June is going to be all Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley based movies/tv episodes. It was going to be May. Why May? Because that’s when she started writing Frankenstein, of course. I would have focused on a man-made terror if it meant I didn’t have to hang out with Byron. So why not May and instead June? Because my blogs will be delayed for a month because Phoenix Fan Fusion is back! Yes, we have our "legally can’t call it Comic Con” back this year and that means a lot of planning and a lot of taking vitamin C.
Saturday Night Live (Fiction Workshop): Movies about Writing
This is a silly choice, but here’s a short from Saturday Night Live. This is from earlier this March (2022) when Oscar Issac hosted.
In this five minute skit, a teacher at a monthly writer workshop invites the custodian to sit in on their session because she always sees him with a book in his hand. Custodian Michael (Issac) reveals that is own writing is his late night fantasies about Dua Lipa coming to the school late at night looking for him. The writing instructor, realizing where this is going, tries to stop him. However, the male writers in the room urge him on while the female writers try not to listen.
The instructor, wanting to be supportive and create a safe space for sharing, allows him to continue. Then, the story turns to the janitor “character” making out with the music sensation. Once again, the instructor stops him, but when Michael sadly says, “You’re right. I’m not a writer” she invites him to finish the story.
SPOILER ALERT (like you didn’t see this coming) His story starts to turn pornographic (after a brief criticism of the porn industry as a whole) and he skips to the end . . . of chapter one. Mike then reveals that the “short story” has over 800 pages (yep, authors lie about length sometimes when they’re excited to share), so the instructor and female authors exit while the male authors sit in rapt attention.
I think we can all learn something from this skit about trying to be supportive of other writers . . . but also look out for the creepers.
The Veil (The Crystal Ball): Movies about Writing
My boyfriend found a $3 dvd set of a Boris Karloff anthology series I’d never heard of called “The Veil”. Apparently it was film and never aired as a series. And it’s not bad!
The Crystal Ball is an episode not about the writing process, but about how the world can view fiction writers as fanciful and people to be placated.
Edmond is a popular author in early 20th century France with his love stories translated and sold in multiple western countries. His girlfriend, Marie, had left him for his rich publisher, Charles. Her parting gift is a crystal ball, which Edmond’s uncle (Karloff) says is just like her - beautiful but useless. Boris Burned You, Lady!
The uncle is pretty observant of people. He makes Edmond burn Marie’s letters, pointing out that as a writer of “ sentimental love stories” Edmond will keep pining if he keeps her words. The uncle makes another comment that Edmond would never fall for a woman who didn’t show a flair for “passionate” word smithing. Edmond also tries throwing himself in work, but he’s blocked.
Sadly, these steps do not help Edmond as he has to attend dinners at Marie and his boss’s house and, oh yeah, because he starts to see visions of Marie in the frickin crystal ball. Yes, this is that kind of story.
The visions show him Marie’s affairs with a Parisian artist while her husband is away on business. Edmond spirals into a sleepless obsession with her dalliances and his work suffers greatly despite a deadline on the horizon. Finally, he reveals to his uncle that he thinks he’s going mad because of the crystal ball images. The uncle dismisses this as the jealous fantasies of an overactive imagination. But he does offer the solution that if Edmond sees Marie go someplace, he should check that place in reality. “ if you are going out of your mind let’s find out in time to do something about it!” the uncle rather practically declares.
I won’t give away the entire plot although I’m sure you’ll figure it out on your own, but I do want to add how Edmond tries to tell his boss. The publisher has a similar reaction as the uncle. Good writers has realistic fantasies (oxymoron) and it’s all in Edmond’s head.
Now another important thought - how did that crystal ball not burn down Edmond’s house! He kept is uncovered in his garden with the sun directly shining on it! I’m just saying.
Writer's Block: Movies about Writing
Writer’s Block is a 2013 short film directed by Brandon Planco and staring Bryan Cranston. Cranston plays a nameless screen writer who smokes too much while he second guesses his own work. He realizes he doesn’t know where to go with the plot and decides to take a walk. The part with him talking to himself at his computer table if very relatable. His clothes including unzipped hoody are pretty relatable too or it that just me?
This walk involves following a beautiful woman out of his hotel and into the night. The woman, listed in the credits as “Writer’s Block” leads him to a movie theatre where he has an emotional meltdown. I’m not going to give away the whole short, but understand that is a brief series of metaphors between him and the woman. Or was it?
Okay, so there’s no real ending, but I got the jist.
Drive My Car: Movies About Writing
It was Oscar season which means I watched every best picture nominee as per tradition started when i was in college. I know, know. It’s a little pretentious but it’s also fun. It’s like a game every year where you have to see every movie before that bloated annual ceremony which I religiously watch.
Still, I’m going to keep this one short. I just wanted to make a little comment about the screenwriting process presenting in the nominated (and winning) film Drive My Car.
First, warning. Thar be references to adult content here. Second, a thought. I have not read the Haruki Murakami short story that the movie is based on so I have no idea if this was a part of the original plot or something the screenwriters Ryuske Hamaguchi and Takamsa Oe came up with. If it’s the former, I find it a strange addition.
If you’ve seen the film, you know where I’m going with this. If you haven’t, here’s some background. Drive My Car is about a widower theatre actor and director played by Hidetoshi Nishijima being chauffeured by a twenty-three year old woman who makes him reminisce about the loss of his daughter (who would be the same age as the chauffeur if she’d lived) and especially his wife. Without giving anything important away, the whole plot is about art and grief and loss and guilt.
BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT I WANT TO COMMENT ON. The main character’s late wife, Oto (Reika Kirishima), had been a critically acclaimed screenwriter who mostly wrote televised dramas. And, oh yeah, she got her best ideas from orgasms. When she and her husband would have sex, she’d spout out plot points and character building. The next day, he would repeat all to her and she’d write it into a script.
I have so many questions about this? Most of which might make my mother blush if she read this blog. But I guess my biggest thought is - how is that productive? What if she’s on a deadline, but has a headache? What if she needs a flash of brilliance but she has a UTI? Also, she must’ve really trusted her husband to repeat it all back to her the next day. I’d be paranoid he’d forget something important because . . . you know . . . they’re having sex.
This idea just does not seem like a good writing model, but I guess I shouldn’t judge. My model for motivating myself to write involves a lot of Youtube rabbit holes and spinning in my chair. To each their own, I guess.
Murder, She Wrote (The Murder of Sherlock Holmes): Movies about Writing
Oh, come on! You knew this one was coming eventually. This is the premiere 2 part episode of "Murder, She Wrote” from 1984. You know this show. You know you know it. Even if you’ve never seen it, you know it’s out there, especially if you were a child of the 80s or 90s. The star, Angela Lansbury, was so ingrained into our culture that you were aware of this show probably at birth.
Fine. Just in case you don’t know, the premise of “Murder, She Wrote” is literally that. Jessica Fletcher is a popular murder mystery writer who lives in the small town of Cabot Cove where’s she an active member of the community. So active, that she ends up regularly helping the sheriff solve real murders. In fact, everywhere she goes she’s asked to assist in a murder investigation by somebody. No one seemed to question (that I can recall) why murder followed Angela Lansbury’s character everywhere she went, but you know - it was the 80s. All that cocaine was clouding people’s judgement.
The Murder of Sherlock Holmes starts with substitute teacher Jessica as a part of a local refreshments team viewing the dress rehearsal for a murder-mystery play. By just watching the first act, she reveals to the the director that she knows who the killer is and how. Of course, she’s right because she knows story structure! I love this opening scene! Especially, since the director was writing her off as silly middle-aged woman and thinks that his play isn’t well written and that’s why she figured it out. Many writers of fiction understand cause and effect. We ruin a lot of movies for ourselves, but it can’t be helped.
But at this point in the series, she isn’t published. Her nephew Grady (a re-occurring character that runs to his Aunt Jessica every time he screws up his life . . . which happens a lot in the show) calls to reveal that he gave her first manuscript to a publisher. Within weeks, this recent widow is number 2 on the bestseller list and completely overblown by her own picture in bookshop windows. She’s sent to New York for a series of personal appearances, most of which make her realize that the entire media business is full of phonies, fake academics, fortune hunters, and hosts who give away the ending on television (rude!). Then, she’s accused of stealing the idea from a crazy woman and that’s the end of it for her. She’s ready to leave when Mr. Giles, her publisher, insists on bringing her to a party at his country house to meet friendly book lovers where she won’t be “patronized” or “brow-beaten”.
Jessica is thrust into a rich people costume party where everyone comes as their favorite fictional character (although one man is dressed as Henry VIII so these aren’t intelligent rich people). She dresses as Cinderella’s fairy godmother, but I always thought she looked more like Glinda the Good Witch. Here is where we meet the Sherlock Holmes in question, a lecherous captain played by Brian Kieth, who is found in the pool with a face-full of buckshot. Or at least, that’s what everyone is led to believe at first. This isn’t really important, but Anne Francis played his glamorous, yet suffering wife (she starred in Forbidden Planet - as the song goes).
Enter Ned Beatty as a police chief. Despite him stating that he read Jessica’s book, “not that he liked it”, the chief asks for her insight as a people watcher. Smart man. Ask the woman that’s going to be looking for her next character. Despite his reliance on her theories, Jessica doesn’t want to get involved until her nephew Grady is named as a suspect. If you know this show, you know that Grady is not smart enough or ballsy enough to pull off murder, but he tends to end up in bad situations all of the time.
I’m not going to give away the killer or motive, but I’ll tell some more about the mystery and her writer’s mind. First, a quick complaint. There’s a part when Jessica is trying to tail a suspect and is nearly assaulted by Andy Garcia. First of all, the stand-ins for the fight scene are just bad. But also, she wanders into this bad neighborhood without even thinking about it like she’s some naive small town hick. I wish they’d given her a little more common sense there. Luckily, a young man, (listed int he credits as “Black Youth” - insert grunt noise here) who recognized her from her book cover, follows and saves her from evil Andy Garcia. Still, it’s kind of a sweet scene which shows her that even if the elite of the book world don’t appreciate her, the fans do. But more importantly, there is the moment when Grady promises her she’ll write more books, even when she declares that she’s giving it up. The entire show is called “Murder, She' Wrote” so clearly she keeps writing. Still, even when writers aren’t writing things down, their brain is constantly in a state of authorship.
If you enjoy Murder, She Wrote, you should watch PushingUpRoses on Youtube. She’s an artist who recaps the zaniest episodes of this show with fantastic humor and delightful insight. Also check out her videos on computer games from the 90s and episodes of spooky kids shows and bad movies - you know, what! It’s all great! Just go watch her channel.
Young Cassidy: Movies about Writing
I’ve been meaning to watch this film for years. TCM plays each St. Patrick’s Day so let’s do this.
Young Cassidy is a fictionalized account of Irish playwright Sean O’Casey’s autobiography. Johnny Cassidy (Rod Taylor) lives in a rundown house full of books with his mother and siblings who are all desperate for work in English controlled Dublin. Cassidy’s writing begins with protest pamphlets about Irish nationalism. The anonymous pamphlets end up inciting riots where many people are injured and killed. Cassidy decides that stirring up violence isn’t helping and decides to write newspaper articles and dramas about the plight of the Irish instead.
When Johnny publishes his first article and is paid for it, he celebrates by buying six copies of the paper and a book on drilling. He and other men around town form a militia, however, when the men start to think illogically, Cassidy leaves. After a battle (a weird battle that has an Irish stereotype where a man’s whiskey is destroyed and while he moans about it is shot), he writes a book about his fallen friends and is paid 15 pounds by an English publisher in Dublin. Hover, they pay him a check when he has no bank account so he can’t cash the damn thing.
The first play Johnny sends in is sent back the comment “a bit long on character and a bit short on plot”. He edits it, sends it again this time famous playwright, poet, and folklorist W.B. Yeats sends it back, saying, “a bit long on plot and a bit short on character.” The third time he sends the play, it’s lost. This is a legit scenario here. Eventually, one of his plays is produced and he explains to his girlfriend that “writing is love” to him and she takes it personally. Still, she’s supportive when his first play is a flop. Despite the lack of commercial success, the founders of the theatre Yeats and Lady Gregory encourage him to write more.
I’ve never read anything by Sean O’Casey, but plenty by Yeats and other Irish writers of the time who tried to use Irish culture as a way subtly fight back against the oppression of the English. I know enough about the different reasoning for Irish protest to call it oppression. I though his sister’s story was the saddest. Ella married the first man she could to escape Dublin, but he abandoned her with five children. Their mother speaks of Ella’s depression and current personality, according to Cassidy, “as if she had died”. Spoiler alert - Ella does die. But it adds to Cassidy’s fight and trying to fight using as he says it, “Beauty”. “[Ella] used to say that beauty was more important than bread. How do I explain that to her children?”
This film was always advertised to be about young exploits and Irish shenanigans than writing. Among his political struggles are the tales of his love affairs. His first notable relationship is with scandalous actress and kept woman Daisy (Julie Christie). His second is with bookshop worker Nora (Maggie Smith) who is impressed with his love of reading and sends him books he tried to steal. Why is there no public library in Dublin at this time? It’s supposed by like 1910 or 1911. Most major cities in America had libraries? What the heck.
But the movie is more about his love of country and how he could use writing to rebel. Nora makes a classist comment about needing a “high education” to be a writer.
Silver Streak: Movies about Writing
Confession - this movie isn’t very much about the writing process. But I didn’t have time to write a full blog this week. Enjoy.
This film was released in 1976, but the last time I saw it was sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. I’m sometimes surprised by the number of Richard Pryor movies I was allowed to watch as a child. But this blog is going to focus more on Gene Wilder’s character, a book editor onboard a train to attend a wedding. Just a quick warning that if you decide to watch the film, it does include jokes that cross some modern boundaries and use less-than-faltering stereotypes.
Silver Streak stars Wilder as George Caldwell who starts his journey meeting a cast of Agatha Christie-esque characters played by Ned Beatty as a lecherous lawman, Clifton James as an accusing sheriff, and Jill Clayburgh as the female sidekick Hilly. The cast is rounded out by bit parts by Fred Willard, Patrick McGoohan, Ray Wlston, Richard Kiel, and Scatman Crothers.
George confesses to taking the train because he needs to get some reading done for his publishing job. Hilly has recently taken a job for an academic trying to sell his book on Rembrandt so the pair quickly create the usual banter using nonfiction as the subject. The film automatically gives the notion that book editors make bank because George has a first class train cabin and orders fancy food with lots of champagne.
My question is, while George and Richard Pryor’s character are tossed into a world of art conspiracies and murder, what happened to all of the books George was supposed to be editing on the train? Those poor authors. I hope they had carbon copies.
The Ex-Mrs. Bradford: Movies about Writing
The Ex-Mrs. Bradford is a 1936 where Jean Arthur plays a mystery writer named Paula whose trying to convince Dr. Lawrence “Brad” Bradford (William Powell) to marry her again instead of making his alimony payments to her. It’s a comedy. During their “wedded bliss” Paula would convince Brad to consult on murders so she could research them for her novels. But Brad insists that he likes his life now where he can read the paper and “enjoy a murder” without her buzzing in his ear. He didn’t object to her writing mysteries. He objected to her “living them”. He has a point there as she is paranoid that every surprise is a gangster with a gun ready to bump the both off.
Of course, because this is a movie, a case falls into their lap about a murdered jockey. What follows is intrigue and screwball antics. Paula uses their budding retry at domesticity to play detective. She tries drugging them, bashing them, and all sorts of other problems in order to solve the case. However, events lead to suspicious against Brad and now he has to play the detective while Paula distracts the police on his tail.
I enjoy how Paula’s brain is always on the case like how most writers would be distracted. Of course, since she writes mysteries, it causes her to forget her manners. I appreciate this about her character. So many old movies make authors charming and sociable. It’s more realistic in my opinion for her to be distracted and a little “dizzy” as they say in 30s lingo. She also has a big box of props for developing murder stories which is a fantastic detail!
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.
