Writers in Hollywood

Pizzlolatto

I spent the ensuing weeks across a table from Nic, hashing out plotlines. It gave me a chance to study him at close quarters. No one was more vehement about character and motivation than Nic. Now and then, he’d do the voices or act out a scene, turning his wrist to demonstrate the pop-pop of gunplay. He was 37 but somehow ageless. He could’ve stepped out of a novel by Steinbeck. The writer as crusader, chronicler of love and depravity. His shirt was rumpled, his hair mussed, his manner that of a man who’d just hiked along the railroad tracks or rolled out from under a box. He is fine-featured, with fierce eyes a little too small for his face. It gives him the aura of a bear or some other species of dangerous animal. When I was a boy and dreamed of literature, this is how I imagined a writer—a kind of outlaw, always ready to fight or go on a spree. After a few drinks, you realize the night will culminate with pledges of undying friendship or the two of you on the floor, trying to gouge each other’s eyes out.

I love True Detective and I loved, loved reading this profile of Nic Pizzolatto in Vanity Fair (from which I steal the above photo, credited to Art Streiber).

McC

I did have a quibble, though.

Here’s what profile writer Rich Cohen says about F. Scott Fitzgerald in Hollywood:

Early in the history of film, when the big-time writers of the day, Fitzgerald most famously, were offered a role in the movies, they decided to write for the cash, forswearing deeper participation in a medium they considered second-rate. Perhaps as a result of this decision, the author came to be the forgotten figure in Hollywood, well paid but disregarded. According to the old joke, “the actress was so stupid she slept with the writer.”

Later:

Credit and power are shared. But by tossing out that first season and beginning again, Nic has a chance to finally undo the early error of Fitzgerald and the rest. If he fails and the show tanks, he’ll be just another writer with one great big freakish hit. But if he succeeds, he will have generated a model in which the stars and the stories come and go but the writer remains as guru and king.

Not sure this is totally accurate.  I’ve read a decent amount about F. Scott Fitzgerald in Hollywood.  The more you read, the more it seems like Fitzgerald really loved Hollywood, and tried really hard to be good at writing movies, and was distressed by his failures.  Fitzgerald loved movies:

IMG_8493

When Fitzgerald worked on movies, it seems like he worked hard, was hurt when he was (frequently) fired, which sent him into tailspins that made things worse.  But he was trying:

IMG_8494

Those are from the great Marc Norman’s book, highly recommended:

IMG_8504

Or how about this?:

IMG_8495

That’s from this great one, by Scott Donaldson:

IMG_8496

Now, that’s not to say that Fitzgerald always did everything perfectly:

IMG_8497

(from this one, very entertaining read:

IMG_8498

).

On the other hand, William Faulkner did well in Hollywood.  He’s credited on at least two movies — The Big Sleep and To Have And Have Not, that you’d have to put in the all-time good list.  If he’d never written a single book, you could look at those credits and call Faulkner a pretty successful screenwriter.

What did Faulkner do differently than Fitzgerald?  Possibly, his secret was caring less:

IMG_8502 More, from Norman:
IMG_8503

Murky, to be sure.

But you might say: the big difference in the Hollywood careers of Fitzgerald and Faulkner is that Faulkner teamed with a great director, Howard Hawks, who liked him and liked working with him.

That’s what Pizzolatto did too.  He teamed up with Cary Fukunaga. Cary Fukunaga directed all eight episodes of season one of True Detective (and a bunch of other things worth seeing).

Fukunaga’s not mentioned once in that Vanity Fair article.  That’s crazy.

Anyway. I’m excited for season two, it sounds super interesting.


These hysterical sluts

IMG_8480Finally getting down to this one.  Not all old philosophical classics are easy reading but Boethius gets off to a rip-roaring start.  He’s got the Muses of Poetry at his bedside trying to cheer him up when all of a sudden Philosophy appears:

IMG_8482 IMG_8483

Philosophy is like

listenupfives

A lot of credit is probably due to the translator, Victor Watts.  He sounds like just the man for the job:

IMG_8481


Interaction Ritual Chains

IMG_8424Got interested in the sociologist Randall Collins via his blog, which I think Tyler Cowen linked to.

Collins also wrote a book about violence.

Violence

If you find yourself in a bar fight, his main advice on avoiding “damage” seems to be:

1) maintain calm, steady eye contact.

2) speak in a calm clear assertive voice

3) assert emotional dominance, or at least hold your own, emotional dominance-wise.

Most of the damage gets done, says Collins (who watched hundreds of hours of tapes of bar fights) when you’ve already lost the emotional encounter.  Even worse if there’s a crowd.

At the heart of Collins’ micro-sociological theory is the concept of “confrontational tension.” As people enter into an antagonistic interactional situation, their fear/tension is heightened. These emotions become a roadblock to violence, and so flight and stalemate often result. Actual violence only occurs when pathways around this roadblock can be found that lead people into a “tunnel of violence.” Collins identifies several pathways into this tunnel, the most dangerous of which is “forward panic.” In these situations, the confrontational tension builds up and is suddenly released so that it spills forward into atrocities ranging from the Rodney King beating to the My Lai massacre, the rape of Nanking, and the Rwandan genocide. Other ways around the stalemate of confrontational tension are to attack a weak victim (e.g., domestic violence) or to be encouraged by an audience (e.g., lynch mobs). Clearly, these pathways can also be combined, as when a schoolyard bully is encouraged by a crowd of classmates or when forward panic is stimulated by a group of bystanders.

Best posts from his blog, I’d say:

Napoleon

this one, on Napoleon and emotional energy.

this one, on Tank Man, is very interesting (although it goes against some other ideas I’ve heard, like Filip Hammar’s claim that it was well-known in his neighborhood of Beijing that Tank Man had been binge-drinking for days leading up to this event.)

LoA

this one, about fame, network bridging, and Lawrence of Arabia, is just fantastic.

jc

So’s this one, about what we can learn from the gospel accounts of Jesus about charisma.

MBD

This one about Moby-Dick and bullfighting had some really interesting, new to me ideas.

I bought Professor Collins’ ebook, about emotional energy in Napoleon, Steve Jobs, and Alexander the Great.  Lots of good stuff in there.  And I got his magnum Interaction Ritual Chains.  That’s a bit drier, but I’m learning a lot:

FullSizeRender


Jack Yeats, Olympic Silver Medalist

IMG_8391

Before The Start

W. B. Yeats the poet had a kid brother, Jack Yeats, a painter.

DACS - FULL CONSULT; (c) DACS - FULL CONSULT; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Early in his career he worked as an illustrator for magazines like the Boy’s Own Paper and Judy, drew comic strips, including the Sherlock Holmes parody “Chubb-Lock Homes” for Comic Cuts

DACS - FULL CONSULT; (c) DACS - FULL CONSULT; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

The Mystery Man

Jack Yeats won a silver medal at the 1924 Olympics (the Chariots Of Fire Olympics).  They used to give out medals in art and culture categories, and Jack won for The Liffey Swim:

Screen Shot 2015-06-01 at 9.45.42 AM

The juried art competitions were abandoned in 1954 because artists were considered to be professionals, while Olympic athletes were required to be amateurs.

Bring ’em back I say!