Under the Tuscan Sun: Movies about Writing

This is a great movie to watch when you’re going through a big, unexpected change in your life. But also understand that this has very little to do with the travel memoir of the same name. SPOILERS HO!

Frances (Diane Lane) is a writer, teacher, and book reviewer who finds out about her husband’s infidelities by an angry author whose book she gave a poor critique. I get that the dude was upset but I can’t imagine being so upset that you’d reveal to a person you barely knew that their husband was getting read to leave them. To break her out of depression after the divorce, her best friend Patti (played by everyone’s favorite Sandra Oh) sends Frances to replace her on a gay tour of romantic Tuscany since Patti can’t travel with a new pregnancy. Patti states that Frances needs to get her life back on track and start writing again.

Frances does get a kitten out her her misadventures.

The first inspiration she has is when one of the men she hangs out with on the tour asks her to write a postcard home for him. She crafts a beautiful paragraph full of metaphors and onomatopoeia. The owner of the postcard declares that he can’t send it now. His mother would never believe that he wrote it! Ingrate!

Anyway, her second inspiration comes in the form of a villa. The majority of the film is about Frances buying, refurbishing, and living in an old Villa. As she lives there, she makes friends with her neighbors, the Polish contractors fixing the house, and Katherine, a fabulous local eccentric played by Lindsay Duncan who once acted as a muse to Fellini. I like the bond Frances forms with one of the Polish workers, teenage Pawel, which is like an aunt and nephew and explains why she supports when he falls in love with the neighbors daughter. That is to say, her time is not just platonic friendships and make-shift family. Frances has a romantic encounter with the handsome Marcello, who is charming and adorable, but has no patience. He can’t handle when a very pregnant Patti shows up and is in need of Frances’s time. By the way, the way Frances and Patti talk is very natural. You can believe that they’ve been friends for years.

In the end, all of Frances’s depression and feeling like she’ll never have all she wanted are cured in various, unexpected ways. She has family and life all around her. She finishes a book (called “Under the Tuscan Sun” - What? Who saw that coming?). AND she meets another fellow writer named Ed who she wrote an other unkind review of. He is healthy person and tells her it was the “best bad review” he’d ever gotten and he used it to help write his next book. So they end up together at the end. Full circle.

*Note: I feel bad for the real Ed (Edward Kleinschmidt Mayes). He’s Frances Mayes second husband and in reality they fixed up the villa together. But no. He became the “reward” at then end of the movie. I don’t know how I’d feel about that if I was Ed.

Agatha: Movies about Writing

Agatha (1979) was an imagining of where Agatha Christie went during her eleven missing days.

The film starts with all of the claustrophobia and depression that comes with the end of a relationship. At a signing, the celebrated mystery writer is closed off and in her own head. Agatha (Vanessa Redgrave) is in a horrible state when her husband (Timothy Dalton) leaves her for her his secretary and ends up wrecking her car. All of this is reality except that they did not mention her child who was in the care of her trusted friend and secretary Charlotte Fisher (Fisher isn’t a major character in the film, but she was important to the real Christie so I feel she should be mentioned here).

Wally Stanton, a fictional American reporter played by Dustin Hoffman, immediately dives into the investigation. Meanwhile, Agatha checks herself into a hotel near a health spa where she thought the secretary would be. Weirdly, she uses the mistress’s last name as her alias. The start of this film is not particularly intriguing other than Mr. Christie being tailed by reporters and investigators. Otherwise it is many scenes of people ordering food in restaurants and drinking tea.

About 35 minutes in, you start to see Agatha Christie the writer coming out as she writes down ways to kill people from things she sees around the spa. Also, there’s finally some jazz music. I know it’s England in the 1920s, but c’mon! Stanton finds Agatha at the hotel with a little help from Charlotte whose worries about her friend/boss. He does not give Christie his real name or tell her that he knows who she is. Instead, they enjoy the frivolities and he appreciates that she looks happier than she did at the book signing at the beginning of the film. I just have to add that Redgrave in heels is a full head taller than Hoffman and kudos to the filmmakers for not putting him on a box. Now, Stanton is writing a piece on her without her knowledge, yet he treats her with kindness. Awkward, awkward kindness.

Stanton is clearly attracted to Christie. He is also worried for her. I won’t give away the ending just know it might trigger some people. It’s a tad on the melodramatic side and involves CPR which wasn’t widely in use then. It does give Stanton the opportunity to make feel Christie feel better and that her life is still full of possibilities.

I really do not think this is even close to what happened to Christie during those eleven missing days, but it made an okay story. However, if Agatha Christie had written it, there would have been more poison in those many restaurant scenes.

Oh. And the theme song at the end is awful. Just awful.

Hearts of the West: Movies about Writing

Yes! A film about someone who wants to be 1930s pulp writer! I love the 30s for writing because upper classes are still thumbing their nose at genre novels while the middle and lower classes loved cheap paperbacks of melodrama, horror, crime, and westerns. The modern book club will be born from these beloved albeit sometimes corny books which gave people happiness in the midst of the Great Depression.

The movie Hearts of the West starts with Lewis Tater (Jeff Bridges) in his Iowa farmhouse bedroom on a typewriter questioning his own vocabulary choices and acting out the scenes he just wrote in mirror. Shut up! We all do it! He goes to what he thinks is a university in Colorado to learn how to be a western author, but is attacked by two men running a school by mail scam. They try to steal his typewriter!

In escaping the men, Lewis wanders onto the set of a western film where he meets a cowboy actor (Andy Griffith), the director’s secretary (Blythe Danner), and a director (Alan Arkin). He becomes a stuntman and actor, yet his need to be the next Zane Grey is still his ultimate goal. Oh. And the bad guys are still tracking him down because he accidentally stole money from them.

Almost instantly, Lewis shows off his skills of observation, attempting to memorize clothes and feathers of those around him in hopes of using what he sees in a story. He verbalizes stories while everyone stares at him. The obsession with Zane Grey goes so far that he states that Grey also used to build up stories out loud and insists that he keep his Grey-esque haircut. He keeps constantly bringing up that he a writer. It’s Andy Griffith’s character who finally tells him that’s he a writer when other people say so. I admire his confidence in the film, but even I found him annoying at times. I did enjoy how he never let anyone tell him to give it up. He even continues to try when he has his heart broken by people he admired and trusted.

Luck of the Irish: Movies about Writing

I’m keeping this short because I soda bread to eat!

Stew! Whiskey! Leprechauns! Tyrone Power! What more could you want? How about Tyrone Power being a a freelance newspaper writer who is being asked to sell his soul to an aspiring politician?

Stephen “Fitz” Fitzgerald and his friend Bill (Bill is really more of an exposition character and does not deserve his last name) visit Ireland where they meet Nora, an innkeeper who has an instant connection with Fitz. However, he still goes back to New York where his girlfriend’s sleazy publisher father wants him to be his hired hype man for his campaign. But wait, Horace, an unusually tall leprechaun, has followed Fitz home from Ireland and is now working as his servant. Nora shows up again, milk goes missing, and Fitz tries hide from modern art by hanging it in his bathroom.

Back to his writing. Bill expresses how Fitz is an excellent writer and is so disappointed in him going to work as a political pawn because he’s tired of being a starving artist. Meanwhile, Fitz’s girlfriend, Frances, says that he’s been wasted as a freelance columnist and with her father’s power behind him he’ll make more of a difference. By the way, she’s not a terrible character. She’s independent and smart. Take note, Hallmark movies! Still, what it comes down to is Fitz not feeling comfortable when asked to lie about his own opinions and go against his writing morals for money. Because . . . you know, it’s a movie.

Anatomy of a Fall: Movies about Writing

This movie is fairly new so understand that I’m not going to be going to many details of the actual court case or end of the films. Still, spoiler warning. Also, unlike the movie, I’m going to keep this short.

Sandra, a known novelist who takes inspiration from real life, is on trial for the death of her husband Samuel, a university professor who was found dead outside of their isolated French home. I don’t understand the legal system in France, so let’s just focus on the parts about writing.

One of the driving forces in the trial is Sandra’s relationship with her husband being rocky because she was an established author and he was a struggling writer. The day Samuel dies, he’s playing loud music while a university student is trying to interview Sandra about how their son’s accident is a thinly veiled plot point in one of her books. The same accident occurred on a day Samuel decided to stay home writing and sent a babysitter to pick up the son from school. Sandra suggests that the guilt over their son’s vision loss caused Samuel to stop writing for a long time. The court suggests that it was her blaming Samuel causing that guilt. I say - why isn’t anyone mad at the babysitter?

Anyway, before his death, Samuel and Sandra had a loud fight with destruction of property about their roles as writers. Samuel accuses Sandra of forcing him to always be on her creative schedule, leaving him no time for his own writing. Sandra accuses back that he uses her as an excuse not to write. Both sides feel valid to me, yet the whole scene made me very uncomfortable - and that’s something I’m filing away for later counseling.

There is also the insinuation that he is bitter that she used an idea from one of his unfinished novels for one of her published works and now he wanted to go back to it, but it was too late. She points out that he gave her permission to use the idea and this part of the argument made me side a little more with her. Don’t give away ideas, dude. That was on you.

The big thing I wanted to point out was that (and this is a big spoiler to the movie - you have been warned) Samuel had been recording family conversations and transcribing them for the book he was working on. Sandra knew this was a process of his, but when she finds out that he taped their argument about writing in general, she starts to wonder if he planned the conversation for his recording and creative process. I think that would piss me off worse than the idea-take-back-sies. Don’t manipulate your spouse for source material. You’re not F. Scott Fitzgerald. Get over yourself.

Staged: Movies about Writing

I’m going to keep this one short even though I’m talking about the first season of a British series.

Staged is the fictionalized tale of David Tennent and Michael Sheen attempting to rehearse a play through some sort of Zoom app in the midst of the pandemic (I should point out that this actually came out during the pandemic).

A big part of the show is about the world going stir crazy. When Georgia, David’s wife, sells her novel, David decides to write a script. He writes it rather quickly and emails it to Georgia. He then gets no response from her even though they are trapped in the same house. Georgia then emails it to Michael. And there are several minutes of anxiety that are overshadowed by Judi Dench. And honestly, I don’t remember what happened with David’s writing attempts after that. Judi Dench was on the television swearing a lot.

Okay, actually, they all read David’s script together and it’s revealed that everyone’s favorite parts were the bits Georgia rewrote.

Castle (Reality Star Struck): Movies about Writing

This isn’t necessarily my favorite episode of the television series about a thriller writer and his job as consultant to a New York homicide detective. I just picked this one because it takes place around Valentine’s Day. As this episode is from season 5, majors spoilers for this show from fifteen years ago.

Castle and Beckett are about to have their first Valentine’s Day as a couple while investigating the stabbing of a member of a “Real Housewives” style reality show. There are jokes about what the couple will be getting each other, how their friends on the force are spending the holiday (Ryan is under his wife’s control in the attempt to convince), and how the murder weapon is high end. Actually, jokes about the fancy knife could’ve been better. “The good news is, expensive cutlery like that won’t dull while cutting bone. Too soon?”

One of the better things about this episode is it is one of many that include a guest appearance by one of Fillion’s “Firefly” co-stars, Gina Torres. It’s fun to see kick-ass Zoe as a uppity rich bitch. Castle is also appalled by the unscripted format of reality TV . . . until he gets caught up in the drama and watching the show all night long. Beckett only watches one episode because she’s classy.

This is also a side plot of Castle accidentally placing his gift to Beckett in their Captain’s coat with a romantic note (he’s a writer, of course he wrote a note). As she is not aware that they are a couple, it become a ridiculous bit of shenanigans that make me quite uncomfortable. Also, Beckett’s gift to Castle is really sweet gesture -a drawer in her apartment to keep his stuff in showing that their relationship has reached the next level. But she also gives him the smallest drawer! Did no one else notice that?

At this point in the series, Castle’s ACTUAL job as a professional author has taken backseat to the mysteries. There is at least a joke about Castle’s thinking the murder is a Valentine’s Day gift in the form of a mystery that makes no sense. The point of his role as a consultant is that his skills in people study and creation of unusual murder scenes makes him a good profiler. Hey, it’s a TV show! No one asked for reality!

All is True: Movies about Writing

At some point, I’m planning on a bunch of Shakespeare blogs, but this was on TV and wanted to watch it before it was no longer available. Streaming services are not the most reliable these days (by these days I mean summer of 2023 and time of the second major writer’s strike in my lifetime).

All is True is really Kenneth Brannagh’s and writer Ben Eltons’s vision of what it was like for William Shakespeare at the end of his career and life. I should point out that Elton was one of the writers who helped Andrew Lloyd Webber create Love Never Dies, so I’m sure he needs to do some sort of creative groveling for that crime against storytelling. Also, understand that this is NOT a debate about whether Shakespeare is the actual author of the plays, so none of that in the comments. Save that for a different film.

This is an almost an entirely fictional, trying to dramatize mysterious moments at the end of the playwright’s life.

The film starts with the Globe Theatre burning down and Shakespeare returning to the family he’s barely seen in 20 years. He has hallucinations of his son Hamnet who died at age eleven, an awkward relationship with his wife Anne (Dench), and accidentally worries his remaining children Susanna and Judith about their own futures. The bard holds on tightly to a belief that, had Hamnet lived, the boy would have been a poet like him. Meanwhile, he dismisses Susanna and Judith since they are women who never had a formal education (most historians agree that Susanna could read and write). Judith outwardly shows her disdain for her father and he asks why when he never gave her a cruel word. Anne responds, “You spent so long putting words into other people’s mouth, you think it matters what is said?”

Will uses his artistic past in an attempt to smooth certain things over in his town and with his family. For example, when a man accused Susanna of an affair and there is a suit of slander, Shakespeare informs the accuser that a well-built “Moor” who performed in his plays loved Susanna so that he would rush from London to kill any man who dishonored her. Anne points out that she met this actor and knew him to be a sweet man and Shakespeare insists she not tell the accuser that. *By the way, there really was a slander case, but the case never went through and was thought to be a result of a feud between the accuser and Susanna’s husband.

One of the big plot points is how Anne does not want to know more about Will’s life in London as everything he was rumored to have done or said effected her. The Earl of Southampton (Ian McKellen), who was Shakespeare’s patron for a time, arrives and it upsets Anne as rumors that he was her husband’s lover created problems in her life years earlier. And yet, these characters and moments are important because they reflect on how London saw fame for Shakespeare as a writer while his village only gossiped.

On the other side of the coin, you see how children are constantly told that their father the writer is genius and a celebrated poet can grow to feel less. There is a theme about the expectations of an absentee father and fame and how the two did not have to be mutually exclusive. Gender roles, societal expectations, and general personalities all play a role.

I think it was funny how William Shakespeare has a prepared speech for when people approach him with questions. “The best way to get started as a writer is to start writing. I don’t have a favorite play. I admire all my fellow dramatists equally. And, yes, I do think women should be able to perform the female roles as is the practice on the continent now.” Shakespeare does not give an answer as to why he no longer writes.

“If you want to be a writer, and speak to others and for others, speak first for yourself. Search within. Consider the contents of your own soul. Your humanity. And if you're honest with yourself, then whatever you write, all is true.”

The Good Place (A Chip Driver Mystery): Movies about Writing

I don’t want to give away the entire show of The Good Place (especially since this episode takes place in the final season), but I’m going to have to give away quite a bit to explain why I blogged this episode. Still, this to me is one of the best tv shows ever made and I encourage you to watch it.

Fair warning: spoilers ahead.

The Good Place is philosophical comedy about the afterlife and what it means to be a good person. Ted Danson plays Michael, an architect in charge of four humans named Tahani (Jameela Jamil), Jason (Manny Jacinto), Chidi (William Jackson Harper), and Eleanor (Kristen Bell). Helping them is Janet (D’Arcy Carden), an all knowing entity whose entire existence is based on being a go-fer in the afterlife.

The episode opens with a book. Michael is telling a story to a Bad Janet (also D’Arcy Carden) trying to prove that humans can improve themselves. A new group of humans are being used as unknowing guinea pigs in a human moral experiment and seems to be showing positive outcomes. Then Brent (Benjamin Koldyke), the worst of the three, announces that he has written a book and he wants Chidi, John (Brandon Scott Jones), and Simone (Kirby) to read it in two days before he does a signing. An afterlife signing. Apparently, that’s a thing.

Brent describe the book entitled “Six Feet Under Par: A Chip Driver Mystery” as “half-spy novel, half -murder mystery. It’s also half-submarine adventure, half-erotic memoir, and half- political thriller. It’s also half- golf tutorial and half- commentary on society”. Immediately, Simone, who has very little patience for Brent’s sexism, racism, classism, and a whole lot of other negative isms, is gleeful about making fun of this novel. Tahani suggests that they all be kind because Brent has been showing improvement and they should be the bigger people (since that’s exactly what she’s trying to make them into). Then she starts to read the book with Eleanor and Michael.

The love interest Scarlett Pakistan in the book is a cultural stereotype who looks like Tahani and is described as “Her brown eyes were as brown as the brownest crayon. She had legs like Jessica Rabbit from that movie”. Is it bad that I sometimes enjoy bad writing because it makes me feel relatively better about my own writing? Stop judging me! I never said I belonged in the Good Place!

Tahani is not the only human objectified and insulted by being a thinly veiled character in Brent’s book, making it difficult to get the others to be kind about the painfully terrible prose. Eleanor tries to get them to create subtle criticisms. This is a good lesson for anyone not wanting to hurt another person’s writer feelings. For example, pointing out that “just writing a book is an amazing accomplishment” and then following with a sandwich of what you like and what needs improvement. That’s what editing is for. It’s a pain in the butt, but thanks the gods for the editing process and the people willing to edit.

However, if someone writes a book that insults you and your beliefs and the author can’t respect that why you didn’t like it - rip them a new one. Yes, a book is a form of art, but if your art is hurtful to the people you claim to like, what is the point? And how can you be upset if they don’t like that you hurt them? That’s not art, that’s more about ego. Despite all of this, Eleanor and the others still want to help Brent become a better person.

And all of this ends back with Michael finishing his story about how people can be good.

The Murderer Lives at Number 21: Movies about Writing

Here’s a short one with spoilers galore - you have been warned.

The Murderer Lives at Number 21 is the 1942 directorial debut of Henri-Georges Clouzot and it’s. . . unusual. Not quite a comedy. Not quite a thriller. Not quite a horror story. One hundred percent French.

Wens, a detective on the hunt for a serial killer who leaves calling cards at every crime scene, goes undercover at a boarding house. His girlfriend, a struggling singer, also goes to live in the boarding house in an attempt to become famous by catching the killer (she’s hoping fame will equal more stage jobs). The boarding house is inhabited by a magician, a disgraced doctor, a bird calling servant, a creepy toy maker, a blind former boxer, his amorous nurse, and a struggling author.

The author is a “spinster” called Mademoiselle Cuq. She states that to be a writer, you don’t need inspiration you need discipline. She sits everyday in the parlor of the boarding house with a typewriter to finish her latest work despite constant rejections from publishers. I like her determination. When the murders continue, the lady thinks of turning the contemporary horrors into gothic tales of terror, changing the streets of Paris into a dusty castle. The detective’s girlfriend suggests that the author instead keeps the setting the same, having it take place in the boarding house. In truth the singer is trying to reveal that she’s aware that the killer is among them . . . however, it just ends up getting the author killed. Whoops.

L.A. Confidential: Movies about Writing

This one is going to be short because in the words of this film, “Something has to be done, but nothing too original, because hey, this is Hollywood.”

If you’ve never seen it, L.A. Confidential is a superb film based on the James Ellroy novel about three members of the LAPD in the 1950s all investigating the same conspiracies of corruption and murder. Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, and (blech) Kevin Spacey all play their roles well. The clues and characters are a gritty portrait of the world full of twists and turns.

That’s not what I’m going to write about though! One of the most sleazy characters of the tale is Sid Hudgens (played by Danny DeVito - despite the book portraying the same character as tall and thin). Sid is the writer and editor of a tabloid magazine called Hush Hush which gets scoops on all of the Hollywood dirt. As this journalistic rag is Sid’s livelihood, he is shown setting up his own supposedly true stories. Based on a rumor, Sid puts the right people in the wrong place by buying everyone off and making sure his men are there with flashbulbs. More than being a plain gross example of a human and a writer, Sid’s way with words is what ties together the sleaze, the deceptions, and the murders of the film.

Glynis: A Movies about Writing

I wrote this blog back in July of 2022, hoping someone could find this an episode of this show for me to watch.

I just found out that there was a Murder, She Wrote BEFORE Murder, She Wrote. In the 1960s Glynis Johns (you know, the mom from Mary Poppins) starred in a sitcom about a mystery writer married to a defense attorney and they solved crimes together! But all I can find of this show is a thirty second clip! Does anyone know if anything else of it exists? Is there any place to watch a full episode? If you do know, please leave comment below. Thanks for fueling my obsession.

Despite looking on my own, all I’ve still ever found besides the thirty second clip is a newspaper article reviewing the show from back in the day and this review from IMDB.com from someone with the handle rudy-30:

The worst case of laugh track abuse ever!

9 April 2008

Warning: Spoilers

Jess Oppenheimer must have been an optimist. His most successful production, "I Love Lucy", centered around a female wanting to make it big in her husband's career. Unfortunately, lightning doesn't always strike twice. Glynis Johns plays Glynis, a novice mystery writer married to a criminal defense attorney. Glynis finds herself involved in murders by accident, and of course, comes out in the end a winner. Her husband (a bland Keith Andes) is usually clueless, and instead of a female friend for Glynis, which would be too much of an obvious rip-off of "I Love Lucy"s premise, she has a retired policeman friend to rely on. The trouble with this show is the laugh track. Murder can be funny, when it's played straight, but the actors on the show seem confused; they don't know when to play for laughs or dramatic effect. So, you have a mish-mosh of comedy and drama, and that annoying laugh track doesn't help one bit. What is so funny about a schizophrenic murderess? Did anyone really laugh at Anthony Perkins in "Psycho"? I notice that Oppenheimer later got the mixture right when producing "Get Smart". It's a shame he didn't have the creative forces with him during "Glynis". The cast gave it their best efforts, though.

Event though nothing I have found makes it sound like I would actually enjoy this show, now that Glynis Johns (a favorite actress of mine from not only Mary Poppins, but The Court Jester with Danny Kaye) has passed away at the fantastic age of 100, I’m still curious. So again, if anyone knows where episodes are available to watch. let me know. Thanks.

Snowed Under: Movies about Writing

“Guess where I am!”

“Oh Arthur! Where are you?”

“I don’t know. It’s all covered in snow”

1936 was one of those years where Hollywood was just trying to release as many movies as they could like throwing spaghetti on a wall to see if it sticks. Snowed Under does not stick, but it has a few good bits, one-liners, and shows off the talents of many forgotten character actors. Mostly, it’s just tired shenanigans (yes, even in 1936 there were overused film stereotypes).

Alan Tanner (George Brent) has been struggling to rewrite the third act of his play which opens soon. His producer and friend, Arthur Layton (Porter Hall) asks Alan’s ex-wife Alice (Genevieve Tobin) to help him. It is suggested that at one time, the three of them were a great playwright- editor - producer trio and she agrees out of her friendship to Arthur. However, also showing up at Alan’s Connecticut cabin are his second ex-wife Daisy (played by the original tough girl Glenda Farrell), Daisy’s lawyer McBride (John Eldredge), a deputy/former milkman named Orlando (Frank McHugh), and Alan’s young love struck neighbor Pat (Patricia Ellis).

Daisy is demanding Alan be arrested for missing her alimony payments, Pat is declaring her undying love, and Alice just wants everyone to shut up so Alan and finish his work. Then, as the title suggests, the group is snowed in for the night and the shenanigans ensue.

What I did enjoy was the writing talk. Alice is clearly a professional and she writes half of the third act herself (without expecting credit because it’s the 1930s). Pat keeps insisting that Alan doesn’t need Alice and she could keep him writing, yet never does anything to prove this. And Daisy just wants the play finished so she can get paid. Still, there’s a great scene where Alice turns to Daisy (her rival and the reason for her divorce) and asks, “Would you do me a favor? Would you read what I’ve done to that third act and tell me what you think of it?” And Daisy grins happily at the woman who Alan was always comparing her to and responds, “I’d love to read it.”

As for Alan, he criticizes Alice’s work to the point that she tries to burn it. He says he does this to see if she really cared about what he had to say, but in truth I find it a simply awful moment in the film. It showed to me that he didn’t respect her talent. However, the entire thing ends in horseplay, Pat coming in to angrily confront Alan, and Alice just giddy that for once she gets to be the other woman. Lady, your ex-husband just tried to make it seem like your work as his editor and co-writer, is no good. Stay angry!

I could give insight into Alan’s writing. Honestly, with all the other chaos, he really does not do a lot of that.

Spoiler alert: Alan does give Alice credit in the end. Despite all of the tired tropes in this, I did not see that coming.

A Christmas Memory: Movies about Writing

Netflix. You need to learn to think for yourself. But no. You keep canceling some of your best shows in favor of spending money on Hallmark holiday ripoffs. Luckily, there’s still some class on streaming.

I found the 1997 version of A Christmas Memory by Truman Capote on Kanopy. Eric Lloyd (from the Santa Clause) plays young Capote in the form of Buddy who is excited for “fruitcake season” with his best friend/ spinster cousin Sook (Patty Duke). They send the cakes to everyone including F.D.R. For several years, Buddy has lived with the Southern cousins Sook, Callie, Seabone, and Jennie (Piper Laurie) (as well as a dog named Queenie and visits from a Cherokee housekeeper named Anna and a neighbor girl named Rachel - not Harper Lee, or is it, I’m not sure). Other than Sook, the cousins make snide comments make about his mother back in New York and his absentee father. Jennie worries that Buddy is not going up to be “a man” since he spends all of his time with Sook.

Despite the protests from the other three cousins, Jennie is determined to send Buddy away to military school. Still, Buddy and Sook go through their Christmas adventures of tree chopping, gift delivering, kite flying, and visiting bootleggers. In the end, Buddy is still sent away in hopes that the military school will give him a better education. It gives Sook opportunities to stand up to Jennie and both she and Buddy grow up a little. It’s kinda dark for a Christmas story.

I did also watch the 1966 version narrated by Capote himself which includes more of his fantastic descriptions, but depicts the Native bootlegger talks in broken English like a reject from a 1950s western. Buddy doesn’t go to military school on screen in that one either, just in an epilogue.

By the way, I know Truman Capote did go to military school, but I don’t know if the cousins sent him or his mother did. Either way, there is mention of Buddy’s future as a writer. He gives a notebook and pencil to Rachel so she can write down tall tales she tells about her family. And everyone talks about how they’ll miss hearing his “little stories”. And those little stories would someday be about them.

The Noel Diary: Movies about Writing

Netflix decided to jump on the cheesy Christmas special train a few years ago, but this was the first one I found about a writer.

Jacob Turner is a successful historical thriller novelist with his face pasted on buses and people coming to signings dressed as his characters. He lives with his dog Ava in a house full of pretentious trappings like French cinema, David Sedaris books, Nina Simone albums . . . aw, crap. I’d totally be friends with this shmuck. His mom, a hoarder, passes and Jake goes home for the first time in years to clear out her house. He reconnects with his favorite neighbor, Ellie, whose house he used to stay at when his mom was having “bad days”. Ellie points out how she can recognize characters from his books, especially the two based upon his parents. His father had not been around much after Jacob’s brother passed away in a childhood tree-related accident.

Unexpectedly, a lovely young woman name Rachel shows up on her door looking for her birth mother (Noel) who was Jacob’s childhood nanny. She’s looking for a job as a UN translator which is a great job. In fact, everyone in this has a great job! Rachel’s parents make their own jewelry, Ellie is an artist, and Ellie’s boyfriend is in a symphony orchestra. Does this world just have awesome jobs for all? Who collects the garbage?

The pair go on a road trip to find Jake’s dad, Scott, while reading Noel’s Diary which Scott found in a box. It’s a Christmas movie about look for a woman named Noel. Get it? Yep. Groan. While on their journey they watch It’s a Wonderful Life on an outdoor screen in the snow. It’s a lovely scene and all I could think was, “Cold. So cold.” Jacob works on his latest book while Rachel bonds with Ava the dog. Rachel reads the first book in Jake’s series, but waits to tell him until she’s finished for the plain and simple reason of “what if I didn’t like it”. She uses the book to psycho-analyze him, yet does still compliment him on the ending.

The film gets all dramatic as Jake reunites with his dad and they find Rachel’s mom. There’s a lot of commitment issues and “Say Anything” moments minus the boombox. This was a more serious movie than I was expecting. Still cheesy. Suuuuuper cheesy. Then I found out it was based on a Richard Paul Evans book. That makes sense. But at least one of the main characters was a fluffy dog!

A Thanksgiving Visitor: Movies about Writing

Although this is not about writing, it is based on Truman Capote’s happy childhood memories staying with his “spinster cousin”, a woman in her 60s named Miss Sook (Geraldine Page). Young Capote is called Buddy (Michael Kearney) in these childhood tales while adult Capote in all of his lispy glory narrates.

Buddy is being horribly bullied by a classmate named Odd Henderson (I’m not kidding, that his name). Miss Sook is the only person in the household who understands that academic Buddy does not know how to fight back against a bully like the other cousins want him to (yes, everyone else in the house keeps telling him to punch this kid back - oh, the good ole’ days). As a more progressive adult, Miss Sook then invites Odd Henderson to Thanksgiving dinner.

There are other childhood traumas such as one of the cousins trying to force Buddy to kill a turkey and jealousy over attentions of a pretty young female cousin. Hey, Truman Capote could have been curious about pretty girls as a child.

SPOILER ALERT: Of course, a drama occurs when Buddy sees Odd steal Miss Sook’s cameo. Buddy tries to reveal the theft in front of everyone at dinner and Miss Sook tries to cover for Odd because she states that “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Buddy humiliating Odd didn’t help the situation. However, Odd does return the cameo when Miss Sook lies that the cameo was not missing.

Miss Sook is clearly an inspiration for a writer’s voice. The way she talks is very poetic yet simplistic. She is also a woman trapped in a family who does not understand her and dreams of leaving for a new life. But a single woman in Great Depression South is not a person able to escape those with small minds. Of course, the cameo she planned to sell for her freedom was worthless and she never has the heart to tell Buddy.

The Haunting of Hill House: Movies about Writing

* I have several upcoming movie and TV blogs coming up which were written before the writers’ strike. I’m just going to post them until I run out.

“You publish this, you know what it costs.” Shirley says this to Steve about his memoir of their family’s time in a haunted house.

I waited to do this one so I could include spoilers. That having been said - Spoilers ahead!

First off, I have to declare my love for the original book and the 1963 film. Shirley Jackson was the queen of the unreliable narrators and it was magnificent! Even though she intended (according to later interviews) to always make Hill House haunted, the book is written in just the write way to make you question whether the events are supernatural or not. Director Robert Wise captured this atmosphere with even more subtly in the movie. And if anyone in the comments asks me about the 1999 version, you will get a long rant about fourteen year old me seeing that in theatres and experiencing wanting my money back for the first time.

Mike Flanagan rearranged the story completely, but kept that sense of paranoia and second guessing. By the way, I refused to watch this at first, declaring it looked nothing like the book (I had been burned before!). My friends lied to me and said, “Oh no, it’s pretty close to the book.” Turns out they’d never read the book although one of them has since (looking at you, Kira Shay).

Trigger warning - if you decide to watch the Haunting of Hill House, it deals in grief, suicide, mental health, addiction, and family trauma).

In all versions, Hill House is a structure which feeds on the energy of people. In Flanagan’s take, the house’s receives a family seven come to flip it in the early 90s. The parents, Hugh and Liv, are hoping this is the final time they will have to renovate a house and sell it so the family can have their forever home. Their child include Steve the skeptic, Shirley the practical one, Theo the stand-offish one, and the twins Luke and Nell. The house feeds upon each of them until one mysterious night Liv dies and Hugh takes them all away without a proper explanation.

As adult, the five kids blame Hill House or their parents for their issues. None of them have a good relationship with Hugh, who left the house boarded up to rot without further reasoning. Luke is a heroin addict, constantly in and out of rehab. Nell suffers from sleep paralysis, depression, and dies in Hill House at the beginning of the series. Theo is a child psychiatrist who uses her power of touching people/things to get emotions, the reason she wears gloves and shuts herself off to others most of the time. Shirley runs a funeral business with her husband, an endeavor she wants to be perfect. Finally, Steve turned around his failed novelist career by becoming a paranormal investigator and writing books based on what others see in haunted places. In case you didn’t already guess, I’m going to be focusing on Steve.

Flanagan mixes in word-for-word quotes from the original book in Steve’s narration from his own work. Jackson’s spooky and straight-forward style adds to the idea of Steve’s writing hiding his own disbelief. It lends itself well to the internet theories that the black mold in Hill House actually caused everything.

I get why Steve wanted to use their childhood as the basis of a book. And he was totally right. It was a bestseller. However, the way he goes about the process felt backwards. He writes the book, sends it to an editor and agent, gets a deal, AND THEN asks his siblings for permission. Shirley declares that he’s a phony since he never saw or heard anything in Hill House, yet uses their experiences and their mother’s mental illness to make a buck. She refuses any money he offers from the book sales. The others secretly agree to the money and later harp on Steve for using their pain to become famous. Theo even points out what he got wrong in book because (fanfare please) HE NEVER ASKED THEM WHILE WRITING IT!

He should have interviewed them. Written it with their help. Gotten the facts and permission first. However, nope. Steve was going to do what Steve was going to do. He does learn his lesson after that to a point. He starts interviewing people, asking if they will let him tell their stories of ghosts and terrors. He writes his books in such a way to feel like he believes in what he writes. That being said, Steve is so dismissive of what others believe he makes people feel bad about seeing ghosts.

When the family returns to the house, it feeds on each of their insecurities. For Steve it’s his writing and how he betrayed his family.

“Is anything real before you write it, Steve? The things you write about are real. Those people are real, their feelings are real, their pain is real, but not to you, is it? Not until you chew it up and digest it and you shit it out on a piece of paper. And even then, it’s a pale imitation at best.” A version of Steve’s wife in his head says this when the house is trying claim him. Seems to me that Hill House was not a fan of the book. Who knew houses could read?

Are You Afraid of the Dark? (Tale of the Dream Machine): Movies about Writing

* I have several upcoming movie and TV blogs coming up which were written before the writers’ strike. I’m just going to post them until I run out.

“When a story’s on paper, you can feel it. You can see it. And others can read it as well. But beware: for once a story’s written, it no longer belongs to the author, but has a life of it’s own.” This is the quote from the beginning of this episode meant to draw the viewer in.

For those unaware, “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” was Nickelodeon television show in the 90s about a groups of kids who told ghost stories around a campfire and my Saturday nights revolved around it and the rest of the Snick lineup.

This particular episode was about Sean, an aspiring writer who finds an old typewriter hidden under the stairs of the house his parents are fixing up. The teenager is instantly happy with the discovery especially since the previous owner was a bestselling mystery writer in the 1930s (who disappeared then was found dead - a story we never find out more about).

Since this is a supernatural show meant to scare kids, the typewriter has horrible powers. When Sean writes a story, the friends he includes in the prose then have a vivid dream where they live out the story. And if someone other than Sean then reads the words on the page, the people are physically sucked into the story where they have no power over the outcome.

First of all, as a child (I was probably nine or ten when this one aired) I only remember two aspects of this tale. Number one: the special effects were awful even for children’s TV made in Canada. Number two: Who writes their friends directly into a short story and use their real names?

Second of all, watching this as an adult I realize those two things still bug me, but two additional things bother me. Their English teacher steals food from the cafeteria! She realizes she’s run out of donuts and go to take a sweet roll from the school fridge. Who does that? And lastly, he wrote an entire short story in a night? I remember those days. Sigh.

Communion: Movies about Writing

* I have several upcoming movie and TV blogs coming up which were written before the writers’ strike. I’m just going to post them until I run out.

This blog will be short because I don’t think I can relive this film for too long.

In 1985, horror writer Whitley Strieber claims to have had encounters with possible beings from another world. In 1989, New Line Cinema decided to make a movie based on Strieber’s book of the events starring Christopher Walken.

This movies . . . awkward. I’m not just talking about the parts with lame rubber mask aliens who don’t move much because they didn’t have an animatronics budget. Every time people are talking or interacting, something feels off. Like no one reacts or says what you would expect in such situations, even when they are just sitting around laughing. Anyway, the movie is about this author who has to come to terms (and dance with?) the beings who experimented upon him more than once. There’s also a son who it’s hinted at was also experimented on, yet the parents decide to just let him deal with that when it becomes a repressed memory in his forties. Let’s get to the part about writing.

Strieber’s process is unusual. I wouldn’t judge but this movie begs to be judged. Walken’s character writes while wearing a fedora. Sometimes there’s no pants or no shirt yet the fedora remains. I love a fedora and I love being without pants. Not sure if doing both would help my creative process . . . then again, I’ll try most things once. Strieber also records himself and has his face live on TV next to the computer where he writes. The computer is a fantastic 80s model with green letters against a black screen that breaks on him constantly.

There are several of the standard practices as well. Talking to one’s characters while thinking out loud. Reviewing what you’ve already written while trying to fit in other household chores like cooking (yes, cooking is chore - don’t care that it’s needed for survival). And naturally the being super excited when a big idea comes. However, because all of this is being done by my beloved Walken, the behavior rides a thin line between psychotic and endearing.

Anne with an E: Movies about Writing

* I have several upcoming movie and TV blogs coming up which were written before the writers’ strike. I’m just going to post them until I run out.

“I’m so glad I live in a world where there are Octobers.” - L. M. Montgomery

What? It’s not quite October yet? Well, that’s fine. This wasn’t quite Anne of Green Gables.

I’m not going to do a specific episode here. I confess that I am an Anne of Green Gables purist and this show gave me anxiety. Why did every episode have to be a major drama? This show made Avonlea the most depressing place in North America. I mean, I appreciate them trying to add in actual social commentary especially from the time period, but hour after hour of PTSD, inequality, nearly losing the farm, being beaten by ruffians, con-men, and sexual assault! Seriously, where was the joy?

Just in case anyone is unfamiliar - Anne is an orphan in the early 1900s who is accidentally sent to the home (Green Gables) of spinster siblings Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert who were expecting a boy to help on the farm. They end up keeping the talkative, imaginative Anne despite all of her misadventures and ways she upsets social norms.

I’m going to talk about writing now. Something I did like in the show the spotlight it shown on Anne’s love of writing. She and her friends start a story club where they bring their ideas to a clubhouse they built in the woods. This is one of the few sweet, childhood moments in the first season. They keep the core of imaginative play there with Anne’s made-up beliefs developing into characters and plots.

The show adds more to the ideals of being a blossoming writer including a school newspaper. Anne experiences censorship and it leads the students to realize the importance of freedom of speech. They idea of Anne becoming an author is rather lost by the end of the series, taking a backseat to her unrequited love. At least the show never stopped the use of large words to convey meaning and never let up on how important those words were to young Anne.