Notes on ‘Health Reform’ to DC writers, directors, and producers:
I know you’ve put part of a whole year’s work into this, but sorry – there’s no way it’s going to be worth the price of admission. Here’s a critique with some fresh ideas at the end. Let’s do lunch soon. – Best!
Characters are weak. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) announced yesterday that he would vote for passage on nationalization of health care, playing a leading role in a soap-opera delivering all the drama of a first year community college acting class. “I’ve always supported health care reform,” he said in a statement shortly before the vote.
Looks staged. Hollywood was shooting film outside and taking notes, desperately seeking scenes that hadn’t already been done. Insiders made a few extra moves they thought would look good in a made-for-TV movie – but you know what amateurs politicians are – no sense of the audience, they play to themselves and each other. Elements of the MSM, entertainment industry affiliates, tried to create racial tension for exploitation. Not good!
Dry. A single issue stood in the way of Bart Stupak’s support. Seems dramatic, but then he gives his support with no actual changes to the bill. Behind-closed-doors deal-making leaves a big empty spot, or is it meant to open the door to “based on real events†artistic license? Maintaining character consistency, perhaps Barack Obama says something like, “Trust me. I’ll make sure there’s no new federal spending on abortion before the bill goes into effect,†and then nodding to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “Make sure states are required to pay double for that.†Laughter fills the room as Bart Stupak provides a dry Washington version of comic relief. “I didn’t hear that, Mr. President.â€Â
Yes, dry. Really dry. Dry as a bone dry. There’s nothing new in the script. Pushing the broad fundamental issues aside by focusing down to a single divisive issue and using it in a symbolic but meaningless deal at the last minute doesn’t provide dramatic twist with an uplifting ending. It’s been done to death in box-office losers. I thought this was 101. It only works with audiences when there’s the added dimension of a pure-of-heart hero battling against it. And the race thing – oh, come on! It’s so 1950s to begin with and too much of a stretch to try to link racism with support for the US Constitution. These are ideas that shouldn’t have made it out of the first brainstorming session.
A big issue with the current version is that it’s related to real events that are familiar to far too many people; so you very easily slip into a problem that is better-known to sci-fi fans and directors. When the science is wrong, people notice, and it just looks stupid. There’s no way to suspend disbelief to allow even a temporary sense of reality, and that’s no fun, it’s just dweeby. Right now it’s pretty much all like Bart Stupak’s announcement that he got a critical deal on the bill that isn’t being changed; things that don’t make sense and won’t play well to human emotions. Maybe it’s a matter of preference, but I’m just not interested in America’s Stupidest Political Bloopers with boing sounds in the background and all that.
If you want heroism, you need to stop slapping lipstick on pigs. Think Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Lord of the Rings, and so many others – they all had something in common. Repeating a fundamental point: The popular heroes battle against out-of-control power, corruption, and oppression. I mean, what do you want to do; rewrite Star Wars with The Empire representing good and Darth Vader as the hero? Were Luke and Leia racists? Those religious fanatical Jedi did seem to have a problem with clones. Maybe you can do something with that. No – I’m kidding! But seriously, what’s this with Republicans verses Democrats? Where are the good guys? There’s no hook into hope in the face of adversity. Were you thinking Phoenix: symbolic salvation in a final apocolyptic collapse? A tragedy where everybody dies in the end? Let’s put those thoughts on the back burner for now.
Take a fresh look at the real events material. There’s no way to shrug off the strange feelings evoked by Michigan voters sending a Constitution-busting socialist to the US House of Representatives. The feeling is intense because obviously he’s not alone there. I’m left wondering why we bothered with the American Revolution in the first place. Was it merely that Marx and Engels hadn’t written the Manifesto yet? It creates a strong sense of incompleteness that this aspect of the story is not explored. It’s an open question and an issue that needs closure even if it takes a sequel.
Side note: A socially conservative Constitution-busting socialist? Did somebody send a resume to South Park? That’s a pretty bizarre character that simply seems to distract from the main story. Don’t you think it also raises questions? When would you get around to answering those?
Think big picture. If you block out all the fundamental issues, you miss the epic that’s unfolding in the real world, the one people know about; religion all but forced under-ground, adopting Europe’s problems as rapidly as possible – not solving them but simply using them to build and maintain central control, and well on our way to “global governance.†The “American dream†is quite literally and rapidly being crushed out of existence. This is big stuff, dramatic stuff, and the first cut missed it completely.
Because of the obvious ties with Soviet and other history, the concept crosses time as well as plenty of geography. You know what that means. Epic! Epic! Epic! It could become a timeless classic if you get the focus right – but you’re not there yet. I strongly recommend a start-from-scratch rewrite. And get a hero for cryin’ out loud.
