"In the Electric Mist," or, How to make a pretty weak movie from a strong book.

[jobycom]

1) Don't worry about a narrative thread. Surely everyone has already read the book, so they don't care about dramatic development, character backstory, or emotional involvement.

2) Pick random scenes to include, based not upon any desire to tell a coherent story, but rather upon what seemed pretty nifty in the book.

3) Don't waste any time between scenes or with useless character interaction. Such time would only cause the audience to feel the emotions of the character or perhaps better grasp the inner turmoil and tribulations that are motivating the characters, and are the purpose of the book. This time and energy can be better spent filming more truncated scenes from the book.

4) Don't worry about whether the truncated scenes you choose in step 3 further the plot, explain events before or after the scene, or do any darned thing whatsoever except look sort of regional and pretty. Audiences really don't expect to understand what's happening in movies these days, anyway.

5) Hire some of the best actors in the industry, have them walk on and deliver their lines in the same monotone characterization they use to deliver the other lines they have in previous truncated scenes, and then quickly move to the next scene before the audience has a chance to bond with the character. Remember, if the audience bonds, they will become emotionally invested with those characters, and will therefore not be as interested in the empty pretty picture-scenes you film afterwards.

6) Don't worry if the bad guys are not as menacing as the good guys. Surely everyone in the audience has read the book, so they just know how dispicable the bad guys are supposed to be.

7) Take the lines from the book that have the most soul, the most poetry, the most sultry passion, and rewrite them as flatly as possible. If you can, have someone translate these lines into another language, and then have an online translation tool flip them back for you. Computers write much more interesting lines than Pulitzer winning authors, anyway. Say you have a character break up a fight by telling the hero "Cool it, Detective. This is not your style." Notice how much character development can be captured in that simple line? Notice what you learn about the level-headedness of the thug who delivers it, the awareness of the hero that the thug must have, even the respect the thug has? Notice what it says about the hero when he listens--maybe that it isn't his style, maybe that he respects the level-headed response of the thug even if he does not respect the thug, maybe that he even acknowledges the basic humanity even of thugs? You cannot include such a line in the movie--it adds too much soul, and takes attention away from the pretty scenes you are filming. Change the line instead to "Ease off, Leutenant. This ain't good for nobody." Mucho better, eh?

8) Don't worry if crucial bits of evidence are not explained. The audience read the book, what do they care what you put in the movie?

9) Here's the crucial part. Be sure to include every racial slur in the book, but unlike in the book, don't have characters that seem to be above these racial slurs, or that dwell or analyze racial issues at all, even if they are crucial to the story. Don't have the hero show disapproval of such language and attitudes, because it just might give the audience the feeling that the slurs were included to degrade the people uttering them, rather than just to sound "salty" and regional. Also, you want to make sure that no African-American in the movie can read, write, think, do anything noble, or is respected by any of the characters, the screenwriter, or the director. Think D W Griffith.

10) And finally, if there is a colorful black blues singer with a crucial part in the book, be sure to hire a colorful black blues singer for the movie, even if he can't deliver a line to save his life. Don't work with him, don't coach him--you just hired him because he's a great black blues singer, remember, so nobody will care if he can act. But, be sure not to have him sing, either. Okay, well, maybe just part of one song, but no more. Because you aren't hiring him for his incredible musical skills--he's just a colorful black blues singer, so you want authenticity, whether it looks like authenticity or not.

Follow these steps, and you, too, can turn your much anticipated film into a straight-to-DVD movie, and possibly damage the careers of such respected Hollywood names as Tommy Lee Jones, John Goodman, Ned Beatty, Mary Steenburgen, and Peter Skaarsgard, all of whom no doubt gave you their trust because they were charmed by the soul of the book you didn't seem to understand.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. That is too bad.

I was thinking it would be good.

[jobycom]

2. I wanted it to be.

I kept trying to make it be, even while watching.

[argyl]

3. Excellent analysis. When I first heard of this project,with Tommy Lee Jones as Dave Robicheaux,

I was really excited. When the length of time between completion and release date seemed to drag on and on I began to think, "Uh Oh," we may have some problems. And then I saw it on the wall of my video store.

Yeah,they did release it in LA and maybe New York for a week to take the Direct to Video tag off but that's what they wound up with. A damn shame,considering the cast and source material they had to work with.

[jobycom]

4. Yeah, I was excited, too.

The director just tried to cram too much into it. He's a French director, and this looked like the only American title he's done. Maybe he was trying to do something outside his culture, I don't know.

It wasn't the cast's fault, but even they weren't stellar. Tommy Lee Jones looked too old to be convincing, especially in fight scenes where the other guy had to stand very still and Jones looked like he was being careful not to hurt himself. Reminded me of Sean Connery in "League of Extraordinary Gentleman." I figured with Tommy Lee Jones you couldn't go wrong, but no, apparently you can if you try hard enough.

For a DVD movie it wasn't completely bad, I guess, but given the cast and source material, I can't imagine people not being disappointed.

[bikebloke]

5. One of my Netflix for this week.

Only they weren't delivered. Our local post office doesn't have any supervision and they deliver when they feel like it.

Alex Baldwin's Robicheaux wasn't too godd either. James Lee Burke may be one of thosse authors whose books can't translated into film very well. Or they botched both tries.

[jobycom]

11. Watch it, anyway. One person already disagreed with me.

The scenery is beautiful in the film. If you don't know the area, the movie will give you a good visual setting for the novels. If you do know the area, you'll still be impressed by the settings.

And I think a great film could be made from the novel. This one could have been, with a better script. It just never develops.

[Paladin]

6. Absolutely Shameful.

One of my favorite books, with what sounds like a poor movie treatment. Certainly not the first time it's happened.....

[old mark]

7. I am very sorry th hear that.

James Lee Burke is one of my favorite authors, a fine American writer, and I just found an old copy of the book a few months ago.
Sounded like a great cast.

Shit.

mark:mad:

[jobycom]

10. You're the one who turned me on to Burke, you know.

Watch it anyway, you might like it more than I did. If not, it's a good exercise to think about what the book and movie do differently.

At times, Jones really nailed the role. The cast did nothing wrong, they just weren't used. John Goodman nails the "milk cartoon" line, if you remember the one I'm talking about. Some of the scenes were well done, but overall they were too quick and didn't build to anything. The scriptwriter and/or director were afraid to take over the story, so they just tried to put as many scenes from the book as they could fit, without worrying if the scenes worked in the movie. And the stuff they left out was often the stuff they needed to make the scenes they used work. I wouldn't have even understood the plot if I hadn't read the book a couple months ago. If they'd have had the courage to write their own scenes, or make one scene take the place of several, or else cut out some of the story lines, it would have worked better. As it is, you never understand why Cholo helps Dave, you never understand what role Baby Feet played, you never understand why Dave had to do what he did with the knife--and then they don't use the consequences of the knife, either, so it just sits there as an isolated incident with no point.

They either needed to follow the book and make a much longer movie, or find their own narrative and be merciless with the book, but they couldn't do either. I had hopes for it, too. I would have loved to see more films with Jones as Robicheaux, and see who they picked for Purcell (John Goodman would make a great Purcell, but they used him for Baby Feet).

One thing they did well was capture the vivid colors and timeless beauty of the country down there--something Burke does well, too. A lot of that country is flat and dull when you drive through it, but they did take the time to get to know the scenery, and it shows in the film. It's a pretty film. There's one scene that cracked me up. They were searching a house, and they used an average little brick house that was perfect from the region. It sat on a slab that looked like it was sinking into an overly green yard, the way a lot of cheap slab houses do, and I remember laughing and thinking the house was perfect. Then the camera panned out a little while Robicheaux was talking to Rosie, and you could see an old white refrigerator, complete with rust stains along the seems, plugged in on the patio, with a camo ATV parked alongside it. It was so perfect it made me homesick.

[old mark]

12. I remember. Hell of a writer, no?

I just discovered him about a year ago, and I have been going through his work sparingly - I hate to run out of a good author.
Hope he lives a long time and continues to write.
If we had national treasures in this country, he would be one.
mark

[jobycom]

14. Yes, hell of a writer. Good idea to pace him, though.

I listened to and/or read half a dozen of his books in a couple of months, some back to back, and that's not a good idea. He uses some of the same themes, even some of the same phrases, in each of his books, and it shows through too much when you read them all in a row. His dreams also get monotonous when strung too close together.

But he's very good. His similes in describing a setting are breathtaking at times, from the tackhammer sound of the raindrops (I swear rain sounds different in that region than it does other places) to the neon curls of the white mist... Even the title "In the Electric Mist" sings. And his explorations of violence and the differing reasons for crime in different people--evil versus bad circumstances, for instance--are good. Almost Chandler-esque at times.

My biggest complaint about him are the racial stereotypes. I have yet to encounter an educated African American, and even the positive black characters are either the happy simple native stereotypes--like Batiste--or the angry urban black who is nevertheless good beneath the rude exterior. Not to mention, Cajuns and rednecks are pretty two-dimensional at times, too. I almost think Burke wanders around New Iberia thinking he's the only smart person around.

But I've never been disappointed in his books, and aside from the occassional annoyance at an overused device or stereotype, I like his writing a lot.

[old mark]

16. Remembger that Robicheaux is a reformed drunk, and a lot of us

reformed drunks do think we are the only smart persons around.

I'm glad you enjoy his work.

mark

[jobycom]

17. That's one I haven't borne personally

but I've got enough close friends who have, so I know what you mean. I wonder, though. Is Burke a reformed drunk? The superiority seems to be his more than Robicheaux's. I've read a little about him, but haven't seen that answer, one way or the other. It is the most true element of his writing, though. It's the one part that never feels like a game or an affectation, if you know what I mean. Not just when he talks about AA or drinking--it's all through his introspections.

I'm glad you told you me about him. Yours was the only suggestion from that thread that worked out. :thumbsup:

[hedgehog]

8. well, I liked it.

:hide:

[jobycom]

9. Oh. Well, nevermind, then.

:rofl:

[chrisa]

13. Yeah, the plot was weak (spoiler warning)

They needed to add at least an extra 30 minutes to the movie, instead of just flying through everything. I never read the book, so I was kind of confused at some parts, and thought the plot was a little shallow. The kidnapping of his daughter was the most shallow part, seconded by that female actor being shot.

[jobycom]

15. In the book ***more spoilers**** (if you want to know why some things happened)

Kelly Drumond is shot because Ducette (the bad guy) thinks Dave is about to catch him as one of the gunmen who killed Prejean thirty years earlier. It's more important in the book (although it is still a bit grautuitous) because Sykes (her actor boyfriend) is more important in the book, and plays a major catalyst role in triggering events. The movie he's making is funded by Baby Feet, who is, in the book, the crime kingpin behind the prostitution (that's what the scene in the New Orleans bus terminal was about), and there are also snuff films and porn films, and Ducette is just one of his minor suppliers of hookers for the films. Ducette also turns out to be a serial killer and a pervert and a pedophile, who is used by Baby Feet to do some dirty work.

So when Ducette is cornered by Dave, who he thinks has more evidence, he kidnaps Alifair to make Dave turn over the evidence. Dave is terrified because he's seen the things Ducette does to his victims (they don't even show Dave finding the evidence of pedophilia in the movie), so he goes ballistic and just starts bashing answers out of people like Baby Feet.

That's what I hated about the movie. They included scenes that were powerful in the book, but they didn't explain them, so in the movie they were confusing and shallow. There's a reason Rosie shoots Ducette at the end, and a reason the throw-down gun is more important (although even in the book I thought it was an unnecessary device--who is going to blame her for shooting a serial killer who was holding a small girl hostage?).

I won't say the book was perfect, either. Some of the plotting and some of the motivations were a stretch, and I felt a few times like the author forced some things. But overall it was a good story of a good cop pushed over the limit by horrendous evil and a remarkably ineffective beauracracy. The movie had almost none of that, and it didn't replace it with anything intriguing, either. I don't care if a movie is true to the book, but the movie needs to at least make sense on its own, and this one didn't.