"Priest" - My Thoughts

I'm going to take a time out from posting stories for a moment (for I have none to post...) to discuss a film that comes out today, "Priest".

I haven't seen "Priest" and I don't intend to, so this should all be taken with a grain of salt, but from what I've heard the film isn't all that great.  This is of great disappointment to me for several reasons, but mostly because I read an early version of the script when they were casting the Cam Gigandet role, and I loved it.  I have nothing against the casting of Mr. Gigandet, but a client of ours (I was working for a management company at the time) was also reading for the role and frankly (I'm biased because I love this guy) he was (is) amazing, and brought a whole different level of depth as opposed to what the character seems to have become.  And that is a microcosm of what I believe happened to "Priest."  Most of the promise was ripped away in favor of the flashy, high gloss nothingness, that happens to genre films when studios are trying to appeal to a mass audience (the four quadrants, if you will).  I believe this way of thinking to be incredibly flawed.


Historically genre films have a smaller audience and make less money than romantic comedies, or straight action films, but there are many exceptions.  Why does the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy work so well?  Realistic, identifiable characters that tread deeply into the heart of the story that is being told.  They are affected on an emotional level to what is going on around them and there is a connection between the progression of the story and the characters journey.  Thus, in turn, the audience relates and is affected just as deeply.  You could bring up a whole slew of genre films that have gone on to become classics and I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the highest grossing films are sci-fi/fantasy.  When it's done right, there is nothing better. When it's done wrong (ahem..."Battlefield Earth"), there is nothing worse.

You can debate what makes a genre film.  There are films clearly targeted to a smaller (or niche) audience, but as "geek culture" becomes less geek and more mainstream, things have become rather lumped together.  There is a huge risk reward thing going on here that the studios seem to bank on time and time again.  To minimize the risk (and likewise, the reward) they fill a genre film (I equate genre with fantasy/sci-fi/horror) with the bullet-points of what made the successful genre films successful, rather than filling them with the substance that made them classics.  What I mean by that is, if you've ever read a "How to Write a Screenplay" book, you'll find a general breakdown of what you need to write a script.  It's all very mathematical.  You can do this yourself, just take your favorite movie and create a graph of the events.  It will probably have 3 acts, a mid-point, rising and falling tension with every scene that all leads to a climax at the end of each act.  It's way more complicated, of course, but the main idea is that things lead to bigger things, which in turn lead to bigger things, etc.  Pixar is a master at this kind of storytelling.  Their efficiency is astounding and rather than detracting from depth, it increases it.  They manage to wind their characters journey with their stories progression seamlessly.  It generally starts with the main character making a choice (wrong usually, brought on by jealousy or some other emotion).  For the remainder of the story that character must realize he was wrong and strive to fix the mess that his initial choice created, along the way learning a very valuable lesson that speaks to a greater human truth.  Again, it's way more complicated because the characters are amazing, the world is fully fleshed out...everything works in harmony to create something better than the individual parts (like The Beatles...but I digress).

From the hundreds of scripts I've read (and I do mean hundreds...) the best at turning a bullet-pointed outline of a script into a work of excellent storytelling, is Lawrence (Larry) Kasdan.  If you were lucky enough to read the transcript of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Larry Kasdan discussing how they wanted "Raiders of the Lost Ark" to turn out, you'll see what I mean.  Lucas comes at the story with a surgical, mechanical approach.  I think he even states that he writes in a mathematical way.  He discusses how many action sequences he wants and how he determines where they'll go based on what comes before hand, character and history...everything, it's amazing.  Spielberg interjects here and there but it's clear his eye is more geared toward directing and the cool shots he can get.  The creativity and intelligence of Kasdan shines when you read the script he wrote after that meeting.  It's an amazingly fun read, but its got all the story, character, and heart that you could ever want.  It was a lesson in humility for me when I finally took the time to really look at how you write a story.  It's incredibly hard work, and it takes unbelievable patience, fortitude, research, creativity, and a grinding attitude to really get something of worth from your writing (or even finishing with something that's not complete garbage).  I still struggle with the time commitment and the detailing involved in writing before ever typing a sentence, but, in the end, it's totally worth it.  I read a quote from a famous writer (whose name I forget...I think it's wrongly attributed to Dan Brown, but I'm sure he's said it, too) that said, "I hate to write but I love to have written".  It's a slog, it's difficult and you can't just pick up a pen, or a computer and write something of worth, you need to be obsessed.  A lot of aspiring writers I know don't get that fact and think they can just write without all the hard work.  They've never finished anything of their own, for exactly the above reasons.  So, what I'm trying to say (poorly and with too many words) is that a bullet-pointed outline that has proven successful in the past is not a guarantee for success, a lot more goes into it.  You need passionate, intelligent, creative people across the board all trying to tell the best story that can be told.  With "Indy", that's what happened.  Everybody was on the same page, everyone was working towards making it the best it could possibly be, from writing, to casting, to producing, to production design, to directing.  My gut tells me that somewhere down the line, "Priest" stopped being a good script and instead became a machine driven to make money.

When I read the script (almost two years ago now), I loved it.  It was derivative, sure (an amalgam of "The Searchers", and "Vampire Hunter D") what isn't?  It had a heart all its own and was deeply rooted in the fantastic graphic novel that it came from.  Yet, even then I could see that it was leaning toward soullessness.  The characters were on the brink of becoming cardboard cutouts, the story moved too quickly from scene to scene without interjecting enough personality or depth.  Had the guy overseeing this film opted to go the route less traveled (that of the Pixar/"Raiders" route), it could have been something.  Having said all that, inherently it doesn't have the built in appeal of a Pixar film or of "Raiders", but people would have talked, and there would have been great word of mouth, and the film would have been a genuine hit.  It may still make a lot of money (I'm thinking it won't) but it won't be making as much as it could, or as much as that early version of the script promised, and it will be quickly forgotten.  And that makes me a bit sad.