Deadwood: The Movie

Even the film poster celebrates the F-word

(Spoiler alert: if you're a Deadwood fan, you won’t like what follows.)

I watched Deadwood: The Movie last evening. A little late to the game, but it's difficult to watch this western with teenage girls in the house. Actually, the three thirteen-year-olds have only lived with us a week and the HBO Film has been available for over six weeks. In truth, I wasn’t keen to see it. After three separate attempts, I never finished the series … and I write Westerns for a living. What’s wrong with me?

I loved the television show until Wild Bill Hickok died, then I no longer cared about any of the characters. Deadwood didn’t draw me back because the story wasn’t compelling. Same for the HBO Film. The movie tied up every loose end, and every actor got to invoke their character’s iconic pose, but the main storyline could easily have been captured within a single episode. The rest felt like fill and forced nostalgia.

The problem with Deadwood is the overuse of visual and dialogue gimmicks to project an artful image. The ploys get old after a few episodes. The harsh profanity mixed with stylized formal speech reminded me of Betty White using the F-word; funny at first, tiresome with repetition. The cardinal rule of storytelling is to never take the reader/viewer out of the story, and the odd dialogue did just that.

Many believe the stilted speech—punctuated with swearwords—made the show unique and artsy. Executive Producer David Milch insists that the vulgar, Elizabethan-like dialogue is based on historical research. To steal a word from the era: poppycock. No characters talked this way in any of the stories by Mark Twain, Louisa May Alcott, or Owen Wister, who were all there. In that age of propriety, they would have omitted profanity, but I doubt Wild West speech would make rap singers sound virginal. In case you think I'm a prude, I occasionally use harsh profanity in my novels, but sparingly, so the impact is not diluted by repetition.

The Deadwood dialogue reminds me of James Fenimore Cooper’s attempt to invoke an earlier age with excessively formal language. Cooper wrote historical novels that occurred about a hundred years in the past. Mark Twain, my favorite Western author, didn’t like Cooper’s writing. Wait, that was far too mild of a sentence. In his article “Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses,” Twain ridicules, lacerates, and skewers Cooper.

I may be mistaken, but it does seem to me that "Deerslayer" is not a work of art in any sense; it does seem to me that it is destitute of every detail that goes to the making of a work of art; in truth, it seems to me that "Deerslayer" is just simply a literary delirium tremens. A work of art? It has no invention; it has no order, system, sequence, or result; it has no lifelikeness, no thrill, no stir, no seeming of reality; its characters are confusedly drawn, and by their acts and words they prove that they are not the sort of people the author claims that they are; its humor is pathetic; its pathos is funny; its conversations are -- oh! Indescribable;  its love-scenes odious; its English a crime against the language.

Counting these out, what is left is Art. I think we must all admit that.

Twain wrote about dialogue in another section:

When the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject at hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say. But this requirement has been ignored from the beginning of the "Deerslayer" tale to the end of it.

Even the style of this article is meant to mock formalistic writing.

In summary, the starchy speech demanded attention but didn’t enhance the storytelling. I found the volume and volume of profanity off-putting and wearisome. The nostalgic scenes didn’t work for me because I hadn’t missed the characters. Excluding that, what is left is pretty good. I think we all must admit that.

You might also like: Mark Twain Tells Us How to Write

Sisters Brothers—The Movie

Joaquin Phoenix and John C. Reilly

This weekend I saw Sisters Brothers. I write westerns, so I’m critical of Hollywood ventures into the genre. They often mess it up by leaning toward the politically correct or destroying the story with CGI. This time they got it right. The Sisters Brothers is a good western film worthy of the fine novel by Patrick deWitt. That’s saying a lot. Except for Lonesome Dove, most directors view a book as a loose guide, rather than a roadmap. (hint, hint)

Great Cover

The Sisters Brothers is a character study ... and a study of not particularly admirable characters. The appeal is in the dialogue and humor. Thankfully, there are few special effects to take the viewer away from the story. I might be tempted to think Hollywood has learned a lesson, but I suspect this is a one-off because the novel’s author is Canadian and the film’s director French. Leave it to foreigners to revitalize an American genre. Jacques Audiard keeps the film within the spirit of the novel and directs a true western without relying on grandiose landscapes, unhistorical duels, or CGI. He does include a lot of killing, however. After all, the Sisters Brother are assassins.

The film is rated 85% at Rotten Tomatoes. 

Here is the New York Times review.

Owen Gleiberman, Variety’s Chief Film Critic seemed more interested in virtue signaling than critiquing the movie, but here is his review as well. I find Gleiberman’s review interesting because it displays many of the biases which keep Hollywood from making more good Westerns.

Blade Runner vs. Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 1982

versus

Blade Runner 2049

IMDB users rate Blade Runner 2049 at 8.2 out of 10. Pretty heady rating for IMDB. I’m aware that anyone who preferred the original gets dissed as an ol’ fogey. I fall into the old category, but don’t admit to the fogey part. Nevertheless, I will go on record as preferring the original. (Both films scored 8.2)

My reasons are from a different perspective than most. Admittedly, film is an art form and presentation certainly plays into the craft. From a visual perspective, I might even give Blade Runner 2049 the edge. It paints a dystopia world with deft precision. Where it falls behind the original is the crux of good storytelling. Bad guys gotta be bad.

In the original movie, Rutger Hauer portrayed Roy Batty with relentless malevolence, yet managed, in the end, to elicit compassion for his character. Batty was a worthy rival, who transitions into a sympathetic victim. A fine piece of acting, that.

Luv vs. Roy

On the other hand, Sylvia Hoeks plays Luv like a high school mean girl, and the script resorts to clichés to portray her evilness. For example, when Luv stomps on K's mobile projector to kill Joi, it reminded me of a B-movie where the antagonist kicks a dog to convey dastardliness.

And then when Luv finally dies, we think, oh good, it’s over. When Batty dies, we weep.

I’m prejudice, of course. I believe the art in storytelling requires an antagonist that presents a heavy challenge to the protagonist. Heroes need villains to be heroic. We want the protagonist to win, but he or she keeps losing until just before the curtain falls. The tension comes from uncertainty. Even though we’ve seen story upon story, each time we are transported to another place and time where the villain might actually win. Sometimes, we get a reveal at the end that turns the protagonist’s victory poignant. A neat trick, when done right, and the original Blade Runner pulled this off with panache.

And that’s why I prefer the Blade Runner 1982.

Sam Elliott, A Favorite

Sam Elliott is one of my favorite actors. Although he has done outstanding work in Western films, I first became a fan after watching the 1976 Lifeguard. Elliott had the lead role in this coming-of-age film. He dominated the screen, but I really liked his character because I identified with his beach bum mindset.

I grew up in what is called the South Bay area of metropolitan Los Angeles. The South Bay was an odd collection of beach cities south of the upscale Malibu and Santa Monica. It was a perfect time to grow up in a perfect place. Surfing, friends, bikini-clad girls, and a little school on the side. I spent more time at the Second Street street-end in Hermosa Beach than I did at school ... sometimes at my principle’s invitation.

Lifeguard was filmed in the South Bay, so I had an immediate connection. Elliott plays a lifeguard who is constantly harangued about getting a real job. It is a nicely crafted script, and great performances by Sam Elliott, Anne Archer, and Kathleen Quinlan lifted a low-budget film above the commonplace. This was shrewd casting, since they all went on to become stars.

What brought all this to mind was an interview with Sam Elliott at A.V. Club. The interview is comprehensive, with film clips, lots of Hollywood insider stuff, and it ranges all over his remarkable career, including his Westerns. (Warning: It’s also sprinkled with F-bombs.) 

I had forgotten about Lifeguard until he mentioned the film, and the reference brought up a host of pleasant memories. It also reminded me that I once owned a tee-shirt that read, “There is no life east of Pacific Coast Highway.”

If you have never seen the film, pick it up and take a gander at a unique moment in time when Southern California beaches were uncrowded and life was truly simple. It’s also a great story.

Books that drove me mad

Kimberly Turner published a piece on Lit Reactor titled, “7 Horrifying Ailments Named After Literary Characters.” I believe she missed a few, but then Turner wrote about real ailments. Here are a few phobias I developed from reading books.

Marathon Man made me afraid of the dentist.

Ever since Psycho, I lock the bathroom door when I shower.

The Ghost and the Darkness made me fear tall grass.

2001: A Space Odyssey convinced me computers were out to get me.

Apollo 13 made me afraid of the number 13.

The Da Vinci Code kept me away from art museums.

The Shining made me avoid long, empty hallways.

10 Films that Revolutionized Computer Graphics

I object when computer generated imagery overwhelm the story. Actually, I've objected when CGI is substituted for storytelling. About.com has listed what they believe are the 10 Films That Revolutionized Computer Graphics. I think it is a good list, but I would have added one of the superhero film.

Blade Runner

CGI is a great development in film when it is used to advance the story instead of as an end in itself. I think Jurassic Park is an excellent example of the blending of live action, CGI, and storytelling.

Related Posts

Can the Bloody Benders Revive Western Film?

Hollywood—Get Real

Something Fun!

I'm in New York City visiting my son and his family. Okay, my son is really on a business trip and I'm filling in for him at a father/daughter event. The event was last night and we had a great time cruising the Hudson River. My son will be back this evening, so we'll have the weekend to catch-up and watch his son play a double-header. Since I'll be busy with more important matters, here is something fun. I never would have guessed that this was the most popular line in film.

 

And now starring ...

Good books can make good movies. This is especially true if the script is true to the book. This doesn't mean a movie should doggedly follow a book. Film and novels are different mediums. They present stories through different senses, so there must be an adaptation from one media to another. Gifted scriptwriters know how to do this, as can be seen in Lonesome Dove. The reverse is seldom true. When novels are written to take advantage of a hit movie, they are invariably cinematic, not literary.

Click for hot properties!

On the other hand, can good movies be made about books? BookRiot has published a list of 17 movies starring books. There are some good films on this list, but they make me wonder. Do writers get tired of making heroes out of cops and detectives, Cowboys on horseback or in pickups, teenage vampire killers, or even people working in exceptionally boring crime labs? Do they decide, hey, what about us? We can be heroic … and besides, we control the keyboard.

Don’t know, but movies about books are much more interesting than movies about writing. I mean, how exciting is writer’s block? Does the actor type faster to pick up the pace of the story? The pen is mightier than the sword, but a typewriter makes an awkward weapon. Writers can be interesting characters, but outside the author’s mind, writing looks as dull as running a DNA test. Humm? Anyway, the better movies on this list focus on the writers and their books, not the act of creation.

By the way, where is Little Women on this list?

Opening Lines to a Novel

Elmore Leonard wrote great opening lines ... first sentences that immediately drew the reader into the story.

Elmore Leonard

The Stacks compiled a chronological list of all of Leonard's opening lines. The list should be inspirational to every writer other than me. Not many have noticed, but I've already committed to all of the opening lines of my Steve Dancy series. Each tale begins with a single word. The Shopkeeper opened with "Two," and each succeeding novel opened with the next higher digit. The first sentence in my latest book in the series, Crossing the Animas, reads "Seven."

What happened to One? I've reserved it in case I decide to write a prequel about why Dancy left New York City for adventure on the American frontier.

This may not be a creative approach to opening lines, but it has one huge advantage. I can write the first sentence of each new novel without thought and tell myself that I've actually begun the book. Once writing starts, the story keeps drawing me back to the keyboard.

Second or First in the Series?

Honest westerns filled with dishonest characters.

Steve Dancy in Love?

Steve Dancy has had a rocky romantic life in the first three novels. His mother pushed him to marry a young lady who would enhance the family’s wealth and connections, but New York City socialites and socializing bored Steve. In defiance, he sold everything and followed Horace Greeley advice to “Go west, young man.” 




Steve assumed he would observe the frontier and write a great literary classic about the Wild West. He found enough adventure to fill several books and made a few male friends along the way. In his wanderings, he also encountered many different types of women, but Steve argued with every one of them. Needless to say, this was not the best way to strike up a relationship.

Things change in The Return.  Steve remains clumsy with the opposite sex, but even a dunderhead can be successful on occasion. I’d tell you what happens, but why ruin the suspense. You’ll just have to buy a copy and read for yourself.

As for me, I'm leaving the scorching heat of Arizona for Pacific Beach. I'll get in a little surfing between playing with my grandkids, who are flying in from Nebraska. You know, I think my granddaughter is the right age to start bogie boarding. This is gonna be fun.

The First Movie Studio—And a Mea Culpa

Edison's Black Maria, West Orange New Jersey

Edison’s first movie studio was in West Orange, New Jersey. It was nicknamed the Black Maria after the stuffy paddy wagons of the day. According to Wikipedia, “The first films shot at the Black Maria, a tar-paper-covered, dark studio room with a retractable roof, included segments of magic shows, plays, vaudeville performances (with dancers and strongmen), acts from Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, various boxing matches and cockfights, and scantily-clad women.” Let’s see. Edison started the film industry with Westerns, comedy, violence, and soft-porn. Seems that when the movie industry migrated to Hollywood, the moguls in charge adopted the same themes.

This very first studio shows the movie industry's predilection to innovate. Notice that the roof can be lifted to catch the light and the entire building is on a rail to rotate with the sun.

Edison Motion Picture Studio

What was not filmed at Black Maria was The Great Train Robbery mentioned in my last post. The first feature film was actually shot at the Edison Motion Picture Studio in the Bronx, New York City. My error. At the Black Maria, Edison did film acts from Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, so I’ll still award New Jersey honorary Western status.

Speaking of Hollywood, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the movie industry did not leave New York because of the weather.

“Motion Picture Patents Company, also called Movie Trust, Edison Trust, or The Trust, a trust of 10 film producers and distributors who attempted to gain complete control of the motion-picture industry in the United States from 1908 to 1912. The company, which was sometimes called the Movie Trust, possessed most of the available motion-picture patents, especially those of Thomas A. Edison, for camera and projection equipment. It entered into a contract with Eastman Kodak Company, the largest manufacturer of raw film stock, to restrict the supply of film to licensed members of the company.

The company was notorious for enforcing its restrictions by refusing equipment to uncooperative filmmakers and theatre owners and for its attempts to terrorize independent film producers. It limited the length of films to one and two reels (10 to 20 minutes) because movie audiences were believed incapable of enjoying more protracted entertainment. The company also forbade the identification of actors because popular entertainers might demand higher salaries. By 1912, however, the success of European and independent producers and the violent opposition of filmmakers outside the company weakened the Movie Trust, which, in 1917, was dissolved by court order. The Movie Trust, which was based in New York and other cities of the East Coast, was indirectly responsible for the establishment of Hollywood, Calif., as the nation’s film capital, since many independent filmmakers migrated to the latter town to escape the Trust’s restrictive influence in the East.”

Has a Western mash-up ever worked?

I’m not a purist. My own westerns are about miners instead of cowboys, my plots delve into the politics of the frontier, and my protagonist is a wealthy Easterner. I also liked the Lone Ranger, even though it went overboard on special effects and cuteness. I can go off the beaten track and even enjoy oddities like Cormac McCarthy’s weird punctuation. But mash-ups? Where did this fad come from? Mixing diametrically opposed genres is like fusion cuisine where the main course and dessert are lumped together in a stir-fried. It may be an interesting novelty, but it won’t change traditional menus.

I believe a fiction writer’s job is storytelling. It must be done well, with good characterization, but essentially the task at hand is telling a ripping good story. Effective storytelling takes people to another place and time. It can be the Wild West or Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. A mash-up tries to take the audience to two different places at two different times. It’s jarring.  Besides, these writers seem more concerned with how clever they can blend the genres, rather than storytelling.

Many Western enthusiasts lament the lack of audience for Western literature and film. Unfortunately, there will be no resurgence by mashing up Westerns with the latest teen craze. It’s not that easy. Intriguing characters with a well-crafted story arc will draw readers to any genre. Just ask Larry McMurtry, Elmer Kelton, Louis L’Amour, Owen Wister, Jack Schaeffer, John Ford, or Clint Eastwood.

Top 10 Western Books

 Reading Cowboy Statue, Azle, Texas

American Cowboy magazine has listed the top 10 Western Books, plus a few also-rans from the same authors. Many of these novels were made into classic films, which shows that good storytelling can be adapted to multiple mediums.

By the way, I searched through the list twice, but never found any of the Steve Dancy Tales. I'm sure this is an oversight that will be corrected in the next list. 

Actually, I believe they compiled a fine Top 10. I've read 8 of the 10 ... an omission I'll correct shortly.

Illustration by Zachary Pullen

Ink Tank does: The 8 sexiest cowgirls to kiss John Wayne

John Wayne was a lucky man. As the leading man in 142 films, he had the honor of working with somewhere near 142 leading ladies. Ink Tank does a fun job of selecting "The 8 sexiest cowgirls to kiss John Wayne."

The Lone Ranger—Hi-Yo Silver Away!

The Lone Ranger has ginned up a lot of controversy. It’s not a homage to the 1950s television series, nor should it be. Reinvigorating the Western genre means appealing to younger generations. Other than costumes, do the Batman films have anything to do with the television series? Well, in the Lone Ranger, they even ditched the costumes. Thank goodness, because a masked man in a form-fitting white outfit made as much sense on the range as Roy Roger’s blinged cowboy shirts. The movie appropriately retained only the symbolic white hat.

Purists criticize the film for enlarging the role of Tonto over the Lone Ranger. I disagree. The television series and the film are buddy stories and good buddy stories need parity between the partners. The film comes closer in this regard than the old Clayton Moore/Jay Silverheels series. To me, this had more of the flavor of the Lethal Weapon series—a bomance disguised with irreverent bantering.

Bottom line: I liked The Lone Ranger. I laughed out loud, which is rare for me inside of a movie theater. I was dazzled by some of the cinematography, and loved the score. The characters were different than I expected, but struck me as fresh. The plot follows the standard story line of a wronged protagonist reluctant to accept the mantle of hero. That’s behind us now, so from this point forward, it’s Hi-Yo Silver Away!

If you’re interested in some other perspectives, take a gander at these:

Forbes: Review: 'The Lone Ranger' Is A Fun Summer Ride

Salon: “The Lone Ranger”: Rip-roaring adventure meets dark political parable

Henry’s Western Round-up

NPR: The Lone Ranger: Justice from Outside the Law

Western Fictioneers: Who was that Masked Man?

Full of Surprises—Live and Let Die by Ian Fleming

In high school, I read every Ian Fleming James Bond book. I liked them, but wasn't motivated to read them a second time until recently. I started with Live and Let Die, the second book in the series. The novel was full of surprises. I remembered that Bond was a different character than in the movies and the plots were less extravagant.  All true. James Bond is vulnerable and feels fear in the books. He is not as much of a loner and makes friends easily. The plot doesn't make sense in either the book or movie, but the action/escape scenes tend to the more realistic side in the novel. There is a fetish about equipment, but in the book, Bond is given somewhat specialized scuba gear, while in the movie, Roger Moore wears an electro-magnetic watch that can pull a wooden row boat by it metal rowlock. Fleming does not give Bond futuristic gadgetry. A steel-toe shoe is about as exotic as it gets.

First Edition Cover

Fleming was a much better writer than I remembered. His pacing was pitch-perfect and descriptions excellent. Although the dialogue often seemed pedestrian, Fleming was a great storyteller. Live and Let Die was an easy read, and there were more than a few times when I reread a section that showed skillful writing.

The big surprise was the racism reflected in this 1954 book. Fleming occasionally writes favorably about his black characters, but for the most part he relies on offensive words and stereotypes that were more generally accepted than we would like to remember. Fleming’s attempt to reflect black ghetto dialects seems crude and wrong. This novel demonstrates that racial attitudes have improved in the last sixty years. Perhaps everyone, especially the young, should read Live and Let Die to gain a fuller understanding of the 1950s.

Murder Made Simple

In 1944, Raymond Chandler wrote an essay for The Atlantic Monthly titled, "The Simple Art of Murder." It was reprinted in 1950 in book form by Houghton Mifflin along with eight of Chandler's early stories.

Chandler was highly opinionated about art, fiction, and detective stories. There are some nifty tips in here for aspiring and accomplished mystery writers.

Here are a few snippets. 

Fiction in any form has always intended to be realistic ... Jane Austen’s chronicles of highly inhibited people against a background of rural gentility seem real enough psychologically. There is plenty of that kind of social and emotional hypocrisy around today.

The murder novel has also a depressing way of minding its own business, solving its own problems and answering its own questions.

Nor is it any part of my thesis to maintain that it is a vital and significant form of art. There are no vital and significant forms of art; there is only art, and precious little of that.

Yet the detective story, even in its most conventional form, is difficult to write well. Good specimens of the art are much rarer than good serious novels. Rather second-rate items outlast most of the high velocity fiction, and a great many that should never have been born simply refuse to die at all. They are as durable as the statues in public parks and just about that dull.

"really important books" get dusty on the reprint counter, while Death Wears Yellow Garters is put out in editions of fifty or one hundred thousand copies.

At the end of "The Simple Art of Murder," Chandler gives a great definition of a hero that I abridged in an earlier post titled: What makes an appealing hero?

Link to the full article

Link to my Pinterest page on Raymond Chandler

3:10 to Yuma—Make and Remake

I bought the original version of 3:10 to Yuma because I wanted to compare it with the Russell Crowe remake. I liked both. Crowe played a great bad guy, but Glenn Ford, normally cast as a good guy, appeared to enjoy playing a rogue. (3:10 to Yuma is now my favorite Glenn Ford movie.)

I won't discuss specifics, but there were several plot or character improvements in the new version, however, I preferred the ending in the 1957 film. In fact, the contrast in endings tells a lot about Hollywood’s reluctance to embrace traditional heroes. (Elmore Leonard's short story has yet another ending.)

Production values were certainly better in the later version. It's also fun to watch the two trailers back-to-back to see how selling movies has advanced in the last fifty years.

Link to Ford Trailer

Link to Crowe Trailer

If you're a film student, movie enthusiast, or just like Westerns, both versions are great additions to a private library.

Images Does Westerns

Images is a great site for film and popular culture. They have a number of articles on Westerns, but I suggest you start with "The Western, An Overview." This seven page article covers the history of Westerns in film. Here are a few Images links.

The Western, An Overview
The Silent Western as Myth Maker
Spaghetti Westerns
Western Weblinks

If these articles have whet your appetite for Westerns, I have a suggestion:
The Steve Dancy Tales

Honest Westerns ... filled with dishonest characters.


and coming soon...

The Return

Junior Bonner—A Classic Western

I recently watched Junior Bonner again and it is an exceptional film. Great script, superb acting, and as they say in the commentary, "not just good editing, perfect editing." Like many contemporary Westerns, the script laments a lost era, but more important to the genre, Bonner reflects the ethos of the pioneering West.

Peckinpah was a great director. My favorite Peckinpah films were Junior Bonner and The Ballad of Cable Hogue. Both are great character studies. The films showed that Peckinpah didn't need slow motion violence to tell a good story.

It occurred to me that Junior Bonner shares similarities with Downhill Racer, which starred Robert Redford. The films show how a good story can sometimes present a more realistic picture than a documentary. Both movies revealed the nature of lone athletes compelled to compete against themselves. There are many great team-sport movies, but these films captured the primal culture of individual sports. Redford and McQueen also have never acted with more subtlety.  Even if you don't care about rodeo or skiing, these movies bring you into a fascinating world very unlike the way most of us live.

One last note: The Junior Bonner DVD also has an excellent commentary that ought to be listened to by every film student or film enthusiast.