A review you can use: Noah

Good afternoon!

Those of  you who follow this blog know that I'm a HUGE Russell Crowe fan, and that I'll pretty much run to the theaters to see anything he's in.  And you also know I don't run, so that should explain how much I appreciate the work he does.  

Russell's most recent movie is "NOAH," a majestic beast of a film based on, sort of, the Genesis account of Noah and the great flood.  This film was highly anticipated and even protested a little by the uber religious groups who think it's cool to protest something before they've even seen it.

Well, I'm pretty uber religious myself, and I've taught the story of Noah for more than twenty years as a Sunday School teacher.  I believe that makes me a pretty good person to critique this movie.

Let's get one thing straight:  I was not expecting a frame by frame retelling of the Genesis account.  If I had been, I would have also expected a fairly short movie because Genesis is really more of a thumbnail sketch of what probably happened.  Let's also get something else straight:  If you're going to make a Bible movie, you have some leeway because the Bible does leave room for a sort of "fill in the blanks" BUT where the Bible is specific, you'd best be specific as well.

Let's get started, shall we?  Let's start with the negative and work up.

What they got wrong:

1)  Who got on the ark.
Genesis is really, really clear about who got on the ark and who didn't.  Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives.  So, if my math is correct, that's eight people.  The movie is off by two wives.  Now, the movie does spend quite a bit of time and where and how Ham and Japheth's wives wound up getting into the family...and the end result was not one that completely disappointed me.  From a totally dramatic aspect, it was a great solution, full of drama and action.  BUT, the Bible is pretty clear on this point and therefore I have to hold it against the movie.

2)Who did NOT get on the ark.
Again, the Bible is very clear: eight people.  Not Noah's family and some extras just for funsies and dramatic good times.  Again, a great plot twist from the movie's stand point, but if you're going to use the Bible as source material, then you've GOT to get the facts that are in the Bible right.

What they got right:

(Side note:  I'm surprised at how short the "wrong" list is, too.)

1)  Noah's wife.
For twenty years I've been teaching this story and for twenty years I've been saying this woman is really the hero of the whole Noah story and boy howdy, the movie got it right.  Jennifer Connelly is OUTSTANDING as the woman who is nameless in the Bible. In the movie she's called Naameh.  She winds up being the hero in every way, and she even gets a hero's speech.  I wanted to stand up and cheer.  Biblically speaking, this Bible woman doesn't get the credit she deserves for listening to her husband's astounding vision and then never questioning it.  (I always ask:  What would your reaction be if your husband came home one day and said you had to build a giant boat because the world was ending?)

2)  Noah's family tree:
Color me surprised, but they got all the guys in there.  Noah, son of Lamech, son of Methuselah (played by Anthony Hopkins.)  Some eyebrows might lift at the notion of Methuselah in a movie about Noah, but let's remember a couple things:  First, these Bible guys lived a wildly long time.  (Noah was 600 when he entered the ark.)  Second, they didn't just live a long time, produce the one kid important to Bible stories and then died, their lives overlapped each other.  So having Methuselah alive at the time of the Flood would take some serious Bible math, but it is more than feasible.

3)  Enemies at the gate.

Something else I point out when teaching this story is that Noah lived in a society and that society had a thing or two to say about the whole ark building idea.  Genesis is pretty silent. After a long and detailed list of how Noah was to build the ark, and gather food and animals for the flood,  Gen: 7:5 says And Noah did what the Lord commanded him.

Okay...and what about all those people watching this happen? Now the movie takes a very dark look at the human race at the time of Noah, and I think they got it right.  Not so much as we Sunday School teachers might teach it.  There's far more of a "people were evil because they destroyed The Creator's world and they eat meat."  (My husband, the vegetarian, was actually cheering this plot point.)    Tubal-Cain is the "king" in the movie (A descendant of Cain...his family tree meshes in Genesis 4 with a woman named Naamah, note the spelling difference between the Bible name and the character name of Noah's wife.) and he leads an army against Noah, first to destroy, then to try and save himself.  There are some disturbing scenes of people trading their daughters for meat, but as I've always said to my Sunday School kids, "Daughters back then were treated little better than cattle.")  

The battle scene is pretty awesome and not quite as graphic as other, more quiet scenes.  The director, when he wants you to see something graphic, takes everything else away and says, "LOOK AT THIS."

4 The Ark
This was no speed boat, and I think the movie got it right.  Loads of space for animals, lots of levels, and put together with wood and tar...yep, this looked about the way I imagine a boat 450 feet long looking.

5) Noah the Drunken guy.

Most Sunday School teachers end the story of Noah with the rainbow and the Covenant.  Not me. The movie paints Noah in a very conflicted light all the way through.  At the end, the movie flips forward to the end of Genesis 9 where Noah is a winemaker and winds up getting himself drunk.  It's in there, kids, and three cheers to the movie for bringing out that part of the story because it's all part of the story.  It ties nicely into the idea that Noah was a very conflicted Bible hero, and who wouldn't be, having listened to all of humanity dying outside your door?

What I'm really OK with

1)  "The Watchers."
This is something that seems jarring and not at all right at first.  The old women sitting on my left about had a tizzy when we first see The Watchers.  These are stone like creatures, giants, who were sent out of Heaven for disobeying the Creator and they stand to protect man...but man turns on them.  And then they decided to help Noah build the ark.

This might seem wildly outlandish.  BUT, reading Genesis 6:4 and onward, there is mention of NEPHILIM, people of great size.  The word, Nephilim, means, in Hebrew "fallen ones."  According to my Bible notes, this term was given to men who, in the eyes men were great heroes, but in the eyes of God were sinners.

The history of The Watchers is spread out through the movie, but I'm okay with even this creative depiction for a couple reasons.  First, if these are the fallen angels mentioned in Revelation 7, and they are cast down from heaven to earth, then it would make sense they might....MIGHT try to protect man from The Creator and then as man turned more evil, they might give up on man as well.  It might be a stretch, but there's enough references to angels falling to earth in the New Testament especially to make this legitimate.  Second, just looking at the idea of Noah having help and maybe the Nephilim helping him is not out of bounds at all. While there's no mention that Noah and his sons had help building the ark, there's no mention that they did not.  Genesis is very quiet on the whole ark building process. 

As a side note, this was one of two lively discussions Hubby and I had on the way home.

2) The time frame itself. 

Those of us who teach this story tell the kids, "Noah took 120 years" to build the ark. We base that on Genesis 6: 3 where God pretty much says He's sick of man and man's sin and He's put a timetable on earth.

So...okay those kids of Noah's did not age much, did they?  Well, Hubby and I had another lively discussion about that on the way home and I'm okay with the time frame and the actors not aging that much because, well, it's a movie.  What the movie did seem to get right was the amount of time spent on the ark itself, which is something most people get wrong.  It wasn't 40 days and 40 nights.  And the movie does a nice job of showing passage of time.  It's subtle.

3) Ham

Ham, the middle son, is in Genesis 9 cursed by his father.  (read it, you'll understand why) This movie sort of gives a lot of clues into Ham's brain and really foreshadows Ham's ultimate fate.  It might not be exactly as Genesis intended, BUT, there's nothing in Genesis to dispel the notion that Noah and his family were saints and perfectly well behaved.


Other things you should know.

Those who watch this movie will NOT be able to avoid the environmental message.  Bible believers might feel a little slighted because Noah's story is supposed to be one of sin and punishment and the promise of a Savior, and we get a 2 hour and 18 minutes environmental film?  

What, you thought Hollywood was going to somehow make this an actual film about religion?  Noah's faith in The Creator is firm and there is no diminishing of The Creator.  They even manage to get the story of Creation right...although it is hard to miss the subtle nod...maybe no so subtle...to evolutionist theory.

All in all, everything taken into consideration, this is a very worthy, very respectful effort.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  And oh yes, it got me back into the full Biblical account of Noah, and if a movie gets people reading their Bibles and discussing their Bibles, what's wrong with that?

Those of you NOT of the Christian/Bible based faiths will also enjoy the film purely for it's high production values and wonderful performances.  and they are solid performances.  Returning as husband and wife (formerly in "A Beautiful Mind")   Jennifer Connelly and Russell Crowe match well and are great anchor to a solid cast.

If you're going to bring the kids along, beware.  This is no Sunday School lesson.  Those under the age of 12 may not be able to handle some of the violence.  It's a fast moving, intense film.  Leave the wee ones at home.

I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.  It's a very nearly perfect film in my mind. If I were simply reviewing a film, it might even get five stars.  But I think I have to hold this one to a little bit of a higher standard and because of a couple small things they could have easily gotten right, I have to give it 4.5.

What's on your island?

Good morning!!

For most people January is a month of dreary, cold, gray, blah days.  Christmas is over, all the holidays are over, and except for your neighbor up the street who won't take those lights off his house until April, yours streets probably look like mine:  Snow covered and cold.

In a sort of fun mind meld recently I ran across something that was running around Face book, and then I saw an episode of "The Office" that made me think about islands.  Warm sun, warm water, warm cabana boys bringing me a cold drink, that sort of thing.  And, since both Face Book and The Office were talking about what you'd take to a deserted island, I figured I'd play along.

So, what three _____________ would you bring to a deserted island?

Let's start with movies:

3 movies on a deserted island...I love, love, love movies.  Narrowing a list down to just three, well, that might be impossible.  But if I had to pick three movies to take with me to an island, I'd probably bring

1)  Prince Bride  (duh)
2) Pretty in Pink  (because it's awesome)

Drop. Your. Coconut. Bra.

3)  Gladiator  (Russell Crowe is awesome)

That's today...tomorrow that list is probably going to change.

Next:  Which three celebrities would you bring?

This might surprise some people who know about my "list."  (Oh we all have a list, don't judge me.) 

1)  Rick Springfield  (duh)
2)  Tom Hanks
 Because he's really well read and funny and because I'm pretty sure since he was in Castaway, he'd be able to handle a deserted island.
3)  Russell Crowe. 
 Oh wait, if I have Russell Crowe on the Island, then I don't need to bring Gladiator or ANY of his movies along because, I have him there.  So let's change my #3 movie to....any and all version of "Wuthering Heights." that's not cheating!  It's not!

Yes, I'll go to the islands with you!

Okay, now, music.  I'm a big music head, but lately I've been more about single songs than about albums.  Thanks, iTunes.  That said, what three albums would I bring?

1)  New Minstrel Revue:  Far and Away.
Great folk band, and probably the band I've seen live more than any other.  Thank you Renaissance Faire!
2)  Ice House: Man of Colours  
Iit doesn't seem to matter where I am, what I'm doing, this is the best music in the world to write to.  I've had a copy of this album in one form or another since the mid 80's, and I listen to it weekly.
3)  Barry Manilow I
 His first album and, in my opinion, one of his best. Argue if you want about whether this album stands the text of time, and I'll just sing a few bars of "I am Your Child."

What?  No rick Springfield?  No, because, see, I'm bringing HIM with me.


Finally, books.  What three books would I take with me to a deserted island?  Well, they'd have to be books I want to read over and over and over...and in the final analysis, this was a no brainer.

1)  A Lonely Sky  by Linda Schmalz  
(If you haven't discovered this heartbreaking tearjerking gem, run yourself over to Amazon and get it now.)
 Most books I read because I like a good story, but once I've read the story, there are very few books I'll reread just for grins.  A Lonely Sky is one of those books I've read and will read again and again.

2)  Wuthering Heights  by Emily Bronte. 
(Yes, it's my favorite book, and if I'm on a deserted island, with all those versions of the movie, I might finally have time to write a really solid critique of each movie version compared to the book.  Something I've wanted to do for a while.)

3)  Gone with the Wind/Scarlett/Rhett Butler's People.
I know, this is actually three books.  But I've maintained for a long time that Scarlett was one of the most ill conceived, poorly thought out,and badly written books, especially as a sequel to the sublime GWTW.  Rhett Butler's People, on the other hand is pretty brilliant.  Since I'm on an island anyway, and I'm guessing there's no satellite TV or Netflix to fill my days, I'd like to read the three side by side and determine if my opinions are well founded.

And there it is...my list of stuff I would take to and island.   So, what's on YOUR Island List?

But was it Oscar worthy?

Good afternoon all!

So I hung out with my good friend "Marie" last night and we watched the Oscars.  Marie and I both love all things related to the movies, and Oscar night is very much a big night for us.

This is the first year I've actually gone to Marie's house on Oscar night and watched with her.  Generally we text back and forth, which we both agree is tiresome because neither of us is terribly good with the texting.

It was a rare year for me.  I actually saw four of the nominated movies.  I used to see all of the movies...but then I had kids and no money, so I had to wait until they came out on video.  Now I still have kids and no money, but I'm used to being poor, so I go to a few more movies.  I saw "Toy Story 3"  "The Social Network" "The Kids are Alright."  and "Black Swan."  Admittedly, I only saw "Black Swan" in theaters, the other two I own. 

If you have older children, watch Toy Story 3.  Seriously, it will shatter you.

This year they nominated 10 movies for best picture, which means even though I saw four movies, I was still hopelessly behind.

oh well, I tried.  Given the fact that Hollywood likes to now nominate movies no one's seen, A couple of these films haven't even made it to my town for more than a couple nights  (127 Hours...was here an gone in under a week.  Hubby is NOT amused.)

Having seen four of the ten, I felt I could at least speak to the merits of those four.  "Black Swan" was a legitimate candidate.  That movie messed up my brain for about two days.  "Toy Story 3"  also a legitimate candidate because of the emotional impact it had.  Of course, it was going to walk away with "Best Animated picture" so no one really thought it would win best picture.  "The Kids are Alright" was a good movie.  A solid movie.  But Oscar worthy?  Nah.  And most folks agreed with me.

Where I ran into some serious disagreement, however, was with the movie, "The Social Network." 

This movie should not have been nominated as best picture and honestly, if Hollywood wasn't trying to boost ticket sales by nominating more films, it wouldn't have been.

It was a very good movie.  Do not get me wrong.   I own the movie.  I loved the movie.  It was very interesting.  But it was not Oscar worthy.

Let's start with the music.  This movie got the Oscar for best musical score.

Score? 

The music is a sum total of  ten notes played over and over and over again.  Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails just pulled a fast one on the Oscar folks.  It took him, I'm guessing, ten minutes to write ten notes and now he has a Golden Globe and an Oscar.

Well, the Oscars are trying to scew a bit younger...so I guess we'll just reward this no talent hack for managing to string together ten notes because he appeals to a younger crowd.  Bravo.

Next year, the movie that has NO music will win best musical score.  Watch, it'll happen!

Now, the movie itself is very interesting, especially if you are devoted to Facebook as I am.  It was just that, though.  It was interesting.  "The Social Network" did not tell a story that wasn't common knowledge.  It did not stir anything emotional in the viewer.  It was not a story wrestling with some higher level of consciousness or some social question.

"The Social Network" was  a well told story about a very spoiled, very socially frozen guy who gets dumped and in turn tries to shame women...and then accidentally creates something we all use now to waste time (My hippy name is "Paisley,"  I most resemble an egg salad sandwhich, and if I were in Harry Potter movies, I would be Doby the house elf.)  and generally irritate each other.  ( I'm from Wisconsin...the endless debate about politics has gotten more than ugly on Facebook.)

It's an interesting story well told.  But was it Oscar worthy?

I say no. 

While I have rarely agreed with Oscar about best pictures...or the best acting awards  (Still not over Denzel Washington winning over Russell Crowe's "A Beautiful Mind.")  I do have to say, the movies that win often stand the test of time.  I have not yet seen "The King's Speach," but I will and I am sure I will find it to be a movie that will stand the test of time, much like "Gone with the Wind" "Chariots of Fire" "Gladiator"  "A Beautiful Mind" and "Shakespear in Love."  These are movies that move us.  I cry every time I see "Titanic."  EVERY TIME. 

So bravo, and brava, Hollywood!  You may have gotten it right this year.  Time will tell, of course.

Even a potentially bad movie can hold a compelling story at its heart.

Good morning!

So the saga of my thumbs has reached a hilarious peek.  I'm chronicling that over at my humor blog,  It can only happen to Sarah!

But since I was really laid up last night after my cortisone shot, I had the time to watch a made for TV disaster pic called, "Impact." 

I know...not normally what I go for.  But David James Elliott was the star and he's one of those guys I'll pretty much watch in anything.  (By the way...DJE fans?  the picture at the top of this blog...I'm obsessed because this is so a picture of Quinn from my new book.  What movie/TV show is this from?  A FREE COPY OF DREAM IN COLOR to the first person who can tell me, and hook me up with a copy of said TV show/movie.)


Okay, now that my shameless begging it out of the way, let's move on.

There are a lot of movies out there, and I've watched many of them.  There are great movies that were meant to be great.  There are great movies that weren't expected to be great, but wound up being awesome.  ("The Princess Bride" fits into this category.)  There are movies that were supposed to be great, but fell short, and everyone knows it, even if they won't admit to it.  (Lost in Translation comes to mind.)

Of course, there are also movies that are pretty bad, and were sort of meant to be bad, and yet, I love them, but not for obvious reasons.

One of my favorite movies is "Heaven's Burning" a goofy, violent, buddy picture starring Russell Crowe.  I admit it, I watched it at first because of Russell Crowe.  It's early in his career, and filmed in Australia by Australian film makers.  The plot is as convoluted as it is simple.  I'm not going to give you all the details, just go rent it.  It's one of those of inadvertently hilarious movies.  But, and here's my point...at the end, you'll be cheering for the main characters and you'll weep at the very end.  Rent it, I promise you won't regret it.

I'm being serious.

Even bad movies can have a good story.  Take the movie I watched last night.  "IMPACT." It had all the elements of being a potentially bad flick. 

Made for TV? Check. 

Overly dramatic, yet completely unclear title?  Check.

Disaster film?  Check.

Improbable science and/or technology?  Check

Continuity issues?  In spades.  (The whole world is shut down, but a guy can get from Germany to Washington DC in the span of  one scene?  Right.)

However, I sat through all three hours...you read that right...all three hours of the movie.  Not because I love David James Elliott.  That was the reason I rented the movie in the first place, but not the reason I watched it.  I watched it to the very end because, when you stripped away all the explosions, all the military and scientific jargon, all the made up jargon, what you had, at the heart of it all, was a story about a man trying to make life safe for his kids. And when you put DJE with kids...you have magic.   (It didn't hurt that the young boy who played his son...an actor by the name of Owens Best, was completely disarming and wonderful.)

So for me, it was well worth the three house I sat in bed watching this movie.  I found myself drawn in, in spite of the highly unlikely plot.  (Which wound up being a tiny bit of a rip off of the movie "Armageddon.") And yes, I teared up at the very end.

It's the same with books we read, isn't it?  Maybe you don't like a certain genre of book, but you pick one up and you get sucked in because when you peal back all the bits you don't care for, at the heart, there's a compelling story.  As writers, reading books that aren't necessarily in our genre is a good idea.  You can pick up inspiration everywhere, and reading is so vital to writing.

If you lived in a world where everything was exactly the one way you liked things, that would be boring.  You have friends who are different from you, right?  Step outside of your circle of what you love and take a look at something you think is going to stink. 

At the heart of it, you might find something very worthwhile.  And that, my friends, will help you grow as a writer.

Fixing that Wounded Hero and admitting Michele B was right...

Good morning!

I'm taking a short break from my insane writing pace to talk about one of my favorite things.  Rick Springfield and the Romantic Wounded Hero with a Past.

Wait, that's two favorite things.

Math was never my strong suit.  I wrote a lot of short stories in Algebra class. 

First of all, I recently finished reading Rick Springfield's autobiography "Late Late at Night."

Let me start by saying, I'm definitely his target audience, so OF COURSE  I'm going to love it.  But I loved this book for a couple specific reasons other than that I'm a fan and would read his grocery list if I could.

1) He actually wrote it.

No ghost writers here...this is one celeb who can string together a paragraph very well.  There's very little polish.  This is Rick, speaking from his heart.  Warning to those of you who haven't read it and plan to:  The language is very, very explicit.  Keep this out of reach of the wee ones!

2)  He pulls no punches and doesn't try to make himself look good.

Those who have followed the public image of Rick will probably be more than a little stunned to read his detailed accounts of...well pretty much everything from drug use to sex on the road, to attempted suicide.  He doesn't justify a thing, and takes responsibility for his actions.  His unblinking honesty is heartbreaking at some points.  As someone who has a family history of emotional and mental illness and as someone who battles depression, this memoir broke my heart and gave me hope.

3)  My hero has feet of clay, and a gassy dog.  Sound familiar?

Wow...I started writing "Dream in Color" six years ago.  At that time I knew I wanted an aging teen idol, someone who might have something dark in his closet.  For those of you who have read it, yes, obviously, Jesse is inspired by Rick.  But reading this memoir, I was stunned at just how close the two were.  (Seriously, I know Rick has a copy of "Dream."  I'm starting to fear that restraining order!  LOL!)  Yes, right down to the gassy dog.  Egads! 

4)  I have a whole new hero...and she's awesome!

Through the entire memoir there is one shining light, Rick's wife, Barbara.  This woman should be awarded medals or something!  I've long looked at the broken state of marriage in our society and wondered if anyone bothers to stay true to their marriage vows.  Barbara Porter Springfield (Springthorpe) is the image of a wife determined to keep her marriage and her family intact.  I always figured it was hard being married to a public figure, especially a rock star, whose entire world revolves around general hotness. 

Which brings me to the point of my blog today:  The wounded hero we all want to fix.  Call him what you will, every woman I know has a fantasy that includes healing the wounded hero.  Taming the bad boy.  Fixing the deeply misunderstood golden hearted bastard.  Romance novels are silly with this theme.  Shoot, I'm writing one right now.  (Only, since I have a deep need to explore the dark side of every character, my heroine isn't exactly a fresh summer peach.)  We as women are obsessed with movies that involve that bad boy  (Johnny Depp, Russell Crowe anyone?) and how we can make him love us.

As writers, we love to create the hero who isn't really a hero until he realizes he's madly in love with his heroine...and that heroine as we all know is always a younger, thinner, prettier, more talented version of ourselves.  (Okay, Michele B, you were right and I admit it now!  I AM RAMONA!  Happy?)  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Sorry, but the Beta male is going to lose in novels.  The good guy marries the girl in real life, if the girl is smart, but never in the novels.

So I applaud you, Ms. Barbara Porter.  You are my new hero because you've stuck to your vows in the face of stunning betrayals. you give the rest of us out here working on marriage inspiration to keep going, to never give up. 

And the rest of you...go read Rick's memoirs.  And oh, then go read Dream in Color!

Meanwhile, I'm back to work!

The eyes have it...part two!

So after writing about Eye Acting the other day, I haven't been able to get the idea of it out of my head. And it got me to thinking...besides the scene in "The Quick and the Dead" (Which I had to go back and watch last night...it's so good!) and, of course, "Robin Hood," (Which I'm seeing again today!) what are some of my other favorite "eye acting" moments?


Here's a partial list...and some of them surprised me!

Russell Crowe, "3:10 To Yuma." This a brilliant remake putting Crowe and Christian Bale against each other was a stroke of casting genius. But there's a quiet little scene between Crowe and actress Vinnessa Shaw that takes very little time, but wouldn't every woman want an outlaw to look at her that way?

David James Elliott/Catherine Bell "JAG: LIFELINE" JAG fans waited and waited and WAITED for almost five seasons for Harm and Mac to get together. True, they were going to wait another three before that happy event, but this episode, set against the back drop of Mac's engagement party, brings out the best of both of these actors. The final shot is the icing on a brilliant cake.

David James Elliott/Trevor Goddard "JAG: MUTINY" Harm and Brumby (played by the late and much missed Trevor Goddard) battled for Mac's heart endlessly, but never better than in this brilliantly written episode. Take my word for it...the final shot is a stunner.
Rick Springfield "General Hospital 2005" In the early 80's Dr. Noah Drake was a hot doc on the make. Fifteen years later, he was a sad, broken version of his former self. And Rick brought it all at us with his eyes.

Rick Springfield "LEGION" Terrible movie. But I keep it on my shelf for one reason and one reason only. Watching Rick's character, seeing the depth of despair in his eyes before you ever know what's up...it's spellbinding. By the end you're cheering and weeping for him, in spite of yourself.

Danny Masterson "That 70's Show" I know...I was shocked when I came up with this one. But in the rare moments Hyde takes off his sunglasses in scenes involving his rocky romance with Jackie, Mr. Masterson gives us more good eye acting than a sitcom probably deserves.
Russell Crowe, "3:10 To Yuma." This a brilliant remake putting Crowe and Christian Bale against each other was a stroke of casting genius. But there's a quiet little scene between Crowe and actress Vinnessa Shaw that takes very little time, but wouldn't every woman want an outlaw to look at her that way?

Rick Springfield "General Hospital 2005" In the early 80's Dr. Noah Drake was a hot doc on the make. Fifteen years later, he was a sad, broken version of his former self. And Rick brought it all at us with his eyes.

Russell Crowe "HEAVEN'S BURNING" This movie confuses me...did they mean for it to be a dark comedy? Because there are moments so over the top you can't help but laugh. But there are two scenes, both with actress Youki Kudoh, that make the movie an eye acting milestone for me. I'll give you a hint...find the scene where they're not wearing much, and then find the scene where they're really dressed up.

Clark Gable..."Gone with the Wind." Ah, Rhett Butler. The original movie bad boy we all wanted to fix. Even under the censorship constraints of 1939, Gable manages to evoke an awful lot with his eyes...like the scene where he leaves Scarlett on the road to Tara, right before a big kiss. Breathless!

So there you go...some of my favorite eye acting moments. Not all of them are a surprise, I'll grant you, and I could add a ton more, but let's not get boring.

Think about your favorite movies or TV shows...what draws you to a character? I'll just bet there's a scene or two of eye acting in your memory banks.

Now, go forth and WRITE!

The eyes have...part one!

Good morning!

I have been watching some of my favorite movies with Girl Child lately. She likes it because it's the only time she, as a thirteen year old, is going to get a sniff of a rated R movie, and I like it because no one else in the family is interested in watching my big budget historical movies with me.

It started out easily enough. "Gladiator." "Braveheart." "King Arthur." (The one with Clive Owen.) Girl child developed a taste for big battle movies where the hero dies. She cried right along with me. (I'll admit it. I tear up every time I watch Gladiator. Can't help it.) So we delved into my extensive Civil War movie collection. "Glory." (That one shreds me too.)

But then she picked a rather odd movie the other night. "The Quick and the Dead." For those of you who have seen it, you know it's not a normal Western. It's not even a normal movie. In fact, it's actually sort of terrible, in spite of great performances from a trio of very talented actors: Gene Hackman, Leo DiCaprio, and Russell Crowe. (Girl Child and I both agree that Sharon Stone is fairly horrible in this.)

Girl Child didn't care for "Quick" quite as much as she did the others. But watching the movie led us to a great discussion about what makes a great character and what makes a great actor. She's an aspiring writer, so I was very impressed by her depth of understanding about what, visually, makes a character/actor great.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I believe Russell Crowe is one of, if not the, greatest actor of all time. I know that here in the States, where we like our stars all nice and fluffy and very, very available every minute of every day, most folks are insulted by Russell's impatience with the endless media drech. (I'm not defending the phone incident, but I do understand it. And if you say you've never had the urge to chuck something at someone, then you're lying to yourself. We all have those feelings. We just don't have the media following our every move.)

But push all that aside for a moment and ponder this: as writers, we struggle to make our characters flesh and blood. The best authors create characters that the reader feels, understands, or even becomes. It's not an easy thing to do, to create a visual aspect on paper.
Which is why a great actor can make a character amazing with one blink of an eye. A picture is worth a thousand words, but an actor that can act with his or her eyes is worth millions. And there aren't many actors that are good at it. Russell Crowe is the master of acting with his eyes.
Don't believe me? Go see "Robin Hood." (And you Robin Hood pursists, get over yourselves. It's FICTION!) There is a romance, a full on hot and sticky romance smack dab in the middle of that movie. And it's a romance that only Russell Crowe and the amazing Cate Blanchett could pull off.

Why?

Because so very, very little is said. There's no hot sex scene, (They both are covered in filth for most of the movie...) no gauzy curtains and soft candle light. But you know the exact second Robin falls in love with Marian and vice versa simply by looking in their eyes. And by the time Robin says, "I love you," by that point you've melted in a puddle under your chair. Both actors play out the entire romance with their eyes. Few actors can do that, and even fewer writers can write that. It's a visual and it's a moment on film that is a rare treasure.

Which brings me back to "Quick." Why do I keep it in my collection? Again, because of what Russell Crowe does with his eyes. His part is pretty much the only one worth watching in the movie, and his scenes with Gene Hackman are worthy of watching. But when he faces Sharon Stone in the gun fight and he tucks his hands in his belt and pleads with her to shoot him...

Go get the movie. Skip everything until almost the end. Then, go and try to write that expression into your hero. Better yet, go watch "Robin Hood," because not only has Russell now perfected the art of eye acting, but he's up against a worthy actress who holds more than her own. And it's a good movie.

Come sit next to me. I'll be there!

Romantic leads must have good teeth...isn't that written someplace?

Good Wednesday morning all!

I took the last two days off of work. I told Bossman it was because I wanted to spend some quality time with my children, who are on spring break this week. Of course, since the Boy is driving, quality time with him is that hazy moment late at night when he wanders into the house and announces the car is out of gas...again.

But the girl is 13 and I have found a sure fire way to get her to watch movies with me.

Pull out the Rated R movies.

Okay, before you throw virtual veggies at me, I'm not letting her watch "Secretary" or anything like that. No, I've pulled out my favorite genre of movie: The big budget historical battle based film. And girl child is eating them up! Gladiator, Braveheart, King Arthur, she loves them all. It's a win/win. She gets to tell her classmates she spent the week watching Rated R movies. I get to watch some of the hunkiest men in Hollywood ride horses, get dirty, and fight for love and honor. (But mostly love, right?)

One thing Girl child did ask while watching "Braveheart."

"Mom, why does William Wallace and his wife have such great teeth when everyone else in the village has terrible teeth?"

Ah, out of the mouths of babes, right?

So many actors and actresses in our generation are getting into the "ugly roles" because those are the roles that win award nominations. Get them dirty, bloody them up, make them wear feces encrusted clothes, it does not matter, we will love them and cheer for them.

Just as long as they have good teeth.

It's a distinctly American thing, teeth. Don't believe me? Check out this movie quote from "A Good Year" (A charming movie starring Russell Crowe, based on a really great book of the same name.)

"I should have known. The only place that produces teeth like that is America."

All the Hollywood directors doing the big historical productions in the last fifteen years want that gritty sense of realism. Never have historical reenactors been so popular. (I love reenactors. They've got it right!) But when it comes to the lead characters, they can be dirty, they can be bloody, but they'd better have the BEST TEETH POSSIBLE.

Watch "Braveheart" for about six seconds. Everyone lives in mud huts, washes in the river, and wears clothes every color of the rainbow, provided the rainbow is brown and grey. But William Wallace and his lady love have the better teeth than most dentists I know.

Not convinced? Let's take it one step further. Watch "Gladiator." (And I know, everyone has at least one problem with the movie. I love it, but this is my issue.) Can someone tell me how a woodsman from northern Africa has such great teeth? In fact, all those slave/gladiators had great teeth? Was that part of the gladiator health plan?

Titanic is another great example of this. Jack is supposedly a street rat, who bums around with French prostitutes and Italian street urchins. Yes, he's got spectacular teeth!

I've decided it's not a bad rule. After all, we want to fall in love with the hero. We want the hero to wrap his arms around us, and kiss us with a passion that will make us melt.

You can't do that with broken, yellow teeth. You just can't.

Oh, and Happy Birthday to Russell Crowe!