In which I wish I’d been asked a particular question

With every book I’ve written, except for All That Was Lost, I’ve been asked at some point during the book promotion run which actors I would want to play the main characters if the book was ever made into a film or TV show. And every time I’ve been asked that I’ve ummed and aaahed and basically been unable to come up with a good answer. Which makes it all the more annoying that no-one has asked about All That Was Lost because for the first time ever I actually have ideas! As I was writing All That Was Lost it felt incredibly visual, so for the first time, I was picturing particular actors as I was writing.

So now I’m going to pretend that someone has asked me and answer the question anyway and because this is my personal corner of the internet over which I have total dominion nobody can stop me. So here we go…

Patrice Leigh

Patrice is a stage clairvoyant. She makes her living selling the idea that she can talk to your lost loved ones. Her biggest asset, which she makes great use of, is that she’s unassuming and unthreatening. She’s almost homely. People trust her. They feel safe with her. But she’s also highly intelligent and an astute observer of people around her, and she’s ambitious, single-minded and determined.

The performance I see in my head when I think of Patrice on screen is Julie Walters. She has the warmth but also the steel, I think, to bring Patrice to life on screen.

By Ibsan73/Flickr [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons
Patience Bickersleigh

Patience is very young, a bit naive, romantic, but also intelligent and thoughtful. Persephone Swales-Dawson springs to mind. She has a brilliant mixture of innocence and hardness. I also Ramona Marquez but, as I think I’ve written elsewhere before, she might be more of a Cathy from The Heights rather than a Patience. And I want someone who looks young, because Patience is so young – that informs and explains nearly all the choices she makes.

Louise Swift

Louise is incredibly vulnerable when we meet her in the story. She’s raw with emotion and everything is on the surface, but later in the story she learns to paint on a more controlled face, even with all the same emotion going on just underneath. Don’t tell anyone, but I think she might be my favourite character. But keep that between us. I’m not sure that having favourites is really the done thing.

By S Pakhrin from DC, USA (BAFTA 2007Uploaded by tm) [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons
I was picturing Anne Marie Duff in my head while I was writing Louise, but, although she is brilliant in every imaginable way, she’s probably slightly too old to play Louise now. Hayley Squires would be a great alternative, or maybe even Billie Piper.

By Florida Supercon from Ft. Lauderdale, USA (MCCC_00790) [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons
Leo Cousins

Leo is where my claim to have mentally cast this whole imaginary movie breaks down. In my head while I was writing Leo was white, dark-haired, with stubble and a slightly worn down attitude about him. But I can’t think of an actor who fits that physical description. And the name that made me go, ‘Oh yes… that would work,’ as I was scrolling through my mental rolodex of British actors in their late forties or early fifties doesn’t fit that look at all, but does have exactly the right ability to play both Leo’s pain and his charm and his fundamental ordinariness. So for Leo my dream casting is Adrian Lester.

So that’s all sorted then. If someone would like to make a film or tv series of All That Was Lost now that would be marvelous. In the meantime, please do buy the book. It’s available from all these lovely places… Amazon, Google Play, Kobo, and Hive, and is available to order from all good – and some deeply suspect – bookshops.

Source Code – Worth Doing Properly

So I went to see Source Code (shiny new Jake Gyllenhaal time-travel – sorry “time reassignment” – flick) last night, and it was… fine. Jake Gyllenhaal travels through time, into a dead guy’s memory, to try and identify a ruthless trainbomber before they strike again and obliterate the whole of Chicago with their big ol’ dirty bomb. And it was… fine. 

Here ends my review.

Here begins the small rant following on from said review. This film was simply…  fine. I was never bored (and I managed to have a little nap during Black Swan, so I do bore fairly easily), but the film was nowhere near as good as it should have been. The script sounded like a first draft, not a bad first draft, but not a finished, polished, honed, perfected piece of work. Many of the plot-holes could so easily have been ironed out during the editing process, if anyone had thought to try. The tension of finding the bomber could have been ratcheted up, by drawing out the characters on the train and making us wonder whodunnit, rather than rattling through a handful of unrelated false starts before walking right into the bomber with little or no preamble. The inate humour in Gyllenhaal’s character’s mini Groundhog Day could have given the whole film more variety in tone, if anyone had thought to suggest even a single joke.

The failure wasn’t in the premise. Clearly the premise – and specifically the “scientific” explanation of the premise, which can broadly be summarised as dead people remember the last 8 minutes of their lives, so if you find another recently dead person you can send them back into those 8 minutes to see what went on, is twaddle of the highest order. But a twaddley premise does not necessarily make for a twaddley film. The premise behind Back to the Future – if you hit 88 miles per hour you travel in time, cos of the flux thingummy; look stop asking questions, it just works– is twaddle, but the movie, itself, is a thing of near perfection.

The problem wasn’t in the budget either. The special effects looked good. Mr Gyllenhaal himself, presumably doesn’t come cheap. All those boxes were ticked perfectly adequately.

The problem with Source Code wasn’t the premise or the money, it was the lack of care and attention involved in making the actual film. It was a movie that felt like a flea-bitten kitten sheltering under a parked car from a storm – ultimately the kitten will retain an element of kitteny cuteness, but you can’t avoid the impression that nobody really loves it. This was an unloved kitten of a film. It seemed that nobody had bothered to lavish upon it anything beyond the level of care that was absolutely required to claim their paycheque. People decided that “fine” was good enough, and I paid money to watch the outcome, which ultimately means they were right.

And that makes me cross. Surely, if it’s worth spending the amounts of money studios lay out making films, it’s worth spending a little bit of creativity making them good. If you’re going to make something for other people to enjoy, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t make it as good as possible. And, sure, if you aim for greatness, you will very often fail, but you will end up with much better results than if you never aim for more than fine. “Good enough” just shouldn’t be good enough.