What is Avatar?

av⋅a⋅tar [av-uh-tahr, av-uh-tahr] –noun
1. Hindu Mythology. the descent of a deity to the earth in an incarnate form or some manifest shape; the incarnation of a god.
2. an embodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life.
3. Computers. a graphical image that represents a person, as on the Internet.

Dictionary.com UnabridgedBased on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Several people have asked me what my impressions of James Cameron’s new movie Avatar. A couple of them have been concerned about a message within the film. One person asked: “Isnt [sic] AVATAR an Envionmentalist(Green) Movie?” Another commented: “How much relation does it has [sic] with the "Gaia worship"? I heard it develops some "mother earth" stuff in it.” There so much to say about Cameron’s 2 hour 40 minute sci-fi spectacle—such as the $278 million dollars it made its first weekend, shattering all previous records; the four-year production schedule—that there is no way it can all be addressed here. Instead, I will offer a brief overview on the movie that everybody is talking about.

First of all, what is an “avatar?” This question is answered above and has more than one meaning. The most common use of the word today is closely associated with the internet; those little icons we put next to our pictures on Facebook, emails, video games, etc. are called avatars. The origin of the word, according to the Random House Dictionary, is a Sanskrit word avatāra, meaning “a passing down,” equiv. to ava (down) + -tāra (a passing over). According to the film’s website, an avatar is “a remotely-controlled biological body that can survive in the lethal air. These avatars are genetically engineered hybrids of human DNA mixed with the DNA from the inhabitants of Pandora… the Na’vi.”

So what happens? Here’s the Internet Movie Data Base’s synopsis: “When his brother is killed in battle, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully decides to take his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's intentions of driving off the native humanoid "Na'vi" in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland. In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by gung-ho Colonel Quaritch, while simultaneously attempting to infiltrate the Na'vi people with the use of an "avatar" identity. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful alien Neytiri, the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora.”

Yes, James Cameron names the planet Pandora. Who was Pandora? According to Greek mythology, she was the first woman. Her name means “all gifted;” she was given gifts by the gods that would make her dangerous yet attractive to men, a name very appropriate to the imaginary home world of the Na’vi. Pandora is probably best known for opening the box that was to remain closed, and releasing all the ills that afflict mankind. The only one that remained was hope.

When watching the movie, I found myself drawing parallels from other films to this one such as Dances with Wolves, the Lord of the Rings, Return of the Jedi, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, Star Wars as well as historical and political events. There’s even a love triangle. But that is not to say that Avatar is not an original movie; I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a movie quite like this one, especially in 3D. The technological accomplishments in the film are unparalleled. It is a science fiction movie. It’s a romance movie. It’s an action movie. It’s a sweeping epic. This movie has something to please almost everyone. However, this movie may not be to some people’s liking and for the same reason; because it is open to so many interpretations. Good movies refuse to be pigeon-holed and Avatar is a good movie. It gives us a chance to pull for the underdog, a theme Frank Capra developed in the 1930s.

Is it an Environmentalist movie? Environmentalists may say so. Does it worship Mother Earth (even though it takes place on an imaginary planet millions of light years away)? Some who worship the Earth may say so. As mentioned I found themes similar in Westerns, fantasy films, traditional science fiction, romance movies and the evening news. There are probably more if I considered them, but this is plenty. Avatar is what it is: great entertainment. When Peter Jackson was addressed with several issues regarding production of the filming of his massive Lord of the Rings trilogy, he responded with four words that I would use to summarize Avatar:

“It’s just a movie.”

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra

(Brian Howe, Jennifer Blaire and friend)


From the company that brought you "Zombies of Mora Tau" and "Lawrence of Arabia"…

Dr. Paul Armstrong (Larry Blamire) is a scientist who likes to do science. He is accompanied by his wife Betty (Fay Masterson), the wife of a scientist, to study a meteor containing the rarest of all radioactive elements, atmosphereum.

Dr. Roger Fleming (Brian Howe) is searching for Cadavra Cave in hopes of resurrecting the fabled Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. There is one thing he needs to accomplish his mission: atmosphereum.

Aliens Kro-Bar (Andrew Parks) and his wife Lattis (Susan McConnell) from the planet Marva have crash-landed on Earth. Only one thing can restore their ship: atmosphereum.

Welcome to director Larry Blamire’s tribute to the horror/science fiction films of the 1950s, Columbia Pictures' The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. The supreme shock sensation of our time—the day the Earth was disemboweled in terror—was filmed in the miracle of Skeletorama, the new screen wonder of the age! At least, according to the DVD’s cover.

Blamire and crew do something that is very difficult to accomplish: act well and appear to act badly. And they are indeed acting like they are acting badly. The cast is experienced: Masterson worked with Stanley Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut; Howe with Steven Spielberg in Catch Me If You Can; Parks with Mike Newell in Donnie Brasco. Every cheesy line is delivered in perfect time, or sometimes a little late—if that is what the scene calls for.

Lost Skeleton captures the feel of those B-movies from the 1950s. It is in black-and-white (shot on digital and converted) with stock movie music from Valentino Productions. Blamire even filmed in famed Bronson Canyon, a section of Los Angeles’ Griffith Park where several movies and TV shows have been filmed including The Searchers, Batman, Star Trek, Killers From Space, Earth vs. The Spider, and Teenagers from Outer Space. And of course, there's the title character, the Lost Skeleton. And yes, you can see the strings. Just like you're supposed to.

In addition to the three storylines mentioned above are a loose mutant and a woman made from four different forest animals named Animala (Jennifer Blaire). Of course, Animala is a result of the Transmutatron, which looks eerily like a caulk gun. The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is a comedy of the rarest order. It is a spoof and yet also an homage. Fans of the genre will appreciate the effort put forth by the cast and crew; it works nicely.

Lost Skeleton is available on DVD from Columbia TriStar Pictures, and is chock-full of bonus features that viewers will love: a retro-style trailer, a classic cartoon entitled “Skeleton Frolic,” two audio commentary tracks (one by cast, the other by crew), a Q&A session at the American Cinematheque, a blooper real (in color), and much more.

The film is rated PG so younger viewers can enjoy a film that seems like a lost gem from an era of so many bad movies riffed on Mystery Science Theater 3000. This movie needs no riffing; it’s funny enough as it is.

Click here to see the 1950s style trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe9Fs10IIk0

The Sound of Silents-- Part 2

(Safety Last!, 1923)

This is Part Two of Two:

So much could be said about silent movies that books are still written on the subject; the topic is nowhere near exhausted. Should you watch silent movies? Of course! What kind? Well, what kind of movies do you like? Like movies from the modern era, there are dramas, comedies, romances, westerns, low-key tales and big-budget studio productions, and some are better than others. Some silent films are short running anywhere from 10-20 minutes, many of which are comedies starring Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Charley Chase, the Keystone Kops.

If you’ve never seen a film from the silent era, please expand your cinematic horizons and venture where generations of people before you have gone. But please remember that you’re watching a piece of history, a story for a people who did not have computers or televisions, and radio was still in its infancy. The world was still attracted to photographs, and then pictures began to move. Studios produced these moving pictures to thrill and excite people. Think of silent movies as foreign films because in a sense they are foreign to our modern sensibilities and to our expectations of entertainment.

Think of yourself not as a 21st century movie watcher familiar with digital downloads, but as an early 20th century person curious about this newfangled invention called moving pictures being shown in movie houses. After all, you know what stage plays are like, but what is this innovative device where a story can have scene changes within the blink of an eye? Where we can see an actor’s expression change as if we standing right in front of him? To move from England to the exotic desert as quickly as a thought, and back again?

So maybe you’re interested and would like to watch one of these classics from a bygone era. Where to start? Here are some suggestions:

The Phantom of the Opera (1925) starring Lon Chaney, the “man of a thousand faces.” One of the earliest versions of the famous story by Gaston Leroux. This movie is still creepy and features a wonderful unmasking scene.

Nosferatu (1922), the first film version of Dracula; this movie is a must-see for vampire fans. Nosferatu is hauntingly atmospheric with a rat-like bloodsucker. It still offers chills late at night.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (Le Passion de Jeanne d’Arc) (1928): If you want realism in a silent movie, look no further. Director Carl Theodor Dreyer wanted the film so real that the story was based on actual transcripts from the trial of Joan of Arc, the sets were created full size (not just cut-away typically done in the silent era), and none of the actors wore makeup. It was such a grueling experience that Maria Falconetti (Joan) vowed she would never make another movie, and she didn’t. But she gave us one of the best performances in screen history, conveying the passion and soul of Joan of Arc without the use of sound.

Metropolis (1927): This sci-fi film from Fritz Lang is more metaphorical than anything. A subterranean working class toil exhaustingly to provide for the upper class living above ground. A worker from below falls in love with a man from the higher class to lead a revolt. This film is a timeless message of the fight against oppression.

Intolerance (1916): We have Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, and Titanic, but this film set the stage for every epic film that followed. The movie cost a then unheard of amount of $2,000,000 (roughly $387,000 today) to shoot this film that runs almost 3 hours. The topic is the intolerance of “love’s struggle throughout the ages,” and it intercuts four different time periods: Ancient Babylon, the condemnation of Christ, St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1572 Paris, and modern America. The sets were so massive and influential that part of them were reproduced for the new Kodak Theatre Complex that opened in 2001.

The Kid (1921): Charlie Chaplin worked a year to develop this story of a tramp who raises an orphaned baby. Both funny and touching, this movie shows us how unexpected circumstances can transform our lives forever. Wonderfully ageless.

Sherlock Jr. (1924): Although not nearly as famous as Charlie Chaplin, many people consider Buster Keaton the better talent; much of his humor is based on sight gags as much as slapstick, maybe more. He directed himself in this movie of a film projectionist who wishes to become a detective. When accused of a crime he dreams of catching the culprit like a moving picture hero would. This movie features some of the best visual effects as he literally jumps from scenario to scenario, all decades before the invention of CGI graphics. Amazing and funny.

Safety Last! (1923): The third name in the silent film comedy trifecta after Chaplin and Keaton is Harold Lloyd. A country boy working as a clerk in a big city department store devises a way to bring customers into the store: Harold’s friend, a “human fly,” will scale the building, but when he vanishes because he’s secretly a fugitive from the law, Harold must do it himself… with hilariously disastrous results. A true comic classic.

The Sound of Silents-- Part 1

(The Passion of Joan of Arc, 1928)

This is Part One of Two:

In Billy Wilder’s 1950 classic Sunset Boulevard, Norma Desmond, a fading star from the silent era, tells playwright Joe Gillis “We didn’t need dialogue. We had faces!” Those of us in the 21st century find relating to the first films—those shot before the invention of sound—a very difficult task. And for good reason: it’s like comparing apples and oranges. But the films of today bear very little resemblance to the moving pictures of the 1970s or 1940s, much less to those of the early 20th century. How does a viewer of today approach those silent classics? Or do they discard them with the understanding that anything without sound is not worthy of modern viewing?

First of all, any belief that silent films should not be seen because they are too old is a misunderstanding. What is required is a little background in understanding films and filmmakers from about 100 years ago. The biggest mistake we often make is approaching these motion pictures from a bygone time with a modern mindset. Movies reflect the time in which they are made. There is no way around it. Current events affect movies. The films from the 1930s, after the Great Depression and before America’s involvement in World War II, are much different than the motion pictures that were being produced during the 1940s and 1950s, during and after the war. And as technology changes, so do they stories and movies. Imagine trying to film The Matrix in 1979 instead of 1999; that the very idea would exist is doubtful.

So imagine again filming a movie without computers, without color film stock—and without sound other than a theater’s organ accompaniment; these technological marvels simply did not exist yet. Just a few title cards to propel the story, to show dialogue and to clarify the plot. Silent movies are stories told visually. One of the best ways to contrast the dynamics of silent films with modern sound pictures is with the lyrics of the song “With One Look” by Don Black and Christopher Hampton from the musical based on the film Sunset Boulevard:

With one look I can break your heart

With one look I play every part

I can make your sad heart sing

With one look you'll know all you need to know

With one smile I'm the girl next door

Or the love that you've hungered for

When I speak it's with my soul

I can play any role

No words can tell the stories my eyes tell

Watch me when I frown, you can't write that down

You know I'm right, it's there in black and white

When I look your way, you'll hear what I say

Yes, with one look I put words to shame

Just one look sets the screen aflame

Silent music starts to play

One tear in my eye makes the whole world cry

Director D.W. Griffith was the first filmmaker to discover that camera close-ups with little acting could convey more emotion than the histrionic performances borrowed from stage acting. With one look, an actor could show happiness, love, heartache or disdain. The movements of the characters conveyed thought and intention. If a group of men walked slowly around the corner of a barn where a person waited and the leader of the group turned to the others and held his finger to his lips, we know that they were moving in stealth; what he actually said when his lips moved is unimportant. If it was important to the plot, a title card would appear on screen and tell us what he said. Otherwise, their actions are enough because the story was told visually.

Next time, Part Two...

"What Would Your Character Do?"

You've created a character you love, but how well do you know her? Do you know how she would act or react in a given situation? You want to make your character's behaviour realistic, but how do you know for sure the result is what she would do and not how you would respond? There is a wonderful book published by Writer's Digest Books called What Would Your Character Do? by Eric Maisel, Ph.D. that can help.

"Noted author Eric Maisel draws on his technical knowledge of the craft and his background in psychology to show you how to combine character traits, character psychology, and character development to create realistic, memorable, and mutable characters." (http://www.writersdigest.com/)

The book contains 30 interactive quizzes to help you know more about your characters. The following is just one of the quizzes:


Your character is attending an extended-family picnic. This may be the first time you meet any of your character’s relatives, so give yourself adequate time to populate the picnic. Think through what sort of mother and father “made” your character, whether or not your character has siblings, and what the sibling order might be. Are there children, grandparents, important aunts and uncles, and/or important cousins, nephews and nieces? Take your time and begin to understand your character’s extended family. With your book in mind, dream up the right family picnic for yourcharacter to attend, one that will help you learn what you need to know. If you discover that your character’s parents are deceased, will you place the picnic in the past or act as if they are still alive? Will you include the in-laws, if your character is married? Will you narrow the cast down to just your character’s immediate family or will you include distant cousins? Take your time and develop your cast of characters and setting for your picnic.

1.What is the first thing your character does upon receiving an invitation to this extended family picnic?
a)Think about how she can get out of it?
b) Hope that a certain family member won’t be there?
c) Look forward to seeing a certain family member?
d) Feel unaccountably depressed?
e) Call a family member to get the latest gossip?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
a) Wanting to get out of the picnic is consistent with a character who is part of an extended family with real tensions present and who has decided that avoidance is the better part of valor.

b) Hoping that a certain family member isn’t in attendance directs us to a specific dynamic between your character and another family member and sets the stage for an explosive or muted picnic conflict.
c) Looking forward to seeing a certain family member is consistent with a character who has the capacity to feel love and affection and who is likely in a successful long-term relationship.
d) Feeling unaccountably depressed alerts us to the possibility that your character sees herself as an outsider even in her own family.
e) Calling a family member to get the latest gossip brings to mind a chatty, enmeshed family where everybody knows—and is into—everybody else’s business.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2. On the day of the picnic, does your character:
a) Dress carefully?
b) Dress eccentrically?
c) Wear comfortable clothes?
d) Dress sexily?
e) Dress shabbily?
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
a) Dressing carefully is consistent with a character who expects to be scrutinized and is feeling anxious and under pressure to perform.
b) Dressing eccentrically is consistent with a character who has developed into a free spirit and feels free of her family and their dynamics—or at least would like to believe that about herself.
c)Wearing comfortable clothes is consistent with a character who may really be free of family dynamics and doesn’t perceive the picnic as a trial.
d) Dressing sexily is consistent with a character who is generally inappropriate, manifests addictive behaviors, and is likely on the grandiose, narcissistic—and depressed—side.
e) Dressing shabbily is consistent with a character who may be making a statement about her unworthiness or, alternatively, defiantly showing contempt and animosity for her family.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

3. How does your character greet her mother?

a) With false love and enthusiasm?

b) With genuine love and enthusiasm?

c) Coolly?

d) Carefully?

e) Perfunctorily?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

a) In many rule-bound families, it is the custom to put on a display of love and good cheer with the family matriarch, so such a display suggests a hidden nest of family rules and secrets.

b) Genuine love and enthusiasm are consistent with a strong, mentally healthy character who has received love in childhood.

c) Greeting her mother coolly suggests a significant level of hostility and unexpressed issues between mother and child.

d) Greeting her mother carefully is consistent with a defensive posture caused by receiving regular and repeated criticism and insults.

e) Greeting her mother perfunctorily is consistent with a distant relationship characterized by a lack of interest as much as a lack of love.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

4. How does your character greet her father?

a) Gruffly?

b) Coldly?

c) Hotly?

d) Defensively?

e) Indifferently?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

a) A gruff greeting, especially between son and father but also between daughter and father, is consistent with a family dynamic of machismo, conventional gender roles, and working-class ethos.

b) A cold greeting suggests significant hostility and long-held grudges between child and parent.

c) A hot greeting, especially between daughter and father, suggests sexual dynamics and sexual secrets.

d) A defensive greeting suggests a history of criticism, rejection, bullying, and perhaps the severest forms of abuse.

e) An indifferent greeting suggests emotional distancing and a relationship that rises only to the level of civility.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

5. How does your character spend her time at the picnic?

a) Watching?

b) Catching up?

c) Getting high?

d) Conversing with one other family member?

e) Fulfilling a role?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

a) If your character watches, that is consistent with a character who has an intense inner life and who may be a rebel, thinker, and/or artist.

b) If she spends time catching up with family members, that is consistent with a character who possesses social graces and who knows how to act in social situations—irrespective of what she is actually feeling or thinking.

c) If your character gets high, that is consistent with a character who is uncomfortable in social situations and may also point to a substance abuse problem.

d) If your character spends most of her time with one other family member, that suggests that these two characters are confidantes, intimates, or like-minded.

e) If your character fulfills a role—as hostess, peacekeeper, troublemaker, etc.—that suggests she has trouble with autonomy and independent action.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

6. How would you describe the picnic?

a) Cordial?

b) Intense?

c) Boring?

d) Loving?

e) Simmering?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

a)A cordial picnic suggests the family at least knows how to look like it gets along, whether or not family members really love or like each other.

b)An intense picnic suggests high drama between at least two family members, perhaps a visiting son and his father or a pregnant daughter and her mother.

c) A boring picnic suggests a certain kind of family history from which your character may be escaping, for example, a history of conventionality, superficiality, and low aspirations.

d) A loving picnic suggests a warm, tolerant, good-humored extended family whose ups and down, difficulties, and disagreements do not prevent them from remaining close-knit.

e) A simmering picnic suggests enduring and shifting family conflicts and high drama in the lives of the family members.

Interested? To purchase the book, click here: http://www.fwbookstore.com/product/149/writing

Young Frankenstein

I was going to include this title in a previous segment of October Films, but ran out of room so I decided I would put it in Part 4. Then I had a comment from a friend who also suggested I add this one. It deserves its own article.
And why not? This movie is a classic, and although the term “classic” has appeared often in this blog series, it is the best word to define this 1974 comedy from director Mel Brooks.

Gene Wilder said he wrote the title down on a sheet of paper: Young Frankenstein; it was so funny he developed the story around it. The story, co-written with Brooks, is about the grandson of Victor von Frankenstein, Frederick, a neurosurgeon who has desperately tried to put the dreaded name of Frankenstein behind him even to the point of pronouncing it “Fronkensteen.” He inherits his grandfather’s castle and before too long finds Victor’s diary describing his work. Eventually, young Frederick realizes that “IT—COULD—WORK!”

But Frederick’s going to make sure his creation does not face the same fate as that of his grandfather’s; he’s going to use the brain of esteemed colleague Hans Delbrook. Of course, that doesn’t work out. However, there is a suitable replacement in a brain from an “Abbie Normal.”

Perhaps I should back up, particularly for people who (gasp!) have never seen Young Frankenstein. Gene Wilder is Frederick, Teri Garr is Inga, his assistant, and Marty Feldman is Igor (pronounced “Eye-gor”), Frederick’s… assistant (“My grandfather used to work for your grandfather… Of course, the rates have gone up”). And the creature is played by Peter Boyle, probably best known as Frank Barone, Ray Romano’s screen dad from the TV series Everybody Loves Raymond.

Brooks shot the movie in black-and-white and based the production design used in James Whale’s 1931 Frankenstein. One way he accomplished this was by acquiring Frankenstein’s original lab equipment from designer Ken Strickfaden. The scene when Frederick sees the secret laboratory for the first time feels like we have jumped back in time. That’s the mark of a great director. In that scene we even hear Victor Frankenstein’s voiceover as if the walls were talking. (However, that was not old audio of Colin Clive from 1931; it was director Mel Brooks.)

So the film is basically a comic variation of Universal’s Frankenstein with witty dialogue, sharp sight gags and lots of plain humor. “Stay close to the candles. The stairs can be quite treacherous,” and the candles are not lit. There’s even a song-and-dance number with Frederick and the creature performing “Puttin’ on the Ritz.” Young Frankenstein also has some of the most quotable movie lines of any film: “Help me with the bags.” “Fine. You take the blonde and I’ll the one in the turban!” Or, “Werewolf?” “There wolf. There wolf, there castle.” “Why are you talking that way?” “I thought you wanted to.”

Young Frankenstein is a rare film: It is a classic based on a classic. And it works. Even 35 years later, people watching this for the first time fall in love with it. Perhaps it’s because we almost feel like we’ve been transported to the 1930s, following in James Whale’s “vootstops” only to see jokes that are much more recent than that era. It’s a tribute that makes us laugh. And like the original movie it spoofs and honors, it is timeless. It’s a perfect movie for October, or any time of the year.

Films for October-- Part 3

Continuing a blog of dependable classic suspenseful films, this is part 3 in a series on October Films:

Shadow of a Doubt (1943): Alfred Hitchcock called this his favorite film. Little Charlie (Teresa Wright) is happy because her favorite uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten), whom she named after, is coming to visit her in the small town where she lives. But is it possible he is really the hunted serial killer known as the “Merry Widow Murderer?” One of Hitch’s best!

Psycho (1960): Another Hitchcock classic, this one features a woman on the run, a reclusive motel owner and his overbearing mother, and a creepy old house. This movie still has people locking their doors when taking a shower! And Bernard Herrmann’s often-imitated score—using only stringed-instruments—adds the perfect touch to this gem.

Frankenstein (1931): After mentioning the 2004 Hallmark version we would be remiss to not suggest this Universal classic. Not to use the term “classic” too loosely, but this film has great atmosphere as well as Colin Clive as the definitive doctor, Boris Karloff as the definitive creature, and Dwight Frye (Dracula’s Renfield) as Fritz, the good doctor’s hunchbacked assistant. Don’t worry that this movie barely resembles the novel or is only an hour and eleven minutes long; director James Whale uses the time to craft a taut suspenseful movie for all time.

Bride of Frankenstein (1935): Four years later, Universal reunited Whale, Clive and Karloff in this sequel that, in many ways, is superior to the first film. Universal stock player Frye also returns as Karl, a grave robber, and Elsa Lanchester as the title character (and Mary Shelley in a prologue recounting the young lady’s idea for a sequel).

Horror of Dracula (1958): If Universal Studios set the standard for classic horror, then England’s Hammer Films redefined the gothic genre. This film, one of their first and best, is a loose retelling of Bram Stoker’s tale set in Germany with no shortage of colorful sumptuous production values. Peter Cushing is Dr. Van Helsing and Christopher Lee is the count, and both appear in several Hammer movies reprising the same roles.

The Thing (1982): This film is being chosen over its tamer first version for two reasons: (1) Master horror director John Carpenter behind the camera, and (2) this film is closer to John W. Campbell, Jr.’s story “Who Goes There?” about a shape-shifting alien who infiltrates a science research base in the arctic and kills the members one by one. But how do you fight a creature that could be your best friend standing next to you? And who do you trust? The movie keeps the same character names from the story (unlike the first film version, The Thing from Another World, although many feel is vastly superior), but delivers several scary moments although some of them are gory. Not for the faint of heart. But a must-see for fans that like a good story while being scared out of their wits. (Rated R)

Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959): Okay, seriously, how can we discuss classic suspenseful movies and not bring this up? Or, how could we bring this up? Arguably one of the worst movies ever made, Ed Wood’s ultimate classic of alien resurrecting the dead has it all: Bela Lugosi (who died two days into filming), a stand-in who covers his face because his forehead was so much like Bela’s, falling cardboard tombstones, pilots who fly without hands on the controls, wooden acting, stock footage, an incoherent police detective, hubcap alien ships dangling from fishing line and corny dialogue. It’s so bad it’s funny. A great cheesefest when in the mood for a late, late movie.

Films for October-- Part 2

This is part 2 in a series on October Films, a look at dependable classic suspenseful films:

Dracula (1931): Tod Browning’s classic starring Bela Lugosi stands as THE definitive Dracula movie. It introduced the line “I don’t drink… wine” that did not appear in Bram Stoker’s novel, but appeared in countless incarnations of the Transylvanian count on film.

Frankenstein (2004): Yep, that date is right. I’ll probably catch flak for it, but as good as James Whale’s 1931 classic was, this 2004 Hallmark (?!) mini-series is the best version of Mary Shelley’s put on film. The 3-hour story captures Shelley’s novel in a way Branagh missed and gives enough time in its 19th century setting to set up the characters. Next thing you know, our well-meaning doctor has slipped to a place beyond his control. Yes, it is available on DVD. Stars William Hurt, Donald Sutherland, Alec Newman (SciFi's Dune and Children of Dune) as Victor Frankenstein and Luke Goss (One Night with the King) as the Monster.

House on Haunted Hill (1959): Another classic remade as a failure. And another William Castle classic. Vincent Price offers $10,000 each to five strangers if they spend the night in his creepy house. And that’s before the credits roll! A fun film to watch with someone late at night.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941): There are several versions of this film, but this one is distinctive because of the casting choices. Spencer Tracy as the good doctor and his evil counterpart, Lana Turner (the femme fatale from The Postman Always Rings Twice) as the kind Beatrix Emery and Ingrid Bergman (Ilse from Casablanca) as the fleshly-minded Ivy. But it works, especially in the hands of director Victor Fleming (The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind).

The Stand (1994): Stephen King wrote the screenplay based on his epic novel about an apocalyptic battle between good and evil. Available on DVD and originally shown as a 4-part mini-series, this 6-hour opus has everything: great characters, suspenseful plot and cameos by King, Ed Harris (Needful Things) and Kathy Bates (Misery). (Not rated, but not suitable for the very young)

The Wolf Man (1941): Another Universal classic (like Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy and Creature from the Black Lagoon) about a man who turns into the titular creature. One of the first films to popularize the werewolf, but few later efforts captured the tortured soul like Lon Chaney, Jr. as the tormented Lawrence Talbot. Also stars Claude Rains (Universal’s The Invisible Man), Ralph Bellamy and Bela Lugosi as… Bela.

Vertigo (1958): Considered by many to be Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece, Jimmy Stewart redefines “obsessed” as an ex-cop-turned-private-eye while following the woman who may (or may not) be the reincarnation of her ancestor. Stewart’s character also battles acrophobia (the fear of heights), which naturally, interferes with the case. Great stuff remastered in all its full-color glory.

North by Northwest (1959): One year after Vertigo, Hitch gives us Cary Grant as the “wrong man” in the ultimate mistaken identity story. An ad man is innocently confused for a secret agent and is chased across the country, including one famous scene by a cropduster, and culminating in a chase at Mt. Rushmore. Also includes the lovely Eva Marie Saint, James Mason and a young Martin Landau.

Films for October-- Part 1

It’s October, a time when leaves change colors, when the weather gets cooler and people get ready for Halloween. Now I don’t celebrate Halloween myself, but I must admit I like suspenseful, scary movies; particularly the classics. I’m not talking about torture porn or bloodfests (basically, very little from the past 10 years). The fun thing about a lot of these movies are that you can watch (most of) them with your family (not the very young, of course, who will probably just get bored since most are in black-and-white). And many of them are playing on Turner Classic Movies this month (http://www.tcm.com/). Check the schedule as well as Netflix and your local video store.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956): This was remade in 1978 and again in 2007 as The Invasion, but nothing can top the original with Kevin McCarthy who, through a bookend framework, explains that aliens are replicating the inhabitants of a small town. One of the best of the 1950’s spook shows.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925): Yes, the silent film with Lon Chaney. Is the phantom psychotic or misunderstood, villain or victim? In this version, he's not the victim. And that unmasking scene still packs a jolt.

Nosferatu (1922): F.W. Murnau’s haunting classic was the first filmed version of Dracula (and done so without permission of the Stoker estate). Forget about Edward Cullen, Lestat or even Nick Knight; Count Orlock (whom Leonard Maltin calls “the ugliest vampire in film history”) is the reason we still look over our shoulders late at night.

The Blob (1958): Okay, how can you take a movie about a red gelatinous mass terrorizing a city seriously? It’s difficult, but our hero is Steve McQueen in his star-making role in the film whose theme song was written by Burt Bacharach! You could do better, but you could also do much worse.

Cat People (1942): Again, NOT the 1982 remake. This movie delivers some genuine thrills and suspense, mainly due to Nicholas Musuraca’s cinematography and Jacques Tourneur’s direction.

Part Two coming soon!

Day of Atonement

There's so much to talk about since my last blog: The Gulf Coast Writers Conference, my housesitting trip to Birmingham which was rained out, helping my mom prepare for her trip to Mississippi. But since today is the Day of Atonement I would like to share some thoughts:

What does the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) have to do with Believers in Messiah Yeshua/Jesus Christ? It is one of the Feasts of the Lord mentioned in Leviticus 23. In Hebrew, Feasts is moedim, or “appointed times.” The seventh month is called Tishrei (Tish-RAY). Yom Kippur literally means Day of Covering. It is a day of atoning for sins, to cover them, to put them in the past, and to remember what our Savior did for us.

Three things that are commanded on Yom Kippur:
1. “Afflict your souls”
2. “Do no manner of work”
3. “Offer an offering of fire”

1. What does it mean to “afflict your souls?”:
According to Jewish tradition the phrase “afflict your souls” means to fast. How do we get “fast” from “afflict your souls”? From the Bible, of course! See Isaiah 58: 3-7.
2. “Do no manner of work”: This day is a day of rest, to focus on God and his redeeming work, to purge the sin from our lives and begin the next year focused on Him.
3. “Offer an offering of fire”: This part was designed for the tabernacle and temple worship when the people would bring a fire offering. Since there’s no temple, and we have a better sacrifice, we cannot bring an offering of fire.

A better sacrifice?

"Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year [only on Yom Kippur] with blood of another— He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."--Hebrews 9: 23-26

Jesus is our High Priest AND our sin offering.

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool." -- Hebrews 10: 11-13

Happy Yom Kippur!!

Quick bug story

This is a little too much to post as a Facebook status, but the website is experiencing trouble and won't let me post this as a Note. So here it is on the blog:

Just a little while ago I took some trash out to the garbage can. The corner of the house is dark and when I opened the lid I felt two bugs hit me. I thought "Uh-oh! I ran into a spider web!" I went back inside and immediately told Ellen what happened, that I think I ran into a spider web, is anything on me?

Okay, first of all let me say that Ellen is terrified of bugs and I am the designated bug killer in the family. I wear size 14 shoes so I have no problem with squishing the little guys and hearing the little "pop" underneath my sneakers! (Too graphic? Sorry...)

So when I ask her if she sees anything, she starts screaming! After 11 years I know it's not fake play screaming, but the "There's something there" screaming! She's doing the typical girlie screaming where she's fanning her hands really quickly as if she's trying to shake something off them, and she emitting a high-pitched yell! I take that as a yes.

But now I'm starting to panic! And it's all in sloooow-motion. It only lasted about a second: One thousand one; one second. But of course, it more like: What is it? (One...) A Black Widow? A Brown Recluse? (Thou...) Is it going to bite me and inject me with it's venom?! (...sand...) What is it?! Why won't you get it off?! Is it going to bite me now?! (One...) Don't just stand there! Help me!!

Ellen got her bravery on and slapped my arm a couple of times knocking the critter off. "Step on it! Step on it!" You don't have to tell me twice! I stepped on it, and then I asked her, "What was it?"

"A praying mantis."

A praying mantis? That's it? I could have released the thing back outside. After all, it's not like it was going to try to mate with me and bite my head off. But still I didn't know what it was; I stepped first and asked questions later like any man would do.

But Ellen did a very brave thing. She swiped at the bug with her bare hands, alleviating the threat. Way to go Ellen!

I hope she responds to this because I would like to hear her version of events. One thing she said was that right before she swatted at it, it turned it's head and looked at her. Yeah, that would be kinda creepy...

Embracing Evil

Today I have a few thoughts regarding vampires. I do not have a lot of time or space to say everything I'd like, but just a few things. For one, ever since I was a little kid I enjoyed vampire movies (please follow me here and reserve any judgment until the end). There are several that even today stand out in my mind: Dracula, Fright Night, The Lost Boys, Nosferatu (both versions). But the I can't get into the newer stuff particularly Twilight and Sookie Sackhouse (True Blood), which I believe were ushered in by the Interview With The Vampire movie adaptation in the 1990s. Some people would say that Believers shouldn't watch anything with vampires, period. But there's something about people fighting a diabolical creature, an epic struggle of good versus evil, and seeing the seemingly invinclible monster defeated.

That's it! Film critic Leonard Maltin calls the vampire in 1922's Nosferatu "the ugliest vampire in film history." This first (and unauthorized) film version of Dracula scared many people because of the rat-like creature. He is thin, bald, has two long sharp close-set fangs jutting out from his mouth, and long, claw-like fingers with sharp nails. In fact, the 1979 German remake explains the vampire's arrival as the cause of the great Plague. (Okay, stay with me here.)

That's what's so wonderful about Dracula, that eerily filmed 1931 Universal classic starring Bela Lugosi. Who can forget that accent? "I don't drink... vine." The movie still knows how to hold an audience, and imagine what it did to those post-Depression moviegoers investing their hard earned coins to see this charming deceptive creature prey on the unsuspecting! They probably wanted to yell at Renfield (Jonathan Harker in the novel): "Get out of there! He's going to bite you!"

And that's the difference. The vampires of old were threats. Death incarnate. Evil personified. Countless works have been written on the Christian symbolism in Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, the book that popularized the vampire myth. The power of the Cross, the burning of holy water and sunlight, and of course, the drinking of blood. The Bible cautions us not to drink blood because the blood is the life. The vampire is a symbol of the devil. He gets his strength from people not believing he is this evil thing. He is undead. There is no life for him, but he is immortal; however, he can only retain his immortality by taking the lifeforce within the living. He can take an unsuspecting life walking outside among the world, but must be invited into one's home before he can attack there. And once the invitation is given it cannot be revoked.

Today's vampire culture is the exact opposite of Stoker's original vision. The vampire is a misunderstood outcast who only wants to find a place in this world. The vampire protagonist is not evil, although his enemies are and usually for personal reasons. Crosses have no effect. Holy water only makes him wet. He will attack in someone's home if he so chooses. Sunlight seems to still be a factor, although some modern stories have "daywalkers," vampires who are not even affected by sunlight.

In other words, they are saying the devil is not really evil. The great vampire stories of old contain innocent people whose lives are threatened by demonic beasts. Today, these creatures are the innocent victims, who only want acceptance and love... and blood. Do not invite them in! There is a wonderful new novel addressing the idea of a vampire who does evil, but thinks he's doing good. Unlike most stories today, this one does not shy away from this troubling issue, but tackles it head on in a grippingly suspenseful way: http://www.thejudgingnovel.com/.

Minors allowed!

For some thoughts on minor characters I would like to begin by quoting James Scott Bell*: "Supporting players should serve one of two purposes in a story. They either help or hinder the main character. They are allies or irritants."
Mr. Bell hit the nail on the head particularly referring to them as "supporting players". Think of the Academy Awards, affectionately called "the Oscars." There's a category for Best Supporting Actor (or more precisely, Best Actor in a Supporting Role). Let's take a look at last year's winner Heath Ledger for his role as the Joker in The Dark Knight. What would the story be without the Joker? Pretty boring, right? The Joker was an "irritant" (and that is an understatement). But then again consider the character of Harvey Dent played by Aaron Eckhart. Dent is a minor character who begins as an ally who helps and then becomes an irritant that hinders. (According to http://www.imdb.com/, the film grossed $533,316,061 so I'm taking a chance that you've seen this movie). Minor characters do not have to stay one way or the other.
What about Sam Gerard, played by Tommy Lee Jones (another Academy Award winner for Best Actor in a Supporting Role), the relentless U.S. marshal who pursues Dr. Richard Kimble in The Fugitive. Is he an ally or irritant? To Dr. Kimble, he is an irritant. Remember that the minor character must help or hinder the main character. That he is a law enforcement officer chasing an escaped criminal does not matter. The story is about a wrongfully accused man trying to find his wife's killer and prove his innocence.
Minor characters who are an ally can add something special to a story, too. Take Sam, the hobbit from The Lord of the Rings who stays with Frodo from the lush green Shire to the rocky fires of Mount Doom. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo agrees to destroy the One Ring. By the end of The Return of the King, Sam is just as much as part of the journey as his master. Frodo would not have made it without Sam, who ends up literally carrying him.
And what would Casablanca be without Sam (Dooley Wilson)? Sam keeps Rick (Humphrey Bogart) in check. He was with Rick in Paris and he went with him to Casablanca. He remembers Ilsa, when the Nazis invaded Paris and when Rick stood in the rain reading the letter that Ilsa wrote telling him she would not be leaving with him. Sam is Rick's partner, confidant and friend. Without Sam, Rick's Cafe Americain would just be another saloon.
Have fun with your minor characters! To quote Mr. Bell one more time regarding allies and irritants: "If they aren't one or the other, what are they doing in the story except taking up space?"

*James Scott Bell, "Write Great Fiction: Revision & Self-Editing", Writer's Digest Books

Legend

Here's something I wrote last year I thought I'd share. Some thoughts on the 1985 movie Legend:

Some movies stand the test of time. Some do not. As a teenager growing up in the 80’s, one of my favorite movies was 1985’s Legend with Tom Cruise and Mia (Ferris Bueller’s girlfriend) Sara. Maybe it was the way director Ridley Scott brought his fantasy world to life with real unicorns and magical creatures. After all, I had been a fan of Scott’s since Alien, who went on to direct one of the all-time scifi classics, Blade Runner. Maybe it was seeing an unrecognizable Tim Curry as the devil-like Darkness. Or maybe it was just seeing Mia Sara grace the screen again (sigh).
So imagine my excitement when it was announced several years ago when Legend was coming to DVD. What a great way to relive a little nostalgia! So when I finally rented it, I wondered one thing: Did the movie really suck that bad when it was first released? Seriously, this movie reached such a state of suckdom that this viewer had never seen! What happened? Had my tastes changed so much? Were other movies of the 80’s that bad? Was Blade Runner not the apex of cinema I thought it was? Was Amadeus all pomp and no circumstance? What about Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? What did all of this mean?
Maybe it means that people’s tastes change. After all, the movie did not do well at the box office. But could it have changed that much? I watched the movie on VHS over and over as a teen, and never got tired of it. I watched it on DVD as an adult and couldn’t stand it. I don’t think I finished it! What happened to the great fantasy movie I loved? I understand that every fantasy movie cannot be on par with The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, but I would almost watch Quest of the Delta Knights without the MST3K gang before sitting through Legend again.
In case you’ve never seen it the movie is basically about who can have the longest and silkiest hair: Tom Cruise or Ms. Sara. Tom Cruise seems like he’s going to win the prize since he’s Tom Cruise (even in the 80’s), but of course, my vote is for Mia Sara since she already played the part previously in the aforementioned Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.
And the versatile Tim Curry wears more makeup here than he did in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which should tell you immediately that you’re going to be in for a bumpy ride. And to make matters worse, he does not even sing. There’s also some unicorns, which will make a brief appearance a few years later in Ridley Scott’s older film Blade Runner (?). [Note: Scott added some stock footage of Legend into the “Director’s Cut” and “Final Cut” of Blade Runner because it was cheaper than taping those horns onto new horses]. There’s also some ugly dwarves running around like demented munchkins doing some… demented munchkin stuff. As a matter of fact, Billy Barty did play one of the dwarves…
The movie also had some interesting music by Tangerine Dream. Or Jerry Goldsmith. Actually, it depends on which version you see. Tangerine Dream did the score for the American version while Goldsmith did the music for the European version. They actually did the same thing with the actors. In the United States, the film Legend starred (just in case you forgot) Tom Cruise, Mia Sara and Tim Curry while in Europe the film starred Val Kilmer, Joanne Whalley Kilmer and Warwick Davis and was called Willow. And actually, it too starred Billy Barty. Really.
The DVD is billed as Legend: Ultimate Edition. What’s ultimate about it? It takes an 89 minute film and drags it out to 114 minutes (that’s 25 extra minutes!!). Recap: Good versus evil, Darkness loses, Tom Cruise is the star, Mia Sara has the hair.

We are live!

Well, after much time and deliberation the blog is up! I'll be writing about my novel Shadow Man, about writing in general, about movies, about pretty much anything. If you have comments, I'd be interested in reading them!

I'm working on finalizing my proposal for Shadow Man. And there's just FOUR more days until the Gulf Coast Writers Conference!