Why you should be watching: “Quarry”

Cinemax has always been referred to in movies as “I get-to-see-a-lot-of-sex channel”, because it’s always focused on more artistic films and those that hail from all over the world. In the emergence of two channels of Cinemax, channel number one usually contains a more known program, such as blockbusters and TV series that they themselves produce, and then on channel two, you get to see the sex.

After the ending of the exciting and action-packed bloodbath that was “Banshee”, Cinemax produced and released a retrospective into the 1970s in the form of the series called “Quarry”, which was actually based on the novel of the same name, written by Max Allan Collins.
The main character is Mac Conway who returns from his 2nd tour in Vietnam and gets a bad reputation among the locals because of a scandal that happened during his service. Not just him, but his best pal Arthur Solomon too, has seen the hell of war and came home with a semi-calm head. This is just the beginning, and the plot can be seen in episode one already – Arthur is less than semi-calm, he’s barely 3/4 calm as he takes on a dirty job worth $30,000 (which can today equal to an amount from $132,000 to $420,000) and asks for Mac’s help.

Why is the show important? It deals with two major themes that were a big issue in the past and are a big issue now, too. The relevance of giving war veterans their space and understanding when they zone out, sleepwalk or don’t want to talk doesn’t ever seem to be clear to people, especially to the wives of the men who return in such programs; you’ve seen it in every war themed movie in some way. It’s difficult to cheer for someone who’s trying to push their way into a man’s head when he’s seen dead bodies and waken up next to them for two years in a row. Despite feeling left out and abandoned, Mac’s wife can’t seem to get the elementary, at least that’s how it seems in the first few episodes.
The narrative moves slowly but has incredible scenes which reveal to us how both sides feel at the same time. This was important during the Vietnamese war, and it is important for anyone going to the battlefield in the Middle East today; his wife elaborates why she felt left out and abandoned, while Mac does his best to mutter out why he did two tours in Vietnam and what it meant for him.
I’m sure that the era when there was a general pressure for men to prove themselves through military service made some people grow up sooner than they had anticipated to.

What makes the situation harder is the fact that Mac and Arthur can’t get any legitimate jobs that they very much qualify for; Arthur bags a physically demanding gig which is way below his abilities or education, just because he came back from the war and may or may have not been involved in a mass murder.
The hipocrisy of the country that honors the men who go to war and then rejects them when they wish to move on with their lives is shown strongly and without beautification.

The other matter that is so important in the show is the treatment and inequality of America’s African-American citizens. Nowadays, we’ve been hearing on the news how police keeps treating their nation and how Donald Trump invites rallies to expel “bad ombres” from the country (I am not American nor do I live there, so I can only get informed through the news and programs) which feels unrealistic in this day and age, to be such a man and think in such a way; the situation depicted in “Quarry” shows a time of early integration of African-American citizens into the community, and Arthur Solomon’s family, and Arthur himself, are black citizens.
The very depiction of the attempts of integration and mistreatment is painful to see, if you are a normal functioning human with a heart, that is. While we watch it and think: “No one ever deserves this”, this isn’t a fantasized situation – it was real and it was recent. When we look back, 1972 is only 44 years ago from today, so not even a round 50 to say things are different; not that the number 50 would make it somehow justifiable.

Overall, the performance of Logan Marshall-Green as Mac Conway has brought our long awaited attention to him. He played supporting roles for most of his career and never really stood out. “Quarry” has shown us that he is around for a reason – he plays his calmness and his anger with a subtle difference. We can tell when he’s relaxed and happy, but most of his life has been intertwined with some of the most stressful situations known to man, so whenever he gets a release, it’s rare and valuable; Marshall-Green takes us slowly and nicely through the pain and the discomfort.

Some supporting characters carry heavy roles on their shoulders but I won’t elaborate who they are in order not to spoil anything too much. The actor Damon Herriman who plays Buddy has a huge history in the TV series universe, and he is my personal highlight of the show. Buddy is another kind of reject among the rejects of war, but he displays his insecurities through flamboyance and jokes. He rarely ever feels well but somehow manages to see things could get better for him; his relationship with his mother helps him remain encouraged, despite the relationship’s ridiculous and sometimes strange qualities.
Peter Mullan plays The Broker, another very important supporting character in Mac’s life and Peter Mullan is already a veteran in acting; The Broker’s omnipresence makes us dread but when he appears, we all know what’s coming next. When we see a character and know what’s about to happen, without ever needing him to explain, we should know that that’s a mark of a good program.

“Quarry” is heavy, gritty, emotional, captivating and exciting.

‘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 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