Recommendation: “The Handmaiden”

In some of my first posts on here, I mentioned that I love South Korean cinema quite a lot. My top 10 included “Memories of Murder”, which is how I fell in love with the genre of Korean thriller and many movies since have captivated me and have taken my attention for days after watching them.

I’ve been quite busy, too, so I guess my writing will come down to 2-3 times a week when I get myself sorted.

I watched “The Handmaiden” last week and still occasionally think about the movie. It’s obvious that some directors just have a sophisticated way of presentation and a world view, even when they make movies about the darkest human abilities.
Park Chan-wook does it really well and lots of old and new directors could use / have used this perspective and technique.

I don’t think there’s a cinema-loving human that missed out on “Old Boy”. The bizarre narrative combined with a precise, beautiful directing technique and vulnerable and raw acting seemed to have thoroughly impressed humanity that watches film both for a living and as a hobby.
But, Park Chan-wook’s vision is not everyone’s cup of tea, and despite the more bizarre world out there that has all the eerie stories that may exist, once put on film, they gain some kind of shock value. Mr. Park is no stranger to humanity’s weirdness. He probably just dwells in it, draws inspiration from it and creates beauty however difficult it may be.

“The Handmaiden” contains all of the elements listed above, those elements which characterize Park Chan-wook’s directing, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that he has never made a better film. I watched a lot of his movies and they all carried a severely emotional message, but “The Handmaiden” has an unlikely happy ending. This movie is also an indirect adaptation of the novel “The Fingersmith” by Sarah Waters.

To summarize the plot, the movie is set in the 1930’s in Korea, when the Japanese imperialist policy was underway in Southeast Asia. Korean people who aspired to mingle with the Japanese aristocracy, which lives in Westernized castles and wears Western clothes, went through changing their names into Japanese and emigrating in attempts to live better. Here we have the aspiring, handsome lord Fujiwara who is actually a Korean (Ha Jung-woo) and he wants to infiltrate a rich, royal Japanese family, marry the niece named Hideko (Kim Min-hee) and when she signs her wealth to him through the form of marriage, he would claim her as crazy and sign her up in a mental institution. He brings a con-girl named Sook-hee (Kim Tae-ri) with him to Lady Hideko’s home where she lives with her estranged and seemingly insane uncle Kozuki (Jo Jin-woong). Sook-hee needs to play the Lady’s maid and convince her to marry Fujiwara, and in return she would get lots of cash; she is very skilled and knowledgeable in trickery, but what Fujiwara doesn’t know is that Sook-hee also loves women. And Lady Hideko is absolutely stunning.
I’ll stop here. Whatever you may think happens in this movie just from the premise, you are far from it. But you’re also very close.
The relationship that grows between Lady Hideko and Sook-hee obviously turns into a bit more than what meets the eye.

The reason why I believe this is Park’s best movie so far is because he incorporated details that gave the story its essential depth. The scenery was perfect and went so well with the narrative; every bit of nature that was displayed and shot had a purpose in the storytelling context. The massive tree, the rope in the box, the symmetry of the frames and scenes was just breathtaking. I saw a few directors who did it this way, but most of them were Asian (Kurosawa, as the most obvious example, I guess). Correct me if there are others, please.

The costumes, interior design and historical accuracy are very much on point. The costumes are simply stunning and the entire display of them really give us insight on the movie’s biggest plot, which is the relationship between Hideko and Sook-hee. Somehow, the costumes bring them closer, and it works.

Ha Jung-woo is a great choice for the role of Count Fujiwara because, and this is going to be biased but, he is so very handsome. On the objective side and what I really mean is that, Ha Jung-woo is handsome and masculine but he also has a con-man’s aura – he gives off a confident vibe, convinced and yet sustained in many things; his reactions never seem to tip over the extreme and linger between the subtle and the explosive. That’s why his Fujiwara portrayal makes him perfect for it. The count is extremely confident, he believes his own lies and presents himself with plans A, B and C just in case. Once you get a look of him, you couldn’t say if he wants to seduce you or kill you. And yet, people like him often overlook the fact that there is more beyond their ego. This character was especially great, although I cheered for Hideko and Sook-hee with all my heart.

Kim Min-hee’s Lady Hideko has two sides, and I wouldn’t want to spoil it any how, but just her beauty alone is enough to mesmerize every mortal in her vicinity. That side of her is what she can not control nor choose, but it is definitely something that she can use to her benefit. Beautiful women who know they are beautiful can become really, really dangerous.
Kim Tae-ri’s Sook-hee is spontaneous, possessive, jealous, but also kind of romantic and most of all, really clever. A con-man type of clever, ‘street smart’ as we would call it nowadays. And Jo Jung-woo’s Uncle Kozuki… Well, this man really gave his all to do this. Insane, estranged, convinced in his own beliefs, chained by his vice and living in the past, Kozuki is the wild card of the movie that flips its narrative halfway through the movie.

The encompassing element that gives a final, beautiful touch to the film are the frames. The frames are picturesque and at the same time pretty eerie. The spirit of the insanity was depicted through aesthetic pleasure. Way to go, Park Chan-wook.

I can’t bare to give this movie less than five out of five, if there was a scale. The complicated plot unveils itself beautifully, and in the end, what matters is that love wins.

‘Til next time.

Anja

Recommendation: “Captain Fantastic”

I’ve seen quite a few movies this year but I can’t seem to remember any of them by anything special. I believe MARVEL have been doing a nice job, especially with X-Men and Captain America, and “CA: Civil War” was a pleasant surprise when it comes to giving superheroes certain mental obstacles and firmly defending their beliefs. There was also the super vulgar but still funny “Deadpool”, which in my opinion, went overboard a few times, but just a few. Still, they all have some plot holes that can and can’t make the movie very memorable.

Not many features are able to truly captivate us, and every time I say – “well, there was that movie I saw”, it’s followed by, “oh wait, that’s from last year”. Last night I watched “Captain Fantastic” and I was captivated by it from the first moment.

To quickly present the plot to you: one man lives in the woods with six of his children, he teaches them how to hunt and makes them read all kinds of books; one sad event forces the man to take his kids out into the world, which causes some trouble for both him and the kids.

I gotta say, there was never a more talented ensemble of kids and young adults. The kids’ dad is played by Viggo Mortensen, who I’ve always had trouble identifying with, but who helped me with that during watching him unveil as he plays Ben Cash, the dad in this feature.
The reason why I was captivated from the first moments of “Captain Fantastic” is because it’s one of my lifelong dreams to own a cottage or a small house in the mountains or the wild and separate myself whenever I am ready, from the world and its absurdities.

The Cash kids grew up in the wild and they have the muscular and mental strength of very disciplined soldiers who can also express their creativity freely. The youngest kid, Zaja (played by charming little Shree Crooks) can define fascism to you by heart, can give her opinion on the Bill of Rights and still be only 8 years old; the kids are not hidden from the truth and the dad treats them like adults, doesn’t spare them from pain and teaches them that they don’t need more than they have.
When they see a bunch of obese people in a waiting room, the kids are surprised – “What’s wrong with everyone? Are they sick?”, this is one of my favorite scenes; they’re untouched by the modernization but still, they suffer the consequences when they meet their peers.

Despite being hated and misunderstood by the rest of the world, Ben Cash doesn’t waiver when it comes to how he raises his kids. He realizes, though, that when the kids go out into the world one day, which is inevitable, they could easily get hurt. This is when he doubts himself the most. The world IS out there and it’s an inevitable one.
I was impressed and immersed as if the cast was a real family that was being shown to us; the ensemble gets along too well, they’re like a real family, they actually look alike and all of them display great amounts of individuality, despite being in an ensemble of seven the entire time. This can be really difficult and not something you can see in “Avengers” for example, where they sometimes try to trick us into thinking we could know more about a character and then simply cut their story before it culminates.

Viggo Mortensen is simply there to support the ensemble of kids, but he still lingers as the influence that made them all like that. His acting successfully boosts the kids’ acting but he also displays an individual note, just like everyone; still, there wasn’t enough time to know why his character Ben believes in raising the kids in the wild, next to the fact that he wanted to help his wife get better from her bipolar disorder. It’s hard to believe that’s the only reason, but then again, it might be if we analyze right – the two of them wanted to be away from the stimuli of the world and then grew to like their newfound home. This doesn’t feel like a reason enough; his beliefs are rooted into avoiding worldly illusions and he teaches the kids not to have any themselves.
Since the story is about the kids for the most part, then it’s easy to guess that the writers and the director didn’t want to spoil their “rite of passage” into the world with any other deviations from the plot.

This is the heartwarming family film that we missed deeply; with all the violence and superhero-ism happening this year, we needed a gentle, educational and emotional story about raising kids in a chaotic world. Out of imaginary five stars at the most, I’d give this four and a half.

‘Til next time.

Anja

A course about Hollywood

It’s been a very emotional 7 days for me, which is why I haven’t been writing.

In the midst of preparing for a new job, doing side jobs in writing and trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle, I’ve run into a wall and it’s difficult to get out.
Whenever I feel uninspired or trapped, I watch movies; it may feel like I am not doing anything for myself, but when I watch movies it’s a safe haven for me.

The love of cinema made me very interested in learning about its origins in-depth.
There are lots of resources out there that can help us read about any worldly cinematography, but Hollywood runs the game whether we like it or not.

The influences of Hollywood have been vast, and instead of talking about it too much, I wanted to post a short introduction to one of my favorite websites and a new course on it that will help anyone learn more about Hollywood.

I started using edX a few years ago when I developed interest in learning from universities abroad. This is a nice way to follow a course without any costs, and I started with mostly psychology related courses that opened my eyes about human behavior patterns and thought processes.
It turns out school can teach us something, too, and these courses are actually interesting and useful in some way. They can also just be brain food for you, without ever needing to use the knowledge gained from them somewhere, of course.

There is a new course on the history and industry of Hollywood that started today and that I’d recommend to anyone who is into learning about the beginnings of film and the beginnings of today’s leading market in film.
I don’t really have any benefit from recommending this course or website, but I wanted to share a quick post with everyone after a few emotionally exhausting days because of which my ideas have disappeared into an abyss.

I’ll go back to it these days, mostly because the world will continue no matter what happens to me; I must learn to follow.

Stay happy and watch movies. And check out the Hollywood history course, so that we can all discuss it.

‘Til next time.

Anja

Why you should be watching: “Black Mirror”

I binge watched season 3 of “Black Mirror” with my mum yesterday. We just thought we could take it one at a time, maybe watch two new episodes and see what it’s like, and we ended up watching all six episodes in one night.

If anyone is familiar with “Black Mirror”, they also know that its writer and creator is Charlie Brooker, a man whose satirical and dark reviews of domestic (UK, that is) policy shows how much the world needs people who can easily call ‘bullshit’ on certain events. Personally, I watched everything Brooker had created to date because I have immense respect for him and his creative genius but I can’t guarantee he wouldn’t call me a buffoon as well if I told him I was a fan of his work; I just have a feeling he might, I don’t know.

The first season of “Black Mirror” was something very new on the market, despite having stories about technological advancements and science fiction drama from the dawn of time (I should look that fact up, though). This season really showed how technological advancement can hurt humanity, since people will stay people no matter how many gadgets they have; Toby Kebbell perfectly played the jealous husband in a world where he can access his and others’ memories from a hard drive. The other two episodes focused on the society’s obsession over reality TV. It was exciting to see this, even the first episode, in which the PM of Britain is blackmailed into having sex with a pig on national television. Years after the premiere of that episode, David Cameron was enshrouded in the scandal of doing something similar back in his college days – Brooker saw right through everything and went, “well if this happens, the world will have gone mad by then!”. Or maybe he knew more than many of us.

Season 2 followed the same thematic path but it wasn’t as memorable as the first one. The issues of technological advancement were very emotionally approached in the first episode where Hayley Atwell’s character can’t quite cope with the loss of her husband and decides to sign up for a service that can recreate him and keep him in her head the entire time. This can be devastating for numbers of reasons, as love and loss are two incredibly powerful emotions that can affect us, at most times, permanently. This was the best episode of the series, although the slowest one in terms of pace. Other two episodes simply deal with societal issues of publicly (and violently in public) judging an individual, as well as the entire absurdity of elections, candidates, politics and political games.

But, the arrival of season 3 made everything different. The release of this season was a bit under the radar for me, since I wasn’t sure it would continue after the second one. I thought maybe Charlie Brooker had had enough of making up stories about broken ideals and society. I was terribly wrong, though, since he wrote 6 episodes (well, five, if we don’t count “Nosedive”, which was only his idea but not his screenplay) and they all combined the emotional aspect, alienation and general humanity with the technological advancements, replacements and larger-than-life inventions. Episode called “Nosedive” was really stunning in both visual and dynamic aspects; somehow, the pastels in which the world is tightly wrapped can’t lighten up the darkness of the loneliness behind chasing ratings and online popularity. Reality of us getting to that place in time kicks in when our main character, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, can or can’t use daily amenities because she’s judged by her ratings. Yikes.

Other episodes, like “Playtest” show the advancement of video games, and how much that universe has expanded and how dangerous it can get; it delved into facing one’s fears in a truly dangerous way. That can be done in a gentler and kinder way, definitely. The story about the army man who is programmed to see only what the government wants him to see (and kill) is probably the scariest. Actually, they’re all scary. Fascinating and scary at the same time.
The best part is, the final episode is as long as a feature film, almost 90 minutes.

I fell in love with “Black Mirror” again. I keep thinking about the episodes all day today and I envy the people who still haven’t seen it. Whatever could possibly go wrong with society was depicted in the series and despite it being truly depressing, it’s actually riveting and exciting – the dialogues are exquisite, the visuals are impeccable and the universe of each episode can pull us in and make us think about it for hours after watching it.
Someone more adept would say it lacked something, they’d criticize it more objectively but I love Brooker’s vision and I love that his thinking takes us to some very possible outcomes; I also love that, however dark, he’s also a bit of a romantic. He understands how far someone would go for love, for success and for simple, pure happiness. He also understands that people are still people once released from the gadgets, and that our inner workings will always need care.

‘Til next time.

Anja

5 Novels That Would Make Great Movies

So, the other day I wrote a big post about developing novels into on-screen features and I said that they shouldn’t be expected to be the same.

That doesn’t stop me from imagining some of my favorite books into films, though, and very often while I read I am able to imagine certain actors in certain roles.
Even while I write screenplays, I can’t help but imagine someone famous as one of my characters.
Of course, that’s all just wishful thinking a lot of times and it won’t always suit the writer’s wishes or imagination, but that’s something I went through already.

I am a huge fan of fiction, especially detective novels and mysteries; my favorite writers of all time are Agatha Christie, Dan Simmons and Stephen King. It’s pretty limited but I feel comfortable in this genre.

Here are 5 novels that I believe would be huge hits in cinemas, and I’ll briefly explain why as well.

1. “DROOD” by Dan Simmons (2009)
   

   Dan Simmons is an exceptional writer because of his skill to incorporate fiction into real historical events and make people wonder which aspect was an actual event, and which is just a product of his mind. Any book by Simmons would be a great film, but “Drood” and “The Terror” in number two are very special.

   “Drood” is a two-novel tale about Charles Dickens’ friendship with Wilkie Collins, or much better, Collins’ friendship and mental rivalry with Dickens, since Collins’ is set as the narrator; it was also based on the events of Charles Dickens’ actual book “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” which remained unfinished.
   Wilkie Collins gets dragged into an underground scene of drugs, the occult and paranormal, but his biggest rival is (ta-da!) himself. The occult and paranormal take Wilkie Collins to other levels of emotional and physical plains.
   This story would be a great TV series (although there is talk that Guillermo del Toro wants to tackle this giant and turn it into a movie), since it’s a two novel story and has many encounters that are captivating and eerie; these would possibly have to be omitted from the movie because of length, which would thus create a dull story about a writer facing difficulties, with scares here and there.
   That is not what this book is – it is in fact a carefully thought out story that will drag you in so hard that you’ll beg for season 2 (wink wink).

2. “THE TERROR” by Dan Simmons (2007)
   

   I put this mega-incredible novel (due to current lack of sleep and thus a lack of adjectives, I can’t think of saying anything else that’s more true) under number two because its story is very different from “Drood”, but because of the same writer, it tampers skillfully with history just like “Drood” does.

   “The Terror” is a story about an expedition to the Arctic that happened mid 19th century, when Captain Sir John Franklin oversaw the travelling of two ships “HMS Erebus” and “HMS Terror”. These two ships were never found and to this day, it’s unknown what really happened to them.
   In comes Dan Simmons and gives his own account of the events; his narrator is a young doctor who joins “HMS Terror”, and he added a strange supernatural force that tampers with the ships’ crews. It’s even better than it sounds here.

3. THE SNOWMAN (original name: “Snømannen”) by Jo Nesbø (2007)
   

   One more writer whose books can forever be contracted to be made into movies. The awesome thing about Jo Nesbo’s writing is the thrill that can be equally visual and readable – when Stephen King steps into the psyche and gives us the whole internal struggle of a character, we are dragged into his mind more than the environment. Jo Nesbo is a bit more pragmatic and creates visually shocking and tense scenes that would easily make people a bit sick. However, he doesn’t exaggerate this; the gore has meaning, it is purposeful and actually quite elegant.

   The novel is one in a series of many novels about a loner detective named Harry Hole, but if references to old cases could be extracted from the dialogues, “The Snowman” and its story wouldn’t be hurt and would make a great standalone film.
   It was difficult to imagine an actor in the role of Harry Hole; he is described as a tall, blonde Norwegian cop who’s a bit ugly but in a super handsome manner, so I’d also love to see who would be chosen. This choice can actually make or break the movie.
   The story of “The Snowman” follows Hole chasing a serial killer whose trademark is making a snowman in front of his victims’ houses right before he kills.
   The book is exciting, on edge and the action is constant – there is always one direction for it to go, but it also has a quality of a “tellable” story because it incorporates the few failures before a final success, which is a must in every detective story told in Hollywood.

4. “THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD” by Agatha Christie (1926)
   

   This is also known as the novel which was in 2013 proclaimed as the ‘best crime novel of all time‘ by the British Crime Writers’ Association (they must love detective stories more than I do), and also known in my own circle as one of the most amazing and surprising detective stories I’ve ever read.
   It was named the best ever in part because it has one of undoubtedly greatest endings of all time (which I will never ever reveal to you, but I’d love to make you read it in order to see for yourself), but we can’t ignore that the entire story makes compelling statements, leads us in different ways and makes us believe in one thing very firmly by leaning on our own sense of judgment and character.

   This novel was already adapted into a TV movie in the UK because Agatha Christie is a hugely popular writer there and David Suchel is a great Hercule Poirot, so why not. However, I think it deserves another attempt with a refreshed cast and a modern take, much like it was done with “And Then There Were None” recently, which was more eerie than I expected; it was really good.

5. “THE TRUTH” by Michael Palin (2012)
   

   I went with this one for last to ease the atmosphere of all the terror novels, murders and mysteries, by presenting to you a different kind of terror story; this novel is about an environmental journalist named Keith Mabbut who travels to India to research on the topic of environment and work forces in the depths of Indian nature. Mabbut meets one of his heroes there, a man who’s been an adventurist and a truth seeker much like Mabbut always wanted to be.

   It’s a nice story to turn into a movie because of its relevance. The environment is (and should be) a huge topic in the past years, but I can’t help and see this novel turned into a feature film of medium proportions. Any movie that wants to be a blockbuster and deal with environmental issues should probably be full of CGI and cliches.
   This story definitely can’t be all that, full of CGI, a blockbuster nor a cliche, but it can be an inspiring visual experience.
   Plus, Michael Palin is, like, the greatest Monty Python member ever. Just sayin’.

 

There are so many more to be put on this list, but these novels are the ones I anticipate and think about the most. Do you want to see a novel turned into a movie? Which one is it, and why?

‘Til next time

Anja

The Remake.

It’s the year of the remakes, or at least the year when remakes are being announced from all sides.

There is a post on IMDb that tells us all about the announced Disney live action remakes happening in the next period. If your favorite Disney feature is on there – let me know how you feel.
As far as I’m concerned – I am open for it, but it will never be the original.

I grew up watching “The Lion King”, “Aladdin”, “Pocahontas”, “Cinderella”, “The Little Mermaid”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “The Jungle Book”, and pretty much all of the other Disney animated movies. When I was a bit older, “Mulan” came along and shook my world, and then the Pixar era started, too. I got older but I never stopped enjoying animated features. To this day I sit and watch them again as they transport me to a careless time, a time when I had only to worry about being a kid.
My mom was so tired of Cinderella when I was about 4, that she couldn’t be in the same room when she played the cassette for me.
Once, in my high school classroom, when I was talking about “The Lion King” with my friends I actually choked up to the mention of Mufasa’s death scene; my friends were baffled by the waterworks that started without a special reason. I had a reason. You don’t push Mufasa off a cliff and leave little Simba like that. You just don’t.

I would be more than happy if today’s kids could have the same experience. If I were a babysitter, I’d bring the arsenal of Disney and sit through all the animation with the kids, without a thought. I’d probably be more touched than they’d be, and probably more interested, too. But kids nowadays can’t be like we used to be. That’s why they’re here now, and that’s why the world keeps moving and going forward. Nothing can be like it used to.

When I saw the trailer for the live action “The Jungle Book” I was so happy that I cried a bit (I cry a lot, is the point). When I saw the movie, I was biased to the core, I loved it, it was more adult than the cartoon but still very innocent. However, like I mentioned that leaning on the movie to represent the book was wrong, I also believe that leaning on the remake to represent the original is wrong, too. A remake is to the original what the movie is to the book (you get me, right?)

They’re remaking “Blade Runner”, oh no. Actually, now it doesn’t seem like a remake but a sequel that’s also a remake and why do a sequel to something already so perfect? Well, first of all, most people in this world are not cinephiles, nor avid film (history) fans; the ones who couldn’t care less about seeing “Blade Runner” because it’s so old and eighties, will probably go to the movies to see this sequel, or remake or whatever.
Most of the young generations that are soon-to-be bread makers are 1990s kids. I am a 1992 kid and people younger than me, like my brother’s generation of 1996, are just now coming out and doing amazing things for themselves. Before they get some more air time, my generation is currently in the spotlight and it’s the time to be in charge of creating advancement in the world. But everything moves so quickly that “our time” is almost at the point of passing. The younger generations are more tech savvy and they grow up doing things for themselves that we are doing only now. There are exceptions in every generation of course, and kudos to them for looking into the world and understanding that so much has happened before them.

I got way too philosophical there, but I needed you to “catch my drift”. Beloved cartoons, old movies and franchises made our lives better in the past, and I think that filmmakers hope that it can be the same for kids nowadays. “Star Wars” was successfully revived and now, kids simply love all the SW merchandise circling around the globe – that is a good example of a sequel that can kind of qualify as a remake, but it’s actually a revival of an old story that people believed newer generations would love, too.
I can handle all the live action remakes of my favorite Disney films but I will hold the originals in my heart forever; it’s actually interesting to see how people see these movies today and how they wish to make them unique for the current times and audiences.

Once a remake is made, the original will not vanish.
“Ghostbusters” got a ton of hate before it was even released, while the movie is just a solid comedy that we see more and more of nowadays; the difference between the old “Ghostbusters” and the new ones is that the modern times required some sort of female empowerment and incorporation of strong female leads who can carry out a legendary name. They are not trying to be Murray or Aykroyd, they are trying to revive the name of the “Ghostbusters” with a twist.

I am not angry at remakes as much as I am at sequels, but when I say angry, it’s not serious. Sequels can make me crazy because a lot of times, they’re pointless. The popularity of the first movie was so good that you believed that you must make another one – this happened with “Ocean’s”, with “The Hangover” and I don’t know how many more. The creators may just be having a field day when it comes to writing these sequels, but remakes are bolder. Imagine peeking into a well established universe such as Disney and deciding to make a live action “Dumbo”. It’s tricky but it can also turn out really well; the remake is there because boundaries have been moved. And as much as I disagree with a lot of remakes (I seriously would have left “Ben Hur” and “Blade Runner” alone) I can see why they exist and why we sometimes need them.

And I’ll finish this, with a slightly anxious heart at the thought that “Lion King” is gonna be a live action film. The only thing I know about it is that I’m gonna cry too much to it, and I don’t even regret that. Tears are brave, you guys, it means you’re in touch with your emotions. Or that you just love “Lion King” too much and have no fear in admitting it.

‘Til next time

Anja

The book or the movie?

I am finally getting better from my cold, it was rough but I made it (weeeee!)

I decided not to promise anything anymore – like writing every day.
I’ll try to do it 3 to 4 times a week, because of all the work I have, which is mostly computer related; my eyes hurt, my back and other parts of my body hurt, too, so I try to make time in between all the stuff I have to do, to actually get up and stretch.

I had an epiphany recently, so I’ll talk about it today.
A couple of weeks ago, a movie called “Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children” was released and fans are crazy mad that the movie can’t compare to the books whatsoever. Coincidentally, I also ran into an article last week about a number of authors who were unhappy with the movie adaptations of their books.
Some of the most famous examples of that are Stephen King’s dissatisfaction with Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of “The Shining”, Anthony Burgess’ disappointment over, again, Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” and P.L. Travers’ hate towards the animated penguins in “Mary Poppins”.

There is a lesson to be learned here – Stanley Kubrick did whatever the eff he wanted and, more importantly, one’s vision will always clash with another’s.

I’d be terrified to give my story to someone and let them turn it into their own. But that’s what Walt Disney did with “Mary Poppins” and what Kubrick did with both “The Shining” and “A Clockwork Orange” – Kubrick’s genius is highly valued and exemplified, but honestly, honestly, honestly… I disagree with his adaptations, too. I love Stanley Kubrick, and his cooperation with Peter Sellers has brought up some of my favorite movies ever (“Dr. Strangelove” at the very top) but he did have his own vision that clashed with the messages of the novels.
I read both “The Shining” and “A Clockwork Orange”; I will defend Anthony Burgess’ “A Clockwork Orange” until my dying breath. I read this book in its extended form three times. It was a piece that came to me at a great time of my life, when I could clearly understand Alex and the society he lived in, when I sensed everything he said between the lines and the message he wanted to send.  The movie couldn’t tell you those things because there was no monologue in the form of a voice-over to truly give it justice, and there was the old ‘ultraviolence’ more than anything else… It was very shallow compared to the book.
I won’t say more about this. It’s not what I want to speak of, but using these two books, I wanna tell everyone – don’t compare the book and the movie. Never ever.

Comparing a book to its movie adaptation is like saying red is pink.
A lot of you may disagree with me, and I understand that IT IS important to compare them because the movie was based on the book and so the story should be the same, the plot, the characters, the details… George R.R. Martin let those ‘meanies’ called writers and producers at HBO change his 56321 page books into their own televised versions of things because the books are different than the TV series. There are things that need to be understood about turning a novel into a screen product, and the first one, the main one and the one we all love to hate is – handsome people, with on-screen charisma and hopefully some talent, will be cast more often than the not so handsome ones; there’s a boatload of examples in “Game of Thrones”.

A movie can tell you visually what a book tells you with words, but only written word can be straightforward about what someone is feeling internally – “She was sad because the last days of her life were upon her and she felt like she hasn’t lived it through just yet; she wondered what was missing so terribly from her existence that she had to do before her dying breath, that would make her feel like she’s lived a full and happy life?”
I just made this up but it’s an example that works in this context – on screen, this lady could well be looking in the distance and through a window, but without a fitting screenplay or story around it, without a worthy actor to convey this, you will not know that this is what the lady is truly thinking. This needs to be revealed through further actions in the screen adaptation of the movie, such as this woman doing her best to try new things out until one fits her perfectly.

Then, there’s the aspect of the director and the actor. The actor reads from the screenplay, which was written according to the book but was changed for the purpose of the screen story and the entire form of a screenplay; the director then wants this character to look more beautiful and maybe with longer hair, all for their own vision, and for that vision to work the actor needs to be a sounding name for the sake of the producers and the audiences; the novel’s author will shake their head in disbelief as the woman is now different from the one in their novel, not even dying nor contemplating, but doing things because she wants to try it all.
See, the two versions end up as very different. A filmmaker thinks like a filmmaker, which means a screenplay needs to be engaging, first; second, the cast must be appealing so that the estimated budget for the filming can ultimately be returned and the movie could possibly gain some profit; if the movie doesn’t promise profit, it will not gain producers. Without producers, the budget is virtually non-existent and without a budget, filming can be postponed until the end of days.

With the example of Stanley Kubrick and “The Shining”, Stephen King’s idea was that Jack Torrance was not evil nor predestined to become evil prior to entering the haunted hotel; it was the hotel that drove him mad. Jack Nicholson looked crazy in the first minute of the film, Kubrick said okay, and then “The Shining” was just a movie about this guy on the verge who simply went crazy because his wife was annoying and it was freezing and there was no one in the hotel but a wrinkly lady in the bathtub and whatnot. The movie is pretty good, but it’s not the book, if I were to go ahead and do what I say we shouldn’t, which is compare them to each other.
The novel “The Shining” is more chilling, more terrifying and gives insight to the deepest corners of both Jack’s mind and the hotel’s history and vivid characters haunting it.

Considering all the aspects I listed above, Jack Nicholson and Stanley Kubrick were good enough faces to get produced; whether Kubrick cared about money or not is a whole different story – he had a vision he wasn’t willing to let go.
A director should be admired because of that, like Kubrick generally is. That’s actually great since he was a spectacular visionary.
But King is a masterful visionary, too; his insight into a character can’t be transferred into any sort of movie, TV series or the like (unless there’s a voice-over and a massive budget and a returning series and someone willing to go as crazy as his characters do).

Whenever you get the urge to see a screen adaptation of a novel, try to completely detach yourself from the prior knowledge. That is difficult, I know, but see the movie with fresh eyes. And then decide which one you enjoyed more; many will say: “The book was better” and I’d encourage you to explain further, but I can anticipate what you might tell me.
Still, the color pink is a lighter shade of the color red, so you can choose which one is which in the movie-book situation.

‘Til next time

Anja

To be or not to be (a screenwriter)?

I caught the flu yesterday, so I was feeling completely inept to exist, let alone write something mindful, honest and captivating.

I don’t truly believe that captivating, or even good writing can come from the first work we ever write. There are honest exceptions, to whose authors I congratulate wholeheartedly, since they have the true talent to make a story happen.
Writing, just like anything else, must come through hard work, showing up more often than not and always seeking out inspiration.

When I was in 2nd year of college, I found a bunch of my old notebooks from 8th grade (the years 2006-7). They were safely tucked in my drawer, and I opened them out of curiosity and for the sake of nostalgia.
What I found in there was a made-up premise for a story about a bunch of scientists and their assistants who are going to take a private plane to the Amazon rainforest and research the dying species to see if they can find the cause. But then, their plane crashes due to bad weather and they end up in the core of the forest. They need to work together so that they can survive the harsh conditions of the forest, and they meet up with strange insects, animals, and even tribespeople who are more or less willing to eat them.
In 2013, Eli Roth made a movie with an insanely similar premise, called “The Green Inferno” and when I saw the trailer I froze, because maybe a week before seeing it, I had gone through my notebook of ideas.

Can you imagine that? I guess it happens more often than anyone would think, especially with professional screenwriters, but to someone so plain as me, this looked like a mind-blowing coincidence – if Eli Roth could think of it, and he has both the funds and the ideas to constantly make films, then my ideas may not be as bad.

In that 8th grader’s notebook, there were at least 5 other stories with a premise, character’s names, plot, ending and locations all incorporated into it. I was blown away by how detailed and creative I was back in the day (nowadays, growing up takes more out of me than anything else) and I thought I could use some of those ideas and create a screenplay.

I pondered it and realized that I really enjoyed those days, and when I started writing again, I felt as happy as I could be. Even writing this now, you can’t tell how happy I feel just by doing this.

Everyone usually fantasizes about being an actor, some sort of face at the foreword of the movie industry but I know I am hella bad at being in photographs. I was once declined because of my bad photogenic skills despite giving a nice performance at an audition.
I didn’t even care about that. My camera shyness would have gotten the better of me anyway. My ultimate dream is to direct, to be the pilot and get my vision safely from one part of the world to another.
But more than directing, I truly believe that writers can give a story its true meaning and its life. I read a bunch of screenplays on the awesome website The Blacklist and the latest one I read was “Gone Girl”; I fell in love with Gillian Flynn since I love the movie very much, but more than that, her concise writing of the action sequences and the spontaneity and charm of the dialogues made me read the whole thing within a day, an hour maybe.

Every time I read a screenplay, I think – “God, I wanna do that! This is who I wanna be.” and it’s stronger each time. I’ve taken a ton of courses for screenwriting, I’ve written a screenplay and I even took a directing class. I am ready.

I don’t think it’s easy. I don’t want it to be easy. I want it to be rewarding. I want to write a story that will have life breathed into it, no matter how bad or good. The sheer joy of seeing something mine get into the world and leave a mark or a scratch is what I hope for.
A good writer can do so much for an actor, as well as a good sandwich can make someone come back to the restaurant which made it, which seems like a dumb comparison but it is kind of true – you get good food, you come back, you felt nourished, you were satisfied, and the ingredients were fresh, well combined with each other and healthy, for the most part.
That’s how a writer, and then a director too, I guess, can make an actor feel: nourished, taken care of and respected.

There are more important things in the world, but the discovery of film changed its history for the most part. The industry has evolved so much that moviemakers have the power to convey the struggles of people all over the world, as well as inspirational stories and messages. That is why I want to write. The movies can be our best friends, too.

‘Til next time.

Anja

 

The case of the TV series

My last post was two days ago, despite saying that I’ll write every day.
It was difficult to promise that because I am super busy every day, but I am also trying to give this blog some direction.
After my top ten movies, I considered making more lists, but I find it very sudden to enter the universe of specified lists, such as ‘My favorite Robert de Niro roles’ or ‘My favorite German movies’, for example.
There’s nothing wrong with being specific, I just feel like I should explore myself and my possibilities before entering such an unforgiving, detail-oriented territory. And I don’t have a list of favorite German movies, either.

I wanted to talk about television dramas, instead, since I feel I should mention that the blog will be about that, too.

It’s no secret that even the most hardcore moviegoers have been letting themselves have some (guilty) pleasure in watching television dramas.
Who could blame them, since TV dramas have become very eloquent, detailed and attention-drawing.

Marvel has explored its possibilities greatly by joining forces with Netflix, with the presentation of “Marvel’s Daredevil” being my favorite one, although “Marvel’s Jessica Jones” and “Marvel’s Luke Cage” are chasing after it rapidly with, lesser but still stirring, success.
HBO have been at it for years – let’s talk “The Wire”, “The Sopranos”, “Game of Thrones” and my personal favorite, “Boardwalk Empire”; they love it all gritty, hands-on and with shock value at the core of some, if not all of them.
And Netflix made everything into a binge by releasing all its series in full.

I thought I could explore this case of the TV series through the drama series “Narcos”.

I put a picture of Wagner Moura portraying Pablo Escobar in “Narcos” above; this dramatic series has taken over a lot of minds and even hearts, but why is it so great?
For me, it’s the authenticity of the cast, the chance for Latin American actors to shine (and how darn well they all do) and most dialogues being spoken in Spanish. I talked about my special appreciation of authenticity in my number 9 movie on the Top 10 list, “Apocalypto”, but I know it’s not only me. The factor of many Latin American names is pretty great, but how many binge watching fans can name more than ‘that guy from Game of Thrones who got his head smashed in’ in “Narcos”? Doesn’t matter! It still works for everyone, because the actors are good, the show was filmed in its original location of Medellin, Columbia, ‘the guy from GoT’ (actually named Pedro Pascal, a brilliant human and talent)  and Boyd Holbrook actually met the men they’re playing, and Wagner Moura had to gain 20 kilograms to be the best Pablo there ever was.

“Narcos” doesn’t just work on Wagner Moura’s weight gain, but its fuel is his talent. I was extremely happy to see Moura in there, because I loved him in a few Brazilian movies and also because a few years ago I had a dream that he played a narco in a movie (I really, really did).
Most importantly, he did a job so well that people who never knew who Escobar was now imagine him as the guy. Despite a few mistakes in the historical and character accuracy, everything tailored to them worked out really well for the series.
I LOVE the aforementioned fact that there aren’t many faces that we can see so often; Boyd Holbrook has a big career in film without many people even knowing it, and so does Wagner Moura, but otherwise, they are only two out of a sea of characters (there are a few more Latin American actors who have very long careers behind them, but I am not IMDB *sorry*)

Writing is really, really important, especially in a long-running series; if it waivers even for a moment, it can make the watchful eye of the binge watchers open their paranoid notebooks and start to analyze what exactly happened there.
Writing in “Narcos” stayed pretty consistent and gave every occurring character some meaning that led to him meeting his or her fate in the end  – whether it was somewhat good or bad.
So a screenplay is the backbone of the television drama.

Look what happened to “Downton Abbey” – although the show was quite good all over, I couldn’t get over Fellowes’ need to write up highly unlikely stories for characters just because the people, or even he, wanted them back. As a writer, I love all my characters, but when one needs an ending – they will get it no matter what. A detached love is the key phrase, despite it being kind of ironic.
“Narcos” could never ever end with Pablo Escobar fleeing and staying alive, because it was based on a real drug kingpin’s life, so that was the difference between these two series. But, even if Escobar was fictional and beloved, his ending needed to come. All that rises must fall.

The special case of writing in the TV series is important; a long-running series can explore the dark and light parts of many characters, while a movie can’t; there’s more room for authenticity and improvement in writing. “Breaking Bad” got better in time, “Marvel’s Daredevil” flourished in its 2nd season, and it was all because of the inevitable passage of time.
While a great movie usually focuses on one single message (get the main guy to get the girl, get Max to break free, get Frodo to Mordor), a series focuses on a character, and more episodes give us freedom to understand a character. Movie can be a character analysis, but a movie almost always requires action in the form of at least three acts.

I can’t really say which one is better – my personal preference is a movie because I don’t need to take out hours or days to be impressed but I love a good TV series, too, especially if it explores something human and full of both error and success.
Which series do you like? Do you like “Narcos”? Let me know!

‘Til tomorrow (I guess)

Anja