Silly = Natural

In one of her posts which champion and extol the virtues of Improv use in daily life, Danielle Mari wrote:

Guerrilla theatre brings theatre to those who need it most: those unconverted, uninitiated few wandering through life unaware that it's completely possible (and even beneficial) to rearrange perspective, stir reality, and shake things up a bit.
[Whole post here.]

As I commented on the post, I find it horribly sad that such a mindset exists. These people, I suppose, are the same type who would turn their nose at fantasy. If it’s not “real” than why bother, right? Wrong! Fantasy and nonsense are vital components in a person’s well-being.

Allow me to quote two of the silliest people who ever lived.

Mike Meyers:
Silly is you in a natural state, and serious is something you have to do until you can get silly again.

I had originally heard him say this on Inisde the Actor’s Studio. He attributed the idea to his father. (He also said that his father and brothers told him ‘You’re not funny, Michael. Stop trying.’ Can you imagine what THEY must be like??) I also recall the notion that the inclination to repress silliness is what is wrong with the world. I agree.

Dr. Seuss:
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living, It's a way of looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. Which is what I do, And that enables you to laugh at life's realities.

What would the world be without the wacky but poignant doses of the best medicine from the good doctor?

I’ve actually known people to be annoyed with silliness. Sure, one can argue it has a time and a place. But then one could also argue that bringing levity to any situation cannot be entirely construed as a bad thing. It also brings to mind the great Monty Python skit Confuse-A-Cat. Despite its inherent wackiness, the overlaying message is a severe one. It’s all too easy to get bogged down by routine. If we cannot see beyond our noses like the people in the City of Reality in Norton Juster’s The Phantom Tollbooth [another great source of profound silliness] then how can we know we’re alive?

...the most important reason for going from one place to another is to see what's in between, and they took great pleasure in doing just that. Then one day someone discovered that if you walked as fast as possible and looked at nothing but your shoes you would arrive at your destination much more quickly. Soon everyone was doing it. They all rushed down the avenues and hurried along the boulevards seeing nothing of the wonders and beauties of their city as they went.

No one paid any attention to how things looked, and as they moved faster and faster everything grew uglier and dirtier, and as everything grew uglier and dirtier they moved faster and faster, and at last a very strange thing began to happen. Because nobody cared, the city slowly began to disappear. Day by day the buildings grew fainter and fainter, and the streets faded away, until at last it was entirely invisible. There was nothing to see at all.

- The Phantom Tollbooth, Norton Juster

Bringing fantasy and craziness is not just the job of comedians and authors. It’s a duty of all humans. We must have a reality that shines with silly, lusters with laughter and is filled with fantasy.

If we cannot laugh and play, then we are truly lost.

Be sure to read Danielle Mari’s insightful post if you have not already.
The videos alone are worth it.

Here's the video for Confuse-A-Cat.

SuperSILLYous Censorship

On Senator Wafflepoop's (yes, really, but keep reading) LiveJournal site, an incident of censorship is described. In short, a nine year old boy's science project had not been allowed to go on display because adminstrators did not like the results of his study. Specifically the part where he said that what he really learned from this project was that some people don't want to be called boys or girls, and that those people need an "other" option. The post goes on to explain how many people are fascinated by the survey and that you can have a different gender identification and still be considered and counted and included. It seems the boy had been very understanding, ready to roll with the idea, accepting. The "worry" is that his good-natured, loving and freeing mentality is being squashed by the narrow-minded. You can read the whole post here.

Besides wanting to applaud and boo as necessary, one aspect of this "story" intrigued me. It prompted this posting. The lad also found those that classify themselves as 'other' tend to prefer blue to green. Why did that strike me? Here, have a look:

[Fairies:] the mauve ones are boys and the white ones are girls, and the blue ones are just little sillies who are not sure what they are.

- Peter and Wendy, Sir J.M. Barrie

It's almost as if Barrie had been a prophet. Or else he really knew about fairies and androgyny. I'm not really supporting either of those statements. Just being silly.

As for referring to the 'others' as sillies, I do not construe any offense in that word at all.

Consider my thoughts on silly in this post. Take note of Meyers saying that society oppresses "silly" and Dr. Seuss's notion that there has to be another way of looking at the world.

Wonderland in Spades!

Alice in Wonderland may very well be, and for me, definitely is Tim Burton's greatest work to date. There's no contrariwise.

I loved this movie, from beginning to end. I adored all of it, the costumes, the sets, the character portrayal and the... story.

Yes, the truth is, this is not an adaptation of the book by Lewis Carroll. Then what is it? Well, if you want to get downright technical, it's a sequel. And coming from a guy who has tinkered with a literary classic, it's a brilliant sequel.

Tim Burton had said that what annoyed him about Wonderland is the episodic nature - one silly situtation or character after the next without any "point" or cohesion. I think we can all see it from his perspective. Well, he wanted to present an Alice with a new throughline moving in and around and about the old locations and such. I'd been happy about this approach when I first learned of it a year or more ago. But I'd also been skeptical. (Post.) I've made it clear that most times I'm on the fence with Burton. He's a (creepy) delight but often he seems to focus too much on the whimsy and winds up with half-baked stories. Not so very long ago Bart and I had some friends over and we watched The Corpse Bride in Blu-Ray. A very cool, fun movie. But yes, we found ourselves picking apart the story. "How come she could...." "But he knew of the..." and so on. What I'm really trying to say is Alice in Wonderland does not feel half baked. Contrariwise. It feels fully formed, etched out and fleshed out.

Johnny Depp, naturally, is wonderful. I'd read his "take" on the Mad Hatter before going in to see it. And he delivered that idea beautifully. Hatters were actually loony, we know, from the mercury they worked with to make their chapels. Depp felt that the "utlra silly and fast paced" loon version of the Mad Hatter would not actually be the case. Instead of just affecting his "witty" side, all faculties and range of emotions are heightend and exaggerated. He's a much more vulnerable, likeable character (and who doesn't love the Mad Hatter to begin with!)

I found this movie 'empowering' to women with no giant red flag to do so. Yes, there's a red flag for this aspect, but it's kind of like the ones on the end of a toothpick. Very ingrained into the story and subtle. And without the additional material brought to the tale, the impact of the strong female would lost.

And this is the first surrounding story that I truly admired. By "surrounding story" I mean what's put at the beginning and/or end of the Wonderland wackiness in attempts to give it that reasoning or point that Burton desired. An example (and probably my favorite hitherto) is the 1985 television version. In it, Alice is "too little" for the afternoon tea with the adults... she needs to learn senese and manners and such according to her mom, before she can attend. So, of course, she goes to a place of nonsense and social abnormality and escapes having become more rationale and civil herself. Yeah, that works. But the "surround" of Burton's works much better. Granted, Burton's only works on acount of it being a sequel. Nevertheless, it's achieved magnificently.

So we need to give a major BRAVA! to Linda Woolverton. What an incredible 'adaptation!' But then we also know she does a fantastic job with fairy tale type stories. She's the genius behind the amazing restructuring of Beauty of the Beast for Disney.

Mia Wasikowska is wonderful as Alice. In the trailers and such I had my doubts, but she couldn't be sweeter or stronger. Just what one might expect an Alice on the cusp of womanhood to be. Brava!

Helena Bonham Carter is to be commended for her performance. She took a two dimensional monstrosity and turned it into a compelling, sympathetic and fully formed entity. Yet she still retains Carroll's outlandish scary and comic qualities. Bart wants her to get an Oscar.

My only complaint... and it doesn't even qualify as one is some missing characters. The gryphon, the Mock Turtle, the Cook and the Duchess. You won't find them here. Why? I'm not sure. Oh, yes, the White Knight of the Chessboard is gone to (and Humpty Dumpty - but hey, I can see why. It's utterly silly in the first place and he probably shattered at the hands of the Red Queen.) And that, I suppose, is what happened to the others - killed in the ruthlessness of the Red Queen's rule. I'll buy that and think of it that way. But how about a line for Hatter or the Caterpillar: "If only we could consult the Gryphon, but alas, the Queen has cut off his head for insolence." Something! But, as I said, it's a minor complaint for an otherwise brilliant work. But compared to the landmine plotholes which can be found in some of his films, it's not even an issue.

I will be attending this movie again.

Just one other thing. The title of the movie is not right. I told you, it's a sequel. It's not Alice('s Adventures) in Wonderland. It's a tale that happens after Alice has already visited both places (i.e. also the Looking-Glass World.) So what should the title be? You'll know when you've seen the movie. And if you don't, change one syllable by removing two letters to put in a single one.

Oh - and Hatter: Poe wrote on them both.

My Book Idea That Will Never Be...

Back in this post, I spoke about an abandoned project of mine. I discarded it for a few reasons. As I said in the other post: Not only did it seem insurmountable to obtain the right to do it, but I also knew how much work it would be. And if it couldn’t go beyond my desk and the few people who I’d torture with it, why bother?

But I also half-promised to show you what I did produce to ponder while I am in London.
I want to make it clear that I am in no way suggesting that this piece is worth any salt. It's merely the first draft of whimsical idea. I wanted to answer all the inherent questions which arise about the Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. It would incorporate all manifestations of the Cat (books/sketches and cartoons) as written/"sanctioned" by Seuss to support its claims. As the piece states, it's meant simply in fun.

Thus, I present the never-more-to-be-written

The Definitive Cat in the Hat

Foreword

It is a well known fact that children of all ages and from many countries of the world love to visit the wonderfully wacky and whimsical world of Theodore Geisel, otherwise known as Dr. Seuss. It is also just as common knowledge that Dr. Seuss's works incorporate more than silly characters who find themselves in equally silly if not abusrd situations and antics. By this I mean it is evident Seuss's world comes with its own set of life lessons, meaning and morals applicable to our own. Even more astonishing is his ability to present not just one but usually three, if not more, such messages in any one given tale. And let us not forget the good doctor does so entirely in rhyme. In my opinion, his uncanny talents are best exemplified in the story of the Sneetches on the beaches. I won't go so far as to delineate the details of the narrative or even cite specific examples within the text. I leave these tasks to the reader. After all, the following "hidden messages" are not so arcane that even the supposed audience of children cannot uncover them. Instead I will point out these obvious observations. The Star-Bellied Sneetches story speaks out against racism, the pitfalls of fashions and trends and also displays the principles if not the foibles of Capitalism. Thus, it is well established that Dr. Seuss is a multi-talented artist whose words and illustrations can be explored on many levels, able to entertain a child as well as enlighten an adult. Who knows to what end deep mysteries can be extracted? A Who? Who indeed?

But who is more wrought with secret logic than Seuss's best loved creation The Cat in the Hat? The familiar feline brings nothing but semi-informational teasers of his being. Who is this large cat with a candy stripe stove pipe hat? What is the secret to his magical mayhem? Why does he barge in uninvited? How can he be so wise and yet so seemingly immature? When did he become skilled in his fields of expertise? Where did he receive his training? I feel that the answers to all of these questions and as they say, a whole lot more can be ascertained by careful inspection of the clues the good doctor provides. In order to obtain the most accurate impressions, all manifestations of his favored feline must be incorporated. By this I mean we must examine in depth every book and animated feature sanctioned by Seuss in which the infamous cat appears. It stands to reason that a well developed history and doctrine of The Cat in the Hat can be both inferred and implied by the cryptic clue-ridden rhymes of the master. Finally we will have the answers to the secrects of the fabled moss-covered, three-handled family gredunza!

I wish to clearly state that I am in no way suggesting that Theodore Geisel or even Dr. Seuss intended these interpretations. I do not claim the insights contained here within to be correct, inclusive of or even in accordance with his perceptions. Instead I offer a hypothetical and creative alternative to some of the most haunting and nagging queries of the Cat's true nature, philosophy and past. Yet, at the same time, a sincere effort has been made to remain true to and preserve what Seuss presented.

I. Cat as an Archetypal Figure
II. Cat's Family & Upbringing
III. Cat's Schooling/Education
IV. Cat's Philosophy of Life
V. Cat's Extent/Range of Magical Powers
VI. Cat's "Wardrobe" and Place of Dwelling
VII. Cat in Relation to Other Seussians
VIII. Cat in Relation to Psychedelics
IX. Cat's Inherent Mysteries (i.e. The White Belly?)
X. The Enigma of "Little Cats" and "Young Cat"
XI. Cat's Vehicles
XII. Cat's Possessions
XIII. Cat's Teachings
----------------------------------------------------

For those of you wondering, yes, Dr. Seuss does in fact show us such things as where the Cat lives. In fact, we see most of his house (and he opens his closet) in the animated The Grinch Grinches the Cat in the Hat.

The Cat's ideas/doctrines are also not just invented by me. For instance, although quirky and seemingly obvious, the practice of "Calculatus Eliminatus" actually does work... I've tested it on many occasions. Its simplicity is deceiving...

Even if the concept might have been a blunder,
I hope I've instilled in you a new sense of wonder...

To Never Not Add a Never?

Oddly, I don’t believe this variant occurred to me until just last night:
Never Never World.
Originally Barrie had another “never” listed for the name:
Never, Never, Never Land.
One too many? Barrie thought so, too, eventually.
In one of his many revisions to the play, it became just the two. Then, when it came time for the novel, he not only dropped one of the two but eliminated the space. The Neverland. Barrie preferred the book, so it seems a safe assumption that he preferred this name for the magical isle as well. However, his screenplay written about a decade later once again calls it Never, Never Land. Thus, he did not entirely abandon the moniker. Therefore, both are correct, depending on how silly you’re feeling at the time.

I chose to label the planet simply NeverWorld to remain consistent with the novel, as I continued the story in book form. Oh sure, I used a pinch or so from the play and a little more from Barrie’s unused screenplay. But I didn’t see the need for the extra “Never” in front of World. World is capitalized to help differentiate the new home as well as a nod to the original upper case of Land. In this way it is different, and the same.

In my yet-to-be-completed interquel Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between, I make a joke, of sorts, out of Never-Never-Never Land. Peter frustrates the fairies by becoming fixated on the repetition. “Isn’t one Never as much as anyone needs?”
So, if you’re feeling particularly verbose or better yet, silly… go ahead and say
Never Never World. But, technically, it’s “less correct.”

UPDATE:  Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between is now availabe in paperback and e-book.

It's Amost Halloween - Go Ahead and Spirinate!

In this post I talk about coining a word. Recently I'd been filling out one of those "Get to Know Me Questionnaires" that circulate in emails. One of the questions prompted me to remember something silly my friends and I made in high school. In fact, this recollection is what caused me to plunder the pile of paper that spawned the recent entry about my Isaac Asimov notes.

We kept a dictionary of words we had either invented ourselves or liked in particular from various sources, such as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. We called it Xavier's Dictionary. By no means is it something to reckon with, but it proved fun at the time and has provided me with some memories as well as a few chuckles after all these years.

The first word in the (non-alphabetized) list of "new" words is actually the one I remembered while doing the questionnaire. Some of the better entries include:

Flune - n. a huge swarm

Tickatoid - n. the little spark and ping by shiny surfaces on cartoons

Squench - v. 1. to lessen the value of by damaging 2. to shrink

Unpidorous - adj. (OON-pih-door-us) word to say "If I tried to describe it, I woldn't do justice to it."

Spirinate - v. to make a sound like the creatures on Scooby-Doo cartoons

Puffae-a-Pae - n. 1. a pastry-type thing that is not a real pastry, if pastry is defined as a sweet, dessert-type thing covered with dough 2. the pooky face you use to call home on the Atari 2600 video game of E.T.

Unlike my recent attempt to discern the actual etymological ramifications of the word coined, these were conceived and defined on a whim. I'm bringing all this up in a "Oh what silly fun" kind of way, not to suggest that any of these are viable additions to the language. Although I am rather fond of the word that's handwritten in the scan.

I did discover that I still use one of the words from Xavier's Dictionary in my everyday life:

Chartoon - n. a cartoon of a person, a type of caricature.

My drawing of myself is an example of a chartoon. It's not specifically a caricature because it does not utlitize exaggerated features in that way. It's not exactly a cartoon for it depicts someone real. Another good example: The Beatles in Yellow Submarine.

Xavier's Dictionary is nowhere near an unpidorous, but it's at the very least "splendifferous."

Stop the Inanity!

A pet peeve of mine is when people refer to P.J. Hogan’s version of Peter Pan as a remake. I recall hearing it and reading it in the months before its release. “Why are they remaking Peter Pan? Don’t we have enough?” As I stated in my post regarding my thoughts on his movie, Hogan did not do a remake. (Unless the silent film counts.) Disney’s animation and Spielberg’s Hook certainly don’t. Disney does not because this is in reference to a live-action feature. Hook because, well, it’s not the original story and it’s a strange “What If?” game that probably shouldn’t have even been played.

But forget about Pan being remade. I just got wind of three new remakes on the horizon. And it’s starting to make my stomach turn.

Yes, I realize that remakes have always been a part of Hollywood - new adaptations of books and plays and previous movies. But where is the sense (other than money) of revamping classic films? Or even “bad” movies?

I’m sure every one of you can name a remake that has made your skin crawl. And more often than not (if not always) the remake doesn’t come close to re-capturing the magic of the original or is just plain bad.

Okay, the three movies that sent me into this tirade are: Child’s Play, Poltergeist and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I’m not suggesting that Child’s Play is a classic movie. No offense to those who like it, but let’s be honest. It’s a silly fright flick. Why does it need remade? Poltergeist on the other hand, is a terrific (both senses of the word) movie. It’s great as is. Does it need a remake? Okay, perhaps the effects could be a bit better…but in this case they don’t have to be. The movie is well made and holds up…don’t fix what isn’t broken. The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Come on now, what are they going to do? Make it “good” instead? The whole charm of the movie is how delightfully awful it truly is - you don’t base a whole subculture on something that isn’t a cult classic! Make it a parody and you defame the original as well. The movie didn’t try to be lousy, it just is - hence why it’s “good.” Strive for that and it won’t succeed. Aim to make a “legitimate feature” out of it and well…does anyone want to see that? [It's going ahead without O'Brien's blessing, by the way.]

Another recent mention slated for a redo is Rosemary’s Baby. I’m sorry, but this is the epitome of unnecessary. Nothing can be done to surpass the original. What will they do? Give it more special effects? Finally show us the baby? The whole reason the movie worked in the first place is the suspense of the unknown and the deep psychological tortures of the characters. No “jump out at you” effect is going to bring more merit. And even if the greatest actors in the world are cast, how can they possibly outdo the original performances?

Then again, I am not totally against re-doing movies. For instance, a reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street is also in the works. This one makes a little sense. Unlike Rosemary’s Baby, the story and the visual effects certainly can benefit from today’s headlines and F/X technologies. So, yes, okay, I understand. And the word is they're going for scary - a la no one-liners for Freddy. Nothing silly. As scary as they can muster. It will be interesting to see such a movie assuming it's done with any sort of skill or justice.

If other actors want a chance to portray these characters, what about trying them on the stage?
Imagine a live Rosemary’s Baby. Or Richard O’Brien’s crazy Transylvanians re-imagined doing the Time Warp on something other than a movie set. (Yes, I am aware it began on stage and is often done and has been recently as a major production.)

I just hope they utilize the newly found full copy of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis when they produce the remake of it. (And yes, it’s coming.)

Seriously. Is there any way to stop this inanity? *sigh* I suppose not.
It’s a fact of Hollywood life… but it doesn’t mean we have to like it.

Extending the Magic of "Bewitched"

I love the TV show Bewitched.
But I never knew that lyrics had been written for the theme song!

You can read Jack Keller’s words and hear it sung by Peggy Lee here.

A word on the show. Yes, it’s silly. But silly can be good. (A good witch!)
I also enjoyed it because the show often tackled social issues. Whether it be a thinly veiled representation of the 60’s and 70’s “hippie/drug” culture or a clever (albeit impossible) solution to racism, the show never ceased to elevate itself above simple charms. It made us think. Consider the one about what we are doing with our civil liberties when Benjamin Franklin is summoned from the past. Or the commentary about the “importance” of Darrin’s job: advertising.

As for the movie, yes, I enjoyed it. But no, I did not love it. On the whole, though, I liked what they did with it. If you ask me, when you “remake” a television show for the big screen, there better be a good “reason” or “hook” other than simply wanting to see it large.

For instance, with The Brady Bunch Movie, the premise of the Bradys being stuck in the 70’s during the 90’s proved just “stupid” enough to work. To me, it worked on two levels. First, it reminded us of a (for lack of a better term) “simpler time” overly contrasted with an era of too much “grunge.” Second, it placed The Brady Bunch on a pedestal, declaring it as an iconic part of our television heritage. It then promptly proceeded to knock the pedestal over as if to say, “What on EARTH did you ever watch this for? It’s horrible!” by merely turning the volume, so to speak, on the personalities and situations up way too loud.

I know of people who did not like the first movie of Mission: Impossible because in it original star Peter Graves's character turned out to be the bad guy. (Sorry if I spoiled that for you…) But that is precisely why I did like it. A jarring event like that is exactly what would warrant a film version.

Anyway, back to Bewitched. The premise in the movie: a reboot of the television show is being done and they want to cast Samantha based on who is actually able to wriggle her nose. Wouldn’t you know it, but the lady they find who can do it is a real witch - and one who wants to experience being a mortal no less? It’s not rocket science clever, but at least it had a purpose and comic thought behind it. In fact, the very idea for the plot came from the notion of "Where on earth can we find another woman who can wriggle her nose?" And I must say "Bravo!" to the casting of Shirley MacLaine as Endora. When Lemonie and I would cast TV-to-Movie just for fun, we decided no other choice existed. Glad they noticed as such, too. For the record, we also figured Richard Dreyfuss would be ideally suited for Larry Tate, but the film had no need for him. Also a "Brava!" to Nicole Kidman for doing Elizabeth Montgomery justice. (And yes, she did learn to wriggle her nose for the movie - no CGI had been used.)

I just think they ended it entirely wrong. I won’t tell you the end, but I’ll tell you mine. The actors playing Darrin and Samantha reveal to the cast and crew that Isabel Bigelow is a real witch. Thus, she really does the magic for the show. The remount of Bewitched, therefore, would surpass the original in its ratings and popularity. The last scene would be Isabel being asked by a reporter, “How do you account for the super success of the show?” And her reply, of course: “It’s magic.”

Anyway, I hope you’re as surprised as me that the theme has lyrics. Enjoy.
(By the way, as I mentioned in my interview by C.J. Redwine, I can wriggle my nose like Samantha.)

Get 'Lost'

I’ll start off by saying neither Peter Pan nor Alice show up in this woven tale beyond the degree of how I have already mentioned in the first post here. Too bad. I didn’t expect them to be a major part of the story. But from what I had heard, I suppose I expected more of a tie in or a featuring of them. But it matters little, for the novel is quite good. As one would expect from Gregory Maguire. The way the literature of Barrie and Carroll [and Dickens and Lewis and Travers and Bond and Milne and Grahame and …] are woven into it is quite satisfying as it stands anyway. Often merely mentions, but ever so poignant.

Lost is the tale of a writer who is trying to hammer out a new novel (her first book not for children). She travels to London to visit with her cousin and soak up some local flavors. For the would-be main character of her planning-stages-going-nowhere novel, Wendy, is obsessed with the unsolved mystery of the horrendous Jack the Ripper. But when Winifred (the writer) arrives, she finds mystery of her own. Her cousin John has vanished without a trace. Two odd (in personality) construction workers are doing work on his home, or actually, not. They’re spooked by a tapping in the wall. John’s home has been in his and Winifred’s family for generations. It’s allegedly the house of the man whom Dickens fictionalized into Ebenezer Scrooge. Hence, Winnie is a descendant of “Scrooge” – if the family stories are to be believed. Winnie gets caught up in the belief that the house is haunted, meets many strange neighbor folk and tries frantically to make sense of the situation: the disappearance of John, the supernatural presence and the mess she’s made of her life. This “mess” is of course, revealed gradually throughout the novel.

A rather fun touch is some of the novel appears in a font not unlike typewriter style. These passages are like the bits of Wendy’s story that Winnie has committed to paper. Or are they more than that?

Maguire does a wonderful job with the overall creepiness. He keeps you wondering all the way. Sometimes when you get an answer, it’s a tad disappointing. “Oh…is that all it is?” But immediately it’s replaced with another (sometimes supernatural) curiosity to pique. As Alice remarks, Curiouser and curiouser! So for every “answer” received, new questions arise. Just how I like a story to go. Then... it took a very corny turn. I won’t spoil it for you, but it’s the sort of thing to make the eyes roll. Fortunately I rolled right along with it… for Maguire skillfully pulls it out from “this is just silly” and pushes it into a spin. A spin, or take perhaps, which shakes what you thought you knew of such situations. He’s pushed it beyond the surface and into the story, so that it brings about intense questions. Questions which go along with the very title of the piece. How much is every truly Lost? And what can be regained? Scrooge?

It’s intriguing, fun and peppered with eerie. I love Maguire’s dense prose. Once you’re in the thick of it, it surrounds you. It’s evident that he’s totally immersed in his worlds and demands nothing less of you.

I didn’t fail to notice this book also has a bit of the “fictionalize real people” element to it. It just doesn’t sit write (ha!) with me. At least here it is rather mild, unlike Rodrigo Fresán’s Kensington Gardens.

Lost is an odd book. But it’s also an expertly compiled hodgepodge of “lost” characters in every sense of the word. Worth the read. Bravo Maguire!

Next on the Agenda

Well, as the revisions on Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between draw to a close (I just have a few tidbits/scenes to plunk in here and there) I am already thinking about what I will work on next.  But, that's to be expected, write?  It won't be a story about the boy who never grew up since I've had enough of him for now.  But I can and shall always return to him.

I'm fortunate to not have a lack of  ideas that I've been kicking around, and I thought for a while there that I'd tackle the sequel to What If It's a Trick Question?  But the truth is I'm just not "feeling" it yet. 

I'm now leaning toward a particular story that's been scratching at my proverbial door for quite some time .  I keep "hearing" about it, although not from any particular character.  It should be a lot of fun to write.  It's one of two 'ghost stories' I've had my "eye on" and it's the non-scary of the two.  I don't want to reveal the crux of it, but suffice to say that it's not a haunting in the traditional sense.  I imagine it to be peppered with humor (but that's not the difference/plot point either.)

There's sort of a problem, though.  I've got the premise, but the ultimate goal(s) of the characters has not yet been revealed to me.  So there's this cool idea floating around, but no end or purpose in sight.  Minor goals, yes.  Major driving plot, no.  However, I'm confident that there is someone fictional ready to spill his or her beans any time now.  Perhaps if I start defining the characters more clearly the overall scope will arise.

I do know the "nature" of one of the characters, but he's not the protagonist.  I might have a name for him... not that I love it nor hate it, but I wrote it down just to be sure.  I used the marvelous internet to check and see if it had been as original as I thought, but alas, it actually is a last name.  And here I imagined I'd created something altogether unheard of - how silly of me.  I don't remember ever hearing the name/word before, but I guess that subconscious is a powerful thing, eh?  Thus, I might not use it.  No, not because it isn't wholly original, but for the simple reason that I am not in love with it.  It came to me two days ago and I haven't "heard " from nor had any great revelations or insights about him other than what I already know, so I'm thinking maybe it's not his name after all.  But it's got to be close, for it doesn't quite feel wrong.

Well, I'll know soon enough... and who's to say?  Right now Buttercup is still reading What If It's a Trick Question?  Life has interfered several times now.  But she's almost done!  Perhaps her enthusiasm when she does finish will ignite the further adventures of those characters after all.  [And then with my luck, the 'ghost story' characters will haunt me to death as I'm working on the sequel.]

Bakespeare?

As I hunted through data CDs for something else, I came across this silly little thing I scribbled out in college. I guess I thought enough of it at the time to save it. Maybe I shouldn't have?

But, soft! What light through yonder window bakes?
It is the yeast, and Juliet is the bun!
Arise, fair bun, be not thou a macaroon
Which is already flat and hard on teeth,
That thou her maid art far more fair than cheese:
Be not then made, since they are crunchious
Their vestal livery are but hard and round,
And none but fools do eat them; cast them off.
It is my gravy; O, it is my roll!
O, fresh from oven she were!

Shakespeare:
But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou her maid art far more fair than she:
Be not her maid, since she is envious;
Her vestal livery is but sick and green
And none but fools do wear it; cast it off.
It is my lady, O, it is my love!
O, that she knew she were!

No Foolin' - Hood is Still Good

You might remember Josiecat showed us Hoodwinked and I adored it.  I said you could be sure we’d be seeing the sequel, Hoodwinked Too: Hood vs. Evil.  We did.  And for one reason or another, this review slipped me by… but it’s here now.

Josiecat, Bart and I all really enjoyed it.  I’d been especially excited since Amy Poehler played one of the characters - Gretal.  Heidi Klum, too!  She plays, well, Heidi, of course.

It’s comprised of the same delightful silly wit that made the first one a joy.  However, I’d give the original movie an 11 out of 10 [yes really] and this one receives an 8 out 10.  Not too shabby for a sequel, though!

Perhaps it’s because part of what wowed me in the first movie had been the structure of interlocking stories.  But then, to simply repeat that would feel quite rehashed.  So I didn’t expect them to do it.  That said, it did have great writing this time around as well.  Same blend of slapstick and heady humor.

In fact, each of us were…well, okay, I’ll say it:  hoodwinked.  It’s true.  They managed to fool us with a twist that not one of us saw coming.  A turn which boosted the tale with new vigor, just when it started to become complacent.  Never bad, just otherwise ‘standard’ for this kind of setup.  But no, they wound up keeping us laughing and guessing.

Loads of fun to see them work with other fairy tales, too.  Well-known folktales of old made fresh with references, both subtle and obvious.  The new characters had been just as fun and great as the ones we’d met before.

I would venture out for a third.  But quite frankly, I see it working better as a television series.  Done with the same caliber, of course.  And I’d suggest not wrapping up the whole dilemma in one episode.  A contiguous string of related episodes would be ideal.  That way they could get the complexity and depth found in the movies.

I’m a fan.

Does This Pass for a Word?

Yesterday while I took another stab at crafting the Query Letter for Midnight Chaser, I had a word as a “placeholder,” knowing I would find the perfect word later. I didn’t want to disrupt the flow of composing. I placed an "-ish" onto the word. The little suffix brought to mind one of those “Why on earth do I remember this?” thoughts.

The thought of an episode of Super Password, which I watched back in the day, as a kid. (Not that I wouldn’t watch the show now if I found it.) A quick summary for those unfamiliar with the program. Teams of 2 people (1 celebrity and 1 contestant) compete to convey a word using another word as a clue. The target words then are used as clues to guess a subject/another word relating to the clues conveyed. (It’s much simpler than I make it sound!)

Anyway, the celebrity (which I’m pretty sure had been Harvey Korman) had to pass the word “GREEN.” After considering options, he finally said, “LAWNISH.”

Burt Convy laughed himself silly, saying that’s not a word. Korman contested: “What?!? You can add ISH to any word!” But the Judges ruled otherwise.

For whatever reason, this stuck with me through the years.
I’m not really sure if Korman is right, but it sounds good to me.

Fortunately, I’m not in the habit of ISHifying words, so it doesn’t really come up.

Meanwhile, I’m hoping the Query is now done… or at least doneish.

Bio-NIT-Pic

Again, folks.
Again with Jeopardy! and Barrie/Pan.
This is from a WHILE back now.  As I've mentioned, I have catching up to do on this game show... and then I pulled a Pan and forgot I'd snapped photos of it to post.  Silly me.

When this category appeared,

I said to Buttercup (who often watches/plays along with me)
Oh, look.  Another chance for Barrie to come up.







I then lifted my arms in triumph when this 'answer' appeared.

The question/response, of course, is:  Who is J.M. Barrie?

Ta-da.

I have a nitpick, though.  Actually, Finding Neverland is not a biopic.  At least not by my definition.  If it were a true biopic, it wouldn't contain egregious liberties with real life events.  Though it's a marvelous and beautiful movie and much of it is true, Finding Neverland is not accurate.  It's more like a "fantasia on" the occurrences that created Peter Pan (and certainly not all of them, a la David and the skating accident for one.)  Since Jeopardy! folks are sticklers for absolute correctness, you'd think they would have caught their own mistake here... or else I'm just uber-fussy when it comes to the term "biopic."

As for Barrie showing up again, I am glad of it.

Ides of...Fairies?

Snippet of F.D. Bedford's "Peter Flew In"

Once again we have come to the Ides of March.

Shakespeare has a soothsayer tell Caesar to beware this date.

Well, it always makes me think of (Kel surpsise!) a line in Barrie as well:

‘Ware Tinker Bell.

Yes, folks, be afraid of her. She’s a nasty, conniving, jealous silly ass. Not always, naturally. But nevertheless, I do make sure to point out to people who love her because she is a “sweet & cute little fairy” that this is a bit of a misconception. I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m not very fond of Tink. I’m sorry, I just don’t like her. Barrie’s or otherwise. Unlike Pan, who can be thought of as having been deeply wounded by the world, she has no excuses for her behavior other than her own petty desires. (Not that I’m really defending Peter Pan’s conduct!)

And to be fair, I suppose I shouldn’t just pick on Tinker Bell. One could just as easily say:

‘Ware fairies.
"If the fairies see you," they warned her, "they will mischief you, stab you to death or compel you to nurse their children or turn you into something tedious, like an evergreen oak."

Well, at least beware Barrie fairies!

Scooby Don't?

I’m a fan of Scooby Doo!... well, some Scooby Doo. “Old School” Scooby for sure. And some of the “old new stuff” as well. I also really enjoyed the live-action movies (the ones that came to theaters, not the made-for-TV kind), although Monsters Unleashed should have been the first movie released. The rest of it… no thanks.

Cartoon Network has brought Scooby-Doo back to television in the cartoon form with Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated. I admit that given the “newer” Scooby Doo out there, I’d been a little more than skeptical of it. But at the same time I wanted it to be good, since we can always use more good Scooby.

Well, I’ve watched two episodes now and I haven’t quite made up my mind. This Scooby ventures into territory where no Doo has gone before (at least to my knowledge… which does not include most of the new animated movies. [I’d seen most of one and dismissed them.]) I’m not sure if I like the changes or not. I’ll get to the uncharted parts in just a moment.

First, the animation. I think it’s wonderful. They certainly look “old school” in terms of their (desirable) “flatness” (and retain their original outfits unlike some manifestations) and yet they reside in a pseudo-3D environment with obvious computer enhancement (but not CGI in the sense of Pixar). It works. Sometimes the blending of these two styles is distracting and sloppy, but not here. It’s a very pleasing and seamless world. Bravo.

The opening is wonderful. It's slick, true to the characters and fun without being too cutesy. I even like seeing Velma with a laptop computer - it works. The theme is good, too, quite unobtrusive... with no lyrics. This might been seen as veering from the original, but hey, the original themes were always a LITTLE silly, no? (Yes, that had been their charm, but this proves we can do without the lyrics.)

Next, the voices. On the whole, very good. Mindy Cohn has been doing Velma for quite some time now. Her rendition is quite on the mark and I’ve come to accept her as Velma. Matthew Lillard, who portrayed live-action Shaggy, provides the voice here as well. Excellent job, just as in the movies. Daphne is fabulous, too, as the comparison in my head is negligible if different at all. Brava, Grey DeLisle! Frank Welker has done justice to Scooby Doo, but his Fred, on the other hand, seems like it's gotten a bit too nasal over the years. However, it’s not like it isn’t acceptable. Oh - and Patrick Warburton is the Sheriff. I adore Warburton, but honestly, he’s too damn ubiquitous.

Okay, now for the “uncharted territories.” All of the ‘kids’ parents are in it. If they’ve ever been shown before I didn’t know about it. I don’t really like it. I found it much more compelling with the er, mystery, of what the deal is with these ‘kids.’ We’d heard about (and seen) their extended relatives on the show before (such as Daphne’s cousin) but this is outright killing the mystery of their home life. Plus, all of their parents seem to ignore them, too busy in their own affairs. Velma’s mom, for instance, puts her horses ahead of her daughter. Fred’s dad wouldn’t help because he just got into the reclining position in his favorite chair. Similar put-offs happen with the other two as well. The way I see it is if you’ve got them as negligent, then why have them at all? (And what's with Daphne having four or so nearly identical sisters?)

Another change (at least to my knowledge) is that Fred’s dad is the mayor. Adds a nice twist, since the kids poke their noses into other people’s business all the time and such a reputation can be construed as counter-productive to a public official. So far, however, it hasn’t really come into play.

They’ve also added a sassy African-American "chick" with quite an afro who is a DJ that the kids will hang out with… pretty cool, but not sure of the point of it yet.

The final change that doesn’t quite sit right with me (and again, if this had been done before it had not been so in Old School) is that Velma and Shaggy are an item. Or they want to be, and Shaggy tries to keep it a secret from the others, especially Scooby. We all know that Daphne has the hots for Freddy, but do we really need to pair off Velma and Shaggy? In this version (and probably others, although I never got that impression from the Old School) Freddy seems oblivious to Daphne’s advances, too wrapped up in his precious ghost trap designs. I’m just not ready for a romance between Velma and Shaggy.

All righty, now for the alteration that intrigues me in a good way. They’ve added an element to the Scooby Doo universe that we’ve never* had before: A story arc. I had just about dismissed the show as not having to be seen (for even though it’s not bad as I said, I try not to pick up more stuff to watch if I can help it), the first episode ended with a phone call. It had been about the locket that Daphne found in the episode that didn’t connect to the mystery at hand. The caller told them to beware, that they should have left the locket alone and that they are in deep trouble. My proverbial antennae perked up. And to follow suit, the second episode is indeed called “Chapter 2.” There’s also now a (cough) mysterious fellow named “Mr. E.” He sends them hints and such [with a big wax seal of an E.] For instance, in the second episode he sends them an alligator handbag that leads them to the place of the next mystery at hand and later, they found the engine of the Mystery Machine fixed, with a note from Mr. E saying their adventure has just begun. Whether or not he is the caller, I’m not sure. I guess I have to keep watching to find out. But I really like the idea of a "story arc Scooby." It seems to be (unlike the other changes) just what this show/premise needed to make it fresh again. For it’s certainly what led me to watch another episode.

All in all, they’ve put a wild spin on a classic, and it just might be worth it.


* Conceivably The 13 Ghosts of Scooby Doo! counts in this vein, but I don’t think it really does, since that did not use the standard gang nor “solve the mystery” episodes. 13 Ghosts is one of the “no thanks” of Scooby shows.

Don't Give Writers THAT Much Power!

So I finally watched Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Why do I say it like that? Well, I've always been a little leery of it. Seems every review I'd get would contradict the last one. Some like it, some hate it. As for my thoughts regarding the A Nightmare on Elm Street series, I like the first one, the third one and the concept of the fourth, though not the movie itself. After that, it became tiresome. Didn't stop me from seeing more, I admit. But by the time New Nightmare rolled around, I had expired my desire for it. Although the premise intrigued me. Just never enough to venture back into its messed up world.

What intrigued me is the Pirandellian aspect. I've explained Pirandellian here.

From what I knew of it, Wes Craven is in the movie script itself, trying to muster up the original stars Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) and Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson) to do another Nightmare movie. However, it turns out Freddy is real. He's not happy about his portrayal and starts attacking them.

Okay, it turns out that what I had pieced together as the plot is not entirely right. It's not far off base, though. It's a little more complicated than I thought. But not complicated in the sense of logistically intricate. It's a silly flick, one of those "meh" movies. But the Pirandellian premise did add some fun.

Halfway through movie, Robert Englund is talking with Heather Langenkamp on the phone. She inquires if Wes Craven has told him anything about the script, how far along? He replies that he hasn't seen any of it, but Wes said he'd just written the part where....Robert then describes what had just happened to Heather in real life. Later, toward the climax, Heather (playing Nancy in a dream to save her son from Freddy) finds a script! She reads it. She reads just what she'd been doing. Before she can read what she will do, she's prompted to save the kid. Cut to the end, when they're safe from Freddy...she also finds the script which came "out of" the dream. It has a handwritten note from Wes Craven, thanking her for playing Nancy one last time. She skips to the end, reads what she just did and then reads her reading a handwritten note from Wes, the note typed into the script. The boy makes her read it from the beginning...she does and it describes how the movie began. Now that's a wild ride. Too bad the rest of the movie didn't quite make it worth it.

However, the title of this post refers to the phenomenon described by Wes Craven in the movie. Apparently sometimes writers will tap into a prime source. In this case, a source of Evil...an Evil that can take many forms. Sometimes a writer catches a glimpse, is sparked by it and therefore creates it into words/film. Once the Evil is "pinned down" to that form, it remains. Like a genie in a bottle, Heather suggests. The Evil can only escape when the public loses interest in the material. Or the material becomes so watered down by the media that the hold weakens. Thus, it happened with Freddy Krueger. By the way, it seems the Evil has grown fond of "being" Freddy Krueger, so thus, it attacked as such. Ridiculous, I agree.

But just think of that for a moment, will you? Just imagine if that were true! I'll be the first to acknowledge that writers tap into something in order to be able to write. But the notion that we are somehow "jailers" and "gatekeepers" to ancient Evil? Good Grief! I don't want that much power...sheesh! Well, like they said at the end of Wes Craven's New Nightmare - "It's just a story, right?"

Nothing to Hide in the Hood

A little while ago I posted that I am enjoying the BBC Robin Hood series.
I began to get curious about the origins of this tale. Just my natural inquisitiveness.

Since this new series fiddles with and adds new ideas to the story, I figured it would be good to know the source.

What I discovered I suppose I should have known, or at least realized. There is no “source” for the adventures of Robin Hood. It’s simply a folktale from way back. No one author wrote it that we can pinpoint. Just a tradition of telling the story and adding or changing things along the way. Don’t get me wrong, I did know that Robin Hood is a legend. I just figured that there would be a “definitive” version of the story, along the same lines as Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Thomas Malory’s respected transcription of the King Arthur legend. Okay, yes, written forms (prior to “modern”) of Hood do exist. But these are merely the oldest surviving takes on the story, they did not define it any more than the telling of the legend itself.

The excellent part is that the story evolved. For example, originally Robin had been a simple peasant. Now his mythos includes him being the displaced Lord of Loxley/Locksley. Maid Marion did not originally appear and crept into the story. There are even more contemporary embellishments now widely accepted as part of it all.

Bart and I saw a fantastic original musical about Robin Hood. Unfortunately it happened many years ago and I do not recall the production company nor the playwright/composer. But our friend Lil’ Red played one of the Merry Men. I recall some of the lyrics: “Would you like to be a Merry Man? I sure would! I shur would!” and “Marion, my Marion…. Merry Man, my Merry Man….” Silly, yes, but in the “we know it is, so laugh along with us” way. The play opened with a minstrel saying he’d tell us the story of Robin Hood. It revolved around a guy who wanted the girl, but to do that he had to bring down the Sheriff’s tyranny. The minstrel helps him “become” Robin . Even here, Hood is a legend. He suggests that If you say you are he, then people will believe. Along the way minstrel helps things “happen” to give him the clout he needs. Quite a charming show.

Also, director Ridley Scott and writer Brian Helgeland are coming out with a movie called Nottingham in 2009. It takes a different approach. Its sympathies lie with the Sheriff, thwarted by the outlaw. It seems that Robin will be painted in a dark light. Not sure I like that idea, but then I admire the right and the gumption to do it.

As to whether or not a historical figure of Robin Hood ever existed, join the debate.

I find it rather refreshing that such a beloved character can have such an open status. In other words, having spent so much energy into preserving and upholding the facts of a creation whose creator is known, it’s nice to see something that belongs to everyone. One that for the most part, has been mutated but never destroyed. Okay, yes, I’m sure you know of a portrayal you did not care for. And we do have indisputed classic versions...need I even mention Errol Flynn? On the whole, Hood's popularity remains and his storyline develops and progresses.

Robin Hood is truly the stuff of legend.

Listen to Inigo

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
- Inigo Montoya

Truly one of the great lines from The Princess Bride. Too many great lines from that movie. It’s just a brilliant script. Bravo to William Goldman for his book and screenplay.

Part of the reason Montoya’s line is so memorable, I think, is because too many of us keep using words that we don’t know what they mean .

One in particular, I find, is akimbo. Arms akimbo, specifically. It seems most people use it to mean “flailing about haphazardly.” It certainly sounds like it means that. A good friend once even described a different body part set as being akimbo. (No, not legs.) If you do use it to mean hanging here and there all out of sorts, for Inigo’s sake, look it up and be surprised.

I encourage you to have a look at Sunshine’s post about the word “hopefully.” Hopefully you will go to be enlightened.

I recently learned what “nonplussed” actually means, too, as evidenced by the comments in Sunshine’s blog. (Hint: It's not akin to ambivalent.)

And then there’s the Flammable/Inflammable/Nonflammable debacle. When in doubt, just use Flammable and Not Flammable to avoid confusion and save lives.

Literally. This word is abused, though not literally. He literally laughed his way to the bank. Did his uproarious giggles propel him to the financial institution? Um, no. Then don’t say that it did. In a nutshell, literally means exactly as written/spoken. Laughing all the way to bank is a figurative statement. So is being in a nutshell. However, due to overwhelming usage in the incorrect way, the Dictionary now mentions that it is becoming “acceptable” to say things like “She literally had her heart on her sleeve.” Fight it. Don’t let grammar die. [Don't worry, I won't ask you to clap really hard if you believe in good grammar.]

Speaking of words that have become acceptable, “normalcy” takes the cake. Although there is evidence that the word existed in early dictionaries, the story goes that 29th President Warren G. Harding coined it for his “Return to Normalcy" campaign in the absence of a speech writer. Either way, it just sounds silly to me. Since normality is a word already, do we really need this crazy addition?

Ironic. Chances are, it’s not. Poor little “irony” is as abused as “literally.” Irony is the opposite of what you expect, not an absurd conicidence. And the irony of Alanis Morissette’s song “Ironic” is that nothing in it is ironic. Unfortunate, coincidental, luck perhaps.…just to get that ironed out.

So, if you’re sitting there with your arms akimbo, literally wondering if my displeasure is inflammable and hopefully assuming that you won’t get nonplussed by it, be comforted that you’re not being ironic and you can resume normality.

And please know that I’m not being superior or accusatory.

Just thinking how Inigo is right, which is not inconceivable.

A Dark and Stormy Write...

It’s around 3:00 am.

You’ve gotten up (or are still up, as the case may be).

You need to relieve yourself.

So there you are…and then…the thoughts come.
You can’t help but imagine footsteps coming down the hall…

and that you will turn around to see something truly unwanted.

Like the sack headed kid from The Orphanage. Or the evil white scarecrow from the BBC mini-series of Dennis Potter’s The Singing Detective. Toshio from The Grudge. A headless flannel-shirted man. That sort of thing. You know it’s silly. But still, your “creeped out” meter is off the scale. Why is it so easy to scare ourselves?

Then you get back into bed with your spouse. You try falling asleep. But despite the hour, you’re just not tired. So you keep right on thinking of those horrors…and more. A horned glowing alien who comes to sit on the edge of your bed with you. And it doesn’t help when your spouse wakes up and asks if you heard a thumping coming from somewhere in the room. After comforting your love, you settle down yourself. If you’re lucky, you can turn it around and be creative. Since you’re already creating mucho macabre, why not craft it into something that you can use?

Such as in terms of writing.

And that’s what I did.

Suddenly I had an absolutely unsettling image and situation for the ghost story novel that I will one day write.
And then…I could get to sleep.