Movies, Writing, and Theology: Burn After Reading and Snow Angels

Burn After Reading: I realize this got mixed reviews at best, but I liked this film. I laughed out loud. Some say it's making fun for the sake of making fun. There are no sympathetic characters. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.*

Well I say phooey on them.

There's one sympathetic character, although, yes, maybe he's a bit delusional and crazy. And another who plays a minor role.

And there's a slew of half-sympathetic characters.

But here's what I loved: It's as if the Coen Brothers are saying (and forgive me for putting words in their mouths, especially if they don't like the taste of them), "Here's what would more likely happen if some idiots happen to really stumble upon what they think might be classified information. It's not cool and exciting. There aren't amazing car chases. So let's clean up our writing, shall we?

Oh, and why is there so much running (and runners) in these spy/CIA movies?

Also, Russia? Why Russia? You do realize the Cold War's over, right?"

That's what I think the Coen Brothers are saying.

Best line: "Get back to me, I don't know, when something makes sense." Loved that line.

There are shocking scenes. I didn't expect a couple of things to happen.

And kudos to Brad Pitt for playing an idiot so well.

Writing application: stop relying on formulas. Especially when the formulas are stupid. (Which leads nicely to the next movie.)

Snow Angels: This is a beautiful film. It's about relationships, some beginning, some ending. Some succeeding, some falling apart. It's about humanity: the moments of ugliness and beauty that make up man. Betrayal and loyalty. There's one particular character who displays such beauty that admist this raw pain and ugliness, she shines, and I think, I want to act like her. I want to be that loyal. I want to reach out even when I've been hurt that much.

And it's about how everything's connected. The beginning scene shows a marching band director frustrated with his band (and boy, did they nail this guy). Look to your right, he says. Look to your left. Each one of you is important and connected. This doesn't work unless we're all moving together. Or something to that affect. And then the movie plays out that very idea.

Earlier, I mentioned formulas and how this movie relates to it. Let me 'splain. You see, I learned a lot from Joseph Campbell. I went as far as to say that I think he's right (not Freudian right but story-wise right). You can see this general structure or form in every story, I said.

Mark Bertrand begged to differ. Campbell is the bane of Bertrand's existence, he said. It's a formula, he argued, and too many people follow it straight out.

Let me interrupt and say I don't think it's something to follow point by point. In fact, I've never used it as a writer. I've used it as a reader (and movie-watcher), which, yes, influences my writing. But I never approached it as a check-list for plotting.

In fact, plotting gives me hives. It works for some but not me.

To make a long story short (too late!), this movie made me rethink the whole is-Campbell-right assertion. Could I fit Campbell's hero structure into this movie? Yes, but, as Bertrand asserted, it might be stretching the form too the point of meaninglessness. So at this point I'll say, Campbell's hero structure applies to probably most stories, and aspects of it (including archtypes) probably apply to all stories, but it just may be the case that the hero structure as a whole may not apply to all stories. I think it's still a good and helpful thing to learn. (And I still believe the American Myth is a correlation of rather than movement against Campbell's myth.) And I still believe his research often applies to our lives, especially our lives as stories and journeys. But there may be alternative shapes and forms.

I think. Then again, it does fit in Snow Angels, even if loosely.

What do you guys think about Campbell and the hero structure and archtypes?

*Note: a lot of the f-word in Burn After Reading and one embarrassing scene.