Books: Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull (2014)

After the success of Star Wars, George Lucas became interested in using computer graphics for the follow-up film, The Empire Strikes Back. While the cost was prohibitive at the time, what he saw in the early examples of computer effects used in the 1973 movie Westworld and its sequel, he understood that it was still possible, so he decided to create his own graphic department. Therefore, a search went out to find anyone who could help the writer/director accomplish this goal. Eventually, in 1979 they found Ed Catmull, who studied computer graphics at NYIT. He was hired on at Lucasfilm to teach and lead the newly created The Graphics Group (it would be renamed Pixar later), a division within Lucasfilm that also included the FX company Industrial Light and Magic. While Catmull had the knowledge to help Lucas out, he had never managed a team before. One of his first road blocks was the film editor crew, who not only resisted any type of change, but did not believe the computer would be able to do anything more than what they were already doing. He realized then that a transformative idea, no matter how good, would be useless unless the people who had to implement the change fully embraced the concept. 

The Graphic Group's first attempt to create a fully computer generated image story was the 1984 short film The Adventures of André and Wally B. However, several structural issues stymied the production team and no one seemed to know how to solve them. It was not until Catmull hired John Lasseter –let go at Walt Disney Animation for thinking outside the box- who would help transform the team at Lucasfilm. Lasseter, with his never waning energy and his open enthusiasms about the future of animation (like Catmull, he wanted to make a film made on computer) brought the one missing link that could prevent a fully CGI movie being made -its lack of expressive tension. By adding a second character to the main one, this changed the dynamic of the short and introduced what all films truly need to connect to an audience –emotion. It became clear at this early stage to Catmull then, his dream of a fully CGI movie was now within reach, if only because they overcame its biggest obstacle -using the same tool live action films have done for a hundred years: make people care about the characters. This emotional arc is the one main narrative device that would play out through all of Pixar’s films in the future, which is probably why they have been so successful (but I also believe that character driven films are more rewarding than plot driven ones).

Still, even after the shorts creative success, Lucas admitted he was not interested in making a fully computer animated movie –this new format was only supposed to be a mere tool to enhance live-action. A noted example of what he meant was the 1985’s Young Sherlock Holmes, which became the first film to include a fully photorealistic animated character -a knight composed of elements from a stained glass window. So in 1986 he spun it off the renamed Pixar to the legendary Steve Jobs -who was between careers at that time, having been let go from Apple and was still working on NeXT. While Jobs provided the capital, Catmull faced his first real dilemma while working with him. Lucas was always somewhat hands-off boss; he seemed to understand that talent did not need constant attention and understood that creative people need space to create. But Steve Jobs was someone completely different. "When I don't see eye to eye with somebody," Jobs had told him, "I just take the time to explain it better, so they understand the way it should be." That philosophy is great, in some ways, but in a business world where ego and rules of engagement are paramount, Jobs was a thorn in many peoples side (that he was proved right on most things showed what a revolutionary mind he truly had). Now Catmull had to deal with him directly and he wondered how he was going to deal with a man who might fight him on anything and everything Pixar was bound to do towards the future road that would lead to Toy Story.

Of course, ultimately Jobs backed down if only because Catmull eventually understood how to work with him, along with his wide personality. Sure, it would take time, but as he writes, "Steve had a remarkable knack for letting go of things that didn't work. If you were in an argument with him, and you convinced him that you were right, he would instantly change his mind." As an example, Jobs wanted to be heavily involved with the direction of the animation studio then, but he came to the realization that while he knew many things on many subjects, he was not, in the end, a filmmaker. What Catmull needed was his innate abilities and shrewd business sense and when he came to that conclusion, he became Pixar's biggest supporter when negotiations began with Disney that would lead to Toy Story’s release in 1995 and everything beyond.

While the success of Toy Story marked a turning point in film animation, Catmull realized there was a serious problem lurking within Pixar, something he had never seen before. When it came to begin work on A Bug’s Life, he was astounded to find that the production managers were not lining up to come back, as the battle lines between them and the artists and technicians had been drawn (no pun intended). Moreover, it came down to one simple fact - that the bean counters, while doing their jobs, were impeding good filmmaking. However, no one, not one artist or manager, came to Catmull to explain this during the chaotic atmosphere that existed when making Toy Story. Moreover, this type of mentality exists in almost every company because people fear that their constructive criticism is an attack on someone's ability more than on a reason for the teams disconnect. Therefore, he implemented an open door policy that said anyone should and could be able to talk to anyone else, anytime without fear of reprimand and reprisals. A very candor policy that, while a great theory for many companies, is never successful because no one actually thinks it can work. Nevertheless, it did and it successfully changed the culture within Pixar.

There are many bumps along the way as the animation company grows; new issues are addressed, and they face many new challenges that include the acquisition of the company by Disney in 2006 and the death of Steve Jobs in 2011. At the core though is the belief that employees will work hard for you if you allow them a proper culture in which to accomplish goals. That upper management needs to allow everyone to rock the boat occasionally, to have a voice (because you can treat your employees like servants, they will love you, tell them they are servants, and they will rebel).

What Catmull suggests -how candor and transparency might help all sorts of businesses- is broadly painted here, but I like the idea that (especially) being candid with all folks within a company, including the upper management, which can be the key to a more productive company. I mean, living off the wits of your staff in not called leadership.

Putting "Wolf Hall" down

Have you ever been with a group of people who tell you that The Big Bang Theory is the funniest show on TV but you just don't get it?

Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall is that way for me. So many people think it's brilliant while I can't contain enough interest to finish it. Which is very rare -I generally never try to put a book down without finishing it. But there are pages and pages that go on where I'm not sure who is actually speaking.

Unfortunately I'm giving up on this book at page 237 -which is about a third of the way through it. Though, I'm really disappointed in myself that I'm unable to get into this book -so many critics and book people have raved about it and it won the prestigious Booker Prize (the British version of the Pulitzer) in 2009. I just found the prose exceptionally dense and confusing. 

Moving on.

Books: Where'd You Go, Bernadette by Maria Semple (2013)

“Bernadette Fox is notorious. To her Microsoft-guru husband, she's a fearlessly opinionated partner; to fellow private-school mothers in Seattle, she's a disgrace; to design mavens, she's a revolutionary architect, and to 15-year-old Bee, she is a best friend and, simply, Mom. Then Bernadette disappears. It began when Bee aced her report card and claimed her promised reward: a family trip to Antarctica. But Bernadette's intensifying allergy to Seattle—and people in general—has made her so agoraphobic that a virtual assistant in India now runs her most basic errands. A trip to the end of the earth is problematic. “

The book is told in a unusual format, what’s called a “epistolary.” Basically, it unfolds through masses of email messages, along with chunks of official documents and (not so) secret correspondences (I’ve encountered this style one time before, in Steve Kluger’s brilliantly hilarious 1998 novel Last Days of Summer).  While it may distract some folks, the book gets going very quickly and any reader will find themselves wrapped up in the narrative.

One of the biggest strengths of Where'd You Go, Bernadette is that it’s often weird, funny and sometimes serious all at the time. And because author Maria Semple's background is in television comedy (she wrote for Arrested Development) her zingers are spot on, as she gets some great digs at Seattle, Canadians, self-help culture and the our odd private school system ,“a place where compassion, academics and global connectitude join together to create civic-minded citizens of a sustainable and diverse planet,” and where there are only three grades: S for “Surpasses Excellence,” A for “Achieves Excellence” and W for “Working Towards Excellence.” 

The sad part is, as much as Semple pokes fun at it, somewhere this is going on.

Books: The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern (2012)

The circus arrives without warning. No announcements precede it. It is simply there, when yesterday it was not. Within the black-and-white striped canvas tents is an utterly unique experience full of breathtaking amazements. It is called Le Cirque des Rêves, and it is only open at night.

Also known as the Night Circus, it is the brainchild of a theatrical producer named M Chandresh Christophe Lefèvre, at the subtle bidding of a mysterious man in grey known as Mr. A. H---; (though his first name appears to be Alexander) but it is also the creation of Marco and Celia, both of who, over the years, become passionately embroiled in its performances and acts, as well as, inevitably, with each other. 

Unbeknownst to them, though, this is a game in which only one can be left standing, and the circus is but the stage for a remarkable battle of imagination and will. Despite themselves, however, Celia and Marco tumble headfirst into love—a deep, magical love that makes the lights flicker and the room grow warm whenever they so much as brush hands. 

While the stakes appear to be high, ultimately I cared less for the lovers and only kept turning the pages for the world that author Erin Morgenstern has created here. Primarily set in some alternate world of the late 19^th century, where magic appears to exist, she crafts a brilliant world of smells, textures and even tastes. While the overreaching tone of the book is darkness (and the Circus, which forgoes what we traditionally know of them -primarily it’s wild color tones-, is created in black and white, a perfect parable to the game in which both Marco and Celia have been caught up in), she brings a brightness to her world that has advantages of working it's way into the readers soul.

Also, the supporting players, such as clockmaker Friedrick Thissen, contortionist Tsukiko, the redheaded twins Poppet and Widget and even Bailey Clarke seem to interest the author more, as they come fully realized at times -more so than the lovers. Still, it’s a fully realized alternate reality and very enjoyable novel that moves to its rather predictable ending –but that, in the end, did not really bother me.

Books: Dark Places by Gillian Flynn (2009)

In Dark Places, Gillian Flynn’s follow-up to her harrowing Sharp Objects, she gives us another highly dysfunctional woman and family. And in many ways an even stronger book than her first, but its way overlong and pulls a bizarre twist ending that sort of defies believability. 

The story fluctuates between present and the past. Libby Day is a 31 year-old woman, who at the age of seven survived an attack on her house that left her Mother Patty, sisters Debby and Michelle, dead. Her older brother, Ben, a sullen, depressive teenager at the time, is convicted of their murders and sent to prison for the rest of his life. In the present, Libby has reached a point –now 24 years later- where interest in her family’s death has waned. She’s become petulant, mean (which she admits in the opening paragraph) and has never gotten over her sticky-finger problem (which is good, as that plays out in the end). She is also nearly broke, having gone through the $300,000 that was donated to her after the tragic murders. But happenstance (and only in novels, TV and films does this happen) comes in the form of man called Lyle, who is a huge fan of true crime stories and belongs to a group called the Kill Club, basically an underground convention for folks who watch way too much real crime shows and books, and who believe Ben is innocent of the crime. He offers her money in hopes she’ll attend a gathering of folks whom believe in her brothers innocence if she can provide information (and family mementos) to understand what led up to the murders, including getting in contact with her father, Runner, who has vanished. 

The other part of the book is a detailed look into the day of Libby’s family murders. Here we see Patty as a single mother of four, losing her family farm to foreclosure, trying (and yet not) to feed her kids, keep the peace between all of them (which she fails at miserably) and keep former husband Runner Day away from them. But like a bad penny, he reappears at the worst time, and Ben, in need of a father figure, finds his lost parent not that helpful, which forces the 15 year-old into a world he is not prepared to deal with.  

Much like Sharp Objects, the premise of Dark Places is hardly original –I would venture to say its premise comes from a much earlier time in history, in particularly the nior books of the 1950s and 60s where authors fictionalized real events (like Truman Captoe’s In Cold Blood). But Flynn is a strong writer, with a great prose style and a desire, and appears not to care that she's not to made anyone of her characters remotely likable. And Libby, much like Camille in Sharp Objects, has a distant personality and Flynn seems to take pleasure in knowing her readers will find it quite difficult to like this main protagonist. 

It’s an emotionally draining novel as well. Nothing seems to go right for anyone. While the Day family seems particularly cursed (to a point I felt, at times, was a bit ridiculous), the folks caught in their wake all have personal demons and destructive personalities. Also, I feel the darkness that Flynn want's to evoke goes on way too long and made me ponder just how much more shit she was going to pile onto all of her characters, but in particular brother Ben and mother Patty. I could've done with less.

While Flynn did set up early the possibility that Ben was not the killer, the reveal was silly, and really out of nowhere (again, shades of Agatha Christie). And then there is the issue with coincidence that really pissed me off (though again, only in novels, TV and movies would this happen). Though, in some reflection, perhaps the mystery aspect was not important. Perhaps it was just a cover for readers who want to feel good about themselves that they don’t lead such a horrible life.

I still want to read Gone Girl, but I think I’ll wait a bit. Back to back nihilistic novels about broken people have made me feel a bit depleted.  

Books: Sharp Objects by Gillian Flynn (2006)

Now that I’m finally onto Gillian Flynn (who, of course, I’ve been aware of since this book came out in 2006), I’ve got some conflicted feelings about it. While the strongest part of the book is its dysfunctional characters, including Camille Preaker’s home town of Wind Gap, it’s also some the unpleasant aspects of Sharp Objects, like the horrible pettiness that small town life seems to perpetuate, the ugliness, the backstabbing and even the causal sexuality that simmers more on the surface than below.

By and far, it is a strong debut, a literary thriller with mean streak that made me turn the pages, but left me feeling a bit dirty, like the remnants of a water line on house after a great flood. All the characters, even Camille, are a bit unlikeable (and just another reminder of why small town life can be suffocating for the folks who don’t fit it).

“WICKED above her hipbone, GIRL across her heart. Words are like a road map to reporter Camille Preaker's troubled past. Fresh from a brief stay at a psych hospital, Camille's first assignment from the second-rate daily Chicago paper where she works brings her reluctantly back to her hometown to cover the murders of two preteen girls. Since she left town eight years ago, Camille has hardly spoken to her neurotic, hypochondriac mother or to the half-sister she barely knows: a beautiful thirteen-year-old with an eerie grip on the town. Now, installed again in her family's Victorian mansion, Camille is haunted by the childhood tragedy she has spent her whole life trying to cut from her memory. As Camille works to uncover the truth about these violent crimes, she finds herself identifying with the young victims — a bit too strongly. Clues keep leading to dead ends, forcing Camille to unravel the psychological puzzle of her own past to get at the story. Dogged by her own demons, Camille will have to confront what happened to her years before if she wants to survive this homecoming.”

Yes the book is dark, and at times original (but the basic premise is time worn), and Camille will either anger women for her foolishness and her very casual attitude about sex and the role women play in that theater, or they’ll praise her for being so strong –and yet fragile- when you understand the life she grew up in. Camille is a survivor, but that survivability is always close to enveloping her like the night when she does things that seem deliberately (like the endless drinking) destructive. She understands it is wrong, but does it anyways. And while Flynn’s prose is strong, I still could never get near to Camille. I mean, at times, I just hated the character. I’m sure that’s her intention, but while Sharp Objects is a good, well written book, I feel that this genre may not be for me.

Though, ironically, as I say this, I’m about to read her second book, Dark Places. And that has started out with another mean, dysfunctional woman who comes into contact with the folks who are obsessed with real-life crimes. This may temper my reading of Flynn’s huge break through novel, Gone Girl.