Writing for the movies

When I was a teenager, I firmly believed that movies made out of books were doomed to failure. There were few exceptions to the rule of course - The Silence of the Lambs, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. But every time I saw a Harry Potter movie, my belief in this maxim would become stronger. Books and movies were just not the same thing. A novel is incredibly detailed, a movie more visual and for one person (the director) to have the vision to stay honest to both an incredibly tough task.

More than a decade later, I am revising my views. More and more movies each year are based on novels. Are film-makers suddenly better at adapting? Reading this article in the New Yorker, made me think of an alternative explanation for this phenomenon - Increasingly, authors are writing for the movies.

Let me elaborate. The article suggests that the book publishing industry, and the revenue it generates are both in peril for various reasons. At the same time, the competition amongst authors is fierce with opportunities to self publish online or even offline and the availability of FREE quality content through blogs and other web platforms. In a situation where nearly all forms of print are declining and margins on book sales are reducing, there is no economic incentive for authors suggests the article. Follow this train of thought and one logical conclusion that emerges is that movie deals are an excellent revenue stream for authors of any talent.

Education no longer being the privilege of the very rich, there are a fair few of us with good language skills, ideas and no money in the bank. Not all of us come from an academic bent of mind either to build careers in academia where authorship is encouraged. So then those who want to write are left with two choices - write in the scraps of free time that you can get together while building a career and don't expect to make a career out of your writing (you might and you might not) or write in a way that your work reaches a wider audience, albeit through a different medium.

Should I really be surprised then that books increasingly cater to the movie audience? I suppose not. Is this is a good thing or bad thing for literature? I know not.

Technology abuse

In 2009 a movie released that bought, what was then expensive, rarely used technology to mainstream cinema - Enter Avatar and the era of 3D. The stupendous success of James Cameroon's saga in 3D made it the buzz word. Suddenly everything is in 3D - films, newspaper ads, outdoor hoardings, television sets. It's the new money spinner - I mean just look at the 20K price difference between a regular plasma television with HD etc etc. and one with 3D.

James Cameroon, when he wrote (and made) Avatar, wrote it to ensure that the film maximised the impact that 3D technology can have and produced scenes that were stunning to say the least. Before Avatar, few short animation films as well as some NASA documentaries (please correct me if I am wrong here) used 3D - wowing us with images that were larger than life. Post Avatar, I can still name a few mainstream films that used 3D well (How to train your dragon, Alice in wonderland)... thankfully! So I won't write off the technology entirely but I do have a problem with how it is being used currently.

Today every film that is anything but a romance or a family drama is in 3D. I've gotten to a point where I go scouting for 2D shows of films because I do not want to see them in 3D; because 3D destroys what might have been a good film; because technology is being used for the heck of it, without rhyme or reason. This latest rant is stemming out of my experience of watching Don 2 yesterday in 3D (There were no 2D shows in the multiplexes I frequent here in Chennai... such a pity really!). 3D, with it's extended depth of field, made the film smaller than life. What should have been larger than life, thrilling action sequences became small, distant events. Heroes and villains instead of towering over the audience were dwarfed by it. And this perhaps, is the film's biggest failing. I daresay audiences who watched it in 2D would have enjoyed it more especially the chase and action sequences - so much more suited to the flatness of two dimensions. I daresay I will enjoy in more on TV at home... in 2D! I hope film makers realize, and soon, that they can do more harm to their craft than good by using technology for the heck of it. Till then I hope to stay away from pointless 3D as much as I can and save myself many a headache.

The death of the villian

 For many decades Bollywood has had iconic baddies. From Ajit as LION to Amjad Khan as the unforgettable Gabbar Singh to Amrish Puri as Mogambo. They were unabashedly bad making no excuses for their actions. You had to hate them and in doing so love the characters. They often became more defining than the heroes themselves, stronger protagonists whose destruction became the raison d'être for the film.


Somewhere today this memorable character has disappeared. In the fuzz of grey characters there are no villians anymore. Only people with questionable actions and morals spanning the spectrum between black and white without being either. So much so that the category of "Best actor is a villainous role" has all but disappeared from award shows. 

One could argue that this is more real, more nuanced, that people are hardly all good or all bad; that it is time that Bollywood got more realistic and less over the top in its portrayal of characters. And this is an argument that does hold good. Films have gotten more realistic, less melodramatic and on the whole more relate-able. I don't think I ever believed that someone like Mogambo or Shaakaal could exist with all the fancy hideouts with women dancing in silhouettes. 


While I am all for realistic portrayals and characters who are relate-able, I do wonder if the blurring distinction between good and bad is what has led to audiences often complaining that they don't understand what the movie is trying to say. Yes, all of us are grey and by that token, grey characters should probably be easy enough to decode. Only they aren't; they aren't because in a two-three hour film, you get but a fleeting glance of their lives and their thoughts; they aren't because decoding them is too much work when you are out looking just for entertainment; they aren't because decoding them raises uncomfortable questions about your own life and actions. 


And lastly I lament the passing of the villain because I wonder if it also means the passing of the hero. Batman, after all, wouldn't be Batman without The Joker.