Movies | Amy C. Shaw

The Prestige: A Magical Adaptation

June 12, 2013 • 9 Comments

Once again I am participating in Picture Me Reading’s weekly meme Awesome Adaptations, about films that have been adapted to screen from books. This week’s theme is “An Awesomely Magical Adaptation.”

I have not kept it a secret that I really love what Christopher Nolan does as a writer and a filmmaker. In 2006 he released a movie of intrigue based on a novel by the same name, The Prestige, about two feuding magicians.

I have listened to about half of The Prestige audio book, so I can only compare the two stories so much. The book starts in modern-day, with a young man, Andrew Westley, who we come to find out is Alfred Borden’s great grandson. Since he has been adopted, he learns of this connection only recently at the time the book begins. He is a journalist for a local paper who travels to a place for a story, only to find out that he has been summoned by Kate Angier, the great-granddaughter of Rupert Angier (who is named Robert in the film), who has some questions for Andrew that she believes will explain a mystery surrounding their magician predecessors and from their own childhood. Later, we get Alfred Borden’s account of his story in his own words. Then we get the perspective of Kate, and then we get Rupert Angier’s account in his own words (what happens beyond this point I’m not sure).

“Are you watching closely?”

The accounts of Bolden and Angier share similarities and dissimilarities between the story of the two magicians in the film. In the film, the two appear to be friends and colleagues at first, who then become scorned with one another after a terrible accident. In the book, an accident does turn the two against each other, though they are hardly acquainted beforehand, and Bolden is not even aware of what the consequences of his actions have borne for Angier. The focus for the magicians in both the book and the movie, however, is on each magician wanting to create the best version of The New Transported Man illusion, where the magician himself appears to be transported in less than a second.

Nolan, however, clearly added some elements for dramatic purposes. (Warning, movie spoilers ahead) Unless these things come up later in the book, it appears that Borden was never on trial, that his wife Rebecca never hung herself, and that Angier’s wife did not drown on stage. Borden and Angier also do not exchange many words during the book, and they especially don’t appear to write secret coded journals specifically for the other magician to find. Nolan also eliminated the modern-day story line that is in the book, which I have found myself engrossed in since I am not sure what will happen there, but I can understand how it needed to be cut for a feature length film.

What I find most fascinating about the film Nolan created is that the viewer doesn’t even know who they are really supposed to root for. Most people I saw the movie with did seem to sympathize with Angier more, whereas I had sided with Borden; but regardless, who the true protagonist is and who the true antagonist is is left quite gray. In the book, when you read (or in my case, hear) Borden’s account, he’s easy to side with. He admits he started a skirmish with Angier, but sought to make amends and did not want it to continue, whereas Angier seemed to further provoke it. Then when you hear Angier’s side, you understand better why he did what he did. Again, it’s quite gray, and even generations later, you see that the families have still not forgiven each other entirely.

There’s no real magic in The Prestige, but there is a lot of science, wonder, and creativity crafting the great illusions the magicians perform. And sadly, their stage lives also often overshadow, rule, and consume their real lives. For a great story about the mystery of stage magic as well as the intrigue of the human condition, I would definitely recommend the film The Prestige, and based on what I have experienced with the book so far, I would recommend it as well.

Have you seen the film or read the book? What are your thoughts?

Character Consistency in Stories

June 7, 2013 • 19 Comments

I was listening to a podcast review of Star Trek: Into Darkness and I was a little surprised to hear some of the people on the show say they felt some of the characters were inconsistent from who they were in the 2009 film. Likewise, I have also heard some complain that Tony Stark was inconsistent in Iron Man 3 compared to how he was before.

I disagree with both of these viewpoints, but it did get me to thinking about consistency in characters in stories (primarily from movie to movie). Just when is the character experiencing a natural change in their arc, and when is it just out of character? Personally, I found Elizabeth and Will wildly inconsistent in the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies as to who they were in the first one. But I know people who disagree. Why do some of us accept certain character changes and some of us not?

bonesx2 — Bones contemplates this for us…

The Consistency of the Story

I think part of it is how you view the story overall. For instance, I thought the second POTC movie was a ridiculous rehash of jokes from the first and that the third movie got way too serious. The first story was such a fun romp and I felt the next two films deviated from what made the first one so good. Since I did not enjoy the plots of the story and the twists that were happening, I felt that the characters themselves were taking actions that were not consistent with how I viewed them in the first movie.

In the 2009 Star Trek film, Kirk is cocky and confident, much like Tony Stark is in Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and The Avengers. With Tony, I think we start to see him change in The Avengers, when he makes the decision to sacrifice himself (though ultimately he makes it out fine) to save all the others. In Iron Man 3, he is wrestling with what he experienced in that moment: being worried about Pepper, shocked by the fact that aliens are real, etc. I could see the thread of what happened. And he still certainly had plenty of Tony Stark moments.

With the Star Trek films, I admit it’s not as clear cut. At the end of 2009, Kirk gets the Captain’s chair at an extremely young age and with virtually no experience. In Into Darkness, he appears to be much the same, taking big risks with the belief that it will always work out fine. He gets lectured that it won’t always be fine, but none of that means much until he (SPOILERS for the rest of this paragraph) sees Pike die. Pike is like a father to Kirk, so his death really rocks his world. He wants to hunt down the man responsible, but he also has to learn what risks are necessary and which ones are not. It’s hard to fit so much change in a two hour film without it feeling too forced, but at the end Kirk makes a decision like Tony does. Maybe there could have been better ways to develop these two plot lines, but for me, they were fine. But I also embraced the entirety of their stories.

If a story is filled with plot holes and weird twists that no one believes, people are not likely to buy into what the character is doing either.

The Consistency of Voice

I was listening to another podcast called “Writing Excuses” (what can I say, I’m a podcast junkie), and in a recent episode they were discussing why the writing in The Avengers worked so well. One of the main things they praised about the movies was the consistent character voice, and for ALL the characters! But they said there were even a couple of times that the voice was not consistent but it was so well-played it didn’t matter. The big example of this was with Thor’s line about Loki being adopted. They said it was OK with them, even though it didn’t sound like something Thor would say, because the joke was perfect, it needed to be shared, and Thor had to be the one to deliver it.

I think this goes with the next point…

The Consistency in Tone

I think the example of Pirates of the Caribbean works well for this. I did not feel the tone of the second and third movies were not consistent with the first. And going back to The Avengers, though Thor’s joke was not consistent with his individual character voice, it was consistent with the tone of the movie and the dialogue in general.

This might be why some struggle with Iron Man 3 or Into Darkness, because both movies are a little darker than their predecessors. I personally do not find them to be such large departures, and I find the overall tones still consistent, but there is some change. I mean, among Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Avengers, and Iron Man 3, there are three different directors at work. But tone can change as the characters grow, it’s just a matter of balancing the change tone, character, and story in a way that is believable and trying to stay consistent in voice and other areas.

The Consistency in Back Story

It is extremely important for writers to remember what they (or other writers working on previous projects before them) have written about a character. Likewise, it’s important for the character to have actions that match up with their personal back story. Sometimes the writer may not know the back story for the character until a lot about the character has been written, but as long as it matches with the character’s behavior, that is fine. Kirk from the J.J.-verse is different from Roddenberry’s Kirk. This Kirk lost his father and thus grew up in a very different household. He had the same mother and he still lived in Iowa, but one major difference completely changed the way he was living his life. So when the 2009 and Into Darkness Kirk is more immature and more reckless than the original Kirk, it makes sense, because he didn’t have the same strong father figure.

When there’s a disconnect between a character’s past and their present, without a middle that connects the change between the two (which would be more backs story we would need), we find the whole character unbelievable.

But no matter how hard a writer tries to balance all of these things, not everyone is going to agree on what works and what doesn’t work. It is the nature of art.

What do you think? Who are characters that you believe show great consistency throughout their story arc? Who are some characters that you feel do not?

Why Rebecca Needs to be Readapted

June 5, 2013 • 14 Comments

For the first time I am participating in Awesome Adaptations hosted by Picture Me Reading. Every week there is a new category to explore great adaptations of books to film. This week’s category is “Another Awesome Novel That Needs To Be Adapted.” After doing a lot of thinking, however, I wanted to focus on a novel that was adapted to the screen several years ago, but that I think could use a re-do, is the classic novel Rebecca.

I read it in high school and probably need to re-read it, but I remember enjoying the suspense of it. Alfred Hitchcock adapted the book to a movie in 1940, and it was pretty good, as Hitchcock’s works typically are, but I think it is one of the few Hitchcock films that would benefit from a makeover by a more modern filmmaker (because I firmly believe that you just can’t duplicate Psycho or Rear Window). Here’s the synopsis from the IMDB movie page: When a naive young woman marries a rich widower and settles in his gigantic mansion, she finds the memory of the first wife maintaining a grip on her husband and the servants. So who would star in this version of Rebecca?

Emma Stone and Jude Law, pictured above next to the originals just for comparison’s sake. The age gap between the wealthy widower Mr. and the young, naive Mrs. de Winter is supposed to be noticeable, and I believe the age difference between Jude Law and Emma Stone of 14 years feels about right for the story.

I think a director with a knack for suspense ought to be the one at the head of the project, but I have not decided who I would choose. I mulled over a few possibilities but I’m still not sure, as I don’t know what modern-day film to equate to the likes of Rebecca would be. Who do you think would be a great director for this film? And…

What do you think of a Rebecca re-adaptation? Which book are you most interested in seeing becoming adapted to film?

5 Types of Love Relationships in Stories

May 31, 2013 • 14 Comments

I was trying to think of how many different ways a (romantic) love relationship in a story can be packaged, and what was most commonly seen in stories. Though I know there are more than five approaches (I found a blog post that listed 13, though some overlap with my list), here are five that came to my mind:

1. Young Love

This is an affection that starts when the characters are young, like Peeta was five when he first noticed Katniss, or like Rudy’s care for Liesel in The Book Thief. I don’t think a real, devoted love can actually start when one is five, but then again, I don’t know what the magic age would be. However, I still find this premise very cute in general.

“Well Peeta, we know, from our days in the cave, that it was love at first sight for you from what, age five?” Caesar says.

“From the moment I laid eyes on her,” says Peeta. (The Hunger Games)

2. Friendship That Turns Into Love

I also love it when two friends in a story, especially if they’re best friends or childhood friends (again going somewhat with the idea of young love) fall in love. I think a classic example of this is Emma and Knightley in Emma. They’ve known each other for most all their lives, but it takes time for both of them to both fall in love and to realize it.

It darted through her with the speed of an arrow that Mr. Knightley must marry no one but herself! (Emma)

3. Resistant Love

Jane Austen also made this a classic love relationship found in stories with Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice, as well as with Marianne and Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility. I also enjoy this type of story because it creates such great tension. I was going to call this “antagonistic love,” but sometimes you can be friends with someone and still resist the thought of being with them for one reason or another.

“From the very beginning— from the first moment, I may almost say— of my acquaintance with you, your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form the groundwork of disapprobation on which succeeding events have built so immovable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry.” (Elizabeth, Pride and Prejudice)

4. Insta-Love (AKA Love at First Sight)

Generally, this one frustrates me. I guess it may sound hypocritical to like young love stories of Peeta vying for Katniss at five and not love at first sight stories that take place years later, but at least as a child has several years to make up their mind if they actually love the person. So for teens and adults I tend to not find these insta-love situations not realistic or enjoyable, but for some reason I had next to no problem with Marius and Cosette and the 2012 Les Miserables film. Now, I will acknowledge that I have heard that in the book they have more of a relationship, but I have actually not read the book. I did, however, see the 1998 film, which doesn’t include as much of the story as the 2012 film, but somehow better develops Marius and Cosette’s relationship, so maybe that helped me not be as prejudiced towards it. Who knows, maybe it’s because they sing the entire movie and I just accept everything because it was so beautifully done. I can’t think of any good examples from books where I really accepted it. Does anyone else have one?

5. Unrequited Love

Laurie for Jo, Gale for Katniss, Rudy for Liesel, Harriet for Mr. Elton, Eponine for Marius, the list goes on… these are the stingers, when someone loves somebody and they just don’t love them back. It makes our soul ache, especially when we would have loved to see them as a couple. Or sometimes you know they wouldn’t be a good couple and you’re relieved! But you still probably feel at least a little bad. There are also a couple of great and tragic examples of this from the show Babylon 5 that I really want to share, but I don’t want to spoil the show, so just go watch all five seasons and then we’ll chat about it. Instead, I leave you with a quote from the show…

“All love is unrequited, Stephen. All of it.” (Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5)

What type of love relationships are your favorite to see in stories? What are you tired of seeing? What other love relationship types from stories can you think of?

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

May 20, 2013 • 21 Comments

To review this movie without giving away any serious spoilers would be difficult at best. So let me say what I can first…

I laughed and I cried.

This movie is largely about Kirk’s development as a character.

Benedict Cumberbatch gave a stellar performance.

Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy is still my (and my husband’s) favorite character in the reboot universe, as he was in the 2009 movie.

You can enjoy this movie with limited Star Trek exposure (you should probably at least see the 2009 film), but the more Star Trek you have seen, the more you will appreciate the movie. And if you do enjoy J.J. Abrams’ Trek films, you should really go back and watch the original source. It’s not as polished and sometimes it’s hokey, but the heart is there, and you can more fully grasp the meaning of what happened in this film.

And let me warn you, I’m about to get super Star Trek nerdy.

Now for the spoilers! I have whited out the spoilers so you can scroll down to comment without fear if you’re not ready, so highlight the white parts to read if you are ready. (Also, any links you click on will contain spoilers for various series in the Star Trek universe and other movies, so do so at your own risk!)

Comparisons to the Original Source

So there was a lot of talk about John Harrison when he was announced as the villain. Even before, it was widely speculated that he was actually Khan, who long-time Trekkies know from The Original Series episode “Space Seed,” and the movie Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan (Wait, this wasn’t Star Trek 2? No it wasn’t! In fact, it’s the 12th Star Trek movie.) Some believed it, some didn’t. Most of the time, I was in the camp who believed he wasn’t. I mean, Benedict Cumberbatch looks nothing like Khan! (Click here for a picture reference) I thought I would be disappointed if he was Khan. But I also wanted to keep an open mind.

When watching the movie, probably about ten minutes in there was a dead giveaway for me that Harrison was either Khan or involved with augments somehow (if you don’t know what augments are, your homework is the aforementioned “Space Seed,” as well as the Star Trek: Enterprise episodes “Borderland,” “Cold Station 12,” and “The Augments), and that was when he told that man that he could save his daughter’s life. Genetic engineering was clearly involved.

I also nearly cheered aloud when Section 31 was mentioned (Your homework to learn more about Section 31 is the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes “Inquisition,” “Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges,” “When It Rains…,” “Tacking Into the Wind,” and “Extreme Measures,” as well as Enterprise episodes: “Affliction,” “Divergence,” “Demons,” “Terra Prime.” (Those these episodes will make more sense and mean more if you watch the entire series, so essentially I’m telling you to watch everything. 🙂 )), and am glad that brought it up. I think Section 31 is a great element of the Star Trek universe because it shows a darker underbelly of the Federation and that it’s not perfect (I know Gene Rodenberry is rolling in his grave as I type this, but it’s true). Though I found it odd they didn’t debrief Kirk and crew about how they shouldn’t mention to anyone ever. Hmmm…

Anyways…

I decided to embrace Cumberbatch’s character as Khan while watching the movie. And then when Kirk went into that radiation zone, I once again knew what was going to happen…

Seriously, you need to watch Wrath of Khan.

Kirk was going to die. Spock was going to see him die. It would be the reversal of The Wrath of Khan, where Spock died it Kirk had to watch. And I was stunned that J.J. was actually doing this! Was is a rip-off or an homage? I mean, this is a alternate timeline, so I suppose a lot of it can play out similarly yet different (but don’t get me started on how different the uniforms and interior ship designs are and yet most of the Enterprise crew is the same… I’ve always had a problem believing alternate reality stories. But anyway, tangent over…). But I was crying in the theater, tears rolling down my cheeks, as I watched the scene between Kirk and Spock as Kirk died play out. So I accepted it. (By the way, to see a comparison between the death scenes in this movie and in Wrath of Khan, click here.) I decided I really appreciated most of what J.J. portrayed in this movie with this timeline, borrowing from original elements that Trekkies already know and love.

The Characters

I thought the film did a good job in continuing Kirk and Spock’s relationship as we saw how it was set up in the 2009 film. Though Spock is half human, he generally chooses his Vulcan side, which drives Kirk, who is very much human, crazy, but he also has a lot of respect for Spock. And though Spock doesn’t always show it or even always know if himself, he has a lot of respect for Kirk. I think the death scene was so poignant for me because of how well-developed this relationship was in J.J.’s version of Trek, because when I cried, I cried for these characters, not the original ones. BUT I also think the background I have with the original ones certainly added to the emotional element. And though I still find Spock’s relationship a little unlikely (which was how I felt with the 2009 film), it was nice to get some human moments from Spock that helped lead up to later in the movie (“I choose not to feel…).

Have I mentioned that Benedit Cumberbacth was awesome as John Harrison/Khan? Because WOW, he was. Even if you are a Trekkie and know better than to trust Khan, it was easy to find yourself halfway wonder if there was any way this Khan might be different. But he isn’t! It’s true, he does love his crew like family, but he does not care about anyone at Star Fleet one iota. I find it kind of interesting that Star Fleet and Section 31 actually woke him up to work as an intelligence agent… and when I say interesting I am not sure if I mean that in a good way. It just seems unlikely, since they have banned genetic engineering after all. But who knows. Maybe they were truly desperate. But despite this, I thought he was a good villain, much stronger than Nero from the 2009 movie.

As mentioned before, Karl Urban as McCoy is my favorite of J.J.’s Enterprise crew. He just hits him dead-on without being just like DeForrest Kelley. It’s the perfect blend of new character with old character. I can’t say enough good things.

Simon Pegg as Scotty would probably be my second favorite. I really enjoyed him in the last movie and this one.

The rest of the supporting cast was great as well, though Sulu and Chekov’s air time was pretty limited (as my husband said when we talked about Sulu’s time in the movie: “at least he got to be Captain for a little while.”). Zoe Saldana as Uhura again portrayed her as a strong yet feminine character, and I felt Alice Eve did the same for new character Dr. Carol Marcus (well, new to this film because, you guessed it, Carol Marcus is also in Wrath of Khan). I wish we could have seen more of Marcus in this film, but hopefully we will in the future.

Overall Story

I enjoyed the story overall, and once I accepted the borrowed elements from Star Trek past, I embraced those elements and thought the new twists that were added all worked together nicely for this film. I love how the story opens feeling very much like classic Star Trek with bright colors and an alien planet, and then descends into a darker feel much more reminiscent of series Deep Space Nine and Enterprise. I felt the pacing was mostly on point, though the last maybe ten-ish minutes were a little off in some ways. I’m not unhappy with the ending, but it felt a little strange to have the big climax of Kirk dying, then this chase scene with Khan and Spock, and then have a wrap-up after Kirk is saved and the movie tries to quickly tie things up so much so that we leap forward to a year in the future so we can see a new Enterprise and be all set up for a third movie (or a new TV SHOW!!!! Which I want so badly, but due to rights issues is not very likely to happen). I did love seeing Khan frozen again, with a hint of a smile on his face, and though before this movie I was not gung-ho for anymore Khan (despite how much I’ve told you to watch The Wrath of Khan I don’t entirely love it the way most Trekkies do), I DO like the concept a lot and I felt this movie did a lot for it, to the point where I would be completely happen to see a return in another movie. Though preferably a TV show. Sigh.

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned the TRIBBLE! Watch “The Trouble with Tribbles” and “Trials and Tribble-ations” ASAP. You will thank me.

I think I’ve said enough now. So if you saw the movie, what were your thoughts? If you haven’t, what are you waiting for?!