Tim Burton's The Lottery

Ok, ever since we read Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" some odd weeks back as a part of our Potpourri (??) unit, I have been obsessed with talking about my feature-length film adaption that I'm going to make someday, with the one and only Tim Burton as director.  So, naturally, when I was told that our blogging assignment for the week was to do just that, I jumped for joy!  I have some really big ideas for this future critical and commercial success, and the movie will certainly feature an all-star cast of some of Hollywood's biggest names (and Tim's customary collaborators).  With myself as producer, and Richard Zanuck (Jaws, Driving Miss Daisy) as co-producer, there really is no way this project could possibly go south.

Plot

A box like this one, only more ominous.

Unlike previous feature-length adaptions of the work, my film version of "The Lottery" will focus primarily on the lottery itself, its origins, and its dominance over the culture and lives of the people in the 'civilized' town.  The script, written by John August (Minority Report, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Corpse Bride), will center around Joe Summers as he prepares for the infamous June 27th drawing.  Because the story will need some obvious padding (the 1969 educational short read the dialogue verbatim and only lasted 18 minutes), I'm alright with taking some artistic liberties and extending the story with trivial yet exciting side stories.  The surprise ending, the true nature of the lottery, still won't be revealed until the end, and no indication will be made in the trailer (I'm thinking a 60-second zoom in on the solitary black box sitting on its stool while increasingly suspenseful lines from the movie are said and accompanied by creepy crescendoing music, culminating with the box taking up the whole screen and Tessie's "It isn't fair, it isn't right!" abruptly cutting off the sound and background noise; then, the two words "The Lottery" appear, with the release date inauspiciously hovering beneath them) or in the movie itself aside from the classic foreshadowing elements.  The meaning of the work will be left intact, and any attempts to expand the plot will be purely commercial, and will simply add meaningful screen time for our stars (see Characterization).

Point of View
Ah, yes, point of view.  There's not a whole lot to say here, except that I would like to keep in step with what the short story does in terms of narration.  The narrator is detached, unemotional, and delivers the most crucial lines of the work ("A stone hit her on the side of the head.") with unwavering monotone.  Naturally, Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption, Invictus, Million Dollar Baby, ad infinitum) will narrate The Lottery.  Although the narration will retain its third-person dramatic point of view, points of omniscience and subjectivity will be thrown in when describing more fully in depth the job and life of Joe Summers.  A major part of the effectiveness of "The Lottery" is the delivery of its narration; so, in creating The Lottery, the largest weight carried on the acting front must be held by Freeman.  His performance will dictate the success of the movie.  And to be honest, I wouldn't rather it be any other man.

Characterization
An intense and deep discussion of the characterization in The Lottery wouldn't be complete without casting the entire movie full of big hit A-listers, and I will certainly do that, but first, a general note.  Obviously, by turning an 18-minute short story into a feature-length movie, I will have plenty more time to develop characterization than in the original work.  I think this is a good thing, especially on the parts of the Adams family (who first question the lottery), Joe Summers, the Hutchinson family, and others.  However, while adding characterization to the villagers, it will be important to maintain believability in their actions at the end of the story.  Relying heavily on typecast actors, I intend for the audience to feel the dark indirect characterization from the moment specific actors make their first appearance on screen.  Alright, and so we begin:

Mr. Joe Summers
Played by Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean series, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Alice in Wonderland) -- The 'main' character (there really isn't one per se; he'll just receive the most face time), Joe Summers is the caretaker of the lottery and takes care of all the formalities still in place.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but is certainly a driving force behind the continuation of the lottery and in the (ironic) modernization of the process.

Mrs. 'Tessie' Hutchinson
Played by Helena Bonham Carter (Fight Club, Harry Potter series, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street) -- Although the audience may think nothing of her when she first shows up late to the lottery, they soon discover the grave importance of her character when she is chosen as the not-so-lucky winner.

Mr. Bill Hutchinson
Played by Michael Keaton (Beetlejuice, Batman series, Toy Story 3) -- The husband of Tessie, Bill plays his part in the lottery by staying calm and collected, even as his family is picked to take their second time around in the drawing.

Mr. and Mrs. Adams
Played by Will Smith (Men in Black series, I, Robot, I Am Legend) and Jada Pinkett Smith (The Nutty Professor, The Matrix series, Will Smith's wife!) -- Mr. and Mrs. Adams hold important parts in The Lottery.  As the first ones to suggest that the lottery may not have to exist, they can be seen as the (slight) heroes in the story.  The casting of the two is also significant; Will Smith, typecast as a hero in virtually every film he's in, will immediately be recognized as a "good" character in a cast of villains.  Also, by placing his real-life wife Jada Pinkett Smith alongside him, both being figureheads as strong, successful black actors, the audience will be left to ponder how racial equality could be attained in a centuries old village (see Setting), but not the knowledge to end a barbaric yet customary stoning ritual.

Old Man Warner
Played by Sir Christopher Lee (The Wicker Man, Star Wars series, The Lord of the Rings trilogy) -- The first of many "villain" characters, Old Man Warner is probably the worst.  Although it is technically Joe Summers' job to keep the lottery going, Warner plays a large part by constantly reminding those around him of how far back the lottery goes.  Lee, typecast almost exclusively as an antagonist, is old enough to play Warner, yet superb enough in his acting ability to convey senility.

Mr. Harry Graves
Played by Alan Rickman (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Harry Potter series) -- The mysterious postmaster who swears Joe Summers in at the beginning of the ritual, Harry Graves has a lot of power.  An obvious symbol of death (his last name is 'Graves' for Pete's sake) in the short story, it helps that Rickman is known for playing nefarious roles.

The rest of the characters, though certainly important, do not benefit from having specific actors portray their parts.  In keeping with Tim Burton's style, several of his favorites will make cameos and play smaller stints, and almost every villager will be played by actors who have at least made appearances as corrupt, culpable, or downright crooked characters.  Some who I'd like to see:

Jeffrey Jones (Mr. Martin, perhaps?)

Danny DeVito (Not so sure about this one...)

Jack Nicholson

Tilda Swinton

Michelle Pfeiffer

Charlize Theron or Uma Thurman
(But not both; I don't want to confuse the audience!)

Elena Anaya

Sir Anthony Hopkins

Quentin Tarantino

Christopher Walken

And various others, of course!

Setting
Now, I don't know if it's the biased created from the 1969 short or what, but everyone seems to have in their mind this ultra-modern setting for "The Lottery".  As far as I can see, there is no statement within the story of a time period, and other than mention of a post office, a bank, and summer vacation, there really is no indication that "The Lottery" is set in the alternate present whatsoever.  If I'm completely wrong here, then we're just going to chalk this one up to creative license, because when I first read the word village in the second sentence of the work, I immediately had images in my mind of, well, The Village.  As it turns out, I wasn't too far from the truth in terms of twisted ending.  Anyways, I've decided that The Lottery will take place in a similar, yet slightly more innovated, 19th-century town, and I find this acceptable for two reasons.  First, I can still include both a post office and a bank; these were around during that time and would fit in perfectly.  Secondly, this flows more easily with Tim Burton's style, and I can easily see the resulting work being a slower-paced clash between The Village and Sweeney Todd.  With Colleen Atwood (Sleepy Hollow, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street) on costumes and Bo Welch (Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns) as production designer imagining and building the set, I'll really be able to convey this sense of savagery meeting civilized world.

Theme
When it comes to the theme of "The Lottery" transposed into The Lottery, I am willing to make marginal sacrifices of the meaning of the work to ensure bigger ticket sales and better box office numbers (which is ironic, considering how I just wrote a paper stating that such sacrifices may lead to less commercial success), though with the ridiculously superior cast currently chosen, I'm pretty sure everyone in the developed world will be seeing this movie.  Even so, I don't think I've changed anything drastically regarding the theme.  The shock of the ending will still be present, yet plenty of foreshadowing will occur throughout the film, as it does in Shirley Jackson's original short story.  In order to get an overall picture of what the feature will look like, simply examine the numerous movies given parenthetically as the cast and crew's past endeavors, and extract similarities.  Many of the movies appear in numerous résumés of my chosen team, and the tones of these movies are usually very much alike; naturally, The Lottery will follow suite.  Basically, now that I've spent all this time planning out my vision, I need to see this happen.  Let me rephrase: My life will not be complete until the feature-length film version of "The Lottery" is created while simultaneously fitting the specifications described above.

Alright, let's do this.

Based on a Short Story by Stephen King

Plot
For the most part, I was really impressed with how well the movie plot stuck to the plot of the short story.  The biggest (and most crucial) aspects of the story remained constant: same major characters, Andy still broke out of jail and Red was still released, and almost all of the tangent stories Red narrates in the book are included in the movie, with the ever-so-soothing voice of Morgan Freeman to retell them.  With this being said, some differences still arose.  The first we are made aware of is that Norton is the warden from the start of the movie, as opposed to coming into the prison halfway through the story as in the book.  This is understandable for simplicity's sake, and nothing is truly lost as a result.  Another difference is that in the movie the alternate identity Andy has made for himself, Peter Stephens, was created to cover the Warden's tracks, and ends up being used to steal all of the Warden's money.  In the book, however, Andy's money is earned separate from Norton's, and Andy never takes the Warden's money.  Lastly, in classic Hollywood style, three characters meet demises unlike their literary counterparts.  Tommy Williams is shot by the guards (instead of being transferred), Brooks the librarian hangs himself (instead of dying naturally), and Warden Norton shoots himself (instead of simply resigning).  For a semi-accurate synopsis and hearty chuckle, watch Family Guy's Shawshank Redemption Parody.  It was a little too inappropriate to embed...viewer discretion is advised!

Point of View
I didn't really see any drastic changes in POV from the book to the movie.  In the book, the narration is first-person singular, and the story is told through Red's perspective.  In a movie it's difficult to show first-person all the time, but the story is still narrated by Red and he features prominently in the movie.  The only character whose thoughts we are able to take into consideration are Red's, and his interactions with the other inmates define what we as the reader are able to take away from the movie.  There are few occasions where Red is neither present in the situation nor explaining what is happening on screen.  For instance, when the Warden takes Tommy Williams outside to ask him whether or not he'd testify for Andy and is subsequently shot for unsuspectingly saying yes.  There is a correlation between this scene not being described by Red and it also not being included in the original short story.  This is because the entire work is narrated by Red in first-person, and it simply wouldn't make sense for Red to truly know what happened to Tommy.  As a reader, I'm really smart for picking up on this.

Characterization
Although the movie left out certain minor characters who were in the book, this is not the most significant change in the way characterization presents itself in the movie compared to the book.  For me, the biggest change was the role of the character Brooks.  In the book, Brooks is briefly mentioned as Andy's predecessor in the library, the man who delivered books to the inmates before Andy arrived and became his apprentice.  In the movie, though, Brooks takes on a whole new persona.  He is first introduced Andy's first day in the prison, and feeds a maggot that was found in Andy's lunch to a pet crow that he keeps in his coat pocket.  Through much more detail and characterization, Brooks becomes a vital part of the Shawshank gang until he leaves in a dramatic fury involving attempted slicing of Heywood's throat (upon receiving his parole letter, Brooks thought killing Heywood was the only way to stay in Shawshank).  He hangs himself in a halfway house very soon after being released.  I enjoyed the added character depth given to Brooks, because usually characterization takes a backseat in movies, instead of vice versa.

Setting
As in the book, almost the entirety of the movie takes place in 'Shawshank Prison', located in Maine as a state prison.  The actual prison used in the film, however, is the Ohio State Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio.  I liked the prison they used, too (as did my fellow moviegoer, Alix), because it had an older feel and definitely seemed enclosed and shut off from the world.  Not much changed during the transfer from book to movie, and it was easier to visualize the setting when I could see it for myself on screen.  It was almost disturbing at times, like when Andy crawls through a half-mile of sewage (puking on himself, mind you) to reach freedom in a small stream as rain and thunder crashes down.  The final scene, which is alluded to in the book but not stated outright, finds the two men reunited on the beach of the Pacific fixing up an old boat.  This scene fit right along with what I imagined for the book's setting, and goes back to one of the final lines in the story, expressed by Red, "I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams."

Theme
Because the movie followed so close to the book's plot, characters, point of view, and setting, it naturally follows that the same theme was conveyed through the Hollywood adaption of King's classic.  The one difference I could elaborate on is the character who received the central focus in the movie when it comes to theme.  As I said in my short story blog regarding the theme, Red was the main character who used Andy Dufrense as a launching pad for his own personal revelations on life and hope.  This meaning is harder to find in the movie, because even though Red still narrates the story, it is difficult to ignore the fact that all of the major action revolves around Andy.  The viewer is immediately drawn to his plight (an innocent man wrongly mistreated in a corrupt correctional facility) and makes the connection that he is the main character.  Andy's growth as a character is what is seen in the movie, and Red's narration serves as more of an outside passerby's look into Andy's life.  Because of this, I believe the filmmaker missed the mark when it came to the 'meaning of the work'.  Despite this, I still enjoyed the movie and respect its place as a classic in the hearts of countless American ex-convicts.

U.G.L.Y. You Ain't Got No Alibi

This story, "You're Ugly, Too", by Lorrie Moore was in my opinion the hardest of the week to get.  The main character, Zoe Hendricks, is likable enough, and her crazy antics as a history professor reminded me of Mrs. Helbing and her style as a teacher.  It also kind of made me want to be that crazy professor when I grow up; that would be fun.  During the entirety of the story, Zoe satirizes and jokes about her life and those in it, at the expense of her sanity.  She loses a man she potentially had a connection with when she jokingly tries to push him off of a twenty-story balcony.  That part was a little confusing to me.  When searching for meaning within this story, I kept coming back to Zoe's insecurities about the way she looks.  The narrator at one point mentions her as always being on the fringe of almost pretty.  The final line has Zoe wondering how she looks, and all the in between parts make subtle references to beauty: Heidi (whoever she is), the black witches, the women who men flirt with in front of her, etc.  Just a very confusing piece as a whole for me.  I really look forward to clarifying some of it in class, and will probably read others' blogs to scrap up some other thoughts and opinions.

Mine

As you may have noticed, I named this blog entry 'Mine'.  This is with good reason.  You see, it is the proper name for the short (short) story we read regarding style titled Popular Mechanics.  Raymond Carver, the author, first called his work 'Mine', only to change it to 'Little Things', and then once more to the aforementioned 'Popular Mechanics'.  There's not much in this world I can stand less than an indecisive writer.  Anyways, I like 'Mine' best.

When I first read this story, I was disturbed (this is turning out to be the norm in this class).  I also immediately thought of the Bible story that is largely alluded to at the end of 'Popular Mechanics' (question #7 tells me it's in I Kings 3).  Essentially, two women come in front of Solomon both claiming that a baby is theirs.  After a long argument, Solomon makes the simple suggestion that the baby be split in half and each half given to a supposed mother.  The true mother, putting the life of her child in front of her selfish wants, crys foul on this idea and instead insists on the other woman taking the baby, thus proving to Solomon that she is the baby's mother.  It's all real cutesy and stuff, unfortunately for the baby in our story, though, I'm fairly certain that he (or she?) may have actually gotten ripped in half.

"In this manner, the issue was decided." -- ¶ 36

Whoops :\

A Son: Your Own Personal AA Meeting

Note: I suggest listening to "I Saw Three Ships" (15 on the player) while reading this post.  Makes it all so much more relevant.

Another good story this week.  I liked The Drunkard because the author (as well as the story's setting) is Irish and, well, I'm Irish and when you're Irish you love everything Irish (Go Irish!).  And it was funny; that's always a plus.

#4. Is the title seriously meant? To whom does it refer?

The title is seriously meant.  It refers to both the father and the son.  The son is indeed a drunkard in the sense that he drank his father's whole pint and spends the rest of the story completely smashed.  Through the use of this humor, the greater significance (the more serious significance, as it were) is highlighted when the reader realizes that the title simultaneously refers to the true drunkard of the story, the father.  We see a glimpse in the final paragraphs of the story of the remediation of his alcoholic ways, though, at the hands of his (ironically) drunkard son.

Not Your Typical Powerball

Ok, I might as well be honest and get this right out.  I loved this story.  The Lottery was my favorite work we've read all year, and I'm not really sure why.  It was just so twisted!  I've already decided I'm directing the first full-length feature film production of it, and my first directorial choice is to cast Helena Bonham Carter as Tessie Hutchinson.  Oh yes.  It will be a wonderful adaption of Shirley Jackson's short story into an M. Night Shyamalan-esque thriller, like The Village.  While I'm at talking about the actual story, I might as well answer a question, no?

#1. What is a "lottery"? How does the title lead you to expect something very different from what the story presents?

When I read the title of this story, I, as I assume most do, took it to mean a lotto.  You know, a bunch of people buy-in to a certain dollar amount and one lucky winner gets the jackpot.  As we find out later in the story, this is hardly the case.  To me, the word lottery carried with it a sense of risk and uncertainty, as it also does in the story; however, it also always had a positive connotation with it.  I mean, who doesn't want to chance themselves into winning a big payout?  This is the inconsistency in the connection between the story and its title.  There is no positive connotation.  The winner gets stoned to death.

I think I'm gonna cut if off there.  I could seriously talk about this story for hours.