Alex and Emma: Movies about Writing

I know this one is not everyone’s favorite movie, but I enjoyed the jokes about the writing process and maybe if you watch/re-watch you’ll agree after reading this blog.

Alex (Luke Wilson) is an in-debt author on a deadline who hires stenographer Emma (Kate Hudson) to take down his words and save him on the editing process for a his first draft. Rob Reiner upholds a tradition by both playing Alex’s publisher and is the director of the film (seriously, look at his movies. He acts in a lot of them).

Alex’s Gatsby-esque book becomes fantasy sequences throughout the film. He and Kate Hudson play literary counterparts of themselves and Sophia Marceau play’s the subject of the lovelorn Alex’s affection (both fictionally and in reality), Polina. Although, he lies to Emma and says Polina is a mixture of various women he’s known. The novel is about Adam, a tutor for a wealthy family who falls in love with the single mother of his young charges, but needs money in order to win her. Emma is turned into a series of characters that I will get to later.

First of all, I appreciate Alex’s apartment, a half-renovated mess full of books with a loft for a bed and bare wood all around. The sharks who come to collect money he borrowed from their boss did not age well, portrayed as Cuban stereotypes donning tank tops and neck tattoos. Alex has to confess to them that he’s blocked so they give him thirty days to get what he owes before they kill him. Yeah. I know. I feel like taking a penniless writer’s money was a bad idea on the Cuban boss’s part. I don’t think he would have done it in the first place, but then this movie wouldn’t have a plot, I guess.

It’s extreme NanoWrimo! Write 50,000 words in 30 days or DIE!!!!

Emma immediately dislikes Alex’s desperation and hypochondria, still she takes the job out of curiosity. Meanwhile, Alex is annoyed by Emma’s logic and how she always reads the end of a book first to decide if she will read it. In fact she does this with his previous novel right in front of me. Rude. Emma is confused that Alex has no idea where the new book will go and finds it strange when he explains to her that the characters decide where the story will go. This starts a first day of hours upon hours of Alex trying to write a grabbing first sentence. Yet, when Emma threatens to storm out, Alex’s brain starts to flow.

This becomes the norm between the two of them. He comes up with an idea and she argues it. Some of her arguments are super annoying like how he can’t claim that real explorer Cartier discovered the made-up setting of his book. Others make more sense as a reader, such as her objecting to descriptions of characters after they’ve spoken, ruining what she’s already imagined in her head. There are great jokes about word choice (“You introduced the bosom. I'm just asking if you want them to heave.”, plot holes, and character development. Most of the character development comes from him constantly changing the book’s Au-pair who he bases on Emma. She starts as Ylva, an awkward Swede, then becomes Elsa the bossy German, and finally Anna an American who embodies the truth of Emma in fictional form.

A good deal of the real writing process is in this movie. There is even a scene where a day’s work is ruined and Adam must re-write it.

The rest of the film is the usual rom-com fodder. He grows as a man. He gets the girl. He loses the girl. He learns a lesson. And so he gets the girl again.

Down With Love: Movies about Writing

First off, this one is really only funny if you’ve watched the cheesy Doris Day/Rock Hudson rom-coms of the late 50s/60s. But even then, it’s a fun look at a writer’s struggles to become famous. In this case, the writer is Barbara Novak (Renee Zellweger), an attractive librarian from Maine who had written a book encouraging women to first obtain from sex until they have met their career goals, then practice “sex-a-la-carte” like men do in order keep them from being trapped in a marriage that will ruin what they worked so hard for. Sarah Paulson is hilarious as Barbara’s determined publishing agent, Vikki Hiller. However, their rise to success is under attack from Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor the gorgeous), “the lady’s man, man’s man, man about town” journalist who is determined to prove that love will always end a woman’s ambitions. With little approval from his friend and boss, Peter McMannus (David Hyde Pierce), Catcher takes on an alternate personality that will cause Barbara to fall in love and discredit her book.

Everyone good on the plot? Good. Let’s jump into the author stuff. The movie opens with Barbara arriving in New York and meeting Vikki. The two instantly become best friends (a running gag is how they dress in similar over the top fashions everywhere they go), but a part of that bonding comes from facing the board at Vikki’s publishing company. The men (led by a Tony Randall cameo) dismiss the book as ridiculous and refuse to put money into marketing. Vikki and Barbara decide to prove them wrong, first by trying to get Catcher Block to write an article about the book for his men’s magazine. When that fails, Vikki manages to get an appearance for Barbara’s book on the Ed Sullivan Show. The editing department must have had fun with this. They had to make it look like Judy Garland was singing “Down with Love” on the Ed Sullivan Show when I’m pretty sure that was from her own TV show.

Oh marketing. People think that if you are published with the big five companies they do all the marketing for you. Ha! Not unless you are already a best seller. Sorry folks. It’s up to the authors. This is why more authors have been switching to independent and small distributors because they have more control over their work and still have to do all the footwork.

One of my favorite scenes is when Vikki takes Barbara to see her book on a shelve in a bookstore. Barbara points out how there is only one copy and if someone buys it, there will be zero copies. Vikki corrects this by pointing out there is one more copy in another bookstore. Barbara looks like she will cry. I feel you, Barbara, I feel you.

After the television hype, Barbara’s book becomes an international bestseller (where the movie manages to put in some Cold War jokes) and even gets parodied in Mad Magazine (you know you’ve made it when someone parodies you). Her book is even banned! Nothing says success like a banned book. The non-fiction scandal creates a social revolution. Woman start wanting to focus on their own lives and make men have to wait on them. Like, you know, equality or something.

SPOILER ALERT:

It turns out Novak is a made-up name of Catcher Block’s former secretary Nancy Brown who wrote the bestseller in order to get his attention. Yet, after writing the book and seeing how it changed the lives of so many women for the better, she decides that she doesn’t want Catch’s love. Meanwhile Catch and Peter are in the dumps because they just want to marry these women and are feeling used. Catcher and Barbara find middle ground where they could both have jobs and be married. Power of books, man!

American Dreamer: Movies about Writing

Did you know CBS tried to have a theatrical film company in the 80s? Yeah… I think it’s something most people have tried to block out. Either way, in 1984 CBS produced American Dreamer, a crime solving comedy about writing and book fandom.
Cathy Palmer (Jobeth Williams) is a neglected housewive whose 2 young sons even recognize their dad’s disinterest in what’s important to her. Seriously, the kid’s are both under 12 and actually lovingly tease their mom about the crap their father says (clearly, they would not pick him in a divorce). At the moment, Cathy has entered and won a dream trip to Paris by writing a few pages “in the style of” her favorite book series, Rebecca Ryan. The Rebecca Ryan novels are mystery thriller where the title character and her best friend Dimitri uncover devious acts among the upper classes. So, yeah. Cathy won a trip to Paris by writing fan fiction. I can’t think of a modern agent in the big 5 publishing companies allowing a publishing stunt like that today (too many lawsuits if the author accidentally writes anything close to a contest entry), but it’s the 80s. Fanfiction.net didn’t exist yet.
When Cathy wins, her husband “can’t” go with her and is sort of shocked when she chooses to go alone which he accuses her of being “childish” and “selfish” for doing. Free vacation, dude! Free vacation she won through hard work! The kids get it! They help her pack!

On her trip, Cathy is struck by a car and wakes up thinking she is Rebecca Ryan. She barges her way into the life of Alan McMann (Tom Conti), son of the Rebecca Ryan author, who she mistakes for Rebecca Ryan’s sidekick, Dimitri. Alan is intrigued by this bizarre woman who is determined to play espionage, only for the pair to end up in the midst of a real international incident.

Spoiler Alert: What Cathy/Rebecca doesn’t know is that Alan is secretly the writer of the series and his mother works to keep his secret by showing up at book signings. Cathy tells him that he shouldn’t be ashamed of his work.

What is so bizarre about the film is that Alan, a writer, knows all of these diplomats and politician. I get that the man is wealthy enough to live in a Parisian hotel, but that doesn’t exactly make him Henry Kissinger (thank goodness). Does James Patterson hang out with Angela Merkel? Come to think of it, that might not be a bad idea. She could convince him to include the environmental movement into his books.
Either way, there is this sense of responsibility he has to her since she thinks she’s a character he created. And there is a good balance between him being attracted to the woman he created and annoyed by her. We create characters who fit into a world built for a genre. They don’t always fit into OUR worlds.

Oh. . . and Cathy becomes a professional writer at the end of the film as well. Oh and her kids seems like Alan more than their birth dad.

Theme Month Time (again)

I have been told that in February there is holiday which many people celebrate. Therefore, I shall make the next three blogs for movies about writing all related to Presidents Day. Ha! I wish.

No, it’ll be that other one. Prepare for three rom-coms about writing. You’ve been warned.

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.

Little Women (1994): Movies about Writing

And now for the version I grew up with. This came out around the same time my friends I passed around the novel. This was followed by a phase where I read a lot of Louisa May Alcott books. A. Lot. And I found out that I was almost named Beth (but my Dad found out what happens to Beth and said nope). This version, just to be frank, is sometimes a little sad for me to watch. It’s the moment of pure nostalgia in my youth and takes me back to the same feelings my friends and I had at those ages. Also, because it makes me sad that my childhood crush, Christian Bale, turned out to be such an ass in reality. Looking at him is still a treat though.

Other than them moving the play from the beginning into a quarter into the film, this is also the first great version that is close to the book. It gives all of the sisters more of their stories, it shows how Laurie was close to all of them, not just Jo. And it gives more of that sense of gradual growing up, not just switching scenes and suddenly everyone is married. The cast includes Susan Sarandon as a forms of Marmee that is not just a martyr and sage advise giver, but a woman who is trying to keep her family as happy and safe as she can. Trini Alvarado plays Meg, Winona Ryder plays Jo, Claire Danes (fresh from “My So Called Life”) plays Beth, and Kirsten Dunst shares the role of Amy with Samantha Mathis. As I already said, Laurie is played by Christian Bale and Professor Baher is once again not as attractive to me as a child, but at lest well cast with Gabriel Byrne in the part. Mary Wickes plays their crotchety Aunt March who I always enjoyed and deserves a mention here. Even John Brooke, Meg’s love interest, got be played by a familiar face in the 90s, Eric Stoltz.

This is also the first theatrical version that lets you understand that all of the sisters have dreams and goals beyond marriage in their adult life. There is a good amount of focus on Amy’s art and Meg’s desire to be respected as the family was when wealthy. One of my friends loved all of the subtle little details put in from the book to show how gentle Beth was like how she always carried the dolls the rest of the girls threw away. Even, as I stated before, Marmee gets to be the strong, feminist, but still struggling woman of literature. Although they made this a bit obvious in this movie with Marmee criticizing corsets and pointing out that Laurie as a male operates under different rules of society than them.

Once again there is focus on Jo’s writing, but it is interwoven with her life among the rest of the March clang. We have the same statements of misguided youth of becoming a famous author and buying Beth a piano someday. But there are also the actual evolution of being a young writer, how she starts with fantastical stories based on other things she reads, then transitions into writing her surroundings. In the book, the girls have their own newspaper called the Pickwick Portfolio (after Dickens’s the Pickwick Papers) and this was the first version I ever saw that included it in the film. It was the sort of thing most creative children do (my friends and I included) and it makes sense to have it within the film versions. They mix in some of the other key moments of Jo writing milestones like selling her first story in with the large changes in their life like Beth getting sick.

Something people always forget in the original novel that although Lauri thought he had that massive crush on Jo, he was a part of all four sisters’ lives as well as having some aspirations of his own (which he gives up in a moment of depression). That right, Laurie has more character development in the book and in this version of the film. And that the novel was full of normal sibling rivalries. The most significant included in this movie is when Amy, upset that she can’t go out with Meg, Jo, and Laurie to the theater, burns Jo’s latest novel. First, this is utterly evil and so very devastating to watch. Second, there is the long period of time it takes to create forgiveness (namely Amy almost dies in a skating accident). And honestly, I would have taken a long time to forgive her too. And when she finally starts to rewrite the novel, all 3 sisters help Jo to remember the wording and events. This film also shows the struggles to be published, especially as a woman, even in New York City where there were more opportunities.

When we get to the parts featuring Jo and the professor, their relationship is more of a meet cute mixed with ups and downs of a normal couple. He recognizes that she’s a writer from the ink smudges on her fingers. He talks to her about other writing not just the arts in general. Then, when he criticizes what she’s been publishing in the papers, tales of horror and 2 dimensional characters, she’s insulted. She defends her work and this is a more realistic reaction of a young author. More than that, what he says sticks in her brain, she learns from it, and thanks him later. Oh yea, and her book is going to be published at the end. Hell ya, writing ending established.

Little Women (1933/1949): Movies about Writing

You might be wondering why I’m combining these two films - If you are asking that then you probably haven’t seen both them. Little Women from 1949 is almost a shot for shot remake of Little Women from 1933. They updated the cast, added technicolor, and switched the ages of Beth and Amy, but other than that - same movie. In 1949, they just hired someone to tweak the exact same screenplay.

Quick note on the casts, just to get it out of the way. In the 1933 movie Jo is played by Katherine Hepburn, Meg is Frances Dee, Beth is Jean Parker, Amy is Joan Bennett, Marmee is Spring Byington, and Douglass Montgomery as Laurie. In the 1949 movie Jo is played by June Allyson, Meg is Janet Leigh, Beth is Margaret O’Brien, Amy is Elizabeth Taylor, Marmee is Mary Astor, and Peter Lawford as Laurie. Okay, we have that out of the way.

If for some reason you don’t know this story, here’s the short story: four sisters come of age in the mid-1800s under the watchful eye of their strong, charitable “Marmee” and while missing their idealistic father. Meg is a practical girl who remembers when the family was well-off. Jo is a “tom-boy” (not my favorite phrase, but that’s what they use in the movies) determined to someday be able to support herself as a writer. Beth is the shy home-body that is adored and protected by all. Amy is the self-absorbed little debutante and has all the earmarks of a spoiled baby sibling. The unofficial seventh March is their next door neighbor, upper class Theodore “Laurie” Laurence who crushes on Jo, but in the original book is close to all members of the family. One of my objections to the 33 and 49 versions is how Laurie really only hangs out of Jo so certain events seem to come out of left-field when they happen (but totally normal in the book). To be fair, the ‘33 one does throw in a little more of the Laurie and other sister scenes then the 49 film.

Both open with the tragedies of the Civil War, the sentimental letter from the March father, and the Christmas play that Jo wrote being rehearsed by the 4 sisters (and the fantastic line “Rodrigo! Rodrigo! Save me! Then faint.). Jo declares all of the lovely things they will have when she’s a famous author and how they can snub all of the people who look down on their family. This really isn’t so much a statement of reality for authors, but a great statement for a teenage girl to make. In the 1949 version, Beth declares that Jo is a “regular Shakespeare!”

In the 49 film, Jo tells Laurie how she wants to go to Europe because she wants to help her writing by traveling. When Jo has her first story published in a local paper, she keeps it a secret from all except Laurie (who sorta blackmails her into telling him) and hints at the fact to Beth. The 1933 film does include a scene where Jo reads the paper aloud to Amy and Meg, then revealing that she wrote it, earning a great deal of praise. In the 49 version, Laurie questions why she does all of this work for low pay and she says it’s not about the dollar, it’s about seeing her first story in print and knowing people might read it. Good answer Jo.

Despite his pride, all versions point out how Laurie is annoyed by Jo’s “scribbling” which is why the character of Professor Bhaer (Paul Lukas/Rossano Brazzi) is so important. He is about nurturing her talent and treating her as an intellectual equal. In the boarding house where Jo meets him, her landlady gives her a room with a table specifically so she can write. She takes his criticism of her writing in these movies with more of a grain of salt. More on that when I talk about the modern adaptations of the book. Instead of being upset about his words on her art, Jo just makes a lot of excuses about how her stories pay the bills.

Spoiler Alert: After Beth dies, Jo writes her greatest story, but in the 1933 film it’s a brief mention that she’s sent it off to Professor Bhaer for review and publication. The 1949 movie shows the finished novel being flipped through ready for editing.

I do love one scene where June Allyson as Jo is crying over her own story she’s written. You see her in the attic surrounded by her own scribbling and mock covers she has designed and repeating what she wrote out loud. Beth finds her and asks, “Isn’t it any good?”

“It’s wonderful,” Jo blubbers. Oh, the confidence of youth.

The 40s one really does focus more on Jo’s wish to be a writer, giving more little lines that remind the audience that she’s an ambitious artist.

Little Women: Movies about Writing

This month I’m going to cover the 1933, 1949, 1994, and 2019 Little Women adaptations. And I know people are going to be like, “But there are other versions of Little Women you could watch this week?” Well, I don’t wanna. Most other versions don’t focus very much on Jo’s wish to be writer (except for maybe that anime TV series, but that’s hard to find). So, here’s my suggestion if you are really annoyed - go watch the 70s versions of Little Women (or the silent version, that’s a trip as it’s lost) and you tell me what they include about Jo’s writing goals. I’m curious, but not enough to re-watch any of those versions :-)

The Personal History of David Copperfield: Movies about Writing

I like Charles Dickens, okay! I’m going to try very hard not to make this a comparison between movie and novel . . . but know that it’s killing me inside. I’m going to say 2 things 1) it’s difficult to make a decent version of this story in under 2 hours so at least they gave it their best shot and 2) this movie was very pretty and had a great cast (except Ben Whishaw I normally love and is not creepy enough to play Uriah Heep)!

Why am I including this in this blog and not other versions of David Copperfield? This is the first film adaption I’ve seen that really focuses on David’s desire to be a writer. David (Dev Patel/Jairaj Varsani), for those who have never read the book, is a man reciting the story of his life starting from his birth to a sweet, widowed mother (Morfydd Clark who has a duel role as David’s first love Dora). Upon his arrival, he is rejected by his Aunt Betsey Trotwood (Tilda Swinton) for not being a girl. Despite having the protection of a loving housekeeper who takes him to meet her king brother and his adoptive family which include David’s first friends in his life, Ham and Emily, she cannot stop his mother from marrying the hard Mr. Murdstone (Darren Boyd). Murdstone and his equally awful sister (Gwendoline Christie) send David away to a factory which they own. For those of you who’ve read the book - I know this is out of order. In this new miserable chapter of his life, he rooms with the Micawber family (patriarch played very humorously by Peter Capaldi) who in this version of events are more selfish than their literary counterparts. When his mother dies, David runs away to find Aunt Betsey living with her cousin by marriage Mr. Dick (Hugh Laurie).

From there, David is sent to school and his life continues as it does in most versions: his friendship with Agnes Wickfield (Rosalind Elazar) and her father (Benedict Wong), the rocky bond he forms with Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard), the suspicions toward Uriah Heep, his marriage to the child-like Dora, and the way his past shapes his adult life. It’s all still out of order and some characters are combined, but it’s meant to give the same themes. Although, there’s a part where Steerforth sings the Mermaid Song, which is a good metaphor for the amount of humor put into this movie even when it isn’t always appropriate.

As I said, this one really focuses on how David is in love with words, characters, metaphors, and writing in-general. The film opens with him walking out on a stage in front of an audience, ready to tell his tale out loud in a way identical to how the author Charles Dickens used to hold assemblies where he read out his works in a theatrical manner. When depicted as a child, David is encouraged to read and collect words he enjoys. When his mother hears him say something clever or make a good observation she records it.

As a child alone in the world, David continues the practice on scraps of paper he keeps in an old box. Most scraps continue to include phrases and descriptors he enjoys along with little illustrations. When he moves in with his aunt, it’s Mr. Dick’s own scribbles and attempts at writing that encourage David.

At school, he starts to use his own life to amuse the other students with stories he claims are made-up. In the original book, David hides his past because it’s not the way of a gentleman to talk about misfortune, yet in the movie he goes to extremes to cover up any tragedies with a complete sense of humiliation. He thrives off making his childhood of abuse and colorful characters into fiction instead of simply telling the story of his life.

When destitute, Aunt Trotwood and Mr. Dick make David a small private space to write. Just like in the book, Dora wants to help him and holds his pens as he writes. That’s not an innuendo. She literally holds onto the pens and hands them to him when he needs a fresh one. He begins with character sketches just as Dickens did. He tells the remainder of his life using these character references and reveals how all will end as he writes it.

Now that I’ve said that, I can’t keep my pretentious rants inside any longer! THIS WAS SO DIFFERENT FROM THE BOOK PLOT WISE THAT I HAD TROUBLE ENJOYING IT!

SPOILER ALERT -

DORA DOESN’T EVEN DIE! SHE JUST KINDA DISAPPEARS!

Muppet Christmas Carol: Movies about Writing

“Storytellers are omniscient, I know everything.” So sayeth Gonzo the Great - I mean, Charles Dickens. The blue furry Charles Dickens who hangs out with a rat.

Now, I really do know A Christmas Carol like the back of my hand. I memorized the opening passage about door nails and coffin nails when I was a kid because it made me laugh - you know, like most eleven year olds. And this is pretty much my favorite version (in close running with the 1938 version and the 1951 versions) and is actually pretty close to the original novella (they cut out Bob’s oldest daughter, Martha and Scrooge’s sister Fan, but pretty close nonetheless). This is one of the only times the writer of the screenplay actually bothered to read the name of Scrooge’s former love, Belle. Most screenwriters skip that part and leave her nameless or give her a generic British name like Alice or Mary.

This film, for those who’ve never seen it (WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??), if full of jokes about Gonzo/Dickens being able to time each event as he narrates the story. His narrations come straight from the original text which is someone better sounding from Dave Goelz (the voice of Gonzo) then from the pompous Brit in the ‘51 version. However, Gonzo also has to constantly prove that he really is the author to Rizzo the Rat who finds this form of Dickens too unbelievable. “Hoity toity, Mr. God-like-smartypants.”

Still, I like the idea that even though Gonzo is Dickens, even he doesn’t know everything that’s going to happen. Characters can surprise their creators, even when the creator is being played by a blue furry, hook-nosed whatever.

I really don’t have much more to say here as I am very distracted right now. I mean, Michael Caine is signing with Robin the Frog. Where else could you possibly see that?

Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus: Movies about Writing

Time for some Christmas legends. Why legends? Well, although the famed letter “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” (which you can find a transcript of here) was really written and posted in the paper, the story this movie tells is not what really happened to produce such a heartfelt message of hope.

Made in 1991 for TV, this film tells the story of the famous letter from several points of view, none of which are based in fact. Virginia O’Hanlon (played by a young Katherine Isabelle long before the Ginger Snaps franchise) is the daughter of a struggling Irish immigrant (Richard Thomas) who is concerned in the midst of her father’s job loss and her best friend’s mother being sick that there may no Santa Claus. I’m pointing out all of these tragedies because it sort of amused me how over-the-top they tried to make the drama. While looking for a job, Virginia’s father gets a day old copy of his favorite paper, the Sun, from a local shop keep. So there’s where the newspaper Virginia will write to comes in.

But the real focus here is on Francis Pharcellus Church played by - oh hey Charles Bronson! What are you doing in this movie? Church is an alcoholic muckracker for the Sun who lost his wife and infant a year earlier. His editor, played by Ed Asner who I already miss, wants to keep him busy and employed in the midst of tragedy. Asner makes a big deal over how, even drunk, Church can still bring down all of Tammany Hall. They even give Church an antagonist, a man from a rival paper whose uncle is an evil industrialist. They throw a lot of random stuff from the time period in here.

“That’s the way I’d like to be able to write someday, Mr. Church! With both fists up,” an eager copy boy declares about thirty minutes in. A young female columnist expresses her gratitude to Church for lecturing at her college in a time when women were told to give up. They make him the star at the center of the print world, a star who knows that his words only last, as he puts it, “twenty-four hours”. The character grows suicidal as the movie goes on, as if such inspirational writing could only come from the very depths of despair.

But then Virginia’s letter comes, rescuing him from his internal torment. Don’t get me wrong, I still think this is one of the best pieces of writing in response to a little kid’s question. If you’ve never read it, you totally should.

*In reality, Virginia O’Hanlon was a middle class child from a comfortable family who could afford a daily newspaper. Francis P. Church was a war correspondent who started doing editorials when there were no wars to cover. He had no children and I couldn’t find anything about a deceased wife causing him to sink into depression. I get the impression he was surely though. Still, the letter is a wonderful thought and it’s reprinted every few years which shows just how well-written it was.

Mistletoe Inn: Movies about Writing

Here we are again. Another holiday season and another round of mass-produced Christmas movies staring white TV actors who weren’t doing anything that week. I could get on my soapbox about these films and how they are not my thing, but instead I’m going to point out that after working in a bookstore for 12 years, I’m finally experiencing something by writer Richard Paul Evans. Nothing against Evans, I’m just not a big Christian fiction reader. But does this movie movie fit perfectly into this blog theme? Surprisingly yes. Like very much yes. Like I kinda hate how much I associated with parts of this movie. There was a long, hot shower after I finished watching.

This one is about Kim (Alicia Witt) who has been working on a romance novel for a long time, feeling like it’s not ready yet and will not allow others to read it except her dad (a fact which causes her boyfriend to break up with her, saying he wants to be in a relationship with another “real writer”).

Okay, Hallmark! I feel personally attacked. How dare you! Just because some of us writers want to make sure things are just so and might do 6 or 7 rewrites then spend nearly 2 years in editing does not mean we are not “real writers". How dare you question.

Kim goes to a writing retreat made up of a series of workshops. There she meets Zeke, a writer who uses a typewriter that he claims is the same model Hemingway used, and they proceed to insult each other in a lackluster meet-cute.

I hate the Hemingway typewriter cliche, by the way. Other famous writers used typewriters! You don’t have to idolize the rum-guzzling, narcissistic embodiment of toxic masculinity. Why can’t a writer in a movie ever once say “I use this brand of typewriter because Maya Angelou used it” or how about Douglas Adams or Mark Twain or. . . I confess I looked up a list of famous authors who used typewriters for this rant.

Amazingly, Mistletoe Inn doesn’t get you drunk according to the rules of the Hallmark Christmas Movie Drinking game. Just tipsy. Not that I tried it…

Kim makes friends with another writer, Samantha (Lucie Guest) who has been to the conference before and helps Kim be judgy towards her ex-boyfriend who is also at there. The ex-boyfriend of course uses all of his allotted dialogue to keep reminding Kim that she’s not a serious writer. Samantha also scolds another author (I didn’t catch the character’s name) who tries to make all of the new people feel like crap who have not being published yet. I’m sorry to say, but this felt like the most realistic part of the conference to me. There’s always at least one published snob ready to bring other people down and shatter their confidence.

The workshops Kim attends included a really good quote from a visiting editor. “This is a safe space for ideas. Writing is brave work. Ridicule is the tool of shallow people. Don’t be one of the shallow people.” Damn, Richard Paul Evans! Who hurt you at a writing conference? Whoever it was I hope they saw your first bestseller. I’m not a fan of your books, but damn dude! Mad props to whatever you survived at one these workshops.

The other quote I liked came from Zeke when he tries to show Kim how to handle the criticism of crabby, overly critical publishers and agents. This was inspired by him convincing her NOT to sit through a lecture by a notorious dream-killer (yep, been to those lectures before. My favorite part is when you ask a specific question and they manage to insult you without answering the question). “Every tiny victory along the road is worth celebrating. . . . that the point of writing is not be discovered, but rather self-discovery that hopefully other people can enjoy.” I’m not sure if that comes from the original book or it comes from the teleplay writer Michael Nourse, but DAMN!
As this is a Hallmark movie, Kim and Zeke fall in love over a course of snowball fights, warm romantic dinners, and more writing exercises. I mean literal writing exercises. That’s not an innuendo. I actually made a squee noise when Zeke tries to give her constructive criticism (legit, constructive criticism about how a first draft always needs tweaking). She takes this way too-hard, but again, I think she doesn’t understand what a FIRST DRAFT is! Case-in-point, I repeatedly called one of my finished first drafts “the turd” and my boyfriend said I should work on a second draft so it can at least be a “gilded turd”. I always go to Kira Shay and Sidney Reetz first because we’ve been sharing writing ideas since we were in high school. This is totally related to how the movie’s main theme about trusting the people who share your work with, but also being willing to share.

I’m going to end this one here, but other than the highly predictable romance sub-plot, I didn’t hate this one. Fine Hallmark. You won this round.

Image property of Hallmark. Also, they’re both writers. Why does he get to hold all of the writing materials

An Old Fashioned Christmas: Movies About Writing

Might as well do the sequel even though it’s a melodramatic love triangle staring English actress Catherine Steadman as Tilly (Tatiana Maslany was on a TV series at this point in her career).

The story picks up where it left off with Tilly’s grandmother Isabella (Jacqueline Bisset) wanting to end their European tour at an Irish castle which had been apart of their ancient family history (also the once home Tilly’s namesake). Our young authoress has returned to her love of Lord Byron, but now more as driving force than a deity (seriously, if you’re going to pray to a writer, pick one who didn’t lock away his own kid when he go bored with her. I have a James Baldwin saint candle. Might I suggest him? Or how about Louisa May Alcott who has no background in this story what-so-ever). Her grandmother has been introducing her to great poets and authors in hopes that by the end of the journey with Tilly’s first published work. This is the other reason they are going to Ireland. Isabella’s former flame, the Earl of Shannon, is a poet Laurette and she hopes he will help them.

Again, I’ll repeat that unlike An Old Fashion Thanksgiving, this story has nothing to do with any work by Alcott. It could almost feel like one of her early short stories if you threw in some aspects of Victorian “dread” - you know, ghosts, robbers, etc. But nope. It’s a love story with the “being published” plot line shoved to the side after about fifteen minutes. Also, for it taking place in Ireland, there are only 2 Irish actors and the British aristocracy have no accents. The exception to this is Leon Ockendan, an English actor brought in to play Cameron, the Earl’s no good drunken son, who is under strict orders to convince Tilly to marry him so his family can use Isabella’s fortune to revitalize their status. Also enter Gad (Kristopher Turner), the boy next door whose proposal she promised to consider at the end of the first movie.

Even though Tilly knows what Cameron is up to, the pair are attached to each other and Gad, sensing something is off, comes at the grandmother’s request. This sets Tilly in a battle for her hand. Hallmark formula blah blah blah. There is another side plot in which Tilly goes to meet her father’s relatives who live in town. Tilly’s grandfather Sean (Ian McElhinney) is a charming, warm, and loving man who is thrilled to see her. He works his charm on Isabella and they develop their own relationship.

As far as the love triangle goes, it does show how Gad understands Tilly. She is able to easily tell him everything she’s been worried about at the castle and he gives her support even when she pretty much complaining about him being there. And just like in the first film, he supports her as a writer. The other guy doesn’t even ask her about her talents. Of course, they also make him rather unrealistic. His only purpose is to be her childhood love. But either way, love triangle plots tend to bore me. I remember watch this the first time and I kept leaving the room to do other stuff. I wish the film had done more bonding between Tilly and the grandfather she’s meeting for the first time and how that helps them both remember her late father. But nope. That’s not how Hallmark movies work.

Okay, enough of the sappy stuff. Let’s get to the writing stuff. They still give Tilly lines such as “a writer knows the meaning behind words”. She has a wooden writing desk she carries on her travels. Cameron’s mother also tries to use Tilly’s want of publication as another way to manipulate her and her grandmother into marrying him. There is also an argument about Tilly wanting to be published when she feels she is ready, not her grandmother. A good quote is when she says, “I don’t want to be a famous writer. I want to be a good one. I’ll get published when I get published". Her other good quote is when she says “words must be taken seriously’ and asks the early if he agrees, one writer to another. He also gives her good advice about having more confidence in her writing. She also finally stops quoting Lord Byron but for the reason of she wants to use her own words. Still, no one ever bothers to tell her that Byron was a terrible person. Sigh.

One cool piece of trivia: Catherine Steadman, besides being an actress, is a published thriller author.

Tilly looks like a young authoress here.

An Old Fashioned Thanksgiving: Movies about Writing

2008 - Hallmark put a little extra money into a made-for-TV film and decided to adapt a Louisa May Alcott short story. By adapt I mean they took the title and the fact that it was about Thanksgiving and then added a bunch of elements stolen from other Alcott books. The original tale was a just a description of a middle class family attempting to celebrate on a budget. At the time the story was written, Thanksgiving had only been a national holiday for about 20 years, but as a New England-er, Alcott would’ve been an old hand at the festivities. I should also point out that this has small historical inaccuracies that I decided to nit-pick, but I won’t expose you to my pretentious irks.

A quick synopsis of this Little Women/Jack and Jill/Eight Cousins rip off. Tilly (Tatiana Maslany - yes, Orphan Black herself starred in this as a teenager and stands out) is the eldest ins a lower-middle class New England family. Her father has died within the last year and her mother (Helene Joy) has been making ends meet as a midwife and unofficial town healer. Tilly worries about her two younger siblings and thinks it’s her job to save the family from poverty. When her wealthy best friend/love interest Gideon “Gad” (Kristopher Turner as a Theodore Laurence/Jack Minot substitute) runs into her estranged grandmother while in Europe, she begs him to delivery a letter she forges from her mother. You know the letter - all about starvation, a father kidnapped by gypsies, and a beg for help.

At first, Gad reports how her Grandmother (Jacqueline Bisset) threw out the letter, but then the snobbish woman shows up at their farm. Tilly discovers that she is both drawn to the life her grandmother can offer, but is also appalled by how this well-bred woman constantly berates her late father as an Irish vagrant who stole Tilly’s mother from her fancy life. Tilly does stand up to her Grandmother and the two find common ground yet Tilly still has to school her grandmother in how to be a kind human. Grandmother is also a subtle advocate of women’s rights, secretly admiring her own daughter for being a survivor.

Tilly, like the famous Jo of Little Women, is an aspiring writer. She records every part of her grandmother’s visit and turns it in a novella. Unlike in Little Women, Gad is supportive of this and encourages her by bringing her a bust of Lord Byron from Europe. He finds no strangeness in the way she speaks to the statue and asks for writing writing advise. A strange choice for a young woman in the mid-1800s - I mean, Bryon really? Hardly appropriate. He was such a dick to everyone he claimed to love. Get better heroes, kid. Still, when Tilly wants her life to change for the better, it’s Byron she begs for help from, declaring she’ll give up “comfort” for a dedication of truth and beauty through writing if he will help save her family. Give up comfort? Truth? Beauty? Yep. She has no idea what sort of man Lord Byron was. Of course, when I was a kids I was heart broken to find out that Charles Dickens left his wife in such a jerk way and I still kinda idolize him. We all need better heroes.

Despite having a day job, Tilly stays up late writing short stories and had difficulty getting up in the morning. That sound pretty much like me age 13 to 21. She’s horrified when her grandmother reads some of her work without her permission, but the uptight matriarch gives her constructive criticism and declares that she should travel to help her writing. I did like this part of the story especially because (SPOILER ALERT) that’s what she chooses to do at the end of the film, giving Gad a promise she’ll rethink he marriage proposal when she comes back. That’s right - this Hallmark movies ends with the boy not getting the girl. Instead, the girl gets a trip to Europe in order to improve her writing. Let’s end more Hallmark movies like this!

Haunted Honeymoon (1940): Movies about Writing

And back into the 1940s we go with a silly bit of spookier - Haunted Honeymoon. Robert Montgomery is a British nobleman who likes to play detective and his wife is a moderately successful mystery author played by Constance Cummings. Oh, and the guy who was famous for playing Disney’s 1950 Long John Silver (Robert Newton) is in there too. That’s right, this is campy AND British. So British, the couple brings their butler on their honeymoon. Buckle in, folks.

Just to give this some dignity, it’s actually based on a series of popular mysteries by Dorothy L. Sayers, who apparently lived in Kingston Upon Hull. There’s a blue heritage plaque and everything! I lived there for 10 months in college and there was a history plaque I missed! It must’ve been near the sports arena. I didn’t go over there.

The couple are a bit like a sober Nick and Nora Charles who are a go-to consultant team for the local law enforcement. Both Peter (Montgomery) and Harriet (Cummings) have declared to give up murder and mayhem (fact and fiction) in their new life together. Naturally, a murder occurs while at their honeymoon cottage, one of those “everyone hated him so there’s a long list of suspects” murders.

The mystery naturally pulls the true crime couple back into old habits, but I will not give away the murderer. I will give away some of the more English hi-jinx which are meant to cause hilarity. For one, the dinner is not prepared upon their arrival and the butler (named Bunter which is very confusing to my stuffed up ears) is nearly smoked out by using the old stove of the cottage. For another, the chimney sweep has 7 layers of jumpers on and plans on clearing the flue while wearing a tie. A local offers them wine made of local vegetation. A parson keeps waving a dead stote at them. The same parson then shoots upward into their chimney. With all of these shenanigans, they don’t even find the body until act three of the film.

One of the aspects of Harriet being a writer is how her new upper class in-laws are rather mystified that she is a woman who makes money on such a droll little hobby. When she gives up crime novels, she says she could write about anything in the world which we all know as authors is a total lie. She’ll write what the voices in her head tell her to write. But it’s also just simply and clearly shown that deductive reasoning is how her and her husband’s minds work. They breakdown the real murder using the same questions Harriet uses to create a fictional murder. Eat your heart out, Jessica Fletcher!

The Adventures of Mark Twain: Movies about Writing

If you’re expecting spaceships, claymation, and a super creepy sequence involving the devil, this is not that movie. Although, massive points to you if you got that reference. This The Adventures of Mark Twain was the result of movie studios wanting to make money off the lives of famous authors without actually researching the lives of famous authors. And thus, in 1944, we get Fredric March in a mustache.

First, I will warn that the scenes involving African American actors are cringe worthy. I hope they all got paid well for having to talk like Jim Crow stereotypes. I’m forgiving March himself as he would’ve had no say (being an actor, not a director) and he was a member of the NAACP which might be why he wanted to play Twain in the first place.

I’m not going to go into a lot of nitty -gritty or cast lists for this one. In over two hours of biopic, it was more like one of Twain’s books. The whole story is exaggerated right down to giving young Samuel Clemens (Twain) two childhood friends named Tom and Huck. Very little happens the correct order and several of his life’s major events are given a great deal of dramatic emphasis. The movie even starts with a rather ridiculous opening of people watching Halley’s comet like the world is coming to an end while Clemens is born. This might be one of the oldest Hollywood creation I’ve seen which includes the fictional characters appearing to the author in dream sequences.

Avoidance of hot political topics is also the name of the game. No mention of Twain deserting the Confederate Army or his work as an abolitionist. Twain fought for Black rights and women’s rights in reality yet there’s no mention of either. Mostly, it’s a lot of reminiscing about being a steamboat pilot. The creation of his publishing company and his printing of Ulysses Grant’s memoirs was an interesting scene, but only lasts ten minutes.

Still, there is a focus on his own self-doubt as a writer and how he used humor to help him in these moments of embarrassment or second guessing. In one scene, his future father-in-law states that writers are the great New England men like Emerson, Whittier, Longfellow, and Wendell Holmes. He lets this get into his head, like many writers do. He then later meets three of these “giants” and tries to make joke which doesn’t land because to this shaken confidence. The movie credits his wife for keeping him going, but I’d like to think some of his own humor helped.

Dick Van Dyke Show (The Meershatz Pipe): Movies about Writing

Let me take you back in time to where it was shocking that woman wore trousers on television and a man was expected to be the only breadwinner in this strange post-World War II United States known as the 60s.

The “Dick Van Dyke Show” starred the title’s namesake as Rob Petrie, a comedy writer for a popular evening TV show. Yes. The was named after the actor playing the lead character NOT the actual character. Early TV basically got as far as figuring out laugh tracks and then didn’t put too much thought into the shows beyond that. Rob lives with his wife, Laura (subtle feminist icon Mary Tyler Moore) and son Ritchie (Larry Matthews) in the suburbs complete with twin beds for the married couple. Not to be crass, but how did sitcom characters have children when the never slept in the same bed. Is this a reality where the stork is actually a thing?

The episode entitled “The Meershatz Pipe” opens with Rob in the writers room with his co-workers Buddy (Morey Amsterdam as a character based on Mel Brooks) and Sally (Rose Marie). “We’re writing a comedy show, we’ve got no time for jokes,” Buddy states as the team realizes they are stuck on the ending for that night’s show. He shows off his gaudy pipe made by a man named Lazlo Meershatz which was given to him by their boss without any reason. This makes Rob jealous and worried as he realizes he’s not the favored employee despite being the head writer. In a moment of frustration, Rob goes home, leaving his co-workers to finish on their own.

Of course, Rob gets home and Ritchie demands hearing a politically incorrect story about a peace pipe. This pushes Rob’s buttons further and he falls into a state of exhaustion which leads to a cold. Laura makes him stay home the next day and rest. Literally makes him. She holds him down in bed until he gives up. He tries to still be a part of work by calling Buddy and Sally over the phone.

Beyond being upset by the boss giving Buddy so much attention, Rob is driven to sneak into work with a fever when he finds out that there seems to be no trouble on the show without him there. Rob wants to prove himself and Laura wants him back in bed.

One of the best parts is when Laura is trying to explain to Ritchie what’s wrong with Daddy and Ritchie bluntly asks if Daddy is “unsecure”. Laura asks how he know that word and the small child reveals it was the topic of an episode of Popeye. “And who says television isn’t educational?” Laura responds.

SPOILER ALERT:

Rob’s boss sends Rob home instantly where he’s forced to watch the show HE DIDN’T WRITE on TV and declares that he’s “not needed”. Just as he’s about to call the show and quit, the show’s host calls Rob at home telling him live on the air to get better and that his fellow writers send the message, “Help!”

Once again feeling appreciated, Rob returns to work recuperated and Buddy gives him a pipe. As it turns out, the fellow writer made up the story about their boss giving him the pipe just to mess with Rob and Sally.

I don’t have much to say about this episode. I thought it was a good one to blog about because it is about the fragility of a writer’s ego and how some people work together.

It Chapter Two: Movies about Writing

I am going to focus on the career of a single character mainly for this blog, but first a few notes about the It story by Stephen King in general. Spoilers ahead. Also, no troll comments about how Bill Skarsgard is a better Pennywise monster than Tim Curry. Both are magnificent and I love them equally.

For those of you unfamiliar, the It franchise is based on the book about seven people who reunited in their hometown to fight an ancient, shape-shifting, murderous monster they battle 27 years earlier as a group of children. The group is made up of Bill, Beverly, Ritchie (who is my favorite character), Eddie, Mike, Ben, and Stan. For the recent films, they split the story in half, so their kid moments make up one very excellent film and their adult moments (still with kid flashbacks) create a less excellent but still pretty good sequel. I’m going to be talking just about the sequel today.

As a kid, I grew up with the Tim Curry version and I watched it pretty much every time I caught it on TV. Just like most of my generation who watched that made-for-television masterpiece (which my boyfriend says is cheesy, but that can be correct), the scenes featuring them as kids are always so much better than the grownups. It made me sad as a child to think that the seven main characters barely spoke after high school. And that they forgot how close they had been. The parts of the story where they are young really do play out like an extreme adventure movie - seven friends who can send a supernatural killer clown into hibernation with the power of friendship. I couldn’t understand how a bond that strong could possibly be destroyed, even by time and poor memory. As an adult, it makes sense. It’s no-less sad, but it’s realistic. And that in it-self is a tragedy. Understanding why that is just the way life goes even when a killer clown is involved is pretty bleak.

Still, the the second movie’s character that I will be focusing on is Bill, the group’s leader, played by James MacAvoy. Bill grew up to be an author and screenwriter. His wife is an actress who is starring the adaptation of his latest book. One of the earliest scenes in the film involve Bill on set being asked by both his wife Audra and Peter Bogdanovich (as “director”) to rewrite the ending before they shoot it. This is of course given Bill block and becomes a running theme in the movie. One of the things I objected to in this film was that they minimized Audra’s part (and before anyone argues, yes, I have read the book not just watched the TV Curry mini-series) which I feel is important to Bill’s adult life as a writer. His abilities directly impact Audra’s career and so she is both supportive, but tough. Her having a larger part in the original story is a part of what gives Bill a chance at closure and continuing his career at the end of the story. But instead, she just sort of fades out in this version. By the time she shows up again, you’ve kinda forgotten who she is.

Bill argues that his endings are the way they are because real life doesn’t give nicely wrapped closure. However, as a reader sometimes a form of closure is needed to get a book out of your head when you’re done.

When the Losers Club as the group is called reunites, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) even mentions to Bill how scary the movies he writes are, but that the ending sucks. But the greatest scene to bring this up involves Bill in a thrift shop trying to buy his childhood bike. The shop owner is none other than Stephen King (remember in the 90s/early 00s when King had cameos in all of those crappy TV movies like Langoleiers and The Stand? This is better than those. No pizza delivery or pretending to be a professional in a suit. In fact, I kinda wonder if King’s costume was something his wife Tabitha found in the back of their closet.

Bill notices that King as the shopkeeper has a copy of his book. When asked if King would like a signature, he responds, “No thanks. Didn’t like the ending.” Ba dum dum.

In the end, Bill is more confident in his writing (although he wife doesn’t even get to make an appearance at the end) partially because he now has complete memories of his childhood. The ironic part is the changes the made to the end of It for this film weren’t that great either. So go figure.

Sinister: Movies about Writing

I always find it strange to watch Ethan Hawke in a mainstream role that’s not from the 90s. Therefore, it throws my whole world out of wack to see him in a Jason Blum film.

In Sinister, Hawke plays Ellison Oswalt (how’s that for a made up pen name), a true crime author and failed novelist who also writes college textbooks to help pay the bills. He moves into the previous scene of a child disappearance with his wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance), daughter Ashley (Clare Foley), and son Trevor (Michael Hall D’Addario) so he can write his next bestseller. His hope is to make enough off this next book that he won’t have to write boring textbooks any longer. I’ve never thought about it before, but how much of that hundred of dollars that universities charge for textbooks do the writers actually see? I’m assuming not much. This would explain why the instructor for an economics of piracy class I took sold us the textbook directly for a cheaper price. That way he saw all of the profit. Economics of piracy - heh. Smart man.

Anyway, local authorizes try to convince Ellison to leave (except one officer who brought a book to be signed and gets scolded for it). The sheriff (played by Fred Thompson, a character actor typecast as law enforcement and politicians because he actually served as a senator for a time - seriously! I just learned that!) states that he does not appreciate the way police are portrayed by Ellison or the media circus that follows the books he publishes.

Tracy gives Ellison some good writing advice. She says how she misses his fiction writing, even if it didn’t sell, and that he’s chasing after another bestseller instead of writing what he wants to write. And she’s totally right! He actually spend several minutes of the movie re-watching his TV appearances from bestseller’s publicity tour. He wants the “fame and money”. Oh damn, Tracy, you called it. He dragged you to a lot of writing workshops, didn’t he? Of course, there is the whole trying to make a living thing.

Let the spooky research begin! Ellison is investigating the murder of the house’s previous family, all hung from a tree in the back yard, and disappearance of one child. He finds a box of snuff films in the attic which feature not only the death of the family he’s investigating, but several other families throughout the decades. Personally, my first thought would have been, “Oh crap! Serial killer left his trophy box in my house! Better call the cops and get the heck outta Dodge!” But no. For being a true crime writer, Ellison decides NOT to call police apparently not making the same connection I did. I mean, he does finally tell the deputy (James Ransone - adult Eddie from It: Chapter Two) after strange drawings appear in the attic and he falls through a floorboard, but by then his children are already being subtly haunted.

Also, how did he, a writer with only one bestseller, get the money for such nice video enhancement equipment. I can’t bring myself to spend money on Adobe! But in classic horror film fashion, the more creepy shit he sees on his fancy video program from the old home movies, the more research he does. You know, instead of GETTING OUT OF THE HOUSE! As true crime writer, has he ever actually read any true crime?

But Ellison wants the movie deal and the fame. He insists that this could be his In Cold Blood. Does he not know that 1) Truman Capote wrote a fictionalize version of the true events to sell as book and 2) that book was a first of it’s kind. You can’t be Truman Capote, Ethan Hawke. You don’t even have the lisp.

Eventually, he notices a figure in the films along with a symbol. He get helps from a post - “Law and Order”, but pre - “Daredevil” Vincent D’Onofrio as an occult professor. He tells Ellison that the symbol is associated with a demon called Bughuul who uses children to do dark deeds. This demon is completely made up for the film and has no roots in any mythology. If you want to do legit research after being utterly disturbed watch Hereditary.

I’m not going to spoil the ending (although this movie came out in 2012, so I’m sure someone has spoiled it for you by now). I am going to say this - If creepy shit is happening it’s time to let the writing project go! Maybe take a break, move to a new house, and write a happy story for your kids to enjoy. But that’s just me.

Secret Window: Movies about Writing

Let’s do one more Stephen King adaptation this October. I know I watched Secret Window once before (probably around 2005 or 2006 when it would have been played on TV), but I remember not being all that impressed with it. Not that it’s a full out bad film, just that I didn’t feel like I really needed to hold onto it in my memory or ever watch it again. Yet here I am, watching it again.

Since this is another based on a Stephen King short story about a writer - it is very much a movie about writing. Johnny Depp plays Mort Rainey, a depressed novelist who is in the midst of a divorce and writing a book based on his experiences of his wife (Maria Bello) cheating on him. He decides to do this in a remote cabin by a lake. So imagine his surprise when a man dressed like an Amish reject shows up at his door claiming that Rainey “stole his story”. Mort ignores the man named John Shooter (John Turturro), yet does end up reading the original manuscript and realizes it’s almost identical to something he wrote called “Secret Window”.

Shooter starts to terrorize Mort and Mort starts collecting evidence that he wrote the story first. However, Shooter continues to threaten him with murders and arson, wanting Mort to republish the story with Shooter ending and name. All of this causes Mort to constantly flashback to the time leading up to his wife’s infidelity and lose his grip on reality. There is also some guilt there being pushed down by a haze of cigarette smoke and Doritos. Mmm. Product placement.

Oh! I remember why I blocked this movie out! IMPORTANT SPOILER ALERT: The dog dies! The cute, personality-full dog dies!

Other SPOILER ALERT: Shooter and Mort are the same person. Oh come on! This movie came out in 2004. You can’t tell me someone didn’t spoil the ending by now. But I’m bringing it up for a reason. The best scene is when the audience discovers that when Mort talks to himself, it’s a moral version trying to get him to admit to doing wrong and protect people. That Mort apparently is the weakest of his personalities because when Shooter shows up, everything becomes a full blown horror story. It all stems back to Mort’s anger at his wife, his own writer’s block, and the fact that he actually DID plagiarize a story early in his career (this is hinted at throughout the movie, but stated outright in the original King story). If anxiety ever caused me to have Dissociative Identity Disorder, I would hope my other personality would have a better accent.

I do like the scenes where Mort is actually trying to write. He talk to himself the way we all do (admit it, you do) with the usual distractions around him like a slinky and comfy couch. I especially like when he re-reads a paragraph and tells himself, “Bad writing”. He then deletes the little bit he’s actually written. I can’t help agreeing with him on this. I’m constantly told that the important part is to get it on the page then go back and edit, but that drives me insane! Clearly (SPOILER ALERT), it was something else that drove Mort insane in the film, but maybe bad writing was a factor.

Okay, let’s talk about the John Turturro - shaped elephant in the room - plagiarism. King’s story is actually based on the unfounded accusations that he stole some of his story ideas. Here’s the problem: some authors get so hung up on the nit-picks of plot development and character creation that they forget that time their English teacher told them that there are finite types of stories. Look at Shakespeare! He was a great wordsmith, but all of his plots came from mythology and history. What drives me nuts are the writers who try to copyright a common word, a phrase, or a genre. You can’t stop people from having ideas and coincidences happen. Even King found out after he published Under the Dome that it was the plot of The Simpsons Movie.