Chasing Failure

Last week I went to see Paul Haggis being interviewed at the TIFF's new permanent location. I have to admit, it was pretty cool and he said a few things that made me nod my head and think, oh, I should do a DWT blog about that! But clearly I'm getting old, or I've been very distracted, or both, because I forgot most of them.

But one comment was during the Q&A. Someone asked about him about the importance of failures. Haggis had talked during the interview about a few TV shows he'd developed that he really loved and believed in that either never got picked up, or got canceled right out of the box, like EZ Streets. And he also talked about how he'd been shopping the scripts for both Crash and Million Dollar Baby for years before he managed to get the money together to produce them. 

And his answer to the person who asked (a young filmmaker) was: run hurtling toward failures. Pursue failures, because that's the only way to succeed.

I thought this was good and brave advice... because really, if we aren't doing this in some way, aren't we playing it safe?

I dunno. I suppose it's just another way to say, take risks, pursue your wildest dreams, do it the way you want to do it... but I think it is kind of freeing to think about chasing down failures. Hey, don't we writers actively pursue rejection and criticism in a way?

Is this too negative a way of thinking about this? I can't decide...

Forgettable TV

I watch a lot of TV. Too much TV. And yet, when I hear people recommend shows I've given a pass, I'm curious. And not wanting to miss out on something potentially great, I sometimes try to catch up.

I've done that with two series, lately. The Good Wife and Castle.

While I wasn't drawn into The Good Wife immediately, it really grew on me with the complexity of the characters and situations, and the truly outstanding actors and performances. And I love that there aren't any fully "good" or "bad" characters.  Love all the moral ambiguity in this show. This is one I wish I'd watched from the start and need to hunt down the episodes from this season that I missed, so I can get fully caught up. (When did the Lily Taylor character first appear? Love her...)

Castle, on the other hand, I really wanted to like from the start. And I do remember watching the pilot and thought I'd stopped watching soon after that. But, hearing that the show has lots of fans among other writers, I thought I needed to give it another chance and so I rented the first season. Watched them  this weekend in record time. Why record time? Because I quickly realized I'd seen them all before. I'd forgotten I'd watched the entire first season. I clearly found it so forgettable, I, well, forgot I'd seen it.

I'm trying to figure out why I found it so forgettable...

Nathan Fillion is infinitely likable and adorable and so is his Richard Castle character. And I really think they do capture the "writer thing" very well. Not that I know what it's like to be a mega-bestseller, but so many of the writer details ring true. Some of the dialogue and banter is great and the one liners can be clever. I do find myself believing that Nathan Fillion is a writer and not Captain Mal from Firefly. And that's no small feat.

I also like the mother and daughter characters, even if they feel slightly stereotypical to me. But as of the end of the first season, nothing very interesting has happened with either of these characters. Unlike TGW where the family and other secondary characters have depth and layers, these two just seem to be there so that Castle has someone to tell the details of the case-of-the-week to. And all the other bits of business (mother exploiting his fame and throwing parties, daughter being ridiculously responsible and cute) had no arc or nuance. (To be fair, the first season was only 10 episodes long, but even given the short season, not much happened... Really... do we know much more at the end of the first season that we didn't already know or see coming in the pilot? Or even the trailer for the series? Perhaps this is why my memory tricked me into thinking I'd only seen the pilot.)

The detective I find slightly less appealing. Beckett. That's her name, right? See, I forgot. I haven't found her character all that interesting or even consistent. She seems to go from no-nonsense-obsessed-with-difficult-case girl to drop-a-sexual-innuendo-into-every-second-sentence girl at the drop of a hat.  But again... Something happened in the very last episode of the first season that hinted that more interesting things ahead for her... And I can maybe buy that she's supposed to be a bit of a mystery for the Castle character to work out... But still, I remain underwhelmed.

Perhaps it's a pacing thing for me. I'm not into murder-of-the-week style shows that much, so for a show in this genre to work for me, (like Dexter, for example), there has to be an overarching story that's also paced well and juicy enough to draw me from week to week. For me, only *hinting* at the major character arcs and internal conflicts (other than the obvious: they want to sleep with each other) by the end of the tenth episode isn't quick enough.

What I want to know now is... Should I watch season 2? I have to admit that when I rented Season 1, I thought the current season was 2... I didn't realize how far behind I was... But who knows, maybe I blocked out Season 2, too? (I don't think so... with hindsight, I think I gave up part way into 2, not part way into 1 as I'd first thought.)

Castle fans... Is it worth getting caught up?

If season 1 was just a tease and it gets better... let me know. I still mostly want to like this show, even though I forgot I'd seen an entire season.

Taking the Easy Way Out

I was going to take the easy way out today, and blog about OUR NEXT NEW DRUNK WRITER JOINING US VERY SOON!!!, but decided that was a huge cop out. Plus, I think Molly would probably like to introduce her, so I'll restrain myself. But stay tuned....

Instead, I'd like to talk about endings and surprise twists and not taking the easy way out.

I'm struggling with the final act of one of the WIPs I'm working on now. Not that, sadly, I'm anywhere near that point in the ms yet, but I have been thinking about it. Trying to set things up properly to lead to the best possible climax and ending. (and no, I'm not talking about sex.)

Also, I eavesdropped on a little twitter discussion, between Louisa Edwards and Dakota Cassidy today, about Julia & Julie (or is it the other way around?) that got me thinking about twists and ending's, even more. And no, I haven't seen that movie yet, nor do I expect it to have much of a twist ending...

The movie I got thinking about was Junebug. A fabulous little independent film from about four or so years ago featuring Amy Adams. I think it might have been the first time I ever saw, or at least noticed, her as an actress, and I do believe she also received an Oscar nomination for supporting actress for her amazing performance. If you haven't seen this movie, you should.

Junebug isn't about her character, though. The film's about a character played by Alessandro Nivola, whom I love, and his character bringing his older and sophisticated girlfriend home to his much-less-sophisticated family in one of the Carolinas, or somewhere like that. The focus of the plot is on him coming home after so long away from his family, on them as a couple, on the folk artist the girlfriend's trying to sign and the ethical questions there...

Amy Adams plays Nivola's very pregnant sister-in-law, who's about the sweetest, most kind-hearted, naive, but curious-about-the-world character you could ever imagine. And whereas she could come off cloying or cliche, Amy Adams makes her completely believable. (Yes, the casting director for Enchanted must've seen her in Junebug. I wouldn't be shocked to learn the screenwriters for Enchanted were inspired by her performance in Junebug.)

But I digress... My point is, Junebug cruises along, pretending to be a character based story about the Nivola character, that's interesting but not really taking us on a storytelling roller-coaster of any kind (more like a merry-go-round or a pleasant ferris wheel ride at best).

The filmmakers distract us with a little business between the girlfriend and the father-to-be brother... and then BAM. A big twist. Something unexpected (I didn't see a hint of foreshadowing) that changes everything and makes you see the movie in an entirely different way. Makes you think about family and what it means in an entirely different way. Sure the whole movie was about family... but the twist pretty much punches you in the gut.

I don't want to say much more, because it would ruin the film if you haven't seen it, but I guess I aspire to walk the line this film, for me, walks so well. The line between surprising the reader, in a good way, and pissing them off, because you've written something so unexpected it doesn't meet reader expectations.

Yes, I aspire to walk that line, whereas, in real life thus far... I fear any reader will see my hand way before I play any of my cards.

You know what? It just occurred to me. Writing is hard.... Big news. LOL

How do you come up with a plot twists? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Dark Heroes and Mad Men

I've been thinking a lot about Sinead's post on Friday, and a dilemma I know she's having with one of her WIP's, and also thinking about some workshops I've attended, where the topic was making the protagonist sympathetic or emotionally identifiable in the opening scenes. While I usually think of that in terms of romance heroines, I'm starting to think this is the key to making readers accept dark heroes, too. That the "make your hero sympathetic or relatable rule" isn't just for the nice guys. It's for the bad guys, too. Let's face it, every well-rounded character's got two sides, but maybe the darker the hero the more important it is to show the positive traits early.

The thing is, it's hard to do this with a dark character, because you're trying to characterize him/her as dark at the same time. And I agree that it can be cowardly or a cop out for writers to soften the dark stuff too much. Also hard not to fall into a clichés like having them pet a puppy (or literally save a cat as in the title of Blake Snyder's screen writing book). But while challenging, it's not impossible and it doesn't mean you need to have the hero regret his/her bad choices right from the start, or otherwise soften whatever it is that makes them dark. Rather you can show something positive as well, or show him/her experiencing something the reader can relate to/empathize with. I'm going to have to pull out Susan Elizabeth Phillips' Ain't She Sweet again. Actually, I think I borrowed Sinead's copy. Need to get one of my own. But I'm quite sure SEP did this masterfully with her anti-heroine in Ain't She Sweet.

And another writer who's done it masterfully is Matthew Weiner, the writer/creator of Mad Men. AMC showed the first season of Mad Men back-to-back on Sunday, in anticipation of the second season starting next week. (Can't wait!) And I watched the opening scenes from the pilot episode about 5 times.


Okay, Don Draper might not be what many of us think of when we think "dark hero", but let's face it, he's a pretty dark guy, with some very dark secrets, who has done and does a lot of bad things. Yet, he is the protagonist of the series. (Peggy being the secondary protagonist and I'm going to have to go back and think about her introduction, too...)

So, how does the writer introduce Don Draper, dark hero...

First scene: Noisy, crowded bar. Everyone's drinking and smoking and chatting in groups. Having fun. But not Don. He's alone. Concentrating. Working. Writing ideas on a napkin.

In less than 5 seconds of the pilot episode we know Don is hard worker. Has a strong work ethic. Positive traits.

Then he asks a busboy (older black man) for a light and tries to engage him in conversation. The waiter (white) misinterprets the situation, tries to intercede and insults the busboy. Don brushes the waiter off, making it clear he wants to talk to the busboy. So, now we're maybe 15 seconds into this series and we know: Don is nice to people with low-paying jobs. Don is nice to a black person in 1960, when most white people weren't. Don respects the "little guy", cares about underdogs. More positive traits.

Then the conversation continues and he's asking the busboy about his brand of cigarettes and why he smokes them and what Don could say to convince him to switch brands. In a 20 or 30 second conversation we see more of Don respecting this man, valuing his opinion and Don being insightful and smart about his job. Look at that: Good at his job. Another positive trait. He respects others' opinions. Another one.

Oh, and the actor playing Don is very good looking, dresses well, has a great smile. Not trivial details. Good looking. Another positive trait.

Scene is over. Less than a minute. And we already like and respect Don, think he's a good guy. He's dedicated. A hard worker. Nice to underdogs. Good at his job. Good looking. At least five positive traits in maybe 40 seconds.

Second scene: Don goes to visit a woman in her apartment. It's late at night. He's not expected, but she's clearly glad to see him, but no push-over either, and she's attractive. And witty. Hmmmm. An attractive, witty woman likes Don. Wants to have sex with him. And she does the seducing/makes the first move. Another clue to him having positive traits. Others like him so he must be likable. And his lover is a bohemian, an independent woman. An artist. Plus, she has more than one lover. Interesting. His lover is a woman who is very rebellious given the time period. Earns her own living. She's interesting. That he's her lover makes him more interesting. And he talks with her about a problem he's having at work. Makes us think he respects women, respects her opinion. Because of this and the way he treats his new secretary in a later scene, we believe Don respects women more than most men of his time. We're proved wrong later in the episode. But the point is, we believe it now, as we're getting to know Don and it helps us become emotionally attached.

But back to the second scene. In addition to this scene cementing our impression that this guy is fairly liberal for his time--asking for opinions from a black man and now a woman!--it does something even more important. In discussing his work issues, we learn that he's vulnerable. Scared in fact. Scared that he won't come up with an idea for his cigarette manufacturer client, scared to go to work tomorrow, scared that one of the young execs will steal his job, scared that everyone at work will discover he's a fraud. Now, if you watch the series, you'll know that this last fear is a loaded one for Don. But we don't know that it's foreshadowing at this point. All we know is he has insecurities about his job and his biggest fear is that some day everyone will discover he's a fraud. These are fears and emotions almost everyone can relate to. The writer has made him emotionally identifiable, by putting him in this vulnerable situation we can relate to.

So, at this point, we're maybe 90 seconds into a series with an anti-hero and already the writer has given us five or six reasons to like and respect Don. To identify with him emotionally. Connect with him.

Next scene. Wakes up in bed with his lover. Says, "We should get married. ... You have your own business ... What size Cadillac do you take?" She replies: "You know the rules. I don't make plans and I don't make breakfast." Hands him his watch as a signal he should get up and get out.

Now we're wondering if Don might be a romantic. If she'd agree to it, he'd marry this woman. On top of that, he's fine with women in business. in 1960. Cool. All these assumptions turn out to be false, but Don wasn't lying in this scene, he was being ironic. Seeing it again, knowing all we know about Don after the first season, I think when he says "we should get married," to Midge, he isn't being romantic at all, but a making a wish for a different life because of the unhappiness and emptiness caused by living a lie. Midge is an escape. He doesn't have to feel badly that she knows nothing about him, because she doesn't want to know much about him. But -- big but -- at this point, we don't know any of this, so the writer is giving us more reasons to empathize with Don. Poor guy is in love with a woman who won't commit and has other lovers. And he's generous. He offered her a Cadillac, even if it was jokingly.

We're thinking Don's a pretty good guy. And we're maybe only 3 minutes into the series.

Then we start to meet the other characters and learn what pigs most of the men are and how badly they treat the women and Don starts to look even better by comparison. (Even the clearly closeted gay man does his best to sexually harass and insult the women. But Don mostly abstains and actually defends Peggy.)

After all this, by the time the negative stuff starts to come out about Don's character, we're already pretty invested in him and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he makes anti-semitic remarks we think, "Yes, but it's a sign of the times, plus he was nice to the black man and respects women." Two out of three ain't bad. ;-)
Then he insults a woman when she dares to question him, and says: "I'm not going to let a woman talk to me like this," before storming out on a female client. We're shocked, sure, but since we'd already decided he was a good guy in the first 2-3 minutes of the episode, we see these negative traits as complexities, not reasons to think he's a villain rather than a hero. When we learn he's a total cynic about love, we wonder, "Why does he feel that way? How was he hurt?" instead of hating him for it and thinking he's a jerk. When he's clearly sad when describing how advertising is all about happiness, we care and are curious about what's causing him pain.

And then, at the end of the episode... he goes home to his wife. Big reveal. He's married. A big-time cheater. But then even this blow is softened, because he loves his kids. And he loves his wife. And his wife loves him. And he's a good provider. We see all that in a tender 30 second scene when he gets home. (In future episodes, when we get to know his wife better, we realize everything wasn't as rosy as it seemed in that scene... but the writer is smart about that. Paints a pretty picture of his home life to start with.)

Do we hate him at the end of this first episode? Hard to say. Some people will. I didn't.
But I also think that, love him or hate him, most people by the end of this first episode are captivated by Don Draper. Fascinated. Drawn in to a complex character who just gets more and more complex as the series continues.

Stellar writing. Stellar acting. I see more in this opening episode each time I watch it. And I'm starting to think it's a master class in introducing dark heroes.

Is Don a dark hero, as in a murderer or rapist? Well no. (At least based on what we know in the first season.) But he is -- without giving any spoilers, for those of you who need to catch up and watch season one -- a bit of a scum bucket. Okay, maybe not a scum bucket. Just deeply wounded. See? I'm so invested I can't even call him a bad name.

I was totally drawn into his story. I think a good part of this is because of those masterful first scenes, those two minutes of screen time that made him emotionally identifiable to me and showed me his positive traits before revealing all the bad stuff.

(Now I want to go back and rewrite the first scene of my new book for the 60th time...)

All Hail The Sopranos! Or why this week is the best week of television EVER!!!

A few years ago I was living in a vegetarian nudist house in California (oh! I wish I was kidding) and I didn't have a TV. I was a little smug about it too -- so much so that when friends gave my husband and I a very nice TV for our wedding I was sort of a superior pain in the ass about it. I thought we'd never talk. Never drink wine and play big games of Scrabble. And if I could go back in time and tell myself one thing (besides to put all of our money on that Boston Red Sox World Championship a few years ago) it would be to shut up about the TV - because all those games of Scrabble we didn't play are a worthy worthy sacrifice to the TV Gods for this one week of Television.

Last night was the return of the best Sociopath to ever grace the small screen - Tony Soprano and the even more delightful return of the obsessive ecumenical spazz - Ari Gold from Entourage. And if that wasn't enough - and it is frankly - it's enough - this week is the season finale of...Friday Night Lights. Oh! The bliss.

Last nights return of Soprano's was the best reminder of what makes that show great. The violence, the delicious nearly torturous tension, the crazy juxtaposition of what this man is and what he wants and how he lives.

What I love about this show and what is coming to fruition this year is that they take their time. This is a character driven show in which a raised eyebrow and a sideways look at a noisy bird is just as much a plot point as a bullet in that poor ex-husband's brain and the ripped shirt the killer leaves behind!

Long conversations take place - and the dialogue doesn't really matter. I'm talking about that scene between Tony and his brother in law, Bobby in the boat - it doesn't matter what's being said - the pacing of the scene, the so telling non verbals - put it all out there. This is a monster at rest, fishing with a good man who would love to not be in the business. But the writers aren't just showing us a quiet moment in this man's life - it's also ratcheting up the tension because anything can happen in this show. Tony could lose it on his brother in law, another boat could come by and kill them all. Tony could have a heart attack. Anything. And we know because the writers of this show reward it's watchers that no moment of peace for this guy goes unpunished - either by his own hand or someone elses. So - it's this nice scene - two guys fishing and my husband and I were biting our nails from the torment.

So when the next scene of relaxation - Tony, Carmela, Janice (Tony's sister) and Bobby are sitting around drinking playing cards - we know, we just know it's a powder keg. And they lay the foundation for the scene so beautifully. So, tellingly. Bobby gets mad at the Sopranos. Carmela gets mad at Tony. Janice gets mad at her brother. And then...Tony starts getting mad.

Now, I love Friday Night Lights but I realized watching this show why Network Television will NEVER get close to the unbelievable storytelling that cable shows do. The writers (maybe the producers not sure how it works) are scared to trust the viewer to follow a character driven (to this magnitude) show. Sure, House is a character driven show - but good god it's running off the rails. And frankly - what does it compare to Dexter? Lost was totally in that first season a delicious character driven show. But now it's all plot. It's all explosions and secrets and we've stopped caring because we don't care about who is getting hurt. Friday Night Lights is falling into this trap too - turning the story around and around with more and bigger events. But I'm still in.

Thank God we've got a TV.

No follow-through

The other day, I started thinking about great ideas with no follow through.

The Showcase channel in Canada has started screening Huff, which I already watched when it was on the The Movie Network, a couple of years ago. (At the same time it was on whichever US channel, Showtime?, US originally screened it.)

Watching this series again from the beginning, I was reminded of the homeless Hungarian character who was in most of the first season's episodes... at least the first half of the first season.

And it made me think... If you bring an element into a story that's cool or interesting or mystical or different, I think you need to follow through on it. If you just drop it, the audience/reader will be left feeling unsatisfied at best, annoyed at worst. The defection of fans from Lost comes to mind. (Me? I'm still hoping the Lost writers know what the hell is going on and what that black smoke is and why some people are on the list and why some aren't and why Locke can walk on the island. But I admit I'm very naive when it comes to Lost. Who thinks those burried alive people this week will live?)

With Huff, for me, the dropped thread was the Hungarian. I don't know if any of you watched or are watching this show, but I was originally so impressed with it, especially during the first season. Talk about your interesting characters.
A psychiastrist who's basically a really good guy but who's going through a bit of a mid-life and career crisis.
His mother, brilliantly played by Blythe Danner, who gives new meaning to controlling and manipulative.
His wife who tries to be supportive but is pushed the breaking point by Huff's crises, by Huff's mother and by her own problems.
His best friend, played by Oliver Platt, who's a drug-addicted-prostitute-using-brilliantly-successful attorney.
And the lawyer's very cool admin assistant. Love the relationship between Russell and Maggie.

And that's not even touching on Huff's patient characters.

But the Hungarian... In the first few episodes he showed up at some point during each show asking Huff for help and then disappearing in such a way that it was absolutely obvious to the viewer that the Hungarian wasn't real, that he was in Huff's mind, but somehow Huff, the psychiatrist, never seems to figure this out. The Hungarian was a device, I assume, to symbolize Huff's inner turmoil, to help show how Huff is questioning who he is and whether or not he's a good person and whether he's really actually helping any of his patients...

But then the Hungarian just disappears, or rather stops appearing in the episodes.

One must assume that the writers no longer found him a very interesting device or something, because I don't really remember any trigger for him not being there anymore. This made the Hungarian a very unsatisfying literary device, for me anyway. Speaking of unsatisfying... The final episode of Huff was pretty unsatisfying, too... but I have more trouble blaming the writers for that, because this series was cancelled prematurely not allowing the writers to wrap up all the characters' stories properly.

Anyone else watch Huff? Anyone have any different ideas about the Hungarian? Why he was there and why he disappeared??? Was there a trigger or change in Huff that I missed? Or did I miss the connection?

Endings

Been thinking about this for a while as I approach the end of my current WIP.

Thought about it even more as I watched House last night. First, I want to declare my everlasting love for Hugh Laurie. The infatuation started in Sense and Sensibility. He had a small role, but I loved him in that movie. You can definitely see the genesis of the House character there.

Back to the point. House needs to end. I love the character, love the actor, but the show seems to have exhausted what they can do with him and his cottages, as Television without pity calls the three doctors under him.

Last night (spoiler alert) they introduced the idea that House might be dying and you know what, I liked it. And much to my dismay they crapped out on the concept.
Cowards!
It would have been a great way to end the show, on their terms, lots of dramatic possibility and then the show ends before it gets derivative and boring.
For examples, see Friends, and as much as I hate to admit it, even Buffy. The last two seasons of those shows were never as strong as the first few for me.

You can see it in other shows, an amazing concept that the writers never planned to last past one season. Prison Break, Lost, even at times, my absolute fav, Battlestar Galactica, although that last one has serious flashes of brilliance in it’s third season.

With the upcoming Harry Potter 7th book, I think, even though she needed to be edited more over the past two books, that Rowling made a smart choice limiting the series to seven. She said it from the beginning and I really hope she sticks to it.

Even within stand alone books, I find endings to be a serious problem sometimes. Authors extend the endings, tack on suspense plots in the last third, misunderstandings or long, long scenes that add nothing to the plot, just to get to 400 pages, when realistically the book should have ended 100 pages sooner and been so much stronger for it.

But endings are tough for me. They’re the hardest part of the book for me to write and I tend to rush them.

And now, it’s time to end this blog entry…. before I ramble on aimlessly any more.

Can't Get No Respect....Matt Damon

I used to really love watching In The Actor's Studio. I loved actors talking about craft in pretentious and uncomfortable ways -- I loved the way James Lipton would fall to his knees for even the most mediocre movies (ie Ben Affleck in Bounce -- PLEASE??!!!) There are things I learned watching the Mike Meyers episode and the Tom Hanks episode that I still think about -- that I still try to keep in my own process and work life. But now it's turned into this vehicle for movie studios and the guests get shipped off to the James Lipton walk down memory lane just like the do for Lettermen or Leno. Terrible. Just terrible.

But tonight there he was in all his All-American, guy next door who grew up to be smart and sexy and still kind of awkward in a smart and sexy way -- Matt Damon. And as Lipton is going on and on about his life in Cambridge (when in the world did I get the idea that Damon and Affleck really were from the south side of Boston? I like them just slightly less -- Affleck more so -- still not over the Bennifer days and the hours of my life I won't get back from reading US Magazine at the gym). And Damon is being both smart and charming and real. And then he gets to the movies and WOW! this guy has been in some incredible movies. The Talented Mr. Ripley? How scary and creepy and vulnerable and sad was he in that movie (the bath scene when he asks Jude Law if he want's Damon to get in with him?). Courage Under Fire -- he's gone on record to talk about how much it hurt that no one seemed to notice how much weight he lost or how good he was in that movie -- but let me second that. He was really good.

The Rainmaker? Private Ryan? Though for me that movie belongs to Giovanni Ribisi. The unbelievably worrisome Gerry. He's really something to watch in the Departed and he is electric and suprising in the Bourne Movies. To say nothing of Stuck on You and of course - don't get me started on Good Will Hunting.

So? Why can't the guy get an award or at least a nomination? Is it his looks? His relationship to the Black Hole that is Affleck -- though he got a Golden Globe nod this year...

In the Actor's Studio tonight Damon let his resentment show a little regarding awards and his lack of them when he mentioned that over acting and bad acting always gets noticed - people stand up and cheer for it. He then made some kind of weepy hysterical face and then said "who the fuck does that?" I loved it. Anyway -- why not Damon. He was in two big movies this year - Departed and The Good Shepard?

What do you think? And further -- who do you think gets no respect and should...besides Stephen King. He's got all the cold hard, green stacks of respect that anyone really could wish for.

Comedy is to the Oscars as Genre Fiction is to Literary Awards

Watching that very funny musical/comedy number done by Will Farrell, John C. Reilly and Jack Black at the Oscars, it occurred to me that the way popular movies (not just comedies) get ignored at the Oscars, is similar to how genre fiction gets ignored by the literary so-called elite. Okay, there are exceptions some years at the Oscars, like Titanic, but generally most popular movies get ignored. Where were the nominations for Casino Royale this year?

The literary world holds even fewer exceptions. Stephen King winning Distinguished Contribution To American Letters at the National Book Awards is one. But the controvery caused by granting him that award proves my point. Genre fiction gets no respect. If you haven't read Stephen King's acceptance speech, you should.

Recognizing this parallel to the Oscars "comedies are excluded" number, I planned to do a tirade-type post complaining (once again) that genre fiction -- and the genres written by women for women in particular (e.g. romance, women's fiction, chick lit, cozy mysteries) -- "don't get no respect", but over the past 48 hours I mellowed and started to see things differently. In fact, I ended up changing my mind about the theme of this post all together. (And maybe growing a little in the process. Awwww. See? A character arc, even in my blog post. Am I a genre writer or what?)

So what caused my change of heart? I suppose what it boils down to is I'm glad we live in a world that still honors and supports creative pursuits not embraced by the mainstream. I'm glad that edgier, avante guard, experimental, controversial, slower paced, offensive to some, alternative art still gets produced/published/shown in galleries/recorded whatever. The world would be a very bland place if our only art and entertainment options were loved by all and hated by none.

And maybe mainstream entertainment doesn't need awards and critical praise. Work embraced by the mainstream gets other rewards -- public acclaim, money, fans. The creators of popular work get both the satisfaction of creating their art and of knowing that others enjoy it. I suppose we can let the non-mainstream folks take home the awards and glowing reviews.

Writers of literary fiction like to complain that genre fiction is taking up too many places in publication schedules, too much space on bookstore shelves, (ref. that ridiculous NYT column written by Maureen Dowd a few weeks go), but writers of literary fiction don't have much to complain about from where I sit. If publishers were only interested in money, they wouldn't publish any literary fiction. Hollywood, on the other hand, has all but stopped producing interesting/risky films such that an independent film industry had to step in to fill in the void. So far, the major publishing houses haven't followed suit. They haven't moved away from literary fiction just because Nora Roberts and Stephen King and Jennifer Weiner sell better, increasing the odds that debut writers writing in similar genres wil sell well, too.

And if it takes a somewhat snobbishly-biased reviewing and award system to support the "different" "riskier" books, the books less certain to sell well, maybe I'm all for it. I love literary fiction and would hate it if those reading choices were no longer readily available in my book store.

I only wish the system didn't have to turn its collective nose up, quite so obviously, at genre fiction.

But I don't think we writers of genre fiction should whine about this. (And this is coming from someone who has whined about it to her friends and family -- a lot.) Sure, the fiction I write is unlikely to ever get reviewed in the "best" places. My books will never be nominated for the Giller, or the Governor General's Award or the Booker. They won't be picked as Oprah books or be defended on Canada Reads. Even if my books become bestsellers (dare I dream?), I'm unlikely to get invited to speak at a PEN luncheon or do a reading at Harbourfront. If I join the Writers Union of Canada I'll probably get sneered at when I tell my fellow union members what I write. (This based on an author I know's experience at a union party at Margaret Atwood's house and another's experience at a Word on the Street event in Vancouver last year.)

But I'm starting to realize that the only problem with all this, is that I let it bother me.

Jack, Will, John. Take note. Your comedy work doesn't get much respect, but people love it. Love that.

The Award goes to....

I just finished watching the Oscars. What a marathon...There were so many surprises - but all in all I was slightly bored. Maybe I wasn't terribly invested in many of the movies. usually Oscar Night is BIG deal for me. I am a shameless lover of the dresses and tears and the men who thank thier momma's. I loved that Little Miss Sunshine got best Screenplay -- proving that the small scenes and human truths and HUMOR! make just as compelling viewing as war movies. And Alan Arkin's speech was wonderful -- that the world has so embraced a movie shamlessly about hope and laughter says alot about the world's longing for more of such things. Loved it.

And while Pan's Labyrinth got screwed in a couple of areas - it was great to see them win so many of the technical awards. Mexican filmmakers and artists have a lot of reason to be hungover and happy today...that's for sure. Scorses for Director was no surprise but I didn't think The Departed would take home Best Picture. I loved loved loved the songs from Dreamgirls - I thought that was amazing. And Al Gore--- funny guy and a man on a mission. Too Bad the US didn't see this side of him eight years ago.

Ellen Degenerous was okay -- pretty vanilla. I like Jon Stewert better. Ready for Helen Mirren, Jennifer Hudson and Forest Whittaker to fade away for a little while.

My guess - and I didn't see the movie but Notes On A Scandal probably deserved more than it got -- but again, I think it comes down to Maureen's theory about art by women for women...

But the real awards have to go to Mark Whalberg, Leo DeCaprio and Clive Owen and Cate Blanchett's dress -- wow!! WOW!! What eye-candy. Oh! And George Clooney's hair - so beautiful. Leo DeCaprio is seriously coming into his own and Clive Owen cleans up real pretty. But oh Marky-Mark...

However, that said -- it's award season for Romance Authors too. Lots of finalists getting announced in Feb and March. The RITA's, HOLT Medallion, Booksellers Best, Romantic Times Reviewer's Choice, Cataromance Reviewer's Choice just to name a few. And since this is my party and I can brag if I want to -- FAMILY AT STAKE won All About Romance's Best Series Book of 2006!!! And it's a finalist for Cataromance Reviewer's Choice Award for best Superromance of 2006!

However with the AAR award came a fairly damning question regarding the sad state of catagory romance this year. Either way - I'll take it and you can read all about it and my answer to that question at www.likesbooks.com. It's great website if you've never been there.

I'd love to hear what you guys think about the state of catagory romance...I know lots of you are writing it - but what did you think of it as readers? And of course feel free to wax poetic about Mark Whalberg or George Clooney's hair...

Maureen's best of 2006

Okay, I'm going to be pretty loose with the whole 2006 thing. I’ve decided to interpret 2006 as things I discovered, explored and/or came to love in 2006.

I've also decided to avoid discussing books for the most part. Partly, because, like my fellow DW's, I don't have a hugely long list of books I absolutely loved this year. And second, because, now that I know so many writers, if I start to list books I really liked, many of which were written by writers I know, I'll inevitably forget to mention someone’s book, and don't really want to do that.... (I also think writing has ruined reading for me in many ways…)

That said, like Sinead, I feel like I'm learning the most about writing these days from TV. Yes. TV. (And, I also have enjoyed some TV shows that have taught me nothing except that I have very low standards. ANTM, CNTM, Rock Star, So You Think You Can Dance… I rest my very sad case.)

Enough boring introductions: Here are the big things I loved/learned from in 2006. (And there will be some repeats from earlier in the week, because, well, Sinead, Molly and I talk to each other, occasionally.)

#1. The first season of Grey's Anatomy.

I didn't discover this show until the second season (another medical drama? really?) and purchased the first season on DVD at some point during 2006, after seeing the entire second season.) So, I knew a lot of spoilers, like McDreamy being married, before I ever saw any of this first season. Still.... I think the first season (as short as it was) was excellent storytelling. Great character development. Slow introduction of back story. Fabulous. Rent or buy it, even it you've already seen it.

#2. The pilot episode of Nip/Tuck.

Okay, this is from 2003 or something, not 2006... But I just saw it. I'd heard this show was well reviewed, so purchased the first season DVD ages ago, but never watched it. I saw a few later episodes as they aired on TV and thought it was edgy and interesting... but didn't really get why it was such a big deal. Then.... after it sat on a bookshelf for about 3 years, I watched the pilot episode.
Wow. How can you not love a show that does characterization by sex scene? During the pilot, in less than a minute, with two alternating scenes: one with a man snorting coke off of and slapping a hot chick's ass; and one with a man barely moving and thinking about work while he fucks his wife....
We learn everything important we needed to know about the two lead characters.
And, how could you not love the pilot episode of a show where a 16-year-old boy tries to circumcise himself with cuticle scissors, and the "good doctor" disposes of a patient—killed by a drug dealer during a lipo operation where the hose got loose and sprayed everyone with fat—by wrapping him in hams and dumping him in a swamp for the gators. LOVE IT.

#3. Battlestar Galactica

First, not from 2006. Sorry. Second. Sinead has already talked about this. Sorry again. Third, you should know I’m not a sci-fi fan. Just not my thing per se. But I spent way too much of the past week watching the first season of this show. WOW. WOW. (One wow not enough.)
Amazing character development. Lots of unexpected gender reversed characterization. Tons of complexity and unanswered questions. Heaps of theological connections and references. WOW.
I’ve watched the entire first season. (May need to storm Sinead’s house to get second season DVD’s tomorrow morning. Early.)
After watching the first season, I’m not sure what’s going on, but I love it. Is it in the future? The past? Are the humans in the show our ancestors? Our descendents? Or are we the descendents of the cylons? Or their ancestors?
Have no idea, but I’m fascinated. Need more. Now.

And a link to my 'learned nothing but I have low standards" list... Tricha Helfer, who plays Number Six on BSG, is the Tyra Banks of Canada's Next Top Model. (And 80% of the cast of BSG is Canadian. I like that.)

#4. Firefly

Again, Sinead takes credit for my discovery of this show. (I really should reject my sci-fi negative bias.) I have the same kind of characterization and story development accolades as I had for BSG, but Firefly is, in addition, so much fun. It’s not as complex as BSG, but I smiled through most of Firefly. That’s worth a lot. And it was clever writing. Wish it had lasted more than one season.

#5. Dexter

Okay, this list isn’t in merit order. This series—actually from 2006—was amazing. Both Molly and Sinead have said a lot about this show, already… My only thing to add is that I love that little smile he gives when he kills the mosquito during the opening credits. Says everything we need to know about him. He loves blood. He loves to kill.
Oh! And I love his sister’s character. Perfect example of using a secondary character to contrast the protagonist. Dexter has everything buried a mile deep, while his sister, Deb, is like a puppy. Every emotion she has is exaggerated and worn like neon on her sleeve.
Wow. I said I wasn’t going to talk about Dexter. Oops.

More on TV…. I still like Lost and Prison Break, in spite of their annoying aspects…. And I also love Entourage and can’t believe Huff was cancelled…. And I’m glad Rome is starting up again….

Enough TV.

Movies

I’ve blogged about movies on my personal blog…. But here is a partial list of some of the movies I loved in 2006.

Volver
Pan’s Labyrinth
Babel
The Last King of Scotland
Little Miss Sunshine
Stranger Than Fiction
Notes on a Scandal

Other interesting ones I think were passed over by the media, the public….

Trust The Man
The Last Kiss
Haven (I saw at 2005 festival)
Harsh Times (I saw at 2005 festival)
For Your Consideration
10 Items or Less (not yet released)
Bella (not yet released)

Other films I saw at either the 2005 or 2006 festival that have yet to be released, but I thought were interesting or great:

Sorry, Haters
2:13
Breaking and Entering
Amazing Grace (see this film. Will be released in Feb/07, I think)

more Best and Worst

So tough to narrow things down, but I’m definitely going to try.

I’m starting with TV, because that’s what I’ve enjoyed the most this year, shows that have entertained me, thrilled me and made me really think of what great writing is about.

1) First and foremost, and yes, Molly did see this coming. Battlestar Galactica. Man, a lot of other, smarter people started watching this much earlier, but after coming into it late, I’ve watched 2 ½ seasons in less than two months and all I can say is Wow!
The writing, the characters, the way they let all the characters at one time or another be petty, mean, ugly in thought and form, and still really appealing. It helps to have an ensemble cast, which this show is, so we don’t spend all our time with the same character, but they all have unexpected depths.
My two favourite things this show does is reverse gender expectations. They do this brilliantly. And they give us an initial impression of a character and over time, reverse it. Perfect example, and without giving anything away, the President and Adama.
I could gush about this show for months, but don’t let that it’s Sci fi stop you from watching. It’s so much more than that.

2) Dexter, this came in a close second. Love, love this show. Great writing and Michael C. Hall’s amazing characterization of a man who in anyone else’s hands could be unloveable.

Worst: This is a tough one. Lost has really disappointed me and I’ve given up on it for good. House, which I used to love has just felt tedious this season. The cop story line has just annoyed me, homoeroticism or not, and compared with the other shows I’m watching, this show has gotten boring.

Movies:Best
1) Casino Royale – Loved it, Daniel Craig, nothing else needs to be said about the wonders of that man. The writing was great, the love interest made sense. It was, for me, a thrill from start to finish.
2) The Departed – Loved this, the tension, the unpredictability and the amazing acting.

Worst: So many dull movies this year. Superman returns, Pirates of the Caribbean, and so many movies I couldn’t drum up enough enthusiasm to see. Maureen will do a much better job at this, as she sees so many more than I do.

Books: Tough one for me as well.
Best: Poison study, for sheer entertainment value, loved the first two of the Dark Queen series by Susan Carroll, The Journal of Mortifying moments, by Robyn Harding. The Undomestic Goddess by Sophie Kinsella. All entertaining, well written books.

Worst, again I agree with Molly on the last of the Dark Queen series, it seemed really dull compared to the first two. Any of the latest books by Laurell K. Hamilton. I used to love the Anita Blake series, was seriously addicted until the series fell off the rails in book 11 and never recovered.

Drumroll....The Best (and not so best) of 2006!!!

This is really only going to be a jumping off spot for the rest of the week , I'm sure. There's no way I will have remembered all the things I loved or hated this year and will be needing my fellow drunk writers to remind me.
But here's a starter list

BEST TV of 2006
Well, I think the easy answer there is Dexter. (Everyone get ready for Sinead's Battlestar Gallactica rampage.) I think in terms of gripping entertainment, interesting and brave storytelling and fabulous across the board acting the BEST award has to go to Dexter.

Followed closely by Friday Night Lights (I will spare you from more declarations of love and will just say last week I cried - like a baby), The Office (so much sweeter and earnest than the English version a little less mean, but just as funny) and House (it was falling apart for me and then I saw the season opener for the first time and man oh man I buy the homoerotic antagonism between House and the David Morse character). And of course - So You Think You Can Dance

Best Television watched on DVD - Firefly! Damn you the non-believers that cancelled that show.

Most Disappointing -- Prison Break (with a few redeeming moments) and Lost -- what in the world is going on?

Movies 2006 - this is where I am going to fall apart I can't remember anything from ten minutes ago much less my summer of Movies for Mommies. Sinead, Maureen what was good? The Departed? Borat? Lady in the Water? I really really liked Shut Up and Sing. Rocky Balboa!!!! (more about that next week)

Disappointing - Lady In The Water -- it was good but it wasn't great.

Books! Best of the Year for me Hands Down A Girl Named Zippy by Haven Kimmel. Followed by The Dark Queen and The Courtesan by Susan Carroll. I am starting Saving Grace by Deborah Smith and I can already tell it's on my list. And I really liked a Million Little Pieces - fiction or non-fiction the scandal just made it better. The Poision Study -- good read.

Most disappointing -- The Silver Rose or whatever the name of the third Susan Carroll book in the Dark Queen Series -- couldn't even get through the first third. Ugh.

Most disappointing but I finished it and can't stop thinking about it and will probably re-read it - The Anne Stuart Cold As Ice. Want to hate it...but I can't.

The hype about the book that ruined the book for me -- Something Borrowed. It's good - but my god! I had to listen to a lot of theorizing on that thing.

This should be a fun discussion....

In Defense of Horror Movies……..and Skor Blizzards

First a confession. I LOVE horror movies, the good ones at least.
There’s something about sitting in a dark room(movie theatre) with the music pulsing and my heart rate increasing waiting, anticipating and yet still jumping when the maniac/monster/demon jumps out of the shadows.

I demand certain things from my horror movies - there has to be a resolution. The bad guy/monster has to be destroyed. Otherwise why watch. The characters have to be pro-active at some point in the movie. That’s just a good rule of storytelling.

Horror movies have a really bad rap out there, ‘cause so many are cheap, badly written and push gore over thrills. But there are good ones out there.
The movies I have loved. Of course, Alien/Aliens. Considering when they were made, these look amazing, had incredible tension and probably the best heroine of any movie ever made. The original Halloween, Lost Boys, more recently 28 Days Later. All great movies and all relying more on story than gore.
There are more, I’ve seen a LOT of horror movies, but these come to mind as my favs.

As for the Skor Blizzard… it’s loaded with fat, and sugar and might cause brain freeze.. But it’s delicious.. Enough said

In Defense of: Rock Star and ANTM

Okay, I’d like to think I’m a pretty intelligent and cultured woman who generally has pretty good taste. And I suppose, as a writer, I should be opposed to the reality TV genre in principle, because of the whole putting-TV-writers-out-of-business thing. But…

I love reality TV.

When the genre came out, I scoffed, “I will never watch crap like that!” But somehow, I got hooked.

In building my defense (sorry, its defense), I will focus on two shows. And to make this challenging, the two that sounded the cheesiest to me when I first heard their concepts: ROCK STAR and AMERICA’S NEXT TOP MODEL.

In the 1980’s I loved INXS. I heard them long before many North Americans, because my cousin lived in Australia at the time and brought back a tape. Thanks Pat. Also, Toronto had an amazing radio station in the late 70’s early 80’s, CFNY, that’s a shadow of it’s former self now, but that’s another topic.

Back to INXS…
Big fan.
Have all their albums dating back to the early 80’s.
Very sad when Michael Hutchence died.

When I heard the band was choosing a new lead singer via reality TV, I took it as a major sign of the apocalypse. But one night, bored, surprised the moon hadn’t turned red yet, I was surfing channels and as luck would have it, cruised by ROCK STAR just as JD Fortune, the ultimate winner, was performing his encore the night after he’d sung “California Dreaming”.

I was blown away. Not only was this guy hot. He did an amazing, unexpected, hard-edged version of a 1960’s folky pop tune that should have been boring. He was riveting. Couldn’t take my eyes off him. (Didn’t hurt that he was from Toronto, either.)

From that night forward, I saw almost every episode—even the “reality” nights where they pick the songs—and have watched it this season, too, in spite of not being a metal fan, at all. (Well, I grew up in the 70’s so it was hard to avoid hard rock… but Metalica? Guns & Roses? Motley Crue? I’ve heard of these bands, but couldn’t tell you one song any of them have done. I’d graduated to punk and new wave by the time they came on the scene.)

On ROCK STAR, the contestants are professional, talented musicians–not nervous amateurs like on the other TV talent shows (not that it’s not entertaining to watch amateur’s be nervous, too). The songs performed each night are classics for me (remember that whole growing up in the 70’s thing?) and the stakes are huge—an actual job fronting a real band almost guaranteed to do extremely well—even if it’s just for a short while. How could that not be entertaining? (And it’s fun that another Torontonian is a front runner this year—although I’d rather see Dilana or Storm get the job—and Ryan’s growing on me, too.)

Okay, so I tackled the easy one first.

Now, I’m faced with defending ANTM and its Canadian equivalent CNTM. For the record, one of the silliest concepts for a show I’ve ever heard.
Models?
Living together in a house?
Competing against each other?
Seriously?
How painful would that be to watch!

I didn’t see the first season of ANTM at all. Sometime after the second season had aired, I stumbled upon a rerun of it on some obscure digital cable channel. It was late. My defences were down. I stopped clicking. Some weeks later after tuning in again and again… I discovered I wasn’t sorry—except that I was hooked on another show. Damn. It took another year or so to confess I was watching it to any of my friends. ;-)

From the hype and the concept, I’d expected nothing but shallow, skinny girls spitting catty insults and scratching each other’s eyes out—in between puking up what little food they ate, of course.

Okay. It is a bit like that. But what I didn’t expect was the arty aspect of this show. Yes, you heard me right. Arty. I love the photo shoots and seeing the resulting photos. I’m just amazed at the creativity of the make up, the costumes, the sets, the lighting, the photography and occasionally of some of the contestants. I also find it fascinating that the girls who look pretty, aren’t necessarily the ones who photograph well.

I suppose I might sound like some letch who claims he reads Playboy for the articles… but seriously, I love the photo shoots and am willing to put up with some cattiness—and Tyra Banks’ irritating tendency to over dramatize and over enunciate—to see the shoots and their results.

Are these shows—among others: Survivor, Amazing Race and don’t even get me started on So You Think You Can Dance—a guilty pleasure?

Sure, but I maintain they are compelling TV. Maybe they aren’t written per se, but there are some very talented editors/producers on the best reality shows, piecing together hours of footage to tell compelling stories. And storytelling is what entertaining people it’s all about.

In defense of...Daniel Craig and The Zipper

Originally, I was going to defend Kevin Costner -- who always seems to need defending but I've been doing it for years and it's gotten me nowhere. And today I am inspired by last week's arrival of our Esquire Magazine. Fantastic magazine - excellent writing, lovely men, and the most beautiful woman in the world mystery has kept my husband on the edge of the toilet seat for months.

This month the top of their Best Dressed List is the controversial new Bond choice and if the cover photo alone doesn't convince you that Daniel Craig is clearly going to turn a dying and outdated movie franchise into one of the hottest movies of the year...Well, you're dumb.

First of all - Daniel Craig has got some chops. We rented Enduring Love this last week and despite the glacial pace of the brilliant book turned very slow movie - I thought he was pretty fantastic. He held his own in the quiet scenes (of which there were a few too many) and on screen with one of the best actresses of our time (Samantha Morton) - which I really wasn't expecting. He was fantastic background in Munich and absolutely RIVETING in Layer Cake.

Second - it seems to me Bond is about a certain attitude, a physical presence and the proper fit of a tuxedo jacket. Craig has those things in spades. The man, while not pretty like Pierce Brosnan, is FREAKING GORGEOUS and totally capitvating - it might be the crazy blue eyes. And perhaps the best part of Enduring Love is the fit of Craig's gray tee-shirt in those first amazing scenes. The guy actually looks like an assassin, like he could hurt you with or without the toys.

I can not believe that there has been such uproar over this casting decision.

The new Casino Royale is going to be great - because of Paul Haggis's work on the script and the new take on Bond as a human rather than a slick corporate ad, but mostly because of Daniel Craig. A great choice for the new bond.

As for the Zipper - there is not a state fair, county carnival or Toronto Ex that isn't improved by that rusty, terrifying death-machine. I love the zipper.

M. Night - Why I worship at the Alter.

With all the hullabaloo about Lady in the Water, which I haven’t seen because I’m too busy, damn it, I thought I’d blog about Signs.

Why? Cause it’s a freakin’ brilliant movie. M. Night at his best. The key sign (heh, sign, get it) for me that this was a great movie was when I watched it the second time and enjoyed it even more. I picked up on the details I’d missed the first time, when I’d been swept up in the story and kept in a state of breathless anticipation.

What about it worked for me? The absolute sparseness of the story. No detail is unimportant. Yet, there are few details that have a screaming hey look at me element to them that so many other movies do.

The tension slowly increases, the acting is great, and it all builds to a climax that’s actually worthy of the story. (unlike The Village, but that’s another blog).

For me the brilliance of this movie is in the details. What seem like character details at the beginning actually become elements of the plot, and vice versa. I try and incorporate this in my own books. The sense that every detail, no matter how small, must have a purpose.

It requires ruthless editing and an ego kept in check. Which judging by Maureen’s and Molly’s posts, the ego has run rampant for Lady.

Which is too bad. Cause when M. Night is in form, there is no finer story teller out there.

Lady in the Water -- In which Maureen disagrees with Molly and rants…

Let the cage match begin....

As I commented on Molly’s post, I too walked out of the theatre thinking… And since I normally love movies that make me think, I suppose that’s something positive. Problem is, I was thinking, “M. Night! Why have you forsaken me? Why have you let your ego get the better of you? Why have you presented your loyal fans with this self-indulgent drivel?”

Like Molly, I’m a huge fan of M. Night. I even loved THE VILLAGE, though many didn’t. I thought UNBREAKABLE was fabulous—not to mention his movies that most people loved—SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS.

What bothered me most about LADY IN THE WATER is how self-indulgent it seemed. He makes all these wink-wink-nod-nods about writing and storytelling, but then does all those things he’s making fun of (i.e. clunky foreshadowing). I think SCREAM was better as storytelling satire than this, and ADAPTATION much smarter. M. Night, it’s been done before and done better.

At first, I thought Bob Balaban's film critic character was a funny, clever idea. Have someone tell Paul Giamatti’s character how stories normally turn out. Even though I didn’t buy that Giamatti’s character would think of asking the critic for help—I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point. Truth? I was actually really smiling through that part. “Oh, M. Night. You are so clever. You’re not going to let me down. All those critics who hated this movie were wrong. Disney was stupid to fire you over this movie. It's cool and smart. Everyone else was too dense to get it.”

But I soon changed my mind… Perhaps I was expecting more from the film critic device? Maybe some unexpected twists? Maybe some misdirection that worked? Maybe something that made me question reality and who was sane or not sane? Something….
While the critic’s predictions were wrong, it was so freakin’ obvious which character was the correct choice in each case. In fact, I’d picked the right one in each case from the start. Huh? It’s not the sisters? Huh? It’s not the kid? Huh? It’s not Giamatti? (He’d already healed her.) And why was that freaky character played by Freddy Rodriguez there if he wasn’t the Guardian? For me, the film critic device made the plot too predictable and took all the magic out of it. (SPOILER: Although I did laugh when he got killed.) If he chose to give two viable choices for each “helper” just to create another plot point (Oh, no, we chose the wrong people!) then shame on him. It was a weak climax for the movie because it was so predictible.

And why did M. Night cast himself in an important role???? He can’t act. He’s not very interesting to look at, and in the hands of a better actor, that role might have added some depth to the film. His character was given a huge burden (changing the world) and then found out about his own death, yet had the same deadpan expression on his face the entire film.
No reaction?
Seriously?
M. Night, cast an ACTOR next time! (And I mean, come on… casting yourself in the role of a writer whose words are going to change civilization for the better???? How self-indulgent and egomaniacal can you get!)

I think that’s where he lost me… After we found out who his character was, I just couldn’t stop rolling my eyes.

One more rant… I think the way Giamatti learned about the story was as contrived as you can get and I thought several characters were stereotypes beyond belief (particularly the Korean woman and her mother). I get that even the “real world” of the movie was supposed to be fairytale-esque, (i.e. freak-show-character who works out one side of his body) but, like I said… M. Night had already lost me.

Maybe his next film will win me back. (If someone lets him make one.) I hope so.

Oh! M. Night...

Husband and I called in the grandmas and went out Friday night for dinner and a movie like real people. Real exhausted people who only talked about why doesn't our kid poop?

But we had been anxiously awaiting this little date night because the annual M. Night summer movie is here - and I am a fan. And despite the terrible reviews and the backstage drama and what seems like some strange ego maniacal posturing by the writer/director/producer -- I am still a fan.

Night has gotten more and more difficult over the years - he requires more and more from his viewing audience. The pace of recent movies is downright glacial. Characters say sometimes ridiculous things just so they can be referenced later. And while we've always had to suspend a reasonable amount of disbelief to invest in the stories (kid's who see dead people, men who are superheros etc...) now we're doing some serious heavy-lifting just to get involved and with Lady In The Water if you can't get past the fact that an eastern fairy tale has erupted from Paul Giamatti's pool and odder still that Giamatti's character doesn't seem to doubt it for a SECOND...well, as the guy ahead of us said... "That might just be the worst movie ever."

But I love it more and more. The more work he requires of me - the more I like him. I love that in the first ten minutes of Signs - no one said anything and yet, we knew everything we needed to know about Mel Gibson's character. I loved the first half of Unbreakable as Bruce Willis SLOOOOOOOWLY figured out his powers. Lady In the Water had a long and sort of clumsy introduction to every character that would play a part in the movie. It was (I thought) very well handled by the greatest shlub actor ever and by a few lovely little moments of humor - which I think Night has gotten more and more skilled with every movie.

I feel like I learn something about writing after every movie of his (the best being Signs - I think Sinead said it - I was drunk but I'm pretty sure she said Signs is a movie that can be watched one Sunday a month and never get old.) Character in particular is something I think he does so well -- with what seems like zero effort. All of his leading men are complex and secretive and trying their hardest and I love who they all unfold in small moments of action. The lesson being - stop trying to explain everything. Show us textured real characters and we'll go with it all the way to village of people hiding out in the middle of the forest. Of course he gets some of the best actors we've got around these days - which helps. And better still his movies just get better the more you watch them. I look forward to a Sunday on the couch with Lady In The Water.

The dialogue in Lady is pretty taxed. And I am not sure why Night is giving himself bigger and bigger roles. Hitchcock never did and he avoided pissing off his fans. But those flaws aside - I was scared. I laughed. I might have cried - but that's easy these days. I walked away thinking -- which is rare during summer blockbuster season.