Top 10 Story Devices That I Love

To close out the year on a positive note, I decided to make a follow-up to my Top 10 Story Devices That I Hate post, and make it I did. It's true that at this point in time many devices, jokes, plot points and story elements are done to death. But 'trite and overused' can also be read as 'tried and true', or at least we can enjoy them even when we've seen them a thousand times. So I'll be listing off my top ten clichés that I don't see myself getting sick of any time soon...

10. Blatant Sexual Innuendo

From visual metaphors to strangely suggestive dialogue, there's an immature part of me that finds innuendo just so damn funny. I especially like it when two characters exchange dialogue that, in context is perfectly innocent, but that sounds just a little bit too similar to something a little more seedy. The simple use of phrases like 'was it good for you?' and 'it meant nothing to me!' make the discovery of someone breaking a diet sound strikingly like an act of infidelity. Of course, subtext is key in any well-written piece of work, but let's be honest, sometimes it doesn't need to be subtle; in some cases, it's better when it's right in our faces (oh my!).

9. The Stupid Genius
The stupid genius (or maybe the intelligent idiot) is the character who is very intelligent, knowledgeable and maybe even a genuine genius, but he (or she) is either not well-versed in areas outside academia, or just lacks basic common sense or, like all of us, just has the occasional (or maybe frequent) dumb moment. I find these characters fun because it's an interesting contrast; you'd expect a brilliant rocket scientist to have a good head on his shoulders, so seeing him losing his car keys or failing to realise that the door says 'pull' is just funny. It also helps to divide intelligence from common sense, as there seems to be the misunderstanding that they are the same thing. Think Scrubs, especially JD; he's a doctor, he's clearly intelligent, he went to college and Med. School and he knows medicine, but that doesn't stop him from being air-headed, and doing frankly idiotic things. And, of course, like the stronger clichés, this does happen in real life. Someone who just scored 100% on his maths test might not think to put the lid on a blender before switching the on button. Seriously, it happens.

8. The Loveable Bastard
The character you love to hate. He (or she) can be the villain, the hero, or just a supporting character, but is always rude, unkind, sometimes even downright sociopathic. But we just can't get enough of their snide remarks and their glee at others' misfortune. They're usually intelligent or talented, which commands a kind of respect, and they feel they have the right to be so smug and brash. We should hate them, but instead we find ourselves oddly compelled.

7. The Dance
That scene when the two characters dance. It can be almost any kind of dance; whether it's a formal waltz, a saucy tango, or a tender, romantic slow dance, we know that somewhere down the line the two characters will be sharing more than just a dance together. The physical intimacy and sexual connotations of a dance make it an excellent way of showing a romantic connection, and it can be not only beautiful to watch, but very telling of a couple's dynamic. Who is leading? Are they stepping on each others' feet? Is one resting their head on their partner's shoulder? Whatever the dance, and however well it goes, the message is clear: the two dancers are meant for each other.

6. The Lovable Coward
I know cowardly characters can often be annoying or even despicable; putting others in the path of danger to save their own skin. But sometimes a coward will be endearing, or at the very least justified: they are thrown completely out of their depth, or the situation really is terrifying and any normal person would react the same way, or maybe they're just skittish by nature. I always found these characters enjoyable, because while the main hero will often be the person we want to be, the cowardly cohort is essentially the person we really are, and that's why I often find myself liking these characters. If there was a zombie apocalypse, would you really take on the horde with naught but a shotgun and a handful of nerve, or would you curl up under a table trying not to smell too much like meat? Be honest, now.

5. Sibling Rivalry
As someone with two older sisters and a younger brother, sibling rivalry is certainly not an alien concept to me, which is probably why I enjoy seeing it so much in the media. Seeing two people who have known each other their whole lives fighting, arguing and competing against one another for the smallest possible reasons is something that I can understand and that is extremely entertaining. It's especially amusing when said rivalry is between adults who should really be above all that by now, but who can't seem to help the occasional 'because I say so and I'm the oldest' argument.

4. We're Just Friends
The characters who insist that they are not romantically involved, but who are all too often mistaken for a couple. Whether they seem closer than most friends, they keep getting caught in compromising situations, or their friends have just decided they would be a great couple, they will always be asked if they are an item. This can go different ways, but usually they will end up as a couple eventually, but this device can be, and often is, played with, and sometimes they will end up just being platonic friends, something which I think we don't see enough of in the media, but a lot of the time, this trope is a way for the writers to show who the real couple is, even if they aren't officially an item. Yet. Maybe.

3. The Straight Man
I mentioned in my previous post that I liked the straight man in comedy; the comedic foil to the zany guy. Not to say that I don't like the zany guy, I just always seem to prefer the straight man. Maybe it's his sarcastic retorts, maybe it's his stark contrast to the wacky antics of his associate, or, most likely, it's his endless patience and astounding ability to avoid going on a killing spree. The fun thing is that the straight man doesn't need to be very serious, or even all that normal, he just needs to look that way in comparison to the other guy, a situation which I find answers the question many people ask when they see this comic duo: why are those two friends? Because the straight man would look weird standing next to anyone else, this guy makes him feel normal. That's just my theory though, maybe he just likes getting roped into his wild antics on a weekly basis; he probably has nothing better to do anyway.

2. Guy Love/Bromance
Similar to the above 'We're Just Friends', but with two major differences: it only involves two main characters,  and it almost never results in a romantic relationship. This is those two guys who always seem to be together; they are best friends, they aren't afraid to hug or express their platonic love for one another (or maybe one of them is...), but above all, they are as close as two men can be. Although people around them may think that these two guys are a couple, they very rarely are; they are usually both straight. Now, I don't have an issue with homosexual relationships (most of the romance-related clichés here can refer to gay couples), but as I have mentioned earlier, I just have a soft spot for platonic love.

1. Love-Hate Relationships
It's so predictable; boy meets girl, boy hates girl, girl hates boy, girl and boy fight and end up spending a lot of time insulting one another. Then this passionate hate and anger grows into something beautiful; love. But, even when they get together, they will stop at nothing to mock, insult and shout at each other, despite how much in love they both are. It's a story you see a thousand times, yet I still love it. These relationships are just so fun to watch; I always enjoy seeing two people who we know really do love each other just ripping each other to shreds, either to avoid their feelings of love because of pride, or because that is their way of expressing their love. Now, this doesn't only apply to romantic relationships; there are always those friends who can't stand each other but couldn't live without them. I suppose what I like the most about this cliché is the juxtaposition of love and hate that, in reality, we wouldn't normally think to combine. But in fiction, it makes a very interesting, passionate relationship that is just so enjoyable to watch.


So those are the clichés that I will probably never tire of. Here's hoping 2012 will be filled with films, books, and TV shows filled to the brim with these devices, and utterly lacking those in my last post. Can't a girl dream?

Top 10 Story Devices That I Hate

I'll be honest, this doesn't really need much of an introduction. Everyone has the tired old plots, character templates, etc. that they're either tired of, or that they've never really liked. Here is a list of mine, ready for the impending new year. This list goes from minor pet-peeves to full-on rage-triggers, so expect many rants. I'll see you on the other side.

10. One Word Too Many

Okay, so this isn't an intentional device, so much as something I consider to be bad practice in writing, but this is when a line of dialogue has just one or two words too many, turning an ambiguous implication into an unambiguous statement, making it weaker for it. One example of what I'm talking about is in the Hellboy film (a good film, mind, it's just this line that bothered me), in which this line is spoken to the hero: 'This whole thing is a farce, because in the end, after you've killed and captured every freak out there, there's still one left: you.' That would have been a great line if it had ended one word sooner. Especially since the character speaking was staring right at Hellboy when he said it, that final 'you' just made it obvious. It's a minor thing, but it's generally good form to keep dialogue tight, and although it's only taking away one word in this case, short, concise dialogue makes all the difference between a good line of dialogue, and a great, pithy line of dialogue that people will quote for years to come. Case in point: 'To be, or not to be'.

9. Informed Characteristics

This is when we're told that a character has a certain characteristic, when we never see any kind of evidence to support this claim. This is your basic 'show, don't tell' rule; it's usually better to show us a characteristic than to just tell us about it. It's fairly obvious why this one rubs me up the wrong way, it's just basic bad character writing. Don't tell me that the character is a badass with a heart of gold, show me that he is by his actions, his reactions, how he acts when no one's looking, or if you are going to tell me, you'd better make sure you back up your claim later on. Just because you wrote it, doesn't mean I have to trust you. Why yes, I am a bit of a bitch, thanks for noticing.

8. The Pointless Backstory

A character's backstory can be really interesting; in fact, fans of a work can become obsessed with knowing about their favourite character's backstory, and I would argue that giving it to them is risky business. As you've seen from my post about Origin Stories, I'm not a big fan of telling the reader/audience everything about a character, because it often takes away while it informs. Now, I do think that an interesting and fleshed-out backstory is no bad thing; in fact, I would advise thinking through a character's backstory even if it won't be revealed, just so you'll know your character well enough to write them convincingly. It's when a backstory is either poorly put together, lifted from the standard list of clichés, or if it simply adds nothing to the plot or character that it becomes a problem. If a plot opens doors for the story, or reveals something new and exciting about the character, or causes dramatic conflict among characters (or internal conflict for just the one character), then it has been done well. Unfortunately, this sometimes just comes across as the writer badly wanting to share the traumatic backstory to try and excuse their character's bad attitude, to use but one example, and that doesn't really add anything.

7. Childhood Friends = Marriage

This relates to my love of the portrayal of friendship and platonic love, which tends not to be explored so much between men and women, I find. It seems the only way a man and woman who knew each other when they were children are safe from eventually getting married is for one of them to be gay. Apparently people are just so full of lust they will leap on anything with corresponding erogenous zones. Never mind the fact that a lot of the time two people who have known each other since childhood often see one another as siblings and may even find the idea of viewing them in a sexual way as wrong, or even disgusting (known as the Westermarck Effect); they have a close connection, and close connections are apparently always romantic and never platonic. Yeah, I don't care if it does happen in real life, it's been done to death in the media and now it does nothing but annoy me.

6. Stupid Americans

Yes, as an English person, I don't think that all Americans are stupid; it's just a stereotype. I think that they have been poorly represented over time because some of the less intelligent Americans also seem to be the loudest, from what I've seen. I tend to get irked by racial or national stereotypes anyway (although I do have a soft spot for the English stereotype, but that's just an odd little fancy of mine), but there's something about the over-the-top, uneducated, air-headed, burger-chowing, obnoxious American stereotype that just grates on me. Now, I'm usually okay with the endearingly simple character; the one who might not be all there, but is still a likeable character because they're pretty much harmless (hell, I've written characters like that myself); it's when the character is both stupid and obnoxious that it really starts to grate on me. I'm not sure if it's because I get indignant at such a negative stereotype, or the fact that most of the time the 'stupid' character does nothing but slow the plot down and provide 'comedy', or the fact that characters being portrayed as that stupid make me weep for humankind, but this trope just doesn't sit well with me.

5. No Straight Man

This definitely needs an explanation, because on its own, it must sound strange. First and foremost, I mean 'straight' in the context of comedy: the straight man is the 'normal' guy. He represents logic, reason, sensible rationalisation; he's boring, really. But he acts as a foil to the 'crazy' guy. It's a basic comic device: the zany guy and the straight man; they compliment each other. Now that I've explained a little, I'll move on to what I'm really talking about here. I'm talking about a comedy set in a crazy world with crazy people, but there's just one problem. There's no straight man. The straight man is required in a mad comedy to draw attention to just how insane everything (and everyone) around him is. He doesn't even need to talk about it, you only need to see the look on his face to realise just how mad everything is. Without him, it's just a group of crazies running around and it gets a bit all over the place. Now, some comedies manage without the straight man, and that's fine, but it's actually very difficult to pull off. Plus, I like the straight man. He's the one who sits there trying to work it all out, slapping his forehead as more and more insanity is thrown his way. He is what Marge is to Homer, what Squidward is to Spongebob, and what Brian is to the entire cast of Family Guy. The straight man is the boring, sensible glue that holds the funny, zany cast together.

4. Flashbacks

This is a difficult one to explain. It's related to my 'should you reveal backstory' conflict, but it's harder to pin down exactly what I dislike about flashbacks. I think it's mostly the contrived way they're often placed into narrative, like the character gets knocked out and flashes back, or someone will say something vague to them, making them flash back, I don't know. I have seen it done very well, and realistically, like in Ratatouille, when a mouthful of food takes the character back to his childhood, because that is actually something that happens in real life: senses like smell and taste are very closely linked to memory (I'm not sure how or why, they just are). And I think that very short flashbacks that are literally just flashes of memory are good too, for the same reason that they are somewhat realistic. It's when whole scenes, or whole episodes are flashbacks that I start to lose my suspension of disbelief. I start to wonder if the character is relaying everything we're seeing, and every line of dialogue being spoken, or if they just black out for fifteen minutes while this flashback occurs. It makes me think too much about the technicalities of it, and I start remembering that in real life, actual flashbacks are really very rare in people who aren't suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Like I said, it's hard to explain exactly what I dislike about it, I suppose it's just so easy to do badly that I always focus on that and often forget how well it's been done in the past. I think it's so often used as a cheap way to crowbar in a character's backstory that I've become a little sceptical now.

3. 'Wait, It's Not What It Looks Like!' Used for Drama

Seriously. This is a comic device, and I don't know why it's being used in drama so much. I love the comedic misunderstandings when someone walks in on someone (or more than one person) in a compromising position and they get the wrong idea. But I hate it when they are used for drama; a girl flirts with a married man, his wife walks in on them, gets the wrong idea: DRAMA! No, not drama, idiocy. I know that the other character has a right to get upset because they didn't see what we saw, but that doesn't stop it from really annoying me. I suppose what really gets me about this one is that it's so contrived and you often have to make people act out of character for it to actually work, whereas when it's used for comedy, not so much. This is an example of dramatic irony done really badly because instead of creating tension, it makes the audience exasperated. But what's really irritating about it is that almost every time it's used, it's of no real consequence. The two characters will fall out for a while, but eventually one of them will see the error of their ways and they'll get back together anyway, so the whole thing just feels like a massive waste of time. Yeah, we'll get back to the literary and cinematic cancer that is false tension in a bit. In short, this trope needs to stay in the comedy genre, because it's just not working in drama.

2. Tacked-on Love Story

Everyone talks about this one, so I won't go on too much. Basically, people need to realise that not every story needs a love story in it. Sometimes all the character needs is to find himself, or to find love in his friends, or to realise the importance of family, or to quench his thirst for adventure. Not every plot calls for a romantic sub-plot, and it annoys me when an uninspired love story is just thrown in at the last minute. It makes me think that once the adventure is over, and the adrenaline wears off, they'll immediately break up because they have literally no romantic feelings for one another, they just kissed in the excitement of the moment, or because they were staring death in the face, and now they realise that it wasn't much different from a huge drunken mistake. Anyway, long story short: stop this nonsense, it's not necessary, believable, or satisfying, and everybody has worked it out now.

1. The Fake Death

Ooh, where do I start... This one has annoyed me for years, with perhaps the most egregious example being in Pets (the first film I can remember watching that I thought was bad. I saw it when I was maybe ten years old), where the dog gets shot, and everyone is distraught, only for the dog to jump back to life and be absolutely fine. I hate this cliché so much. There is just so much wrong with it; namely, it's an obvious attempt to get tears from the audience without actually killing anybody off. It only serves to create--I told you we'd get back to it--false tension.

This cliché is very common in children's films, which makes it all the more despicable in my opinion, because it essentially teaches children that death is just a temporary inconvenience. No, you do not get to do that. When a person dies, you need to mourn, pay your respects, accept it and then eventually move on. When a fictional character dies, you need to take responsibility for it. Did Bambi's mother come back to life thanks to bullshit plot contrivance? No. Do you know why? Because her death was actually meaningful and that meaning would be totally lost if she was magically fine for no good reason. So don't pretend to kill a character off only to have them sit back up after about a minute or so of that tender, heart-wrenching piano solo and expect us to cheer. It's manipulative, it's overused, and it's insulting.

Now, there are some instances where I will accept this device, and all of them require some semblance of a reasonable explanation as to why the character is not really dead. These include resuscitation, some form of shield, makeshift or otherwise, that we were previously unaware of (or perhaps we were aware of it at one point and since forgot about it), or a previously established device that brings them back to life in some sense (think the eponymous dragonballs that can resurrect the dead in the Dragonball series). Even if these are not realistic, I personally support artistic licence: if something doesn't technically make sense, but it has some artistic merit, I will normally accept it, providing it isn't too contrived. For example, I will accept a Bible taking a bullet and saving someone, even though I'm fairly certain that wouldn't work, because it's symbolic and can be meaningful when handled correctly. As for the established device, if it makes sense in continuity then I can accept it even if it's not realistic; that's just suspension of disbelief. And no, this doesn't mean that a fake-out death is okay as long as you explain it, because it's really the deceit that I hate the most, and in series like Dragonball we are told pretty much off the bat what the rules are when it comes to resurrecting people, so there isn't a lot of trickery when a character dies. The writers don't toy with our emotions; it's sad, yes, but we know that they can come back. No, it's when we are given some hamfisted, shameless cop-out Deus ex Machina just because the writers didn't have the balls to actually kill off a character, but they still want their emotional moment that I start to get really angry. And don't even get me started on that 'power of love' nonsense; the only kiss that can save someone is the 'kiss of life' (not nearly as effective or romantic as movies will have you believe), unless sexual arousal is actually a cure for sudden cases of death. Doubtful. So I'll finally wrap this up by saying that this is a cliché that I really think needs to be killed off for real, so no contrived magical bullshit can save it.

Wow. Okay. So there's my top 10 list of devices that I hate. Look out for New Year's Eve, where I'll be putting up this post's more optimistic little brother. I'll just take a few days to cool off...

When Taught to Write, Are We Taught to Write Badly?

I was thinking recently about all the things not to do that I've been taught in the Creative Writing segment of my university course, and how many of those things I was told to do back in primary school (I can only talk of the primary education system in England as it's the one I grew up on). I noticed that quite a few things I was told when I was just starting out writing I now see as bad habits I need to get out of. Some examples of these include...

Don't write 'said' all the time; use more interesting words like 'cried', 'exclaimed', etc.
Yeah. Don't do that. 'Said' is one of those words that the brain doesn't really process; we're used to reading it, and we don't really take it in, it's just there. 'Hello,' Terry said. If every line of dialogue is followed by a more colourful word, suddenly the reader's eye is drawn to it, and that can be problematic in three ways: 1) it draws attention away from the dialogue and the action, 2) it makes you look very self-conscious as a writer, as if you were sitting at your desk fretting about writing 'said' too many times and you're compensating, and 3) if you use too many, or too outlandish synonyms for 'said', the reader will find it tiresome and ridiculous. Luckily I got out of this habit fairly quickly, and although I do use alternatives to 'said' I never feel like I have to just so I won't write 'said' too many times. Long story short: 'For god's sake, just write "said"!' Terry vociferated.


Describe your character's appearance in detail
Okay, so I wasn't told to do this directly, but whenever I did describe a character in great detail, I was told it was very good, so I got it in my head that I should always do that. Now I know better. Lengthy descriptions of how a character looks have a very Mary Sue-ish, children's-books-for-girls-ish, Twilight-ish feel to it, so I tend to keep it far, far away from my writing. Of course, you can reveal a lot about a character by how they dress, how they wear their hair, how clean they are, etc. and I even find that you can tell a lot about the narrator by what they focus on and how they describe someone, but there is a limit. There's no real reason to describe every minute detail, unless the narrator is really, really interested in that cluster of freckles just under her left nostril, or those freckles are an important plot point later on or something.

Use lots of adverbs; it livens up your writing.
No no no no no no no. This has been covered in all four books about writing that I own: avoid adverbs unless they are absolutely necessary. Seriously, they can't get enough of bad-mouthing adverbs. But back in school, I was encouraged to use as many as possible to make my writing 'more interesting' or some such. This is probably one of my biggest problems in writing now; the last portfolio I handed in, my tutor told me to go through the entire thing and delete every single adverb that wasn't crucial, and my god there were so many. I even know that I'm supposed to use them sparingly, but I do it without even realising it. In fact, if you have time, and want to laugh at my bad habits, use the CTRL+F search function and search for 'ly' and see how many adverbs I used in this very post. I'm sure the result will make me ashamed.


But, I shouldn't be too hasty to write off what I learned in primary school, as I did learn a few things that are still useful today. Such things include...

Don't use the word 'nice'.
I think 'nice' is one of my least favourite words. Probably my second least favourite word after 'annoying', and I hate both words for the same reason, so I'll stick to 'nice'. It's just so nondescript. It's plain, it's boring, it has low lexical density, it's a bad word. Like 'very', it's just not something you want in your writing because it doesn't really add anything. The only time such words would be acceptable is in dialogue, as is the case with most literary rules I've come across.

End sections on a cliffhanger.
Speaks for itself really. If a chapter ends on a cliffhanger, the reader will have to keep reading to see how it resolves itself. Granted, I would often write a cliffhanger with no idea of how it would resolve itself, but it's good advice nonetheless.

Use other works as inspiration
Another self-explanatory one, but I'll go into some detail here. The first things I ever wrote were based on this kind of stimulus: read this book, and write your own version. They were short picture books, so it was never particularly time-consuming, and it was a fun, relatively easy way to get started in writing; all you need to do is change a few things: the setting, the characters' names, the little fiddly details, and you have your own work. Now, obviously I don't encourage plagiarism, which this really borders on, but I do encourage looking at works you like and building your own work around a certain theme, idea, character, plot element or overall tone of that work. It was essentially what got me started in writing, before I even knew that was what I wanted to do, so I do recommend it.


So we have a balanced argument, I'd say. Do the beneficial things I learned outweigh the more ill-advised things I was taught as a child? I would say yes. Those bad habits will be a pain to get out of, but I'm still grateful for the leg-up I was given back then. If I wasn't taught any of that, I'm certain my writing would have suffered in at least some small way, and I probably would have been set back quite a bit, having to learn the importance of lexical density instead of it being near second nature, and torturing myself trying to come up with my own completely original idea, because using someone else's work as inspiration is cheating!

So, to answer the question posed in the title of this post, I would say no, we are not taught badly. We are taught well, we were just taught some unfortunate bad habits along the way.

Why Origin Stories Need to Go Away

This will be my first of a new segment I'm calling 'Why Things Need to Go Away', in which I will talk about certain things that I think no longer have a place in the world and should go away.

Today's instalment: Origin Stories. You know the ones; the prequel to a franchise which shows how it all began. I'm definitely not alone in disliking these; just find any film or game with 'Origins' or the number zero in the title and you'll find reams of negative reviews for it. But I thought I would take some time to explain just why these are not only unnecessary, but actually harmful to a franchise or character.

It probably goes without saying that I love characters. As a writer I love creating them and fleshing them out, and as a reader/viewer/what have you I love seeing them and analysing them (did I mention I'm studying English Literature?). One of my favourite things about characters is what we don't know about them, because it gives us an excuse to speculate and fill in the gaps for ourselves. Especially in the case of antagonists, anti-heroes or just mean-spirited or unhappy characters; they are interesting to analyse and it can be fun to try and gauge why they are the way they are. Tacking on some half-baked backstory about child abuse and parental abandonment doesn't add as much depth as one might think at first, and even if that is the character's backstory, there's nothing wrong with simply hinting at it, or writing it into the subtext of the character's dialogue and actions.

As an example, let's introduce John Smith (creative, no?). We can show John's relationship with his father simply with the way he addresses him. Does he call his father 'dad', 'father', 'sir', by his first name, or by his last name? These all hint at John's past without spelling it out. If he calls his father 'Mr Smith' instead of 'dad' we can speculate on what kind of relationship he has with him; maybe they have a very formal relationship, or maybe Mr Smith isn't his real father, or maybe the two of them had a falling out and John no longer wants to acknowledge him as a part of his family. This is a good way to hint at a character's backstory without giving every single detail. We don't know everything about John, but that's what makes him interesting, it's what makes us ask questions about him. Why does he call his father 'Mr Smith'? What does that say about him? What does it say about his father? Now how would you feel if I were to tell you that John Smith was adopted and his parents told him when he was fifteen and he has called his adoptive parents Mr and Mrs Smith ever since. It's a little disappointing, isn't it? Yes, we have a brief moment of 'oh, so that's why' and then John would be just that little bit less interesting for it, because the mystery, however small, is now gone. This is my main problem with prequel films and origin stories.

This is especially true of villains in horror movies, and the prequel/origin story is perhaps harming this genre the most. One of the key points of a villain in a horror film is really very simple: the less we know about them the more scary they are. We don't know why they came to the conclusion that killing people with a chainsaw and wearing their face as a mask was the path for them, or how they are able to take so much damage without going down, or why they seem to take such sick delight in torturing people with ironic punishments, and that is what makes them such formidable characters. We fear them because we don't understand them. If we did understand them, we would sympathise with them and because we know why they are the way they are and they become more human, they suddenly become less threatening. Why? Because we now know that they are just like us, and we aren't that scary. Suddenly a horror movie is no longer scary, meaning that it has failed, and it instead becomes a full character profile. Full character bios, in my opinion, should stay in the writer's saved files and never see the light of day. The bio should be used as a reference for the writer, but only certain details should be fed into the story, little by little, to build up a picture of the character without giving everything away. Less is more. People are afraid of the unknown, and that's what creates many great horror stories. Imagine a man who wanders the streets and stares into people's bedroom windows, even when the curtains are drawn. Why is he there? What does he want? How haven't the police caught him? Why won't he leave, even when people shout at him and threaten him? We don't know. He won't tell us. He won't even speak. He can't be understood and he can't be reasoned with, and that's what makes him frightening. We don't know his motive, we don't know what he's going to do, and like hell is he going to tell us a damn thing about himself. That's the way horror movie villains should stay: shrouded in mystery and surrounded by question marks. Villains like these are what make people crowd together and argue over his motives and backstory. They make people ask questions and think about the criminal mind, or the unstable mind, or both. They keep the audience guessing, and keep them wanting more, which is exactly what you want.

Now, for the sake of fairness, I do have to argue that point somewhat. While I do believe that not understanding a villain's reasons and motives is what makes them scary, it's right to point out this is not always strictly true. In the case of The Shining, being in Jack's head and understanding what he is going through and what he's thinking is actually quite frightening as we follow him into madness and he slowly loses control. This proves that it can be done, but I would argue that it isn't easy to pull off, and it can be dangerous territory. After all, there's a fine line between 'oh my god, I kind of understand where he's coming from, maybe there's a bit of psychopath in all of us!' and 'nobody really thinks like that, this writer is just trying to get in my head and failing. Next'. Also, although we are in his head, we never do get a vivid idea of his past; we only get the details we need in order to flesh out his character and move the story along.

What it comes down to is that writers need to understand one simple truth: viewers are writers too. Good writers in fact, who will often come up with better explanations for things than the writer ever could. Why do you think we never see Maris Crane in Frasier? Or whatever is under Edd's hat in Ed Edd n Eddy?* Because nothing the writers could come up with would live up to the audience's expectations. The audience is much happier to imagine than they would be to see one person's idea. I thought I'd wait until the end to crank up the pretentious with a little something I learned at uni (that's right, I am getting my money's worth): Roland Barthe's essay 'The Death of the Author' explored the idea that the author is not god of his own writing, and that a work is never truly finished until it has been read, because readers bring their own interpretations and experiences into their reading of the work, consciously or otherwise. The same applies to film and other forms of media: the viewers will 'finish' a work for you by filling in the gaps you leave for them. Readers and viewers enjoy filling in the gaps, so to all you writers out there: please let us.


*Sorry, I cannot believe I can't come up with any better examples.


And hey, it may be two days late, but I got a Halloween-esque post out. It mainly focuses on the horror genre, so I'm counting it.

Dragonball Evolution: In Which I Drop A Bombshell

When I first saw this film in the cinema, I considered writing a review of it, and I think I even started one, until I realised that everyone and their mums had already written a scathing review, pointing out all the mistakes, all the shortcomings, everything just all and all bad about the film, so for me to write one would be redundant and boring, so I left it. But then a few weeks ago the film was shown on TV and because I remembered having a vague fondness for its 'so bad it's good' qualities and sheer 'shit got wrong' factor, I gave it another try. In watching the film again I found that I did have a few things to say about it, but not anything particularly analytical or indeed technical or logical in any way, but I feel it's something I really do need to say, so here it is...

I kind of liked this film.

But not in the way I normally like a film. Usually I'll enjoy a film because it's well-written, the acting is good, the storyline is engaging, it touches on themes that interest me, it has good directing and cinematography, it has nostalgic value or, at the bottom of the barrel, it's a guilty pleasure. Dragonball Evolution doesn't quite come under 'so bad it's good' territory, but rather 'so bad it's hilarious'. I'm not sure if anyone who doesn't know about the anime (I only have one volume of the manga, so I can't say much of that) would find it as funny as I did, but seriously, wow. If you don't take this crap seriously, it's a very funny film; funnier in fact than any of the comedies that I remember coming out that year. I remember me and my sister struggling not to burst out laughing right there in the cinema, and I spent the rest of the day quoting the laughably bad dialogue and imitating Justin Chatwin's howlingly awkward line delivery. I really did like it, even though I will be one of several thousand people to say that it really is a terrible, terrible film.

To give a brief overview of the film in terms of how good it is, well... in terms of faithfulness to the source material, the film is god-awful, and that is no exaggeration. Just about the only thing it has in common with Dragonball is the character names (and their basic roles as those characters, I suppose) and the dragonballs themselves. In terms of basic pacing, story-telling, and character establishment and development, the film is sub-par bordering on just plain bad; the plot is riddled with holes and it seems to meander without really going anywhere and the love story played out like it was simply tacked on at the end, for how uninteresting, untouching and irrelevant it was. Put simply, up until the third act, the film is just bad in a 'generic bad film' way; it isn't offensively bad, it's just not good. Then it dives head-first into what I like to call 'third act insanity'. However, in terms of entertainment value and unintentional hilarity, this film is actually very watchable. As a long-time fan of Dragonball Z (Dragonball less so, but that's because it didn't air in the UK until quite a bit later) I found the film very entertaining because it just got so many things wrong. From characters to the story to basic continuity, basically everything was just wrong but that's why I find it so funny. The ludicrous portrayal of Goku as an average teenager was hysterically funny, let alone Chatwin's poor performance and general lack of charm or screen presence. I know I lost it when Goku called out to the dragon in overly-dramatic fashion, immediately preceding possibly one of the worst CGI effects I've ever seen. It was goofy, predictable, and made what is admittedly a fairly silly, low-budget nineties fighting anime look like absolute gold by comparison. And I loved it. I know this film made a lot of fans really angry, but I really didn't take it that seriously. I knew it wasn't going to work as a live-action film, so I expected it to be crap, and it ended up being really quite enjoyable to watch anyway, if not for the reason the filmmakers intended.

So yes, I would actually recommend you watch this if you're a fan of Dragonball or Dragonball Z. Some of the scenes may be hard to get through, but I think it's worth it in the end.


Additional: Hell, at least the dialogue is better than in the original English dub of the anime. And in the movie's defence, it does provide a number of shout-outs to the original anime that were pretty sweet, if completely undercut by the mountains of mistakes.


Thinking about it, the film's portrayal of Goku was a lot closer to Goku's son Gohan. He was the highschooler who wanted a normal life and a girlfriend; Goku didn't give nearly enough of a shit about being normal, especially when he was a teenager. Besides; Great Saya-man? That would have been pretty damn funny to see. There's your movie.

My Top 10 Favourite Films (2011)

That's right, after complaining that I am terrible about writing positively, I decide to write a top ten favourites list, and let me tell you, this took a while. Not just because I find it difficult to explain myself in terms of why I like something, but also because it was tricky to narrow down my choices into a simple top ten list. But I persevered and now I get to share my somewhat eclectic taste in film! Cheer, groan or cower where appropriate.

I felt the need to date this because more films will come out in the future that may bump some of these films off my list. Also my opinions do tend to change over time, so my favourite film does change from year to year. For example, a few years ago my favourite film was Holes and even earlier still, it was The Lion King.

I tried to keep this list balanced in terms of the time it was made, target age, and genre, but you will notice certain trends cropping up, and you'll get a good idea of certain genres and directing styles that I like. What is also worth noting is that any films that I thought were too similar to another on the list I had to tearfully push aside, although there are a couple of honorary mentions here and there. So, without further adieu, here are my top ten favourite films...


10. Howl's Moving Castle

"He's calling the spirits of darkness... I saw him do this once before when a girl dumped him."
Whenever I meet someone who likes anime, I can almost guarantee that they like this film. I am one of these people. Something I can say about all Studio Ghibli films is that they look gorgeous; the animation is fluid and attractive, and I can always count on breathtaking visuals and intricate, detailed and quirky character, building, and landscape designs. Christian Bale does an excellent job doing Howl's voice; the perfect combination of sexy arrogance and childish... arrogance, and Jean Simmons makes Grandma Sophie quite possibly the greatest granny in the world, ever. Honestly, I love the character of Sophie and how she embraces her curse and learns to live with it, rather than letting it dominate and ruin her, which is a nice change from the kind of 'curse storylines' I'd seen in the past. And let's not forget my favourite character: the wise-cracking fuss-pot fire demon Calcifer, voiced by Billy Crystal. It's a very enjoyable, funny and emotional film and I can see why so many people really enjoy it.
This only has the number 10 slot for one simple reason: the ending is pants. Don't try to deny it; I love this film a lot, but I can't pretend that the ending didn't spoil it just a little bit. It's rushed, contrived and riddled with clichés. In fact, this is a common problem in Studio Ghibli films in general, judging by the ones I've seen. However, the rest of the film more than makes up for its shortcomings at the finale, so I'm willing to forgive it.

9. Juno

"If I could just have the thing and give it to you now, I totally would. But I'm guessing it looks probably like a sea monkey right now, and we should let it get a little cuter."
Yeah, I'm not apologising for this one. I don't care. It's a great film, and I enjoy watching it every time. The characters are fleshed out and interesting, the acting is solid, and the dialogue is unlike anything I'd heard before. I find the relationship between Juno and Paulie very believable, and I'm able to forgive their admittedly idiotic behaviour regarding one another, considering the fact that they are both sixteen, and they have been dealt a pretty hefty hand at the beginning of the film. Really, what I can say about Juno is that what I originally thought would just be yet another teen drama turned out to be a genuinely funny comedy, with some seriously heart-warming and romantic moments. There's a scene near the end that never fails to bring me to tears, it's just so perfect and beautiful. Not my favourite film ever, but certainly deserving of my number 9 spot.

8. The Shawshank Redemption

"They send you here for life, and that's exactly what they take. The part that counts, anyway."
Okay... wow, this one is tricky. What is there to say about this film, really? I suppose the reason I love it so much is that it provides such a sense of hope, but it's very much like It's a Wonderful Life in that you absolutely have to watch it until the end, or it will depress the hell out of you. I definitely wouldn't call it a 'feel-good film' because there is a lot of hardship to wade through before the pay-off, but that's exactly what makes it so gratifying in the end. So yes, it is a very heavy film, and definitely not suited so someone who just wants to watch something and have a jolly old time, but I will say that this film always leaves me with a smile on my face. And Morgan Freeman's soothing tones throughout are no bad thing either. Seriously, the man's basically America's answer to Stephen Fry. But, to get back on topic, The Shawshank Redemption is a great, if hard-hitting, film and it sits securely in my number 8 spot.

7. Who Framed Roger Rabbit

"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
As someone who grew up watching Looney Tunes, Tom and Jerry and Disney, along with many other cartoons, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a really enjoyable watch. Also speaking as someone who thrives on nostalgia, it felt really nice to combine the cartoons of my childhood with the more gritty and grown up plotline that this film had to offer. Murder, sex, blackmail; this thing was not for little kids, and I'm not the only person to comment on how utterly terrifying Judge Doom is. Yes, there are some pretty heavy scenes for a film with a cartoon rabbit on the cover.
One of the things I love the most about this film is the special effects, and by that I mean the cartoon characters interacting with the live-action characters. Honestly, I watched the DVD extra which explains how they pulled it off, and it is just amazing. Not only were all the cartoons hand drawn onto the film stills, but in order for the 'toons to lift, move and touch 'real' things, they had to use puppets and robotic arms and have the live actors often speak their lines to robots or just to thin air. I would say that of the films that have tried to combine cartoon with live action, none have done it quite as well as Who Framed Roger Rabbit. While watching it, you forget the technical aspects altogether and you can believe that the cartoons are really there, it looks that good; to quote Bobby Pedesta of Pixar: 'A good animated film looks like one person animated everything. And a great animated film looks like no-one animated it at all.' While I don't believe that's really possible in a literal sense, I think he meant it in the sense that the film will immerse and engage you and you will forget about how it was animated and instead concentrate on the plot and characters, which I think this film does very well. Even when it is constantly referenced that there are 'toons running around everywhere, you begin to take for granted the fact that they were drawn there; watching it, it feels like they are just there. And that, to me, means they did a great job.


6. Terminator

"Come with me if you want to live."
Hell yeah, Terminator. How can anyone not like this film? It's got action, it's got time travel, it's got an indestructible killer robot, it's got high-speed chases, it's got sex; what more could you want? Seriously though, I do enjoy action films (despite what some ill-informed preconceptions about my sex might suggest), with Die Hard and Die Hard 2: Die Harder being two other films I love. Yes, I know that time travel would be extremely problematic if it were actually possible, I know that not everything blows up on impact, and I know that in real life people can't think of cool things to say before shooting someone in the head, but shut up, it doesn't need to be logical because it's freaking Terminator! While I'll be the first to admit that I'm not really a fan of Schwarzenegger (in fact this is the only film of his that I really like) you can't deny how convincing a job does playing a giant robot. Could they have cast anyone better than the Govenator himself? I think not.
Now, because everyone asks me when I say that Terminator is one of my favourite films, I'll say this now: no, I have not seen Terminator 2, but I do plan to. Would I pass up the chance to see a film often described as 'like Terminator but better'? Hell no! But for now, Terminator is secure in the number 6 slot.

5. Donny Darko

"Why are you wearing that stupid bunny costume?"
"Why are you wearing that stupid man costume?"
I watched this around Christmas of 2010, having no idea what it was about, what genre it was, and generally what sort of film it would be. I had no idea it would end up blowing my mind.
As I may or may not have made clear, I'm getting tired of overused and predictable storylines, so imagine my delight when I watched this film that literally kept me guessing from beginning to end. I honestly had no idea what might happen next; the erratic nature of Donny and the strange, abstract nature of the film itself meant that I could never predict what would happen in the next scene, how it would be shown and how much immediate sense it would make, if any. Filmmakers trying to make horrors and thrillers could take a few notes from Donny Darko on suspense; I was on the edge of my seat, my heart thudding all the way through, even in the seemingly sedate, funny, or more naturalistic scenes, because I couldn't tell when it would all change and something else odd and frightening would happen. Tense, thought-provoking and subject to a lot of debate as to what the hell it actually means, this film earns its number 5 spot on my top 10 list.

4. WALL-E

"I don't want to survive, I want to live!"
I would describe WALL-E as an English student's dream: the imagery, the symbolism, the use of visual metaphor and non-verbal expression, the recurring themes and motifs, the portrayal of a dystopian future; this film had me wearing my analysis hat all the way through. And yet it still managed to tug at my heartstrings at the same time, without simply being schmaltzy. This film is a fine example of saying a lot with few words; the two main characters barely exchange any verbal dialogue, but a wealth of information and feelings is expressed between them and we can see their relationship grow and develop throughout the film. Pixar have always been very good at bringing non-human characters to life, and while admittedly their attempts have been somewhat hit and miss (for example, Toy Story works very well, but Cars not so much, in my opinion), WALL-E has shown that by merely giving characters the simple human characteristics of eyes and arms, as well as very human emotions, an audience can relate to, sympathise with, and even love a pair of fictional robots. And really, it's Pixar, do I need to mention the animation? Stellar stuff, as is to be expected, and particularly impressive considering the sheer scale of the film. WALL-E is an excellent example of character building, visual storytelling and true heart; something a lot of writers can really learn from.

3. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

"If we're gonna date, you may have to defeat my seven evil exes."
I saw the trailer for this film and thought it would be a fun film; nothing spectacular, just something enjoyable. I should have known when I saw that it was directed by Edgar Wright, but wow. This film surprised me so much, and in the best way. I just love the way it presents itself; the visual style, the written sounds, and the impressive special effects were just ingredients in this recipe for awesome. The dialogue is quirky, shamelessly clichéd at times and almost always fall-off-your-chair hilarious. I especially enjoyed the way they provided no explanation as to why people had the ability to fly, summon demon hipster chicks, and turn 'super-vegan', it just got on with it and you would just shut up and watch, damn it! It's one of the most interesting, entertaining and quirky films that I've seen in a long time, and you should go and watch it right now; I don't care what you're doing, just go and watch Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

2. Reservoir Dogs

"You, buddy, are stuck in a situation you created. So, if you wanna throw bad looks somewhere, throw 'em at a mirror!"

Quentin Tarantino seems to be the marmite of directors; either you love him or you hate him. Fittingly enough, I enjoy toast with about a centimetre of marmite spread on it. But, I personally like marmite when it hasn't gone past its sell-by date... this analogy is getting a bit strained. Basically, I like Tarantino's earlier work.

I like this film so much that I barely ever watch it. I know it sounds daft, but let me explain: I try not to watch it too often in case I eventually get bored of it, which I never want to happen. I like to leave it for months, up to a year, so that I nearly forget all about it, then when I watch it again, I feel more like I'm watching it for the first time. The characters are fascinating, entertaining and deliciously detestable, and with Tarantino's now signature technique of showing scenes non-chronologically we are able to slowly build up an image of a number of those characters, and which of them is the rat who blew their heist. Not to mention the dialogue is classic Tarantino (it is his first film, after all); untrimmed, vulgar and intriguing, and the long scenes which are done all in one shot are not only cool and interesting to look at, but make you feel like you're actually in the scene with them.

And yes, I do own the limited special edition DVD in the metal case shaped like a petrol can because I think it's really cool.

1. Shaun of the Dead

"The... the Z-word, don't say it!"
"Why not?"
"Because it's ridiculous!"
Yeah, another Edgar Wright film. In fact, the only reason Hot Fuzz isn't on this list is that I thought it would be redundant; I like Shaun of the Dead just that little bit more than Hot Fuzz so it only just missed its place on my list.

Everyone has that one film that they can watch over and over again without ever getting sick of it, and this is mine. I can recite most of the script (it can get annoying to watch this film with me, I'll admit that), I've seen it that many times. It's also one of those films where I notice something new each time I watch it, so I feel somewhat justified in having seen it so many times.
What struck me about the film is that it's oddly realistic for a zombie flick. What I mean by that is the characters react to the threat of a zombie apocalypse in a way that I find very believable and natural, and their use of assorted blunt objects to ward off the hordes was both funny and interesting; what if a zombie virus did break out in an area where not everyone owns a gun? Another thing I love about this film is that it's not a parody of zombie films, despite the name, but an homage to the genre, balancing comedy and satire with genuinely poignant, disturbing, violent, and tear-jerking moments. Where the film does poke fun at horror films however, it does so with love, in my opinion the best way to satirise something. So I'd definitely recommend you give this film a watch, provided you aren't particularly faint-hearted.


So now you know to what I hold other films against when reviewing them. As you probably already know, these kinds of lists are highly personal, so my number one favourite film could be someone else's number one least favourite film. So why not think about your own favourite films and why it is that you like them? Is it a guilty pleasure? Does it hold sentimental or nostalgic value? Do you just think that it's an extremely well written film that you wish more people knew about? You'd be surprised what you find out about yourself when you stop to think about just what it is that you enjoy about the films you like. If you're a grumpy bear like me, it might be hard, but it can also be very rewarding, and I recommend you give it a shot.


And yes, I really did put WALL-E ahead of Donny Darko and Terminator.

How DARE You Not Love My Work Unconditionally!

You're just insulting my work because you're jealous of my amazing talent!

...Sarcasm doesn't work well through text...

Honestly, I try not to come off as an emotionless, unpleasable old bastard, but when I have to deal with certain issues, especially on teh intarwebz, it just can't be helped. With very little introduction, I'll be talking about negative feedback via the 'net.

I was on a bit of a wiki-walk earlier today (albeit not on Wikipedia or TV Tropes, but still) when I found this little gem on a forum, which shall remain nameless, that set off my Rage Alarm:

Honestly... who gives a poop what people like that think? We love it, right? And that's all that matter's. Whenever someone insults my work I just think to myself, "I'll listen when you can prove you could do better"

This comment was in response to the website The Bad Webcomics Wiki, and you can guess what that site is for without clicking the link. The reviews are certainly not afraid to pull a few punches, and they are admittedly very poorly written in parts, but the reaction that the site seems to get sounds less like mature adults picking out legitimate flaws, and more like whining children. Most of the comments are something along the lines of 'Oh, they're so mean, they make fun of popular webcomics because they're jealous, how dare they point out when an artist is handling sensitive subject manner in a distasteful way, or flat-out refusing to improve their art, or completely disregarding the most basic concepts of plot and character! The meanies!'. I still think that it isn't too much to ask for people on the internet to acknowledge, accept, and then reasonably debate the opinions of others, and I will never stop expecting it of people.

Listen, I'm all for the 'water off a duck's back' thing, and budding artists, writers, or what have you, shouldn't take criticism too personally, but to just ignore it, stick your tongue out and say 'let's see you do better' is so juvenile it takes away whatever credibility you may have had. If you just ignore negative feedback, you're never going to improve, even if the feedback is difficult to hear. I've been there. What some call an 'insult', others call 'negative feedback' and others still call it 'constructive criticism'. True, a comment that merely says 'this is crap' isn't helping anyone, but you can't just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and ignore any bad thing said about your work, dismissing them as just not understanding your genius. That is not helpful, it is not constructive and it is not mature. And as for the '...when you can prove you could do better' thing, consider this: I'm not a filmmaker. I don't know the first thing about making films, but when I think a film is bad, I'll say so. No, I couldn't possibly do better, but people still need to know when they are doing something badly, especially if they expect to get paid for it. It's the same with art; maybe I can't do better, but that has nothing to do with you. Suck it up, take the criticism, use it to your advantage and stop acting like a brat.

Now I've been sufficiently brutal, let's have a bit of a demonstration to prove my point and sufficiently embarrass me. Here's something I drew a few years ago:

I was really proud of it at the time (I know. Face, meet palm), so the negative feedback I got did hurt quite a bit. But some of the things I learned from that feedback helped me go from work like this...

To this:

I don't normally do fanart, but Shaun of the Dead demanded it.

Although now I mostly draw things like this:

Amazing art? No, but better than it was. If I had just said to the person giving feedback, 'hey, it's just my style, I'd like to see you do better!' not only would I have denied myself the chance to grow and improve artistically, I also would been lying, because I didn't really have a style to speak of at the time, and I would have embarrassed myself when the critic showed me something like this:

Unfortunately I couldn't find the actual artist who critiqued my work, but it was one of the many talents over at the PolyKarbon Forum*

So although I encourage new artists not to take negative feedback to heart, I whole-heartedly discourage people from just outright ignoring it. How will you grow if you go through life thinking your work is already perfect? Well, here is the truth: your art is never perfect, and your work is never done. Keep working, keep listening, keep improving.


*http://www.polykarbonbbs.com/index.php

The King's Speech: In Which I Overcome My Own Obstacle...

"I have a right to be heard. I have a voice!"

I have been putting off this review for a few weeks for one simple reason: I'm not very good at writing positive reviews, and I think it really shows. I've written maybe one positive review ever, and it's considerably shorter than my other reviews. As I've said before, I find it much easier to rant about something's bad points than to talk about its merits, and that includes my own work. But I decided that I would get nowhere just writing what I find easy, so without further delay, let's get on to the review at hand: The King's Speech.

When I went to the theatre, I had no idea I would be watching this film. In fact, having heard of it I expressed no real desire to watch it; I didn't even know what it was about (beyond, you know, the King making a speech...), but the friend I was with suggested it when we found that couldn't watch the film we wanted to see in 2D (neither of us like watching films in 3D, something which I will cover in due time). I went into the film blind, which I admit is not the best way to watch a film you will later be reviewing but, well, I hadn't planned on reviewing it when I first sat in that seat.

I will start with the first thing I noticed, in the very first scene; the film looks amazing. The cinematography was simple, but very pleasing to the eye and the use of lighting and colours was, if not striking, fairly attractive. I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area, so I won't go on too much, I just thought it was worth mentioning.

I suppose I should bring this up earlier rather than later because there isn't much point in delaying it; Colin Firth's performance in this film was amazing. From the very first line I was drawn in, and he made the character so sympathetic, so human, and so relatable, especially considering he is royalty. Obviously the script played an enormous role in the fleshing out of the character, but Firth put on the finishing touches and made Bertie's character so heart-breakingly real. There was one quiet, poignant scene towards the halfway point that just took my breath away; without wanting to give away too much, I'll just say this: I never would have thought hearing a man singing his hardships to the tune of 'Swanee River' could bring tears to my eyes, but I would honestly be surprised if I was the only one.

Here is another point I will go over quite briefly, as this is the embarrassing moment when I admit that my knowledge of history is frankly laughable. I won't go too far into my ignorance because again: embarrassing, but I will say that I accepted everything I saw in the film as being at least somewhat based on true historical events, and as far as I can understand, it was, if condensed so it would fit into a two hour film. I will also admit that I never usually watch what I would call 'historical films', mainly because history isn't something I'm hugely interested in, but The King's Speech has made me seriously consider giving more of them a try.

Now I'll go on to how the film managed to surprise me, not with the plot (for people who do know the history, the storyline could not have possibly surprised them) but with its use of humour. I honestly was not expecting to laugh when I saw the film's poster and when my friend gave me a very brief idea of the premise, but I did get not only a giggle or two, but there were a few moments when I genuinely laughed out loud. Geoffrey Rush's performance as Lionel Logue is delightfully quick, sarcastic and lively; the gall with which he speaks to the Prince, and later the King, was hilarious at times, and the fact that he didn't seem to care just made me enjoy the character more. Not to mention Helena Bonham Carter's Elizabeth is both tender and loving, and charmingly funny.

The only complaint I have is that I highly suspect the film of doing what's known as 'Oscar Baiting', that is, making a film about an important or sensitive subject, so that it has emotional appeal and will hopefully win a lot of awards. Despite this, I think the film, and its actors, earned all of the awards they got. Even if the film was written only to win awards (which I doubt), it was written in a way so that it didn't seem forced or obvious; I didn't ever think to myself; 'this scene is obviously just to get the actor an award'; every scene that tugged at the heartstrings had a reason to be there, and they never felt intrusive or contrived. It was a genuinely moving and inspirational film, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

There, I suppose that wasn't so hard after all. Only now I have to watch or read something truly terrible to fill my Reviewer's Rage quota. Maybe I should give that new Brighton Rock film a watch...

"Surely a prince's brain knows what its mouth is doing?"
"You're not well acquainted with princes, are you?"

How I Would Improve Forgetting Sarah Marshall

You know how people say it's never a good sign when you can write something better than the film you're watching? Although I rarely get exactly that feeling, since I know nothing about writing films, I do occasionally feel like I could improve a film by making a few changes. This is what this segment is all about, and we will start off with a film I saw a few years ago and feel embarrassed to say I actually watched the whole thing: Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

How I Would Improve Forgetting Sarah Marshall:
1. Take out Sarah Marshall, or make her a throwaway character at the beginning who maybe comes back once later in the film.

2. Take out the unfunny, mind-numbing, cringe-worthy sex comedy. And the nudity. I'm not a prude, but seeing Jason Segel naked added nothing to the film. It wasn't necessary or funny, it was just an excuse for a visual dick joke (see beginning of sentence: it wasn't funny). There was one funny sex-related joke; when he says 'I'm pretty sure I ruined her day' followed by an ironic cut; a joke that could be kept in, even if it was one of the more graphic ones, but it was brief and didn't outstay its welcome, just as I think all sexual gags should be, unless your aim is to make your audience extremely uncomfortable.

3. Make Peter's 'Dracula Musical' the main focus of the film. It could have been a film about a guy who breaks up with his long-term girlfriend and, in an attempt to get over the breakup, decides to do something he's wanted to do for a long time and didn't because he was in that relationship: in this case, try and get his musical off the ground. It's something that a lot of people can relate to, and this aspect of the story was endearing and entertaining and it was the only thing in the film I actually enjoyed. If the film was about that, and it incorporated the new budding romance, it could have greatly benefited the film.

4. This isn't totally necessary, in fact, this is just a personal thing, but take out Russell Brand. Seriously. I can't remember the name of his character, because he was just playing the same character he plays in every film he's in: Russell Brand. Okay, I know he's very popular, but considering my earlier revision which removes the Sarah character, you could at least reduce Brand's appearance to an amusing cameo when Peter bumps into Sarah again and sees she's now dating a bastard English rock star. Cameo done, less annoying Brand antics, get on with the film.


Remember, this is just how I personally would have changed the film. I realise that my alterations pretty much completely change the premise of the film: a comedy where a guy goes on holiday to get over his ex, but oh my god, she's there too! What a wacky coincidence! Yes, that might have been an okay premise, but unfortunately it wasn't very well executed, and I found the sub-plot much more interesting and would have preferred it if the film had focused on that instead.

Sexist Gender Flips

A lot of television programmes have male protagonists. This is something which TV Tropes (enter with caution) chalks up to the Most Writers Are Male theory, which extends to the school of thought that most viewers are also male, and therefore are more likely to identify with a male character. In fact, even programmes that are allegedly 'Gender Neutral' will still have a male protagonist because girls are believed to have an easier time identifying with male characters than boys do with female characters. Think about it: have you seen a television programme or film (especially a children's cartoon) that was targeted at both genders and had a female protagonist?*

But something that comes up a lot, particularly in children's programmes, is what I call 'The Gender Flip Episode'. The Gender Flip Episode is, as you can probably guess, an episode in which our main character spends an episode as a member of the opposite sex (in almost every example, the flip is male to female) through some form of magic, 'Science' (a very vauge term thrown around quite liberally in Televisionland, but that isn't what we're focusing on today), or it could be the result of a strange (and markedly Freudian) dream sequence. You would think that The Gender Flip Episode would be an opportunity for the writers to show that the line between genders is more blurred than one might think, as the character has become, in a sense, both male and female. It could also be a commentary on gender equality, as our character may find herself being treated differently to how he had been treated before. But, more often than not, the episode only succeeds in perpetuating gender stereotypes by having the character suddenly find interest in 'girl' things like makeup and fashion, and discard old 'boy' things like comics, video games and race cars.

The majority of my examples are children's programmes because I feel that these are the programmes that are supposed to at least try to teach the younger generations about equality, sexism and the like, and yet they seem to be the worst offenders, sacrificing potentially thought-provoking material for cheap gags about a previously male character suddenly acting feminine. I won't even go into what this says about camp men.

So let's have a look at some of these gender flips...


Ozzy and Drix:' Out of Body Experience'
Osmosis "Ozzy" Jones is a cell who lives inside a young teenage boy named Hector. After Hector nearly drowns, Christine performs CPR, saving his life, but causing Ozzy to end up in Christine. The City of Christine is pink, clean (with "such darling shops!") and filled to the brim with female cells who are infatuated with Hector and, by extension, Ozzy. As the episode continues, Ozzy becomes more and more 'girly' which consists of him turning pink, looking at himself in the mirror and talking about shoes and puppies, which is, of course, horrifying for such a tough, manly cell like Ozzy, who has to fight against it by arm-wrestling and doing press-ups. Oh, and he can't drive when he turns pink. Nice. Hell, The City of Christine is so girly, it drives Chief Maximus, the one male inhabitant, to villanous insanity, with its lack of sports channels, mandatory dance lessons and burping laws. Because of course no woman is interested in sports (forgetting the fact that, I don't know, dance is a sport!). Not to mention, said Cheif Maximus is the chief of police and has control over the women on the force. Just putting that out there. Mind you, I should point out that they also put forward the more positive stereotype that girls are smarter than boys ("Wow, your brain advisors actually have... brains!") which was quite cute, and the police force are pretty tough and competent, so at least the 'girls are weak' stereotype is left well alone, but overall I find that the episode is fairly black and white about genders.

Malcolm in the Middle: 'If Boys were Girls'
Lois, expecting a fifth child, is asked if she would prefer a girl or another boy. This question makes her imagine if her sons were daughters instead. At first it seems that everything would be better: a petty fight over a pen is solved with words and a group hug, a trip to the mall to buy clothes is something they look forward to, and they are all cooperative and well behaved. But as the episode goes on, Lois begins to realise that Renee, Mallory and Daisy are just as bad, if not worse than  Reese, Malcolm and Dewey; trying to manipulate their mother, taking diet pills, getting pregnant and marrying sleazy men. Now, this example I like because it shows that daughters can be just as bad as sons. This episode does delve into a lot of female stereotypes, such as girls loving clothes and shoes (although this is all in Lois' imagination, so you need to bear that in mind) and the girls being portrayed as manipulative and bitchy is certainly questionable, but it has the overall message that having four daughters would not be better than four sons, because teenagers will be a handful regardless of sex. Saying that girls are just as bad as boys rather than saying they are just as good as boys is an interesting angle to take on the war of the sexes, and 'If Boys Were Girls' is a gender-flip episode that I enjoyed and that I readily applaud.

Fairly OddParents: 'The Boy Who Would Be Queen'
Timmy needs to think of the perfect gift for his crush Trixy's birthday, but he can't think of what girls like. When Wanda suggests he wishes to be a girl, he and Cosmo mock her, causing Wanda to turn him into a girl anyway. Now able to think like a girl, Timantha (yes, that's the name he goes by) heads out to find Trixy a gift, only to find that boys and girls aren't all that different. The funny thing about this episode is that it tries to counter sexism by saying that it's okay for boys to like 'girl' things and for girls to like 'boy' things, and it does come close to putting that message across ("Hey, I like 'Kissy Kissy Goo Goo' and 'Skull Squisher'!"). Unfortunately it does come across as quite sexist because it defines 'girl' stuff as being romance shows and beauty salons and 'boy' stuff as being violent comic books and dead frogs. I can only really say that at least this cartoon tried not to be sexist, and it did basically say that if you are a boy and you like romance shows then you aren't a freak, and the same goes for girls who like comics, so I suppose you have to give it some credit.

*Incidentally, if you are aware of any gender neutral programmes with a female protagonist, feel free to post a comment because I'm interested to see how many there are, as I obviously haven't seen every television programme ever.

In fact, if you know of a Gender Flip Episode that handles the concept with a decent level of dignity and doesn't rely too heavily on stereotypes, leave a comment as well. If enough comments are posted, I may make a sequel to this, giving examples of well-done Gender Flips.