C.B. Pratt's Blog, page 2
May 18, 2014
Enter the Rafflecopter giveaway on the Hero for Hire page...
Enter the Rafflecopter giveaway on the Hero for Hire page for your chance to win a Free Kindle Fire or other great prizes. Meet 15 terrific indie writers with unique voices and thrilling stories!
May 16, 2014
Running with the Big Dog
I�ve loved Godzilla since his name was Gojira. (Typical. A guy goes to Hollywood and the first thing they do is change your name). So when a new movie was announced to come out fifty years after the original, I was both excited and fearful. Everyone remembers the questionable quality of the 1998 version.
This combination of dread and excitement carried me through the theater doors. We saw the film in Enhanced 3-D and it was definitely worth the extra couple of bucks. The only IMAX performance was 45 minutes away.
For the first half an hour, I was in monster-movie heaven. All the elements were in place. Then, subtly at first but with ever-increasing speed, the movie threw away all its potential to be great, relying instead on children in jeopardy, foolish coincidences, and emotional shorthand. It also wasted the potential of some really fine actors.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!
Now, usually I try hard not to give too much away. But when discussing Godzilla 2014 it is unusually difficult. The simple pluralization of a word gives away the plot. So you are WARNED!
The movie looks amazing. The monsters are well-done (see that plural�sorry!) and Godzilla is as awe-inspiring as he well-should be. They�ve subtly altered his face to give him some expression, though without anthropomorphizing the big guy. He�s a little less lizard-like, this time. The creatures he fights are less realistic. They have a robotic appearance for creatures that are supposed to be from �Before the Dawn of Time!� The destruction of buildings looks as real as news footage from a war-zone. And some of the explanations, while brief, are coherent and practicable enough to keep your disbelief suspended. There�s a brilliant HALO sequence, shot as though through goggles, that gives you a �you are there� feeling that will undoubtedly be copied again and again.
Where they missed the boat was in the emotional connection the audience needs to feel for the characters. Once we lose the focus of the core crazy-dad/sober-son conflict, we are left with a lot of people running around in circles and we, the audience, have no real grasp of who they are besides a two-word description. The Admiral. The Scientist. The Hero. The Hero�s Wife. We don�t know these people, ergo we don�t much care about them. There are some wonderful actors here � David Strathairn, Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins � and they are given *nothing* to do but look worried or stalwart. Bryan Cranston was given a chance to emote and he does his usual stand-out job as a man on the edge. Elizabeth Olson also emotes but in a hysterical, cry-on-cue kind of way. I never bought her as a wife and mother afraid of losing all she loves, nor was she given any opportunity to be a believable nurse. They had her pushing a gurney and standing by an ambulance in scrubs. This does not a nurse make.
The majority of the movie is given over to Aaron Taylor-Johnson as our hero and our lens. I�ve seen him in other things (Kick Ass 1 and 2) and he made a stronger impression than he does in the entire Godzilla movie. He sees things that would make any person stand in amazement and he remains almost expressionless. An occasional tear in his eye is the extent of his emotion in this film. He�s Odysseus trying to get back to Penelope but he shows little passion for his quest and expects her just to wait around for him in the midst of disaster until he can manage to show up. He can wander through a hell-scape and make it look like he�s just trying to find an open fast-food joint.
The writers also cheat in their attempts to make us feel something besides �whoa� at a set-piece. They do this by adding a child (again with no characterization) in the forefront of every disaster. A tsunami scene has a golden-haired girl for no good reason except for her father to snatch her up and run away. Same with the attack on Honolulu. Our hero is saddled with a temporarily lost boy for no reason except to save him. This �trick� is also used during a big set piece on the Golden Gate Bridge. They even stoop to the �dog in jeopardy� at one point. By the way, if you are going to write a character being responsible for a child, how about not having that character completely disappear when the child is in danger?
Furthermore, if you are going to have monsters fighting, then for heaven�s sake, show us the fight. Don�t cut away. Don�t lose it in the smoke. We came to see monsters. So not showing us monsters in favor of one-note acting was not a good choice. There are so many flat performances in this movie that I have to blame the director. There�s no way these fine actors chose of their own accord to turn in such simplistic characterizations.
You�re probably going to see this movie no matter what. Enjoy the big set-pieces, enjoy the technical achievements but don�t look for anything else. The emotional connection that makes a film a cult-classic and worthy of repeated viewings is not to be found here.
This combination of dread and excitement carried me through the theater doors. We saw the film in Enhanced 3-D and it was definitely worth the extra couple of bucks. The only IMAX performance was 45 minutes away.
For the first half an hour, I was in monster-movie heaven. All the elements were in place. Then, subtly at first but with ever-increasing speed, the movie threw away all its potential to be great, relying instead on children in jeopardy, foolish coincidences, and emotional shorthand. It also wasted the potential of some really fine actors.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!
Now, usually I try hard not to give too much away. But when discussing Godzilla 2014 it is unusually difficult. The simple pluralization of a word gives away the plot. So you are WARNED!
The movie looks amazing. The monsters are well-done (see that plural�sorry!) and Godzilla is as awe-inspiring as he well-should be. They�ve subtly altered his face to give him some expression, though without anthropomorphizing the big guy. He�s a little less lizard-like, this time. The creatures he fights are less realistic. They have a robotic appearance for creatures that are supposed to be from �Before the Dawn of Time!� The destruction of buildings looks as real as news footage from a war-zone. And some of the explanations, while brief, are coherent and practicable enough to keep your disbelief suspended. There�s a brilliant HALO sequence, shot as though through goggles, that gives you a �you are there� feeling that will undoubtedly be copied again and again.
Where they missed the boat was in the emotional connection the audience needs to feel for the characters. Once we lose the focus of the core crazy-dad/sober-son conflict, we are left with a lot of people running around in circles and we, the audience, have no real grasp of who they are besides a two-word description. The Admiral. The Scientist. The Hero. The Hero�s Wife. We don�t know these people, ergo we don�t much care about them. There are some wonderful actors here � David Strathairn, Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins � and they are given *nothing* to do but look worried or stalwart. Bryan Cranston was given a chance to emote and he does his usual stand-out job as a man on the edge. Elizabeth Olson also emotes but in a hysterical, cry-on-cue kind of way. I never bought her as a wife and mother afraid of losing all she loves, nor was she given any opportunity to be a believable nurse. They had her pushing a gurney and standing by an ambulance in scrubs. This does not a nurse make.
The majority of the movie is given over to Aaron Taylor-Johnson as our hero and our lens. I�ve seen him in other things (Kick Ass 1 and 2) and he made a stronger impression than he does in the entire Godzilla movie. He sees things that would make any person stand in amazement and he remains almost expressionless. An occasional tear in his eye is the extent of his emotion in this film. He�s Odysseus trying to get back to Penelope but he shows little passion for his quest and expects her just to wait around for him in the midst of disaster until he can manage to show up. He can wander through a hell-scape and make it look like he�s just trying to find an open fast-food joint.
The writers also cheat in their attempts to make us feel something besides �whoa� at a set-piece. They do this by adding a child (again with no characterization) in the forefront of every disaster. A tsunami scene has a golden-haired girl for no good reason except for her father to snatch her up and run away. Same with the attack on Honolulu. Our hero is saddled with a temporarily lost boy for no reason except to save him. This �trick� is also used during a big set piece on the Golden Gate Bridge. They even stoop to the �dog in jeopardy� at one point. By the way, if you are going to write a character being responsible for a child, how about not having that character completely disappear when the child is in danger?
Furthermore, if you are going to have monsters fighting, then for heaven�s sake, show us the fight. Don�t cut away. Don�t lose it in the smoke. We came to see monsters. So not showing us monsters in favor of one-note acting was not a good choice. There are so many flat performances in this movie that I have to blame the director. There�s no way these fine actors chose of their own accord to turn in such simplistic characterizations.
You�re probably going to see this movie no matter what. Enjoy the big set-pieces, enjoy the technical achievements but don�t look for anything else. The emotional connection that makes a film a cult-classic and worthy of repeated viewings is not to be found here.
May 6, 2014
A Swing and A Miss
A Swing and A Miss
Any Spiderman movie is worth watching in 3-D. Just the sight of that blue-and-red suit swinging like Tarzan through Mid-Town will put a smile on anybody�s face. Fortunately, the creators of Amazing Spider-Man 2 did not stint on these scenes. There are other scenes, however, that they certainly could have left out completely.
Though I adore Campbell Scott and wish he�d show up in many more films, the entire subplot of Peter Parker�s mother and father could have been excised from this movie and left no gaps. It could have easily been saved for a third film, and you know as sure as sunrise that there�s going to be a third film. The grief Peter undergoes in this film could have been used to drive him to find out more about his family. But instead it is just one of three, perhaps four, subplots in this movie.
I�m not sure there was a central plot, to be honest. Plenty of incidents, lots of action, some sexy chit-chat between Peter and the exquisite Gwen Stacey (portrayed charmingly by Emma Stone). Andrew Garfield works his geeky charm as the web-slinger, though I seriously could have done without the hipster knit hat. He meets up with an old friend, Harry Osborn (talented Dane DeHaan), and some new enemies, played by Jamie Foxx and Paul Giamatti (almost unrecognizable but obviously having a great time!)
Jamie Foxx has perhaps the greatest character arc of anyone in the movie. His Max Dillon, put-upon and terribly lonely, is a sympathetic character. But like all too many people in a Spider-Man movie, his ability to forgive a slight seems to extend to everyone *except* Spider-Man. He is more enraged at Spidey than at his boss who mistreats him or the company that stole a multi-million dollar idea from him. It�s a little too facile a plot move to have him suddenly decide he hates Spider-Man when something happens that is really beyond Spider-Man�s control.
The same flaw drives Harry Osborn. Yes, he�s a poor little rich boy who just found out he�s doomed to die from the same disease that is killing his father�though Dad made it to at least the mid-fifties! So why is Harry suddenly falling apart? �Cause it�s in the script, apparently. And instead of insisting that his medical research firm get to work on a retardant or a cure�he decides that only Spidey-blood can save him. He instantly hates Spider-Man when he says no way despite his having excellent reasons.
Yet the scenes where characters are allowed to be human beings instead of plot/script-driven monsters are tender and fun. You believe that Harry and Peter were childhood friends, you believe in the deep affection between Peter and his aunt (Sally Field, pretty much holding in her tendency to over-act), and you really root for Peter and Gwen�though I sure wish she�d gotten on the plane to England. Sheesh � traffic.
But there is no central story. Peter Parker is like the main character in a first person shooter. He really doesn�t have anything to do except react to the crap flying at him. He�s not particularly invested emotionally in the troubles of anyone in the movie, except his girlfriend. And cute and fuzzy though Garfield and Stone are together, it isn�t enough to power an entire superhero movie. We needed a bigger and more important set of dangers, something world-shaking.
I hope Paul Giamatti returns in AS-M3. He didn�t have much to do but yell in this one, which was a waste of a great talent. Further, I must mention someone who is competing hard for Hugo Weaver�s �Appearing Most Often In Noisy Movies� Award, the very talented Colm Feore. He has appeared in many big films, �Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit�. �Chronicles of Riddick�. �Thor�. Plus countless television shows. He�s always good, always reliable. Those are the kinds of actors I just love.
Any Spiderman movie is worth watching in 3-D. Just the sight of that blue-and-red suit swinging like Tarzan through Mid-Town will put a smile on anybody�s face. Fortunately, the creators of Amazing Spider-Man 2 did not stint on these scenes. There are other scenes, however, that they certainly could have left out completely.
Though I adore Campbell Scott and wish he�d show up in many more films, the entire subplot of Peter Parker�s mother and father could have been excised from this movie and left no gaps. It could have easily been saved for a third film, and you know as sure as sunrise that there�s going to be a third film. The grief Peter undergoes in this film could have been used to drive him to find out more about his family. But instead it is just one of three, perhaps four, subplots in this movie.
I�m not sure there was a central plot, to be honest. Plenty of incidents, lots of action, some sexy chit-chat between Peter and the exquisite Gwen Stacey (portrayed charmingly by Emma Stone). Andrew Garfield works his geeky charm as the web-slinger, though I seriously could have done without the hipster knit hat. He meets up with an old friend, Harry Osborn (talented Dane DeHaan), and some new enemies, played by Jamie Foxx and Paul Giamatti (almost unrecognizable but obviously having a great time!)
Jamie Foxx has perhaps the greatest character arc of anyone in the movie. His Max Dillon, put-upon and terribly lonely, is a sympathetic character. But like all too many people in a Spider-Man movie, his ability to forgive a slight seems to extend to everyone *except* Spider-Man. He is more enraged at Spidey than at his boss who mistreats him or the company that stole a multi-million dollar idea from him. It�s a little too facile a plot move to have him suddenly decide he hates Spider-Man when something happens that is really beyond Spider-Man�s control.
The same flaw drives Harry Osborn. Yes, he�s a poor little rich boy who just found out he�s doomed to die from the same disease that is killing his father�though Dad made it to at least the mid-fifties! So why is Harry suddenly falling apart? �Cause it�s in the script, apparently. And instead of insisting that his medical research firm get to work on a retardant or a cure�he decides that only Spidey-blood can save him. He instantly hates Spider-Man when he says no way despite his having excellent reasons.
Yet the scenes where characters are allowed to be human beings instead of plot/script-driven monsters are tender and fun. You believe that Harry and Peter were childhood friends, you believe in the deep affection between Peter and his aunt (Sally Field, pretty much holding in her tendency to over-act), and you really root for Peter and Gwen�though I sure wish she�d gotten on the plane to England. Sheesh � traffic.
But there is no central story. Peter Parker is like the main character in a first person shooter. He really doesn�t have anything to do except react to the crap flying at him. He�s not particularly invested emotionally in the troubles of anyone in the movie, except his girlfriend. And cute and fuzzy though Garfield and Stone are together, it isn�t enough to power an entire superhero movie. We needed a bigger and more important set of dangers, something world-shaking.
I hope Paul Giamatti returns in AS-M3. He didn�t have much to do but yell in this one, which was a waste of a great talent. Further, I must mention someone who is competing hard for Hugo Weaver�s �Appearing Most Often In Noisy Movies� Award, the very talented Colm Feore. He has appeared in many big films, �Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit�. �Chronicles of Riddick�. �Thor�. Plus countless television shows. He�s always good, always reliable. Those are the kinds of actors I just love.
April 5, 2014
Captain America: The Winter Soldier � Hiding in Plain Sight
The key to any superhero is his secret identity. Batman�s and Superman�s are awfully thin but continue to hold. Spiderman is apparently a secret only from the police�since all his family members and frenemies know what Peter Parker does in his off-hours. Ironman is Stark and everyone knows it, but Stark is almost a secret identity in himself. Nobody knows the real him. Not even his lover and sidekick, Pepper, ever seems to get past the snarky persona to see him stripped of his ironical detachment. Hulk is never around long enough for anyone to get to know him.
Then there�s Steve Rogers. The whole world, it seems, knows that Captain America is *that* guy. Even joggers. The entire Army. S.H.I.E.L.D. Kids in museums. Computers. There is a display dedicated to him at the Smithsonian Air and Space, for goodness� sake. So�what secret identity?
Like Stark, Rogers doesn�t spend a whole lot of time engaged in introspection. His reference points are a lonely, sickly childhood and an action-packed war. Living an ordinary, modern life is outside his experience, though he has his own apartment now, an indication that he is growing up, 70 years late. The best parts of CA: TWS are the moments when we are shown Rogers attempting to find his way in this so connected yet very disconnected world that even people who�ve been raised in it have trouble navigating. It doesn�t help that every time he starts feeling a little at home, someone tries to kill him.
He�s not a man comfortable with easy lies. But he lives in Washington. Difficulty right there. He knows people aren�t telling the truth, but he can only react to what he is told. But when everything is a lie, Rogers must go outside the system, a place without the rules that he lives by. Fortunately, he�s got Natasha Romanov with him to help him navigate this modern age. CA: TWS comes to life when Rogers and Romanov go off on their own. Suddenly they�re free to banter, to trust, to find their own vivacity free of the burden of an unnecessarily complex and talky script.
This is the first Marvel-based movie in which women have the kind of roles they should have had all along. They aren�t girlfriends, damsels in distress, or standing about looking worried. They are, literally, kicking butt and taking names. Romanov, Maria Hill and Agent 13 have real jobs to handle and they do not wait for anyone to rescue them. I wish someone would write a movie just for them�especially for Hill. She�s competent, strong, but we the movie-goers are never told anything about her.
There�s a lot of loose ends tied up from Captain America: The First Avenger so I recommend a prerequisite viewing of that film before going to this one, just to recall all the players. There are some outstanding fight scenes, especially the one in the elevator familiar from the previews. Though, as is all too common, the director or the cinematographer is either moving the camera or standing so close that the details of the action is lost. But everyone seems to shoot fights this way. Ideally, a fight should be filmed like a dance, the whole person in frame and no cut-aways or pointless close-ups. But directors prefer blurring and jumps. It�s too bad, especially during the climactic battle when Cap meets his equal in skill and �health-points�.
Worthy of special mention is Robert Redford, who uses his iconic American looks and voice to great effect, and the always terrific Anthony Mackie. He�s one of those actors who manages to make everyone else look good. I don�t know if it how he listens or the way he uses a pair of very attractive eyes but everything I�ve seen him in has been improved by his presence, sometimes to an amazing extent. He made Matt Damon look very good in �The Adjustment Bureau�. Sebastian Stan did a tremendous job with a character that has almost no dialogue, expressing his determination and confusion with expressive eyes. I hope the projected sequel will give him much more to do. I�d love to see him in a Zorro remake�hint, hint.
By the way, if you have a secret identity to protect, as you very well may, take notice that Steve Rogers has stolen a pair of nerd glasses from Clark Kent. In The Winter Soldier, a pair of black, square frames once more prove to be an all-but impenetrable disguise. If James Bond shows up in a pair in his next movie, we�ll know they�ve become standard issue for the world�s Secret Services.
Definitely IMAX and 3-D worthy
Then there�s Steve Rogers. The whole world, it seems, knows that Captain America is *that* guy. Even joggers. The entire Army. S.H.I.E.L.D. Kids in museums. Computers. There is a display dedicated to him at the Smithsonian Air and Space, for goodness� sake. So�what secret identity?
Like Stark, Rogers doesn�t spend a whole lot of time engaged in introspection. His reference points are a lonely, sickly childhood and an action-packed war. Living an ordinary, modern life is outside his experience, though he has his own apartment now, an indication that he is growing up, 70 years late. The best parts of CA: TWS are the moments when we are shown Rogers attempting to find his way in this so connected yet very disconnected world that even people who�ve been raised in it have trouble navigating. It doesn�t help that every time he starts feeling a little at home, someone tries to kill him.
He�s not a man comfortable with easy lies. But he lives in Washington. Difficulty right there. He knows people aren�t telling the truth, but he can only react to what he is told. But when everything is a lie, Rogers must go outside the system, a place without the rules that he lives by. Fortunately, he�s got Natasha Romanov with him to help him navigate this modern age. CA: TWS comes to life when Rogers and Romanov go off on their own. Suddenly they�re free to banter, to trust, to find their own vivacity free of the burden of an unnecessarily complex and talky script.
This is the first Marvel-based movie in which women have the kind of roles they should have had all along. They aren�t girlfriends, damsels in distress, or standing about looking worried. They are, literally, kicking butt and taking names. Romanov, Maria Hill and Agent 13 have real jobs to handle and they do not wait for anyone to rescue them. I wish someone would write a movie just for them�especially for Hill. She�s competent, strong, but we the movie-goers are never told anything about her.
There�s a lot of loose ends tied up from Captain America: The First Avenger so I recommend a prerequisite viewing of that film before going to this one, just to recall all the players. There are some outstanding fight scenes, especially the one in the elevator familiar from the previews. Though, as is all too common, the director or the cinematographer is either moving the camera or standing so close that the details of the action is lost. But everyone seems to shoot fights this way. Ideally, a fight should be filmed like a dance, the whole person in frame and no cut-aways or pointless close-ups. But directors prefer blurring and jumps. It�s too bad, especially during the climactic battle when Cap meets his equal in skill and �health-points�.
Worthy of special mention is Robert Redford, who uses his iconic American looks and voice to great effect, and the always terrific Anthony Mackie. He�s one of those actors who manages to make everyone else look good. I don�t know if it how he listens or the way he uses a pair of very attractive eyes but everything I�ve seen him in has been improved by his presence, sometimes to an amazing extent. He made Matt Damon look very good in �The Adjustment Bureau�. Sebastian Stan did a tremendous job with a character that has almost no dialogue, expressing his determination and confusion with expressive eyes. I hope the projected sequel will give him much more to do. I�d love to see him in a Zorro remake�hint, hint.
By the way, if you have a secret identity to protect, as you very well may, take notice that Steve Rogers has stolen a pair of nerd glasses from Clark Kent. In The Winter Soldier, a pair of black, square frames once more prove to be an all-but impenetrable disguise. If James Bond shows up in a pair in his next movie, we�ll know they�ve become standard issue for the world�s Secret Services.
Definitely IMAX and 3-D worthy
March 23, 2014
Writing for the Long Haul
This is a departure from my usual movie-related posts but I know a few of my readers are also writers so I thought I'd post this here.
A friend asked me the other day how I've managed to keep writing after all this time. And she wasn't asking about 'ideas' or 'how to deal with the financial ups-and-downs' or other craft questions, but how do I continue year after year despite the physical and mental demands of being a writer. This is my answer:
One of the best things about being a professional writer is that you never have to stop. Like orchestra conductors, we seem to go on forever, barring accidents. Writers publish into their 70�s, 80�s, even 90�s. So how can you continue writing for a lifetime?
I started out in 1991, writing Regency Romance. I was 28 (time out while you do the math). Since then, I�ve written a couple dozen books in a bunch of genres. I�m still writing more than ever, now independently, and can�t imagine stopping. I�ve had leaner years and fatter years, even a few years where the words halted, but something has always driven me to keep returning to the blank page.
Actually, the words didn�t halt; I felt that no one would want to read them so I didn�t write what I wanted to, what I was �hearing�. I tried to follow the market, to write what was currently selling.
Don�t chase the market. Some people have great luck or talent and catch the �book of the moment� vibe. But if you aren�t happy writing Erotica or Urban Fantasy or whatever, don�t do it. Write your own books your own way. The truest and longest-lasting voices are those that are individual, that come from your depths, not from a reflection of someone else�s vision.
Be careful with who you share your dream of being a writer, especially when first starting out. A few harsh words from someone can break a beginner, making them believe they don�t have talent. Protect yourself from negative people. Find friends who write, because nobody understands the struggle like someone going through it themselves. You can make friends that last a lifetime, giving mutual support through the inevitable game of �Snakes and Ladders� that is a writing career.
In addition to feeding your soul with friendship and with work that is from the heart, take care of your body. Though it looks like a writer is just sitting there, even possibly doing nothing but staring into space, their body is under stress. Sitting around for a long time is not good for humans. Treadmill desks aside, this is a job that requires a fair amount of sitting around. Make sure you get some exercise every day. Look away from the computer every half hour or so to keep your vision sharpened. Don�t do the �vulture hunch� with shoulders up to your ears. Keeping physically fit will keep you writing happily far into the future.
Don�t push yourself too hard mentally. Too many words in a day is, at least for me, counter-productive. Sure I might do twenty pages in a white-hot outpouring of ideas�but the next day, I�d be lucky to do two. Better to pace myself to a steady ten. When the words stop flowing easily, and I�ve given it my best shot, time to do something else for a while. Reading books not in the genre I�m working in is a great mental vacation.
So take care of your talent, your body and your spirit. Write the stories that thrill you and you�ll go on thrilling readers for years to come.
A friend asked me the other day how I've managed to keep writing after all this time. And she wasn't asking about 'ideas' or 'how to deal with the financial ups-and-downs' or other craft questions, but how do I continue year after year despite the physical and mental demands of being a writer. This is my answer:
One of the best things about being a professional writer is that you never have to stop. Like orchestra conductors, we seem to go on forever, barring accidents. Writers publish into their 70�s, 80�s, even 90�s. So how can you continue writing for a lifetime?
I started out in 1991, writing Regency Romance. I was 28 (time out while you do the math). Since then, I�ve written a couple dozen books in a bunch of genres. I�m still writing more than ever, now independently, and can�t imagine stopping. I�ve had leaner years and fatter years, even a few years where the words halted, but something has always driven me to keep returning to the blank page.
Actually, the words didn�t halt; I felt that no one would want to read them so I didn�t write what I wanted to, what I was �hearing�. I tried to follow the market, to write what was currently selling.
Don�t chase the market. Some people have great luck or talent and catch the �book of the moment� vibe. But if you aren�t happy writing Erotica or Urban Fantasy or whatever, don�t do it. Write your own books your own way. The truest and longest-lasting voices are those that are individual, that come from your depths, not from a reflection of someone else�s vision.
Be careful with who you share your dream of being a writer, especially when first starting out. A few harsh words from someone can break a beginner, making them believe they don�t have talent. Protect yourself from negative people. Find friends who write, because nobody understands the struggle like someone going through it themselves. You can make friends that last a lifetime, giving mutual support through the inevitable game of �Snakes and Ladders� that is a writing career.
In addition to feeding your soul with friendship and with work that is from the heart, take care of your body. Though it looks like a writer is just sitting there, even possibly doing nothing but staring into space, their body is under stress. Sitting around for a long time is not good for humans. Treadmill desks aside, this is a job that requires a fair amount of sitting around. Make sure you get some exercise every day. Look away from the computer every half hour or so to keep your vision sharpened. Don�t do the �vulture hunch� with shoulders up to your ears. Keeping physically fit will keep you writing happily far into the future.
Don�t push yourself too hard mentally. Too many words in a day is, at least for me, counter-productive. Sure I might do twenty pages in a white-hot outpouring of ideas�but the next day, I�d be lucky to do two. Better to pace myself to a steady ten. When the words stop flowing easily, and I�ve given it my best shot, time to do something else for a while. Reading books not in the genre I�m working in is a great mental vacation.
So take care of your talent, your body and your spirit. Write the stories that thrill you and you�ll go on thrilling readers for years to come.
January 20, 2014
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit
So, I saw Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit a day or two ago. This is an attempt to 're-boot' Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series. It starts out well and gives a peek into the day-to-day dullness of most undercover work. So far as spy-stories go, it wasn't bad. It made more sense than most of the recent James Bond movies, ever since they decided to go full-on psychopath with that character. There are a few decent moments and the actors are all believable, if you believe that everyone in the world is running on monotone. It is also a very dark movie, purely from a lighting standpoint. I would not recommend seeing it in 3-D as you won't be able to see much of anything during the interior shots.
However, I would recommend waiting for the DVD as you will want to comment on the action in this movie and that's irritating to patrons (sorry, lady). Also, note to Hollywood, some guy typing away like mad on a laptop is not exciting. We do it all day long out here in Real Life. And the 'bump-into-bad-guy-to-steal-wallet' is not really a good choice any more. It was done right in The Thomas Crown Affair and not since. If that's the best the CIA can do, time to pack it in.
Anyway, all in all, not a memorable film. So since Super Bowl Sunday approaches, I thought I'd offer an excellent dip to take along to any parties or to keep around for guests. It's a play on a reuben sandwich. Warning: You will want to eat the whole thing. Maybe make two.
College Confidential Reuben Dip
Mix together:
2/3 cup mayo
1/3 cup thousand island dressing
8 oz sauerkraut
8 oz corned beef chopped up (from the deli)
8 oz shredded swiss cheese.
Mix it all together and put in a pie pan. Bake at 350 for 20-25 minutes (until bubbly).
Serve with those little rye breads. The dip is substantial so you'll need something that won't break off.
Enjoy!
However, I would recommend waiting for the DVD as you will want to comment on the action in this movie and that's irritating to patrons (sorry, lady). Also, note to Hollywood, some guy typing away like mad on a laptop is not exciting. We do it all day long out here in Real Life. And the 'bump-into-bad-guy-to-steal-wallet' is not really a good choice any more. It was done right in The Thomas Crown Affair and not since. If that's the best the CIA can do, time to pack it in.
Anyway, all in all, not a memorable film. So since Super Bowl Sunday approaches, I thought I'd offer an excellent dip to take along to any parties or to keep around for guests. It's a play on a reuben sandwich. Warning: You will want to eat the whole thing. Maybe make two.
College Confidential Reuben Dip
Mix together:
2/3 cup mayo
1/3 cup thousand island dressing
8 oz sauerkraut
8 oz corned beef chopped up (from the deli)
8 oz shredded swiss cheese.
Mix it all together and put in a pie pan. Bake at 350 for 20-25 minutes (until bubbly).
Serve with those little rye breads. The dip is substantial so you'll need something that won't break off.
Enjoy!
December 29, 2013
47 Ronin and this other movie too
I saw 47 Ronin two days ago and have been mulling this review over ever since. I confess right up front that I am a Keanu Reeves fan, though I really don't know why. I've seen just about everything he's done, some of his films multiple times, yet the reasons I like him so continue to escape me. More research is likely needed.
He's certainly not the most expressive actor out there. Yet I think he's come to terms with this and has found ways around it that makes him actually a better actor than many who learned to chew the scenery while young and never got past that technique. There is, for instance, a moment in 47 Ronin when he slides a door closed and expresses wonderful emotion with an action, rather than with his face.
47 Ronin is a strange movie. It's probably the worst expression of the 'back of a napkin' movie making since some clever clot decided what 'The Three Musketeers' really needed was flying ships. Classics are classics for a reason, Hollywood. Please figure this out before you give Elizabeth Bennet an AK-47 and Jane Eyre a jet-powered balloon. Thank you.
On the one hand, we have the classic expression of the Japanese soul that is Chūshingura, a tale of men determined to have righteous revenge for the death of their sovereign lord. The Ronin are seeking to take the life of Lord Kira and to keep him from marrying their late lord's daughter which would give him control of their land. It's well-done, with a stellar performance by Hiroyuki Sanada (The Wolverine) as the leader of the group. He has equal screentime with Reeves, the nominal star, and some particularly touching scenes with his wife and son.
Lord Kira is played by Tadanobu Asano (Thor, Thor 2) who apparently took some lessons from Tom Hiddleston on his last film. There's a moment when he invites the lovely Lady Mika, ensnared in his machinations, to enjoy his wicked delight in his own evil ways with a smile that Loki could not have bettered. I think Asano was pretty much wasted in the Thor films if he can be this good at being this bad. He is assisted in his evil plots by a witch, Rinko Kikuchi (Pacific Rim), for whom I sincerely wish there'd been a backstory. Kudos to the film-makers for at least attempting to include a little 'fox-magic', a fascinating facet of Japanese myth.
And this is where the movie turns into something else than the classic tale. You see, someone decided that what this movie really needed was Keanu Reeves. I guess they just didn't trust American audiences to respond the way we did to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. So they tried to weave in a story about a guy (half-white) who has to rescue the princess from an evil lord and his witch/girlfriend. But you can't just shuffle two scripts together and expect *magic* to happen.
For one thing, though the lovers are supposed to be contemporaries in age, Keanu Reeves, while still looking great, is a 49-year-old man. He's not 30 while the lovely
K� Shibasaki is 32. I congratulate the producers for not choosing a 22 year old. However, the daughter of a lord at the time would have been married off years prior, especially when her father knows she's got a soft spot in her heart for a landless, family-less, possibly demon-haunted man. If you're going to set up a love story, then make it a love story without dragging in the 47 Ronin and if you are going to set up the 47 Ronin, why bring in a totally irrelevant love story?
Either movie alone would have been fine. Together, it's a mess. I can't wait until the clever citizens of the internet world re-cut this thing so that we have two films. It wouldn't be tough. There are only two sequences where they meld with any style.
Speaking of style, this movie looks terrific. The set-design and costuming are pure Oscar bail. It's my hope that the hard work done by the cinematographer and the art departments don't get overlooked because they are in a not-very-successful movie.
Standouts among the 47 are the newcomers Takato Yonemato and Hiroshi Sogabe. You will likely recognize Gedde Watanabe (Sixteen Candles) as the leader of an acting troupe.
As for my dear Mr. Reeves, if you really want to make a movie that isn't going to do well at the box office, how about a sequel to Constantine?
He's certainly not the most expressive actor out there. Yet I think he's come to terms with this and has found ways around it that makes him actually a better actor than many who learned to chew the scenery while young and never got past that technique. There is, for instance, a moment in 47 Ronin when he slides a door closed and expresses wonderful emotion with an action, rather than with his face.
47 Ronin is a strange movie. It's probably the worst expression of the 'back of a napkin' movie making since some clever clot decided what 'The Three Musketeers' really needed was flying ships. Classics are classics for a reason, Hollywood. Please figure this out before you give Elizabeth Bennet an AK-47 and Jane Eyre a jet-powered balloon. Thank you.
On the one hand, we have the classic expression of the Japanese soul that is Chūshingura, a tale of men determined to have righteous revenge for the death of their sovereign lord. The Ronin are seeking to take the life of Lord Kira and to keep him from marrying their late lord's daughter which would give him control of their land. It's well-done, with a stellar performance by Hiroyuki Sanada (The Wolverine) as the leader of the group. He has equal screentime with Reeves, the nominal star, and some particularly touching scenes with his wife and son.
Lord Kira is played by Tadanobu Asano (Thor, Thor 2) who apparently took some lessons from Tom Hiddleston on his last film. There's a moment when he invites the lovely Lady Mika, ensnared in his machinations, to enjoy his wicked delight in his own evil ways with a smile that Loki could not have bettered. I think Asano was pretty much wasted in the Thor films if he can be this good at being this bad. He is assisted in his evil plots by a witch, Rinko Kikuchi (Pacific Rim), for whom I sincerely wish there'd been a backstory. Kudos to the film-makers for at least attempting to include a little 'fox-magic', a fascinating facet of Japanese myth.
And this is where the movie turns into something else than the classic tale. You see, someone decided that what this movie really needed was Keanu Reeves. I guess they just didn't trust American audiences to respond the way we did to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. So they tried to weave in a story about a guy (half-white) who has to rescue the princess from an evil lord and his witch/girlfriend. But you can't just shuffle two scripts together and expect *magic* to happen.
For one thing, though the lovers are supposed to be contemporaries in age, Keanu Reeves, while still looking great, is a 49-year-old man. He's not 30 while the lovely
K� Shibasaki is 32. I congratulate the producers for not choosing a 22 year old. However, the daughter of a lord at the time would have been married off years prior, especially when her father knows she's got a soft spot in her heart for a landless, family-less, possibly demon-haunted man. If you're going to set up a love story, then make it a love story without dragging in the 47 Ronin and if you are going to set up the 47 Ronin, why bring in a totally irrelevant love story?
Either movie alone would have been fine. Together, it's a mess. I can't wait until the clever citizens of the internet world re-cut this thing so that we have two films. It wouldn't be tough. There are only two sequences where they meld with any style.
Speaking of style, this movie looks terrific. The set-design and costuming are pure Oscar bail. It's my hope that the hard work done by the cinematographer and the art departments don't get overlooked because they are in a not-very-successful movie.
Standouts among the 47 are the newcomers Takato Yonemato and Hiroshi Sogabe. You will likely recognize Gedde Watanabe (Sixteen Candles) as the leader of an acting troupe.
As for my dear Mr. Reeves, if you really want to make a movie that isn't going to do well at the box office, how about a sequel to Constantine?
December 16, 2013
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Tolkien's book was the seed from which Peter Jackson has grown a sprawling, vibrant, not always well-controlled vine. It began to grow with Unexpected Journey and has now budded with the Desolation of Smaug.
If you go in expecting Tolkien's The Hobbit, you will be disappointed and possibly disgusted. Jacksonis trying to throw just about every bit of Middle Earth there is into this mix, from the Prancing Pony to the Woodland Elf King's dragon-hunting days. This movie should come with Cliff Notes so the uninitiated can keep it all straight. Lacking that, however, someone who has never read the book will find themselves in the same condition as a dwarf in a barrel riding a river in full-spate. At least, they won't have Orcs shooting at them, though the groans from Tolkien fans may deafen them.
I am a Tolkien fan and The Hobbit, with its focus on the growth of Bilbo Baggins from home-body to hero, has been a comfort read for many years. I treasure scenes that Jackson has shortened, altered or left out all together. I was disappointed with his handling of the spiders in Mirkwood and with Beorn. I also wondered how Laketown could be so easily invaded by three different sets of non-humans, all without anyone paying the slightest attention to the running battle waged in the middle of the town.
Despite that, despite everything, I loved this movie. Jackson seems to have found the go-pedal on his scriptwriters because this one moved much more expeditiously than Unexpected Journey. At last his insistence on making everyone the heroes meet be reluctant to help them (which made no sense in LOTR) is paying off. Everyone wants a piece of the treasure Under The Mountain. The characters are complex, their motivations not entirely virtuous, even Bilbo's. I could wish there'd been more focus on Bilbo during much of the movie, especially when he's dodging around in Thranduil's citadel. Instead we find ourselves with a new character and the return of Legolas...looking mighty fine and busily filling in his character's backstory.
Backstory seems to be the reason that The Hobbit movies are being made. Everything we see is older and odder than in the LOTR trilogy, except for the people, which causes a disconnect between what we see and what we feel. As we watch this movie, we are considering how the information presented fits in with the world we met in LOTR. This puts some emotional distance between the viewer and the world before us. Maybe a little too much at times. In my opinion, the whole Kili/Tauriel romance isn't working. Yes, Kili (Aiden Turner) might think she's the Elvish Hotness, the way a teenage boy might drool over Evangeline Lilly...but would it be reciprocated even for a dwarf as cute as Kili? Elves hardly even date other elves.
And the Dragon. The scenes with just Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Bilbo (Martin Freeman) are brilliant and have the true feeling of Tolkien's imagination. What do you say to a sleepy dragon? Once the dwarves show up, however, it becomes Jackson juggling with his toys again. Then, with a true sadist's touch, he ends the movie. I may not agree with all his choices, but I'll be there when the third movie opens next year.
If you go in expecting Tolkien's The Hobbit, you will be disappointed and possibly disgusted. Jacksonis trying to throw just about every bit of Middle Earth there is into this mix, from the Prancing Pony to the Woodland Elf King's dragon-hunting days. This movie should come with Cliff Notes so the uninitiated can keep it all straight. Lacking that, however, someone who has never read the book will find themselves in the same condition as a dwarf in a barrel riding a river in full-spate. At least, they won't have Orcs shooting at them, though the groans from Tolkien fans may deafen them.
I am a Tolkien fan and The Hobbit, with its focus on the growth of Bilbo Baggins from home-body to hero, has been a comfort read for many years. I treasure scenes that Jackson has shortened, altered or left out all together. I was disappointed with his handling of the spiders in Mirkwood and with Beorn. I also wondered how Laketown could be so easily invaded by three different sets of non-humans, all without anyone paying the slightest attention to the running battle waged in the middle of the town.
Despite that, despite everything, I loved this movie. Jackson seems to have found the go-pedal on his scriptwriters because this one moved much more expeditiously than Unexpected Journey. At last his insistence on making everyone the heroes meet be reluctant to help them (which made no sense in LOTR) is paying off. Everyone wants a piece of the treasure Under The Mountain. The characters are complex, their motivations not entirely virtuous, even Bilbo's. I could wish there'd been more focus on Bilbo during much of the movie, especially when he's dodging around in Thranduil's citadel. Instead we find ourselves with a new character and the return of Legolas...looking mighty fine and busily filling in his character's backstory.
Backstory seems to be the reason that The Hobbit movies are being made. Everything we see is older and odder than in the LOTR trilogy, except for the people, which causes a disconnect between what we see and what we feel. As we watch this movie, we are considering how the information presented fits in with the world we met in LOTR. This puts some emotional distance between the viewer and the world before us. Maybe a little too much at times. In my opinion, the whole Kili/Tauriel romance isn't working. Yes, Kili (Aiden Turner) might think she's the Elvish Hotness, the way a teenage boy might drool over Evangeline Lilly...but would it be reciprocated even for a dwarf as cute as Kili? Elves hardly even date other elves.
And the Dragon. The scenes with just Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Bilbo (Martin Freeman) are brilliant and have the true feeling of Tolkien's imagination. What do you say to a sleepy dragon? Once the dwarves show up, however, it becomes Jackson juggling with his toys again. Then, with a true sadist's touch, he ends the movie. I may not agree with all his choices, but I'll be there when the third movie opens next year.
December 2, 2013
Delightful 'Frozen' Treat -- But Not OK
I always enjoy a Disney or a Pixar film. Through animation, worlds come into being of such complexity and beauty that we who deal only in words are left amazed and more than a little envious.
In 'Frozen', Disney animators create a world bright without and dark within. The small kingdom of Arendelle is the epitome of Northern architecture. Hints are everywhere that this place has roots going back to the Vikings, from the ships to the music to the embroidery on the princesses' gowns. Judging from the clothes, the uniforms, and other indications, we seem to be in about 1810. We meet the two charming daughters of the Royal Family, Anna, the younger, and Elsa the elder, blessed or cursed from birth with the power of winter. Keeping Elsa's condition a secret from the world drives much of the action of the characters.
Then the movie, which was starting to wind its spell around us, rudely yanked me out of this world with two letters. Anna is injured and someone asked, 'Are you ok?"
Darn.
The exact beginning of the term OK as a synonym for 'good' or 'acceptable' are unclear. Most linguists believe that it started in the USA, possibly as late as the Civil War (1860's), but more likely somewhat earlier around 1840 in the Mid-West. Some argue that it came from the native American language of Choctaw. By most accounts, it is now the most widely used 'word' in the world. People who speak no other English know and use 'OK' or 'okay' on a daily basis.
But Elsa and Anna? Or the character of Katara in 'The Last Airbender' who has 'are you okay?' as her first line? Greeks? Romans? Proper English ladies and gentlemen of Victoria's reign? Aliens?
Writers, directors, and, in 'Frozen's' case, animators spend countless hours and millions of dollars creating and refining new worlds for us, showing us things we've never seen, never can see in reality. And it is all for naught if your beautifully realized characters used a phrase they cannot possibly know. It's like leaving lens-flare in your scenes. (Hey, Peter Jackson!) It reminds us that none of this real and that no matter how caught up you are in what is going forward on the screen, it's 'just a movie'. You are jerked back into your own reality that you had hoped to escape for a few precious hours.
Okay, so it's a pet peeve. I use anachronisms all the time in my books, usually for a joke or because I'm trying to pretend that I'm actually translating an ancient work into accessible modern language. But I know when I do it and I have a reason. It seems that movies have 'okay' in them because either nobody knows any better or nobody cares. If it's the latter then that makes me furious. Movies are not inexpensive to attend, especially in 3-D or IMAX. You had better care about your product even *more* than I do.
Fortunately, help is easy and inexpensive. The cure is 'all right'. "Are you all right, Anna?" "Everything all right in here?" "I'm all right now." Using these two words instead of those two letters makes the issue go away. If your actor or actress forgets, the cure is 'Cut!' Get to it, Hollywood!
Deep breath. Let's get back to "Frozen". While probably not the strongest story...it takes a long time to set up...and there is at least a reprise or two of the songs that could have been left out without injury, the characters are delightful, there's fun galore between the characters of Olaf the snowman and Sven the reindeer, and the love story is sweet enough to make a tough old heart flutter. The imagery is a poem in tones of white and silver, grey and pearl. The reminder that there is more to 'love' than the merely romantic is an excellent change in a culture where so much emphasis is on 'finding Mr. Right'.
Do stay past the credits for an extra little treat. Also this is probably the only movie for which I will strongly recommend you read the legal disclaimer!
In 'Frozen', Disney animators create a world bright without and dark within. The small kingdom of Arendelle is the epitome of Northern architecture. Hints are everywhere that this place has roots going back to the Vikings, from the ships to the music to the embroidery on the princesses' gowns. Judging from the clothes, the uniforms, and other indications, we seem to be in about 1810. We meet the two charming daughters of the Royal Family, Anna, the younger, and Elsa the elder, blessed or cursed from birth with the power of winter. Keeping Elsa's condition a secret from the world drives much of the action of the characters.
Then the movie, which was starting to wind its spell around us, rudely yanked me out of this world with two letters. Anna is injured and someone asked, 'Are you ok?"
Darn.
The exact beginning of the term OK as a synonym for 'good' or 'acceptable' are unclear. Most linguists believe that it started in the USA, possibly as late as the Civil War (1860's), but more likely somewhat earlier around 1840 in the Mid-West. Some argue that it came from the native American language of Choctaw. By most accounts, it is now the most widely used 'word' in the world. People who speak no other English know and use 'OK' or 'okay' on a daily basis.
But Elsa and Anna? Or the character of Katara in 'The Last Airbender' who has 'are you okay?' as her first line? Greeks? Romans? Proper English ladies and gentlemen of Victoria's reign? Aliens?
Writers, directors, and, in 'Frozen's' case, animators spend countless hours and millions of dollars creating and refining new worlds for us, showing us things we've never seen, never can see in reality. And it is all for naught if your beautifully realized characters used a phrase they cannot possibly know. It's like leaving lens-flare in your scenes. (Hey, Peter Jackson!) It reminds us that none of this real and that no matter how caught up you are in what is going forward on the screen, it's 'just a movie'. You are jerked back into your own reality that you had hoped to escape for a few precious hours.
Okay, so it's a pet peeve. I use anachronisms all the time in my books, usually for a joke or because I'm trying to pretend that I'm actually translating an ancient work into accessible modern language. But I know when I do it and I have a reason. It seems that movies have 'okay' in them because either nobody knows any better or nobody cares. If it's the latter then that makes me furious. Movies are not inexpensive to attend, especially in 3-D or IMAX. You had better care about your product even *more* than I do.
Fortunately, help is easy and inexpensive. The cure is 'all right'. "Are you all right, Anna?" "Everything all right in here?" "I'm all right now." Using these two words instead of those two letters makes the issue go away. If your actor or actress forgets, the cure is 'Cut!' Get to it, Hollywood!
Deep breath. Let's get back to "Frozen". While probably not the strongest story...it takes a long time to set up...and there is at least a reprise or two of the songs that could have been left out without injury, the characters are delightful, there's fun galore between the characters of Olaf the snowman and Sven the reindeer, and the love story is sweet enough to make a tough old heart flutter. The imagery is a poem in tones of white and silver, grey and pearl. The reminder that there is more to 'love' than the merely romantic is an excellent change in a culture where so much emphasis is on 'finding Mr. Right'.
Do stay past the credits for an extra little treat. Also this is probably the only movie for which I will strongly recommend you read the legal disclaimer!
November 25, 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire -- Watching the Watchers
It's a hit -- surprise, surprise. But how does it work as a movie?
The first third passes fairly slowly, reintroducing characters, setting up the main conflict which has now become increasingly personal between Katniss Everdeen and President Snow. I did not think that the second third, with Katniss and Peeta adjusting to their new lives as super-stars, was particularly well-done. I realize this is probably a fault in the novel. If Peeta had seemed tempted by the delights of his new life, turning toward luxuries and pleasures that he'd never known, there could have been greater conflict between the characters and thus, greater interest. Instead, Peeta and Katniss spend a lot of time moping...and teenagers moping is never very interesting except to themselves. By the time the final third, the Quarter Quell, came around, the scriptwriters and director kept forgetting and foregoing certain earlier set-ups, leaving me very confused.
For instance, in the Games, we learn that something will happen to make the contestents' struggle that much harder on a regular schedule. Then we spend the next several hours hanging out on a beach with *nothing* happening, except a kiss. The writers also seem to forget that the contestents have been studying each other for quite some time but have Peeta say that he didn't know one of their opponents' names (?). There was a lack of focus that left me saying 'wait a minute...' Maybe fervent readers of the novels could fill in the back-story without any help but I did not know who some of the people were or why they were in the film.
Jennifer Lawrence is, rightfully, receiving critical plaudits for her performance in the second Katniss Everdeen movie (Katniss Everdeen: This Time It's Personal). She is in almost every scene and must convincingly portray a girl leaving behind a fraught childhood for an even more terrifying adulthood. In the last shot, a close-up of her face, she seems to mature in a single instant.
But when you watch the movie again...and you know you will...watch Josh Hutcherson in his scenes. His seems to be the only character, with the exception of Stanley Tucci as the MC Caesar Flickerman, who understands that nothing is real, that everything is 'made for television'. Hutcherson isn't playing Peeta, the heroic baker's boy/lover, he's playing 'Peeta' and the real person is hidden beneath that facade. His is the only character who seems always aware that everything that happens, every word he speaks, every move he makes is watched by 'eyes in the sky'. Katniss, and even Effie and Haymitch who should know better, appears to forget this all the time. They think they have privacy, even after President Snow shows Katniss that she does not in almost the first sequence. They should have The Police's 'Every Breath You Take' on endless repeat until they get it.
Hutcherson underplays his character, in a movie where everything else is over the top. In several scenes, most notably on-stage with Tucci, he lets you realize that there is more going on behind that pretty face than anyone knows...without giving it away in the context of the movie. I'm not saying he's ready to step into Hamlet, but he drew my eyes away from the big histrionics going on and that says something good about his gifts as an actor. I only hope he has the chance to use them before becoming a 'super-star' in this world.
Furthermore, many characters, despite constant bloody reminders, forget whenever the script demands it that 'the Capitol' is not a nice place and that the President will kill anyone who even thinks about getting in his way. What did Katniss really think would happen to Cinna when he put her in a gown that was a symbol of the rebellion? What did he think would happen? Applause? A pat on the back? Or a bullet in the head?
I must also mention Elizabeth Banks as Effie. She also lets you see the woman behind the facade and what a facade! Her costumes are astonishingly expressive of the decadence of the Capitol and she knows it and uses it, reminding us that everything from the wig on her head to her shoes is a symbol. Pity Cinna didn't get the memo. I will be as interested in seeing what happens to her and how Miss Banks will portray that journey as in the growth of any of the 'main' characters. I doubt, however, that we will see her in a beret and an army-green tee-shirt with Katniss' face on it any time soon!
The first third passes fairly slowly, reintroducing characters, setting up the main conflict which has now become increasingly personal between Katniss Everdeen and President Snow. I did not think that the second third, with Katniss and Peeta adjusting to their new lives as super-stars, was particularly well-done. I realize this is probably a fault in the novel. If Peeta had seemed tempted by the delights of his new life, turning toward luxuries and pleasures that he'd never known, there could have been greater conflict between the characters and thus, greater interest. Instead, Peeta and Katniss spend a lot of time moping...and teenagers moping is never very interesting except to themselves. By the time the final third, the Quarter Quell, came around, the scriptwriters and director kept forgetting and foregoing certain earlier set-ups, leaving me very confused.
For instance, in the Games, we learn that something will happen to make the contestents' struggle that much harder on a regular schedule. Then we spend the next several hours hanging out on a beach with *nothing* happening, except a kiss. The writers also seem to forget that the contestents have been studying each other for quite some time but have Peeta say that he didn't know one of their opponents' names (?). There was a lack of focus that left me saying 'wait a minute...' Maybe fervent readers of the novels could fill in the back-story without any help but I did not know who some of the people were or why they were in the film.
Jennifer Lawrence is, rightfully, receiving critical plaudits for her performance in the second Katniss Everdeen movie (Katniss Everdeen: This Time It's Personal). She is in almost every scene and must convincingly portray a girl leaving behind a fraught childhood for an even more terrifying adulthood. In the last shot, a close-up of her face, she seems to mature in a single instant.
But when you watch the movie again...and you know you will...watch Josh Hutcherson in his scenes. His seems to be the only character, with the exception of Stanley Tucci as the MC Caesar Flickerman, who understands that nothing is real, that everything is 'made for television'. Hutcherson isn't playing Peeta, the heroic baker's boy/lover, he's playing 'Peeta' and the real person is hidden beneath that facade. His is the only character who seems always aware that everything that happens, every word he speaks, every move he makes is watched by 'eyes in the sky'. Katniss, and even Effie and Haymitch who should know better, appears to forget this all the time. They think they have privacy, even after President Snow shows Katniss that she does not in almost the first sequence. They should have The Police's 'Every Breath You Take' on endless repeat until they get it.
Hutcherson underplays his character, in a movie where everything else is over the top. In several scenes, most notably on-stage with Tucci, he lets you realize that there is more going on behind that pretty face than anyone knows...without giving it away in the context of the movie. I'm not saying he's ready to step into Hamlet, but he drew my eyes away from the big histrionics going on and that says something good about his gifts as an actor. I only hope he has the chance to use them before becoming a 'super-star' in this world.
Furthermore, many characters, despite constant bloody reminders, forget whenever the script demands it that 'the Capitol' is not a nice place and that the President will kill anyone who even thinks about getting in his way. What did Katniss really think would happen to Cinna when he put her in a gown that was a symbol of the rebellion? What did he think would happen? Applause? A pat on the back? Or a bullet in the head?
I must also mention Elizabeth Banks as Effie. She also lets you see the woman behind the facade and what a facade! Her costumes are astonishingly expressive of the decadence of the Capitol and she knows it and uses it, reminding us that everything from the wig on her head to her shoes is a symbol. Pity Cinna didn't get the memo. I will be as interested in seeing what happens to her and how Miss Banks will portray that journey as in the growth of any of the 'main' characters. I doubt, however, that we will see her in a beret and an army-green tee-shirt with Katniss' face on it any time soon!
