Mistletoe Inn: Movies about Writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Old Fashioned Christmas: Movies About Writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tilly looks like a young authoress here.

An Old Fashioned Thanksgiving: Movies about Writing

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

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

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

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

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

Haunted Honeymoon (1940): Movies about Writing

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

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

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

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

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

The Adventures of Mark Twain: Movies about Writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPOILER ALERT:

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

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

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

It Chapter Two: Movies about Writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sinister: Movies about Writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secret Window: Movies about Writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1408: Movies about Writing

It’s October! Time for some more Stephen King! I never actually watched this all the way through before, but I’ve read the short story.

Mike Enslin (broody John Cusack) is a writer of paranormal investigation books. The movie opens with him doing a sad looking book signing (I say sad looking from the perspective of a movie watcher not from the point of view of another writer - as long as someone shows up you’ve got something). He’s disillusioned about both his current career as he’s never seen a ghost and about his past aspirations to be a serious dramatic novelist. Like anything about a writer based on something by King, this is fairly authentic involving the process of research, struggles, and just the basic need to have a good enough selling point. The paranormal research pays the bills and Enslin needs a new angle. He’s sent an anonymous postcard of a New York hotel with the cryptic message, “Don’t go in 1408”. His publisher played by Tony Shalhoub helps get Mike into the room when the hotel’s manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson - yay!) refused to book it. The room has a history of suicides and madness therefore Olin has kept it vacant as long as possible.

He discusses this in his office with Mike, first asking if he drinks.

Mike responds, “Of course! I just said I was a writer.”

Where does this stereotype come from that writers drink to help them create? I know there is a history of alcoholic creatives in the world, but the only times I’ve tired to drink and write I got through a paragraph before being distracted by a music box. It was shiny and the music was so soothing.

Still, Mike insists on staying in the room with his trusty tape recorder, a device I’ve never tried myself because it means listening to your own voice to actually type stuff later. But I guess if you’re John Cusack, you don’t mind the sound of yourself. From there things get freaky (I don’t want to give away the scares). At first, Mike decides he’s “losing the plot” and thinks he’s being drugged. Then, the ghostly events begin to reveal his self-tragedies, his relationship with his father (who never liked his writing), and why he started to write about ghosts in the first place. His character arch involves his cynicism, his grief, and this idea that his writing stems from a place of giving up. It’s an interesting change from the original short story.

I was also surprised how many people are in this who I recognize from other movies and shows - Isiah Whitlock Jr., Drew Powell who was on Gotham, Andrew Lee Potts (who I think is just nice to look at), and even the woman who played the TV reporter in Princess Diaries 2. Yes, I happen to like Princess Diaries 2. I can like Stephen King and Princess Diaries.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage: Movies about Writing

I’ve never seen this one before, but it’s a Dario Argento film so I’m sure I’ll have just as much understanding of the plot after watching as I will before watching. But at least it will be pretty.

I ended up watching a badly dubbed version, poorly transferred version I found on a Roku movie app that I’m not entirely sure had the legal rights to run this movie. But I was told it was a horror movie about a writer so I found it. Of course, I got about twenty minutes into the film before I realized that the dubbing is the original dubbing and then remembered that it’s a Dario Argento film. For those of you unfamiliar with Italian horror of the 70s, think of it like Spaghetti westerns, but with a lot more bright orange blood.

The writer in the main role is American Sam Dalmas (Tony Musante) who came to Italy for relaxation to cure his writer’s block. He’s rather disillusioned with being an author, happier for the paycheck then being able to see his latest work published. One night he witnesses the attempted murder of an art gallery owner’s wife. Sam is then is forbidden from leaving the country because he’s the first witness to see the dark figure that has been killing beautiful women throughout the city.

Now stuck in the city, Sam and his girlfriend Julia (Suzy Kendall) become important and a part of the investigation led by Inspector Morosini (Enrico Maria Salerno). Someone attempts to kill Sam on the same day as the attack of the gallery owner’s wife, but he doesn’t bother to tell the inspector about it. I guess nearly having his head lopped off by strangers on the street is a daily occurrence for him. He must not be a very good writer.

Sam is brought in to hear the evidence collected and see if any of the usual perverts the police pick up could be the murderer. This is an odd moment of what I assume was supposed to be comedy when a trans-woman is placed in the lineup and the inspector objects that she belongs with the transvestites not the perverts. To this, the person in the line-up replies, “Well, I should hope so!” I - Um - What’s going on in this movie?

Sam, who acts more annoyed by being haunted by these gruesome events than concerned, tries to perform his own hunt. He goes to visit the gallery owner (Umberto Raho) and his wife (Eva Renzi), but receives a cold welcome despite having saved the wife’s life. Julia and Sam start to have a lovely time taking notes and dissecting clues as if they are collecting ideas for a novel. Oh domestic bliss in the midst of serial killings.

The inspector is super cool with Sam holding his own amateur sleuth session (because that’s how the world works). The writer has a passion for this beyond anything he has penned recently and even interviews people related to the case which includes a pimp who is very concerned about his poor sex workers. Aww the pimp with a heart of gold. That's new. Overall, I hope Sam wasn’t a crime novelist because he was a lousy detective. He touches everything, he trusts the wrong people, he ignores obvious clues, and he invites suspicious characters into his home.

From all of this Sam does start to write again. He does 40 pages in just a few days, feeling inspired by all of the mayhem surrounding him. My question, when did he find time to write 40 pages while having his and his girlfriend’s lives threatened?

I won’t give away the ending, just I will repeat - it was neat to look at.

The Bat: Movies about Writing

Hey there, Vincent Price! Fancy finding another of your movies I can put on this list!

I’m kidding! I already know I’d do this movie a long while ago because it’s one of the few of his starring roles I’ve - GASP - NEVER SEEN! Then I got about a quarter of the way in and realized I have the book it’s based on. It just had a different title. Hollywood, you tricked me [shakes fist].

Of course, I can also understand why this movie is in the public domain after watching. It’s . . . low budget to say the least.

Mystery author Cornelia Van Gorder (Agnes Moorehead) is staying in a secluded country house with her gossipy maid Lizzie which was rented from a relative of the local bank president. The problem - a local killer of women is on the loose known as the Bat and this is scaring off the help. Van Gorder is a logical woman who does not fear rumors and has a wonderfully dry sense of human. This comes in handy as, besides a murderer, the bank discovers that their president John Fleming (Harvey Stephens) embezzled a million dollars in securities and threatens his doctor/friend Malcolm Wells (oh - there’s Vincent Price) to fake Fleming’s death.

SPOILER ALERT - (although this is in the first 15 minutes of film)!

Instead of faking it, Wells just flat out murders Fleming and decides to look for the hidden million dollars. And where else would he hide it than in his old family home full which Van Gorder is currently renting. You see where this is going, right?

Lizzie worries that the ghost of Fleming will haunt the house, but worries more about the inconvenience it creates as “ghosts are allergic” to her. Van Gorder takes all of Lizzie’s comments with fun, sarcastic comments (seriously, Agnes Moorehead is quite good in this). Lizzie reads about how the Bat slashes women to death with steel claws and Van Gorder responds, “Well, that’s a charming little caper. I’ll have to try it some time.” Lizzie looks horrified and the author adds, “In a book!” There is another moment where Vincent Price asks about her aim with a pistol. Van Gorder tells him that there is a gun in every book she’s ever written and she never writes about anything she’s not familiar with. As I always say, never check an author’s browser history or library checkout list. You won’t like what you find.

However, this leaves you wondering if you’re watching a comedy or thriller. The part where Lizzie is bitten by a bat (played by some fur and wire) is silly not scary. As opposed to a scene where Dr. Wells is experimenting with rabies cures and is trying to get some bat saliva on a microscope slide. There’s a real bat there and he’s so little and cute and I was more anxious for that little guy on set then I was for all of the characters in the film.

As another man from the bank is put on trial for the embezzlement and Van Gorder plans to use her author insight to help prove his innocence, especially since the man’s wife and her friend are fans of her books. In exchange for helping with the investigation, she hires the man’s wife as her secretary so she can write everything down as a story. Love the multitasking!

From there, the usual murder mystery fodder ensues. Despite the Lt. of the police protecting them, murders happen and the mysterious pasts of Van Gorder’s butler and new housekeeper are revealed. I won’t give away who done it, but I’m sure the author made a better tale of it. The end of the movie is told from her point of view as she finishes the book.

I am going to point out that if you look for this movie, it’s easy find streaming. However, it might not be easy to watch. It’s in the public domain so any copy you find is painfully difficult to look at, especially if you own a giant HD TV. If you’re lucky, you’ll find a transfer like I did that just makes the B-movie look like a long episode of the “Twilight Zone”. Although, the sound went out of sync for about 10 minutes. That did not make the movie easier to watch.

I Remember Mama: Movies about Writing

I’m not going to go into all of this 1948 family drama, because not all of it is about writing. It is based on a real writer though. Kathyrn Forbes wrote the series of short stories about her mother and their Norwegian -American family in turn-of-the-century San Fransisco. The movie is a further fictionalized version of these stories.

The movie opens with the narrator, eldest daughter Katrin (Barbara Bel Geddes), finishing typing her first novel on a 1910s typewriter. She then sits down an immediately and starts editing with a pencil. Editing directly after writing! I wish I had that kind of discipline!!!

Besides dramatic Katrin, the immediate family includes Mama (Irene Dunn in an Oscar nominated performance), Papa, and three other children (kind Nels, stubborn Christine, and animal loving Dagmar). The patriarch of the whole clan is Mama’s loud and alcoholic Uncle Chris (Oscar Homolka) who is the only person that can put Mama’s three silly sisters in their place.

The movie focuses on the many trials of an immigrant family attempting to financially and culturally survive in a big city. Everyone works odd jobs, but Mama and Papa also has a great deal of focus on making sure their children are well educated. Katrin tells of how one lodger the family had, Mr. Hyde, would read to them every night from great works of literature and it made her want to be a writer. She tried writing an honest story about Uncle Chris, but her teacher scolds her about writing a rude story. Still, these books are what inspire her to want to write, even after Mr. Hyde abandons the house without paying his rent leaving the book collection as the only compensation he has to give.

If I was Katrin, I would have written about Uncle Chris too. He is very much larger than life and yet a very realistic character. While all the children are afraid of him, he’s actually one of the nicest people in the family. He also breaks with tradition and does good for the sake of doing good not for praise. Beyond Chris, Mama is the only logical and open minded member of the clan. When the rest of the aunts want to snub “the woman”, Uncle Chris’s live-in housekeeper, Mama is the one who is still kind to this unmarried lady.

Most stories are about how the actions of the adults around her, especially Mama, effect Katrin as she grows up. Her mantra is, “If I’m going to be a writer then I have to experience everything.” My favorite is when everyone thinks little Dagmar’s beloved cat is going to die from a brawl and the girl begs her mama to make him better. Spoiler alert: Mama and Papa gives the cat chloroform to put him down peacefully, but accidentally don’t use enough. Instead, the cat gets enough rest that he heals and Dagmar grows up believing that Mama can fix anything. I’m not crying! You’re crying!

Alright, let’s get to the parts about Katrin wanting to be writer. At first, she is convinced that someday she will be rich and famous. But as she gets older and her first attempts at selling her work go as they usually do for first time authors, Katrin loses confidence. She tells her mother that writing isn’t like following a recipe - you have to have a gift. Mama responds that you have to have a talent for cooking too and that’s what she uses to get her daughter some good advice. When a celebrity writer arrives in San Francisco and Mama finds out that she’s also a celebrated chef, she makes a trade with the woman - allow the woman to have her recipe for Norwegian meatballs in exchange for the lady reading some of Katrin’s stories. The famed authoress sends usual words of wisdom “write what you know.” She also says that Katrin has the gift of writing and will be a good writer someday even encouraging her to send her first “good story” to the authoress’s agent. That’s a huge deal for a published author to do!

Mama, of course, tells Katrin to write about Papa as her first topic so naturally, Katrin writes her first story about Mama. It’s published and she gets her first paycheck. In reality, Kathryn Forbes wrote for the radio and did not sell her stories until much later in life, but it’s a nice ending.

Leave Her to Heaven: Movies about Writing

I’ve never read the book this 1945 film is based on, but I bet it’s even a little more sinister since books didn’t have to follow the movie censorship code.

This is another one about muses and obsession, but it’s also about finding happiness and trying to overcome something that was not well understood in the 40s.

So strap in in for Daddy issues meets fiction writing and warning SPOILERS BE AHEAD!!!

Writer Richard Harland (Cornel Wilde) has just been released after 2 years in prison. His friend and lawyer, Glen (Ray Collins) recalls the tragedy that landed a once famed citizen in the slammer. It started when Harlan met Ellen (Gene Tierney) on a trip to New Mexico. Glen introduces Richard to Ellen’s family who are made up of her mother, younger siblings, and a cousin Ruth (Jeanne Crain) raised along Ellen in a strange and strained sisterhood.

Richard is instantly taken with Ellen’s beauty, poise, and how she manages to insult his work not realizing he was the author. And Ellen is fascinated by his resemblance to her beloved and recently departed father. She starts to analyze him based on his novels. “Every book is a confession, my father used to say.” However, he is so swept up in falling in love with Ellen, he sees beyond her unhealthy obsession with her late dad and all of the warnings others in the house try to hint at about her personality. Oh, what a complex Electra she is.

Ellen breaks her engagement with Russell Quinton, a politically minded go-getter who admits he will always be in love with her even when she announces that she’s marrying Richard. Russell is played by Vincent Price, my favorite character actor! If you come to my house you can see my Vincent Price fancy bluray sets, Funko Pops, doll dressed as Dr. Craven from The Raven, and a photo of him choking Alfred Hitchcock. Despite his popularity in horror films, Price used to be a fantastic and debonair “other man” in movies, but my favorites of these are the three he me made with Gene Tierney - Dragonwyck, Laura, and this one. Marathon them, I tell you! Marathon them now! Okay, maybe finish reading this blog first.

After they are married, Richard wants his invalid teenage brother to come live with them and although Ellen has a fondness for Danny, she’s determined to keep the house just between her and Richard. She won’t even hire help for the house, stating that she wants to do it all herself, including helping “Dick” in his writing (mostly because helping him in his writing still puts attention on her). She even suggests that he give up writing and live off her allowance so they can be together all of the time. Dick laughs off the suggestion born of the lovey-dovey early phase of their relationship. They visit Danny and Dick’s family cabin “Back of the Moon” in Maine, bring in Ruth and Ellen’s mother as a surprise. Ellen hates the surprise, especially as Ruth shows more interest in Dick’s writing, and is only somewhat happy when her mother and Ruth leave again, and starts to resent Danny being there on what would be essentially her Honeymoon. Instead of telling Dick this as he’s trying to meet the deadline for his new novel, she quietly lets the feelings fester into a dark anger that leads to tragedy.

After Danny’s Death, Dick and Ellen move back in with Ellen’s mother and Ruth and Dick stops writing for a while due to depression. Only the announcement of a baby bring Dick out of his despair, leading to him and Ruth happily planning for the bundle while the pregnant Ellen scours and pouts, throwing tantrums when they turn her father’s lab into a playroom and growing jealous of the the time her sister gets to spend with Dick while she’s bedridden. Feeling Richard’s love for her slipping away, Ellen purposely loses the baby and going into a spiral of jealousy when she discovers that his latest book is dedicated to Ruth. By the way, the scene where she plans to “accidentally” miscarry proves why Dick was so attracted to her. She is a character out of a novel, all drama and pageantry. She dresses in her best nightgown and makes herself look gorgeous before throwing herself down the stairs. A part of me watches that scene and thinks, “Well she just ruined that nightgown. She’ll never get the blood out of that blue silk.” Maybe my priorities are out of whack, but it was a really pretty outfit.

I’m not going to give away the complete ending, but I will tell you there is a death, a trial, and Vincent Price. Understand that is a story of an author who thinks he marrying the muse he always wanted. Instead, her obsession and passion for him hinders his writing and ruins his life. She interrupts him, takes away all other happiness that is not her, and hates the long hours writing a book takes. Where as in Ruth, he finds a collaborator and friend, despite Ruth being the practical and quiet of the pair of adoptive sisters. Where he thought happiness came from living with an exciting mysterious woman like a character in his books,

Second spoiler alert: The author gets his happy ending, but that’s a part of it. He gets to be happy. He doesn’t HAVE to be a tortured writer to be good.

Doctor Who (Unicorn & Wasp): Movies about Writing

“There’s a murder, a mystery, and Agatha Christie . . . Isn’t that a bit weird? Agatha Christie didn’t go around surrounded by murder, not really. I mean, that’s like meeting Charles Dickens and he’s surrounded by ghosts at Christmas.”

Welcome back to another Doctor Who meets an author episode. I love a good Agatha Christie story. Can’t help it. Even if she was too “British” and imperialist in reality, I can separate her from the books. And in this episode we don’t need worry about that as Christie is presented as no-nonsense and disillusioned with the world as it takes place right after her first husband leaves her (look it up, totally happened). What did not happen was Agatha going to a garden party where a man named Professor Plum is killed in a library by an alien being. That’s right - alien! It is Doctor Who after all!

So - remember to grab your sand shoes and brainy specs for David Tenant romp with the Time Lord and silly companion Donna Noble (Catherine Tate). Let’s round up the suspects!

The cast includes Fenella Wollgar as Christie and Felicity Kendal, Christopher Benjamin, Tom Goodman-Hill, and Oscar nominee Felicity Jones as the list of shady characters who were already on edge because of the rumors of a famed jewel thief known as the Unicorn. While the Doctor and Agatha interview everyone, Donna is very excited to explore the house for clues. Instead, she finds a giant alien wasp.

As more deaths occur, the high class suspects turn to Christie as if her writer’s mind should be able to make all of this just go away. “What would Poirot do?” they ask, insisting that she has to help them. Agatha responds, “I’m just a writer.”

Despite her complete lack of confidence in herself, Christie still find clues and analyzes the people around her with bravery and complete curiosity. She’s depressed due to her crumbling marriage and will not let herself belief she is anything more than a hack writer. I believe this depression to also be true of Christie’s real life counterpart which was why she famously vanished in the midst of her reputation being harmed by her husband’s actions.

She and Donna find a tool kit and realize that the jewel thief the Unicorn is also somewhere in the house, leaving them to wonder the thief and the giant wasp are connected. As any good mystery writer, Christie shows she knows a lot about poisons, 1920s forensics, and the environment around her. The Doctor tells her that the murders mimic one of her books and she knows people so she much become one of her beloved detectives.

I’m not going to give away the end of the mystery, but I will tell you that at the end Agatha Christie is left with no memory of the events at a hotel. And that is where she was when she disappeared for a few days. Right? Right.

Futurama (Yo Leela Leela): Movies about Writing

Ever try to amuse a group of small children? Sucks, doesn’t it.

Clearly Leela, the captain of the delivery crew who are the main characters of this science fiction cartoon piece of comedy genius, was never told his. She goes to the ophanarium where she grew up, the outcast “alien” child with only one eye, in order to volunteer for “Public Domain Story Time” only to discover that the kids had to recently eat any books in the facility. She’s told to make up a story.
”Once upon a time there was uh. . . a one eyed princess in a long flowing tank top. And she lived in a magical one room . . . [castle] . . . if you believe the listing agent. Anyhow, one day the princess . . . went off to . . . uh, tell a story! And then that’s exactly what she did do that. And they all lived happily ever after the end.”

The children immediately express how awful her story was. “That story was bad.” Therefore, Leela is determined to make up a better story and come back. She goes to another planet in order to concentrate (and hopefully find a pen, because she apparently she didn’t have on). When Leela returns to the Orphaniarium, the executives from a children’s TV network is there using the kids as free focus groups and they see her new story.

The children are introduced the magical, musical Rumbledy-Humplings, a group of silly creatures who give morals and lessons in friendship. When her story is a big hit with the kids, Leela is offered a job as a writer for the children’s channel and turns the Rumdbley-Hump into a show. At first, Leela is a little uncertain about the idea as she 1) doesn’t have a degree to write for toddlers and 2) doesn’t really trust the network executive. When Leela says she has to go to her quiet place to write, the exec responds with, “You writers make me sick. Nice job on the script though.

Still, signs on and is given a small budget where the rest of the Planet Express crew she works with play the main characters. The show because a basic cable success and Leela grows into the writing star of toddler universe. At first, Leela uses her fame to donate items to the Orphanrium, but as the sit-com gods do declare the fame goes to her head. The show describes her new personality as a “Lady Gaga-esque fame hag”.

When Leela is told that she still needs to be writing the show’s daily scripts, her response is, “You can’t expect me to write it here with everyone talking so loudly about how great I am. I’m taking the ship to my quiet place. You non-creatives can catch a bus home.”

Then her sometimes boyfriend Fry points out with pain in his voice, “Non-creative! Hat! I’ll have you know I bedazzle my own underwear!” Let that joke sit with you for a moment.

SPOILER ALERT!!!! SPOILER ALERT!!!!

I mean, this episode aired in 2011, but you’ve been warned!

Bender, the crew’s drunken thieving lovable robot, falls asleep on the Planet Express ship and accidentally joins Leela in her quiet place - which is to revealed to be the REAL PLANET OF RUMBLEDY-HUMP! GASP! Leela comes clean to Bender that all of the stories are really just her writing down everything the creatures on the planet say. Although proud of her hypocrisy, Bender blackmails Leela. She fine with paying him the money as long as the orphans don’t find out that she’s a fraud.

When one of the orphans shows Leela her own story idea, the “great writer” confesses to stealing her show and takes the orphans to Rumbledy-Hump. The TV exec decides to move the show to the planet and hires the orphans to be the film crew. And Leela objects to how everything works out because she isn’t being punished for her actions.

Is this episode really about advice or experience as a writer? Not really. Was it just an excuse to re-watch Futurama for the billionth time? Maybe.

But as Hedonism Bot would say “I apologize for nothing!”

The Bride Goes Wilds: Movies about Writing

Time for a movie about two big topics of the writing world: marketing and collaboration with an illustrator.

I don’t think I’d ever seen this one before catching it on TCM the other day which is odd since it stars Van Johnson, June Allyson, and Hume Cronyn. I just assumed that late night AMC and TNT in the 90s played every sappy movie starring those three that existed. Also, hey children of my generation! Remember when other channels used to play old movies on late night TV with lots of Campbell’s Soup ads? No. Just me?

Van Johnson plays alcoholic, womanizing children’s author Greg who uses the pen name Uncle Bumps (yes, you read that right) who is considered a genius in his field, but his suffering publisher John McGrath (Cronyn) can’t keep on top of deadlines. McGrath has hired Martha (June Allyson) as Greg’s new illustrator, having had children pick her pictures through a contest. What makes Martha a good children’s artist is that she is an elementary school teacher who understands how children think. I like that they establish that she loves and is good at her day job, but is still is so happy to have the opportunity to be a professional artist.

In case you haven’t figured this out, Greg tries to use the collaboration to seduce Martha. When getting her drunk doesn’t do the trick and has her ready to expose Uncle Bumps as morally reprehensible, McGrath plays on her sympathies by giving Greg a pretend son, (Jackie “Butch” Jenkins) Danny, who he borrows from an orphan’s home. And, as it turns out is true in many cases of famous children’s authors, Greg does not like kids.

By the way, my modern sensibilities got very defensive when Martha expresses that she has a genetic tendency towards alcoholism which is why she is a teetotaler AND HE STILL PLIES HER WITH BRANDY! When she figures it out, she storms out and cries! Cries because she knows she shouldn’t be drunk and because “he blew in her ear”. Date rape and kicking someone off the wagon - gee, wasn’t 1948 swell? Oy.

I was also horrified by Martha’s hometown boyfriend messing with Greg’s typewriter. He pulls out the ribbon and starts hammering at the internal parts with a golf club! It was manslaughter! You leave that beautiful typewriter alone, you comedic hack!

Little Danny is presented as a terror of a child, creating a backstory for Greg’s drinking. The plan backfires when Martha decides that she wants to help mend the relationship between Danny and Greg. In case you haven’t guessed, this is all leading to boy gets girl, boy loses girl, etc.

First off, I was super impressed with the amount of marketing that the publishers did. The movie opens with the lobby/bookstore of the company full of cartoon displays and people dressed up as storybook characters! The opening line is about how “Mother Goose” is getting a raise! Seriously, that is good advertising right there! Few kids can resist costumed characters . . . unless it’s 6 foot tall man dressed as Elmo. Even infants know there’s something just not right in that scenario.

Also, the way that Martha got her job is also a part of a good promotion. They advertised the new Uncle Bumps book by asking for artwork of the title character, The Bashful Bull. The artwork was then judged by children from the local foundling home who fit the age range/reading level. Then they had toy bulls all ready made to go with the unpublished work. Genius, I say! Hood the kids before the book is even written.

Collaboration comes in two forms. First there is the production of illustrations. Martha’s art is a very Disney’s early Silly Symphonies style. They do a good job portraying this with a presentation of rough sketches which the author then describes what he wants and she elaborates. They use good criticism and a balance of ideas. It’s quite a well done scene.

Then there is the inspiration drawn from hanging out with an actual kid. Danny provides Greg with the ideas and play kids enjoy, something more engaging than a lot of alteration and mindless moral tales.

One last thought about this film, but I’ll admit it has nothing to do with writing. The little boys in the movie have suction cup arrows that stick perfectly to everything they hit. THIS IS A MOVIE MAGIC LIE!!! I had plenty of suction cup toys as a kid and they never stuck to anything except the car window and that always got me in trouble.

In a Lonely Place: Movies about Writing

Time for a depressing one, but it’s a good one.

First off, who likes film noir? I do! I do! And who like Humphrey Bogart? Psh. Who doesn’t like Bogey!

In a Lonely Place features Bogart as a Hollywood screenwriter named Dixon Steele struggling to create a big hit as he did in his heyday. Dix is presented as the typical academic artist of the 50s, rather broody and hot tempered balanced with a sarcastic humor and a sickness of the Tinsel Town B.S. Despite being presented as having a certain moral code, Dixon is also revealed to be violent both to men and women. He’s under orders to adapt a popular novel, but the idea of having to read something he considers trash depresses him. He invites a young hatcheck girl who has already read the book to his place simply so she can summarize the novel for him and save him some trouble. And the night is revealed to be exactly that. The young Mildred gives him a dramatic retelling, drinks a ginger ale, then leaves to catch a cab which Dix pays for. Before she goes, they have a talk about her love life, as Mildred broke a date to be at that innocent storytelling event. Dix points out that she’s not in love with her would-be beau.

“Are you a mind reader?”

“Most writers like to think they are.”

Then, poor Mildred ends up murdered and Steele, under suspicion, asks his neighbor to confirm that he never left his apartment after the girl left. Gloria Grahame plays the pretty blonde neighbor Laurel Gray. This is the start of a tense, but passionate relationship between the pair. Between her and the murder, Dix delves into his work for the first time in a decade. Laurel acts as his typist and secretary, making sure he eats and sleeps between hours of writing. I wish I could do that, sit for twelve hours straight, but just sitting for that long messes with my brain. I don’t know how Bogey’s character could do it and write something decent. Maybe that’s why he’s a genius?

Now for some gross trivia. Grahame was married to the film’s director Nicholas Ray. She would eventually leave Ray for . . . his son! There was a marriage between her leaving Ray and marrying junior, but . . . She met this guy when he was a teenage boy. Just creepy.

Okay, I guess I should get back to the film and writer/suspect played by Bogart.

Dix has a friend who is policeman named Nicolai (played by Frank Lovejoy who usually played some kind lawman including in one of my favorite films - House of Wax 1953). Dix explains to Nicolai and his wife how he imagines the killer may have strangled Mildred, a scene which sparks the writer’s imagination and creates a sinister grin on his face. Still, he stands by his innocence stating, “I assure you I could never throw a lovely body from a moving car. My artistic temperament wouldn’t permit it . . . You see, we so-called creative artists have a great respect for cadavers. We treat them with the utmost reverence. Put them in soft beds, lay the out on fur rugs, leave them lying at the foot of a long staircase, but we definitely could never throw them from a moving car as though they were cigarette butts.”

This movie speaks to the idea of the secretive and anti-social personalities that writers can cling to. Dix is viewed as a genius, but a rather sick genius and the question of his role in Mildred’s death becomes the primary theme of the story. Any writer can tell you to steer clear of their browser history, but before the internet, writers got their sources from the horse’s mouth, experience, and observation.

Therefore, when Dix obsessive writing and the realization that he’s being tailed by police begins to effect his mental health, Laurel loses confidence in her resolve that he’s innocent. Violence, anger, and the lack of another suspect let the audience also wonder about Dix. The relationships also bring up interesting points about artistic temperament and how it can effect people surround said artist. There are those who seems to know the best, healthiest boundaries like the cop, those who throw themselves into the artist’s life with little thought to their own mental well being like Laurel, and those who simply don’t get it like some of the actors and other Hollywood big shots portrayed. I’m not going to give away whether he did it or not, but I will say this is a good lesson to all writers. Sometimes anti-social behavior can be . . . complicated.

Simpsons (Diatribe of a Mad Housewife): Movies about Writing

I don’t have to introduce “The Simpsons” right? Okay. Good.

While Homer is being fired once again, Marge takes the kids to a corporate run bookstore where the books are only on the fourth floor according to Lisa (seems legit). Deciding not to watch Bart mock the PHD level employees, Marge goes to a book reading by one of her favorite romance authors.

She asks the author about writing, which I have to say is an interesting scene. First the woman brags about her degree in writing from Yale, but follows it up with encouragement that anyone could be a writer. Huh. She’s a nice collegiate. Marge asks, “If I write a novel, will they tell me when it comes out?”

“They should,” replies the baffled author.

And thus Marge makes Homer watch the kids while she starts a novel about a whaling town, the first chapter of which is entitled “Starts and Beginnings.” She writes a sentence then has a brownie break.

WAIT! Writing is supposed to come with brownie breaks! WHY HAS NO ONE TOLD ME THIS!!!!!!

At first, Marge writes about a 19th century family whose patriarch is a handsome, thoughtful whaler who looks like a fit Homer. Then Homer comes home and acts like . . . well, Homer. This inspires Marge to change the husband of the novel into a “brute” who is terrible at his job and makes out with the mermaid on the front of his ship. And the hero of the story is instead modeled after the kind and muscular neighbor Ned Flanders.

Image property of Fox . . or Disney I can’t keep up!

Marge finishes writing and “dares to push print” without even editing it first. This aggravates me. What a waste of a paper (unless edits are happening on the paper first then being typed into the word document). Of course, she doesn’t edit it, nor does the publishers because it’s pointed out that the main character’s name changes to Marge for a part of the story. She presents the suggestive romance novel to her 8 year old daughter for judgement (I know what I just typed, but it’s the Simpsons - okay!). Lisa is torn because she both jealous that her mother wrote a novel before she did and worries that it’s a little too critical of Homer. Still, she giver Marge words of encouragement and the book is published. Just. Like. That. Reality be damned!

Homer promises to read all 286 pages before the book is printed, but he never makes it beyond the first paragraph. Then, when everyone else reads it and realizes that the characters are based on Homer, Marge, and Ned, Homer is humiliated and hurt. Marge is mostly annoyed that he didn’t actually read the book (and busy with her terrible reviews).

SPOILER ALERT!

It’s assumed that Homer will kill Flanders for being the imaginary hunk in Marge’s novel, but instead he begs Ned to give him advise on being a better husband. Homer and Marge then decide to try writing a novel about the JFK assassination together which at least they were doing research. Research that Marge probably didn’t do for her first novel other than looking up that Nantucket is an island.

Maybe it’s a good idea not to make your book obviously about people in your life. Just sayin’.

Titles that We Need to Bring Back (Copy)

There are positions and labels which have faded from use or common cultural recognition. However, as the modern world is. . . what it is, some of these terms really need to be brought back into circulation. Here are 5 I think would hold up well in today’s society.

5. Badger

This one is pretty self-explanatory once you know the history behind it. In early modern Europe anyone who bought food from farmers to re-sell it at market was called a badger (or sometimes bagger). You had to be licensed to do this to make sure you weren’t just trying to make money off other people’s work.  So many possibilities for this one, not just as a double meaning for people from Wisconsin. Think of all of the jobs which are a way to make money from someone else’s labor and how they badger you to buy. Makes sense, right.

4. Lector

In the 1930s, some businesses who wanted to keep their workers from striking hired lectors to read aloud and break up the monotony. No, seriously this was a thing. . . that didn’t really work (see Tampa cigar makers’ strike of 1931). But wouldn’t it be a fabulous title to bring back? That guy who always reads out “interesting” Facebook articles to the whole of the breakroom would no longer be annoying – he would be the “lector”.

3. Reeve

Feudalism produced all sorts of ways to give the illusion of representation and a say in one’s community, while still making certain that all people adhere to their place in the time period. A reeve was like the communicator between the peasants and the nobles who made sure the farms ran smoothly. Reeves were also peasants themselves who had been given a position of power. What if we started to call the heads of homeowners’ associations reeves? I feel this would fully encompass some of their out-of-date priorities. And we could always jokingly refer to them as “reavers” like the mutant killers from Firefly.

2. Bard

I want to be called a bard. I feel this would better explain my financial status as a writer in a more romantic way. When you tell people you are a musician or author, their gaze withers to pity and then they watch you buy the next round of drinks as if you are so brave. If you tell them they that you are a bard, people will either scratch their head and pretend to know what that is or give you a solemn nod of reverence before you continue your travels.

1. Berserker

This is a term for a Norse warrior who fought in a “trance-like state” which turned them into both a fearsome and a completely insane fighter. Clearly, this trance-like state could be applied to many in the modern world. Instead of just crunching numbers and imputing information mindlessly, you could do so with furious bad-ass-ittude! You would be the Berserker of the office and all would revere you!