Writing from the Heart AND for the Market

So much of life is a balancing act.  Not only do people like symmetry visually, but they find it practical functionally as well.  Too much weight on one side of the wheelbarrow might even tip it over, and then you'll be side-tracked by shoveling up all the s*** ("stuff") you were hauling all over again.

Artists grapple with balance all the time, and I'm not just talking about within their composition, arrangement of design elements, structure of literary flow, and so on and so forth... I'm talking about within their lives and their work practices.

In the imagination of on-lookers, the life of an artist is a carefree existence--one not ruled so much by the laws of logic as by the fancy of the heart.  We're right-brained, after all (which is a nice excuse for laziness, sloppiness, and erratic behavior.) The idea of a "Starving Artist" has been romanticized.  Some even look at an artiste who focuses too much on the business side of his profession as a sell-out, less of a true artist.

We declare with deep ardor that art must first of all be true to the heart of the artist.  Who cares what the people want?--I've gotta be me!  That's why novelists are admired for dark, probing prose, and Hollywood is mocked for whitewashing the intensity of truth when the novel is adapted to the screen and the ending is tweaked to satisfy an audience hungry for happy endings tied up in neatly trimmed packages.

I've been on a high horse like that plenty of times--from the times that I've mocked the "contrived" blockbuster to the times I've defended the cryptic ending of my own "art" film.  

One really must understand teeter-totter physics in order to fully appreciate the danger of mounting the proverbial "high horse."  

Looking at the incline of the board in the above illustration, a child who has never played on a teeter-totter might think that the best place for the horse to stand in order to be king of the hill would be on the end of the board that is higher in the air (the end to the right in the picture.)  It doesn't take long on the playground, however, for a child to learn the lesson of balance.  The horse will find his highest possible position on the board by distributing his weight in a manner that is balanced in relation to the fulcrum (or by throwing a REALLY fat kid on the other end--but that's an entirely different issue).  

NANCY DREW, INCEPTION, & THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARTH

Once in a while, you come home from a movie and you know that you’ve just experienced something great. Other times, you come home and you think you experienced something great, but it may have just been a dream. My metaphysical jury is still out on the wonders of INCEPTION.

It’s kind of like Nancy Drew. Nancy Drew? What on earth does Nancy Drew have to do with the movie, INCEPTION? you may ask. Allow me to explain.

Years ago, a little girl who was supposed to be sleeping read Nancy Drew books under her covers by the illumination of a flickering flashlight. That little girl would read until she could no longer hold open her faltering eyelids, then, in the midst of the vicarious sleuthing, she’d drift off to sleep. In her dreams, the mysteries would always go in directions far more interesting to that little girl than the imaginations of the imaginary Carolyn Keene. Before long, that girl quit reading Nancy Drew, because the plotlines became disappointing.

Likewise, the blockbuster summer film INCEPTION is built upon a fun idea that provides a framework for some pretty spectacular special effects, but I don’t think the result is as groundbreakingly original or heart-stopping as some reviewers would have you believe. As usual, hype kills. You may enjoy this film more if you go in with lower expectations, so allow me to lower them for you. Before you dub INCEPTION “the greatest film of the decade” or an “instant classic” (as some online reviewers have done), step back, take a deep breath, and make sure someone hasn’t just hacked into your mind, planting a version of a film that doesn’t even exist.

Some people are lauding the “depth” of this

story. So... we go to a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream. Does that make this a psychologically deep and original story? I think I saw that same scenario played out by Garth in an old SNL “Wayne’s World” sketch. Just as I can dig a deep hole and still come across nothing but dirt, depth for the sake of depth doesn’t represent a wealth of content. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good dream movie and I don’t think INCEPTION was bad. I just think it had flaws, and I question whether those who so wholeheartedly (to the point of near worship) ignore those flaws may have had their minds hacked into and had ideas planted which have taken over like a virus.

If you are in love with the movie, don’t let me ruin your romance. Our reactions to films, after all, are subjective. We all bring our own projections with us into the theater, and those projections can make a single story different to different people. Moreover, we may not even be talking about the same movie. What is reality anyway? Maybe I only exist in your dream, or you in mine...

Here’s what is certain: I think I saw INCEPTION last night, but it may have just been the idea that my daughter put in my mind when she said I should go see it... What if there is no such movie, and technology has grown to the point where you can merely suggest that there is a film and people will imagine that they have seen it? Making seed-planting trailers might be cheaper than actually completing a film.