The evils of swashbuckling action and very bad weather.

Have you noticed that in addition to a simple rating, the Motion Picture Association of America adds a reason behind the rating to each and every movie that appears on the big screen? You need to watch the preview closely in order to see the reasons along the bottom of the screen, but it’s often worth the effort. Some of the reasons are hilarious. Here are a few of my favorites:

Twister: PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather.

Alien vs. Predator: PG-13 for violence, language, horror images, slime, and gore.

Indian in the Cupboard: PG for mild language and brief video images of violence and sexy dancing.

Team America: World Police: R for graphic crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language - all involving puppets.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: PG for quirky situations, action and mild language.

Shrek the Third: PG for some crude humor, suggestive content and swashbuckling action.

Goonies never say die

It’s the twenty-fifth anniversary of The Goonies this week.

I loved the film, as all children of the 1980s should, but I always had one big problem with it.

At the end of the film, when Mikey opens his marble bag to reveal the jewels that he has managed to retrieve from One-Eyed Willy’s cache, the assumption is instantly made that this small handful of possible-costume jewelry will be worth enough to cover the mortgages on a significant number of homes in the neighborhood.

In fact, Mikey’s father is so certain that his ten-year old son has somehow stumbled upon a hidden treasure of enormous wealth that he instantly tears up the bank documents that he was about to sign and tosses them in the air.  And all this happens before the pirate ship or any other evidence of his son’s fantastic tale even becomes visible. 

Even if Mikey’s father believed that they were real jewels (a stretch at best), how was he able to instantly appraise their value with such certainty?

This never felt right to me.

Of course, I was able to instantly recall the names of almost every character in the movie prior to writing this post and could probably provide you with a remarkable accurate, scene-by-scene narration of the story, so apparently this faulty ending did not do much to spoil my love for the movie.

The Hunt for Red October: Good and not so much

I caught some of The Hunt for Red October yesterday. It’s a good movie and a better book, but having not seen the film in years, I had some thoughts after watching it again. 1.  Just a little bit of computer-enhanced special effects in the last fifteen minutes of the film could really improve the whole damn thing. Those underwater submarine battles, and especially the torpedoes, look ridiculous. If they can add a bunch of meaningless CGI to the original Star Wars, couldn’t they fix this film up as well?

2.  Does the evil Russian submarine captain have to be sweaty and arrogant and stupid? Give me a capable bad guy any day.

3.  Harrison Ford makes for a much better Jack Ryan. But perhaps watching Alec Baldwin’s masterful comedic performances over the years have soured him for me when it comes to dramatic roles.

4.  The way in which the director eliminates the subtitles while making the viewer believe that the Russians are still speaking in Russian is masterful and should be copied whenever possible.

I don’t get it

I know it’s hip and trendy to love Wes Anderson’s films, but I don’t. 

I thought that Rushmore was okay, The Life Aquatic was overrated, The Darjeeling Limited was slow and unfunny, and The Royal Tenenbaums was so awful that I would have walked out of the theater if I hadn’t gone with friends. 

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. 

I just don’t understand the love affair that people have with his films, and this video short illustrates my feelings precisely. 

Deprived youth

I was speaking to a group of Newington High School students yesterday about writing.  In attempting to explain the importance of twisting stereotypes and giving the reader the unexpected, I used the example of Hannibal Lecter from The Silence of the Lambs. 

Lecter was an absolute villain and a genuine cannibal, I explained, but the audience couldn’t help but like him.  In the closing scene of the movie, Lecter is preparing to kill and eat Dr. Childress, the psychologist who has tormented him for years, and even though this man is little more than an arrogant and lecherous weasel, the audience finds itself pleased that Lecter has escaped and Childress will be receiving his comeuppance at the hands of Lecter. 

Turns out no one in the class has ever seen the movie.

THE WHOLE CLASS HAD NEVER SEEN THE MOVIE.

Their teacher reminded me that they were not alive when this movie was released, but I reminded her that I wasn’t alive when films like Psycho were released but I’ve still seen them.

A whole class of high school students who have never seen Silence of the Lambs, which is, by the way, widely regarded as one of the best films ever made?

Horrifying.

I assigned them the movie for homework.

I also added that the Thomas Harris novel upon which the film was based was also excellent, as was all of his work. 

HANNIBAL, the follow-up novel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, was one of the only books that literally had me cringing through scenes, and there was one particular scene that made me want to take a shower after reading it.

I still get the creeps just thinking about it. 

Waiting on Hollywood

It’s that time of night that film and television news occasionally trickles in. 

Both SOMETHING MISSING and UNEXPECTEDLY, MILO have been optioned to film and television producers, and since they are working on the West Coast, I tend to hear from them around 7 PM Eastern Standard Time.

Lately, the news has been good, and this evening was no exception.  Big-named movie directors are bandied about in terms of UNEXPECTEDLY, MILO, and a serious, no-nonsense television producer is hard at work on SOMETHING MISSING, trying to convince someone that it would make a great television series. 

It can be quite exciting.    

But I’ve learned over the past year to never get your hopes up in terms of film and television.  Everyone from Oprah’s production company to Johnny Depp’s “people” have considered the projects and passed, so despite the enormity of the names, I’ve learned to just sit back and continue writing my books. 

If something happens, it happens.  I’m an author who might get lucky enough to have a movie or television series based upon my stories someday,  but at my heart, I write books for people to read. 

This is my focus.

The remarkable part of the whole process is that I never anticipated anything like this happening when I first started writing.  Truthfully, I never even expected SOMETHING MISSING to be published.  I thought I’d end up with a book to pass onto my kids someday, as evidence that their dear old dad actually existed in a younger form and had half-a-brain. 

Everything since I finished the book has been gravy. 

But in the last two years, I’ve found myself on the phone and exchanging email from time to time with powerful and influential people in Hollywood.  Producers, directors, writers, and agents who want to pick my brain, pitch their idea and pay me for the rights to shop my book around.  I often hang up the phone after one of these calls and pinch myself, wondering if all this could still be real.

Hopefully one day it will be.

“Separate but equal” still alive in Hollywood

My wife and I caught about ten minutes of the Golden Globe Awards last night, and I came away wondering:

Why are the best acting awards divided along gender lines? 

While there are competitive endeavors in which the division of the sexes seems reasonable (basketball, soccer, and similar athletic events, at least for now), there is no discernable reason why actors and actresses cannot compete against one another, and I can’t imagine why they would not want to vie for the same award.

Frankly, I would prefer my daughter grow up in a world in which she does not see these divisions along gender lines as necessary or inevitable. I want her to have the opportunity to compete against men wherever and whenever there is a level playing field, and acting would seem to be one example of this. 

My wife argues that the division of the sexes in the Golden Globes provides an opportunity for more awards, and therefore more people can be recognized for their excellence.  But if increased awards this is the motive for these gender-based distinctions, why not choose distinctions that matter rather than ones related solely to genitalia and chromosomes?

How about best actor in a fictional role and a non-fictional role?  Or best actor in a period and non-period piece?  These distinctions at least seem more meaningful than best actor with a penis and best actor with a vagina, which is the distinction that we currently have.  

And if we are really interested in this division of gender in order to increase the number of awards, why isn’t the Best Director award similar divided?  Women and men must compete against one another for the directorial award (last night James Cameron beat Kathryn Bigelow in what many considered to be an upset), while the actors and actresses whom they direct do not have the same opportunity.

If I were Hilary Swank, I’d be mad as hell.  I bet she’s dying to kick Russell Crowe’s ass.     

Even the term actress provides a dilemma.  While many female television and movie stars still use the term actress to describe their profession, a growing number now prefer to be referred to as actors. But the Golden Globe and Academy Awards that honor these women still utilize the actress moniker.  Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress remains the name emblazoned on these awards.  What happens when a woman who insists on being referred to as an actor is awarded the Best Actress Oscar? 

Does she decline? 

Does she scrape the word actress off the statue and have it replaced with actor?

If everyone was competing for the same statue, problems like this would not exist.  And doesn’t the move away from the term actress signal a belief similar to my own? 

And what happens when we have our first transgender or multi-gendered actor/actress is nominated for an award?  This issue has already proven troublesome in the sporting world, where a division of sexes at least seems reasonable.  What happens when it arises in a competition that is divided along gender lines for no apparent reason?

Are Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet afraid to compete against the likes of Sean Penn and Jack Nicholson?

More importantly, why are they not clamoring to do so, if not or their own sakes, for the sake of my daughter?

Rise up, my brothers and sisters!

Mark Wilson and I are simpatico when it comes to handling movie theater talkers.  I agree with everything he suggests. On Wednesday my friend and I plan on seeing Avatar at the local IMAX theater, and if anyone dares to speak during the movie, I will take immediate action, employing some of Wilson’s suggestions with my own if necessary.  Normally, a simple but stern reminder of theater etiquette is enough to quiet down the average movie talker, but on more than one occasion, I have been forced into more drastic measures.

My wife and I were watching The Village a few years ago when a roving band of teenagers wandered into the theater, called out for a guy named Hector, and then left. They returned a few minutes later, stood near the door, and giggled before leaving again. Several minutes later they returned for a third time, taking seats in the front row and resuming their conversations. I waited for a couple minutes, hoping they they would calm down, and when they did not, I took action.

I walked down to the front row, took up a position in front of the group, leaned in, and whispered, “You can shut up and stay, or you can leave now.  But if you stay and keep on talking, I will make it my primary mission in life to get you kicked out of the theater, even if I have to lie to do it.”

They exited immediately.

Several years ago, I was watching one of the Lord of the Rings movies with a girlfriend. The movie had been running for about five minutes and two young women sitting a couple rows behind had failed to end their conversation, even after I asked them to stop. Frustrated and angry, I stood up, turned to the women (and the audience in general), and said in a loud voice, “Can we all agree that these two women need to shut up now or leave the theater?”

A smattering of tentative applause quickly crescendoed into a unanimous ovation by my fellow patrons, immediately shaming the women into silence.

I admit that there’s a small part of me that sometimes hopes to run into callous, inconsiderate movie talkers, just so I can pull stunts like those I’ve described above.

People-pleasers

This morning, as I was getting dressed, I turned on the television. The channel was tuned to HBO, which was airing a movie that I later identified as Bride Wars.

Based upon the scene that I watched, I will not be watching this film anytime soon. But I did catch a piece of dialogue, a phrase really, that I liked a lot. In the midst of a verbal confrontation between two characters, one woman accused the other of “people-pleasing” her way through life.

I love this line, despite the paucity of good dialogue surrounding it.

Like the angry female character in the film, I am also not a fan of people-pleasers, and in many ways, CHICKEN SHACK addresses my distaste for this brand of human being.

I define people-pleasers as those individuals who construct their lives in such a way as to constantly conform to the expectations and ideals of others. These are the people who believe that all manner of pomp and circumstance must be adhered to without exception, lest the offending party be judged as uncivilized, uncouth or just plain rude. Proper dress and appropriate decorum are goals for which these people-pleasers strive feverishly. Rather than allowing themselves to be judged upon originality, creativity, or authenticity, people-pleasers purposefully amalgamate their persona into cookie-cutter constructs of those around them. They base their entire existence upon inflexible tradition, a rigid set of cultural norms, a stringent and assiduous devotion to proper etiquette and comportment, a blind and unquestioning adherence to religious doctrine, and an enthusiastic embrace of popular culture.

These are the people who purchase gifts based upon numerical equity and perceived expectation, find great comfort on the social acceptance that comes with the well-timed thank you note, and throw elaborate birthday and graduation parties so their equally uninteresting children can achieve their own station on the social ladder. These are the societal wonks of the world who would never dare to break a dress code and only listen to music on Top-40 radio stations, shunning anything that might be perceived as weird, different or unpopular. Image is everything to the people-pleaser. Without even being aware of it, their goal is to become as unmemorable as possible in their constant attempt to look and sound like everyone else around them. They avoid confrontation and controversy at all costs, dodging the honesty and forthrightness that can sometimes result in animosity in favor of behind-the-back sniping and anonymous cruelty.

As you can probably tell, I do not like this kind of person at all. People-pleasers make it difficult for quirky, odd, strange and unique individuals to be themselves. They demand conformity and often vilify those who do not meet this exigency.

Most of all, I just don’t understand people-pleasers. I cannot imagine why anyone would invest so much of themselves into the opinions of others. Admittedly, they are easy targets for my novel, but I have also discovered that their righteous indignation and overwhelming numbers can be dangerous to the less-than-conforming souls of the world. This is an issue at the heart of CHICKEN SHACK.

Nicholson Baker said it well: There is a feeble urgency behind all forced mannerisms of finery- haste and pomp cannot coincide.

Ambrose Pierce did as well: Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.

Strange things afoot at the Circle K

Photographer and artist Paho Mann has photographed almost two dozen re-inhabited Circle K convenience stores in the Phoenix, New Mexico area.  As the company began moving its stores to more profitable locations in the 1990s, “the shells left by this migration were filled by small businesses, each inhabiting an architecturally identical structure. The new occupants painted, put up a new signs, and modified windows and doors.”

The result is a fascinating look at the creativity and individuality of local business people and provides an intriguing look at the history of the region. 

It’s also flat-out kooky, a sensibility that often appeals to me.

I can’t explain it, but ideas and images like this inspire me like few others.  I look at one of these re-imagined Circle K’s and think that I could probably write a novel about each one.  I can’t help but imagine the people working inside, and just like that, characters begin to take shape in my mind. 

Also, for connoisseurs of the film classic Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, the Circle K brings back some rather fond memories as well. 

We can’t possibly be this desperate for ideas

Out of all the possible movies that could be made, based upon any number of books, musicals, plays, television series or even (God forbid) original concepts , do we really need film based upon the board game Risk?

Last time I checked, Risk has no characters, no plot, and no compelling hook.

What’s next? 

A movie based upon Boggle?

Hungry Hungry Hippos?

Uno?

A day at the movies

My wife and I enjoyed the rare double feature today, managing to squeeze in Zombieland and The Informant all before 3:30 PM.  Zombieland turned out to be a private screening and The Informant had only one other couple in the theater with us.

Despite the dearth of eyeballs, both were excellent films.  Zombieland is outstanding.  Dare I say perfect.

The Informant, based upon a true story that I first heard on This American Life, was also very good.  I thought that the soundtrack and the overall pitch of the movie were a little off, but the story and performances were great.   

Seeing back-to-back movies, my wife and I were also subjected to a large number of movie trailers, including two different trailers for the upcoming disaster film 2012.  The trailer attached to Zombieland was a less than hopeful view of the destruction of the world, whereas the trailer attached to The Informant focused upon mankind’s continued survival against great odds.

Interesting how Hollywood views the audiences for Zombieland and The Informant as very different sets of people.    

I also noticed that the trailer to Zombieland, as it appears on the film’s official website, shows an alternate scene from the movie.  In the online trailer, a zombie-stripper is wearing considerably more clothing that in the actual film.

More movie trailer manipulation than I would have ever imagined.  

Speaking of movie trailers, my wife nearly cried upon viewing this movie trailer this afternoon.

Naturally, I did not.

A question of origin

When Darth Vader is chasing Luke Skywalker down the trench of the Death Star in Star Wars: A New Hope, he notes that “the Force is strong with this one.” Shouldn’t he be more alarmed with this observation? Less than twenty years earlier, Vader slaughtered every Jedi youngling in the Jedi Temple, effectively ending the possibility of any future Jedi.

When he encounters a pilot who is strong with the Force, doesn’t he have to wonder why this guy even exists?

These are the things that I dream about at night.

Uncomfortable plot summaries

From postmodernbarney.com comes a list of Uncomfortable Plot Summaries.  Deconstructed and amusing summaries of film plots.  Here are a few of my favorites from a lengthy list:  

BATMAN: Wealthy man assaults the mentally ill.

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST: Peasant girl develops Stockholm Syndrome.

FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF: Amoral narcissist makes world dance for his amusement.

RED DAWN: Despite shock-and-awe tactics, a superior occupying force is no match for a tenacious sect of terrorist insurgents.

SPIDER-MAN: Nerd gets bitten by spider, complains about how this ruins his life for years to come

STAR WARS: EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Boy is abused by alien, kisses sister, attempts patricide.

Yesterday I saw THE TIME TRAVELR’S WIFE: Genetic disorder leads to man slaughter.

I’d offer up an uncomfortable plot summary for SOMETHING MISSING, but I wouldn’t want to ruin the end for those of you who haven’t finished reading it yet.

Star Trek: Coincidentally flawed

In 1997 I sent a letter to Steven Spielberg suggesting that he hire me as the Common Sense Director for his movies. I explained that my role would be to point out the silly, avoidable flaws that seem to plague so many films, his included. It was probably in reference to Jurassic Park, a film that he directed and was seriously flawed.

For example, why breed dangerous velociraptors if their enclosure provides no possible view of the animal to the public? In fact, why not just breed plant-eating dinosaurs and dispense with any concerns from investors and insurance carriers that hound the owner of the park at the beginning of the story? Hell, why bother stocking your park with carnivorous monsters at all? Aren’t brontosauruses and triceratops cool enough? And why send all the employees of your island-bound park home every night by boat instead of providing permanent housing for at least some of them? It’s an animal park. Should it really be left unattended every night?

The list goes on and on.

Granted, I understand why these elements had to be in place for the story to work, but at least take a moment in the film to explain the reasoning behind these decisions, otherwise things just seem too silly and improbable.

I tell you all this because I saw the new Star Trek movie today, and while I enjoyed the film, it was most definitely flawed, and once again, avoidably so. Granted, it didn’t involve Kirk and Spock traveling back in time to borrow whales from twentieth century Earth or a Voyager space probe gaining consciousness and threatening to destroy Earth, so there was no place to go but up.

But still, it had its problems, most of them occurring in the middle of the film, and from here, I must warn you that the rest of this post will include spoilers.

First, I must say that I went to the movie alone, just my second trip to the theater since my daughter was born. It was an 11 AM matinee and I was the only one in the theater. Buoyed by the thought of a private screening, I left my cell phone on, removed my shoes, switched seats several times, and cheered at certain parts of the film, jut because I could.

Things were off to a fine start.

And the movie was good as well. Things were going along nicely, lots of action and adventure, when Spock, the acting captain of the Enterprise, decided that instead of tossing an insubordinate Kirk into the brig for resisting arrest, he would instead place the unconscious cadet in an escape capsule and send him into temporary exile on an unnamed frozen planet.

Seemed a little extreme to me when a perfectly good jail cell is probably just two or three decks below, but I’ll let this one go for now.

Fortunately, Kirk’s escape capsule lands within walking distance of two people who will prove instrumental to his eventual triumph. In fact, these are probably the only two people in the universe who could possibly help Kirk in any way: the aged Spock from the future, who steps in just in time to save Kirk from being eaten from a monster that does not seem suited to the planet’s frozen climate, and Scotty, the only man in the universe capable of transporting Kirk back onto the Enterprise while it is moving at warp speed.

I found this set of circumstances a little hard to swallow. Added to this, it was also oddly convenient that:

a. Both of these men would be on the same chunk of orbiting ice at the same time.

b. Both men were within walking distance of one another, even though one was manning a Star Fleet outpost and the other had inexplicably taken up residence in a cave.

c. Out of all the places Kirk’s unpiloted capsule could have landed on this planet, it just happened to set down within walking distance of both men.

Ridiculous.

The same, stupid thing happened in The Empire Strikes Back. Luke Skywalker heads to Dagobah to meet Yoda and crash-lands on the planet, with no idea where Yoda might be. Thankfully, Luke discovers that he has miraculously landed about 35 feet from Yoda’s hovel, despite the enormous size of the planet.

Ridiculous.

A friend tried to explain the coincidence by declaring that this was the Force at work, but in Episode I, it is made clear that the power of the Force is derived from microscopic organisms living in symbiosis with other living beings, and therefore the Force would have no control over where an X-wing fighter might crash on a swamp-filled planet.

This unfortunate section of the movie closes with future-Spock’s view of Vulcan being destroyed from the surface of the frozen planet. But any junior astronomer could tell you that if a planet that appears about five times the size of our Moon in the daytime sky is destroyed, the shift in gravitation as a result of the disappearance of the planet would send all other planetary bodies, and especially ones as close as this frozen planet was, spinning off into space.

Yet Spock, Scotty, and the frozen planet all remain perfectly safe as Vulcan is eaten by a temporary black hole.

If only I could have sat down with the writers of this film and said, “Look guys. There’s no way that Kirk can be marooned on the same uninhabited planet as future Spock and Scotty. And there’s no way he finds them this easily, just about a stone’s throw from one another. Let’s spend thirty seconds of movie-time cleaning this up a bit. Okay?”

Please?

“And then let’s talk about how gravity works in space. Okay?”

So once again I put out the offer to any and all movie directors, writers and producers: Run your script by me. Give me an advanced screening of your film. Let me help you by clearing up the improbability and silliness that seems to plague so many films. A few minor corrections or a moment of explanation can change a movie from one that is flawed and silly to one that is memorable and right.

Mr. Spielberg. Are you listening?