Written in the Stars: Movies about Writing

Why? Why did I watch this?

This is a Hallmark rip-off I found on the Roku Channel and decided to torture myself with. It does open with the lamentations of a struggling writer. Kelsey (Kimberly Crossman) is tired of just editing other people’s work at the magazine that pays her to do so. Finally, she convinces her boss to let her research and write about an upcoming meteor shower from the point of view of both those who believe in horoscopes and who can convince her to believe in fate. This pairs her with Carter (David de Lautour) and his super cute dog that she doesn’t even pet upon first meeting! The dog isn’t even in as much of this as he could be! She should’ve given him scritches! She does get to pet him later, but why don’t these screenwriters ever realize that the dog is the selling point for some of these movies. Oh what? I’m supposed to be invested in the romance? Do you not realize just how cute that dog is?

Kelsey’s best friend/co-worker Molly (JJ Bowman) go to a bed and breakfast near the meteor shower festival and, wouldn’t you know it, the place is run by Carter’s parents. His parents are great hosts. They give their guests cookies upon arrival. However, Carter is not keen on giving an interview. Kelsey is so determined to get the story, she starts stalking the poor guy. It turns out he doesn’t trust reporters due to a past butcher job article written about him and his brother’s astrology app in its start-up days. Oh and the reporter was his girlfriend at the time. He only agrees to help Kelsey because she gives him her sob story about wanting to be reporter and this is her first chance.

I don’t feel like I’m spoiling the movie if I tell you that this is a girl meets boys, girl loses boy (for eight minutes and fifteen seconds - I timed it), girl wins boy back story. There is an underlining plot about ethics in journalism and being upfront with your subject from the start. I’m just kidding. It doesn’t get that deep. Her boss just keeps telling her to make the article about disproving astrology and she is worried about hurting Carter. Realistically, she does have trouble writing the article and stays up late each night trying to get to 600 words. Naturally, Molly has been telling her repeatedly what a good writer she is, but Kelsey is more in awe of when Carter lists what makes her a good writer. You couldn’t believe your friend who is also a writer! You could only believe the hot due? Fine. She also gets praise from her boss when she turns in an article different from what he wanted. She is officially successful with opportunities to write more.

Some odd things I noticed in this film:

1. Kelsey’s last name is Graham. She’s Kelsey Graham, not Grammer, but come on!

2. There’s a sundial set up on a table. How will it give the proper time if people are sitting around it creating shadows.

3. This woman wears a lot of blazers. Blazer equals serious writer.

4. “The stars always include pizza”. The stars are bad for your health.

5. Carter has a super nice car that he’s trying to fix up. How did he get that from running an app about star signs?

6. Why do people in these movies always have a million outfits, but only bring one suitcase with them? I want their magic Mary Poppins suitcase.

7. There aren’t any more things I noticed. I got bored part way through and stopped paying as close of attention to the background.

Two on a Guillotine: Movies about Writing

Ruh oh, Raggy.

Two on a Guillotine is about Cassie Duquesne (Connie Stevens), the estranged daughter of a famous magician (Caesar Romero) who was famous for his dangerous and shocking tricks. When he dies, she inherits everything, despite him having given her to relatives after her mother (also Connie Stevens) disappeared twenty years earlier. Cassie has to stay in her father’s gothic mansion in order to get the money (wait, I know this story).

The press is fascinated with her which bring us to the writer character of this silly horror story. Val Henderson (Dean Jones) is a reporter pretending to be a real estate agent trying to get the inside scoop on her life. Cassie still finds his ethics questionable when he pushes to get close to her. Clearly, he works for a rag of a paper if his boss is insisting he write a story about her without her consent, essentially interviewing her off the record without her knowledge. However, Val sticks around because the house is full of tricks and booby traps that Cassie isn’t keen on investigating on her own. Despite this being a very cornball film, Cassie is a well done character. She is is innocent and empathetic without being naive or unrealistic. Val falls for her and becomes protective of her. When she starts to breakdown over the idea that her father might have actually wanted her, he realizes how people could use that to hurt her or take her money. This, naturally leads to Cassie finding out that Val is a reporter. Boy snoops on girl, boy falls for girl, boy loses girl . . . for snooping.

SPOILERS: There’s a horribly filmed nightmare sequence and Cassie decides that Val is still the only person she can trust. Of course, it turns out that her father is still alive (gasp), haunting his own house, and completely out of his mind. He accidentally murdered her mother twenty years earlier with a trick involving a guillotine. Believing Cassie to be her dead mom, he knocks her out, CHANGES HER INTO HER MOM’S STAGE COSTUME (that’s right, her father stripped and redressed his full grown daughter who he thought was his wife - gross), and sets her in the guillotine. Val runs in just in time to see the magician attempting the trick, convinced it will work this time. And it freaking does! Despite this, Cassie’s father is too far gone to realize that he almost murdered his daughter. Does Cassie get any money from her dad’s estate if he’s in the loony bin? Will she find a good therapist in the 1960s? Does Val actually put any of this into his article? Who knows. The film ends with a close up of a rabbit.

Follow Me Quietly: Movies about Writing

I quite enjoyed this short poverty-row noir directed by Richard Fleischer. A police Lieutenant is on the hunt for a serial killer who gives himself the name “The Judge”. His victims appear to be random, but his killing style is always the same and always during rain.

But enough about the lurid details of a fascinating killer. Let’s talk about writing!

First, I want to point out that one of the victims who survives the Judge’s attack Is the editor of a local paper. He survived by falling out a window, and even as he lies, broken on the sidewalk, he demands that one of his reporters take his statement for that day’s edition. I would say that’s dedication, but I’d say it’s more stupidity Especially since he was face-to-face with the killer and couldn’t ID him.

The character I’m going to focus on Is actually Ann, A reporter for a magazine, which the main character describes as worse than a yellow rag. She is so determined that she get an inside scoop, Ann starts following the lieutenant around, including breaking into his apartment. Her boss is only willing to print the story if she gets some information that no other print media has gotten yet. However, this would upset the investigation.

Eventually, she reveals that she knows her publication is trash, but she was desperate for a writing job. She agrees to use her inside knowledge of magazine distribution to help catch the killer without upsetting the case. My question is, she wanted so badly to be a writer, did she get a better job after the film was over?