In Memory of William Goldman

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"

That is, without hyperbole, one of the most beloved, quoted lines in cinematic history. When my friends presented a stage production of The Princess Bride for Kerstin and Vijay's wedding, nearly the entire room recited the line along with the actor portraying Inigo Montoya, the kidnapper, pirate, and thief who has defined his entire life around a quest for vengeance, and who has a surprisingly good heart. Think about the different layers in that characterization, and then take a moment to consider that Montoya isn't even the lead character of The Princess Bride. Many screenwriting gurus insist on keeping things as simple as possible, for fear of confusing or distracting an audience. William Goldman believed in creating rich characters with back stories so intriguing, one could almost imagine spin-off films for almost any supporting character in the movie.

One of my favorite books is Goldman's Which Lie Did I Tell?, an entertaining and insightful combination of autobiography and textbook. He devotes roughly a quarter of the book to examining some of his own films, and hoo boy is he hard on himself. He explains what he sees as each of the film's failings, where he went wrong, how, and why. Sometimes he blames himself, sometimes he blames circumstance or interference by actors, producers, or studios (although when he does the latter, he is surprisingly fair-minded towards the people he disagreed with). His analyses are so rational, so well-reasoned, that it's almost difficult to disagree with them, save for one thing: A lot of the movies that the box office and Goldman himself deem to be a failure are actually pretty damn good. So I will devote the bulk and remainder of this tribute by turning it into a rebuttal of some of Goldman's own examinations of his alleged cinematic "failures."

1. Memoirs of an Invisible Man: Goldman laments that star Chevy Chase, who seemed to act as an unofficial producer on the film, wanted to emphasize the non-comedic elements of the story, while the studio kept pushing for more laughs. Goldman found himself caught in between, in a situation where it was impossible to please everyone. From the results, I'd say this was a very rare case of the actor getting what he wanted despite contrary wishes of the studio. Chase, as Nick Holloway, a man who is accidentally exposed to an experimental form of radiation and becomes invisible, has a few comedic wise-cracks in the film, but the movie is mostly an action drama. The film is well-titled, because the narrative's primary focus is on how it feels for Holloway to deal with being invisible. Sometimes, Holloway can use his invisibility to his advantage, but most often, his situation proves to be one aggravation after another. Drivers and pedestrians can't see him, and are difficult to avoid as he walks down the street. Eating food leads to astoundingly unpleasant visuals of the food being digested. And so on. This used to be one of my favorite movies, and the only reason it's not on that list anymore, is because I've watched it too many times.

2. The Year of the Comet: This is a light-hearted romantic-comedy adventure that stars Penelope Ann Miller and Tim Daly as treasure seekers searching the globe for an elusive, priceless bottle of wine that has historical significance. Goldman "admits" to what he sees as the concept's biggest flaw: that the average movie-goer doesn't know or care about wine. I think this analysis is making two mistakes Goldman almost never makes at any other time: He's underestimating his audience, and he's missing the point of his own film. The bottle of wine itself is clearly just a MacGuffin, an unimportant excuse to get the lead characters together and on their journey. I know and care nothing about wine, and I enjoyed this flick.

3. The Ghost and the Darkness: An historical drama that plays more like an action horror film, The Ghost and the Darkness tells the true story of the title characters, two man-eating lions who routinely terrorized an attempt by African laborers and English overseers to construct a railroad in 19th Century Kenya. The story is told from the perspective of the man in charge of the project, Lieutenant Colonel John Henry Patterson, played by Val Kilmer when he was at the top of his game. Michael Douglas co-stars as an expert hunter hired as a consultant for the project.

In his book, Goldman explains that his original draft was better, as it kept Douglas's character as an intriguingly mysterious figure. When Douglas signed on as producer, Douglas began to demand that the character be featured in more and more scenes, and be provided with a back-story that Goldman feels robs him of the mystery. (Interestingly, refreshingly, Goldman states that he disagrees with Douglas's demands, but also understands the reasoning behind them -- and ends up praising Douglas as both an actor and a producer.)

We'll never know if Goldman's assessment that his original screenplay was better, but the end result is still highly entertaining.

4. Absolute Power: In today's era, when nearly every day erupts with a new presidential scandal, Absolute Power may seem almost quaint in its "isn't this outlandish?!" attitude toward a crime committed by a president of the United States. The story is set into motion when burglar Luther Whitney (Clint Eastwood) witnesses a murder committed by President Alan J. Richmond (Gene Hackman). The President, his chief of staff (Judy Davis), and the Secret Service conspire to cover up the crime, leaving Luther with two major dilemmas: He can't expose the President without confessing to his own crime, and also, it's the word of a career criminal against the word of someone whose position traditionally leads to the description "the Most Powerful Man on Earth" -- not to mention a whole group of witnesses who will happily lie to support the President's story.

"Okay," you may be asking, "but he's a criminal, why would he care so much about exposing a crime in the first place?" Because he's Clint Eastwood, dammit! Seriously, though, this action-suspense thriller based on a novel by David Baldacci is exciting, intelligent, and just overall well done. Goldman loves the concept, but feared that the execution wasn't as good as the potential. I'm inclined to disagree.