It’s Not Religious… But It Could Be, by Christopher Derrick – Sympathy for the Devil #1

December 1, 2011 Chris Derrick 2 Comments

Ever been at this point in a discussion?

What you say: “What? You didn’t like that movie?”

What you think: “This guy (or girl) is a fool, and every artistic aesthetic statement they have from now on is suspect!”

It’s curious that broad-based decisions will seemingly be made based on one’s artistic aesthetic taste… to the extent that you’d be ready to impugn everything about this affronting person! It’s that serious… and these debates rear their ugly heads at specific time in Hollywood each year…

So yes, it’s that time of year again in Hollywood — Award Season — when the “art” in the Commerce versus Art Equation edges to the forefront, and films that speak to the so-called adult in us hijack the cineplexes with a major hard-on to resonate with the erudite audiences and gather critical acclaim and then appeal – through word of mouth – to the broader public (but that public isn’t that broad as you might think… a movie makes $100 million if roughly 10 million people see it, which is 3% of the US population… in concentrated population centers at that). All for the maudlin hopes of Oscar gold in about four months from now.

Roland Emmerich’s ANONYMOUS is one of the most intriguing film I’ve seen this year, because it breathes additional life into the theory that William Shakespeare did NOT write some of the greatest works of drama in the Western canon. But also because Emmerich, renowned for his disaster schlock pop corn flicks like INDEPENDENCE DAY, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW and 2012; who would have thought?

But you must know that people have claimed Shakespeare couldn’t have written all the plays attributed to him, that the output is too protean, and that there is other confounding tidbits (no other written material in his hand has been preserved and/or discovered). However, I’m quick to remind people of Stan Lee (I had to bring comics into this, didn’t I?)… who created (or co-created) a modern mythology of tremendous scope, emotional depth and in mainly poignant morality tales that challenges the Greek myths of old – Think about it: Spider-man (and all the early villains), the Fantastic Four (and all the early villains, especially Doctor Doom, a precursor for Darth Vader – one of the silver screen’s greatest villains… until the prequels came out), the original X-men, the Hulk, Dr. Strange, Daredevil, Iron Man and large components of The Avengers (can’t count Captain America and Thor)… all came from this man’s head. Sure, Peter Parker’s dilemmas aren’t as heady and philosophical as Hamlet’s, but they do strike a chord that is unmistakable and appealing (that’s why the character is so enduring). Chuckles usually erupt from people when I mention Stan Lee in the same breath as the Bard, but in terms of a high volume of game-changing (cringe, hate that phrase) creative output for the popular masses, we have to heap praise upon Stan Lee.

ANONYMOUS is one of those films that spark the imagination in a very interesting way, but considering the subject matter (who reads Shakespeare these days anyway?) and its lack of the most marketable elements – American movie stars – it’s understandable to see why the film isn’t attracting a larger audience.

However the marketing of this film shouldn’t have been a problem – the question over the authorship of the dramatic writings that defined the modern human psyche (as argued by Yale English lit scholar and professor Harold Blum in his great book Shakespeare: Invention of the Human) should have some/more relevance to anyone interested in storytelling for entertainment… and the Western cultural heritage.

And since the movie palaces, for a good long period, were the new place of worship for the American masses, it’s head-scratching when one looks at ANONYMOUS’s underperformance (considering that there’s an audience niche that loves that type of costume drama… like everyone who watched “The Tudors” on Showtime and the BBC) and not squarely lay the blame at the feet of the marketing department. But don’t tell them that. Skip the fact that they have final say on whether a movie goes forward or not, consider that it is the marketing of a film that eventually gets us to the point of having those heated discussions that are akin to bashing someone’s religion. The Marketing Oligarchs at the Studios are like triumphant proselytizers, who have an easy religious message to spread, and remember they honestly believe that they’re the only ones who know what the audiences wants and when they want it. As Oligarchs with supreme veto power they must be at the top of their game. But are they really?

Some would say that the Marketing Oligarchs have too much to do with the decision-making process in pop culture these days (take note that marketing costs continue to unabashedly skyrocket while everything else gets diabolically squeezed down), and yet there’s a gagging amount of laziness to the whole thing. Namely, that today so many celluloid dreams can only be the product of paper-pulp dreams… and therefore the work has already been done for the Oligarchs. Although this kills the prospects of original screenplays seeing the light of day… most of the time (especially larger budgeted projects).

And speaking of a paper-pulp dream turned into a celluloid dream, David Fincher’s remake of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, based on the staggeringly successful novels by Swede Stieg Larsson, is on the horizon to slam into theaters late next month (although I’ll see it early, one of the perks of being a WGA member). When I witnessed the original Swedish film late last year, I felt that the director had aced his masterclass in David Fincher’s filmmaking aesthetic; so when I heard that Fincher was handling the remake I wondered exactly what Fincher will bring to the project (outside of the making it appealing to American audiences). Fincher, the master of precision and evocative composition, has unbelievably original source material (yet it’s all very familiar… the way it has to be for an idea to speak to millions across the globe) and is working with a wonderful screenwriter (Steven Zallian). This combination surely enables Fincher’s precision, attention to detail and supreme proficiency of the craft to emerge in full strength with this project (much like THE SOCIAL NETWORK – top-notch story told by a top-notch writer). Fincher’s incisive investigation of characters on the outside of society is what makes his projects compelling. And no one is more outside of the boundaries of society like Lisbeth Salander, and due to circumstances, Mikael Blomkivst and the whole Vagner family (the family at the center of the mystery in TGWDT); they dip in occasionally to a startling affect.

The marketing campaign for TGWDT is expert on all levels… first the red band teaser a few months ago, the tease about Fincher’s topless promo photo of Rooney Mara in full Lisbeth Salander mode, and then the recent full trailer, posters and other PR campaign items. They’ve done a good job at pushing the anticipation to fever pitch levels. Okay, so what does all this have to do with the jaundiced eye you’d give someone for liking or not liking a certain film that you absolutely hated or adored?

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO is going to be one of those films that sparks the discord among its legion of fans and soon to be viewers, like the Franciscans arguing with the Dominicans about Christ’s vow of poverty – the violence toward, the remake aspect of the film, the adaptation nature of the film, the cast… all of it! And those arguing about it (or for it) with do so with passion. After all, storytelling in the visual media is our new religion, whether we want to admit to it or not.

So you might be wondering who I am, and why I’m writing this column. Michael Davis, the illustrious MOTU, gave me a shout and asked me to write for Michael David World. Michael gave me my first comic book writing gig, and has been a fan of the film work my brother and I do (see shadowboxercinema.net for more and/or follow me on Twitter at @UnauthorizedCBD). So I couldn’t say “no” to writing this. I write films, TV and comic books, and I direct films and take photographs… but mainly I write; it’s cheap. I just need paper and pencil. I don’t even need electricity.