Film Informing The Word

Reading Shelly Lowenkopf’s blog – which he should consider titling Opium for Fiction Writers – one does not need to look too closely to see he likes the TV program The Wire; he often references the show to demonstrate whatever aspect of story-crafting he has chosen as his subject that day. I’ve never watched The Wire, but I’m sure some day I will, if only because it seems to genuinely merit the attention.

Being more of a film person, it got me thinking what films have influenced me as a writer, or which – should I ever find myself in a situation to dispense wisdom – I would choose, if only because they demonstrate some part or element of writing very well. What follows are a few films which, for lack of a better term, have writerly aesthetics. Coincidentally, most of what I’ve picked ended up being based on novels.

Off the top of my head, I would begin with Cutter’s Way (1981), a little-known/little-shown film with Jeff Bridges and John Heard. On the one hand, it’s about a drifter in San Francisco who thinks he witnessed a murder one night, who’s suspicions are heightened by his best friend, a self-destructive Vietnam veteran. Yet, the more ornate (and by the ending, spectacular) elements of its drama serve as a background, a nuisance to the drifter protagonist, and it ultimately becomes a story about someone who discovers they’ve spent their life dodging the responsibility of making tough choices. Based on Newton Thornburg’s novel Cutter and Bone.

I would then travel back in time to The Third Man (1949), with Joseph Cotton and Orson Welles, a film-noir set in post-WWII Vienna (then occupied, as wonderfully described in the film’s opening narration, by the American, British, and Russian armies, and of course, the black market). An American novelist discovers on his arrival to the city that the only person there he knows – his old friend, Harvey Lime – was recently killed in an accident. Yet, the longer he stays, the more splintered are of the accounts of Lime’s passing, and the more strange are the cast of characters who claim to be his deceased friend’s associates. Add love interest and stir. Strangely, though written by Graham Greene, it wasn’t based on one of his published stories; he wrote a novella as a means of creating a template on which to base the screenplay, later published in book form after the film’s release.

Fast-forward to 1980 and The Ninth Configuration, with Stacy Keach and Scott Wilson. It is the story of a shadowy military psychologist assigned to a remote castle in the Pacific Northwest, used as an asylum for those temporarily discharged from service in the Vietnam War. However, as the colonel is inspired by his discussions with the asylum’s star patient, an astronaut who abruptly terminated his mission to the Moon just prior to take-off, the staff discover the colonel’s methodry is more unorthodox than expected. This is the one film I knew was based on a novel, seeing as I read both the first incarnation (Twinkle, Twinkle “Killer” Kane) and its subsequently re-titled revision prior to the film being released. Written, produced, and directed by none other than William Peter Blatty (author of “The Exorcist”, and a damn good director in his own right).

So, what is it? What is it about these random picks which touch upon fiction writing, aside from their literary pedigrees? Well, they all instill in the viewer a wider, more long-range idea of the story being told – much in the way that a good novel is capable, with the inclusion of just a few words inserted into the right spot, of suggesting dimensions which exist beyond the edge of the book pages. All three films include characters who stand out; characters who you can imagine living beyond the breadth of the films’ respective duration times, if not from the beginning then surely afterwards. In all three films, we have protagonists who are thrust into a gnawing responsibility they did not request to be part of, a responsibility which in The Ninth Configuration is karmic, in The Third Man is seductive, and in Cutter’s Way a question of conscience over desire. However, like all good stories, these responsibilities are seminal for the characters, and for the viewer with literary influences, perhaps inspirational.

[Post-script: it is not lost on me that all three of these stories are essentially mysteries, influenced by the remnants of armed conflict, namely WWII and Vietnam. I’m tempted to delve into why this is, but again, this is a blog and not a doctoral thesis. Perhaps another day. In the meantime, I’ve got a film mix to supervise…]

Share

Work and Therapy

My “day job” in film and television (which often bleeds well into the evening, depending upon what part of the process I’m involved with) is to supervise what is known as “post production” (sometimes hyphenated as “post-production”). This is the rather Deconstructivist (as opposed to deconstructionist) process which involves picture editing (which virtually assembles the footage and sound back into a comprehensible story, if all goes well), sound editing (including sound effects, dialogue replacement, foley – that’s the man with the track pants and high heels – and music), and, depending upon the project, visual effects (whether they be corrective or something more snazzy involving CGI and goblins running down an exploding volcano).

It can all be extremely interesting – even if you’ve done it for years, sometimes you just can’t wait to see the end result – or nightmarishly absurd. It really depends on the project, the people involved, and the budget. Working in post, as opposed to working on the set during production, I get to see the various bits that were shot slowly congeal into what eventually gets delivered to the broadcaster or film distributor. I end up seeing the shows I’m working on many, many times before anyone outside gets to see it once. Regardless of whether it is a sensitive, intelligent Canadian documentary or a Hollywood torture-horror film, they all kind of dovetail into one another. I sometimes wish the sensitive, intelligent people in the documentary were in the horror film. Sometimes I wish the people who work on horror movies were profiled in a sensitive, intelligent documentary.

Big or small, there is a lot of money hanging on any given project, so the pressure put on those, like myself, overseeing the process can be profound. Stress is like alcohol; it can be habit-forming as a motivator, but it can also engulf your better reasoning. Thankfully, I don’t think I’ve worked on a project where I haven’t been able to openly poke fun at it with my peers. Laughter is a wonderful antidote, particularly when you don’t have a creative stake in what you’re laughing at; the important thing is making sure that it isn’t the mirthless, bitter laughter of someone whose sanity has been frayed by deadlines and intermittent bullying. If the latter is your case, you need to step away. Soon.

Share

What The Internet Hath Wrought: Film vs. Book Reviews

One thing the Internet has helped birth is the ability of anyone to sound (or sound like they are writing, rather) like a professional film critic, regardless of whether they know what they they are talking about, whether they have seen more than three films in their lives, etc. . I’ve glanced at “user-contributed” reviews on Facebook’s Flixter application which make even the trashiest pieces of celluloid sound like fair-game for a first-year Media Arts screening.

There’s nothing wrong with this. I’m not going to editorially trample on anyone’s feelings, yet.

However, while the same could be said for online book reviews, it’s much harder to get away with it (it being sounding like a professional…or a professional who writes as they sound. Something like that).

A film is inherently visual. It also has sound (most of them, at least). It also usually uses actors who speak lines. For the armchair (or E-Z Boy) critic, this audio/video-based performance makes the casual accusation of, say, “bad acting” somewhat verifiable (again, somewhat verifiable – there are always disagreements and prejudices, but these tend to be questions of degrees rather than disagreements of monolithic good or badness. To this end, it’s always harder for the viewer to infer a good performance from a bad film; it’s like a supermodel who cleaned her hands with an old dish cloth – sure she’s pretty, but she smells bad for some reason.).

Outside of the necessity of reading words printed on a page, books by comparison are not visual, nor do they have sound (assuming we forget for the moment about audiobooks). When a character speaks in a book, we don’t see Sally Field (mind you, perhaps some of us do…), but rather some variously fuzzy or non-fuzzy imaginary abstraction – an avatar if you will – that we attach to the words in order to help us visualize the character(s). For one person, they may be fluffy, indeterminate cloud-like beings, for others the animated cast of Battle of the Planets. Whatever floats your boat.

In other words, as regards books, whether it be War & Peace or The DaVinci somethingsomething, chances are pretty slim that someone’s going to criticize the performance of their personalized imaginary helper-beings, who mouth the pretty words in their head whilst they read. For the book reader, they don’t need to be convinced primarily through performance, but rather through conviction; the conviction of the author’s choice in story crafting, character actions, etc… This is not to say that the topic of conviction in books cannot be just as debatable as an actor’s performance in a film, however, due to being a medium which is more abstract, the arguments are invariably deeper than those shared about films.

Let me cut to the chase, this being the Internet and most of you having probably left to check out porn or martini recipes by now: books are abstractions whereas films are pantomimes of abstractions. Here, let me pull my chair closer [chrrrr]: films are easier to criticize. Period. They are small books, painted big. Once you have a rudimentary sense of what works and what doesn’t in film (acting, dialogue, story, and, peripherally, visual effects, sound design, directing) it’s pretty easy to sound like A.O. Scott, even when reviewing, say, Tank Girl:

In this wild, cheeky romp, the audience benefits from wonderfully imaginative environments, spunky performances, and a ceaseless plot driven by pure adrenaline. Tank Girl issues a decree to the viewer: the graphic novel-turned movie is a serious threat to original screenplays.

Is this valid? Again, if you’ve only seen three movies in your life, perhaps it is. Perhaps Tank Girl is for you. I only saw the first half of Tank Girl. I suggest you see none of it. In fact, I suggest all remaining prints be stored on the moon – but that’s me.

The problem (or advantage) with a book review (vs. film) is that there is much less wiggle-room when declaring your opinion. Unlike film, where there is more latitude for interpretation (particularly as regards camera work and editing), with books we are dealing with what is literally written on the page. Room for interpretation? Of course – there will always be room for interpretation, otherwise MFA professors would have nothing to structure their courses with. But certainly – whether we are talking about so-called professional book critics, or their translucent-skinned basement-dwelling non-professional Internet cousins – the opinions don’t nearly or consistently bounce from one end of the “good/bad” spectrum to another as is common with film.

I think it comes down to the fact that readers generally respect authors more than viewers respect filmmakers [and on this note, I suppose that really means “directors” – filmmakers, in my book, are people who go out with a camera, an idea, and come back from the edit room having done 80% of the process with their own hands – I’ll write more about this later]. This isn’t to say that readers respect authors as people; rather, I submit there’s a begrudging respect to anyone who has the perseverance to lay down 40,000 words which construct coherent sentences and paragraphs.

It’s a layman’s respect, whereas with filmmakers, if we don’t like what they do, then… well, they suck.

[For sake of disclosure, I’ve only done one film review on this blog – albeit in collaboration with my friend, Simon – and it was an artsy documentary about a soccer player.]

Share

Another List…

So, the listing (previously done here) continued, this time my friend thought it best to do movies: one for every year you’ve been alive, as per last time. There was a particular emphasis this round on re-watchability, so instead of simply picking the best of a particular year, we needed to pick the films that we would involuntarily pay attention to if they happened to come on TV one night (as an example).

My picks:

1970 Five Easy Pieces, dir. Bob Rafelson

1971 A Clockwork Orange, dir. Stanley Kubrick

1972 Solaris, dir. Andrei Tarkovsky

1973 The Exorcist, dir. William Friedkin

1974 Chinatown, dir. Roman Polanski

1975 tie: Love and Death, dir. Woody Allen
tie: Three Days of the Condor, dir. Sydney Pollack

1976 The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, dir. John Cassavetes

1977 Annie Hall, dir. Woody Allen

1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers, dir. Philip Kaufman

1979 The Ninth Configuration, dir. William Peter Blatty

1980 The Shining, dir. Stanley Kubrick

1981 Cutter’s Way, dir. Ivan Passer

1982 The Thing, dir. John Carpenter

1983 tie: Rock & Rule, dir. Clive Smith
tie: The Fourth Man (De Vierde man), dir. Paul Verhoeven
tie: Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, dir. Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones

1984 Paris, Texas, dir. Wim Wenders

1985 Brazil, dir. Terry Gilliam

1986 Aliens, dir. James Cameron

1987 Wings of Desire (Der Himmel uber Berlin), dir. Wim Wenders

1988 The Vanishing (Spoorloos), dir. George Sluizer

1989 Crimes and Misdemeanors, dir. Woody Allen

1990 La Femme Nikita, dir. Luc Besson

1991 Zentropa (Europa – original title), dir. Lars von Trier

1992 Glengarry Glen Ross, dir. James Foley

1993 Naked, dir. Mike Leigh

1994 White, dir. Krzysztof Kieslowski

1995 tie: Underground, dir. Emir Kusturica
tie: 12 Monkeys, dir. Terry Gilliam

1996 tie: Ghost in the Shell, dir. Mamoru Oshii
tie: Breaking the Waves, dir. Lars von Trier

1997 Perfect Blue, dir. Satoshi Kon, Hisao Shirai

1998 Dark City, dir. Alex Proyas

1999 tie: Top of The Food Chain, dir. John Paizs
tie: The Iron Giant, dir. Brad Bird

2000 tie: Maelstrom, dir. Denis Villeneuve
tie: Possible Worlds, dir. Robert Lepage

2001 In the Bedroom, dir. Todd Field

2002 Read My Lips (Sur mes levres), dir. Jacques Audiard

2003 Mystic River, dir. Clint Eastwood

2004 2046, dir. Wong Kar-Wai

2005 Grizzly Man, dir. Werner Herzog

2006 Children of Men, dir. Alfonso Cuaron

2007 No Country For Old Men, dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

Now, I took some flack from Simon for picking the likes of Solaris and Paris, Texas. This turned into an interesting discussion about how one person’s “You picked what??” is another person’s “Damn straight – and yes I consider that film extremely watchable.“. Sure, a film like Naked is probably something most people will only wish to watch once…and yet, despite the fact that I love a good suspence/thriller/comedy/sci-fi/anime film, I honestly do like certain films which are slooow and gloomy. I consider them re-watchable even if they aren’t, by nature, exciting.

Share

God Is In The Details

A new documentary, if it can be called that, has been recently released through a limited selection of venues in the U.S. and Canada. I’m not interested in naming it, though a cursory glimpse of recent newspapers will make it clear which I’m referring to. It takes the Michael Moore approach (in other words, disingenuously removing anything which does not conform to a frustratingly partisan point of view) in an attempt to prove its thesis that there is a systemic (nay conspiratorial) effort to discredit scientists who believe in creationism (more specifically, the recently-minted term “intelligent design” or “ID” for short) by those in the scientific establishment who extol the findings of Darwin.

Reading the paper Friday morning, my wife commented on an interview with the film’s host and narrator, Ben Stein. She took note of his perspective on the debate and thought it was interesting. I was less than enthusiastic (if not hostile toward Stein), though to be honest his interview wasn’t that bad (unlike the film, which has been almost universally derided with contempt outside of evangelical circles). What upset me is that I actually think there is a debate to be had (if not owed) between secularists and Creationists.

I’m not a religious person. I was raised a quasi-Catholic, but found myself too interested in other streams of thought to figure that any one system of belief – secular humanism being one in a series of legitimate choices – had the copyright on truth. I’m very comfortable calling myself Agnostic, though these days wary of those who would have the public believe that Agnosticism is simply a less-assured branch of Atheism. I respect Atheists. I just wish more Atheists would respect Agnostics.

For me, Science, Art, and Religion are the same; they each aim to spelunk the chasm between knowing and not knowing. To investigate the disparity between the I and the not I in the universe. I’ve never been prepared to declare that there is or isn’t a higher intelligence/level of consciousness at play in the unfathomable orchestration we find ourselves surrounded by, whether it exists only for mankind to perceive or something more holistic and all-embracing.

I’m frustrated that, in this age of elaborate misinformation, the only time an interesting perspective is given publicity it’s usually loaded with so much subjectivity and partisan half-truth that it’s tainted with suspicion before it even comes to the table of debate. And this is my problem with this documentary. The dice of its argument are so loaded from the start that it negates intelligent discussion from the start.

One cannot talk about this without referring to previous unsuccessful efforts by the current United States government, endorsing “intelligent design” to be taught in science classrooms as a legitimate alternative, and that the theory of evolution be referred to as a “current theory”. The problem being, procedurally speaking, there’s nothing remotely scientific about “ID”, whereas Darwinism and the theory of evolution are demonstrable, regardless that there are many disagreements on the details. As a result of this meddling on behalf of the Bush administration, scientists across America took to the streets (or the web, at least) denouncing the idea, aided by the burgeoning Atheist movement, driven by the likes of Richard Dawkins.

In other words, the water in this wading pool is poisoned.

The question of Darwinism’s compatibility with the idea of a higher intelligence/consciousness, if such a thing exists, is not a zero sum game. One does not, theoretically, eliminate the other’s existence. I would love nothing more than an open discussion on the subject, if only to highlight the limits of understanding in both Science and Religion and perhaps find perspectives which intelligently respect opposite approaches. Unfortunately, given the current climate, this isn’t likely to happen outside of a university campus, and in the case of the documentary released last week, the prospects of we – the intelligent public, of which I include you, dear reader – being treated to such a thing without the deck being stacked by partisan ideologues of either side of the argument is slim.

Share

Of Men and U-Boat Commanders

I was explaining to someone last week – a female friend who was stressed about a commitment she’d made, only to find afterwards that it was impossible to fulfil even though it was very important – how I would approach the problem. Yes, to be fair, I was drinking, just in case you think I speak this freely/condescendingly in general.

“There’s a thing about guys. Some, not all. But, when men are under pressure, we immediately think we’re U-Boat commanders.”

What?” she asked, understandably perplexed.

I explained what U-Boats are, particularly within the context of the classic German WWII film, Das Boot. You see, once a man over the age of 25 has seen that film (or, for that matter, similar films such as The Hunt For Red October, or quite frankly any movie involving a submersible military vessel with men yelling at each other inside of it) he has a perfectly tailored example which appeals to our testosterone-laden imaginations.

And thus, when men find themselves under pressure, it’s easy for them to transpose the tense life/death struggle they’ve seen onto their comparatively mundane situations.

I told her that, as a U-Boat commander, your first responsibilities are to your country and your crew. This meant sacrificing one’s honour, if need be. That, for the greater good (i.e. posterity) it would probably be best to own up to her inability to satisfy the terms of her commitment and either state this immediately to the other party, or, better still, come up with a ruse that is so ingenious that it fools everyone and saves both honour and embarrassment while preserving the integrity of country (you) and your crew (your reputation).

So, as a breezy aside, next time you find yourself being metaphorically torpedoed (whether by others or yourself), remember the stoic lessons of the heavily burdened U-Boat commander. Or, at the very least, run out and rent Das Boot or Master and Commander for inspiration.

Share

Dispatch – 02/15/08

An eclectic stew for you today, the reader.

Last night’s show at Mitzi’s Sister (see previous entry) went very well. The band was tight, though I found myself slightly disappointed overall in the experience. Part of it has to do with the fact that, when you step onto a stage to perform (whether it be reading, acting, or drumming), particularly when you don’t have the opportunity to very often, time passes like a buttered bullet. You find yourself walking off the stage, seemingly five minutes after you got up there when in fact it’s been more like forty. As the glare of the stage lights leave your eyes and you join the ranks of the audience, ending your turn as it were, you feel as if you could’ve done more – either in your performance or in your enjoyment of the experience.

The last time we played (same place, nearly the same date), the situation was reversed. I had a blast and thought we did a great job (also the crowd was bigger and they defied the typical “Toronto audience” behaviour, with one or two actually dancing), but when I talked to the band they were less than thrilled.

Methinks this disconnectedness is a drummer-thing. Or a writer-posing-as-drummer-thing. Someday I’ll know what I want to do when I grow up.

– – –

Yesterday there was school shooting in Illinois at a university. Five dead and fifteen wounded. While this left me numbed – what really can I or anyone else do about it after the fact? – what I found staggering was that this was the fourth shooting at a U.S. school in the last week.

In the (normally poisonous) comment section on the Globe & Mail, someone noted how this phenomena (of which we are certainly not immune in Canada) seems to be applicable only to wealthier Western societies. In other words, for no apparent logical reason, given the superficial socio-economic circumstances of the communities in which these acts occur.

Earlier this week, my wife and I finally got around to watching Gus Van Sant’s Elephant. I’d avoided seeing it because, although I was sure it was going to be well done, I didn’t want to see something that articulated such a heavy-hitting subject – the Columbine massacre of April 1999. The film surprised me, in that rather than meditating on the after-effects (ie. 2 video-hours of grief), it dealt with the event as it happened, mostly in real-time, from the perspective of several characters who are students in the high school, including the two killers. Neither glorifying the horror nor practising intellectual avoidance, I thought the film was very strong, though ironically I thought it could’ve been more meditative in the end – perhaps a more hands-on narrative was necessary. This is not to say that it was Peckinpah via Linklater.

Aside from the coincidental nature of seeing Elephant amidst a surge of related killings across the U.S., I cannot help but wonder what lies at the heart of this. I can tell you what doesn’t, as far as I’m concerned: guns, videogames, and violent films. Each, in their own way, are massively influential on youths, but I refuse to believe that they are in any way a cause.

It’s as if, more and more, there is a proportion of our society that acts as if it’s had a frontal lobotomy, thus removing a moral imperative that, for most, would stop us from taking enjoyment from the random killing of others around us. I find myself looking for answers: is this a bio-medical condition (say, exposure to heavy metals), a psychological illness, or strictly speaking is this something that can be explained sociologically? All of the above?

But another part of me often wonders: when we removed Christianity from public spaces like schools (and I don’t argue with the need to do so), did we replace it with anything substantial? I sometimes wonder if, in the removal of a code of behaviour (as corrupted, hypocritical, or out-of-touch as it may have been) are we thoughtful of what should be put in its place – something substantial and not generic, p0litically-correct lip service which ends up inspiring no one? Or, am I kidding myself, in that we are all really indiscriminate savages on the inside, holding on desperately to illusions of civilization?

– – –

I remember, as a kid and avid comic-reader at the time, reading a story called The Realists. A handsome high school hunk-type is lured by the “new girl”, a beauty, back to her house after school one day. She tempts him with a special drink. When he drinks it, it’s like he’s under the influence of a drug – everyone around him is ugly and fat, food is rotten, he stares at his reflection in the mirror and sees that he’s hideous. She tells him that what he drank is real water, and that what he and the rest of society consumes is laced with a drug which provides the illusion of a beautiful “normalcy”. He runs out of her house, screaming, and as the “drug” wears off, he decides to treat the experience like a bad dream and forget the fact that what he thinks is reality is actually an engineered apparition.

– – –

These are fleeting thoughts, sufficiently scattered. Enjoy your weekend.

Share

Cops and Actors

So far this year, I’ve worked on two productions (one TV series and one feature film) which involve people playing cops (detectives, in particular). One thing I’ve noticed on both projects (and in general) is that when actors plays cops they usually take one of two approaches:

1) 60-70% of actors will, well, act. They will play the part, for better or worse.

2) The remaining 40-30% of actors will dredge up some ridiculous “cop” pantomime, based loosely upon what they’ve seen (or remembered) from such seminal TV shows as Streets of San Francisco and films like Serpico. You can identify these actors by their insistence on swaggering up and down hallways, chewing up the scenery, and making any weaknesses in the dialogue that much worse with their ham-fisted delivery, as if they were channelling some sort of Bad Cop Actor deity.

It’s hilarious.

Quite often, there are two cops in any given TV show or film – partners, of course – and chances are, each of them will don one of the two examples listed above. Predictably, as follows the format of scripts these days, the “good cop” will be an actor trying to play a cop. The “bad cop” will be the person constantly slamming binders closed, and yelling things like: “Look, pal – we’re running out of time! There’s a killer still out there!“.

Okay, at least I find it amusing…

Share

A sign

I’ve been unable to parlay this into a larger essay – this is not to say there isn’t an essay in it, but rather the time and thought necessary to write it has been elusive. In Toronto, there is a gentleman by the name of Reg Hartt. He runs a program called Cineforum, where he screens classic silent films, censored cartoons, and obscure treats like the ever-reliable “Wizard of Oz with Dark Side of the Moon” mash-ups. His advertising is ubiquitous in the city; black and white ads stapled and taped to hydro posts and litterboxes, with large sans serif block letters: “SIDDHARTHA by HESSE“, “SEX AND VIOLENCE CARTOON FILM FESTIVAL“.

Nobody comes close to Reg when it comes to promoting on the street. He is tireless.

In any case, one day I saw the following ad for a lecture at Reg’s. It is a phrase which has stuck in my mind like a thorn:

SO LONG AS MAN
WANTS GOD ON EARTH
THERE WILL ALWAYS
BE A HITLER
Share

Preface This

If there’s one trend in film that I cannot understand (or sometimes tolerate) it is the rise of the Director’s Introduction.

Today, someone asked if I’d watched the DVD of Bon Cop Bad Cop, a Canadian feature film which had been a box-office smash when it was released last year. He then told me that there was a Director’s Intro where Eric Canuel talks about – wait for it – how successful the film was at the box-office. And if that weren’t bad enough, you couldn’t skip through it to the film that you had just paid money to either rent or buy. Why anyone would think it a good idea to hold the paying audience ransom so that they could congratulate themselves on making a profit is the sort of provincial-minded Canadian bullshit that I’ve unfortunately come to expect from a country pathologically unable to take its head out of its ass. But why does any film need an introduction in the first place?

I remember renting Spielberg’s Munich last year. Not only did he have an intro (optional though it was), but in it he more or less apologized for his film – politically. Could you imagine Bertolucci apologizing for The Conformist or Orson Welles apologizing for Citizen Kane? Spielberg: the man who has brought more money into the box-office than nearly anyone in history, who in his prime innovatively defined, through works like ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind “the film for everyone”, now prefaces his work as if there had been a manufacturing error of epic proportions which caused hardcore pornography where there used to be sunsets.

What the hell is going on? Do we not trust ourselves? Are we becoming so fearful of litigation or clouds of doubt on the horizon of our career’s posterity that we must now preface our work, selling its merits as if applying for a loan, as if spending the millions of dollars to make the film was, in retrospect, an uncertain mistake?

Guillermo del Toro, in his introduction to the Pan’s Labyrinth DVD talks briefly about how much weight he lost during production. Terry Gilliam, who filmed an introduction for the theatrical run of his much-maligned feature, Tideland, stood there reminding us that his film was about the world through the eyes of a child. Indeed, it’s as if the general public were being treated like infants.

In my writer’s group, during our monthly meetings, we will read new work aloud. We have a firm rule: you do not preface your work. You do not say “I was trying to write about…”, or “This is based on a story…”. No. Stop it. If it’s good, it will stand up on its own accord. If it’s good – even if I have questions – I’m comfortable that I will be able to find this out on my own after the fact. If you need to explain your work before you present it to an audience then chances are you have not produced a work that an audience should be seeing (as opposed to, say, yourself).

When I see a film, I want to see the film. I do not want or require a preface where somebody “explains” things for me or, worse still, some risk-averse apologia. I’m a big boy, I can handle it.

Share