I really enjoy movies, television, music, books, and whatever else that is out there, that makes me think. It doesn't need to be something deeply introspective or especially enlightened, just something that gets my brain going in a direction out of the ordinary.
I watched "Book of Eli" tonight and the ending really got me going. It was an original twist. I think that one of the main reasons that I found it so moving, and why it made me really step back and take notice, is because not only did I not see it coming at all, but it was original. I think that with most typical Hollywood influences, that the originality is really gone. There just don't seem to be that many independent and thoroughly different ideas out there.
It was grounded. It was rooted in an believable reality based on the movie, and it didn't ask for you to take some huge leap of faith or anything like that in order to believe it. It was thoughtful. It went beyond the norm of simply putting out the most convenient and understandable to the question that everyone is asking themselves. I felt like the movie not only didn't insult my intelligence, but it gave me an answer that deepened my respect for it. Something that doesn't happen often.
Tara hates it when we are watching a show like "CSI" or something along those lines, and I tell her who the bad guy is half way through. Or when I jokingly make a "guess" of how it is going to end, and I am 100% right on the money. I did it with Murder She Wrote last week and she thought that I did it to make fun of the show. I wasn't making fun of the show as much as I was making fun of the writing, and how the staff really didn't try too hard. They phoned it in. I understand that they had a lot of episodes to work on and that originality probably wasn't everything that they were going for, but still. If it is going to be a murder mystery, the only rule that you have to follow as a writer is to make sure that you don't give away who the killer is to the audience before the main character figures it out. It is supposed to be a challenge. That question, the "who is the killer" is the impetus for the audience to keep participating in the story; it is all that they care about. That is what keeps people turning the page, and watching through the bad acting. They want to know "who done it." If you give away that answer half way through, why not just change the channel or put down the book.
The funny thing is that as much as I go on about the importance of this one fact, I am guilty of it myself. The final paper that I wrote for my English 192 "Detective Fiction" class had this same issue. At the time, I really didn't think outside the box enough, or deep enough, about how to disguise and misdirect my audience. I think that is really the mark of the best writer of this genre. The writer that only makes you ask more questions, rather than giving you answers, all the way to the end. It is a formula, an equation that they follow time and time again, and even though the format is always the same, the interchangeable parts in the story never allow it to become dull.
Every Clive Cussler book starts the same. First it gives you some historical context, something from way back that is a foundation for the story at hand. This foundation is always different from previous stories, and really distinguishes one from the other. Then it is a light character introduction of some of the supporting roles, before finally introducing the recurring main character. From then on, the format moves around a little bit, but it always starts, and ends exactly the same. The best part is that even though you know right from the get go, how it will end, it is all that stuff in between that keeps you going and coming back for more.
With "Book of Eli," I saw a blurry vision of where the road was going, but not only was I surprised by the road itself before my final destination, but the destination itself really surpassed everything that had led me there.
That is the best formula for success.
No comments:
Post a Comment