Meetings of Minds: Famous Writers in Film

movieIf there’s one thing the Book Snark loves almost as much as loves books, it’s movies. So when these two art forms come together, it is an explosive wet dream for the BS.

Since the dawn of moviedom, Hollywood has been making films about writers because, let’s face it, writers tend to live far more interesting lives than you or me.  If I were to cite every notable movie about a famous writer, this post would exceed my allowed bandwidth, and my little snarkfingers would more than likely be worn to the nub from typing so damn much. So I’ve opted to focus on just ten films about writers made in the last 25 years.

I’ve compiled a list of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  But one thing is certain: the lives portrayed here were probably more fascinating, more complex, and more intense than we will ever know.

Henry & June (1990).  The first film to ever receive an NC-17 rating, writer-director Philip Kaufman helms this erotically-charged look at the love triangle of American writers Henry Miller and Anais Nin and Miller’s wife, actress June.  The movie is far from perfect, but it does a brilliant job of breathing breathtaking life into 1920s Paris.  The mood is so perfectly captured that you can’t help but feel transported there, even if the story isn’t particularly well-told.  Nin is a captivating historical figure, and I’d love to see a better film made about her one day.  But for now, Henry & June will do.  The ravishing cinematography, by the way, boosted my final score by an entire letter grade.  Grade: B

Iris (2001).  Though I’ve always found British writer/philosopher Iris Murdoch’s books hard to get into, I’ve nonetheless been fascinated by her stunning mind.  And it is this mind that writer-director Richard Eyre explores so flawlessly in Iris.  The film focuses on Murdoch at two periods in her life: as a vibrant, magnetic, fiercely intelligent young woman (played by the always-exceptional Kate Winslet), and as a slowly-fading old woman ravaged by Alzheimer’s (played by the always-exceptional Judi Dench).  This compare-and-contrast approach to Murdoch’s life is unique, masterful, and more than a little upsetting (I rewatched this film a few weeks ago and sobbed for a good hour afterward).  But there is something more to this movie that one might not expect: a love story.  Towering over the examination of Iris’s mind is the beautiful love affair of Murdoch and her husband, John Bayley.  And despite the dynamic work of the two stellar actresses portraying Iris, the film belongs to Jim Broadbent (who won an Oscar for his work here) as Bayley.  He will break your heart.  Grade: A

Mrs. Parker & the Vicious Circle (1994).  When it comes to footloose-and-fancy-free literary figures, no one fills the bill like the legendary Dorothy Parker.  It’s a shame the movie based on her life, particularly during the Algonquin Round Table years, is such a dud.  Though writer-director Alan Rudolph does have a knack for making his unpalletable films something special: he evokes powerhouse performances from his leading ladies - performances that lift his work to a whole new level (another case in point: Afterglow).  In Mrs. Parker & the Vicious Circle, Rudolph had the great good sense to hire Jennifer Jason Leigh to portray Parker.  Leigh’s performance is gritty, raw, and emotionally naked.  Much like Mrs. Parker herself.  Grade: B-

Out of Africa (1985).  The epic tale of Danish writer Isak Dinesen, a.k.a. Baroness Karen Blixen, and her early years as a young woman on a Kenyan coffee plantation.  Amidst the drama of the farm and the tumultuousness of her marriage, Blixen begins a life-altering love affair with big game hunter Denys Finch-Hatton.  Meryl Streep turns in her usual tour-de-force and propels what, in another actor’s hands, could’ve been a dreadfully boring film. Add to this the smart direction by Sydney Pollack, David Watkin’s gorgeous cinematography, and John Barry’s lush score, and you’ve got a movie that does justice to the mesmerizing life of an inimitable woman.  Grade: A-

Quills (2000).  Finally!  That old genius/perv the Marquis De Sade gets his story put on the big screen.  Quills turns a lens on the Marquis’ years at the Charanton Insane Asylum, as he writes some of his greatest works, which are smuggled out for publication by a rogue young laundress (once again: the always-exceptional Kate Winslet).  Director Philip Kaufman (of Henry & June) and writer Doug Wright create a deliciously dark, often terrifying tale of the power of literature and the twisted, brilliant mind of the Marquis (played flawlessly by Geoffrey Rush).  Also notable is Joaquin Phoenix, as a young priest on a mission to save the Marquis’s soul…only to love his own in the process.  Grade: B+

Shadowlands (1993).  In his later years, acclaimed British writer C.S. Lewis romanced a cancer-stricken American poet named Joy Gresham.  Their story is told sensitively, yet unsatisfyingly, in Sir Richard Attenborough’s Shadowlands (based on William Nicholson’s play).  Anthony Hopkins gives a strong performance as Lewis, and Debra Winger, as Gresham, is emotionally-nuanced and quite good - even if her New York accent is atrocious.  Though the film attempts to be smart and informed, it unfortunately doesn’t give us much insight into these two interesting literary figures.  There are, however, a couple of truly touching moments that will stick with you.  Here’s one of them.  Grade: C+

Sylvia (2003).  How this stinkfest ever got made is beyond me.  Gwyneth Paltrow as the iconic poet Sylvia Plath is one of the most appalling examples of an actor totally, completely ill-suited to a role.  The whole film - which had so much potential - is frightfully dull.  The only reason I did not give this movie a failing grade was the presence of Daniel Craig, who portrays Ted Hughes.  Daniel Craig is always fun to look at.  But as for the film itself…Plath deserved better.  Grade: D-

Tom & Viv (1994).  Brian Gilbert directed this film adaptation of Michael Hastings’s play based on the first marriage of American expatriate writer T.S. Eliot to Vivienne Haigh-Wood. The movie looks intimately at the connective sparks of the Eliots’ relationship, made all the more difficult by Vivienne’s mental instability and T.S.’s poetic betrayals.  Though it loses its steam in a few spots, Tom & Viv is saved by the cast of notable performances.  Willem Dafoe is wonderful as Eliot, and Rosemary Harris, as Vivienne’s mother, deserves a special shout-out for a job well done.  But the film is owned by Miranda Richardson, whose performance as Vivienne is so fiery and devastating that she all but sets the screen ablaze.  Grade: B

Total Eclipse (1995).  Another craptacular movie attempting to do justice to a monumental literary figure, Total Eclipse is the wildly uneven tale of legendary poet Arthur Rimbaud (Leonardo DiCaprio, as miscast here as Paltrow was in Sylvia) and his love affair with fellow writer Paul Verlaine.  What could have been a deliciously homoerotic love story is instead a series of uninspired scenes attempting to capture the passion of new love fueled by the bigger passion of great writing.  If you can stay awake during this one, the BS will buy your Jujubes the next time you hit the cinema.  Grade: F

Wilde (1997).  Another terrific Brian Gilbert-directed bio, Wilde is a visionary and unconventional glimpse into the life of a man who could best be described as visionary and unconventional.  Stephen Fry shines as Oscar Wilde, Jude Law (in an early role) is sexy and effective as Wilde’s young lover Bosie Douglas, and Vanessa Redgrave, portraying Wilde’s mother here, can do no wrong in my book.  But the real success of the film lies in its unique ability to inhabit not only the story of Oscar Wilde’s life, but the life of his writing as well.  Told through bold and colorful sketches, Wilde is a wild good time.  Grade: B+

 

Image Source  MorgueFile

September 10, 2008 | Filed Under BS at the Movies | 4 Comments 

Are We Bound for Fahrenheit 451?: Sarah Palin & Her Failed Attempts at Library Censorship

No one knows for sure what titles were on Sarah Palin’s list of books to be banned. All we know is that, in 1996, the then-mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, confronted the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, about the processes in place for banning certain books from the library. Emmons, my hero of the day, responded to Palin, “I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books go on the library shelves.”

As expected, this was not the end of the issue. In a second conversation, Palin asked Emmons “if she could live with censorship of library books.” Emmons, like any normal person, was resolute. It was then that news sources began to report that Palin had threatened to fire Emmons for not giving “full support” to the mayor.

From all the stories available out there, it seems Palin’s attempts at library censorship, thankfully, failed. Emmons has been unavailable for comment on this 12-year-old issue, and most conservative news sources have swept it under the rug, claiming it irrelevant because of the time elapsed since the situation occurred, or, in many circles, claiming it never happened at all.

Time magazine last week did an interesting story on Palin, and this topic was addressed. John Stein, Wasilla’s former mayor, commented that “Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times.” Case in point: ban all books with dirty words from the library (Palin’s reason for wanting to ban the books, reportedly, was “offensive language” — what the fuck is “offensive language”?!?!?) .

This is scary. Very scary. And the BS is not easily scared. There’s no telling what’s hidden up the sleeve of a person who tries to pull something like this off. We, as readers, need to be hyper-vigilant about who we put into office. Some may claim that Palin’s actions in 1996 are “no big deal”, but let me set the record straight: they are a HUGE deal.

Book banning is a fascist control tactic that has been around as long as books have. Any critical thought through reading is outlawed by controlling what reading material is available. This smacks more than a little of Ray Bradbury’s brilliant novel Fahrenheit 451, where a futuristic American society, driven by hedonism and devoid of any critical thought process, is ruled by government “firemen”. A “fireman” in Fahrenheit 451 is a book burner.

The theory is simple.

Take away the books and people will stop thinking.

And then we can control them.

Please, America, join the Book Snark to rally against this nonsense. Books are the enduring bastions of freedom, and we must protect them at all costs.

“Somewhere the saving and putting away had to begin again and someone had to do the saving and keeping, one way or another, in books, in records, in people’s heads, any way at all so long as it was safe, free from moths, silver-fish, rust and dry-rot, and men with matches.”  -Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

 

Story Source  Time, Galleycat

September 9, 2008 | Filed Under Newsies | 9 Comments 

On Second Thought: A Book Re-Review of “More Than It Hurts You” by Darin Strauss

A few weeks ago, I wrote a review of the book More Than It Hurts You by Darin Strauss. My critique was kind of a mixed bag, and my final grade reflected that. But something rather surprising happened, and I’ve been re-reviewing my review of this book. You see, I simply cannot stop thinking about these characters, and I’ve come to feel my initial take on the story wasn’t as spot-on as it should have been.

More Than It Hurts You is a bold and ambitious novel that explores some serious, disturbing conditions of the human experience. Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome is just one of the issues it tackles with fearless grace. When you figure in the plethora of other hot-bed topics, like racism, antisemitism, class divisions, and the inadequacies of the criminal justice system, the stories of the three central characters in More Than It Hurts You can really burrow deep under the skin.

Trust me. I should know. They’ve been haunting me for nearly a month now.

The book does go in some unexpected directions, and I would’ve liked to know more about the “lynch-pin” character of Dori, but what has stuck with me with an unforeseen ardor is the originality and power of the story being told here. Darin Strauss, who I simply can’t say enough good things about, has a writing style that is luminous: a penetrating, witty, and altogether affecting voice in contemporary letters. The great gift of his storytelling is evident in the fact that I, the Book Snark, not one to eat crow easily, am compelled to go back and say, “Hey. I was wrong.”

One of the biggest elements of this book that I have carried strongest is its conclusion. I honestly did not know where it was headed, even just a few pages before the end. But the last line…oh my, the last line…has echoed in my snarkskull like no other in recent memory. Now, I am not giving you permission to go get this book just to skip ahead to the last line. If you do that, trust that the Book Snark will haunt your dreams and steal your underwear. You must read this book in its entirety to comprehend the power of the conclusion. With one line, one expertly-delivered blow, Strauss completely, utterly, and unexpectedly changed the entire course of More Than It Hurts You. It is a brave, beautiful move, and I’ve not been able to let it go. I am even going to confess that I’ve woken up in the middle of the night, wondering how Josh and Dori, and little baby Zach, are doing. I think this is less a tribute to my craziness (which is undeniable) and more a tribute to Mr. Strauss’s exceptional storytelling abilities (which are also undeniable).

Perhaps the reason I felt do distracted by the tangents the story sometimes follows is just further evidence of how moved I was by this book. When I read the adventures of Darlene’s father, or Josh and Dori’s lawyer, or Darlene’s doomed blind date, it was taking me away from the mesmerizing tale at the core of More Than It Hurts You. But I am realizing now just how pivotal some of these tangents are, at least insofar as they shed even more light on the three fascinating people fueling the main story.

My final, most important, piece of insight on More Than It Hurts You is this: READ IT. I am confident its force will move you in the same way it moved me: these three people inhabiting your thoughts with both their humanity and their mistakes. This is precisely what has made me rethink my original take on the book. We’re all human, we all make mistakes. I hope that, like me, Josh, Dori and Darlene, wherever they are, are able to own their actions - and the motivations behind them - with the same clarity.  New Grade: B+

 

Image  Source  CCCOE

September 8, 2008 | Filed Under Eating Crow, General Fiction | 32 Comments 

« Previous Page — Next Page »



      WHAT IS A SNARK?




      The Snark is a creature created by Lewis Carroll in his poem "The Hunting of the Snark". To give a proper description of Snarks, one must look no further than Carroll himself, who summed them up in one word: Unimaginable.

      But this much we do know: some have feathers, some have whiskers. Snarks sleep a lot, yet they are an ambitious lot -- with very little sense of humor. They love bathing-machines and tend to bring them wherever they go; they are also handy for striking a light. Snarks live on a far-off island, a place filled with chasms and crags, and are constantly on the lookout for Snark-hunters. Their mortal enemies are hope, care, thimbles and forks.

    • Archives

      • The Book Snark's Pick for Best Book of 2008




      Special web hosting offer - LIMITED TIME ONLY

      PerformancingAds


      Picnik: photo editing awesomeness