Characters and Plot

Back again after the grindstone wore out my keyboard from writing so many papers and Christmas in retail-land left my energy deflated and draped over the nearest chair.

Anyway I have a few ruminations about writing I'll be posting over the next few days (hopefully). Mostly notes to self. Anyway.

Characters are plot.

When writing characters, every one of them should be living their individual storyline and be the hero in each POV. The thing about people is that everyone feels like the protagonist in their own life's history, and rarely will tell a story that illuminates them in an unflattering light. Normally there are reasons, explanations, and a series of emotional chain reactions that result in every action. Even if a married partner cheats, or a son doesn't wish his mother happy birthday, these things are usually justified as an acceptable outcome in the person's mind.

Characters should go through the same process too. Through the chain reactions they create plot: when a plot point occurs in a book, the opportunity can be laid out by an outside conflict, but it is how a character reacts to this conflict that creates plot. The story moves along as the character becomes more and more enraveled in their own choices.

By the end, they should be in full chrysalis mode and then emerge at the end as a beauteous butterfly transformed! (Because what's the point of a story if nothing changes? How can the reader hope to be moved and changed if the protagonist can't even bother to take the time to do the same).

Cloud Atlas, The Movie

I went to go see Cloud Atlas (le film!) last night and I've been ruminating on it all day, aka procrastinating writing my last two papers of the semester.

There were a few things a didn't like about it, and a few more proportionately that I did like very much.

One thing that I knew straight off going into it from the trailer was that they were pushing the reincarnation angle. David Mitchell has said himself that the characters are all reincarnations of each other, but in this instance, I think I'm going to take the side of New Criticism for the first time in my life and call the intentional fallacy card. I felt when reading it that reincarnation was just one of many metaphors for a much grander idea that the book was putting forth in terms of the idea of history and inter-relativity, human kindness and crime, and how actions affect everything in a very karmic type of circle.

The movie, on the other hand, was all about the reincarnation. They gloried in it. And hey, they went whole hog, so who am I to really judge them for it? At least they carried through with it and didn't do a half-assed job. I think because of that, and that alone, it worked.

What I didn't expect, but probably should have, was that they made it into a love story.

It's funny, but the last reading I would have taken from the book was the love story one. They did a lot of editing and a couple of significant changes to adapt it to that particular angle, so it did feel a little forced. But for translating a work of this magnitude into a screenplay...I don't know if any other theme would have worked so palatably for audiences.

I guess this is the main thing I was disappointed with though - and I know that's a personal thing because I'm not a romantic and I just feel that even though romantic/sexual/whateveryouwantocallit love is a huge chunk of what humankind is made of, there's just so much more to life that's neglected these days just because love and sex sell. (Also by forcing that lens onto it, they distorted the plot line a lot *cough*Sonmi*cough*)

Before I went to go see it, a friend of mine told me that they reused the same people for all the characters in all the different stories, so I was prepared for that bit. This I felt half and half about. I have to admit it felt a bit cheesy at times...

...but then again they really managed to pull it through the whole movie trying their hardest and I think it worked. I can also understand that being billed for a cast including Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Susan Sarandon, and Hugh Grant among another full handful can't have been cheap and using them literally to their full potential was a smart move on their part.

Not even going to lie though, the cross dressing - particularly of Nurse Noakes - had me peeing my seat.

The one thing I was truly uncertain about was in Sonmi's story; they used all the same actors alright, but they chose to make the white people Korean by CGing in asian eyes.

Not only was this just straight up bizarre to look at, but I wasn't too sure how I felt about the touchy racial boundaries on that. It's one thing to put on elderly prosthetics or cross dress, but that just seemed a bit much.

Anyway, aside from that the casting was great and I'm going to gush about all the things I loved.

Jim Sturgess. Sorry that has to be first because I'm going to be biased for a moment because he's just delicious. Especially in a top hat.

Ahem. Okay. That aside, the visual effects were really well done for the most part. Imaginative, captivating, and breathtaking at times. Loved the sci-fi parts in particular. I wish Sonmi's section could have been given more airtime because I'm just a sucker for awesome gadgetry (the room change!)

Timothy Cavendish was exactly as I imagined and made me laugh so very much. Jim Broadbent was an excellent choice and the writing adapting for the narration for his bits were perfect.

Also Hugh Grant never failed to make me laugh, no matter what role he was playing, even if he wasn't meant to be funny (Kona warrior lol...)

Frobisher's storyline was so much sadder, if that was possible. Until his final scene, I was managing to keep from shedding those tears on the rims of my eyelids, but that whole part hurt. While we're on the topic of him though, I can't say I was a fan of how the situation with Ayrs was resolved (if it can be called a resolution). That varied too much from the book and I thought it was out of character.

Anyway back to good things, Hugo Weaving was fantastic - as per always though. He's just phenomenal in everything that he does and I enjoy his acting so very much.

The music is also beautiful. At the same time, I was hoping the Sextet would be longer and maybe have a little more...heart-wrendingness to it, seeing as it's built up in the book so much. Not that it's bad, but I  wish it was longer and more orchestral. I imagined something very different in my head. Still, it's enough to make me want to learn the piano to play it.

One of my favourite things about the movie was the quirkiness of it. I don't think this was capturing the feeling of the book, but rather purely the flavour of the movie itself. It took risks. I mean, it was a 3 hour film, it had to. But everything, from Hugh Grant's ridiculous facial expressions as a Kona, to the Knuckle Sandwich's author's blood spray as he pancaked flat, to Ol' Georgie, distinctly shouted out Cloud Atlas, the Film. I love something with quirk, especially if it's not perfect. And this film managed to pull it off.

I have to say though that the prize for Best Thing About The Movie has to go to its editing. The Wachowski's really nailed the scripting. Weaving 6 different story lines of a postmodern novel is no easy feat and yet they made it feel seamless. I think this, more than anything else (yes, even more than Jim Sturgess), is what tipped the scale and put my thumb up and not down.

For the most part, I'm very unforgiving about movie adaptations from books I love. Harry Potter is a classic example; the movies are fun, but I can at times be more than a bit harsh on them. (The only proper translation of a book to film, like I said in my Room With a View post, is Lord of the Rings).

Anyway, I enjoyed this movie. It's not something I'm going to run out and tell my friends about and force them to watch like I'm forcing them to read the book, but I wouldn't tell them to stay away either. It's an artful movie and as well done as I could imagine it being.

If given the chance, I think I would gladly watch it again.

7.5/10

Milk, by Alexa and Sheila

Head Trip

Beautiful painting, no?

No.

Because why?

This is no painting, friends, this is the genius work of body painter Alexa Meade, modelled by Sheila Vand.

Looking to explore the fluidity of the female form through portraiture and perception, Alexa and Sheila decided to collaborate after a chemic Skype meeting and the project Milk: what will you make of me? was born.

The figure: the human body itself.

The canvas: milk.

Activate

To paraphrase the marvellous interview (the full version of which can be read here), the two creatively kindred spirits were intrigued by using milk as the medium to look at the concept of women in art. It's a medium that works well in the logistic sense for its opacity, but Sheila reveals it was more than just that. 

"I was also really drawn to its conceptual implications," she says in Don't Panic's interview. "It's a provocative substance made only by the female body, so it's a really insightful context to explore the female form". 

Mango Lassi

While this all sounds well and good, the process was not as milky smooth as they make it look.

Lying in a blow-up pool filled freezing milk, suspended partly by floaties and partly by a solid concrete floor, Sheila admitted to the challenge of keeping the body as expressive as she and Alexa had discussed beforehand. "But if you lose that human element, it's no longer a living portrait," she conceded.

And it's no wonder with that level of dedication that the project turned out as breathtaking as it did.

White Out

On Alexa's side, the challenge mainly lay in the ticking clock. One can only imagine the exasperation she felt when she says, "I could spend a couple hours painting on Sheila and in as little as two minutes in the pool of milk, it could all be washed away. There is an incredibly short window of time for me to get the right shot. If I miss the photo, then all our work is gone and we have nothing to show for it."

Though it was just the two of them putting these together, they distinctly felt a third presence throughout their work. "We often referred to the milk as a third partner in our collaboration ebcause it would ultimately determine the final product," says Alexa, and describes how that which was meant to be grotesque would end up graceful. "We could never predict how the milk would behave."

But did they cry over this spilled (or rather, unruly) milk? Not in the least!

The medium worked well with the art to produce unanticipated results, like in Shape and Shift (below).

Shape                                                       Shift

The duo toured to Zurich, Switzerland in August and September of 2012 to do a live performance of their project at Galerie Ivo Kamm. There, inspired by the effervescent nature of the art during the original LA based project, they wanted to work with the loss of identity and its instability.

"You really start to feel like a mutable canvas," says Sheila who was painted between 2-3 times per session.

To check out all their work, behind-the-scenes shots, and some sneak peaks at the Zurich performances, head right on over to their website and glory in their inspirational work.

Behind-the-scenes of Activate/Hesitate/Deviate

Oh, and in case you were wondering, the constant milk baths were indeed very good for the skin. "The paint," disclaimed Sheila on the other hand, "not so much."

Cloud Atlas (The Book), and Why I Want its Last Line Tattooed Permanently on my Skin

Hold this book. Feel its weight, the five-hundred pages that are bound together by glue and pulp. Flip the pages and marvel at how thin and light each leaf is, and how the sun makes them transparent enough to read the words in reverse on the other side.

Marvel because this near weightless, hand-held, simple object carries the burden of civilization, leaves you burnt with passion, and inspires the genius of humankind.

This book is why literature should exist.

If I were to make a list of books that writers should read, this would be at the top. Anyone who loves literature - real literature, this book should have priority to move to the top of the to-read list.

It starts in the late 19th century with a San Franciscan on a boat leaving from Sydney writing a journal, but then it stops mid sentence.

Suddenly it's the 1930's and the main character is a (slightly mad) composer writing letters to his past lover who's still in England about this half-finished travel journal that he wants to finish reading - "a half-finished book is a half-finished love affair", as he writes.

This idea starts to permeate the rest of the story as his narrative ends halfway through as well and suddenly it's the 1970's; it turns into a mystery thriller, and the journalist protagonist meets the now elderly lover to the composer who has kept the letters for his whole life.

Continue this pattern of ending part-a-way through another two times, and it's moved into the future where the patterns start to weave themselves out of the threads of all the stories, and come together to face birth, life, and ultimately death - and what those even mean at all.

It's an exploration of humanity and the rise and fall of empires and what makes a person blaze with spirit at their very core. 

It sounds ambitious, but when the reviews say that every page moves forward with the force of molten lava, they don't exaggerate: it may be hard to penetrate the surface, and it may move slowly (in the beginning at least), but it burns with the kind of writerly genius that can only erupt a handful of times a generation.

This one's for the love of reading.

This one's for the writers.

This one's why literature should exist.

Normal Coloured Eggs and Ham

My Omi makes delightful ham and my family snatches whatever we can of her leftovers.

Her generous six slices of ham results in none other than a salty, smokey, juicy slab of ham along side a sunny egg freckled with pepper.

And I know butter's bad for you...but eggs in butter has my heart a-thumping, even if it is just from cholesterol build-up.

Eat breakfast as a king, they say.

How to Eat Your Daily Veg:

Drink it instead.

Watching a Room with a View

On the topic of film adaptations of books again, I just had my last class of Late Victorian and Early Edwardian literature (I will sorely miss this and my wonderful professor) and we finished up the semester with watching the 1985 A Room with a View movie.

It is glorious.

First off, the cast: Maggie Smith, Daniel Day Lewis, Judi Dench, and a 19-year-old Helena Bonham Carter. Marvellous.

Written originally in 1908, it's a story about a moody young Lucy Honeychurch (Helena Bonham Carter), who goes on a tour du monde to Italy with neurotic, woebegone chaperone Charlotte Bartlett (Maggie Smith).

To their mutual dismay, they discover the room they had booked has no view. At dinner, however, a kind but low class father and his romantic son, George, offer to switch their room with a view for theirs. Cue romance! ...of the creepy, stalker, leering sort.

After that, it's just a hilarious early 20th century, 80's infused, rom-com satire. Granted, Forester's A Room with a View is a belly full of laughs itself, but it's rare that a translation between mediums can capture the essence of humour from an author as well as this was able to. (On a slight tangent, Lord of the Rings does this flawlessly also).

Anyhow this movie is worth watching for so many reasons. The editing, the acting, the scene structure with mildly surreal actions that are deemed only slightly unnatural by the actors, and of course the transition blocks with dramatic medieval-esque drawings, operatic music, and various chapter headings announcing the upcoming action of the scene. Whether or not this is to forewarn audiences so they don't get in tizzy of knicker wetting or just because it's the 80's, I've no idea. But it's awesome.

Also the costume designs are lovely. The Edwardians really knew how to dress.

Last but not least, there is a marvellous, prolonged naked-men-bathing-and-frolicking-and-wrestling-in-the-sun scene. Three full frontals. Our undergraduate class of 21+ year old students tittered like we were twelve.

It's overwrought and exaggerated and definitely not everyone's cup of Earl Grey Tea, but if you're a lit nerd or just someone with a good sense of humour, then I highly recommend this for one of those Friday nights where instead of sulking because your plans got cancelled, you rejoice in the opportunity to pop corn and wear slippers and enjoy this classic turn of the century adaptation.