MYTH & THE SUPER HERO STORY

Myth stories were created to explain and ground religious and philosophical ideas of a particular culture.  Myth stories give people solace and hope.  Since every culture has a mythology, these stories are inherently universal regardless of nuance and individual story divergences.  Essentially we all want to believe our lives have purpose and destiny so myths strongly resonate.  Since myth connects religion and philosophy, true believers, agnostics, and metaphysicians can share common ground.

     The most popular movies, television shows, and stage productions are either complete myth stories or contain this genre as a major influence.  The most common myths are those from the ancient Greeks, which were famously re-purposed from those master duplicators, the Romans.  Variations of these show up all across the world.

     In the U.S. the super-hero story most often found in comics and graphic novels are the equivalent of Greek Mythology.  The line is clearly drawn between the good guys and the evildoers and for many years this was very satisfying.  Superman saved the world from Braniac.  The Fantastic Four always foiled Dr. Doom.  Wonder Woman kicked plenty alien butt too.  As time went on and trends came and went, this good vs. evil formula, while idealized and wonderful, got stale because it didn’t reflect our increasingly complex world and evolving belief systems.  So to stay current, our super-heroes began to exhibit more and more flaws making them relatable.  They were still extraordinary crime fighters but suddenly they started dealing with conflicted emotions leading them to question their own worth and if good and evil were absolutes are situational.  Just like real people.  Batman and Spiderman in their everyday identities dealt with these issues from the beginning but now it started to affect their alter egos.  Suddenly the modern myth stories were very reflective of our humanity and popularity increased.

     They modern super-hero is now just as angst-ridden as the guy with two ex-wives demanding an increase in alimony, the worker who has been downsized out of a job, and the woman living from paycheck to paycheck.  Add to that, sudden betrayals of trust from your most trusted ally, and a banking system that’s ripping you off right and left.  So now the super heroes fight battles on all fronts and sometimes the solution of one problem reveals an even bigger dilemma.  Drama.  Not only drama but serialized ever-escalating drama.  Real entertainment.  This is why the Iron Man feature franchise, the Thor Franchise, The Captain American Franchise etc. are so lucrative.

     ABC’s MARVEL AGENT’S OF SHIELD is part of this new evolution.  Originally the acronym stood for Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, and Law-Enforcement Division. It was changed in 1991 to Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate. For the ABC show it’s Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division. These agents in this organization are not super-heroes with super powers other than their specialized very human skill sets.  But they do deal with humans and other forces with otherworldly abilities.  The fact that the main cast is all human with flaws and secrets makes them people we empathize with and worry about.  The first few episodes were not super compelling but watchable.  Many of my friends complained that it was lightweight.  But because Joss Wheedon, an exceptional ex-prod, was behind this show, I was willing to give it some time to grow.  I was glad I did.  By episode 6, we really begin delving into the psychological depths of the characters and suddenly this show is still a comic book but something more-----it’s an interesting character study with emerging lessons in humanity.  Phil Coulson, the leader of the group, was supposedly killed in the recent movie, THE AVENGERS, and brought back to life.  (This is the tie-in with the Marvel movies so that anytime a new one is about to drop; this show can be part of the marketing.  Story-wise this idea also works well.)  Coulson has been altered because of his death experience and is now a fundamentally changed guy who looks at the world differently and treats his team with an infectious tough love.  As they encounter a variety of world-threatening situations, they also grow psychologically (slowly, because this is television) and have little “light-bulb” moments about who they are in the world.

BLACK NATIVITY: Process & Form

After viewing this film at a screening the other night I briefly had an exchange with the minister husband of a writer friend of mine. He appreciated the film. I told him I felt it was a faith-based film done correctly. It doesn't transcend or challenge the genre with its message. It follows a standard, non-surprising story arc, but within the form of a musical, it holds up well in terms of competence of execution.

A little background:
This film almost didn't get made. It's been reported that some major male stars like Samuel L. Jackson and Laurence Fishburne passed on the pivotal role of the troubled minister grandfather. The production appeared to be dead in the water but somehow Forrest Whitaker (who happens to have studied opera and has an amazing tenor voice) stepped into the role of the minister and Kasi Lemmons (the writer/director) was able to get her vision transferred to the big screen. Obviously the budget was modest but the visuals and the highly stylistic approach (owing much to traditional musical theater) proved to be an asset.

My big concern with many faith-based films is not the faith part. It's the drama/story part. A good story tracks a protagonist's journey from problem to solution. The protagonist battles, overcomes obstacles, each which increase the tension, until he or she, takes a definitive action, that ultimately decides his/her fate. In the best stories, the protagonist has a deep self-revelation dramatically earned by what has come before, that causes the definitive action that resolves the story. In some faith-based films, the drama is over-wrought and melodramatic. The hero is tempted by the evil ones and the mishaps are piled on with increasing consequences. The wise, sage character advises the hero that the LORD will solve everything if that belief is just acknowledged. So the hero acknowledges his short-comings and presto, the problems are magically solved and cue the big gospel number and the story is over. The glaring problem here is the conclusion is not earned dramatically and the hero doesn't solve his own problem so what has he really learned? This weakens the story and the hero and drains all the dramatic tension from the story. In a good story, the hero learns how to solve or attempt to solve his own problem. Many faith based films opt for the "Preachy message" delivered by the Sage to save the day. This drives me nuts because this approach is cool in church but it is not dramatic and undercuts good story. It's lazy craftsmanship and sends me running out of the theater screaming "Booooooo" or makes me turn the channel with the quickness.

BLACK NATIVITY understands that it's a musical pageant on celluloid. It is a hybrid of the Ritual and American Musical Theatre forms. The story is predictable but the actors resist going over the top and infuse their performances with naturalistic expression. This approach works. It satisfies the True Believers, both dogmatic and more progressive, and the general not-so-particular religious folk. I hope it does well because it is a lesson to those who want to tell this type of story with competence and also raises the bar for those stuck in their dogmatic, over melodramatic, and lazy storytelling ways. On a larger scale, it helps open the doors to the idea that black filmmaking is capable of variety. We don't all run around slapping ho's around and shooting up the 'hood! Nor do we have to be a man wearing a dress over-playing yet another feisty, tired stereo-type that lacks the depth and individuality of say, Flip Wilson's Geraldine. We do have that but we're also capable of more...much more.

MIXING GENRES & SERIALIZING

s Angeles

In features as well as television, the trend these days seems to be genre mixing. Most shows and movies aren't just detective, horror, comedy, drama, action, or romance. They are usually hybrids like the horror-comedy, the action-romance, the detective-horror etc. That's actually an exciting trend because with genre expansion, stories can be varied and intriguing.The downside is the weaknesses of both or more genres have to be addressed in order for the story to really work well. In television, gone for the most part, are stand-alone episodes where each story is solved during the run-time of a single show. Their still may be a major crime or issue resolved at the end of the time but there are other story threads that bleed over into next week or the weeks to come. Marketing-wise, this soap-opera approach is viable because it can keep audiences coming back if the stories strike a chord. When the writing is exceptional (JUSTIFIED, BOARDWALK EMPIRE, THE GOOD WIFE) the show is firing on all cylinders. When the writing is not so wonderful but the characters have appeal, the shows also maintain favor. When the writing doesn't connect then the show crashes and burns. I'm not a big fan of the serialized thing because it's so easy to venture into melodrama and unless it's satiric, melodrama doesn't float my boat. However, melodrama does float many other people's boats. This is why soaps and soap opera style is popular. Just caught DRACULA last night and I was intrigued on one hand by the re-interpretation of the myth but on the other hand I was put off by the soapy melodrama. Dracula as sex-symbol isn't new; Frank Langella did it well on Broadway and in the 1979 film. This new Dracula is not only sexy but he's got an axe to grind with fiends more fiendish than himself----a centuries-old cabal of dirty, wealthy businessmen who happened to off his wife a few centuries in the past. So the bad-boy villian is made sympathetic by pitting him against evil capitalists. Even Van Helsing, who's been his antagonists in the traditional lore, is now an ally. So Dracky and VH take on big business. Original in a way and also kooky but...okay. But does it have to be so psuedo-Shakespearean with all the royal angst and declarations of vengeance? DRACULA is actually REVENGE and BETRAYL set in the 1800's with some demonic shenanigans mixed with the sex and blood. I'll watch 2 more episodes before I decide whether to put a stake in it or not but I'm not too optimistic. GRIMM, which premiered it's current season, before Drac, is a much better bet. It's a supernatural-action show with a good dose of comedy thrown in. I watch it primarily for the Big Bad Wolf. He's hysterical, and like the show, doesn't take himself so seriously. It's all in the tone.

THE BLACKLIST: A Quick Thought

Many writing Guru's agree that tv show creators need to build their franchise around the most interesting character. In some shows when another character other than the intended "breaks out" the focus of the show is shifted to that personality so the program maintains and increases their heat. This is not the problem with the new NBC show, THE BLACKLIST. Raymond Reddington brilliantly realized by James Spader, is the most fascinating character on the show. He's so consistent and clearly has an agenda, even if we aren't exactly sure what it is. I loved in the pilot when the female FBI agent said she didn't know if she could trust him. He replied, "Of course you can't, I'm a criminal." He's so self-aware and doesn't violate his criminality code but also operates by a set of internal rules that allow him to protect as well as mentor the young female profiler. The other characters are in service to Reddington and that works because he has such dimension as well as mystery going for him. I'm so glad the show doesn't cop out and make him a softie underneath it all. In just about every episode, Reddington reminds you he's not a "good" guy by killing someone. Of course the act is justified in the context of the story. But at the same time we understand that he's not just a cold-blooded dude but one who's not afraid to do what's necessary to reach his goals. In terms of appeal, Reddington brings to mind the character of HAWK from SPENSER: FOR HIRE.  Spenser was a literate do-gooder but he was tough and didn't like to follow the conventional rules of law-enforcement.  Hawk and Spenser were basically well bred thugs.  The difference was Spenser, although he didn't like the way law enforcement always operated, he respected it principles.  Hawk only bowed to his own rules.  Because Spenser was his friend, and they had a history, Hawk would sometimes go along but other times he and Spenser were at odds but a sense of respect allowed these men to work out their differences when they arose.  This was not a buddy show and Haw became so popular that he threatened to "break" out on his own and in fact did in the short-lived A MAN CALLED HAWK.  But that show didn't work primarily because the writing couldn't sustain the character in all his realistic iconoclastic glory.  Maybe in today's tv world, the Hawk from the Spenser novels and from the Spenser tv show could make it on his own.  In the best tv shows there are secondary characters who are interesting too. In HARRY'S LAW, not only was Kathy Bates fascinating but so were the smug, slimy, delicious Tommy Jefferson, as well as the uptight, principled female D.A. David E. Kelley does ensemble well. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have to like every character but I must be captured by one of them (Hopefully that's the lead) to the point where that individual surprises and amazes me. Oh, and the story should be compelling too.

Writing Process Thoughts

I've been reflecting lately on the Writing Process and I've discovered I'm the happiest when I'm in the center of it all which Joe Walker called "The Divine State Of Possession." Every writer approaches the situation differently. Some work from what they call pure inspiration and just begin writing the script. Some meticulously plan characters, arcs, themes etc. and then go to script. In the beginning I brainstorm an idea by asking myself some salient questions such as 1) Why am I excited about this? 2) What is the single most interesting image this idea conjures up in my soul? 3)Do I have a sense of where it begins and ends? After thinking about these things and maybe, if I am so moved, I record these notions. I wait to see if I'm still excited about these notions tomorrow and the next day. If I am, then I continue the exploration and begin looking for a structure to help organize things. For me the idea must contain a continuing, sustainable excitement to move forward. The ideas that resonate deeply are the ones worth your time and effort. And time and effort are what it takes to really excavate something of value to the writer. It's not a matter of who else may love the idea----it's a personal connection that counts. There will always be those who don't feel it as much as you as well as those who are supportive. I'm not saying the audience doesn't count. I'm saying in the beginning stages you are the audience and you have to have rocket fuel to launch your craft. The Divine State of Possession occurs when you are in the throes of your creation and cannot rest until the story is hammered out. Then you can step back and allow the critical eye of evaluation to have a say. And all this is before you show the work to anyone else. You make the initial adjustments before other trusted sources offer feedback. In this way a context and framework has been established and you can pick and choose the advice that will help you further hone your work.

Can't Follow THE FOLLOWING

I had high hopes for this. Kevin Williamson created it. He also created DAWSON’S CREEK and wrote the movies TEACHING MISS TINGLE, SCREAM and THE FACULTY. He has a dark, sinister sensibility combined with a satiric pop culture sense.

THE FOLLOWING involves a brutal serial killer who has a cult that worships him and will do anything for him. The killer (an excellent James Purefoy) was caught by an FBI agent (an equally fine but grim Kevin Bacon) but not before the killer inflicted permanent damage on him causing him to wear a pacemaker. The FBI agent also started sleeping with the serial killer’s wife while he was in jail. So the killer understandably has a serious axe to grind. (I know, but I couldn’t resist!)

The killer breaks out of jail, killing a bunch of guards with gorey percision, kills the only victim of his who escaped his wrath, and is caught and returned to prison. His cult springs in to action and kidnaps his son. The Killer then escapes again and the cat and mouse game between he and the now ex-FBI agent is on. It’s all part of some master plan, which promises to thrill the killer and punish the FBI guy.

The show is incredibly bloody and violent but that’s not the frustrating part. In every episode at this point the killer’s plan is so far beyond the FBI’s pursuit that the whole enterprise is lopsided. Hero and opponent are not evenly matched so the level of suspense is reduced to almost nothing. A lot of slasher movies have this problem so we’re left with a bunch of brutal killings and repetitive story beats that stagnate the forward motion of the yarn. We have internalized the rhythm----killer kills a bunch of people in exploitative disgusting ways, the FBI arrives, the bad guy taunts and laughs at them, and then slips away. The Killer alludes to the fact that he’s writing some epic book and the ex-FBI guy plays a critical role. YAWN! This is long-form television that stretches its 100-minute movie premise way past the breaking point. Williamson should have realized this at the concept stage. This is a film story and not a series. Maybe he does know and was paid so much money that he doesn’t care.

In order to create a long form show that engages there must be a hero and villain who are evenly matched and each faces danger from the other. The audience should question who would actually come out on top. This creates suspense and makes the drama compelling. BREAKING BAD, GAME OF THRONES, and DEXTER do this very well. In some episodes the hero triumphs and in others the villain gets the upper hand. From week to week the audience doesn’t know how the story will turn out. While all this hide-and-seek is going on, the storytellers explore the inner life of the characters and slowly reveal their values that come into question the more they pursue their goals. Long-form television is very effective when the depth of the characters are expanded and allowed to impact the direction of the story.

A great symphony is comprised of many melodies, counter melodies, motifs and complex rhythms. THE FOLLOWING is stuck in one-note hell.

20 STEPS FROM STARDOM

This is one of the most amazing documentaries I've seen. It caressed my artistic heart . I haven't been so moved so much by a movie in years. The film delves into the craft of the back-up singer exploring this extraordinary art form through the eyes of those unsung folk that many people like me, who appreciate the talent and musicianship that goes into making iconicmusic, know about. So many other people just hear the song and enjoy it at that level and that's cool. I remember studying album credits so I could begin to associate names with performances. Darlene Love, leader of the ever present '60's group, The Blossoms, is considered to be Grand Diva of the art, according to the film. Phil Spector used her and the group to help define his "wall of sound" signature. But Darlene and the ladies weren't given the credit they deserved. In many cases, the Blossoms "ghosted" for other acts produced by Spector. But this didn't stop them from being in demand to sing on the biggest records made by the biggest stars of the time. The film also profiles the sassy Merry Clayton who became a legend overnight in the Rock World by singing on the Rolling Stones classic, "GIMME SHELTER." She was summoned in the middle of the night and came to the studio very pregnant wearing PJ's, a mink coat, and curlers underneath a Chanel scarf. Mick Jagger told her what he wanted and she proceeded to blow everyone away. Nowadays Lisa Fischer sings that part in concert with the Stones. Fischer is also explored in the film. Even though she won a Grammy for a major record, she seems to feel most comfortable singing behind the star. One remarkable sequence has Fischer singing her own harmonies and appearing beside herself as each part is stacked on. At 54, she's still got those adorable dimples and earthy, comforting sensuality---even without make-up. Sting calls her a "star" and I agree. There's another sequence where she talks about working with Luther Vandross and we see him working with her and others while giving very specific vocal direction. I've heard he was detailed oriented and this proves it. Incredible. Also we meet Claudia Lannear, Patti Austin, The Waters (Julia, Oren, and Maxine), Susaye Greene, Tata Vega and newcomer Judith Hill among others. A vocal music contractor has a bit where he says a modern producer told him they can save money by auto-tuning lead and back-up vocals. The contractor is perplexed and asks what auto-tuning is. The response: We manipulate the vocals so they are in tune. The vocal contractor responds--"Why don't you use people that can actually sing on key to begin with?" My sentiments exactly. The thing many folk failed to realize was the back-up singers is actually what gave so many songs their style and artistic glory. They sang the hooks we all remember. They provided counter melodies and signature improvs to make sure the record stuck to your soul. Auto-tuning doesn't do that.

COPPER SEASON 2

Just watched the second episode of COPPER of the 2nd season on BBC America. Love the show. Tom Fontana, the co-creator, is one of my favorite writers. (HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS, SAINT ELSEWHERE, THE PHILANTHROPIST) This particular episode ended with very graphic, erotic, love scenes between the main cop, Kevin Corchoran,  a very troubled man with his emotionally damaged wife contrasted with the black doctor, headstrong, dignified but flawed Mathew Freeman and his troubled but evolving wife. We're rarely see black couples expressing love and passion on tv with it being so integral to the story line. While it was graphic (which I liked---the black folk were beautiful but very realistic looking) the scene had a very relevant emotional resonance to the story. It's a historical drama set in New York right after the Civil War. The black doctor, who is an unofficial corner, has just taken over a practice in the city and has just been insulted by a white patient after having treated the man. The doctor's wife, whose brothers were lynched by Irish thugs and is now working in a dress shop, has just met Frederick Douglass. She asks him advice on dealing with gaining her autonomy as a woman while dealing with feelings of anger about the death of her brothers. When the doctor and his wife come together they both attempt to comfort each other while expressing their anger and frustration through love-making. Great stuff! The best writing and acting these days is on television....mostly on cable.  Before I started watching this show, I assumed it was going to be a police procedural with more explicit sex and violence than you would see on regular television.  I was half right.  It is more explicit but the characters, themselves, are more challenging and brutally raw than network fare.  The story-telling is also more complex so the show is more adult in terms of sophisticated content like the best shows on HBO (like ROME and THE SOPRANOS).  The main characters of COPPER are very flawed and sometimes unlikeable in their actions but also fascinating to watch because you are never sure of what they will do next.  In the pilot from last year, Corchoran, his partner, McGuire and a couple of others chased down and killed some bandits who robbed a bank.  Just before the Uniforms arrived on the scene, the detectives helped themselves to some of the loot.  This would have never been done on "regular television."  It was shocking because I was raised on the straight-arrow cops of TV Land.  Kojak, though he speaks and acts with that Brooklyn-in-your-face style, wouldn't have laid a hand on the blood money.  He's tough but he's moral.  For the cops in the just post civil war New York, the lines are very blurred.  Killing a bad guy, taking some of his loot, screwing a hooker in a local brothel before clocking out is all in a day's work.  Wow!  These guys in COPPER seem a lot more grounded in the mean streets and gutters in real life than their mainstream network counter-parts.  Even though NYPD BLUE, HILL STREET BLUES, and my favorite, HOMICIDE had troubled guys dealing with angst, they were no where near as bold----not a regular cast member.  Regular tv is trying to be more edgy these days to compete with cable.  Some of it's good but there's a reason for pay tv.  There's a certain segment of the audience that likes a clear moral line residing in their heroes peppered with just a little angst.  Nothing wrong with that.  Just like there's part of the audience that loves the ambiguity of DEXTER even though many of them (in my humble opinion) miss the dark satiric point of it all.  It's also cool to like lighter, quirkier fare like USA's ROYAL PAINS, the slick BURN NOTICE, and the over the top PSYCH.  My hope is that we'll always have a variety of tones in programming and the band wagon trend won't ruin everything.

The Call

Had this movie been done in the ‘70’s, it would have been an ABC movie of the week and starred Donna Mills (although I would have cast Judy Pace and Don Mitchell as the handsome detective), one of the Brady Bunch Girls, Andrew Prine or Bradford Dillman as the kidnapper, and Lee Majors as the cop boyfriend. Since we didn’t have cell phones yet, the action would have taken place in a mansion where a blind Brady kid had been left alone. It would be a cat and mouse game as the kidnapper searched the house for the kid who’s in the basement on the phone with Donna Mills. In the ‘70’s B-movies were on television. Now they’ve made their return to theaters as well as DVD, Netflix originals, and cable.

A writer must first ask him or herself if the premise for their story is intriguing enough to hold the interest of the audience. Next there needs to be an evaluation of whether the struggle between pro and antagonist is sufficiently protracted to span the fully story. And finally, who is the intended audience.

Craft-wise, THE CALL has an interesting Premise: A 911 operator makes a critical mistake that ultimately causes the death of a victim she was trying to help. Guilt-ridden, she gets a second chance at personal justice when a new victim is kidnapped by the same psycho and reaches out to the operator to save her life.

This set-up has some great elements. The intriguing, little known world of the 911 rescue workers is highlighted in fascinating detail centering on a huge hi-tech control center called “The Hive.” The calm professionalism these workers need to conduct themselves, their “Quiet Room” used for stress relief, and the relationship with other law enforcement support establish a world we’ve rarely seen depicted on screen before. (In some ways this film is a distant cousin to 1965’s “The Slender Thread” starring Sidney Poitier as a suicide hot line operator co-starring Anne Bancroft and Telly Savalas.) This story does a good job establishing Jordan’s (an effective Halle Berry) moral need (re-establishing her self-worth) and her goal of saving the girl (an equally effective Abigail Bresslin). It’s a clear-cut story of redemption that’s universal in appeal at the concept level.

In the first half of the movie when Abigail Bresslin is abducted by the nut and put in the trunk of his car, the strategies Berry encourages her to use to help the police find her are both credible and fascinating. The suspense is well rendered here. Things move along in a logical police-procedural pace until the last act of the movie. Now the logic becomes a little strained and the tone switches to that of an‘80’s slasher flick minus a lot of promiscuous dead teenagers. I won’t give the ending away but it seems very artificial and diminishes much of what has come before. That’s on a craft level. This is actually very good B-movie material and if followed to it’s logical conclusions with some of the earlier clever beats, the writing might have felt more organically satisfying.

Commercially, THE CALL wears its mantra of female empowerment firmly on its didactic sleeve. The conclusion is meant to encourage women to stand up and pump their fists in a communal, “Yes!” The sentiment isn’t the problem. It’s how we get there that exposes the lazy writing. But I guess the producers felt since we have Halle Berry with her movie-star visage coupled with real acting ability that will make up for the glaring short-comings. I wish they had given the psycho some unique backstory instead of plucking him out of the “standard disturbed lunatic” bin. He should have gone to Christopher Walken or Bruce Dern for pointers on how to make a nut case interesting. This is the kind of story that Larry Cohen (“It’s Alive,” “God Told Me To,” “Phone Booth”) could have written in his sleep and still made the story sound within the boundaries of the “woman in jeopardy” genre.

Finally, that crazy wig they made Halle wear had people in the theater howling with laughter. She’s so fine she can get away with almost anything but that wig…even she had a hard time with that demon. In spite of all these drawbacks, I hope the movie does well. It’s good to have a major film with a black woman in the lead and a diverse cast where race is not the central issue. In some ways, we are becoming more expansive as a society.