the coked up driver we had in Atlantic City. Nevertheless, I always hear about how these drivers were doctors in their home countries and they come here and have to drive cabs. So what do we learn from this? Doctors make the worst drivers.
(((Disclaimer: the following is merely an observation not an endorsement, opinion, view, or anything of the sort, just pointing out some faulty logic)))
I read an article (article is a bit of a stretch) but the headline snagged me, mostly because it had sex in the title. Basically it asked three men and three women their views on sex occurring early on in the relationship. It was funny because two of the women were talking about how women should hold out on sex because if that's all he's after then he won't stick around. The whole why buy the cow when you get the milk for free. Or if you do it too early the relationship will only be about sex. Now, I find that wonderfully bassackwards and void of logic. They take sex, wrap it up in a box and keep it under a Sexmas tree for the man to long after, and the relationship is not supposed to be about sex? Silly rabbits. Sounds like they could use an adventure with Dora the Sexplorer.
Why are black people better at EVERY sport? I have been going to Sport Rock now at least once a week for the past several weeks, and there is this one chick there, Jasmine, who is unreal. She twists her body in so many different ways, I think her pops was a pretzel and her mom was Venus Williams. Anyway, she just glides so naturally along the wall. More so than anybody else I've seen in there, the sole exception being one of the instructors, Gerrick. Oh well, I'll just wait for black people to overtake hockey any day now.
Speaking of Sport Rock, my hands and forearms are so unbelievably weak...I am laughing otherwise I'd be weeping. But I will say this, I think I am the heaviest person that climbs at Sport Rock, so if you put my forearms and hands on any other climber they would kick some wall a$$.
Why do ribs take so long to heal? It's been almost a month since I bruised my ribs and they still kill. On the bright side, it gives me an excuse to pop Vicodin like candy. Loopy Fat Kid makes for great entertainment. It's a win/win.
Lesson learned - I should stick with my gut, judging a book by its cover, 'cause it hasn't failed me yet. The movie didn't suck, it was beautifully shot, great cinematography, and some pretty sweet action scenes. But it was boring, ridiculously slow in a few long chunks, and pretty uninteresting. Although, there is one scene where a woman gives birth to a baby in water and we see the kid shoot out like a torpedo. That was pretty awsellent. Not quite sweetastic, but still awesellent.
Random thoughts and observations
I hate cab drivers. They drive like the world is their own personal bumper car ride. And they are almost always foreign...except for the coked up driver we had in Atlantic City. Nevertheless, I always hear about how these drivers were doctors in their home countries and they come here and have to drive cabs. So what do we learn from this? Doctors make the worst drivers.
(((Disclaimer: the following is merely an observation not an endorsement, opinion, view, or anything of the sort, just pointing out some faulty logic)))
I read an article (article is a bit of a stretch) but the headline snagged me, mostly because it had sex in the title. Basically it asked three men and three women their views on sex occurring early on in the relationship. It was funny because two of the women were talking about how women should hold out on sex because if that's all he's after then he won't stick around. The whole why buy the cow when you get the milk for free. Or if you do it too early the relationship will only be about sex. Now, I find that wonderfully bassackwards and void of logic. They take sex, wrap it up in a box and keep it under a Sexmas tree for the man to long after, and the relationship is not supposed to be about sex? Silly rabbits. Sounds like they could use an adventure with Dora the Sexplorer.
Why are black people better at EVERY sport? I have been going to Sport Rock now at least once a week for the past several weeks, and there is this one chick there, Jasmine, who is unreal. She twists her body in so many different ways, I think her pops was a pretzel and her mom was Venus Williams. Anyway, she just glides so naturally along the wall. More so than anybody else I've seen in there, the sole exception being one of the instructors, Gerrick. Oh well, I'll just wait for black people to overtake hockey any day now.
Speaking of Sport Rock, my hands and forearms are so unbelievably weak...I am laughing otherwise I'd be weeping. But I will say this, I think I am the heaviest person that climbs at Sport Rock, so if you put my forearms and hands on any other climber they would kick some wall a$$.
Why do ribs take so long to heal? It's been almost a month since I bruised my ribs and they still kill. On the bright side, it gives me an excuse to pop Vicodin like candy. Loopy Fat Kid makes for great entertainment. It's a win/win.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Cereal Wars - The Battle for Deep Fryer Dominance
So, there are several reasons I love cooking - blending flavors to make a dish pop, sizzle, sing and initiate a gastrogasm when it hits your tongue; taking a concept to a completed plate; the intensity of a chaotic kitchen getting everything done and your entire focus is on one particular task at any given time; and of course curious experimentation.
Sunday was one of those days. First, it was chicken wings. Why have I never made chicken wings before? I have a deep fryer. But I don't have Hooter's girls to serve them to me, so that might explain part of it. Anyway, I decided to make a chipotle based sauce, and I gotta say, the wings were phenomenal! I don't care what anyone says, I loved them, and for those that know me, I very rarely like my own food enough to say I love anything. I don't know if I would have changed much, if anything at all. I think the guests agreed, as all of the wings were eaten.
For the main course, I made rosemary pork chops and for the sauce I reduced some apple juice with some honey and almonds. The pork was a little dry, but the taste was good, with distinctive flavors...or so I was told. I knew the pork would be dry because I cooked it about 3 minutes too long. Oh well. I also made a toasted almond rice with Kalua almond liqueur. Wow, that stuff is delicious. It's like liquid candy. The rice was just ok though, as I burnt some of the almonds.
For the dessert, I decided to go with a chocolate risotto. Instead of chicken stock I used milk and sugar to make the risotto and then added about 6 ounces of unsweetened chocolate and more almonds (the "secret" ingredient for today's challenge) I had the bright idea of using Cinnamon Toast Crunch as the outer layer for deep frying the chocolate risotto balls (which turned out to be like mini brownies). However, after trying to apply the crushed CTC, it wasn't happening. So, back to old reliable, Corn Flakes. Then, in order to give the risotto some sweetness, I topped them with honey and put them on a nice scoop of vanilla ice cream. They turned out rather good. So, the battle for supreme cereal goes to Corn Flakes. Next time, I'll use some milk chocolate to mix in the risotto and not even bother with other cereals.
And since I have some left over sauce for the wings, I think I'll have to make at least one more batch of wings this week. Anyone hungry for some wings?
Sunday was one of those days. First, it was chicken wings. Why have I never made chicken wings before? I have a deep fryer. But I don't have Hooter's girls to serve them to me, so that might explain part of it. Anyway, I decided to make a chipotle based sauce, and I gotta say, the wings were phenomenal! I don't care what anyone says, I loved them, and for those that know me, I very rarely like my own food enough to say I love anything. I don't know if I would have changed much, if anything at all. I think the guests agreed, as all of the wings were eaten.
For the main course, I made rosemary pork chops and for the sauce I reduced some apple juice with some honey and almonds. The pork was a little dry, but the taste was good, with distinctive flavors...or so I was told. I knew the pork would be dry because I cooked it about 3 minutes too long. Oh well. I also made a toasted almond rice with Kalua almond liqueur. Wow, that stuff is delicious. It's like liquid candy. The rice was just ok though, as I burnt some of the almonds.
For the dessert, I decided to go with a chocolate risotto. Instead of chicken stock I used milk and sugar to make the risotto and then added about 6 ounces of unsweetened chocolate and more almonds (the "secret" ingredient for today's challenge) I had the bright idea of using Cinnamon Toast Crunch as the outer layer for deep frying the chocolate risotto balls (which turned out to be like mini brownies). However, after trying to apply the crushed CTC, it wasn't happening. So, back to old reliable, Corn Flakes. Then, in order to give the risotto some sweetness, I topped them with honey and put them on a nice scoop of vanilla ice cream. They turned out rather good. So, the battle for supreme cereal goes to Corn Flakes. Next time, I'll use some milk chocolate to mix in the risotto and not even bother with other cereals.
And since I have some left over sauce for the wings, I think I'll have to make at least one more batch of wings this week. Anyone hungry for some wings?
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Foreign Releases
Ok, so what the hell is going on? Apparently a CD can be released here in the US, but the same one that is released in Japan gets an additional two songs?!? I can't be the only perturplexed by this. (it's my new thing, combining two sweet words to come up with one awesome one...i.e. sweetastic, joygasmic, and of course grapentine fruit)
So, Incubus releases Light Grenades. And even though I'm a fan, I think that most of the songs they laid down on this album show growth, some new depth, with some goold ol' fashined rocking' going on. And then, thanks to all of the wonderful modern technology, You Tube comes along and WHAM! I get this.
AND THIS!:
Both of these are available only on the Japanese version of the Light Grenades album. And if I want to get them I have to pay a minimum of $21.83. But I already have the Light Grenades album. PFFFFFFT! With extra saliva. PFFFT. That's what I say. The songs are not available on iTunes or even on any of the black-listed P2P sharing programs. Or so I've been told. I don't play in any of those places. No telling what kind of rif-raf you run into there.
So, B-Side music only available to the Japanese, I say to you PFFFFT! Next time Sony comes out with a new Play Station, we here in the US should get and extra controller and free DVD with our PS4. But the Japanese, you get nothing with yours. It's a fair trade.
So, Incubus releases Light Grenades. And even though I'm a fan, I think that most of the songs they laid down on this album show growth, some new depth, with some goold ol' fashined rocking' going on. And then, thanks to all of the wonderful modern technology, You Tube comes along and WHAM! I get this.
AND THIS!:
Both of these are available only on the Japanese version of the Light Grenades album. And if I want to get them I have to pay a minimum of $21.83. But I already have the Light Grenades album. PFFFFFFT! With extra saliva. PFFFT. That's what I say. The songs are not available on iTunes or even on any of the black-listed P2P sharing programs. Or so I've been told. I don't play in any of those places. No telling what kind of rif-raf you run into there.
So, B-Side music only available to the Japanese, I say to you PFFFFT! Next time Sony comes out with a new Play Station, we here in the US should get and extra controller and free DVD with our PS4. But the Japanese, you get nothing with yours. It's a fair trade.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Lost Art of Storytelling
For the past several weeks Fox has had its new reality show 'On the Lot' bringing up-and-coming directors into the limelight. Some have some innovative ideas, some are special effects wizards, some are pretty funny, and even a few have style. But what is glaringly obvious is that none of them seem to understand the heart of storytelling. And that is the major problem with Hollywood movies.
Look, we've all said it - "It wasn't a great movie, but it was fun. It was entertaining. Sometimes I just want to have mindless entertainment." Fair enough. Yes, I said it, fair enough. But porn is mindless entertainment. Quite fun too, I imagine. Films, at their very basic core, are stories. And the problem with the storytellers is that they are directors, more concerned with scenes, visual personifications, and gimmicky wow factor BS that manipulates audiences' emotions.
This is evident in 'On the Lot' when guest judges (Hollywood movie makers) critique the short films of contestants. Only Wes Craven has provided any clear insight for the young directors. Craven actually made a statement about a film where the characters lacked causality (not his exact term, but that's what he meant). While it's fun to see what these directors are able to come up with in just a week, it's also exposing how lost Hollywood really is when it comes to storytelling. And there is absolutely NO constructive criticism. It's a popularity contest. After all, Hollywood is high school with cigars.
And so, here are a few thoughts about writing and storytelling from some famous dead, nearly dead, and never dead people. Enjoy.
"Many books require no thought from those who read them, and for a very simple reason; they made no such demand upon those who wrote them."
- Charles Caleb Colton (1780 - 1832), Lacon, 1820
(The same is true for movie makers)
"Writers should be read, but neither seen nor heard."
- Daphne du Maurier (1907 - 1989)
(Directors drench their movies with their "style" and often kill the story)
"The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think."
- Edwin Schlossberg
"Please write again soon. Though my own life is filled with activity, letters encourage momentary escape into others lives and I come back to my own with greater contentment."
- Elizabeth Forsythe Hailey, A Woman of Independent Means
(This is why we love movies so much)
"It's not enough to create magic. You have to create a price for magic, too. You have to create rules."
Eric A. Burns, Gossamer Commons, 06-15-05
"Write something to suit yourself and many people will like it; write something to suit everybody and scarcely anyone will care for it."
- Jesse Stuart
(Hollywood suits always try mass appeal because it will sell more tickets, and we end up with crap)
And finally, let's end with F. Scott Fitzgerald. Why? Because it's my blog, that's why.
"Begin with an individual, and before you know it you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find you have created - nothing."
"Draw your chair up close to the edge of the precipice and I'll tell you a story."
"Find the key emotion; this may be all you need know to find your short story."
"To have something to say is a question of sleepless nights and worry and endless ratiocination of a subject - of endless trying to dig out of the essential truth, the essential justice."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Look, we've all said it - "It wasn't a great movie, but it was fun. It was entertaining. Sometimes I just want to have mindless entertainment." Fair enough. Yes, I said it, fair enough. But porn is mindless entertainment. Quite fun too, I imagine. Films, at their very basic core, are stories. And the problem with the storytellers is that they are directors, more concerned with scenes, visual personifications, and gimmicky wow factor BS that manipulates audiences' emotions.
This is evident in 'On the Lot' when guest judges (Hollywood movie makers) critique the short films of contestants. Only Wes Craven has provided any clear insight for the young directors. Craven actually made a statement about a film where the characters lacked causality (not his exact term, but that's what he meant). While it's fun to see what these directors are able to come up with in just a week, it's also exposing how lost Hollywood really is when it comes to storytelling. And there is absolutely NO constructive criticism. It's a popularity contest. After all, Hollywood is high school with cigars.
And so, here are a few thoughts about writing and storytelling from some famous dead, nearly dead, and never dead people. Enjoy.
"Many books require no thought from those who read them, and for a very simple reason; they made no such demand upon those who wrote them."
- Charles Caleb Colton (1780 - 1832), Lacon, 1820
(The same is true for movie makers)
"Writers should be read, but neither seen nor heard."
- Daphne du Maurier (1907 - 1989)
(Directors drench their movies with their "style" and often kill the story)
"The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think."
- Edwin Schlossberg
"Please write again soon. Though my own life is filled with activity, letters encourage momentary escape into others lives and I come back to my own with greater contentment."
- Elizabeth Forsythe Hailey, A Woman of Independent Means
(This is why we love movies so much)
"It's not enough to create magic. You have to create a price for magic, too. You have to create rules."
Eric A. Burns, Gossamer Commons, 06-15-05
"Write something to suit yourself and many people will like it; write something to suit everybody and scarcely anyone will care for it."
- Jesse Stuart
(Hollywood suits always try mass appeal because it will sell more tickets, and we end up with crap)
And finally, let's end with F. Scott Fitzgerald. Why? Because it's my blog, that's why.
"Begin with an individual, and before you know it you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find you have created - nothing."
"Draw your chair up close to the edge of the precipice and I'll tell you a story."
"Find the key emotion; this may be all you need know to find your short story."
"To have something to say is a question of sleepless nights and worry and endless ratiocination of a subject - of endless trying to dig out of the essential truth, the essential justice."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
