{"id":999,"date":"2018-10-17T03:04:58","date_gmt":"2018-10-17T03:04:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/?p=999"},"modified":"2020-02-09T17:48:09","modified_gmt":"2020-02-09T17:48:09","slug":"hidden-auteur-an-allison-burnett-retrospective-part-five","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/2018\/10\/17\/hidden-auteur-an-allison-burnett-retrospective-part-five\/","title":{"rendered":"Hidden Auteur: An Allison Burnett Retrospective, Part Five"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Allison
Allison Burnett<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Part Five: B.K.’s Silent Return and a\u00a0Champ<\/em>ion Hollywood Fight<\/strong><\/p>\n

Backtracking slightly from the end of our last installment, Allison Burnett\u2019s screenwriting career proved to continue without disruption– in spite of Autumn in New York<\/em>\u2019s failed reception and his public feud with Richard Gere. Surprisingly, as far as he could perceive, the entire debacle failed to have any negative resounding impact on Burnett at all.<\/p>\n

In fact, Susan Granger (the critic who had leaked Burnett\u2019s letter about Gere) had a son working for Paramount as an executive at the time of the Page Six<\/em> publication. Dan Granger had been amused by Burnett\u2019s letter. Soon thereafter, Paramount hired Burnett to do a rewrite.<\/p>\n

Burnett\u2019s place in Hollywood was still secure\u2014or at least as secure as any Hollywood career ever is. Many other jobs were still to come.<\/p>\n

On top of his writing assignments, Burnett also continued to churn out original spec screenplays. One such script, titled, Keyword: Love<\/em>, made the rounds with studios for some time before being deemed too intimate for the big screen.<\/p>\n

The script, written in January of 2003, brought Burnett some meetings and, eventually, a new job at Disney. It didn\u2019t go much further until a friend of Burnett\u2019s took it to Lifetime, where it was purchased in the summer of 2003 and filmed during springtime of the following year under the title Perfect Romance.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Perfect Romance <\/em>(2004)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Something of a modern-day Cyrano de Bergerac<\/em>, Perfect Romance <\/em>is about a middle-aged woman who posts a dating ad posing as her divorced daughter. With the intention of aiding her lonely daughter\u2019s love life, she begins corresponding with a young man. The only problem is, she falls in love with him herself. In the title role, Kathleen Quinlan (who Burnett was thrilled to have cast) gives the film and character grace and sophistication, and it\u2019s believable that a man of any age could fall in love with her.<\/p>\n

\"Henry
Henry Ian Cusick and Kathleen Quinlan in Perfect Romance<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

While the film is not without its generic Lifetime setbacks (minor clumsy production values, a cheesy musical score, weak supporting actor selections), Perfect Romance<\/em> still manages to stand out, particularly when looking at it in the context of Allison Burnett\u2019s career. The primary reason behind this is that it showcases a great and seasoned actor like Quinlan tackling his work with success. This was something we had yet to fully see with his produced scripts– at least the ones he hadn\u2019t directed himself. Through Quinlan and Burnett, we see a character who\u2019s rounded, flawed, watchable, and wonderfully human without contrived flashiness.<\/p>\n

Perhaps because Perfect Romance<\/em> was the first romantic comedy Lifetime had ever produced from scratch (as opposed to acquired once it was finished), the film didn\u2019t attract much of an audience when it premiered on June 7, 2004. Burnett bluntly describes the rating numbers as \u201cabysmal”.<\/p>\n

Perfect Romance<\/em> is a quiet and unpretentious work that succeeds with subtlety. Part of what makes it work is also why no one took notice of it. This was starting to become a theme in Allison Burnett\u2019s career.<\/p>\n

\"Chloe
Chloe King<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Partnering with a Screenwriter and Other Works<\/strong><\/p>\n

The steady flow of income from his screenwriting career continued to provide Burnett with the funding and comfort he needed to pursue his less-lucrative passion projects.<\/p>\n

Aside from his books and films, Burnett has also managed to keep his soul intact with numerous short-form pieces. These include essays for numerous publications, book reviews for Variety.com <\/em>written between 2001 and 2004, and, most notably, poetry.<\/p>\n

Burnett describes his poetry by simply stating it \u201cis classically inspired, rhymed, metered, lyrical, romantic, and very accessible. I loathe modern verse. I\u2019m like BK in that way.\u201d<\/em> Although he\u2019s considered self-publishing a volume of his poems, he\u2019s not particularly ambitious about getting them seen. Many of Burnett\u2019s poems and other short-form pieces are all currently available to read on his website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As his writing kept him busier than ever, he also began his most significant romantic relationship to date with fellow screenwriter Chloe King in 2005.<\/p>\n

King had previously written 1996\u2019s Poison Ivy II <\/em>and, most recently in 2017, penned the Nicolas Cage\/Gina Gershon-starring thriller Inconceivable<\/em>. Chloe was also the daughter of legendary producer Zalman King, most known for producing such erotic dramas as Nine \u00bd Weeks<\/em> and the Showtime series, Red Shoe Diaries<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The union produced two sons– Keats born in 2006 and Winslow born in 2008, both of whom Burnett unabashedly adores. Burnett and King eventually legally wed in 2012.<\/p>\n

\"The
The House Beautiful cover art<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The House Beautiful (2006)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since Christopher<\/em>\u2019s sales were only a modest success, Broadway Books passed on publishing its sequel, which Burnett had already completed in late 2002.<\/p>\n

Much like Christopher, <\/em>Burnett had returned to an early manuscript for his second novel. That manuscript was also written when he was a young artist struggling in New York, and was reflective of his life at the time. Tompkins Square, <\/em>originally written in 1988, centered around a group of young people who dwell in different rooms of the same Manhattan brownstone, all under the supervision of an eccentric landlady who only rents to artists.<\/p>\n

Adrian, an introverted astronomy student who is seeking answers about his recently departed father, shows up with a garbage bag full of old science papers inquiring about vacancy. The landlady incorrectly assumes that the garbage bag is filled with budding attempts at poetry and he is approved for a room. Adrian is then introduced to the lives of the young artists within: a beautiful female painter, a tortured actor, a promiscuous musician, a depressed poet, a manic shut-in novelist. Adrian\u2019s summer is filled with their straight and homosexual love lives, their mental illnesses, their escapades with prostitutes and deranged exes, etc.<\/p>\n

In the fall of 2002, while Burnett was still eagerly awaiting the publication of Christopher<\/em>, he began to rewrite Tompkins Square<\/em>. While he still felt close to the material, he also knew the book needed more heart, humor, and accessibility– not to mention \u201cliteracy and panache.\u201d<\/p>\n

It needed B.K. Troop.<\/p>\n

After Burnett replaced the landlady with B.K., and let B.K. narrate the entire book, the narrative took flight, and Tompkins Square<\/em> became The House Beautiful<\/em>.<\/p>\n

B.K. was now the head of the household, having inherited the building from his former landlady and friend. B.K. christens the dwelling \u201cThe House Beautiful\u201d and transforms it into an affordable commune for artists– for no other reason than that his government disability checks are too meager to cover the property tax and mortgage payments. B.K. chooses artists because, \u201cthe thought of living with anyone else depressed me to no end. What on earth would there be to talk about?\u201d<\/p>\n

\"a
a young Allison Burnett with his Northwestern alumni and fellow artist friends- actor Richard Kind and SNL alum Gary Kroeger<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Adrian is still a central character to the story, only now the subject of B.K\u2019s obsessive interest. Upon their first meeting, B.K. instantly finds something irresistible and familiar about the young man \u201cscented with innocence\u201d. Like his relationship with Christopher, B.K. finds himself mentoring the young Adrian.<\/p>\n

That being said, The House Beautiful <\/em>is by no means a simple retread of Christopher. <\/em><\/p>\n

For starters, its humor is more lively, fun, and unpredictable. Amongst his many detailed shenanigans in the book,<\/em> the most notable of B.K.\u2019s is when he has to \u201cpose\u201d as mentally ill when his eligibility for government disability is due for renewal.<\/p>\n

B.K.\u2019s insanely jealous, and much younger, Vietnamese boyfriend, Pip, provides some of the most hilariously dark and absurd passages Burnett has ever written. The \u201cveritable contortionist\u201d in bed is also an exhaustively needy psychopath who threatens suicide at the mere mention of Adrian.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most importantly, however, The House Beautiful <\/em>differs from Christopher<\/em> in the sophistication of its execution and its resolution. The intersecting lives within the household provide Burnett with the opportunity for more ambitious storytelling, opposing the (equally successful) intimacy of Christopher<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Like much of Burnett\u2019s best work, the book\u2019s climax is another example of what, by now, should be the classic Burnett Epiphany: all the story\u2019s elements come flooding at the reader in its final moments like an emotionally cathartic, and very welcomed, smack in the face. Adrian is finally \u201crelieved of his deceit\u201d about his history and his true connection to B.K. What transpires between the two characters becomes one of the most rewarding and involved human relationships Burnett has ever created.<\/p>\n

A Silent Reception<\/strong><\/p>\n

Like his experience writing Christopher, <\/em>Burnett was thrilled and fulfilled by his experience in completing The House Beautiful<\/em>. Unfortunately, the book\u2019s reception was all but nonexistent this time around.<\/p>\n

Burnett\u2019s literary agent at the time, Eric Myers, finally managed to sell the book to Carrol & Graf, who published it in the fall of 2006. Unfortunately, the publishing company\u2019s fiction department was dismantled shortly after, when it was acquired by Perseus Books Group in January 2007. The book is now out of print, though copies are easy to track down on Amazon.<\/p>\n

The House Beautiful <\/em>did, however, continue to receive support from the homosexual literary community, even though Burnett was, by this time, \u201cout of the straight closet.” Burnett appeared on GLBT radio shows to promote the book, GLBT literary journals continued to show support, and he did multiple signings at GLBT bookstores.<\/p>\n

In the end, it was all a mixed blessing. Although B.K.\u2019s sexuality initially brought Burnett a loyal niche audience, it also put a misleading label on his novels that brought about a great degree of indifference from the mainstream literary community. In an essay he wrote for HuffPost, <\/em>titled B.K. and I<\/em>, Burnett himself stated:<\/p>\n

“If only the straight literary world were this kind to gay novelists! The sad fact is that despite the fact that 90 percent of B.K.\u2019s narration concerns the lives of straight people, the mainstream press ignores him. It\u2019s as though the books\u2019 spines had been marked with an invisible pink triangle. Borders and other chain stores relegate them to the gay section in back. Amazon labeled The House Beautiful, for some reason, Gay Poetry.”<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Samuel
Samuel L. Jackson and Josh Hartnett in Resurrecting the Champ<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Resurrecting the Champ <\/em>(2007)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Off the strong reception of his Max\/Home <\/em>screenplay back in 1997, Burnett had been hired to adapt J. R. Moehringer\u2019s L.A. Times <\/em>article, Resurrecting the Champ<\/em>, by producer Mike Medavoy.<\/p>\n

Burnett\u2019s fictionalized screenplay tells the story of P.J., an ambitious sports writer chasing the story of his life through \u201cChamp\u201d, a homeless man claiming to be a boxing legend. The eventual article within the movie becomes a huge hit until P.J. finds out he was mislead by Champ\u2019s mentally ill delusions. As a dramatic twist in Burnett\u2019s script, the protagonist discovers this after the story is published, something Moehringer actually discovered while writing his article.<\/p>\n

Burnett, diligent in his research, was the only member of the production who sought out and met the real \u201cChamp\u201d. Armed only with Champ\u2019s picture from the L.A. Times, <\/em>Burnett found him on Santa Ana\u2019s skid row and recorded an hour-long conversation with him. The resulting cassette would be a valuable resource for the production, as Samuel L. Jackson (who wound up portraying the character) would partially base his vocal performance on the recording.<\/p>\n

\"Samuel
Samuel L. Jackson and Josh Hartnett in Resurrecting the Champ<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Burnett\u2019s screenplay for Resurrecting the Champ <\/em>(which has been read by this author) is a moving character piece that tackles many themes: journalistic ethics, fathers and sons, mental illness, homelessness, and, of course, boxing. It\u2019s told with humor, heart, and frankness.<\/p>\n

Like Burnett\u2019s best work, Champ\u2019<\/em>s original narrative is air-tight, the pacing is flawless, and the story is full of moments that build resonance and meaningful relationships between its characters. In the end, the intended audience is set up to get the emotional fulfillment it needs, built entirely off Burnett\u2019s focused and developed structure.<\/p>\n

Predictably, by now, this didn\u2019t last.<\/p>\n

Resurrecting the Champ <\/em>changed many hands over the years of its development history. Michael Bortman did an extensive rewrite early on, adding a subplot about the grooming of P.J. for an on-air position at Showtime<\/em>. After many years and incarnations, the script ended up in the hands of a gifted filmmaker named Rod Lurie. Though impressed by the early drafts of the screenplay, Lurie decided to make further changes of his own to its already-cluttered story.<\/p>\n

\"Rod
Rod Lurie<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Champ<\/em>\u2019s development process was so scattered that the question of who would retain final screenplay credit wound up in a case of arbitration. Burnett and Bortman wound up receiving credit. Lurie and Chris Gerolmo, who had each done an extensive overhaul, did not.<\/p>\n

In spite of the battling, there are many positive things to say about the final film of Resurrecting the Champ. <\/em>It showcases strong lead performances by Josh Hartnett and Samuel L. Jackson. Lurie\u2019s direction is an example of fine craftsmanship, and exhibits a sincere, though sometimes misguided, passion for the story. Unquestionably, it\u2019s hard to ignore that Champ <\/em>has some wonderfully executed elements and moments that stand on their own as great.<\/p>\n

As a complete film, however, Resurrecting the Champ, <\/em>quite frustratingly, doesn\u2019t reach greatness. A victim of too many cooks in its pre-production kitchen, the film lacks focus and emphasis on just what its central story and theme(s) should be. The end falls flat as a result, in spite of the quality, heart, and talent behind it that is evident throughout.<\/p>\n

\"Samuel
Samuel L. Jackson and Josh Hartnett in Resurrecting the Champ<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The film fared relatively well with critics, drawing many solid reviews that pointed out the film\u2019s strengths and weaknesses, but few raves. Audiences, however, turned quite cold to the film immediately. Although the film was modestly budgeted at a reported $13 million, it failed to earn even half of its budget back through combined domestic and overseas ticket sales.<\/p>\n

Burnett is fond of Resurrecting The Champ\u2019s <\/em>final cut, though not without his reservations. On top of his obvious complaints about the film\u2019s saturated structure, he also felt Champ\u2019s true character had been diluted in the process:<\/p>\n

“None of the later collaborators ever met him, so I don\u2019t think they quite understood that he was a schizophrenic, in and out of reality. By the final draft, the Champ did a fair degree of wisecracking and seemed more like a troubled con man than a guy who lived in fantasy. This was not a problem for most viewers, but having met him, it never struck me as heartbreaking as the real guy.”<\/em><\/p>\n

A happy ending to their conflict, Burnett and Lurie both speak admirably of each other today. Burnett particularly notes Lurie\u2019s passion and talent, and sings high praises for his Champ <\/em>follow-up, the legal thriller, Nothing But The Truth. <\/em><\/p>\n

Lurie, in his commentary track for the DVD of the film, goes out of his way on numerous occasions to compliment Burnett\u2019s talent, at one point calling him \u201can exquisite writer.\u201d Lurie also makes it a point in the same track to take the blame for making a film that \u201cwent astray\u201d and was \u201cabout too many things.”<\/p>\n

Our piece on Allison Burnett will continue in Part 6<\/a> of 9, which will focus on a series of screenwriting assignments he would take on for Lakeshore Entertainment and the publication of his third novel, Undiscovered Gyrl.<\/em><\/p>\n

<<\/a> 1<\/a> 2<\/a> 3<\/a> 4<\/a> 5 6<\/a> 7<\/a> 8<\/a> 9<\/a> ><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part Five: B.K.’s Silent Return and a\u00a0Champion Hollywood Fight Backtracking slightly from the end of our last installment, Allison Burnett\u2019s screenwriting career proved to continue without disruption– in spite of Autumn in New York\u2019s failed reception and his public feud with Richard Gere. Surprisingly, as far as he could perceive, the entire debacle failed to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1008,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=999"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/999\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1878,"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/999\/revisions\/1878"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1008"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/otherpeoplesmovies.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}