Louis Pan?

Louis Vuitton & Peter Pan?

Um, yes, apparently so.

 
The 13th exhibition at the Espace culturel Louis Vuitton takes inspiration from Barrie's masterpiece, bringing the visions of thirteen artists to the task of re-presenting his marvelous mythos.  They ask the question Qui es-tu Peter?  (Who are you, Peter?)  Three of my favorite descriptions of the answers:  Jerôme Zonder ventures into the amplitude of love and hate...  Jean-Philippe Illanès presents Peter Pan’s house, in which the objects have been strangely revisited... and Janaina Tschäpe proposes the ecology of Neverland.  Quite a spurt of imaginative forces.

Some other rather choice bits from the Press Release that particularly tickled me are this recognition - Peter Pan has become a contemporary myth as well as this one - sketching a portrait of the troublemaker.

The exhibition is going on now, but alas, one needs to be in Paris to enjoy it.

You can find out more about it here, though there seems to be no direct link, so navigate your way toward it.
 

Don't RUN it That WAY

I admit that I am a fan of Project Runway. Yes, it’s true. Here’s how it happened.

A friend of a friend (I honestly don’t remember which friend and that extended friend I had never seen before and have never seen since, just by circumstance) had been visiting (along with first friend) and she said, “Hey! Project Runway is on... can we put it on?” Begrudgingly, we allowed it to happen. It just seemed like one more idiotic reality show and I had wondered who on earth would ever watch such a thing. Well, about a third of the way into it, I wondered: I’m not watching this WHY? And we have ever since (for about 4 or 5 seasons.) In fact, Banky, Clara, Buttercup and Josiecat come over every Thursday to watch (as well as It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and at off-seasons it’s just “movie night.”) I’m not even into fashion. Really. Just look at my drawing of myself, that will show you. Outside of the program, I don’t give a damn. But in the context of the show I find myself critiquing with the rest of them. There's something about seeing the creative process and its execution.  I also have to say that if it were not for Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn I don’t think I’d be watching. Their personalities and presence are a good chunk of what makes the show.


Okay, now that I have that disclaimer out of the way, I want to express a complaint about the advertisement editors.

First, another explanation. Yes, I am well aware that “marketing” is part of the deal.  For instance, at the glimpse of next week’s show they’ll have a particularly nasty (and humorous) comment by a judge and then show the designer’s reaction. However, that “the” is erroneous. It won’t actually be the designer the comment had been directed to, possibly not even a comment that had been meant for the runway critique. In other words, they arrange the facts so as to be enticing.  I’m fine with that... it’s actually kind of fun to see how it really “goes down.”

But last week they went too far. Way out of line. All season long during the commercials they have been hyping that someone is accused of cheating. We’re now at the tail end of the season and it finally just occurred. No, that’s not the complaint. For the week leading up to the show, we hear (and see) Tim Gunn saying “You will not be returning to the show.” GASP! What intrigue!  What scandal!  Naturally, we sat on the edge of our seat to see who had been ejected for their dishonest practice.  Well, here’s what really happened. Tim Gunn informed a designer that his model had an emergency and she “will not be returning to the show.” The word “You” did not begin that sentence. Thus, they didn’t just creatively adjust what’s there, they purposely manipulated and altered the facts and sound bites of what had happened! (For the record, the accusation of cheating fizzled away into a non-issue.)

Why would they be so deceitful? I seriously doubt that someone who does not watch Project Runway would be swayed into doing so by that “scandal” they had you believe. If anything it would make them roll their eyes at such petty drama and not want to watch ever. So why re-edit it for the regular fans so that Tim Gunn is misquoted? He should sue for misrepresentation if you ask me.

Shame on them.

Not Too Flighty!

In case you were wondering about the status of my Barrie interquel Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between, Andrea Jones is still in the process of reading it. She’s quite a busy woman and yes, that’s the truth, despite the cliché.

Anyway, since it’s been a little while, I’d been wondering myself. As I had something else to bring to her attention, I thought I’d inquire about my novel... admitting to being paranoid (a la: did not hearing from her mean she’d soured on it suddenly?) Not the case at all. She replied (with a “spoiler” removed):

Yes, I still love B&B, no worries! Peter hasn't yet arrived in the Neverland, just got back to Kensington Gardens after his pow wow in.... Which concept I love, by the way. Wonderful.

(Eternal) Boy! Had I been glad to hear that! You see, the concept she’s commenting on is the very one that I’d been wary about. Perhaps you recall in previous posts I’d been a bit worried that the idea would be too outlandish. I always did and still do like it, of course, but my fear had been that over-exposure to it (while composing) made it more acceptable to me. But it rather seems that I do not have cause for worry. For both Andrea and Anon enjoyed it. (it did require some cutting and tweaking as per Anon’s perusal, but the idea itself had not been rejected.)

So it’s great to know... quite a relief, actually, that two Barrie-fanatics are on board.
Just wait until Andrea gets to the Neverland!

A Few Things...

So that new The Thing movie?  That's the thing.  It's also (and still) called The Thing.  They're not sure what else to call it.  In that article I quoted in the last post Marc Abraham talks about the difficulty in naming the movie.  Call it The Thing Begins and someone will balk that it began with John Carpenter and how dare they call it as such.  The Thing Prequel?  Nah.  So, right now it's just called The Thing.  Again.  Although keeping that the title is somehow appealing, it smacks too much of a remake.  I have a suggestion.  After jokingly going for the obvious Another Thing, I realized a very viable solution.  Since the movie Carpenter used as a springboard had been The Thing from Another World, why not call this one: From Another World.  Yes, I realize the order isn't right to continue from/as the original title (meaning that the new film is a prequel) but it does work in the sense that the new film will be more so about the thing that came here a la the crashed ship and removing the lifeform inside only to have the same type of chaos ensue which, as we know, will lead directly into the Carpenter film.  So how about it?  From Another World.   Any takers?

Bart, Buttercup (who has not seen it) and I are going to watch it tomorrow night.  She's excited.  I am, too, since it's been a great while for me since I last saw it.

Meanwhile, I'm still tossing around ideas and researching for the new novel.  I now have all the character names.  Okay, okay, that's a lie.  I have all the main character names.  To be honest, I'm not exactly sure the supporting characters are going to have names.  I'll have to see if I can get away with it, but right now I'm thinking it could work even better to just have them observed by the principle players.  It seems as if what those around them are called would be of little interest to them.  So, if the principles don't know their names, why should we?  I'll see how it plays out and works best, of course.

Anyway, with the characters named, their personalities are starting to come through and they've started, just started, to help me understand their story.  I'll keep figuring, listening and poking up some research to find out what their spiritual (ha!) journey turns out to be.  Hmm.  That just gave me an idea.

Doing the Right THING

Okay, this is the kind of (ahem!) thing I love to hear.  But first, what I'm talking about:

Another movie of The Thing is currently filming.  It's not a remake, actually, but an extension of the original in the form of a prequel.  It even promises to end the way the original movie begins.  I've known about it for some time now... and after my initial uninformed eyeroll, I wound up very intrigued and interested in the project.   Truth is I could use a little more of The Thing myself and it sounded like a fine idea, especially since those involved really seemed to care.  It's also good to know the paleontologist whose presence is needed in (and thus comes to) Antarctica is female.



New Movie



All righty, back to what I'm happy about hearing.  A new interview/report has just come out which gives some more insights into the production.  Music to my ears.  Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. seems like a man, as they say, after my own heart - a dedicated and purist storyteller when using another's work as a base. Said in this article at MovieWeb:  You find the axe in the door in this movie, there's an axe in the door and you see how the axe got in the door.  The interviewer says: It's obvious to anyone that steps foot on the set that the filmmakers are bending over backwards to make this film connect to the original as best they can. 

WELL HOSAH!  Marc Abraham (the interviewed) goes on to talk about the process of Hollywood, just shy of saying it's shame the way it is.  But they're taking the opposite approach.  With The Thing they're sticking to their guns as well as to the original.  Thus, they're able to be super-inventive while oddly locked into many restrictions... like that axe.  On a purely creative level we knew it would be difficult. On a much larger bird's eye view you say to yourself, hey that's the deal. I think that when we looked at it, it was more of a challenge. Its kind of fun that you see an axe in a door, an ice block, a spaceship or this mayhem in this radio room because it's like CSI, it's a crime scene. What happened? We had to go back and go, at one point someone picked up an axe thinking...

Original Movie

And if that's not dedication enough for you, Abraham said:  Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. has it on his laptop. Not only screen captures of it but the entire movie and there isn't a moment when he doesn't go back to the original. He's so careful about where the axe is in the door, what the ice block looked like, or the spaceship, where they stand when we see the spaceship. Because we can do so much more, so many things we could do, but when it came to being anything that was referenced in that movie, we have absolutely stayed with it. Thousands of hours he's spent looking at that movie. He knows and is respectful of every aspect.

Bravo!  Shouldn't it always be like that?  The real shame is that respect such as this is the anomaly.

And you know what?  I don't even remember an axe in a door!  I guess it's been a while since I've seen John Carpenter's half of The Thing.  I'll just have to watch it again, I suppose... hmm, I wonder if Buttercup has seen it.

(And yes, I'm well aware that Carpenter's isn't the "original" but it is in a sense.  He didn't just remake the 1951 original The Thing from Another World, he thoroughly reinvented it.)

Just the THING You to Want to Hear

A Second Stab...

In a book store I came across the book on the left there, Wuthering Bites.

I guessed at what it could be and to quote Laurie Anderson Oh boy.  Right again.

I am not condoning this book, nor am I condemning it.  But I'm not going to read it.  Why?  It's just not my thing.

In case you didn't already figure it out, Wuthering Bites is a spin on Wuthering Heights, with vampires.  It seems everyone's favorite gypsy boy has a little more than Bronte originally bargained for...

...and as I've said in this post, I'm done with that particular creature of the night.

To reiterate, I've nothing against this book.  I actually think it rather clever.  It's a nice bit of mind-jumping.

So why am I bringing it up?  Just to point out that there really does seem to be a "genre" of as I call it "second-hand writing" that's reared its head recently.  Look at Seth Grahame-Smith's popular 2009 novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.  Or Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters by Ben H. Winters also published in 2009.  Granted, these are referred to as 'mash-up's but either way it's borrowing from cherished authors.  Less humorously, let us not forget Gregory Maguire's Wicked, which spawned a series of books to present other histories of the Land of OZ.

Naturally, I have interest in this "genre," having written a continuation of the adventures of Peter Pan based on the remaining notes of Sir J.M. Barrie.  Not to mention (thank you, paralepsis) an interquel to bridge a gap in the story.  I also have another novel which is a retelling of a fairy tale and it has spawned what will be a quadrilogy.

Anyway, well wishes to Sarah Gray on her insightful use of a character's existing history to breathe a fresh take on a cherished classic.  Thanks for helping bolster the business of "second hand writing."

Don't Be Afraid of Fuller...

When Bryan Fuller wrote for Heroes, it rocked. When he left, it fell a little from grace. When he returned, it picked back up to a high degree... and again, when he left, it didn't work as well.

His Pushing Daisies series had been an innovative masterpiece and I think it's a shame that it didn't click with more people to remain on the air.

Well, Mr. Fuller is taking a stab at a reboot.

I, for one, am very interested in what he shall do with The Munsters.

His wacky and tender sensibilities just might do wonders with this concept.

Oh... and I still think they need to go with Brad Garrett.  It doesn't take a mad doctor to figure that one out.  He does a truly impeccable impression of Fred Gwynne.
Enough said.



A Little "Munster Cheese"