Book Review of Novels into Film by George Bluestone (1957)

            Novels into Film. George Bluestone. Baltimore, MD. Johns                             Hopkins University Press, 1957. 237 Pages


                                                            By


                                                Patrick Charsky


    George Bluestone’s Novels into Film seeks to demystify the mysterious process of turning Fiction into film by analyzing the history and theory of Film adaptation through six Novels which were turned into Movies. Simply put, Bluestone's book is the best work about adaptation written so far. He explains theories and history extremely well and each example elucidates his thoughts about each adaptation and serves as a learning experience for the reader. Bluestone’s book is a must read for anyone seeking to learn about the process of adaptation.

I read this book as part of a reading list I received in Graduate school. The book was listed as the only textbook about adaptation in the section about how to turn Literature into screenplays. The previous book I read about adaptation, A Walk in the Spring Rain, contained a comment by a writer who said, and I’m paraphrasing, Bluestone’s book, the six Novels and the films are all someone would need to learn about film. So I took the extra time to read not only the textbook, but each Novel. It was a well spent few months reading each Novel, Bluestone’s analysis of each Novel into Film, and, finally, watching each Movie.

I did google searches to find out more about George Bluestone. They returned little. He was a Professor at Boston University. Novels into Film appears to be his only work. I couldn’t find much else about him or any other writing he might have done.

The book begins in a long discursive essay style first chapter that is broken up into multiple parts. It is a very well written chapter. It is wide ranging about Hollywood History, Novels adapted into Films, and the differences between the Novel and the Film. It is this latter part that Bluestone succeeds the most. He writes about how a novel is made. The process a writer goes through; how he works only and hopes for a readership to read his book. The process is contingent on him alone. There is no collaboration like in Film where you have many people working on a production with “industrial style” processes.

Bluestone really hits home when he talks about the differences of experiencing time in Novels and Movies. Novels can create different experiences, feelings, or emotions about time. The author can get inside a character’s head and talk about what they are thinking. How they are feeling. In one passage Bluestone writes about how film cannot capture certain feelings that Novels can capture. “The absence of absence” is a major quality that writers like Proust, Joyce, and Thomas Wolfe can capture but are nearly impossible for a film to depict. Films are only allowed to show what we see and hear. Not what characters are thinking.

Bluestone writers about how the Novel and Film are both time based works of art. Each has to deal with the passage of time and how to show time passing or slowing or how the characters are experiencing time. Both can have elements of flashbacks or dreams. In novels, time can last much longer. Films only have a limited amount of time to tell a story. In his analysis of Novels into Film, Bluestone writes about Wuthering Heights and how time passes differently in the Movie from the Novel. Time passes much faster in the movie.

The experience of time is something that has perplexed writers of the twentieth Century. Bluestone writes many writers were challenged to show time passing. To show the experience of time. How to show that reality. Which leads to a philosophical question; do Novels show reality? How can a novel show reality? The thinking of a character, can it ever be shown in truth? Is a Novel a construct? A work of art by the Novelist. Not reality as it is. Similar to Film. Can a film show reality? How realistic can a film be? How to show the passage of time. How to tell a story that reflects the human experience of psychological time? Memories, dreams, consciousness; can a film show these? And how will it tell a story that reflects the reality of time?

The more I read Bluestone’s book I found out about a text about Time in Literature by Hans Meyerhoff. It seems like a good book for further study about Time in Literature.

Bluestone makes some great comments about the Hollywood machine or Glamour machine. The process of thinking that movies use to exploit audiences into coming back over and over again to seek escape from their dreary Worlds. He talks about the viewer becoming ever deeper into needing escape and finding their ordinary lives not nearly as glamorous as Movies keeps them coming back for more to live the fantasy over and over again and deeper and deeper into delusions like their favorite actor or actress is their close personal friend. It caused me to reflect about why I go to movies? Why do I like them so much? Why did I ever get involved with screenwriting? I remember a few times when I talked to celebrities in my mind. Thinking they were there and we were like old chums. I caught myself doing that and now realize very sharply that I was delusional.

Bluestone selected his films from what he could find in film format. He worked long before the days of DVDs or Netflix so he was limited in what films he could find. Still he did manage to find some really good movies and watched them until he was satisfied. He chose six films. Each was adapted from a novel. The Informer directed by John Ford was set in Ireland and featured Victor McLaglen as an informer for the English against the Irish in the Anglo-Irish War of the 1920’s. It won the academy award for best picture. The next two films Bluestone selected were both romances from England. Wuthering Heights and Pride and Prejudice both starred a young Laurence Olivier. Both excellent selections. Wuthering Heights has been adapted into films many times and a new version was released just this Valentine’s Day. The adaptation of Pride and Prejudice was very well done. It’s a great novel and the film does it justice. After forays into English Literature from the 18th and 19th Centuries, Bluestone selected The Grapes of Wrath from 20th Century North America. He also selected a Western called the Ox Bow Incident. Both films star Henry Fonda and both deal with the American West. The Grapes of Wrath is possibly the best American Novel of the 20th Century. By far the best Novel about the Dust Bowl and the struggles of people affected by it. The Ox Bow incident is a shorter novel but is poignant and well written. The film is very compelling too. I enjoyed watching it even though I had never heard of it before. To close his study Bluestone chose Madame Bovary about a housewife overwhelmed by Modern life. Madame Bovary, like Wuthering Heights, has been adapted to the screen many times. Bluestone doesn’t rate the version that is part of his study. Still the book is very good and the film isn’t too bad. In his analysis Bluestone writes about all that’s left out of the film from the screenplay. He does that for each Novel into film.

Bluestone has clearly done his research with his selections and analysis of each Novel and how it was turned into a film. He writes extensively about the censorship that each film went through; how in Madame Bovary criticism of Priests was eliminated. How the ending of the Grapes of Wrath was different from the Novel because of censorship. How a lot of the radical political talk in the Novel is left out. Bluestone does not show that some things were left in. Tom Joad’s goodbye monologue to his mother was kept in. Even though it was much different from the book. Bluestone writes about many of these changes from book to film. Not always were they considerations of censorship. Changes were made also because of considerations for production. In the Informer things were changed to a more visual style to show Victor McLaglen’s character’s thoughts. In Wuthering Heights the movie ends on a happy ending and a reference to a ghost which doesn’t happen in the novel. It is all part of the process of adaptation. In Hollywood of the Golden Age or even today writers can’t be precious with their prose. Changes are made with or without their consent. And Bluestone shows much evidence to that being true.

Novels in Film is a book for anyone interested in Movies. Still it is an advanced text suitable for Film students; screenwriters in particular. Anyone who wants to understand adaptation would benefit from reading Bluestone’s book. It does delve into Film theory and Hollywood History from a bygone era so that might make it difficult for a person without a background in screenwriting, film theory, or film history. If you are not interested in those subjects the book would probably not be for you. The book is also a conduit to other books. If you are just going to read Bluestone’s book and neglect the six novels you would be selling yourself short. I was hesitant at first about reading the novels. I made the right decision to read all six novels and watch each film several times. It was a very good way to learn about adaptation and screenwriting. It made me think about doing an adaptation instead of always thinking of writing a spec script.

I spent several months reading Bluestone’s book and all the Novels he considers. It was well worth it. All the novels are excellent. Top notch. The author's best works; Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is considered her best Novel. John Steinbeck never wrote another book like The Grapes of Wrath and many readers were disappointed. Engaging with literature and movies from a past era showed how quality the films of directors like John Ford were. How Laurence Olivier and Henry Fonda were two of the best actors of the Golden Age of Hollywood. I would have never considered such great works and artists without reading the Novels too. Bluestone’s conception and execution of his book is flawless. It is the best book about adaptation yet written.

Book Review of Story by Robert McKee

    Story. Robert McKee. York, U.K. Methuen, 1999. 466 pages.


                                                By

                                        Patrick Charsky



Simply the best. Robert McKee’s Story is an enlightening foray into every aspect needed to achieve Screenwriting excellence. I read Story as part of a study of Screenwriting texts. I had heard it was the best book on the market about screenwriting. So I decided to put it off to the last book I read from the books about screenwriting I had received in Graduate school. The book didn’t disappoint. It was full of great advice about how to write and filled with knowledge about what to write.

I first learned about Robert McKee when I was an intern for a Contemporary Film Analysis class. The course showed Charlie Kaufman’s Adaptation. The film features Brian Cox as Robert McKee in a memorable performance. This led me to his well regarded book. After several years of studying other screenwriting texts I finally read McKee’s Story. It was worth the wait.

The book is enlightening for several reasons. The first is the information about screenwriting. The amount of films he analyzes is substantial. The theories he expounds are thought through and well presented in a clear way. The second reason is the amount of writing advice he imparts. He talks about avoiding cliche or the “war on cliche that every screenwriter must struggle against.” Strong words that I had never heard before. He also expounds the law of diminishing returns. This cleared up my thinking about how I write. I hope it is easier to spot when I repeat myself

Furthermore he has deep insights into screenwriting. He touches on everything; dramatic structure, characters, how to write, what not to write, and so on. He also has deep insights into how movies work and how writers can avoid boring the audience or screenplay reader. After reading the book I had taken pages and pages of notes. It is impossible for me to go into every detail. At the end of the book McKee advises writers to keep Story accessible as a guide.

McKee covers all the bases. He talks about the three kinds of films; Archplot, Miniplot, and Anti-plot. He goes on to describe why writers must master Archplot before they get into the other two kinds of stories. He also says that many screenwriters choose to do anti-plot as a political statement against Hollywood. Furthermore McKee says screenwriters must learn to write in a genre or genres before doing anything abstract or original. This thought had occurred to me but I had never heard anyone write it in a book.

Many chapters impart advice about Films and genres and characters and how to write exposition. McKee says to save the best for last. And seventy-five percent of writing the screenplay is writing the climax. He says that Hamlet is the most complex character ever written. He talks about knowing your story. To be “God” or “authorial” to your story and characters. In addition he writes about not hating any of you characters. He says “to love them all.” In one of the last chapters he describes casting a film as creating a solar system where the sun is the star and the planets are minor characters revolving around the star.

McKee’s book is thorough and detailed. He writes incredibly well and is very intelligent. It’s no wonder people pay to go to his seminars around the World.

But how to write a screenplay that achieves excellence? McKee writes his principles out for us novices to follow hoping for celluloid glory. The first is the aforementioned “war on cliche.” Especially in action/adventure films because it seems that everything has been done and audiences expect something better than last time. McKee writes that the screenplay can’t be too original or not original enough. He goes on to write about pacing. The pacing of a screenplay can’t have too many scenes all the same length it will bore the audience to death. There has to be some variety in the scenes to keep things fast, then slow, then fast again, until the end. McKee also makes clear that the charge of the screenplay should change from positive to negative by the end. Each scene should change charge too. If not, the screenplay will be droll and monotone; boring.

I’ve heard it before, but McKee makes it crystal clear, the screenplay is only as strong as the forces of antagonism. I’ve heard it said that if you have a weak conflict it’s because the antagonist is too weak. McKee uses Empire Strikes Back as his example. Darth Vader is his antagonist. Vader is a great villain, maybe the most fearsome in Film History. It’s another great example McKee uses to illustrate his point. The way to a great climax is having the subplots conclude before the central conflict. Similar to his principles about exposition, writers should save the biggest climax for last.

My review is only a review. It couldn’t possibly reach the heights to which McKee soars in his book. The end of Story provides some great advice. As an aspiring screenwriter myself his way of describing a professional screenwriter really hit home for me. It laid out some habits that I plan to adopt in my own screenwriting. Making a step outline. Saving writing dialogue until the end. Bits of advice that I never knew before reading McKee’s Story. Great advice and valuable information. Worth reading all the way to the end of the book.

Of course I would recommend screenwriters to read Story. It is the best book about screenwriting I’ve read so far. Others have good qualities. They focus on specific aspects of writing, but none of them beats out Story. It is a great read and a great reference. Screenwriters new or experienced would benefit greatly from reading Story.

Book Review of The Reel Truth by Reed Martin

The Reel Truth: Everything You Didn’t Know You Need to Know About Making an Independent Film. Reed Martin. New Yori, NY. Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2009. 536 pages


By

Patrick Charsky


In writing The Reel Truth: Everything You Didn’t Know You Need to Know About Making and Independent Film Reed Marin set out to create a book that would show novice or experienced people in the film business what not to do and what to do to make an independent film. His project succeeds at every level. Critics and practitioners in the film business have praised his book as “indispensalble,” “neccessary for survival” and “an essential document for any one attempting to break into” Indie filmmaking.

The Reel Truth was published in 2009 right at the cusp of the ongoing revolution in film distribution spearheaded by Netflix. It was also published during the Financial Crisis of 2008-2009. Reed Martin is an accomplished journalist and has held a number of academic posts. He currently works in the industry as a marketing executive.

I found out about this book because I’m an aspiring screenwriter. I have a list of books about Screenwriting that I am reading and The Reel Truth was on it. The book is a long book, over five hundred pages, so it took me some time to read it. It is one of the last books on the list about Screenwritng books that I’m reading. My thesis is that Reed Martin’s book is and indispensable text that every aspiring filmmaker should read. The book focuses on Independent filmmaking or “Indiewood” and is chock full of advice about how to make an “Indie.” I will substantiate my thesis by providing instances and examples from the book.

Martin’s book has much advice to impart to aspiring indie filmmakers. He talks about avoiding legal troubles by hiring a lawyer to consult on contracts and other matters. He says hiring a lawyer early in the process is better than finding yourself in trouble somewhere down the line. In addition to legal advice, Martin is an expert at the business side of making an indie film. He talks about all the aspects of indie filmmaking; from financing to festivals, to selling the film for distribution, and to marketing the film the right way. He writes about how My Big Fat Greek Wedding was released slowly to an increasing number of theaters rather than directly to a large number of theaters.

Martin also imparts much advice about actually making an indie film. He recommends that you hire a line producer to manage the production of the film. He also has warnings about working with the wrong producer. He notes that the “wrong producer” is usually someone who knows nothing about post-production. Martin dispels the myth common among filmmakers that anything can be fixed “in post.” He cites examples from filmmakers who ran into problems that couldn’t be fixed “in post.”

Martin is the know it all of indie filmmaking. He writes about now famous filmmakers who struggled early in their careers only to rise to celluloid glory after years of poverty and obscurity. Martin interviewed the likes of Christopher Nolan and Jim Sheridan who have both found tremendous success after years of working low paying jobs. He also talks about lesser knowns like Kimberly Pierce who struggled for years to get her first film made. Martin also writes about Darren Aronofsky who was an Indie film sensation with his first film, Pi.

Sundance is the major film festival in North America. Martin makes it clear how difficult it is to be accepted at Sundance. It is harder to get accepted at Sundance than an Ivy League College. Martin writes about making your film “festival ready” as well as how filmmakers have gone on to success by securing a distribution deal at a festival. Martin warns filmmakers with dreams of fame and riches to put those aside and find a meaningful reason to make and screen an Indie film.

These chapters were the most informative and interesting in the book. The writing about securing a distribution deal, the successes and failures, and how to go about finding success in a festival were very informative. I knew little about the business of Indie filmmaking or the festival circuit. With Martin’s book, I now know what it’s like to have a film entered into a major film festival like Sundance.

The Reel Truth doesn’t paint a rosy colored picture for filmmakers. Even having success at Sundance is no guarantee that a filmmaker will be on easy street. In a memorable passage from the book, Martin cites Quentin Tarrantino talking about how to be a success in filmmaking. Tarantino says it’s not your first film that determines whether you will have a long career in film, it’s your second film. That’s the one that will determine if you can make more movies. Many people make one film and that’s it. Martin advises people to keep making films. And if you are stuck it’s a good idea to adapt literature into a film. He also advises filmmakers to be ready for the ultimate question; “what’s next?”

This book would be of particular interest to anyone in Indie filmmaking. Actors, Writers, Directors, Producers, and Film Executives, anyone aspiring to celluloid glory would all benefit from reading The Reel Truth. Even though some of the information is out of date, the book is still full of great advice and useful information. I can honestly say I’ve learned a lot by reading Martin’s book. And I’m sure you will too.

Book Review of Storytelling in the New Hollywood by Kristin Thompson (1999)

Storytelling in the New Hollywood: Understanding Classical Narrative Technique. Kristin Thompson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. 398 pages


By Patrick Charsky


Storytelling in the New Hollywood by Kristen Thompson will appeal to a select group of readers; screenwriters, film historians, and other people concerned with learning about how Hollywood makes films. Furthermore with her close analysis of Hollywood classics from the 1980’s she sets an example of how to understand the way movies were made in the late twentieth century. Thompson’s major argument is that the way Hollywood writes films in contemporary times is not altogether much different from how they were made in the Golden Age of Hollywood. By citing specific examples from the book I will show that Thompson has proved her argument beyond a doubt.

Kristin Thompson is a highly regarded author who has held numerous academic positions throughout her career. She has published several books besides Storytelling in the New Hollywood. One such book is called Film Art which was written with her husband David Bordwell. That book has gone on to thirteen editions.

The book begins with a long discourse about Screenwriting. Thompson talks about Syd Field and his three act structure theory. She says that for some Field’s book Screenplay has become the bible on screenwriting. She dismisses Field’s theories as all encompassing. Thompson cites many writers who don’t use the three act model to write screenplays. Her main argument is like any other art form, screenplays need a balance between beginning, middle and end. So with this in mind she writes about her way of structuring a film. She agrees that there is a setup. Next is the complicating action. Then the development. And finally the climax and epilogue.

After reading her introduction I was confounded. Which is the right way to structure a film? Is it ¼, ½, ¼? Is it some other way? Do there really need to be three acts? Why not more than three? If it's a very long film then there would have to be more parts. Thompson writes about long films needing more acts. And the only reason why the three act structure is so popular in Hollywood is that screenwriters don’t have the power to get longer films made.

Thompson knows a lot about structure and screenwriting. She writes about the growth of screenwriting manuals to explain the best or right way to write a screenplay. She even thinks that the quality of Hollywood films declined in the mid- 90’s possibly because of there being too many manuals.

The next device that has stayed with movies from the early days to contemporary times is what Thompson calls the “goal oriented protagonist.” She writes that this has become a staple of classic films and has not gone extinct. Her primary film substantiating her argument is Back to the Future directed by Robert Zemekis. Back to the Future features Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly. Thompson analyzes Marty’s character in detail. She shows throughout the film that Marty has goals. His goals might change or become more complicated but Marty is always working to accomplish something. This is a common character trait in Hollywood films.

Another example of the goal oriented protagonist is Ripley from Alien. Ripley is part of a group of employees on a business trip through outer space. Over time it becomes apparent that she is the protagonist. And like Marty McFly she has goals. She must kill the alien and save herself at the same time. Thompson writes that Alien was much scarier when it came out in 1979 then today’s audiences would receive it. The character of Ripley has become the norm in the giant action/adventure film genre of today’s Hollywood. Just like Humphrey Bogart in any of his films or Scarlet O’Hara in Gone With the Wind, the goal oriented protagonist is still in use by screenwriters today. Marty McFly must save his family and get back to the present. Ripley must kill the alien and save herself. Audiences crave characters that do something. Hollywood thrives on it.

Thompson makes many points about how the New Hollywood made attempts to change the system, but even Francis Ford Coppola admits that the changes, if any, were minor. The biggest constant from the Golden Age to contemporary times is the profit motive for Hollywood. Hollywood is an art and a business and has remained that way for many years. This is one of Thompson’s strongest arguments about the persistence of filmmaking methods from the early start of film to its latest releases.

Even auteurs like Martin Scorsese and Brian de Palma worry about box office receipts on a Friday night or minutes watched on Netflix. They know that if the numbers aren’t good their next passion project might be jeopardized. Thompson’s recurring question in her introduction is whether the New Hollywood really changed anything? Did they change the way films were made? Of course new technologies came along and changed film, but the way films are written have relied mostly on tried and true methods. And this is the way the studios want it. A bankable method to generate profits. It is also the way audiences like it and if a movie is missing something and veers too far into special effects the results are usually less than stellar.

Storytelling in the New Hollywood is a book for someone with a background in Film. I have read several books abou the New Hollywood including Peter Biskind’s How the Rock n Roll Generation Saved Hollywood and William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade. Both of those books deal with similar topics.

Many people see the New Hollywood as a major change in Film History. And some of those changes can’t be denied. Where Thompson makes a strong case is in pointing out that the big studios in LA are still in big business. It is those kinds of films that haven’t changed much from the Golden Age. Smaller films, Indie films have changed and continue to challenge our expectations about what film can be.

At the end of her book she divides film into two camps; the big, Hollywood film and the small Indie film. And she raises the question about what direction Hollywood will go; towards bigger productions or towards smaller more artistic creations. In today’s Hollywood it seems like the Studios are bent on finding the next franchise hit or a new Marvel movie. The New Hollywood seems like a distant memory

Book Review of Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman (1983)

Adventures in the Screen Trade. William Goldman. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing, 1983. 594 pages

By Patrick Charsky

    Hollywood was in major crisis mode in the early 1980’s. Heaven’s Gate had just crashed and brought an end to the period of American Film History known as The New Hollywood. What was to be done? How would Hollywood survive? It was another existential moment for Hollywood. Chronicling these years and the movie events that made them is William Goldman. Famous Hollywood scribe who made his bones with hits like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All the President’s Men, and A Bridge too Far.

    Adventures in the Screen Trade is the first of three books that deal with Goldman’s career as a screenwriter. Adventures in the Screen Trade is not only a very funny book with plenty of anecdotes, advice, and attitude, it is also deeply insightful into Hollywood during Goldman’s early days as a screenwriter. The book is replete with stories about stars like Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Goldman also divulges numerous tips for aspiring screenwriters to pay attention to. Like not talking too much at meetings. Or how to “protect” the star. Or write for stars. Through the delineation of these details I will show why Goldman’s book is funny, educational, and a joy to read.

    In the beginning of his career as a writer Goldman was a struggling novelist. His big break came when he met up with an actor who thought he had promise as a writer. This actor’s name was Cliff Robertson. Robertson read one of Goldman’s early novels and thought he might be a good screenwriter. This was how Goldman cut his teeth in Hollywood. Still, Goldman faced some travails before his big hit Butch Cassidy. He lost a job. Was taken off a screenplay. It was no walk in the park. And Goldman makes that clear. It took him eight years to write Butch Cassidy. And his screenwriting career see sawed from hit to miss, to walking off a project or winning an Academy Award for Screenwriting. As a matter of fact Goldman won two.

    Some of the most interesting parts of the book are when Goldman writes about his interactions with Robert Redford. Goldman makes clear that Redford, in the 1970’s, was the biggest star in Hollywood. And the writer and actor collaborated extensively during this time. Goldman wrote The Great Waldo Pepper, All the President's Men, and A Bridge Too Far all of which starred Redford. There are many detailed stories that concern the production of each film. They are lucidly recalled and open the door to the mystery and legend of how movies get made.

    Adventures in the Screen Trade also has much advice about how to write a screenplay. A gem of writing advice from Goldman is to “protect” the star. By this he means giving the star of the film a great part. Goldman recalls numerous actors and actresses and the roles they played. He uses Humphrey Bogart, Robert Duvall, and Gene Hackman as examples of how to write for particular actors. It wasn’t just that they were in the movie, it was that they played a big role with memorable lines. Or a role that suited their acting style. He also divulges advice about making descriptions of characters a bit vague and open to interpretation because if you made it too narrow you would leave out a lot of casting possibilities.

    Among his other tidbits of advice concern how to behave as a screenwriter. He talks about two different kinds of meetings. One being audition meetings. The second being rewrite meetings. He also says meetings are the way Hollywood functions. People are taking meetings all the time. Only all the good meetings are taken. Go figure! Alas his most memorable piece of advice to screenwriters at a meeting is to SHUT UP!

    The last part of the book that comes across clearly is Goldman’s attitude. It is clear that he has no fear. His famous saying from the book is “Nobody knows anything” in Hollywood. To back up this statement Goldman writes about film executives or producers who passed on big box office smashes like Star Wars or Jaws or gave the greenlight to films like Heaven’s Gate or some other film that was a “stiff” that no one remembers.

    Goldman knows the mind of executives and producers possibly better than they know themselves. His story about what a “non-recurring phenomenon” is shows just how addicted Hollywood has become to franchise pictures. And even more so comic book films which become franchises. If only Goldman were alive to see all the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies; I wonder what he would think? I’m sure he wouldn’t be surprised.

    The other part of Adventures that shows Goldman’s attitude is when he talks about how he wasn’t moved by The Deer Hunter, but how he was really emotional about Bambi. Goldman thought Bambi was the better movie. Another example of Goldman’s attitude coming through was when he wrote about the 1977 Academy Awards race. Goldman’s film All The President’s Men was up for a slew of Oscars including Best Picture. Only his movie didn’t win. The boxing movie Rocky won for Best Picture. Goldman dissects the awards and makes clear that he doesn’t think Rocky deserved to win. He supports his opinion by showing how Rocky became a franchise and none of the films that followed the first movie won any recognition. Goldman thinks Taxi Driver was the film most people will remember from that year at the Oscars.

    The writing sparkles with wit, humor, and erudition. I’ve not read anything quite like Adventures in the Screen Trade. I’m looking forward to reading his next take on Hollywood; Which Lie Did I Tell? More Adventures in the Screen Trade and Goldman’s book of essays Who Killed Hollywood? I also plan on reading some of his screenplays. Really getting into the primary sources and learning about this great scribe. There is much to learn from Adventures in the Screen Trade. Especially for Screenwriters.

Book Review of Hitchcock/Truffaut by Francios Truffaut (1983)

                Hitchcock/Truffaut. Francois Truffaut. New York, NY:                             Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1983. 367 pages.


                                        By Patrick Charsky


    In the future when Cinema as we know it is something far different from what it is today, Historians will look back on the Golden Age of Cinema and find one of their key texts will be Hitchcock/Truffaut by François Truffaut. Written by an essential director of the French New Wave about the most famous British director of Film’s first Golden Age, the book is a treasure trove of information about how to make films, what makes a film a success and the life and times of the Master of Suspense; Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock/Truffaut presents Sir Alfred’s long career of hits and misses with a discussion about the Master Director’s methods for creating timeless masterpieces and forgotten misfires.

Hitchcock/Truffaut is not a biography. There is little background to Hitch’s personal life or upbringing. The book focuses on Hitch’s filmmaking career and how he made his films. Hitchcock/Truffaut came about from Truffaut’s idea to get down Hitch’s views on filmmaking after a long career that reached its climax with Psycho and then declined in the 1970’s and ended with Sir Alfred’s death on April 29th, 1980.

The first question I asked myself before writing this review was what made Hitchcock films Masterpieces? Was there a special formula that Hitch used in his films? When Truffaut began to interview Hitch he stated that many critics of Hitch’s films at the time they were released said his films were “empty” and had “no meaning.” It was only in the 1970’s and 1980’s that Hitch’s critical reputation grew and he became considered a legend. His films influenced many filmmakers, especially those working in the horror or suspense genre.

The reasons why Hitch’s films succeeded have to begin with his technical virtuosity. Hitch aspired to be an engineer before getting into the British Film Industry during the days of Silent film. Throughout the book Hitch goes into great detail about camera setups, shooting films so editing isn’t necessary, and how to get the perfect shot of a scene or sequence. The most famous example is Psycho. In one chapter Hitch talks about how he got the sequence of Norman Bates’ mother killing the detective without showing her face. The shot took a lot expertise not to show Bates’ face and reveal the secret that Norman was dressing up as his mother and murdering people. The camera was suspended above the scene and moved carefully to catch the killing without giving away the conclusion to the audience. A fantastic sequence that shows Hitch’s immense creativity when shooting scenes.

Perhaps the biggest reason Hitchcock’s films succeeded was the use of the star system. In the beginning most of Hitch’s films used famous people from the London stage. When he moved to Hollywood to work with David O. Selznick, Hitch began to use big stars like Ingrid Bergman, Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant. His biggest hits used the Star System to his advantage.

The last reason Hitch’s films were a success was the thrilling conclusion. The best of Hitch’s films had the most thrilling conclusions in Film History. Of course there are the most famous; Vertigo, Psycho, but in his other films the conclusions are just as thrilling. In the first talkie of British Cinema, Blackmail, there is a great conclusion. Just as well in Notorious or North by Northwest. Hitch always gave the audience their money’s worth.

During the course of the interview Truffaut would invariably press Hitch for his opinions about why some films just didn’t work. Hitch would always remember each film in intricate detail. Sometimes, Hitch would refuse to talk about a film. Most of the time Hitch blamed poor casting for his film flops. When he couldn’t get a big name actor or actress to play the lead, Hitch would blame that reason for the film's failure. This reason was why Hitch became obsessed in his later years with Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly, and Tippi Hedren. Hitch saw them as great components in his machine. Without them it was like missing a cog in his giant wheel.

In his later career Hitch turned dark against his leading women. He says he wasn’t impressed with Kim Novak in Vertigo even though, as Truffaut makes clear, audiences loved her. Further on Hitch became despondent about Grace Kelly’s departure for a royal marriage. In his efforts to replace her he found Tippi Hedren who never rose to Hitch’s standards. It was decisions like these that Hitich obsesses over in his talks with Truffaut about why a picture succeeded or failed.

The last reason Hitch’s films didn’t work were audience changes. Hitch was a commercial filmmaker. He worked in the Film Industry during a time when Film was the dominant form of communication. As the film industry changed, so did Hitch’s fortunes. He bore the difficult times of the 1950’s well, but when the sea change in filmmaking happened in the late 1960’s and through the 1970’s decline inevitably set in. In his defense Hitch was able to cite box office as the reason to keep making films. Psycho was a big success. Hitch could continue to make small stories with low budgets and create a small and tidy profit. By The Birds and his later films, the audience had left. And so had the profit. Whereas Hitch made films that avoided politics or sex or graphic violence; the New Hollywood made films that dealt explicitly with politics and had graphic depictions fo sex and violence.

Film Directors would benefit the most from reading this book. Hitch, after all, was a Director. His ruminations about filmmaking will educate aspiring Directors. His talk about camera techniques, acting, and dealing with source material and writers shed substantial light on how directors work. Film has changed, but Hitch’s lessons still have relevance. His attention to detail, his directing of actors, and his innovative ways of telling simple stories are lessons to be learned by filmmakers.

Writers would also benefit from reading Hitchcock/Truffaut. Hitch talks extensively about finding source material from plays, novels, and newspaper articles. Hitch was not a writer, but the book shows how Directors and Writers collaborate on a film. Lastly Film Historians and film fans who are interested in Hitch’s films and career would enjoy the book. Hitchcock/Truffaut is a treasure trove of information, stories, and advice. This book, like Hitchcock and Truffaut, will remain an essential document about a time when films were the only media in town. When going to a theater was commonplace. Not an event. Hitchcock is gone forever. His films will last an eternity and this book is the best way to engage with his films.

Book Review of Telling Stories: Postmodernism and the Invalidation of Traditional Narrative by Michael Roemer (1995)

Telling Stories: Postmodernism and the Invalidation of Traditional Narrative. Michael Roemer. Landham, MD: Rowen and Littlefield, 1995. 499 pages.


By Patrick Charsky


Telling Stories: Postmodernism and the Invalidation of Traditional Narrative by Michael Roemer is a truly unique book. I don’t think I’ve encountered anything quite like it. Telling Stories is a book full of profound meanings, excellent analysis of classic literature, and deep insight into the psychology of humans. It reveals the Postmodern condition and its implications for creating literature in the twenty-first century.

Michael Roemer is an award winning filmmaker and Professor at Yale University. I found his book through a list of texts I received as a Graduate student in Creative Writing. I read the book a few years ago, perhaps too lazily, to really give it it’s due. I returned to the book as part of a study project about Screenwriting books. I read the book twice and still think another read might be necessary for me to grasp the larger meanings in the book. Still, I think I comprehended the book well enough. Like Adam and Eve eating the apple, I tasted the sweet fruit of Roemer’s book and longed to taste more.

Telling Stories is deep into Philosophy. From Nietzche to Levi- Strauss, the book is replete with quotations and references to the great thinkers of the European tradition. Roemer says Literature and Art have become political statements rather than venerated works of religious significance. Roemer is similar to other Postmodernists when he writes that God is Dead and so is Man. His critique of Positivism is a running theme throughout the book. Through this theory man has sought to control his own destiny, to control the World. Roemer, writes that Positivism seems to be humanity’s only recourse to satisfy necessity and come to terms with mortality. Despite the advances that Human Civilization has made, we still blame God for catastrophes having no other recourse to explain why they happen. God is dead, but he is responsible for anything we can’t explain. Really deep thoughts about our current state of affairs. I was really moved by his ideas.

Further on in the text Roemer discusses the Creation myth of the Judeo-Christian Bible. I was moved by his analysis of the myth of Adam and Eve. He writes that consciousness is the original sin of man. An idea I had come across before, but never was it so elucidated as by Roemer. It opened a wellspring of knowledge about human psychology, the origin of humanity, and the meaning of religion.

Another excellent aspect of Telling Stories was Roemer’s analysis of Classic Literature. He writes about Oedipus Rex extensively. He writes about the character of Oedipus and how his fate is predetermined like so many characters in literature. Roemer says “every story is over before it begins.” Most audiences in Ancient times had seen the play of Oedipus or any other play enough times to know the story. So it became essential to create literature that people didn’t know how the hero was going to succeed. True to this day of Hollywood movies. We know that the hero will win, the only question is how will he win? What obstacles will he overcome to triumph?

Roemer goes deep into 19th Century Literature. I learned a lot about Madame Bovary, Crime and Punishment, King Lear, and Roemer’s favorite author Henry James, He calls Madame Bovary the first Modern novel. He cites Bleak House as Dickens’ most complicated, freest novel. And in one of the last chapters of the book, devoted entirely to Henry James, he writes a mini-biography of James as a Postmodernist. These novels and plays serve as the primary sources of the text. Anyone looking to get deeper into Literary theory would be wise to check out the references of Telling Stories.

Telling Stories also has deep insights into character psychology. Relying on examples and references from Freud, Jung, and the Judeo-Christian origin story, Roemer fleshes out the female psyche in famous stories like Madame Bovary. He writes about how Madame Bovary was scandalous at the time it was published for showing a woman who has affairs and runs up debts.

In the concluding chapter Roemer talks about how the couple is the most important human relationship of contemporary times. He also relates the theory that Men are taught empathy and how to relate emotionally by their Mothers. Roemer’s use of psychology shows that Literature and Art are heavily influenced by the feminine.

In another disclosure of his immense knowledge Roemer describes the Postmodern story in contrast to traditional narrative. Roemer asks; is plot dead? In my own studies I have come across a debate about which is more important; character or plot? In Telling Stories, Roemer says character is everything and plot is an “ideological construct.” I found this piece of information to be a revelation. Never before had I heard someone so unabashedly condemn plot or call it an “ideological construct.” It was an excellent piece of writing which showed how little pieces of a story add up to big meanings.

As Orwell has said “All Art is Propaganda” Roemer agrees and writes that the only subject Art has left is politics. Religion has become obsolete. Mythology has lost it’s effect. The only thing left, according to Roemer, is to make a political statement. And I agree. So many of the popular films in theaters these days are about some type of political conspiracy or power struggle. It seems Roemer is very right indeed.

I didn’t find this book on any list recommending books about screenwriting. So I asked myself, why should I read this book? Will it make me a better Screenwriter? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Since Literature has been consumed by philosophy in so many ways, the value of its information would be most relevant in a setting like a classroom. Creative Writing, Comparative Literature, Literary Theory, and Philosophy students would profit the most from reading this book. Screenwriters and Authors in general would find it very theoretical and not very practical. There are no instructions about how to write a Postmodern film or novel. I would not recommend this book to anyone who does not like philosophy. There is just too much theory to be of much worth to anyone who doesn’t like complex ideas.

This book led me to more books and really ignited a flame to comprehend more Literary Theory. And I think it will do the same for motivated students, particularly Graduate students. And that is one of the reasons I went to Graduate school; to think about the big ideas, to have time to contemplate something more than just the latest Marvel Studios Movie, Chick Lit novel reviewed in the New York Times Book Review, or the point of existence itself. Telling Stories is just that; a work full of big ideas that will open your mind to new ways of thinking. An excellent book.