Showing posts with label Zach Helm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zach Helm. Show all posts

Friday, January 29, 2010

Suspension Strength Speculation


In my previous post about Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, I mentioned I wanted to bring up another topic related to it.

Let me start by saying that I do not have an answer or a decision on this issue. (Which is kind of funny, given what it’s about.) I’m just bringing it up for discussion, as it were. I’d love to be able to figure it out, but alas, I have not yet been able to do so. Any theories you’d like to present would be great.

I don’t mean to be picking on this movie. As I have said, I enjoyed it as a fun flick. It’s just that this issue came to me once again while watching it, so I’ll be using it as an example.

The problem, in a nutshell, is exposition. Or in another term: explanation.

It would rather appear that Mr. Magorium is a magical entity. He says to another character (Henry Weston [Jason Bateman]): I've been inventing toys since the 1770's. Weston then calculates: You know, that would make you at least 240 years old, sir. Besides his longevity, Magorium seems to have other magical powers at his disposal - or at least is surrounded by magic: objects (toys) and doors/rooms of the shop. It’s quite delightful - except for one bit. I’d like to know the wherefore of it all.

Now, it certainly could be (and probably is) just me. For I asked Bart (who also enjoyed it but didn’t deem it stellar either) and he said that he didn’t mind not knowing about Mr. Magorium. He took him at face value, as some sort of magical being, and that’s that. That’s fine, it can (and for some) does work as such. But not for me. At least…not here.

What’s interesting is that there have been similar cases in other stories where not having some sort of explanation of a character’s attributes or abilities didn’t bother me at all. A very good example is Willy Wonka. He’s got a “magical thing” going on - as well as the longevity factor. I never wanted to question it - he’s Willy Wonka, damnit. You’ll also find a post in which I say that in Burton’s version of it I am put off by the addition of an explanation of sorts (i.e. a backstory.) I even got into a discussion about it with someone in the commentary. I should state, however, that Burton’s “past” for Wonka doesn’t give an explanation of his magical qualities. So that bewonderment is intact.

So the question is: Why am I readily able to accept Willy Wonka’s oddity but not Mr. Magorium’s?

One explanation (HA!) might be that I first viewed Willy Wonka as kid. Had I been less discriminating as a child? A good theory, but I don’t think that’s it. For I’d been the type of kid who found the plot holes. I still am. [Incidentally, I wrote a novel based on a particular fairy tale, spawned out of the plot holes I wanted to fix as a kid.] And yet… sometimes, it just doesn’t concern me. Take for instance, the beloved character with whom I am all too familiar: Peter Pan. As a kid I’d been fascinated by and accepting of the nonsensical in it. I’m STILL willing to suspend my disbelief (rather interesting choice of words for that story) however - it should be obvious at this point that I’m also “concerned” about it. After all, I’m writing a novel that helps explain some of its mysteries. By the same token, I am not trying to eliminate the mysterious either. I’m working within the boundaries of what’s established by Barrie to do it. A betwixt-and-between of rational and irrational elements.

I also recently posted about Disney’s Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty. I talk about how she’s just a bad egg, inherently evil for the sake of it - and somehow… somehow this is okay in that particular story. Usually when a character is evil “just because” it does not make for a good tale. Villains are “people,” too… and in general we need to know what makes them tick. How is Maleficent so charming and perfect just the way she is without having to know why?

Back to Mr. Magorium. As I also mentioned in the first post, the movie is written and directed by Zach Helm. Now, in another of his works [also mentioned prior], Stranger Than Fiction, we are expected to swallow the idea that a character and author are linked in the real world. Inexplicably. And yet… I not only swallow it, I eat it up with a spoon. Okay, this one might be able to be chalked up to the fact that I often tell people I “talk” to characters. But even so, it’s a fancilfully written story, and it works, sans explanation. Case in point, I found a “hole” in that story that readily has a self-contained solution. I’d been bothered by that hole until I figured out how it’s not one at all… but still, there remains no reason given why the aforementioned “link” occurs. It just does. And I’m fine with it. Interesting, since both of these stories are written by the same man.

So I put forth: When and why does “it just is” work? What makes an explanation moot? Is it the quality of the rest of the tale? Is it a compelling enough characterization? What’s the tensile strength of disbelief when stretched?

Does anyone else fall victim to this sometime-curiosity?

Monday, January 18, 2010

Mr. Magorium Left Me Wondering...


When I saw the trailer, I had thought the movie Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium looked rather charming. But I’ll be honest, it didn’t sparkle so much that I felt I needed to see it in the theater. I finally got around to watching it this past weekend.

I did not expect it to be the most wondrous film this side of the imagination. Plus, I (quite randomly for her) asked Sunshine the other day if she had seen it and what she thought. After some jogging of memory as to which film it might be, she said she had seen it with the comment: Eh, it’s a movie. Doesn’t suck, isn’t fantastic. Thus, I didn’t have the highest of hopes for it.

I’m not about to say that it exceeded expectations or even blew me away. I suppose I agree with Sunshine. Entertaining, but nothing to write home about, as the saying goes. So why am I writing about it? A couple of reasons.

First, I am sort of contradicting myself when I say that my hopes for it did raise a little when I saw who wrote it - Zach Helm. He’s the marvelously demented man who brought us Stranger Than Fiction. From the moment I saw its trailer up through this very moment, Fiction has been one of my favorite movies. (My commentary on it is here.) Mr. Helm also directed Mr. Magorium, just to note. And each of them star Dustin Hoffman who’s delightful in both. Thus, I thought maybe Mr. Magorium’s store just might win my affections just as much. But not so much. Don’t get me wrong. I did like it. It just didn’t thrill me the way Stranger Than Fiction did.

Second, I just wanted to “ask” if there’s supposed to be a sequel. Or if not a sequel than more to this story? For the way it ends, without spoiling it, a whole great deal more is about to happen. Sure, it could be one of those tales in which the audience is meant to do all the imagining as to what comes next. For anyone who has read my novel Peter Pan’s NeverWorld, there is a whole bit about “finished from done.” It didn’t seem as if this film knew the difference. That’s not meant as an insult or slam of any kind. I’m not saying the film felt unsatisfying or lacking. Just that there seemed to be...more to this story. It ends rather abruptly. And yet, it’s entirely able to stand on its own, too, as per the aforementioned allowing the audience to create their own adventures for the characters. It's also quite possible that the entire point had been that we must live our own adventures, not knowing quite what will happen next.

But on the whole, it's a fun ride. If you’re looking for a sweet, charming, “eye candy” movie, this won’t let you down. But it won’t necessary leave you on Cloud 9 either.

Incidentally, there are two not so hidden references to the movie in this review. ;)

Actually, there’s one other aspect of this film I want to discuss. But I’ll leave that for another time…

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Stranger Than Fiction

Nearly six months before the release of this movie, a friend sent me a link to the trailer. She knew it would be more than to my liking, since she (and many others) have heard me express the mildly insane belief that I merely take dictation from characters. If you are a writer and have not seen this movie, shame on you! Take that with a grain of salt, but do see the movie. So charmed by the trailer, I attended opening day. Needless to say, I loved the film. It’s a delightful spin on the strange process of writing.

Upon second viewing, I had a moment of dismay. There seemed to be a plot hole. I’ll keep this as spoiler free as possible for those who have not seen it. But those who have should know exactly the moment I mean. When 'character' Harold Crick rushes to make his all-important phone call, it does not make sense within author Karen Eiffel’s Death and Taxes. Who is Harold rushing to call in that novel as she’s writing it? Fortunately, I had a good laugh as I realized the answer. Rather than being a flaw in the design of the film, this incident strengthens the entire premise. To me it represents a phenomenon that many (hopefully all) authors experience – when a character temporarily takes the reigns of the story and there is no choice but to see how it plays out. Often I find “character input” is better than what I had originally planned.

Call the collaboration between character and author Insanity or call it Inspiration. Either way, this is a wonderfully wacky, inspired film.

Bravo to writer Zach Helm!