I rewatched "Amadeus" again and I've got to say, it is still in my short list of all time great films. So much of the movie works so well, not only to convey an interesting story, but to create such a great character as Salieri and to delve into so many different themes. In addition, the DVD version contains the director's cut, which adds a couple new scenes and fleshes a few more out. Most of the added footage actually enhances the movies and it's themes. This is the way a director's cut should be (for another great director's cut, check out Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven").
One of the themes of this film deals with mediocrity, something that Salieri is striving to avoid. He's a good composer, but he never seems to be able to achieve anything "great". Instead of accepting his limitations, or working to improve them, he lets his jealousy of a musical genius, Mozart, drive him to become a despicable nasty human being.
This is something I think all artists struggle with. As a writer I can admire the skills and success of Stephen King, J.K. Rowling or Neil Gaiman. I can dream of becoming as big a hit as they are. I can set them up as my goal, or at least learn from their stories. What I don't want to do is become Salieri. But in the back of my mind I might wonder, "Why do I have this desire to be great, if I don't have that level of talent?"
Of course Salieri is also convinced that a higher power is attempting to stifle his pursuit of happiness. I know a lot of writers who believe in the power of luck and feel that being in the right place at the right time has a lot more power then actual talent. I guess that if you are bent on success in the publishing industry, that could be a solid observation. But personal success, or at least feeling good about your writing should be something we strive for as well. Can we be happy with being the best writer we can be? Do we have to be the most successful writer we can be? Are they tied?
Maybe the key is to accept your skills, hone them, keep trying and enjoy your life and your writing. This is one of the main things that Salieri never grasps. He's so jealous and bitter he doesn't enjoy the riches he has, the fame he obtains, and the admiration of others. He is a popular composer, one who has the ear of the Austrian Emperor - but he doesn't care. He wants to be something he can not and it destroys him.
Do you think mediocrity is a demon to be feared? Is there line between admiring a famous artist and coveting their skill? What did you think of "Amadeus"?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Just how epic is an epic? - World Without End
I first read Ken Follett's "Pillars of the Earth" back in the early 90's. I enjoy historical fiction and I was very interested in medieval history, so the book was right up my alley. I found the stories of the Kingsbridge priory and the surrounding village fascinating. I loved the way Follett wove the lives of his fictional characters with the lives of historical figures. In addition Follett's interest in medieval architecture was very apparent and the book provided insight into how cathedrals were built back in the 1100's. I found the book to be a great read and i was one of the first epic novels I actually finished.
When I heard that Follett was returning toe Kingsbridge in his next book "World Without End" I was excited. He jumps ahead to the 1300's, famous for the 100 years war and the black plague. In this book Follett focuses more on his fictional characters, pulling the reader into their world, their strife, and their triumphs. At times some of the plot twists seem a bit over the top (how many times can that many horrible things happen to one person), but it works to keep you reading just to see how these resourceful characters will get out of it. With a story spanning about 30 years in the lives of at least four main characters, you've got a rich mine of plot, tragedy and triumph to dig through. I enjoyed it as much as I did the previous book.
While I was reading this book I studied the structure of it. How did Follett weave these stories together and keep them moving and the reader reading at the same time? There were constant perils in medieval England and this offers Follett plenty of obstacles to throw in front of his characters. He uses natural forces, human weakness, politics, superstition and just plain bad luck to keep the story moving. In addition he creates characters that are interesting and keeps them interesting as the story goes along. Sometimes you know just how a character will react to a situation, but Follett's keeps you off balance by introducing an element you didn't suspect.
One of the most interesting parts of the book from a writers stand point is the first section dealing with our main characters as children at the fleece fair. This mini adventure introduces all our lead characters, puts them under stress so you get to see their true colors and introduces a plot point that will have ramifications throughout the novel. In a way it seems obvious to start with the characters when they are children, but this also feeds into plotting. Follett's first section gives you enough information to be interested in the characters, have an idea of what life in the 1300s in England was like and plant the seed of a mystery that will continue to pop up in the novel. A very solid start to an epic.
What are your favorite epic novels? How did they begin? Are they steady page turners or slower and more immersive? Have you read "Pillars of the Earth" and/or "World Without End"?
When I heard that Follett was returning toe Kingsbridge in his next book "World Without End" I was excited. He jumps ahead to the 1300's, famous for the 100 years war and the black plague. In this book Follett focuses more on his fictional characters, pulling the reader into their world, their strife, and their triumphs. At times some of the plot twists seem a bit over the top (how many times can that many horrible things happen to one person), but it works to keep you reading just to see how these resourceful characters will get out of it. With a story spanning about 30 years in the lives of at least four main characters, you've got a rich mine of plot, tragedy and triumph to dig through. I enjoyed it as much as I did the previous book.
While I was reading this book I studied the structure of it. How did Follett weave these stories together and keep them moving and the reader reading at the same time? There were constant perils in medieval England and this offers Follett plenty of obstacles to throw in front of his characters. He uses natural forces, human weakness, politics, superstition and just plain bad luck to keep the story moving. In addition he creates characters that are interesting and keeps them interesting as the story goes along. Sometimes you know just how a character will react to a situation, but Follett's keeps you off balance by introducing an element you didn't suspect.
One of the most interesting parts of the book from a writers stand point is the first section dealing with our main characters as children at the fleece fair. This mini adventure introduces all our lead characters, puts them under stress so you get to see their true colors and introduces a plot point that will have ramifications throughout the novel. In a way it seems obvious to start with the characters when they are children, but this also feeds into plotting. Follett's first section gives you enough information to be interested in the characters, have an idea of what life in the 1300s in England was like and plant the seed of a mystery that will continue to pop up in the novel. A very solid start to an epic.
What are your favorite epic novels? How did they begin? Are they steady page turners or slower and more immersive? Have you read "Pillars of the Earth" and/or "World Without End"?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Struggling to find the words - Mishima
I recently watched a fascinating film about a famous Japanese author: Mishima. Fans of films that are more on the artistic side and that are subtitled should seek this movie out. it’s got great acting, superb camera work and an interesting story.
The movie attempts to show you a full picture of this writer, by showing you his biography (shot in black and white), scenes from his stories (in a vivid surreal color) and the final day of his life (shot documentary style). These elements are interwoven and set into four pieces each dealing with a different theme: beauty, art, action and the combination of the three.
One element of the movie struck me. Mishima was obsessed with words and using the correct words to express himself in the purest way possible. For him beauty was purity. Beauty could be represented in art. Therefore art had to be pure, and the more pure the art the more beautiful it was. Unfortunately he began to struggle with his writing, finding it harder and harder to achieve his goal of purity.
Now Mishima comes across like a writer who wants to create art. Most of us just want to tell stories and have people read them. However, I also think that each writer has a bit inside that wants to create something lasting. Maybe for something to last, it has to be beautiful and pure.
In the current world of publishing, writing is a business. There is little room for art and beauty. Most of the time, something is beautiful because it is different and new. Different and new doesn’t sell books. However most writers still feel the thrill of creation, the action of writing to make a story come to life. That gives us the thrill.
What do you think of art and beauty in writing? Is it something that writers should aspire to, or is it something that can only be done in personal writing? Or is telling stories an art that is not as appreciated as it could be?
The movie attempts to show you a full picture of this writer, by showing you his biography (shot in black and white), scenes from his stories (in a vivid surreal color) and the final day of his life (shot documentary style). These elements are interwoven and set into four pieces each dealing with a different theme: beauty, art, action and the combination of the three.
One element of the movie struck me. Mishima was obsessed with words and using the correct words to express himself in the purest way possible. For him beauty was purity. Beauty could be represented in art. Therefore art had to be pure, and the more pure the art the more beautiful it was. Unfortunately he began to struggle with his writing, finding it harder and harder to achieve his goal of purity.
Now Mishima comes across like a writer who wants to create art. Most of us just want to tell stories and have people read them. However, I also think that each writer has a bit inside that wants to create something lasting. Maybe for something to last, it has to be beautiful and pure.
In the current world of publishing, writing is a business. There is little room for art and beauty. Most of the time, something is beautiful because it is different and new. Different and new doesn’t sell books. However most writers still feel the thrill of creation, the action of writing to make a story come to life. That gives us the thrill.
What do you think of art and beauty in writing? Is it something that writers should aspire to, or is it something that can only be done in personal writing? Or is telling stories an art that is not as appreciated as it could be?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
To write or not to write. That is the question - Hamlet
I watched the epic "eternity" version of Hamlet, directed by Kenneth Branagh. At over four hours, it’s a lot of Shakespeare to take in. However, I watched it with the director’s commentary on to find out more about Branagh’s decision to make the film and why he chose to approach it the way he has.
I’ve seen the film a few times before and have enjoyed it well enough. Some things about it still bug me, and it does seem to drag in places, but on the whole it’s a true spectacle. I doubt we’ll see a Shakespeare production like it any time soon. When the film was made, Shakespeare was big in Hollywood. Branagh struck while the iron was hot and created a unique film.
However, I got to wondering about Shakespeare in general. Why do these plays endure? Why do people keep performing them? Why does every decade have at least one solid Shakespeare film released (the 90’s had at least six)?
Is it the stories themselves? Some of these tales, if broken down to their basics aren’t anything new. "Romeo and Juliet" is a tragic love story. "Hamlet" is a tragic revenge story. "Much Ado About Nothing" is romantic comedy. "Henry V" is a hero’s journey with an epic war at the end of it. Nothing really new there. However, there is something deeper. Shakespeare’s characters are a real draw. Many actors harbor a desire to perform Hamlet. Why? Because his character is so puzzling. People love to see Hamlet performed to see how the lead will approach the character. Is this Hamlet really insane, or is he just acting insane? The most interesting proof of this phenomenon is the fact that Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa made three film adaptations of Shakespeare’s work. These were not direct translations, but stories inspired heavily by the plays. It’s the characters that makes these versions work so well even in Japanese. Need proof, check out "Throne of Blood" "Ran" or "The Bad Sleep Well".
On the other hand there are those who love Shakespeare’s words. One of the reasons Branagh wanted to do the "eternity" version of Hamlet was to allow the full text to breath live into the characters with words. Shakespeare had the mind of a poet, one that was very skilled at selecting just the write words in the right combination of rhythm to give the listener a strong emotion, vivid image or just a delightful sound. This is why many feel that Shakespeare can not be appreciated if it is simply read, it must be seen and heard to get it’s full impact. Many times these people also abhor any changes to the text.
When it comes down to it, I think it is a combination of the two, Shakespeare’s intricate and compelling characters and his amazing use of language that keeps him so popular in the whole world. The first time I heard the story of "Macbeth" is was hooked. The first time I heard the words "To be or not to be" in context of the play "Hamlet" I was intrigued. To this day, Shakespeare’s stories and words inspire and entertain me.
Do you think Shakespeare is still a valid story teller or is he a relic? Do you think his words or his characters are the key to his success? What is your favorite play and why?
I’ve seen the film a few times before and have enjoyed it well enough. Some things about it still bug me, and it does seem to drag in places, but on the whole it’s a true spectacle. I doubt we’ll see a Shakespeare production like it any time soon. When the film was made, Shakespeare was big in Hollywood. Branagh struck while the iron was hot and created a unique film.
However, I got to wondering about Shakespeare in general. Why do these plays endure? Why do people keep performing them? Why does every decade have at least one solid Shakespeare film released (the 90’s had at least six)?
Is it the stories themselves? Some of these tales, if broken down to their basics aren’t anything new. "Romeo and Juliet" is a tragic love story. "Hamlet" is a tragic revenge story. "Much Ado About Nothing" is romantic comedy. "Henry V" is a hero’s journey with an epic war at the end of it. Nothing really new there. However, there is something deeper. Shakespeare’s characters are a real draw. Many actors harbor a desire to perform Hamlet. Why? Because his character is so puzzling. People love to see Hamlet performed to see how the lead will approach the character. Is this Hamlet really insane, or is he just acting insane? The most interesting proof of this phenomenon is the fact that Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa made three film adaptations of Shakespeare’s work. These were not direct translations, but stories inspired heavily by the plays. It’s the characters that makes these versions work so well even in Japanese. Need proof, check out "Throne of Blood" "Ran" or "The Bad Sleep Well".
On the other hand there are those who love Shakespeare’s words. One of the reasons Branagh wanted to do the "eternity" version of Hamlet was to allow the full text to breath live into the characters with words. Shakespeare had the mind of a poet, one that was very skilled at selecting just the write words in the right combination of rhythm to give the listener a strong emotion, vivid image or just a delightful sound. This is why many feel that Shakespeare can not be appreciated if it is simply read, it must be seen and heard to get it’s full impact. Many times these people also abhor any changes to the text.
When it comes down to it, I think it is a combination of the two, Shakespeare’s intricate and compelling characters and his amazing use of language that keeps him so popular in the whole world. The first time I heard the story of "Macbeth" is was hooked. The first time I heard the words "To be or not to be" in context of the play "Hamlet" I was intrigued. To this day, Shakespeare’s stories and words inspire and entertain me.
Do you think Shakespeare is still a valid story teller or is he a relic? Do you think his words or his characters are the key to his success? What is your favorite play and why?
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Greatest Story Ever Told... Again - Lamb
Adaptation is nothing new to storytellers. Since the times of early humankind we’ve told variants of the same stories over and over again. We’ll add a unique spin here, a twist in the tale there, but down at their core the story is the same and the theme and message are delivered.
Some of these stories go on to become very famous indeed. One of the most famous stories in the world is the tale of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. His story has inspired and guided many people through the centuries. At its core, it’s a great story filled with enlightenment, tragedy and hope. This story has inspired countless retelling and re-imaginings. In the cinematic form alone there are dozens of versions from the silent classic "The King of Kings" to the recent "The Passion of the Christ". It’s easy to see why story tellers continue to return to this tale.
Christopher Moore was inspired enough to write his own take on the life of Joshua of Nazareth, and the result was something very interesting. In the book "Lamb" Moore explores the "missing years" of Jesus’ life. Where did Jesus go from the early age of 12 till he returned to Galilee in his thirties. Moore concocts a tale of Joshua (also called Jesus) and his best friend Levi (also called Biff) and their search for the three wise men. Along the way they encounter demons, wizards, a harem of Chinese concubines, Kung-fu monks, The Great Wall of China, wizened gurus, The Kama Sutra, and even get to recreate a scene from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom".
Obviously the book is pure fantasy... but it’s also pure fun. Moore never lets the character of Jesus get away from him either. This journey to find the wise men is what allows Joshua to learn what it means to be a messiah and just what his message to the Jewish people will be. His pal Biff is along for the ride, enjoying the more earthly pleasures and helping Joshua understand that even the most sinful man needs a friend.
Moore took one of the most familiar stories ever told and made it new, entertaining and inspiring all at the same time. Of course the book isn’t for everyone. Those who find the idea of Jesus even talking with a Chinese concubine disturbing best look elsewhere. But those who won’t feel their faith challenged by a good story should check the book out. I was pleasantly surprised.
Since this already turned into a bit of a book review, I need to bring it back around to the topic of story telling. Moore had a major challenge in that many people know this story and have an image in their mind of how it goes. He made it fresh and new by adding humor, high adventure and showing us the formulation of Jesus’ teachings. This is one of the best reasons for any writer to check this book out (and read it for instructional purposes). There are no new stories. They’ve all been told before, but it’s how you tell the story that makes it unique and entertaining. Moore nailed it.
Can you think of any retellings you were surprised with (books, movies, televisions series all count)? Do you read "Lamb"? What did you think?
Some of these stories go on to become very famous indeed. One of the most famous stories in the world is the tale of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. His story has inspired and guided many people through the centuries. At its core, it’s a great story filled with enlightenment, tragedy and hope. This story has inspired countless retelling and re-imaginings. In the cinematic form alone there are dozens of versions from the silent classic "The King of Kings" to the recent "The Passion of the Christ". It’s easy to see why story tellers continue to return to this tale.
Christopher Moore was inspired enough to write his own take on the life of Joshua of Nazareth, and the result was something very interesting. In the book "Lamb" Moore explores the "missing years" of Jesus’ life. Where did Jesus go from the early age of 12 till he returned to Galilee in his thirties. Moore concocts a tale of Joshua (also called Jesus) and his best friend Levi (also called Biff) and their search for the three wise men. Along the way they encounter demons, wizards, a harem of Chinese concubines, Kung-fu monks, The Great Wall of China, wizened gurus, The Kama Sutra, and even get to recreate a scene from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom".
Obviously the book is pure fantasy... but it’s also pure fun. Moore never lets the character of Jesus get away from him either. This journey to find the wise men is what allows Joshua to learn what it means to be a messiah and just what his message to the Jewish people will be. His pal Biff is along for the ride, enjoying the more earthly pleasures and helping Joshua understand that even the most sinful man needs a friend.
Moore took one of the most familiar stories ever told and made it new, entertaining and inspiring all at the same time. Of course the book isn’t for everyone. Those who find the idea of Jesus even talking with a Chinese concubine disturbing best look elsewhere. But those who won’t feel their faith challenged by a good story should check the book out. I was pleasantly surprised.
Since this already turned into a bit of a book review, I need to bring it back around to the topic of story telling. Moore had a major challenge in that many people know this story and have an image in their mind of how it goes. He made it fresh and new by adding humor, high adventure and showing us the formulation of Jesus’ teachings. This is one of the best reasons for any writer to check this book out (and read it for instructional purposes). There are no new stories. They’ve all been told before, but it’s how you tell the story that makes it unique and entertaining. Moore nailed it.
Can you think of any retellings you were surprised with (books, movies, televisions series all count)? Do you read "Lamb"? What did you think?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Broken Beginning - Star Wars: Episode 1
It had to happen sooner or later, I have to give the Star Wars prequels a little hate. I just watched "The Phantom Menace" again, with the help of Rifftrax. This is an audio commentary provided by a couple of the performers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000". You synch it up to your DVD and they basically mock the movie as you watch.
Now this film has plenty of flaws, but I want to focus on some of the basic story telling ones that I noticed, especially with the help of Mike and Kevin. Episode 1 has a ton of moments where exposition is dropped into the story, slowing down the action to a crawl. This makes the first half of the movie drag for what feels like three hours. The pod race speeds things up a bit (mostly because of the visual effects). Then come the scenes in the middle with the Galactic Senate and the Jedi Council. These scenes deliver important story elements but are so dull. The final section of the film on Naboo feels very forced, as if Lucas was attempting to mirror the ending of "Return of the Jedi" (with three climaxes occurring at the same time).
Compared to the ending of Jedi, this one does have nearly the same punch. In Jedi we are invested in the characters. We care about the fates of Luke, Leia, Han, Lando and the rest of the rebels. In "Phantom Menace" we don’t really have an emotional connection to the characters, we don’t really know what’s going on too well (many people are still puzzled by the end battles who hopes to accomplish what), and the stakes are vague (trade disputes).
All in all "The Phantom Menace" isn’t a well scripted tale. I think Lucas found himself in a strange position attempting to deliver important set up information, deliver new visuals and attempt to create a compelling story. For me the visuals are the only things that worked.
What do you think of the script of Episode 1? Do you think the film delivered a good story or could it have used some work?
Now this film has plenty of flaws, but I want to focus on some of the basic story telling ones that I noticed, especially with the help of Mike and Kevin. Episode 1 has a ton of moments where exposition is dropped into the story, slowing down the action to a crawl. This makes the first half of the movie drag for what feels like three hours. The pod race speeds things up a bit (mostly because of the visual effects). Then come the scenes in the middle with the Galactic Senate and the Jedi Council. These scenes deliver important story elements but are so dull. The final section of the film on Naboo feels very forced, as if Lucas was attempting to mirror the ending of "Return of the Jedi" (with three climaxes occurring at the same time).
Compared to the ending of Jedi, this one does have nearly the same punch. In Jedi we are invested in the characters. We care about the fates of Luke, Leia, Han, Lando and the rest of the rebels. In "Phantom Menace" we don’t really have an emotional connection to the characters, we don’t really know what’s going on too well (many people are still puzzled by the end battles who hopes to accomplish what), and the stakes are vague (trade disputes).
All in all "The Phantom Menace" isn’t a well scripted tale. I think Lucas found himself in a strange position attempting to deliver important set up information, deliver new visuals and attempt to create a compelling story. For me the visuals are the only things that worked.
What do you think of the script of Episode 1? Do you think the film delivered a good story or could it have used some work?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
In Space No One Can Hear You Laugh - Hal Spacejock
After I finished reading Simon Haynes sci-fi comedy "Hal Spacejock" I shook my head and thought, how does he make it look so easy. Haynes manages to write a solid story that would be entertaining enough as a typical space opera style adventure. Hal has to transport a cargo of robot parts from one planet to the other. Of course a ton of different obstacles end up in his way including marauding battleships, killer robots, cargo thieves and sabotage devices. The pace is brisk, the characters are likable and the books just flies by.
And to top it all off, it's laugh out loud funny. Haynes uses all kinds of humor from the patented sarcastic comments, physical comedy (something very hard to pull off in a book) and spoofs of classic sci-fi stories and movies.
When comedy is done well, it can make a good book even more entertaining. The characters are more memorable because you remember the humorous moments or the witty dialogue. You'll want to pick up the book again (or it's follow-up) just to see what the author comes up with next.
In my own writing, I often find that my stories end up going toward the serious side of things. A little levity can help any book, even if things are grim many readers may appreciate some gallows humor.
The trick is, if humor is done poorly, it can detract from the book. You'll remember a story for it's corny jokes, or bad puns. So the balance must be found. That's where readers come in. I'll try humor and see how my readers feel about it, if it doesn't click they'll tell me. If they laugh they'll tell me.
What is your favorite book or moment from a book that used humor? Have you ever read a story that used humor badly? Have you ever tried to use humor your writing?
And to top it all off, it's laugh out loud funny. Haynes uses all kinds of humor from the patented sarcastic comments, physical comedy (something very hard to pull off in a book) and spoofs of classic sci-fi stories and movies.
When comedy is done well, it can make a good book even more entertaining. The characters are more memorable because you remember the humorous moments or the witty dialogue. You'll want to pick up the book again (or it's follow-up) just to see what the author comes up with next.
In my own writing, I often find that my stories end up going toward the serious side of things. A little levity can help any book, even if things are grim many readers may appreciate some gallows humor.
The trick is, if humor is done poorly, it can detract from the book. You'll remember a story for it's corny jokes, or bad puns. So the balance must be found. That's where readers come in. I'll try humor and see how my readers feel about it, if it doesn't click they'll tell me. If they laugh they'll tell me.
What is your favorite book or moment from a book that used humor? Have you ever read a story that used humor badly? Have you ever tried to use humor your writing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)