I suspect that this, at the end of the day, qualifies as a rant. But it's a rant about writing, so I think this makes for an acceptable blog post. Comment if you think it doesn't.
What's really frustrating with all of these cliches is the way that they've sunk into the mass mind and inflected everyone's view of reality. To a certain degree the writers in Hollyweird are probably affected by this too - hence the persistence of the cliches. But there's certainly a deliberate ideological component to this.
There are other frustrating cliches.
Homer Simpson: the stupid, incompetent white father, who would be utterly helpless without his long-suffering wife.
Virtuous Diversity: if there's a black woman on the screen, you know she'll be the smartest, savviest, most competent, and most ethical character. If it's a murder mystery, she's definitely innocent.
Interracial relationships: despite being very uncommon, black man/white women pairings are depicted at a rate that would make you think it's the norm. Recently black women must have started making noise about being erased, and the writers seem to have responded by showing lots of white man/black women pairings ... which are vanishingly rare in the real world. Aside from giving people a false idea of reality, this also leads to poor acting, since the chemistry in these screen couples is usually abysmal.
Which is amusing, because I saw at least one person on social media trying to tell me how "there are not black man white women pairings in movies." Though I must admit, I've noticed that ads seem to be very focused on quotas... and if I've noticed, it's being dealt with a sledge hammer.
Sounds like your interlocutor on social media was engaged in motivated reasoning. I've had total normies remark to me about the surge in interracial pairings in entertainment media over the last few years. It's far from subtle; the only way not to see it is to refuse to see it.
You're correct and it's very tiresome. We've been watching all 200 Agatha Christie film adaptations for a project and we see some of the same things. The more modern the adaptation, the more likely Agatha is twisted and similar clichés introduced. Evil nuns anyone?
It's been a lot of fun. We never know what to expect. Some adaptations are much better than the general consensus (The Man in the Brown Suit (1989); others are truly dreadful. Sometimes the changes work. Sometimes, they don't.
The adaptations, even the bad ones, keep Agatha Christie in the public eye. When writers die and their works fall out of print, they disappear. A prime example is Dorothy Sayers. She has no family to shepherd her literary estate. An agency owns her and they do nothing. Think the phrase: Murder at Downton Abbey. That's how I'd sell Lord Peter Wimsey.
A gold mine like that and the literary agency does nothing.
I'm reviewing as we go. We'll publish the reviews as a book; the only one dedicated to Agatha Christie films where someone (us!) actually watched them all.
I'll give SOME of the Christie adaptations a pass. On certain things.
The Suchet version of Orient Express pissed me right the Hell off. I preferred Branaugh, even with the race swap--they at least gave a sort of explanation for the changes within the time period. I even preferred Albert Finney's version, though that's largely for the cast.
I'm worried about Death on the Nile, since some of the changes I heard about sound simply... stupid.
We have to watch ALL the adaptations (200 or so in English) so I'm watching David Suchet's!
We just saw the 2001 Alfred Molina version and it was much better than expected. Mistakes as always, particularly wardrobe making Molina's Poirot into a cut-rate Columbo AND the script giving him a chance to discuss his ethics and then not circling back to ethics and moral fiber at the conclusion. Other script choices could be debated.
Each adaptation, even the bad ones, keeps Agatha in the public eye. Adaptations that I thought were terrible (David Walliam's version of "N or M" have their fans, including my local librarian. She loved it. You just don't know what people will like.
Anyway, as per James M. Cain who should know, the adaptations don't affect the novels. They're still on the shelf.
What I'd like to see is Agatha given more credit for her writing. She's not a cozy writer. Some novels seethe with passion. She plays with narrative structure. She does a lot and rewards careful reading.
Watching the adaptions is a fun project. You just never know what will work until afterwards. Miss Marple in The Pale Horse? Why yes!
Absolute FIRE. The only way to kill these cliches is to figuratively murder them outright - write them into the story, then turn them inside out. By using and subverting the left's cliches, we win.
In the movie Arrival one of the soldiers took it upon himself to commit terrorism and the Chekov's gun that he would be up for something like that was his right wing room decorations (and I think lingering camera shots and ominous music? Only watched it once).
Weirdly enough it was presented as if it was a surprise twist when he finally did do the bad thing and reveal he was evil. But it was a hollywood movie, starring hollywood actors, made by a hollywood studio. Seeing a right-wing character at all, anyone even half paying attention would have assumed he was going to do a bad thing. An actual twist would have been him stopping a terrorist and saving Amy Adams character so she could do the thing that fixed everything. I know, I know, a guy saving a girl, eek gasp.
I'm rereading all the St. Tommy books (okay, re re re re re - you get the point) and I just finished Destiny. There are two specific references Tommy makes regarding 'the sociopath with a medical degree' the Pope has working at the Vatican. Are those snarky references to Fr. Frank? And is he ever going to appear again? Just curious. I guess I'll start rereading White Ops because why not?
It's actually a reference to my Love at First Bite series.... which I would link to it, but it was part of Silver Empire's fall. Currently waiting on Three Ravens to republish.
And that is the ones series I haven't read yet. I don't know why. I like,e everything else you've written. I don't know what my hangup is. Need to get over it.
Speaking of the UK and gays: it's been a Thing for quite a while. I remember 1966, when either Mike Douglas or Merv Griffin was interviewing Brian Bedford about his appearance in the just-released film "Grand Prix." Bedford commented on the international cast and what they bring to the ambiance, and added, "And I provide Britain's contribution, which is homosexuality."
As for the whitewashed groups . . . I assume it's all a matter of "God forbid any of these people feel insulted and sue us." Even apart from lack of originality.
Other cliches that must die:
The only kid. Most families in real life have 2-4. Though I'd like to more familes of 4+
The dysfunctional family.: can we quit it and show the proper dynamics
The worldwise kid. Yeah right. As if some 10 year old has accumulated more wisdom than a 30-80 year old
That's enough for now
xavier
I suspect the broken families are personal experience of the Holly weirdos.
I'm a kid from a dysfunctional family that married an only. Cliche to the max. And his family turned out to have issues also.
Well done Declan. Should be mandatory reading in Hollywood AND Academia.
Declan, this is a magnificent essay. Thank you, Moses
What's really frustrating with all of these cliches is the way that they've sunk into the mass mind and inflected everyone's view of reality. To a certain degree the writers in Hollyweird are probably affected by this too - hence the persistence of the cliches. But there's certainly a deliberate ideological component to this.
There are other frustrating cliches.
Homer Simpson: the stupid, incompetent white father, who would be utterly helpless without his long-suffering wife.
Virtuous Diversity: if there's a black woman on the screen, you know she'll be the smartest, savviest, most competent, and most ethical character. If it's a murder mystery, she's definitely innocent.
Interracial relationships: despite being very uncommon, black man/white women pairings are depicted at a rate that would make you think it's the norm. Recently black women must have started making noise about being erased, and the writers seem to have responded by showing lots of white man/black women pairings ... which are vanishingly rare in the real world. Aside from giving people a false idea of reality, this also leads to poor acting, since the chemistry in these screen couples is usually abysmal.
Which is amusing, because I saw at least one person on social media trying to tell me how "there are not black man white women pairings in movies." Though I must admit, I've noticed that ads seem to be very focused on quotas... and if I've noticed, it's being dealt with a sledge hammer.
Sounds like your interlocutor on social media was engaged in motivated reasoning. I've had total normies remark to me about the surge in interracial pairings in entertainment media over the last few years. It's far from subtle; the only way not to see it is to refuse to see it.
You're correct and it's very tiresome. We've been watching all 200 Agatha Christie film adaptations for a project and we see some of the same things. The more modern the adaptation, the more likely Agatha is twisted and similar clichés introduced. Evil nuns anyone?
Wow fantastic project! At least the subject is interesting; but the results may be disheartening, to see art exchanged for propaganda.
It's been a lot of fun. We never know what to expect. Some adaptations are much better than the general consensus (The Man in the Brown Suit (1989); others are truly dreadful. Sometimes the changes work. Sometimes, they don't.
The adaptations, even the bad ones, keep Agatha Christie in the public eye. When writers die and their works fall out of print, they disappear. A prime example is Dorothy Sayers. She has no family to shepherd her literary estate. An agency owns her and they do nothing. Think the phrase: Murder at Downton Abbey. That's how I'd sell Lord Peter Wimsey.
A gold mine like that and the literary agency does nothing.
I'm reviewing as we go. We'll publish the reviews as a book; the only one dedicated to Agatha Christie films where someone (us!) actually watched them all.
I'll give SOME of the Christie adaptations a pass. On certain things.
The Suchet version of Orient Express pissed me right the Hell off. I preferred Branaugh, even with the race swap--they at least gave a sort of explanation for the changes within the time period. I even preferred Albert Finney's version, though that's largely for the cast.
I'm worried about Death on the Nile, since some of the changes I heard about sound simply... stupid.
We have to watch ALL the adaptations (200 or so in English) so I'm watching David Suchet's!
We just saw the 2001 Alfred Molina version and it was much better than expected. Mistakes as always, particularly wardrobe making Molina's Poirot into a cut-rate Columbo AND the script giving him a chance to discuss his ethics and then not circling back to ethics and moral fiber at the conclusion. Other script choices could be debated.
Each adaptation, even the bad ones, keeps Agatha in the public eye. Adaptations that I thought were terrible (David Walliam's version of "N or M" have their fans, including my local librarian. She loved it. You just don't know what people will like.
Anyway, as per James M. Cain who should know, the adaptations don't affect the novels. They're still on the shelf.
What I'd like to see is Agatha given more credit for her writing. She's not a cozy writer. Some novels seethe with passion. She plays with narrative structure. She does a lot and rewards careful reading.
Watching the adaptions is a fun project. You just never know what will work until afterwards. Miss Marple in The Pale Horse? Why yes!
Absolute FIRE. The only way to kill these cliches is to figuratively murder them outright - write them into the story, then turn them inside out. By using and subverting the left's cliches, we win.
I will admit, I tried.
Never surrender.
Thank you! That was so clear and laid (layed?*) things out in such a concise to the point manner.
And as this is YOUR blog you can rant all you want. : )
*<not the english major here, just sayin'>
I think it's laid.
Thanks.
This is sooo right! Other than people outrunning fireballs from exploding buildings, I think you hit my Top Ten List of Cliches on every point.
I give the fireballs a pass because it's a cool effect.
Practical tip--- before throwing a book at the wall, make sure you are not reading on a Kindle.
Mercifully I haven't done that... yet.
In the movie Arrival one of the soldiers took it upon himself to commit terrorism and the Chekov's gun that he would be up for something like that was his right wing room decorations (and I think lingering camera shots and ominous music? Only watched it once).
Weirdly enough it was presented as if it was a surprise twist when he finally did do the bad thing and reveal he was evil. But it was a hollywood movie, starring hollywood actors, made by a hollywood studio. Seeing a right-wing character at all, anyone even half paying attention would have assumed he was going to do a bad thing. An actual twist would have been him stopping a terrorist and saving Amy Adams character so she could do the thing that fixed everything. I know, I know, a guy saving a girl, eek gasp.
I'm rereading all the St. Tommy books (okay, re re re re re - you get the point) and I just finished Destiny. There are two specific references Tommy makes regarding 'the sociopath with a medical degree' the Pope has working at the Vatican. Are those snarky references to Fr. Frank? And is he ever going to appear again? Just curious. I guess I'll start rereading White Ops because why not?
It's actually a reference to my Love at First Bite series.... which I would link to it, but it was part of Silver Empire's fall. Currently waiting on Three Ravens to republish.
And that is the ones series I haven't read yet. I don't know why. I like,e everything else you've written. I don't know what my hangup is. Need to get over it.
Speaking of the UK and gays: it's been a Thing for quite a while. I remember 1966, when either Mike Douglas or Merv Griffin was interviewing Brian Bedford about his appearance in the just-released film "Grand Prix." Bedford commented on the international cast and what they bring to the ambiance, and added, "And I provide Britain's contribution, which is homosexuality."
As for the whitewashed groups . . . I assume it's all a matter of "God forbid any of these people feel insulted and sue us." Even apart from lack of originality.
Your category error is in assuming these are cliche.
They are not. They are propaganda. Truth and decent writer are of far less importance than mass conditioning.
Hey, even I have defended the Spanish Inquistion
Witch burnings - mostly protestants and mostly hangings.
Insane Vietnam or other vets. - the VN vets I know tend to be saner than most.
Scientists as either mad or rebels
The magic pixie dream girl -'huff said.