I was thinking about Tennessee Williams the other day, probably sparked by the death of the beautiful Elizabeth Taylor. She was Maggie in "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof" and was magnificent opposite the equally beautiful Paul Newman who played her troubled husband, Brick.
The 1958 MGM movie didn't make as much sense as the play, because of the Hays Code, which from the 1930's to the 60's (replaced by the MMPA), spelled out what was acceptable and what was unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States. It limited Brick's portrayal of sexual desire for Skipper, his football teammate and best friend, and diminished the original play's critique of homophobia and sexism. Williams was reportedly unhappy with the screenplay, which removed almost all of the homosexual themes and revised the third act section to include a lengthy scene of reconciliation between Brick and Big Daddy. Paul Newman, the film's star, has also stated his disappointment with the adaptation. It watered down the real suffering of the character set in an unforgiving world.
Much of our drama, in particular, centers on taboos - hidden secrets that drive the psychology of the characters. However, it's harder and harder to find anything hidden with our 'open' society. Do I want to return to those bad old days of secrets and lies? Not as a citizen of the world. But as a writer I find myself digging deeper and deeper to find anything that would shock or trouble an audience. And by shock I don't mean something that comes with a bucket of blood attached. I want to go for a psychological disturbance about something buried so deep it takes the gods of fate to unearth it.
In "Chinatown" we had "She's my sister - my daughter - my sister.." reveal of incest. Is this still shocking to an audience today? If not, what does it say about our where we now draw the line at what constitutes a disturbing taboo? We're so inundated with scandals in the media that I believe we're becoming immune to it all. Back in the day, writers used the subject of taboos to reveal the truth to an audience. There's no shortage of dishonesty out there, after all, we ARE human. So I guess we have to keep vigilant and be willing to sort out the truth from the lies, and figure out a way to make an audience care.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Flawed Plots and Pretty Faces
I'm going to go against the grain here and give a raspberry to The Lincoln Lawyer (spoiler alert!). Yes, I know it has a 85% fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes, but it has plot holes big enough to drive the movie's old Lincoln through. I think Matthew McConaughey's dazzling smile hypnotised the audience so they wouldn't notice or care. As a screenwriter who has re-written scripts into the ground because of 'inconsistencies', I stubbed my toe on every one of those glitches, and it soured me on the whole story.
Let's start with the title: not an inconsequential thing that they chose it. He drives (or has a driver drive him due to his hinted at loss of license), an old black Lincoln sedan. Is this to give him a personality quirk? Is it to plant the idea that he is a traditionalist, clings to the past, or is a rebellious but "Lincoln" honest guy?
Then we learn his ex-wife is a prosecutor...ahh...he lost all the shiny new stuff in his divorce, hence the old car. No, she's still really into him and as a matter of fact lights up every time they lay eyes on each other. This leads to the inevitable bed scene where one or both of them wake up cranky with the 'this shouldn't have happened' vibe. So why bother with this relationship in the movie if it doesn't do anything, except give our main character someone who sympathizes with his angst. This is an extremely tired device: the loyal ex-wife who we know will take him back after he redeems himself from whatever demons he lives with.
Ryan Philippe, our bad guy, is a rich kid wrongly accused of raping and beating up a girl he meets in a bar. We're supposed to believe his story that she set him up to sue him for a ton of money. Problem is....we're told that in both their statements her gay neighbours heard her screams and came in and held him down while they called the cops. But these guys disappear completely and are never called to the stand to say, "Yes, we heard her cries for help and jumped him." If they did, the story would be over. He'd be guilty and that's that. I don't know (or perhaps I missed it when I blinked), how they justified that.
Philippe's rich status comes from what we're told: His mother is a successful Beverly Hills realtor (though nowadays one would think they would've picked a recession proof career), but we don't see him in that lifestyle. A line that mentions his Rolex watch doesn't cut it, since fakes are so abundant a person now assumes the guy who wears one is trying to pass as being loaded. His sports car is shown almost at the end of the third act, so we go "ahhh...I guess he is rich" - too late for me. There's an implication that his mother was raped in a house she was showing, and that's why he carries a gun. But the laws of Sherlock Holmes (yes, I've just decreed those laws), says that the red herring should be that his mother was attacked by a male stranger and therefore he attacks men. If they're going for the Oedipal complex, that's where it has to go. Instead, once again, it has NOTHING to do with his own evil.
I could go on and on...but your eyes might glaze over like mine did watching this movie. Philippe's face is devoid of any lines, and since his character is devoid of any motivation for his crimes, it all leaves me let down. Matthew's grin and oh-so-bright smile attempts to charm us through this thin plot, and by a lot of the reviews it worked! But to me The Lincoln Lawyer feels like a TV pilot, where the important thing is to lure the audience back for more of the main star's charm.
Why do I rant about this particular movie? Because writers in the trenches are pummeled by notes from readers that scream "plot holes!!" and we spend hours, days, and months shovelling words into those pits - only to see proof on the screen that casting is leaned on to make a story work. It seems disrespectful to the craft of story-telling when an audience is given all the smoke without the fire. I'm sure John Romano,the screenwriter, was capable of pulling it off. I suspect no one was listening once Matthew walked on the set.
Let's start with the title: not an inconsequential thing that they chose it. He drives (or has a driver drive him due to his hinted at loss of license), an old black Lincoln sedan. Is this to give him a personality quirk? Is it to plant the idea that he is a traditionalist, clings to the past, or is a rebellious but "Lincoln" honest guy?
Then we learn his ex-wife is a prosecutor...ahh...he lost all the shiny new stuff in his divorce, hence the old car. No, she's still really into him and as a matter of fact lights up every time they lay eyes on each other. This leads to the inevitable bed scene where one or both of them wake up cranky with the 'this shouldn't have happened' vibe. So why bother with this relationship in the movie if it doesn't do anything, except give our main character someone who sympathizes with his angst. This is an extremely tired device: the loyal ex-wife who we know will take him back after he redeems himself from whatever demons he lives with.
Ryan Philippe, our bad guy, is a rich kid wrongly accused of raping and beating up a girl he meets in a bar. We're supposed to believe his story that she set him up to sue him for a ton of money. Problem is....we're told that in both their statements her gay neighbours heard her screams and came in and held him down while they called the cops. But these guys disappear completely and are never called to the stand to say, "Yes, we heard her cries for help and jumped him." If they did, the story would be over. He'd be guilty and that's that. I don't know (or perhaps I missed it when I blinked), how they justified that.
Philippe's rich status comes from what we're told: His mother is a successful Beverly Hills realtor (though nowadays one would think they would've picked a recession proof career), but we don't see him in that lifestyle. A line that mentions his Rolex watch doesn't cut it, since fakes are so abundant a person now assumes the guy who wears one is trying to pass as being loaded. His sports car is shown almost at the end of the third act, so we go "ahhh...I guess he is rich" - too late for me. There's an implication that his mother was raped in a house she was showing, and that's why he carries a gun. But the laws of Sherlock Holmes (yes, I've just decreed those laws), says that the red herring should be that his mother was attacked by a male stranger and therefore he attacks men. If they're going for the Oedipal complex, that's where it has to go. Instead, once again, it has NOTHING to do with his own evil.
I could go on and on...but your eyes might glaze over like mine did watching this movie. Philippe's face is devoid of any lines, and since his character is devoid of any motivation for his crimes, it all leaves me let down. Matthew's grin and oh-so-bright smile attempts to charm us through this thin plot, and by a lot of the reviews it worked! But to me The Lincoln Lawyer feels like a TV pilot, where the important thing is to lure the audience back for more of the main star's charm.
Why do I rant about this particular movie? Because writers in the trenches are pummeled by notes from readers that scream "plot holes!!" and we spend hours, days, and months shovelling words into those pits - only to see proof on the screen that casting is leaned on to make a story work. It seems disrespectful to the craft of story-telling when an audience is given all the smoke without the fire. I'm sure John Romano,the screenwriter, was capable of pulling it off. I suspect no one was listening once Matthew walked on the set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)