Saturday, May 30, 2009

Understanding Fiction through Art

Late in 2007, I attended an art exhibit at the Wexner Center by William Wegman (pictures shamelessly borrowed.) He has always held a special place in my heart after spending the first eighteen-odd years of my life in a house with Weimeraners. His pictures of the dogs went a long way to popularize the breed.

What really impressed me, however, was not his better known goofy pictures. Instead it was a different medium he worked on - postcards and paint on canvas. The pieces were intriguing and made me think about my own method of expression -writing. He took random postcards that he found like the ones below:

From these seemingly unconnected images he created a landscape which brought them all together in seamlessly:




With a little work, these individual pieces are melded together, and connections drawn in, and we can see one larger picture.

The building blocks of any work of fiction are scenes. If you're doing your job correctly, most everything will take place somewhere and something will happen. That's a scene. They can be a few sentences or paragraphs - a character buying a newspaper, or a pages - a climactic meeting of two enemies. The actions in these are the postcards. We fill them with characters, places and ideas that overlap. We see people interact, we see them going from place to place, and ideas come up again and again. This is the painting that ties them all together.

A work of literature, say The Great Gatsby, is made up of a couple hundred scenes. The scene where Nick realized Gatsby hasn't read any of of the books in his library, the scene where Gatsby runs over the woman, the scene where Tom talks down Gatsby. A few hundred moments in the life of the characters. In this example, we see the rise and fall of Jay Gatsby, destroyed by a society that loves his money, but will never accept him as one of their own. Every scene shows us a little more about the characters, advances the plot a little more. Different people, different times, often seemingly unconnected. But they are. All these individual moments work together to build one cohesive story.

Have you ever heard someone tell you a story and include every mundane detail, or throw in huge asides that don't do anything for the overall story? That isn't interesting or required. A well-told story does not begin with "He was born..." and ends with "...and he died." with every thing that ever happened along the way. Important events and details are given, and the rest is filled in by the reader with all the extra information they are given. If we are doing our jobs as authors, then filling in the gaps is easy.

When writing fiction, we take these scenes in our heads, often only half-formed when we begin, and we make a larger work out of them. A series of times, places, and people. Each one doing just a little and working with the others to create more than just the scenes. In The Heart of Darkness, we don't see every inch of the river, we just see a few of the stops on it. We see a series of strange and savage actions that gives us an overall picture of what that time and place was in that piece of fiction. The connections are built in how they are arranged and in the narration between scenes. After reading those hundred-odd pages, we are able to put into place the pieces that are left out. We can imagine what it would be like to travel up that river ourselves. A world is created that exists beyond those snippets.

The New GI Joe

If you haven't seen the clip online, here it is: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41240

Get a bucket and take a watch. I'll wait until you've emptied your guts and are ready to discuss it.

Ready?

Okay, seriously, is anyone down for having an anti-abortion rally on the steps of Paramount Studios?

There is some idea going around that people want realistic movies. That is true and it isn't. There are action movies that are helped by some level of realism. Having Trinity take 12 minutes to die after having a steel beam through her chest? That was stupid. Allowing your average action movie hero take 9-10 bullets to the chest without being phased? Retarded. But this isn't your average action movie. This is GI Joe.

Somehow, Hollywood seems to have forgotten the allure of a little camp. GI Joe was silly. You had these guys, the best solider in each of their respective fields, and they were absurd caricatures that nobody took as realistic. I mean, the Sailor's name was Shipwreck and he had a parrot. Why? Who the fuck knows? Who the fuck cares? He was cool. Was there really a need for some drunken idiot when they were assaulting a dessert compound? No, but that doesn't mean you left him behind, you took him with you and he made some off-color comment about Asians. Or something, it's been a while since I've seen it. A full scale battle ensued, millions of dollars in military hardware was lost and the net result was a foiled plan and no loss in life.

That is what GI Joe is. Over the top characters facing absurd plots to take would have been much easier accomplished with a few suitcase nukes in a handful of strategic location. That's what we loved about it though. Every week, Cobra would do their thing, GI Joe would bust in and that'd be that. Cobra would escape and we'd learn about why to not stand in water why fixing a toaster with a knife. Awesome.

Do we really need to make GI Joe realistic? With the exception of pulling in some fanboys, this movie could just as easily be called American Super Soldier. I mean, we take away everyone's outfit and give them tight black outfits (because they are more realistic) and THEN give them power armor. Cobra doesn't get power armor. HOW IS THAT FAIR? Can we at least let the parties fight fair? I mean, if GI Joe doesn't kill every last motherfucker in that secret island compound, then I feel they have failed. Because they have a ridiculous technological advantage and Cobra has to rely on being skilled fighters against super suits.

To be fair, there is a place for realistic reboots. The new Batman franchise has done a good job at it. The serious reboot of Battlestar Gallactica was phenomenal. James Bond has become more serious, but at least it has held on the to majority of the things that made the series great. For GI Joe they've taken away all of the camp that made it good, and replaced it with substandard action fare in hopes of selling a few new toys and a hot video game tie-in. The kids LOVE power armor.

What's next? Can we get a version of TMNT where the turtles have to battle cancer? How about a PG-13 version of Harriet the Spy where she investigates the local Catholic church for evidence of molestation? Maybe we can do a reboot of Rosanne that takes away the pesky humor and replaces it with the cold reality of struggling to stay above the poverty line.

The things that make series great are often the things that are not realistic. They are the things that don't happen in the real world. Books, television and movies are a form of escapism. If we wanted a strictly realistic story to be told, we'd watch documentaries. We want a good story that that understands where it can take liberties with the real world. If you are going to reboot something, understand what it was that made it great, and generally it is more than just the bare bones story. Most of the great series and great movies had serious flaws, and more often than not it was because of these flaws, not in spite of them, that they were endeared to us.