Category Archives: The Fictorians

Beyond All Comprehension

Mothman Prophecies Poster
Mothman Prophecies Poster

It’s not often in movies that we are presented with a truly alien force.  In this case, when I say “alien” I mean more H.P. Lovecraft than Mr. Spock.  It makes sense.  We like to recognize the motivations of the characters we are watching onscreen.  Writing characters no one can relate to is one of the basic no-nos of Writing 101.  So perhaps it’s no surprise that when a film elects to do so anyway, it risks underperforming at the box office.

At 53% on Rotten Tomatoes and having earned just $32 million domestically (barely breaking even on its budget), The Mothman Prophecies is the very definition of an unremarkable film, critically and commercially speaking.  But it’s an underrated gem in my opinion.  While not perfect, there is one thing the film does fantastically well: present viewers with a truly alien entity while drenching every minute of screen time in unrelenting creepiness.

The film is loosely based on an urban legend.   Mothman is a legend local to the Point Pleasant area of rural West Virginia.  Described as a man-sized flying creature with glowing red eyes, it was sighted frequently in the Point Pleasant region from November 1966 to December 1967.  It’s been variously described as an alien, a cryptid, or some sort of supernatural entity.   Accounts of sightings vary, but many involve descriptions of precognitive visions of upcoming disasters, and this is where the movie devotes a great deal of its focus.

The film begins with domestic bliss quickly shattered.  While driving home from purchasing their dream house in Washington, D.C., John Klein (Richard Gere) and his wife Mary (Debra Messing) are in a car accident.   Mary catches a glimpse of a red-eyed something flying toward their car at high speed.  She swerves to avoid this apparition and injures her head in the wreck.

Tragedy follows, yet it’s not Mary’s head injury which kills her; she wakes up concussed but otherwise unharmed.  But her glimpse of the Mothman apparition has opened her mind in some way.  She wakes certain something is deeply wrong inside her.  An MRI reveals the truth, an aggressive brain tumor that has been growing for some time.  A tumor the Kleins would never have discovered had it not been for the accident and the entity that caused it.

The remainder of the film documents John’s increasing obsession with these entities that foresaw his wife’s death and their seeming obsession with the town and people of Point Pleasant.  A simple enough premise, in fact it’s arguably pretty thin on plot.  What kept me gripped was the overridingly creepy tone and atmosphere.  I’ve thought a lot about the film and its secret–and a good lesson for anyone trying to recreate the same sensation in their writing–is that it keeps the viewer constantly off balance.  The viewer keeps desperately searching for some set of rules these creatures operate by, but the movie throws nothing but curve balls.  It’s a dangerous technique, as it can give the impression that the writer is simply making up rules as he goes, but handled properly, it creates the impression that a mere mortal writer can conjure up something that is outside human comprehension.   It’s an illusion, of course, but a potent one.  Below are just some of the examples of this from the film.

John sets out to drive to Richmond, VA from Washington, D.C. only to arrive at Point Pleasant in the middle of the night.  He has no recollection of how he got there, not to mention how he traveled an impossible distance in a mere three hours.

The entities speak to a friend of John’s from the drain of a sink.  “In a place this size, equator, three hundred will die,” they prophesy.  And they are correct.

A creature calling itself Indrid Cold calls John late one night and begins reciting facts about his life to him while John records its answers.  “Did you read my mind?”  John finally asks.

“I have no need to,” it responds.   John later discovers that this was no true voice, but some kind of electrical impulse operating outside the range of human vocal cords.

And at a bar one day, a nicely printed business card is delivered to John.  It reads:

Georgetown.

Friday.

Noon.

Mary will call.

At this point in the movie, Mary has been dead for two years.  Yet we the viewers have seen Mary, or something that looks like Mary, stalking John from the edges of the frame, even though John himself has not.  And in Georgetown, on Friday, at noon, John’s phone begins to ring…

If you love being creeped out by a story as much as I do, this stuff is gold.  The film depicts John’s downward spiral into obsession with chilling verisimilitude.  Desperate for answers, he eventually tracks down another “survivor” of these creatures, Dr. Alexander Leek (Alan Bates).  But the entities are so alien that Dr. Leek has little in the way of explanation.   John is forced to confront the notion that his questions may have no answers, at least none that he can comprehend.

“I think we can assume that these entities are more advanced than us. Why don’t they just come right out and tell us what’s on their minds?” John asks.

“You’re more advanced than a cockroach,” Leek replies.  “Have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them?”

Of course, what John really wants to know is: why him?   Dr. Leek’s answer is my favorite line of the movie.  “You noticed them.  And they noticed that you noticed them.”  Gives me chills every time.

The Take Home:  When things start making sense, they stop being scary.  A lack of answers is unsatisfying to us by its very nature, but handled properly, it can create the illusion of a mystery that’s beyond our comprehension.  It’s a chilling tool to include in your writing toolbox.

Pirates of the Caribbean – The Curse of the Black Pearl

Pirates - IMDB imageI love this movie!  What an enjoyable tale.  Of course it’s a pirate movie and, like most people, I like pirate movies.  There’s something that stirs the blood at the mention of pirates, and this one delivers all the tropes we expect in a pirate flick:  tall ships, great battle sequences, swashbuckling heroes, a kidnapped governor’s daughter, and lots of pirate treasure.

But this movie rises above other pirate films for several reasons.  First, I love the fact that the treasure is cursed, and the pirates’ mission is more than just pillage, plunder, and loot.  They are seeking redemption, looking to undo the terrible curse that’s befallen them.  That’s a great twist that deepens the plot tremendously.

More importantly, this movie has something none of the others did:  Captain Jack Sparrow.

This fantastic character, brilliantly played by Johnny Depp, drives the movie into uncharted territory, and rightly earned him many awards.  Captain Jack is not the hero, he’s not the character the story hangs on, and yet he steals center stage in every scene he appears in.  Jack Sparrow is a pirate, but it’s often hard to decide which side he’s on.  He’s crafty, clever, and usually obtains his goals without having to fight, although he’s an accomplished fighter when required.

Jack Sparrow is the spice in the movie that allows the serious, epic tale to contain a solid thread of comedy without becoming silly, but the story could only work if he had straight-men characters like Will Turner to play off of.  As Director Gore Verbinsky stated, “You don’t want just the Jack Sparrow movie.  It’s like having a garlic milkshake.”

In the IMDB Top 100 movie characters of all time, Jack Sparrow is rated 32.

And in EmpireOnline, he’s voted number 8.

Pirates of the Caribbean would not have worked nearly so well without Jack Sparrow, just like Star Wars would not have been so great without Han Solo.

The main swashbuckling hero, the blacksmith Will Turner, is the character we want to succeed, but we’re drawn to Jack Sparrow.  His complexity, his murky agenda, his fresh quirkiness, fascinate us.  He represents the carefree outlaw, epitomizing freedom from responsibility and any constraints.  It’s a powerful draw to audiences looking for escape.  Jack Sparrow can do anything, with no limits, while other characters are constrained by their employment, social status, or lack of confidence.

So, what are some things we can learn from this iconic figure?

First, a healthy dose of humor is possible even in an otherwise serious story, but it needs to be approached carefully and woven in as a secondary thread.

Second, great characters are complex, multi-faceted figures that require planning and care and a dash of brilliance to bring to life.  Without the actor pushing the limits beyond the initial parameters laid out by the writers, Jack Sparrow never would have taken flight like he did.

Third, people are drawn to larger-than-life characters that struggle sometimes to decide their moral code, sometimes falling on the side of good, and sometimes on the side of not-so-good.

Fourth, great characters often don’t choose the easy, expected path.  For example, when Jack duels Will the first time, he refrains from shooting him.  We’re left wondering about the cryptic reference to the bullet, and whether or not he really didn’t want to hurt the dumb kid who got in his way, or if something else is going on.

Take Away:  When crafting your characters, look for figures who can embody more than their limited role originally suggests.  Work hard, with attention to detail, and leave room for flashes of inspiration that can leap from the foundation you’ve laid, and imbue your character with greatness.

What are some other iconic characters you can think of, and what makes them special?

(References from Wikipedia and IMDB)

Harry and Ginny, Book and Movie

A guest post by M. Scott Boone.

HP-Movie-Poster“The book is better.” We’ve all heard it; we’ve all said it.

But why do we make that judgment? And more importantly, how can we, as writers of said better books, use that reason to improve our writing? Harry and Ginny, Book and Movie

I’d like to explore the possibilities through the storytelling choices made in one subplot in the movie and book versions of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince – namely the romantic relationship between Harry and Ginny. That exploration should reveal two related pieces of guidance derived from where the book is better and one derived from what the movie did better.

I would give a spoiler warning, but if you haven’t yet read the books or seen the movies and were still planning to, I just want you to know that I am sorry Wilson fell off the raft and floated away. I am sure that was very traumatic for you.

Anyway, back to Harry and Ginny. Here’s how the book shows us Harry’s feelings for Ginny. Ron and Harry find Dean and Ginny kissing in a deserted hallway as they return from quidditch practice. Rowling reveals Harry’s feelings as he is experiencing them by taking us inside Harry:

It was as though something large and scaly erupted into life in Harry’s stomach, clawing at his insides: Hot blood seemed to flood into his brain, so that all thought was extinguished, replaced by a savage urge to jinx Dean into jelly. Wrestling with his sudden madness,…

Harry’s sudden realization is followed by an internal struggle over what to do about his feelings – how to keep them secret or how to act on them without incurring Ron’s wrath. Finally, Harry enters the Gryffindor common room and discovers that they have won the Quidditch Cup despite Harry’s detention and inability to play.

Harry looked around; there was Ginny running toward him; she had a hard, blazing look in her face as she threw her arms around him. And without thinking, without planning it, without worrying about the fact that fifty people were watching, Harry kissed her.

After several long moments – or it might have been half an hour – or possibly several sunlit days – they broke apart.

In the movie version, Harry and Ginny’s romantic relationship is developed in a very different manner. Rather than these sudden changes, the movie is sprinkled with growing clues about Harry and Ginny’s feelings for each other.

Ginny-BlendWhen Harry arrives at the Burrow at the beginning of the film, it is Ginny he sees in the window. Their greeting hug is awkward in a way meaningful to the viewer. We glimpse Harry’s face showing interest in Ginny’s answers to Fred and George’s questions about her romantic life. Harry later describes Ginny’s qualities in response to Ron’s questions in a telling manner.

Harry, and Harry alone, stands as Ginny takes her seat for dessert at one of Professor Slughorn’s dinner parties, earning a knowing smirk from Hermione and a later quip of “although I think Harry enjoyed dessert.”

While Harry is trying to comfort Hermione, upset over the pairing of Ron and Lavender, Hermione states Harry’s feelings for us. “How does it feel Harry, when you see Dean with Ginny? I know. You’ re my best friend, I’ve seen the way you look at her.” And after an awfully-timed appearance by Ron and Lavender that is followed by an “angry birds’ attack on Ron, Harry admits to his feelings. “It feels like this.”

The visual communication of their feelings continues at the Christmas dinner at the Burrow. Ginny feeds him a pie before Ron interrupts. They almost kiss before the Burrow is attacked. Finally, they kiss in a drawn out scene in the Room of Requirement while hiding the Half-Blood Prince’s old potions book.

In other words, it is much more drawn out and entirely different from the book.

I am not trying to say that the storytellers who put the movie together did a poor job. Rather, those who tell stories in movie form have a different palette of tools, and that difference subtly changes how a particular story can be told.  More importantly for my point here, paying attention to those differences allows a writer to jump on those advantages provided by the written storytelling form – namely (1) deep penetration into a character’s feelings and (2) believable surprise.

First, the ability to go inside a character is a tremendous advantage to the writer, to express the perfect feelings and create the perfect mood. Rowling does this, masterfully in my opinion, in quoted instances above.

Second, having the ability to go inside a character’s head allows an author to reveal information as a surprise. In the above quoted scene, in which Ron and Harry stumble upon Dean and Ginny kissing, Harry’s intense feelings are a shock to him and presumably a surprise to the reader. In the movie version, Harry’s feelings for Ginny are shown in many small snippets that build throughout the movie. The advantage is that the writer can create a greater emotional change within a single scene – making it a more powerful experience for the reader.

Conversely, while books can do some things better than movies, the reverse can also be true. It is possible for a movie to do something better than the book, and in turn, we as writers can learn from that.

This example may be a controversial point for many fans, but I believe the movies do a stronger job both at developing Ginny as a character and at showing that she is a worthy romantic interest for Harry.

And the Half-Blood Prince movie did this with only one scene. When the Burrow is attacked during the Christmas holidays (perhaps one of the scenes most hated by fans of the books), Harry chases Bellatrix into the fields in an attempt to gain vengeance for Sirius’s murder. Remus and Tonks do not follow Harry because of a ring of fire around the Burrow; Ginny on the other hand leaps through the smallest of gaps in the fire without even a pause or thought. And with that brief action, in a scene that probably only takes a couple of seconds, Ginny is worthy.  Remus, a former professor and long time member of the Order of the Phoenix, and Tonks, an experienced auror, hesitate, but young Ginny does not.

The portrayal of that single action, to my mind at least, says more about who she is and why she is worthy than pretty much everything said about Ginny in all seven books.

We could just say that it was a masterful bit of storytelling by the makers of the movie, but we should go further and ask if it can teach us anything as writers.

I think it can – it can teach us about the limitations of strict points of view. I’m not by any stretch saying that writers should abandon strict points of view with their ability to create deeper penetration inside characters’ heads and greater reader immersion. Rather, I’m suggesting that we should recognize how it may limit us and work creatively around that limitation.

In the books, we see Ginny primarily through Harry’s eyes. We see her throughout the books, but only in the background until he realizes his feelings. At that point her worth as a romantic interest is demonstrated primarily by Harry being attracted to her.

In the movies, particularly the scene I identified above, we are outside Harry’s head. We can see Ginny acting, not as Harry viewing her actions, but as herself. While the cinematic viewpoint does not allow us deeply inside her head, we are drawn to identify with her more than we are in the books that are so focused on Harry’s viewpoint.

How might we capture that sort of power in writing, if we are not going to switch viewpoints or step back from a strict viewpoint? It will have to be creative, but the key, I think, is to make the character see and think about the action, or have another character relate the action to the viewpoint character and have them think about what it means. By having the viewpoint character trying to put themselves in the head of a non-viewpoint character, the reader is invited to do likewise.

Take away: To write that book that is better than the movie, take the best advantage possible of a writer’s ability to take readers inside a character’s head while being creative about solving problems created by strict points of view.

*          *          *

M. Scott Boone lives in Atlanta, Georgia, where he works as a law professor in order to support a clowder of cats. He writes about legal issues affecting writers at writerinlaw.com. When not writing or teaching, he is a self-proclaimed soccervangelist.

Promises, Promises, Promises

MV5BMTk2NTI1MTU4N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODg0OTY0Nw@@._V1_SY317_CR0,0,214,317_

Sure, the Avengers has its faults, but the weaker aspects of the film are more than made up for by aspects that worked unbelievably well. Pacing, the juggling of an ensemble cast, great dialogue, the list goes on and on.

The Writing Excuses podcast recently covered what the Avengers did right, which everyone should give a listen to, if you haven’t already.

One of the things I think this movie handles very well is the making of promises. Of course, this post is far too short to cover the subject exhaustively, so we’ll stick to just a few scenes.

The film starts out with an obvious promise. The Other’s voice-over promises an impending invasion, sets up the stakes a bit and asks  “…and the humans, what can they do but burn?”

If that isn’t a loaded question, I don’t know what is.

That scene is followed by Loki’s arrival, which gives us all kinds of promises. It tells us what to expect from the film: lots of nifty effects (doorways to the other end of space are so pretty), quick pacing (things turn from bad [the Tesseract misbehaving] to worse [Loki running off with said Tesseract] in no time at all), snappy repartee (Whedon’s specialty that you have to hear to believe), and possible global annihilation (Agent Hill’s admonition that “there may not be a minimum safe distance”).

We also get all kinds of character promises. Fury’s willingness to be buried shows how far he’s willing to go. Hawkeye’s competence in this scene sets him up as a valid threat when he’s turned to the dark side and lets us easily accept him into the team when he gets his own personality back. Similarly, Dr. Selwig’s knowledge of the Teseract promises the capacity to create a stable door for Loki’s army to use, and his ability to sneak in a “kill switch” to turn it off again. Also, his mention of Thor, and Loki’s subsequent reaction, promises equal danger to Selwig himself somewhere down the line. And am I the only one who, upon seeing Loki’s first close up when he arrives, thought he was pulling a fantastic impersonation of the Joker’s signature grin? This immediately sets this Loki apart from the one we met in Thor, taking him in a darker direction while still promising some fun when he makes all hell break loose.

A little later, Fury states that he believes the Avengers just need the right push to do what they need them to do. That push turns out to be Agent Coulson’s death, and while we weep over the loss of such an entertaining and likable character, the death is not at all as meaningless as it would have otherwise been without the promise it helps fulfill.

But not all the promises are made at the beginning of the film. Almost halfway through the film, there’s a promise that, when fulfilled, is probably one of the most memorable moments in recent cinema. While at work in the lab, Stark says in an offhand way that Loki is “playing with Acme dynamite” and that he’s going to be there when it explodes in Loki’s face. Now, he says this to Bruce Banner, who we soon learn is the “Acme dynamite” in question. He’s the explosion Loki’s banking on using to get the Avengers out of the way. Anyone who’s seen the movie knows how that turns out, and while Stark isn’t there to see the Hulk toss Loki around like a rag doll, it’s still incredibly satisfying to watch. That unforgettable moment is also promised repeatedly with Whedon’s proclivity to knock Asgardians out of frame in the middle of saying something.

Now, I’ll admit that this film is cheating a bit. As part of a series of movies taking place within the Marvel universe, Whedon is able to lean on promises made in previous films to create a more fulfilling experience for the audience. He also has to make promises meant to be carried over to subsequent films.

Taking from this experience can be difficult depending on one’s style. People who heavily outline their books will have an easier time of planning these promises, as they know what’s going to happen. As a discovery writer, I have to go back to put these in after the fact, but I’m learning that my promises don’t have to be clustered in the first part of the story, nor do they call attention to themselves. Yet, if nothing else is learned from a close observation of Whedon’s use of making and fulfilling promises, it’s that taking the time to pay attention to the promises you make can allow easier handling of other aspects, like juggling a large cast of characters, and can make the story far more powerful and effective.

Got another favorite, or a movie you think does it better? Leave a comment and let us know.