Murder, She Wrote (The Murder of Sherlock Holmes): Movies about Writing

Oh, come on! You knew this one was coming eventually. This is the premiere 2 part episode of "Murder, She Wrote” from 1984. You know this show. You know you know it. Even if you’ve never seen it, you know it’s out there, especially if you were a child of the 80s or 90s. The star, Angela Lansbury, was so ingrained into our culture that you were aware of this show probably at birth.

Fine. Just in case you don’t know, the premise of “Murder, She Wrote” is literally that. Jessica Fletcher is a popular murder mystery writer who lives in the small town of Cabot Cove where’s she an active member of the community. So active, that she ends up regularly helping the sheriff solve real murders. In fact, everywhere she goes she’s asked to assist in a murder investigation by somebody. No one seemed to question (that I can recall) why murder followed Angela Lansbury’s character everywhere she went, but you know - it was the 80s. All that cocaine was clouding people’s judgement.

The Murder of Sherlock Holmes starts with substitute teacher Jessica as a part of a local refreshments team viewing the dress rehearsal for a murder-mystery play. By just watching the first act, she reveals to the the director that she knows who the killer is and how. Of course, she’s right because she knows story structure! I love this opening scene! Especially, since the director was writing her off as silly middle-aged woman and thinks that his play isn’t well written and that’s why she figured it out. Many writers of fiction understand cause and effect. We ruin a lot of movies for ourselves, but it can’t be helped.

But at this point in the series, she isn’t published. Her nephew Grady (a re-occurring character that runs to his Aunt Jessica every time he screws up his life . . . which happens a lot in the show) calls to reveal that he gave her first manuscript to a publisher. Within weeks, this recent widow is number 2 on the bestseller list and completely overblown by her own picture in bookshop windows. She’s sent to New York for a series of personal appearances, most of which make her realize that the entire media business is full of phonies, fake academics, fortune hunters, and hosts who give away the ending on television (rude!). Then, she’s accused of stealing the idea from a crazy woman and that’s the end of it for her. She’s ready to leave when Mr. Giles, her publisher, insists on bringing her to a party at his country house to meet friendly book lovers where she won’t be “patronized” or “brow-beaten”.

Jessica is thrust into a rich people costume party where everyone comes as their favorite fictional character (although one man is dressed as Henry VIII so these aren’t intelligent rich people). She dresses as Cinderella’s fairy godmother, but I always thought she looked more like Glinda the Good Witch. Here is where we meet the Sherlock Holmes in question, a lecherous captain played by Brian Kieth, who is found in the pool with a face-full of buckshot. Or at least, that’s what everyone is led to believe at first. This isn’t really important, but Anne Francis played his glamorous, yet suffering wife (she starred in Forbidden Planet - as the song goes).

Enter Ned Beatty as a police chief. Despite him stating that he read Jessica’s book, “not that he liked it”, the chief asks for her insight as a people watcher. Smart man. Ask the woman that’s going to be looking for her next character. Despite his reliance on her theories, Jessica doesn’t want to get involved until her nephew Grady is named as a suspect. If you know this show, you know that Grady is not smart enough or ballsy enough to pull off murder, but he tends to end up in bad situations all of the time.

I’m not going to give away the killer or motive, but I’ll tell some more about the mystery and her writer’s mind. First, a quick complaint. There’s a part when Jessica is trying to tail a suspect and is nearly assaulted by Andy Garcia. First of all, the stand-ins for the fight scene are just bad. But also, she wanders into this bad neighborhood without even thinking about it like she’s some naive small town hick. I wish they’d given her a little more common sense there. Luckily, a young man, (listed int he credits as “Black Youth” - insert grunt noise here) who recognized her from her book cover, follows and saves her from evil Andy Garcia. Still, it’s kind of a sweet scene which shows her that even if the elite of the book world don’t appreciate her, the fans do. But more importantly, there is the moment when Grady promises her she’ll write more books, even when she declares that she’s giving it up. The entire show is called “Murder, She' Wrote” so clearly she keeps writing. Still, even when writers aren’t writing things down, their brain is constantly in a state of authorship.

If you enjoy Murder, She Wrote, you should watch PushingUpRoses on Youtube. She’s an artist who recaps the zaniest episodes of this show with fantastic humor and delightful insight. Also check out her videos on computer games from the 90s and episodes of spooky kids shows and bad movies - you know, what! It’s all great! Just go watch her channel.

Young Cassidy: Movies about Writing

I’ve been meaning to watch this film for years. TCM plays each St. Patrick’s Day so let’s do this.

Young Cassidy is a fictionalized account of Irish playwright Sean O’Casey’s autobiography. Johnny Cassidy (Rod Taylor) lives in a rundown house full of books with his mother and siblings who are all desperate for work in English controlled Dublin. Cassidy’s writing begins with protest pamphlets about Irish nationalism. The anonymous pamphlets end up inciting riots where many people are injured and killed. Cassidy decides that stirring up violence isn’t helping and decides to write newspaper articles and dramas about the plight of the Irish instead.

When Johnny publishes his first article and is paid for it, he celebrates by buying six copies of the paper and a book on drilling. He and other men around town form a militia, however, when the men start to think illogically, Cassidy leaves. After a battle (a weird battle that has an Irish stereotype where a man’s whiskey is destroyed and while he moans about it is shot), he writes a book about his fallen friends and is paid 15 pounds by an English publisher in Dublin. Hover, they pay him a check when he has no bank account so he can’t cash the damn thing.

The first play Johnny sends in is sent back the comment “a bit long on character and a bit short on plot”. He edits it, sends it again this time famous playwright, poet, and folklorist W.B. Yeats sends it back, saying, “a bit long on plot and a bit short on character.” The third time he sends the play, it’s lost. This is a legit scenario here. Eventually, one of his plays is produced and he explains to his girlfriend that “writing is love” to him and she takes it personally. Still, she’s supportive when his first play is a flop. Despite the lack of commercial success, the founders of the theatre Yeats and Lady Gregory encourage him to write more.

I’ve never read anything by Sean O’Casey, but plenty by Yeats and other Irish writers of the time who tried to use Irish culture as a way subtly fight back against the oppression of the English. I know enough about the different reasoning for Irish protest to call it oppression. I though his sister’s story was the saddest. Ella married the first man she could to escape Dublin, but he abandoned her with five children. Their mother speaks of Ella’s depression and current personality, according to Cassidy, “as if she had died”. Spoiler alert - Ella does die. But it adds to Cassidy’s fight and trying to fight using as he says it, “Beauty”. “[Ella] used to say that beauty was more important than bread. How do I explain that to her children?”

This film was always advertised to be about young exploits and Irish shenanigans than writing. Among his political struggles are the tales of his love affairs. His first notable relationship is with scandalous actress and kept woman Daisy (Julie Christie). His second is with bookshop worker Nora (Maggie Smith) who is impressed with his love of reading and sends him books he tried to steal. Why is there no public library in Dublin at this time? It’s supposed by like 1910 or 1911. Most major cities in America had libraries? What the heck.

But the movie is more about his love of country and how he could use writing to rebel. Nora makes a classist comment about needing a “high education” to be a writer.

Silver Streak: Movies about Writing

Confession - this movie isn’t very much about the writing process. But I didn’t have time to write a full blog this week. Enjoy.

This film was released in 1976, but the last time I saw it was sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. I’m sometimes surprised by the number of Richard Pryor movies I was allowed to watch as a child. But this blog is going to focus more on Gene Wilder’s character, a book editor onboard a train to attend a wedding. Just a quick warning that if you decide to watch the film, it does include jokes that cross some modern boundaries and use less-than-faltering stereotypes.

Silver Streak stars Wilder as George Caldwell who starts his journey meeting a cast of Agatha Christie-esque characters played by Ned Beatty as a lecherous lawman, Clifton James as an accusing sheriff, and Jill Clayburgh as the female sidekick Hilly. The cast is rounded out by bit parts by Fred Willard, Patrick McGoohan, Ray Wlston, Richard Kiel, and Scatman Crothers.

George confesses to taking the train because he needs to get some reading done for his publishing job. Hilly has recently taken a job for an academic trying to sell his book on Rembrandt so the pair quickly create the usual banter using nonfiction as the subject. The film automatically gives the notion that book editors make bank because George has a first class train cabin and orders fancy food with lots of champagne.

My question is, while George and Richard Pryor’s character are tossed into a world of art conspiracies and murder, what happened to all of the books George was supposed to be editing on the train? Those poor authors. I hope they had carbon copies.

The Ex-Mrs. Bradford: Movies about Writing

The Ex-Mrs. Bradford is a 1936 where Jean Arthur plays a mystery writer named Paula whose trying to convince Dr. Lawrence “Brad” Bradford (William Powell) to marry her again instead of making his alimony payments to her. It’s a comedy. During their “wedded bliss” Paula would convince Brad to consult on murders so she could research them for her novels. But Brad insists that he likes his life now where he can read the paper and “enjoy a murder” without her buzzing in his ear. He didn’t object to her writing mysteries. He objected to her “living them”. He has a point there as she is paranoid that every surprise is a gangster with a gun ready to bump the both off.

Of course, because this is a movie, a case falls into their lap about a murdered jockey. What follows is intrigue and screwball antics. Paula uses their budding retry at domesticity to play detective. She tries drugging them, bashing them, and all sorts of other problems in order to solve the case. However, events lead to suspicious against Brad and now he has to play the detective while Paula distracts the police on his tail.

I enjoy how Paula’s brain is always on the case like how most writers would be distracted. Of course, since she writes mysteries, it causes her to forget her manners. I appreciate this about her character. So many old movies make authors charming and sociable. It’s more realistic in my opinion for her to be distracted and a little “dizzy” as they say in 30s lingo. She also has a big box of props for developing murder stories which is a fantastic detail!

Alex and Emma: Movies about Writing

I know this one is not everyone’s favorite movie, but I enjoyed the jokes about the writing process and maybe if you watch/re-watch you’ll agree after reading this blog.

Alex (Luke Wilson) is an in-debt author on a deadline who hires stenographer Emma (Kate Hudson) to take down his words and save him on the editing process for a his first draft. Rob Reiner upholds a tradition by both playing Alex’s publisher and is the director of the film (seriously, look at his movies. He acts in a lot of them).

Alex’s Gatsby-esque book becomes fantasy sequences throughout the film. He and Kate Hudson play literary counterparts of themselves and Sophia Marceau play’s the subject of the lovelorn Alex’s affection (both fictionally and in reality), Polina. Although, he lies to Emma and says Polina is a mixture of various women he’s known. The novel is about Adam, a tutor for a wealthy family who falls in love with the single mother of his young charges, but needs money in order to win her. Emma is turned into a series of characters that I will get to later.

First of all, I appreciate Alex’s apartment, a half-renovated mess full of books with a loft for a bed and bare wood all around. The sharks who come to collect money he borrowed from their boss did not age well, portrayed as Cuban stereotypes donning tank tops and neck tattoos. Alex has to confess to them that he’s blocked so they give him thirty days to get what he owes before they kill him. Yeah. I know. I feel like taking a penniless writer’s money was a bad idea on the Cuban boss’s part. I don’t think he would have done it in the first place, but then this movie wouldn’t have a plot, I guess.

It’s extreme NanoWrimo! Write 50,000 words in 30 days or DIE!!!!

Emma immediately dislikes Alex’s desperation and hypochondria, still she takes the job out of curiosity. Meanwhile, Alex is annoyed by Emma’s logic and how she always reads the end of a book first to decide if she will read it. In fact she does this with his previous novel right in front of me. Rude. Emma is confused that Alex has no idea where the new book will go and finds it strange when he explains to her that the characters decide where the story will go. This starts a first day of hours upon hours of Alex trying to write a grabbing first sentence. Yet, when Emma threatens to storm out, Alex’s brain starts to flow.

This becomes the norm between the two of them. He comes up with an idea and she argues it. Some of her arguments are super annoying like how he can’t claim that real explorer Cartier discovered the made-up setting of his book. Others make more sense as a reader, such as her objecting to descriptions of characters after they’ve spoken, ruining what she’s already imagined in her head. There are great jokes about word choice (“You introduced the bosom. I'm just asking if you want them to heave.”, plot holes, and character development. Most of the character development comes from him constantly changing the book’s Au-pair who he bases on Emma. She starts as Ylva, an awkward Swede, then becomes Elsa the bossy German, and finally Anna an American who embodies the truth of Emma in fictional form.

A good deal of the real writing process is in this movie. There is even a scene where a day’s work is ruined and Adam must re-write it.

The rest of the film is the usual rom-com fodder. He grows as a man. He gets the girl. He loses the girl. He learns a lesson. And so he gets the girl again.

Down With Love: Movies about Writing

First off, this one is really only funny if you’ve watched the cheesy Doris Day/Rock Hudson rom-coms of the late 50s/60s. But even then, it’s a fun look at a writer’s struggles to become famous. In this case, the writer is Barbara Novak (Renee Zellweger), an attractive librarian from Maine who had written a book encouraging women to first obtain from sex until they have met their career goals, then practice “sex-a-la-carte” like men do in order keep them from being trapped in a marriage that will ruin what they worked so hard for. Sarah Paulson is hilarious as Barbara’s determined publishing agent, Vikki Hiller. However, their rise to success is under attack from Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor the gorgeous), “the lady’s man, man’s man, man about town” journalist who is determined to prove that love will always end a woman’s ambitions. With little approval from his friend and boss, Peter McMannus (David Hyde Pierce), Catcher takes on an alternate personality that will cause Barbara to fall in love and discredit her book.

Everyone good on the plot? Good. Let’s jump into the author stuff. The movie opens with Barbara arriving in New York and meeting Vikki. The two instantly become best friends (a running gag is how they dress in similar over the top fashions everywhere they go), but a part of that bonding comes from facing the board at Vikki’s publishing company. The men (led by a Tony Randall cameo) dismiss the book as ridiculous and refuse to put money into marketing. Vikki and Barbara decide to prove them wrong, first by trying to get Catcher Block to write an article about the book for his men’s magazine. When that fails, Vikki manages to get an appearance for Barbara’s book on the Ed Sullivan Show. The editing department must have had fun with this. They had to make it look like Judy Garland was singing “Down with Love” on the Ed Sullivan Show when I’m pretty sure that was from her own TV show.

Oh marketing. People think that if you are published with the big five companies they do all the marketing for you. Ha! Not unless you are already a best seller. Sorry folks. It’s up to the authors. This is why more authors have been switching to independent and small distributors because they have more control over their work and still have to do all the footwork.

One of my favorite scenes is when Vikki takes Barbara to see her book on a shelve in a bookstore. Barbara points out how there is only one copy and if someone buys it, there will be zero copies. Vikki corrects this by pointing out there is one more copy in another bookstore. Barbara looks like she will cry. I feel you, Barbara, I feel you.

After the television hype, Barbara’s book becomes an international bestseller (where the movie manages to put in some Cold War jokes) and even gets parodied in Mad Magazine (you know you’ve made it when someone parodies you). Her book is even banned! Nothing says success like a banned book. The non-fiction scandal creates a social revolution. Woman start wanting to focus on their own lives and make men have to wait on them. Like, you know, equality or something.

SPOILER ALERT:

It turns out Novak is a made-up name of Catcher Block’s former secretary Nancy Brown who wrote the bestseller in order to get his attention. Yet, after writing the book and seeing how it changed the lives of so many women for the better, she decides that she doesn’t want Catch’s love. Meanwhile Catch and Peter are in the dumps because they just want to marry these women and are feeling used. Catcher and Barbara find middle ground where they could both have jobs and be married. Power of books, man!

American Dreamer: Movies about Writing

Did you know CBS tried to have a theatrical film company in the 80s? Yeah… I think it’s something most people have tried to block out. Either way, in 1984 CBS produced American Dreamer, a crime solving comedy about writing and book fandom.
Cathy Palmer (Jobeth Williams) is a neglected housewive whose 2 young sons even recognize their dad’s disinterest in what’s important to her. Seriously, the kid’s are both under 12 and actually lovingly tease their mom about the crap their father says (clearly, they would not pick him in a divorce). At the moment, Cathy has entered and won a dream trip to Paris by writing a few pages “in the style of” her favorite book series, Rebecca Ryan. The Rebecca Ryan novels are mystery thriller where the title character and her best friend Dimitri uncover devious acts among the upper classes. So, yeah. Cathy won a trip to Paris by writing fan fiction. I can’t think of a modern agent in the big 5 publishing companies allowing a publishing stunt like that today (too many lawsuits if the author accidentally writes anything close to a contest entry), but it’s the 80s. Fanfiction.net didn’t exist yet.
When Cathy wins, her husband “can’t” go with her and is sort of shocked when she chooses to go alone which he accuses her of being “childish” and “selfish” for doing. Free vacation, dude! Free vacation she won through hard work! The kids get it! They help her pack!

On her trip, Cathy is struck by a car and wakes up thinking she is Rebecca Ryan. She barges her way into the life of Alan McMann (Tom Conti), son of the Rebecca Ryan author, who she mistakes for Rebecca Ryan’s sidekick, Dimitri. Alan is intrigued by this bizarre woman who is determined to play espionage, only for the pair to end up in the midst of a real international incident.

Spoiler Alert: What Cathy/Rebecca doesn’t know is that Alan is secretly the writer of the series and his mother works to keep his secret by showing up at book signings. Cathy tells him that he shouldn’t be ashamed of his work.

What is so bizarre about the film is that Alan, a writer, knows all of these diplomats and politician. I get that the man is wealthy enough to live in a Parisian hotel, but that doesn’t exactly make him Henry Kissinger (thank goodness). Does James Patterson hang out with Angela Merkel? Come to think of it, that might not be a bad idea. She could convince him to include the environmental movement into his books.
Either way, there is this sense of responsibility he has to her since she thinks she’s a character he created. And there is a good balance between him being attracted to the woman he created and annoyed by her. We create characters who fit into a world built for a genre. They don’t always fit into OUR worlds.

Oh. . . and Cathy becomes a professional writer at the end of the film as well. Oh and her kids seems like Alan more than their birth dad.

Theme Month Time (again)

I have been told that in February there is holiday which many people celebrate. Therefore, I shall make the next three blogs for movies about writing all related to Presidents Day. Ha! I wish.

No, it’ll be that other one. Prepare for three rom-coms about writing. You’ve been warned.

Little Women (2019): Movies about Writing

FINALLY! A HOT PROFESSOR BHAER! I mean, writing. I’m blogging about the writing parts of this film.

This one is similar to the 94 version in that it’s closer to the book and tries to include details that make all five of the children into full-fledged characters as they grow up. Laura Dern is another fantastic, human Marmee. The sisters and Laurie are played by Emma Waston (Meg), Saoirse Ronan (Jo), Eliza Scanlen (Beth), Florence Pugh (Amy), and Timothee Chalemet. They got Meryl Streep to play Aunt March and Louis Garrel to play Professor Baher. That right. This time I find Baher so much hotter than Laurie. I mean, writing. Talking about writing. This film tells the events out of order though, giving their childhood in flashbacks related to the events of their young adulthood.

The opening reveals adult Jo attempting to sell a story to a New York publisher, at first telling him a “friend” wrote it. She watches him slash apart the passages which would have made her parents the most proud, yet still sells him the tale with his edits for $20 (which - hell ya that’s good money back then). It’s clear that the editor knows she wrote it. He advises her to keep her works “short and spicy” and that female characters need be to be wed or dead in the end. There is a direct statement that, because Meg married poor, Amy and Jo have decided that they are in charge of the family finances, Jo by writing and Amy by marrying rich. Both are especially worried about Beth whose illness has returned.

From these acknowledgments of art, personal goals, and femininity being brushed aside for the sake of earning a living the only way they can, the film jumps back to the past, starting with when Laurie entered their family.

Baher, besides being hot, gets to once again behave as one of the catalysts of how Jo changes her writing from tales of terror and suspense to stories of growing up. When he tells her out right that she is talented, but her stories are not good, she reacts the way any young author would although a little more dramatically than in the 1994 version.

The other catalyst is Beth as always, but this time more straight-forward. Instead of Beth’s death simply inspiring the novel that would be Jo’s first, Beth actually tells her straight out before her death that she doesn’t want Jo to stop writing. This is the start of the stories based on their childhood. Both are also the catalysts in Jo stopping her writing completely for a time

Amy’s burning of the novel is so much worse in the 2019 version. She actually destroys it page by page, then tries not to smirk when Jo is looking for it. That’s even worse than little kid tossing it in the fire in a moment of anger. She’s holding onto what she did with pride for HOURS!

This version also uses moments from the book to show that Laurie had a friendship with all four sister’s to an even greater extent than in the 1994 movie. Even though it establishes the change from childhood to adulthood, the way they react and express themselves stays the same among the main characters in adulthood.
There is a lot of borrowing from the Alcott life in order to add to the 2019 movie (which the 94 version also did with the mentions of civil rights and child labor) to add more intimacy and detail to the four little women. Not so much to Laurie since in reality he was based on two different male friends where as the March’s were all based on Alcott real family, right down to Amy being a well-known artist. At the same time, in a way that’s similar to the Coppola Marie Antoinette, there is a lot modern visual references like the way characters dress and dance.

A big part of this within the film is the ending in which she argues with her publisher. He declares that her main character must be married and you see the debate over contracts. Am I the only one who liked that part? Oh.

Overall, this one tries to be the version that gives the most insight to being a young women who wants to be an author or artist. It delves into the development of talent, the use of criticism, and how to balance your life, reality, and art.

Little Women (1994): Movies about Writing

And now for the version I grew up with. This came out around the same time my friends I passed around the novel. This was followed by a phase where I read a lot of Louisa May Alcott books. A. Lot. And I found out that I was almost named Beth (but my Dad found out what happens to Beth and said nope). This version, just to be frank, is sometimes a little sad for me to watch. It’s the moment of pure nostalgia in my youth and takes me back to the same feelings my friends and I had at those ages. Also, because it makes me sad that my childhood crush, Christian Bale, turned out to be such an ass in reality. Looking at him is still a treat though.

Other than them moving the play from the beginning into a quarter into the film, this is also the first great version that is close to the book. It gives all of the sisters more of their stories, it shows how Laurie was close to all of them, not just Jo. And it gives more of that sense of gradual growing up, not just switching scenes and suddenly everyone is married. The cast includes Susan Sarandon as a forms of Marmee that is not just a martyr and sage advise giver, but a woman who is trying to keep her family as happy and safe as she can. Trini Alvarado plays Meg, Winona Ryder plays Jo, Claire Danes (fresh from “My So Called Life”) plays Beth, and Kirsten Dunst shares the role of Amy with Samantha Mathis. As I already said, Laurie is played by Christian Bale and Professor Baher is once again not as attractive to me as a child, but at lest well cast with Gabriel Byrne in the part. Mary Wickes plays their crotchety Aunt March who I always enjoyed and deserves a mention here. Even John Brooke, Meg’s love interest, got be played by a familiar face in the 90s, Eric Stoltz.

This is also the first theatrical version that lets you understand that all of the sisters have dreams and goals beyond marriage in their adult life. There is a good amount of focus on Amy’s art and Meg’s desire to be respected as the family was when wealthy. One of my friends loved all of the subtle little details put in from the book to show how gentle Beth was like how she always carried the dolls the rest of the girls threw away. Even, as I stated before, Marmee gets to be the strong, feminist, but still struggling woman of literature. Although they made this a bit obvious in this movie with Marmee criticizing corsets and pointing out that Laurie as a male operates under different rules of society than them.

Once again there is focus on Jo’s writing, but it is interwoven with her life among the rest of the March clang. We have the same statements of misguided youth of becoming a famous author and buying Beth a piano someday. But there are also the actual evolution of being a young writer, how she starts with fantastical stories based on other things she reads, then transitions into writing her surroundings. In the book, the girls have their own newspaper called the Pickwick Portfolio (after Dickens’s the Pickwick Papers) and this was the first version I ever saw that included it in the film. It was the sort of thing most creative children do (my friends and I included) and it makes sense to have it within the film versions. They mix in some of the other key moments of Jo writing milestones like selling her first story in with the large changes in their life like Beth getting sick.

Something people always forget in the original novel that although Lauri thought he had that massive crush on Jo, he was a part of all four sisters’ lives as well as having some aspirations of his own (which he gives up in a moment of depression). That right, Laurie has more character development in the book and in this version of the film. And that the novel was full of normal sibling rivalries. The most significant included in this movie is when Amy, upset that she can’t go out with Meg, Jo, and Laurie to the theater, burns Jo’s latest novel. First, this is utterly evil and so very devastating to watch. Second, there is the long period of time it takes to create forgiveness (namely Amy almost dies in a skating accident). And honestly, I would have taken a long time to forgive her too. And when she finally starts to rewrite the novel, all 3 sisters help Jo to remember the wording and events. This film also shows the struggles to be published, especially as a woman, even in New York City where there were more opportunities.

When we get to the parts featuring Jo and the professor, their relationship is more of a meet cute mixed with ups and downs of a normal couple. He recognizes that she’s a writer from the ink smudges on her fingers. He talks to her about other writing not just the arts in general. Then, when he criticizes what she’s been publishing in the papers, tales of horror and 2 dimensional characters, she’s insulted. She defends her work and this is a more realistic reaction of a young author. More than that, what he says sticks in her brain, she learns from it, and thanks him later. Oh yea, and her book is going to be published at the end. Hell ya, writing ending established.

Little Women (1933/1949): Movies about Writing

You might be wondering why I’m combining these two films - If you are asking that then you probably haven’t seen both them. Little Women from 1949 is almost a shot for shot remake of Little Women from 1933. They updated the cast, added technicolor, and switched the ages of Beth and Amy, but other than that - same movie. In 1949, they just hired someone to tweak the exact same screenplay.

Quick note on the casts, just to get it out of the way. In the 1933 movie Jo is played by Katherine Hepburn, Meg is Frances Dee, Beth is Jean Parker, Amy is Joan Bennett, Marmee is Spring Byington, and Douglass Montgomery as Laurie. In the 1949 movie Jo is played by June Allyson, Meg is Janet Leigh, Beth is Margaret O’Brien, Amy is Elizabeth Taylor, Marmee is Mary Astor, and Peter Lawford as Laurie. Okay, we have that out of the way.

If for some reason you don’t know this story, here’s the short story: four sisters come of age in the mid-1800s under the watchful eye of their strong, charitable “Marmee” and while missing their idealistic father. Meg is a practical girl who remembers when the family was well-off. Jo is a “tom-boy” (not my favorite phrase, but that’s what they use in the movies) determined to someday be able to support herself as a writer. Beth is the shy home-body that is adored and protected by all. Amy is the self-absorbed little debutante and has all the earmarks of a spoiled baby sibling. The unofficial seventh March is their next door neighbor, upper class Theodore “Laurie” Laurence who crushes on Jo, but in the original book is close to all members of the family. One of my objections to the 33 and 49 versions is how Laurie really only hangs out of Jo so certain events seem to come out of left-field when they happen (but totally normal in the book). To be fair, the ‘33 one does throw in a little more of the Laurie and other sister scenes then the 49 film.

Both open with the tragedies of the Civil War, the sentimental letter from the March father, and the Christmas play that Jo wrote being rehearsed by the 4 sisters (and the fantastic line “Rodrigo! Rodrigo! Save me! Then faint.). Jo declares all of the lovely things they will have when she’s a famous author and how they can snub all of the people who look down on their family. This really isn’t so much a statement of reality for authors, but a great statement for a teenage girl to make. In the 1949 version, Beth declares that Jo is a “regular Shakespeare!”

In the 49 film, Jo tells Laurie how she wants to go to Europe because she wants to help her writing by traveling. When Jo has her first story published in a local paper, she keeps it a secret from all except Laurie (who sorta blackmails her into telling him) and hints at the fact to Beth. The 1933 film does include a scene where Jo reads the paper aloud to Amy and Meg, then revealing that she wrote it, earning a great deal of praise. In the 49 version, Laurie questions why she does all of this work for low pay and she says it’s not about the dollar, it’s about seeing her first story in print and knowing people might read it. Good answer Jo.

Despite his pride, all versions point out how Laurie is annoyed by Jo’s “scribbling” which is why the character of Professor Bhaer (Paul Lukas/Rossano Brazzi) is so important. He is about nurturing her talent and treating her as an intellectual equal. In the boarding house where Jo meets him, her landlady gives her a room with a table specifically so she can write. She takes his criticism of her writing in these movies with more of a grain of salt. More on that when I talk about the modern adaptations of the book. Instead of being upset about his words on her art, Jo just makes a lot of excuses about how her stories pay the bills.

Spoiler Alert: After Beth dies, Jo writes her greatest story, but in the 1933 film it’s a brief mention that she’s sent it off to Professor Bhaer for review and publication. The 1949 movie shows the finished novel being flipped through ready for editing.

I do love one scene where June Allyson as Jo is crying over her own story she’s written. You see her in the attic surrounded by her own scribbling and mock covers she has designed and repeating what she wrote out loud. Beth finds her and asks, “Isn’t it any good?”

“It’s wonderful,” Jo blubbers. Oh, the confidence of youth.

The 40s one really does focus more on Jo’s wish to be a writer, giving more little lines that remind the audience that she’s an ambitious artist.

Little Women: Movies about Writing

This month I’m going to cover the 1933, 1949, 1994, and 2019 Little Women adaptations. And I know people are going to be like, “But there are other versions of Little Women you could watch this week?” Well, I don’t wanna. Most other versions don’t focus very much on Jo’s wish to be writer (except for maybe that anime TV series, but that’s hard to find). So, here’s my suggestion if you are really annoyed - go watch the 70s versions of Little Women (or the silent version, that’s a trip as it’s lost) and you tell me what they include about Jo’s writing goals. I’m curious, but not enough to re-watch any of those versions :-)

The Personal History of David Copperfield: Movies about Writing

I like Charles Dickens, okay! I’m going to try very hard not to make this a comparison between movie and novel . . . but know that it’s killing me inside. I’m going to say 2 things 1) it’s difficult to make a decent version of this story in under 2 hours so at least they gave it their best shot and 2) this movie was very pretty and had a great cast (except Ben Whishaw I normally love and is not creepy enough to play Uriah Heep)!

Why am I including this in this blog and not other versions of David Copperfield? This is the first film adaption I’ve seen that really focuses on David’s desire to be a writer. David (Dev Patel/Jairaj Varsani), for those who have never read the book, is a man reciting the story of his life starting from his birth to a sweet, widowed mother (Morfydd Clark who has a duel role as David’s first love Dora). Upon his arrival, he is rejected by his Aunt Betsey Trotwood (Tilda Swinton) for not being a girl. Despite having the protection of a loving housekeeper who takes him to meet her king brother and his adoptive family which include David’s first friends in his life, Ham and Emily, she cannot stop his mother from marrying the hard Mr. Murdstone (Darren Boyd). Murdstone and his equally awful sister (Gwendoline Christie) send David away to a factory which they own. For those of you who’ve read the book - I know this is out of order. In this new miserable chapter of his life, he rooms with the Micawber family (patriarch played very humorously by Peter Capaldi) who in this version of events are more selfish than their literary counterparts. When his mother dies, David runs away to find Aunt Betsey living with her cousin by marriage Mr. Dick (Hugh Laurie).

From there, David is sent to school and his life continues as it does in most versions: his friendship with Agnes Wickfield (Rosalind Elazar) and her father (Benedict Wong), the rocky bond he forms with Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard), the suspicions toward Uriah Heep, his marriage to the child-like Dora, and the way his past shapes his adult life. It’s all still out of order and some characters are combined, but it’s meant to give the same themes. Although, there’s a part where Steerforth sings the Mermaid Song, which is a good metaphor for the amount of humor put into this movie even when it isn’t always appropriate.

As I said, this one really focuses on how David is in love with words, characters, metaphors, and writing in-general. The film opens with him walking out on a stage in front of an audience, ready to tell his tale out loud in a way identical to how the author Charles Dickens used to hold assemblies where he read out his works in a theatrical manner. When depicted as a child, David is encouraged to read and collect words he enjoys. When his mother hears him say something clever or make a good observation she records it.

As a child alone in the world, David continues the practice on scraps of paper he keeps in an old box. Most scraps continue to include phrases and descriptors he enjoys along with little illustrations. When he moves in with his aunt, it’s Mr. Dick’s own scribbles and attempts at writing that encourage David.

At school, he starts to use his own life to amuse the other students with stories he claims are made-up. In the original book, David hides his past because it’s not the way of a gentleman to talk about misfortune, yet in the movie he goes to extremes to cover up any tragedies with a complete sense of humiliation. He thrives off making his childhood of abuse and colorful characters into fiction instead of simply telling the story of his life.

When destitute, Aunt Trotwood and Mr. Dick make David a small private space to write. Just like in the book, Dora wants to help him and holds his pens as he writes. That’s not an innuendo. She literally holds onto the pens and hands them to him when he needs a fresh one. He begins with character sketches just as Dickens did. He tells the remainder of his life using these character references and reveals how all will end as he writes it.

Now that I’ve said that, I can’t keep my pretentious rants inside any longer! THIS WAS SO DIFFERENT FROM THE BOOK PLOT WISE THAT I HAD TROUBLE ENJOYING IT!

SPOILER ALERT -

DORA DOESN’T EVEN DIE! SHE JUST KINDA DISAPPEARS!

Muppet Christmas Carol: Movies about Writing

“Storytellers are omniscient, I know everything.” So sayeth Gonzo the Great - I mean, Charles Dickens. The blue furry Charles Dickens who hangs out with a rat.

Now, I really do know A Christmas Carol like the back of my hand. I memorized the opening passage about door nails and coffin nails when I was a kid because it made me laugh - you know, like most eleven year olds. And this is pretty much my favorite version (in close running with the 1938 version and the 1951 versions) and is actually pretty close to the original novella (they cut out Bob’s oldest daughter, Martha and Scrooge’s sister Fan, but pretty close nonetheless). This is one of the only times the writer of the screenplay actually bothered to read the name of Scrooge’s former love, Belle. Most screenwriters skip that part and leave her nameless or give her a generic British name like Alice or Mary.

This film, for those who’ve never seen it (WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??), if full of jokes about Gonzo/Dickens being able to time each event as he narrates the story. His narrations come straight from the original text which is someone better sounding from Dave Goelz (the voice of Gonzo) then from the pompous Brit in the ‘51 version. However, Gonzo also has to constantly prove that he really is the author to Rizzo the Rat who finds this form of Dickens too unbelievable. “Hoity toity, Mr. God-like-smartypants.”

Still, I like the idea that even though Gonzo is Dickens, even he doesn’t know everything that’s going to happen. Characters can surprise their creators, even when the creator is being played by a blue furry, hook-nosed whatever.

I really don’t have much more to say here as I am very distracted right now. I mean, Michael Caine is signing with Robin the Frog. Where else could you possibly see that?

Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus: Movies about Writing

Time for some Christmas legends. Why legends? Well, although the famed letter “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” (which you can find a transcript of here) was really written and posted in the paper, the story this movie tells is not what really happened to produce such a heartfelt message of hope.

Made in 1991 for TV, this film tells the story of the famous letter from several points of view, none of which are based in fact. Virginia O’Hanlon (played by a young Katherine Isabelle long before the Ginger Snaps franchise) is the daughter of a struggling Irish immigrant (Richard Thomas) who is concerned in the midst of her father’s job loss and her best friend’s mother being sick that there may no Santa Claus. I’m pointing out all of these tragedies because it sort of amused me how over-the-top they tried to make the drama. While looking for a job, Virginia’s father gets a day old copy of his favorite paper, the Sun, from a local shop keep. So there’s where the newspaper Virginia will write to comes in.

But the real focus here is on Francis Pharcellus Church played by - oh hey Charles Bronson! What are you doing in this movie? Church is an alcoholic muckracker for the Sun who lost his wife and infant a year earlier. His editor, played by Ed Asner who I already miss, wants to keep him busy and employed in the midst of tragedy. Asner makes a big deal over how, even drunk, Church can still bring down all of Tammany Hall. They even give Church an antagonist, a man from a rival paper whose uncle is an evil industrialist. They throw a lot of random stuff from the time period in here.

“That’s the way I’d like to be able to write someday, Mr. Church! With both fists up,” an eager copy boy declares about thirty minutes in. A young female columnist expresses her gratitude to Church for lecturing at her college in a time when women were told to give up. They make him the star at the center of the print world, a star who knows that his words only last, as he puts it, “twenty-four hours”. The character grows suicidal as the movie goes on, as if such inspirational writing could only come from the very depths of despair.

But then Virginia’s letter comes, rescuing him from his internal torment. Don’t get me wrong, I still think this is one of the best pieces of writing in response to a little kid’s question. If you’ve never read it, you totally should.

*In reality, Virginia O’Hanlon was a middle class child from a comfortable family who could afford a daily newspaper. Francis P. Church was a war correspondent who started doing editorials when there were no wars to cover. He had no children and I couldn’t find anything about a deceased wife causing him to sink into depression. I get the impression he was surely though. Still, the letter is a wonderful thought and it’s reprinted every few years which shows just how well-written it was.

Mistletoe Inn: Movies about Writing

Here we are again. Another holiday season and another round of mass-produced Christmas movies staring white TV actors who weren’t doing anything that week. I could get on my soapbox about these films and how they are not my thing, but instead I’m going to point out that after working in a bookstore for 12 years, I’m finally experiencing something by writer Richard Paul Evans. Nothing against Evans, I’m just not a big Christian fiction reader. But does this movie movie fit perfectly into this blog theme? Surprisingly yes. Like very much yes. Like I kinda hate how much I associated with parts of this movie. There was a long, hot shower after I finished watching.

This one is about Kim (Alicia Witt) who has been working on a romance novel for a long time, feeling like it’s not ready yet and will not allow others to read it except her dad (a fact which causes her boyfriend to break up with her, saying he wants to be in a relationship with another “real writer”).

Okay, Hallmark! I feel personally attacked. How dare you! Just because some of us writers want to make sure things are just so and might do 6 or 7 rewrites then spend nearly 2 years in editing does not mean we are not “real writers". How dare you question.

Kim goes to a writing retreat made up of a series of workshops. There she meets Zeke, a writer who uses a typewriter that he claims is the same model Hemingway used, and they proceed to insult each other in a lackluster meet-cute.

I hate the Hemingway typewriter cliche, by the way. Other famous writers used typewriters! You don’t have to idolize the rum-guzzling, narcissistic embodiment of toxic masculinity. Why can’t a writer in a movie ever once say “I use this brand of typewriter because Maya Angelou used it” or how about Douglas Adams or Mark Twain or. . . I confess I looked up a list of famous authors who used typewriters for this rant.

Amazingly, Mistletoe Inn doesn’t get you drunk according to the rules of the Hallmark Christmas Movie Drinking game. Just tipsy. Not that I tried it…

Kim makes friends with another writer, Samantha (Lucie Guest) who has been to the conference before and helps Kim be judgy towards her ex-boyfriend who is also at there. The ex-boyfriend of course uses all of his allotted dialogue to keep reminding Kim that she’s not a serious writer. Samantha also scolds another author (I didn’t catch the character’s name) who tries to make all of the new people feel like crap who have not being published yet. I’m sorry to say, but this felt like the most realistic part of the conference to me. There’s always at least one published snob ready to bring other people down and shatter their confidence.

The workshops Kim attends included a really good quote from a visiting editor. “This is a safe space for ideas. Writing is brave work. Ridicule is the tool of shallow people. Don’t be one of the shallow people.” Damn, Richard Paul Evans! Who hurt you at a writing conference? Whoever it was I hope they saw your first bestseller. I’m not a fan of your books, but damn dude! Mad props to whatever you survived at one these workshops.

The other quote I liked came from Zeke when he tries to show Kim how to handle the criticism of crabby, overly critical publishers and agents. This was inspired by him convincing her NOT to sit through a lecture by a notorious dream-killer (yep, been to those lectures before. My favorite part is when you ask a specific question and they manage to insult you without answering the question). “Every tiny victory along the road is worth celebrating. . . . that the point of writing is not be discovered, but rather self-discovery that hopefully other people can enjoy.” I’m not sure if that comes from the original book or it comes from the teleplay writer Michael Nourse, but DAMN!
As this is a Hallmark movie, Kim and Zeke fall in love over a course of snowball fights, warm romantic dinners, and more writing exercises. I mean literal writing exercises. That’s not an innuendo. I actually made a squee noise when Zeke tries to give her constructive criticism (legit, constructive criticism about how a first draft always needs tweaking). She takes this way too-hard, but again, I think she doesn’t understand what a FIRST DRAFT is! Case-in-point, I repeatedly called one of my finished first drafts “the turd” and my boyfriend said I should work on a second draft so it can at least be a “gilded turd”. I always go to Kira Shay and Sidney Reetz first because we’ve been sharing writing ideas since we were in high school. This is totally related to how the movie’s main theme about trusting the people who share your work with, but also being willing to share.

I’m going to end this one here, but other than the highly predictable romance sub-plot, I didn’t hate this one. Fine Hallmark. You won this round.

Image property of Hallmark. Also, they’re both writers. Why does he get to hold all of the writing materials

An Old Fashioned Christmas: Movies About Writing

Might as well do the sequel even though it’s a melodramatic love triangle staring English actress Catherine Steadman as Tilly (Tatiana Maslany was on a TV series at this point in her career).

The story picks up where it left off with Tilly’s grandmother Isabella (Jacqueline Bisset) wanting to end their European tour at an Irish castle which had been apart of their ancient family history (also the once home Tilly’s namesake). Our young authoress has returned to her love of Lord Byron, but now more as driving force than a deity (seriously, if you’re going to pray to a writer, pick one who didn’t lock away his own kid when he go bored with her. I have a James Baldwin saint candle. Might I suggest him? Or how about Louisa May Alcott who has no background in this story what-so-ever). Her grandmother has been introducing her to great poets and authors in hopes that by the end of the journey with Tilly’s first published work. This is the other reason they are going to Ireland. Isabella’s former flame, the Earl of Shannon, is a poet Laurette and she hopes he will help them.

Again, I’ll repeat that unlike An Old Fashion Thanksgiving, this story has nothing to do with any work by Alcott. It could almost feel like one of her early short stories if you threw in some aspects of Victorian “dread” - you know, ghosts, robbers, etc. But nope. It’s a love story with the “being published” plot line shoved to the side after about fifteen minutes. Also, for it taking place in Ireland, there are only 2 Irish actors and the British aristocracy have no accents. The exception to this is Leon Ockendan, an English actor brought in to play Cameron, the Earl’s no good drunken son, who is under strict orders to convince Tilly to marry him so his family can use Isabella’s fortune to revitalize their status. Also enter Gad (Kristopher Turner), the boy next door whose proposal she promised to consider at the end of the first movie.

Even though Tilly knows what Cameron is up to, the pair are attached to each other and Gad, sensing something is off, comes at the grandmother’s request. This sets Tilly in a battle for her hand. Hallmark formula blah blah blah. There is another side plot in which Tilly goes to meet her father’s relatives who live in town. Tilly’s grandfather Sean (Ian McElhinney) is a charming, warm, and loving man who is thrilled to see her. He works his charm on Isabella and they develop their own relationship.

As far as the love triangle goes, it does show how Gad understands Tilly. She is able to easily tell him everything she’s been worried about at the castle and he gives her support even when she pretty much complaining about him being there. And just like in the first film, he supports her as a writer. The other guy doesn’t even ask her about her talents. Of course, they also make him rather unrealistic. His only purpose is to be her childhood love. But either way, love triangle plots tend to bore me. I remember watch this the first time and I kept leaving the room to do other stuff. I wish the film had done more bonding between Tilly and the grandfather she’s meeting for the first time and how that helps them both remember her late father. But nope. That’s not how Hallmark movies work.

Okay, enough of the sappy stuff. Let’s get to the writing stuff. They still give Tilly lines such as “a writer knows the meaning behind words”. She has a wooden writing desk she carries on her travels. Cameron’s mother also tries to use Tilly’s want of publication as another way to manipulate her and her grandmother into marrying him. There is also an argument about Tilly wanting to be published when she feels she is ready, not her grandmother. A good quote is when she says, “I don’t want to be a famous writer. I want to be a good one. I’ll get published when I get published". Her other good quote is when she says “words must be taken seriously’ and asks the early if he agrees, one writer to another. He also gives her good advice about having more confidence in her writing. She also finally stops quoting Lord Byron but for the reason of she wants to use her own words. Still, no one ever bothers to tell her that Byron was a terrible person. Sigh.

One cool piece of trivia: Catherine Steadman, besides being an actress, is a published thriller author.

Tilly looks like a young authoress here.

An Old Fashioned Thanksgiving: Movies about Writing

2008 - Hallmark put a little extra money into a made-for-TV film and decided to adapt a Louisa May Alcott short story. By adapt I mean they took the title and the fact that it was about Thanksgiving and then added a bunch of elements stolen from other Alcott books. The original tale was a just a description of a middle class family attempting to celebrate on a budget. At the time the story was written, Thanksgiving had only been a national holiday for about 20 years, but as a New England-er, Alcott would’ve been an old hand at the festivities. I should also point out that this has small historical inaccuracies that I decided to nit-pick, but I won’t expose you to my pretentious irks.

A quick synopsis of this Little Women/Jack and Jill/Eight Cousins rip off. Tilly (Tatiana Maslany - yes, Orphan Black herself starred in this as a teenager and stands out) is the eldest ins a lower-middle class New England family. Her father has died within the last year and her mother (Helene Joy) has been making ends meet as a midwife and unofficial town healer. Tilly worries about her two younger siblings and thinks it’s her job to save the family from poverty. When her wealthy best friend/love interest Gideon “Gad” (Kristopher Turner as a Theodore Laurence/Jack Minot substitute) runs into her estranged grandmother while in Europe, she begs him to delivery a letter she forges from her mother. You know the letter - all about starvation, a father kidnapped by gypsies, and a beg for help.

At first, Gad reports how her Grandmother (Jacqueline Bisset) threw out the letter, but then the snobbish woman shows up at their farm. Tilly discovers that she is both drawn to the life her grandmother can offer, but is also appalled by how this well-bred woman constantly berates her late father as an Irish vagrant who stole Tilly’s mother from her fancy life. Tilly does stand up to her Grandmother and the two find common ground yet Tilly still has to school her grandmother in how to be a kind human. Grandmother is also a subtle advocate of women’s rights, secretly admiring her own daughter for being a survivor.

Tilly, like the famous Jo of Little Women, is an aspiring writer. She records every part of her grandmother’s visit and turns it in a novella. Unlike in Little Women, Gad is supportive of this and encourages her by bringing her a bust of Lord Byron from Europe. He finds no strangeness in the way she speaks to the statue and asks for writing writing advise. A strange choice for a young woman in the mid-1800s - I mean, Bryon really? Hardly appropriate. He was such a dick to everyone he claimed to love. Get better heroes, kid. Still, when Tilly wants her life to change for the better, it’s Byron she begs for help from, declaring she’ll give up “comfort” for a dedication of truth and beauty through writing if he will help save her family. Give up comfort? Truth? Beauty? Yep. She has no idea what sort of man Lord Byron was. Of course, when I was a kids I was heart broken to find out that Charles Dickens left his wife in such a jerk way and I still kinda idolize him. We all need better heroes.

Despite having a day job, Tilly stays up late writing short stories and had difficulty getting up in the morning. That sound pretty much like me age 13 to 21. She’s horrified when her grandmother reads some of her work without her permission, but the uptight matriarch gives her constructive criticism and declares that she should travel to help her writing. I did like this part of the story especially because (SPOILER ALERT) that’s what she chooses to do at the end of the film, giving Gad a promise she’ll rethink he marriage proposal when she comes back. That’s right - this Hallmark movies ends with the boy not getting the girl. Instead, the girl gets a trip to Europe in order to improve her writing. Let’s end more Hallmark movies like this!

Haunted Honeymoon (1940): Movies about Writing

And back into the 1940s we go with a silly bit of spookier - Haunted Honeymoon. Robert Montgomery is a British nobleman who likes to play detective and his wife is a moderately successful mystery author played by Constance Cummings. Oh, and the guy who was famous for playing Disney’s 1950 Long John Silver (Robert Newton) is in there too. That’s right, this is campy AND British. So British, the couple brings their butler on their honeymoon. Buckle in, folks.

Just to give this some dignity, it’s actually based on a series of popular mysteries by Dorothy L. Sayers, who apparently lived in Kingston Upon Hull. There’s a blue heritage plaque and everything! I lived there for 10 months in college and there was a history plaque I missed! It must’ve been near the sports arena. I didn’t go over there.

The couple are a bit like a sober Nick and Nora Charles who are a go-to consultant team for the local law enforcement. Both Peter (Montgomery) and Harriet (Cummings) have declared to give up murder and mayhem (fact and fiction) in their new life together. Naturally, a murder occurs while at their honeymoon cottage, one of those “everyone hated him so there’s a long list of suspects” murders.

The mystery naturally pulls the true crime couple back into old habits, but I will not give away the murderer. I will give away some of the more English hi-jinx which are meant to cause hilarity. For one, the dinner is not prepared upon their arrival and the butler (named Bunter which is very confusing to my stuffed up ears) is nearly smoked out by using the old stove of the cottage. For another, the chimney sweep has 7 layers of jumpers on and plans on clearing the flue while wearing a tie. A local offers them wine made of local vegetation. A parson keeps waving a dead stote at them. The same parson then shoots upward into their chimney. With all of these shenanigans, they don’t even find the body until act three of the film.

One of the aspects of Harriet being a writer is how her new upper class in-laws are rather mystified that she is a woman who makes money on such a droll little hobby. When she gives up crime novels, she says she could write about anything in the world which we all know as authors is a total lie. She’ll write what the voices in her head tell her to write. But it’s also just simply and clearly shown that deductive reasoning is how her and her husband’s minds work. They breakdown the real murder using the same questions Harriet uses to create a fictional murder. Eat your heart out, Jessica Fletcher!

The Adventures of Mark Twain: Movies about Writing

If you’re expecting spaceships, claymation, and a super creepy sequence involving the devil, this is not that movie. Although, massive points to you if you got that reference. This The Adventures of Mark Twain was the result of movie studios wanting to make money off the lives of famous authors without actually researching the lives of famous authors. And thus, in 1944, we get Fredric March in a mustache.

First, I will warn that the scenes involving African American actors are cringe worthy. I hope they all got paid well for having to talk like Jim Crow stereotypes. I’m forgiving March himself as he would’ve had no say (being an actor, not a director) and he was a member of the NAACP which might be why he wanted to play Twain in the first place.

I’m not going to go into a lot of nitty -gritty or cast lists for this one. In over two hours of biopic, it was more like one of Twain’s books. The whole story is exaggerated right down to giving young Samuel Clemens (Twain) two childhood friends named Tom and Huck. Very little happens the correct order and several of his life’s major events are given a great deal of dramatic emphasis. The movie even starts with a rather ridiculous opening of people watching Halley’s comet like the world is coming to an end while Clemens is born. This might be one of the oldest Hollywood creation I’ve seen which includes the fictional characters appearing to the author in dream sequences.

Avoidance of hot political topics is also the name of the game. No mention of Twain deserting the Confederate Army or his work as an abolitionist. Twain fought for Black rights and women’s rights in reality yet there’s no mention of either. Mostly, it’s a lot of reminiscing about being a steamboat pilot. The creation of his publishing company and his printing of Ulysses Grant’s memoirs was an interesting scene, but only lasts ten minutes.

Still, there is a focus on his own self-doubt as a writer and how he used humor to help him in these moments of embarrassment or second guessing. In one scene, his future father-in-law states that writers are the great New England men like Emerson, Whittier, Longfellow, and Wendell Holmes. He lets this get into his head, like many writers do. He then later meets three of these “giants” and tries to make joke which doesn’t land because to this shaken confidence. The movie credits his wife for keeping him going, but I’d like to think some of his own humor helped.