All Writing Is Rewriting

Those who know me are aware that I do not pay particular attention to reviews on horror films. It isn't that I don't respect critical opinions, but horror films are, generally speaking, a much-maligned genre of film. Even "respected" (because, as we all know, only a horror film has to earn respect... sheesh!). Take for example a film like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. An excellent, scary, thrilling, and dramatic motion picture. Heck, it won Academy Awards (for those not in the know, an extreme rarity among genre pictures... I thank the Academy for recognizing Kathy Bates' chilling performance in MISERY, but we'll talk about that another time). But, there are some critics who didn't like SILENCE. While I understand every film has flaws, the movie was a darn good tale and a nice adaptation of a gripping novel. Still, I will always wonder when a critic dislikes a horror film if it is because of the movie.. or because it's a horror movie.

Okay, why do I write this? Because I have to agree with the critics who did not like WHITE NOISE. It is rare that critics review horror films in a way that tells you what is wrong with the picture instead of simply saying it's a "slasher pic." WHITE NOISE is certainly no slasher pic. It also isn't a gripping drama. Or a chilling ghost story. Or, well... you see where I am going with this, right?

WHITE NOISE tries to be those things, but it ends up being none of them. Which leads us back to the beginning of "all writing is rewriting." When we get notes on our material, we strive to understand the heart of the note from a story standpoint or character standpoint. What does it mean? Where does it lead us? Does the note make the script better? Or just different? So, what, really, is the note? If you tell me to add "more lightning" please tell me why. Lightning isn't scary. It's what is behind our embattled hero, in the dark, illuminated by lightning that is scary. Thankfully, most notes are great notes. And they DO make the movies better. Then, after the notes, you rewrite. And rewrite. And rewrite.

I think the biggest flaw in WHITE NOISE is the fact that it didn't tell a whole story, didn't take us on a journey with Rivers' (Michael Keaton) character, and failed, really, to be any story. Which made me think: what kind of notes did they give on this script? Critics hit the nail on the head when they said the story loses focus and meanders into too many directions. I won't say that isn't entirely the writers fault, since the story came from him, but weren't there notes on this script? I kept imagining executive voices, beaming from behind their desks, "I just don't get it." But, perhaps I was wrong. Maybe the notes like, "What does Rivers want?" "Why does he help these people?" "What are those three shadowy things and why don't they just do what they do earlier?" just weren't given. Which is strange, since we have been given notes like that and they make sense. I'll stop rambling, but I really think the notes given on the script, whatever they were, didn't make it into the final draft. I do want to say that Michael Keaton is great, and there are some "jump" scares that got much of the audience. In the end, though, I wanted to hear a terrifying tale about this fascinating EVP thing. At least be made afraid to try it.

But, that wasn't in the cards.

Okay, okay, I probably won't try to record an empty room. Maybe it did scare me a little.

Oh, and let's not forget...

--"The calls are coming from inside the house!"
WHEN A STRANGER CALLS