The Shining - Thoughts

I loved that the documentary film Room 237 was made because I've been a fan of Stanley Kubrick and The Shining ever since I saw it. Room 237 was great because it was like being with friends who loved the same thing.  I do think that some of the thoughts from 237 are crazy and not what Kubrick intended.  I do think the madness he has sent those analyzers and myself into when trying to figure out what The Shining means is what Kubrick was trying to create.  There are many loose ends through out the film, add that to the belief in Kubrick's genius perfectionism and add a story about seeing different times and you have this perfect recipe for an analyzers joyful madness.  There's a part of me that loves to analyze films.  It's like trying to solve the riddle or figure out the puzzle.  So The Shining is this labyrinth maze with dead ends which makes you want to analyze it.  But you can't find all the answers you want.   It's not about a moon landing message or native Americans.  It's about a guy who goes crazy.  We want to find all the answers but this is part of the madness Kubrick was trying to create and/or did create.  That's what's so brilliant about The Shining.  Ever since I saw it the first time I was thinking, "Whoa this is crazy.  I don't know what it's about but it's crazy."  I've been trying to figure out since.  That's the feeling he want to give the audience.  When I was a freshman in college the first movie I had to write a paper about, I chose The Shining.  I would pay good money if I could find what the 18 year old version of me had written about it.  

Adapting the Bible

There have been several movies adapted from the Bible recently and I wanted to comment on the different ways they have been adapted.  My goal is hopefully to suggest the best way to adapt a Biblical story for film and TV.  As a Christian filmmaker it is exciting to see many parts of the Bible being produced as big budget movies for millions to see.  Even the ones that are most inaccurate are at least putting some part of God's message out into the world, hopefully to help more people to know God.  There are three adaptations I want to discuss in detail *Noah, Exodus: Gods and Kings and A.D. The Bible Continues.*  I will discuss the different types of adaptation of the Bible. 

When adapting any story, whether it's a book, magazine, comic book, or an actual event, the rule of thumb is write the best screenplay.  Don't worry about following exactly what happens in the original material, but tell the best story for the movie.  There are many reasons for this.  A book can cover more, have more characters, have locations that are impossible to film or be very expensive.  Even if that's how it really happened, movie audiences don't care.  They just want a good movie.  Inevitably something will be left out of the adaptation and some fan of the original material will be upset.  Choices will have to be made and not everyone will be happy.  You'll have to make these choices anyway because it is very unlikely that everything in the book will make it into the movie.  This is why everyone says the book is better than the movie.  When you are making the movie you are making it for an audience that has not read the book, so the film or TV show must be able to stand on its own without explanation.  

You can see where this would cause problems when adapting the Bible.  Christians believe every word of the bible came from God so changing God's word is not acceptable.  There are several ways I have seen parts of the Bible adapted.  When adapting any source other than the bible I would change what ever I needed to write the best screenplay.  For adapting the Bible, one must be more careful not to contradict or change the bible.  

The first way I have seen the bible adapted is directly copying from the bible.  The Bible says God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac and we see a scene where Abraham ties up Isaac and is about sacrifice him when God tells him to stop.  The scene plays out exactly how it's described in the Bible.  

Another way I have seen used omitting certain parts to tell a whole story.  This would include taking parts out to shorten the story.  This could go either way, taking out some part that is crucial to the story our how a character is portrayed could completely change the story or it could be benign and simple speed up the story.  

Another step in adapting is where the Bible has a blank spot or a grey area where we don't know exactly what happened and scenes are made up to show how events could have played out.  In AD there are many scenes where Caiaphas talks with Pilot about guarding the tomb of Jesus.  We don't have how those moments actually happened in the bible, but they could have the spirit of what was going on there.  

Sometimes the adaptation is inaccurate, meaning there is a contradiction between the bible and the script.  This could be done, and is simply inaccurate.  Another way this could be done is that it's inaccurate but they are still trying to get the heart or the spirit of the story.  So the facts could be wrong but the meaning is right.  Of course the accuracy could also be wrong for nefarious reasons.  Perhaps they want to pervert the bible and add their meaning to the story.  

I have problems with all three of the these adaptation examples Noah, Exodus and A.D.  All of them are inaccurate.  Sometimes this is forgivable because the filmmakers may not be Christians themselves so they don't have a good understanding of the material.  Some of this inaccuracy could be just a mistake in the writing, which is a hard job.  Sometimes I'm just not sure why they contradicted the bible. 

To me Noah is the best of these three because it engages me in the human drama.  I care about the characters and I'm along for their journey.  There are many inaccuracies in Noah.  Right off the bat there are "The Watchers" which are fallen angels who have hardened into rock creatures.  These are no where to be found in the bible. Of the three films I'm talking about, it's the most glaringly inaccurate part.  There are other inaccuracies in Noah.  In the bible, Noah's sons have wives and families prior to getting onto the arc, in the movie, only one has a wife.  Noah is also a very faithful and obedient man of God in the bible where as the movie makes him out to be more flawed and misunderstanding God.  I still enjoy this part of the movie even though it is incorrect.  It shows me a picture of how we as humans can struggle to understand how God is working in our lives.  God spoke directly to people in the bible, but today he doesn't do that.  This helped me relate to Noah.  Many times we don't know how things will work out until the events are over.  I also love how in Noah there is a distinction between God's people and the world, which is something I feel as a Christian.  I also love how Noah refers to God as the creator and his reverence for him.  It's something very rare to see depicted in any movie.  One of the most haunting images of Noah is seeing the people holding on for dear life on the top of the mountain while the rains come.  It reminds me of how this world is lost and we need to help it.  Even though the antagonist who gets on the arc is not in the bible I like seeing his attitude towards God compared to Noah's attitude.  The antagonist is a consumer and angry at God.  He shows me what we could become, what some people are.  Noah is about how some people will be saved and others will not.  "The storm cannot be stopped, but it can be survived."  This quote left me with the haunting reminder that there will be a judgment in the future. 

Noah falls into the category of inaccurate but trying to get the right heart or spirit.  I know many people couldn't get past The Watchers and the other inaccuracies but if they could they would fine a very rich story about God and his people.  

With the TV show AD, I have a hard time watching.  There are inaccuracies but there isn't a spirit of let's find the heart there are just blatant inaccuracies.  Peter's character seems to be brooding and a thinker.  That's not who I see in the bible.  Peter is a guy who talks so much he puts his foot in his mouth all the time.  I think my expectation for AD was a tv show of the book of Acts.  The show's creator has said he wanted to mix House of Cards and Game of Thrones with the bible.  I think this sounds like a pitch that will help sell your show to the network, but those shows don't have anything to do with being a Christian or what the first century church was thinking about or going through.  My issue with AD is that most of the show is concerned with an argument between Caiaphas the high priest and Pilot about who is in charge of Jerusalem.  Their wives also playing big roles in the scheming.  This is not in the book of Acts nor does it add much to telling the story of the first century church.  As someone wanting to watch Acts adapted for TV this does nothing for me.  Also whenever AD finally gets to a portion that is taken from the bible, which happens only near the end of each episode, it's inaccurate.  It's seems lazily inaccurate, why not have characters say what's in the bible or have it happen like its described in the bible?  Perhaps the screenwriters are taking the traditional approach to adapting and just changing it how they want for their story.  Again this is fine if it wasn't for the book being the Bible.  I'm annoyed with the main characters of AD.  If I want to see a bible show, and you are telling me this is the bible continuing, then give me the bible.  Don't give me Game of Thrones.  It is nice to see certain parts of the bible on screen because I've never seen them in a movie or tv show before.  I just wish there was more of this.  

Exodus: Gods and Kings seems to be a troubled movie that never figured itself out.  It seems that a good amount was cut out like in Kingdom of Heaven which has almost an hour cut out.  In terms of accuracy, Exodus shows Moses as a man who wants to overthrow the government who is enslaving his people.  Moses only speaks to Pharaoh once, not after every plague like how the bible describes.  Moses is also not 80, nor is his family with him.  He seems more like a man rising up to be a political leader than a man God chose to save his people.  I didn't connect with Moses or any main character in Exodus.  When it says how Moses first talked to God in a burning bush, a storm is going and Moses is covered in mud.  It's just inaccurate.  It almost seems like the writers were trying to explain how the exodus came about.  That perhaps some of the parts of the bible could be explained humanistically.  However when they came to the plagues, there was no way to explain it.  They are too bizarre and powerful.  The only explanation is God.  For the most part the overall story of this version is a story of the exodus of the Hebrews.  The details do not follow the bible, but of the three stories I'm focusing on, Exodus actually veers the least from the bible in the overall story arc.  The inaccuracies aren't as obvious as rock creatures or Game of Thrones characters, but the small changes in this adaption take God out of the picture as to why Moses did what he did at certain times.  

In conclusion, for adapting the Bible, the number one goal should be accuracy, and when this becomes difficult for storytelling.  Only change or add to when it adds to the overall meaning or spirit of the moment.  

Kubrick on Kieslowski

---

The foreword to Kieslowski & Piesiewicz, Decalogue: The Ten Commandments, London: Faber & Faber, 1991

---

I am always reluctant to single out some particular feature of the work of a major filmmaker because it tends inevitably to simplify and reduce the work. But in this book of screenplays by Krzysztof Kieslowski and his co-author, Krzysztof Piesiewicz, it should not be out of place to observe that they have the very rare ability to dramatize their ideas rather than just talking about them. By making their points through the dramatic action of the story they gain the added power of allowing the audience to discover what's really going on rather than being told. They do this with such dazzling skill, you never see the ideas coming and don't realize until much later how profoundly they have reached your heart.

Stanley Kubrick
January 1991

Gravity

The Best Picture of the Year for me is Gravity. It was fresh original, stunning, exciting, visual, everything you want in a movie. My wife liked it and asked why I thought it was so good. It got me thinking why exactly did I love it so much.

I think I’m tired of the sequels, the remakes and the comic book movies. I want to see something I haven’t seen before. I want to be masterfully lead into a story by an authority. Gravity did that for me. 

I’ve never seen a realistic space movie with this type of plot. It feels like it was very well researched. It feels real. I could be wrong about how realistic it is, and I’ve heard some critics talking about the science of it. I don’t care if it’s not entirely accurate, it feels well researched. It has a realistic tone to it. This makes it feel fresh. Maybe it’s also because it’s the first good space movie done in awhile (get ready for many copy cats coming soon). 

This to me is what makes a great film now. It’s a unique story, well told that we haven’t seen in a while. This should have been a major consideration in thinking about nominating the screenplay. The story of Gravity is simply a survival story, and many criticize that it was too simple. What’s great about the writing is coming up with idea, and setting it in this world. We’ve never seen a movie like this. That’s incredible and I think it’s a shame Gravity wasn’t nominated for Best Screenplay. 

Gravity was released at the end of boring summer where people were craving good movies. It was a hit because it was fresh, because it was well researched and because we had never seen anything like that before. 

Walking out of the theater, I knew it would get Best Director and at least a Best picture nomination. That’s when you know you’ve seen something great. I don’t think anyone will remember any of the other nominees. Does anyone remember The Artist or Kings Speech? We just don’t factor in popularity enough in Best Picture and aren’t we picking the best movie? Shouldn’t people like it?

Gravity was my favorite film from 2013 and I’m so glad I got to see it on the big screen.

Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon Screenplay

My initial reaction to reading the script is that it seems unfinished.  I'm a huge Kubrick fan, but I didn't see the greatness in the script.  It has Kubrick touches, but just seems to be a disconnected biography of Napoleon consisting of his love life and his political life.  The script is dated September 29, 1969 and I think this must not be the completed version.  I didn't fully understand the history or story of Napoleon as a historical figure.  I could see why Kubrick liked him as a character because they seem to have similar personalities.  

One tendency for writer/directors is to not fully explain everything in the screenplay.  Perhaps this is what was going on with Kubrick in this script.  This was his passion project and I'm sure there is much more that is not contained in this version of the screenplay that Kubrick had in mind.  Kubrick said in an interview, "There'll be no screenplay of Barry Lyndon published, because there is nothing of literary interest to read."  If you see the attached picture of one of the screenplay pages from Barry Lyndon found in the Stanley Kubrick archives, you'll see why this is true.  I'm sure the same would be true of Napoleon if it would have ever been produced.  

Barry Lyndon screenplay page from Stanley Kubrick Archives.

Kubrick did enormous amounts of research on Napoleon including costumes, european locations and historical information.  The story is that when the Napoleon movie was shut down, he moved all the work he had done i

nto making Barry Lyndon.  There are many similarities between this Napoleon script and Barry Lyndon.  There is is similar progression in the plot.  It's hard to imagine that Kubrick thought of Barry Lyndon after Napoleon.  Maybe he had read the book series before or during his preparation on Napoleon.  The picture below is from the Kubrick exhibit at LACMA and consists of the books dedicated entirely to researching Napoleon.  It's hard to imagine that this library produced only this current screenplay.  

Books used for Kubrick's research of Napoleon.  At LACMA.

I wasn't impressed with the screenplay of Napoleon, but I'm sure if he had made the film it would have been amazing and epic.  Kubrick, at the hight of his powers, working on his most passionate project, would have certainly produced one of the greatest films of all time.  

Parables and Screenplays

Parables

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." 
Matthew 13:10-17

Jesus spoke to people in parables because that was how he could get his message across.  Basically he was teaching people something they didn't understand yet.  The way he did that was by telling people stories they could relate to with the meaning he was trying to get across to them.

This is a great lesson for Christian screenwriters who want to get a message out in their screenplays.  One mistake screenwriters can fall into when trying to write a screenplay with a strong message in it is to make the message obvious and preachy.  Within a few minutes of watching the movie, it'll be obvious that the story is teaching a lesson.  It kills the art of the screenplay because it might as well be a sermon not a screenplay.

Just like Jesus taught people in parables, so should Christian screenwriters hide their messages in the story of the screenplay.    If a screenplay is for Christians with a Christian message, it's preaching to the choir.  The audience already knows the message.  There's no reason to tell the story.  If there is a message you want your audience to grasp, it needs to be something they don't know yet.  If they don't know it yet, then do what Jesus did and tell it in a parable.  As a screenwriter, the job is to tell the story in a unique way that plays out and adds up to message you are trying to get across.

Sometimes talking directly to people about the message doesn't work because maybe they don't want to hear it or don't understand it.  A story or screenplay can get through that without the audience even realizing it.  This is one of the reasons stories are so powerful.  Jesus knew what he was doing.  Try being like him and write your screenplay as a parable.

List of Current Auteur Filmmakers

Hollywood has become focused on making product movies that are only about making large amounts of money.  It has made seemingly endless comic book movies, sequels and remakes.  The quality of filmmaking has declined terribly.  These movies are only for the lowest common denominator and waste the power of film and story telling.  

The best films come from directors with a vision.  These directors are auteurs and we need more of them.  To promote better filmmaking I’ve decided to create a list of current auteur filmmakers.  

This list is not complete or in order.  I need your help to try to name them all.  Enjoy.

Paul Thomas Anderson

Christopher Nolan

Tom Tykwer

Wes Anderson

Joel & Ethan Coen

Steven Soderbergh

Quentin Tarantino

Woody Allen

Spike Lee

Martin Scorsese

Baz Luhrman

Danny Boyle

Peter Jackson

Paul Greengrass

Kathryn Bigelow

James Mangold

Neill Blomkamp

Ridley Scott