Haunted Summer: Movies about Writing

Oh, Alex Winter. Why are you here? Then again, thank you for being here. It makes this film more interesting.

This is actually the third time I’ve seen this movie and it was all pretty much new to me. That’s how memorable it is. First, this Mary Shelley story is based on a novel by Anne Edwards written in 1972, not a historical source. Our key players this time are Alice Krige as Mary, Philip Anglim as Byron, Laura Dern as Claire, Eric Stoltz (yes, 80s teen actor Eric Stoltz who shows off all of his, cough, talents) as Shelley, and Bill S. Preston Esquire as Dr. Polidori. The producers are the infamous Golan and Globus under their company Cannon. If you know not of this duo ridiculous films - LOOK THEM UP! Do it now! Especially some of their 80s magic. I’ll wait.

Yep. The American Ninja films, Superman VI, and the Masters of the Universe films - all their fault! I should be ashamed of how much this company shaped my childhood, but I have no shame. The 80s were a weird time, man.

Haunted Summer pretty much starts by establishing that Mary and Claire are both sleeping with Shelley and are both aware/fine with it. Sisterly sharing, I guess? The poetic lifestyle they are embracing not only includes free love, but drugs, hallucinations, and cruelty disguised as friendship. Toxic relationships alert!

They meet with Byron through Claire’s obsession and love affair, starting with a luncheon before moving onto the villa where most of the film takes place. Just like in Gothic (see other blog), Byron is figure within and yet outside of the group. Their leader who everyone except Mary is in love with. Mary is fascinated by him like a character study, but not obsessed with him like the others. They fight over his attention and grovel at his feet when he’s cruel. I do like how the Dr. Who episode made him more of this figure within his own pompous mind instead of it being his actual role. Mary’s son William is not a part of this story, but Byron’s relationship with the group is changed by the announcement of Claire’s pregnancy. He forces Claire to give up the baby to him, but end their relationship.

Politics and philosophy are also brought into this version, referencing both of Mary’s parents and how their “radical” views shaped her and put her on the path to “revolution”. Interestingly, Byron shows off Henry Fuseli’s Nightmare painting to the group (the same one used as a visual source in Gothic), but there’s no mention of the fact that Mary’s mother knew Fuseli personally.

Now the writing parts. Mary is making her first attempts at prose while on this trip and she complains of how “muddled” her words are. Shelley keeps promising her that her ability will grow with practice. Studying Byron and how he mistreats both Claire and Polidori starts to give Mary nightmares of a large, deformed man in a coachman’s coat stalking the house.

SPOILER ALERT:
There’s no night of storytelling where she comes up with Frankenstein. Mary decides that Byron will experience her terror firsthand. She and Polidori drug the lord and the doctor wears a monster mask. He chases Byron through an underground cave and the next morning when Mary reveals the trick, Byron tells her that all monsters have some sadness. Oh and then they sleep together because that’s what this movie is. For once, Shelley is the only one who doesn’t sleep with Byron!

This is a blog about writing, however, other than Mary being inspired to create a human monster from watching Byron (and out of place scenes of her scribbling while Shelley sleeps naked - too much Eric Stoltz!) there isn’t much about how that night in 1816 inspired her creative process. This was more about creative people goofing off and calling it art.

Little Women (2019): Movies about Writing

FINALLY! A HOT PROFESSOR BHAER! I mean, writing. I’m blogging about the writing parts of this film.

This one is similar to the 94 version in that it’s closer to the book and tries to include details that make all five of the children into full-fledged characters as they grow up. Laura Dern is another fantastic, human Marmee. The sisters and Laurie are played by Emma Waston (Meg), Saoirse Ronan (Jo), Eliza Scanlen (Beth), Florence Pugh (Amy), and Timothee Chalemet. They got Meryl Streep to play Aunt March and Louis Garrel to play Professor Baher. That right. This time I find Baher so much hotter than Laurie. I mean, writing. Talking about writing. This film tells the events out of order though, giving their childhood in flashbacks related to the events of their young adulthood.

The opening reveals adult Jo attempting to sell a story to a New York publisher, at first telling him a “friend” wrote it. She watches him slash apart the passages which would have made her parents the most proud, yet still sells him the tale with his edits for $20 (which - hell ya that’s good money back then). It’s clear that the editor knows she wrote it. He advises her to keep her works “short and spicy” and that female characters need be to be wed or dead in the end. There is a direct statement that, because Meg married poor, Amy and Jo have decided that they are in charge of the family finances, Jo by writing and Amy by marrying rich. Both are especially worried about Beth whose illness has returned.

From these acknowledgments of art, personal goals, and femininity being brushed aside for the sake of earning a living the only way they can, the film jumps back to the past, starting with when Laurie entered their family.

Baher, besides being hot, gets to once again behave as one of the catalysts of how Jo changes her writing from tales of terror and suspense to stories of growing up. When he tells her out right that she is talented, but her stories are not good, she reacts the way any young author would although a little more dramatically than in the 1994 version.

The other catalyst is Beth as always, but this time more straight-forward. Instead of Beth’s death simply inspiring the novel that would be Jo’s first, Beth actually tells her straight out before her death that she doesn’t want Jo to stop writing. This is the start of the stories based on their childhood. Both are also the catalysts in Jo stopping her writing completely for a time

Amy’s burning of the novel is so much worse in the 2019 version. She actually destroys it page by page, then tries not to smirk when Jo is looking for it. That’s even worse than little kid tossing it in the fire in a moment of anger. She’s holding onto what she did with pride for HOURS!

This version also uses moments from the book to show that Laurie had a friendship with all four sister’s to an even greater extent than in the 1994 movie. Even though it establishes the change from childhood to adulthood, the way they react and express themselves stays the same among the main characters in adulthood.
There is a lot of borrowing from the Alcott life in order to add to the 2019 movie (which the 94 version also did with the mentions of civil rights and child labor) to add more intimacy and detail to the four little women. Not so much to Laurie since in reality he was based on two different male friends where as the March’s were all based on Alcott real family, right down to Amy being a well-known artist. At the same time, in a way that’s similar to the Coppola Marie Antoinette, there is a lot modern visual references like the way characters dress and dance.

A big part of this within the film is the ending in which she argues with her publisher. He declares that her main character must be married and you see the debate over contracts. Am I the only one who liked that part? Oh.

Overall, this one tries to be the version that gives the most insight to being a young women who wants to be an author or artist. It delves into the development of talent, the use of criticism, and how to balance your life, reality, and art.