Say What? : 'The Words'

The Words thinks it can outsmart us, however, providing one of those "what if" endings that raises such questions. Without some idea of the possible answer, however, all we get is frustration.

The Words

Director: Brian Klugman, Lee Sternhal
Cast: Bradley Cooper, Dennis Quaid, Olivia Wilder, Zoe Saldana, Ben Barnes, Nora Arnezeder
Studio: CBS Films
Year: 2012
US date: 2012-09-07 (Limited release)
UK date: 2012-09-07 (General release)

It's hard enough for a movie to successfully juggle one narrative, let alone many. Yet The Words, the latest from CBS Films, wants to posit it's romantic dramatic within three individual storylines, each one supposedly providing insight into the human condition and the characters playing out these particular desperate lives. One plot has a high profile author (Dennis Quaid) reading from his latest bestseller, and catching the eye of an inquisitive admirer (Olivia Wilde). The other two are within the premise, tales revolving around the book's protagonist, a wannabe writer (Bradley Cooper) who wants more than anything to be famous. After his honeymoon in Paris, he discovers an old manuscript in an ancient valise, and without blinking, republishes it as his own. Naturally, the original scribe (Jeremy Irons) comes calling, requiring he know the whole story before claiming the copy as his own.

Sounds simple enough, right? After all, Quaid reads something, explains it a bit more to Wilde, and then we get Cooper and his wife (Zoe Saldana) struggling while he tries to make good. Once Irons arrives, he offers up the "inspiration" for the faded typed pages - an ex-GI living in France after the War, wooing and then marrying a the girl of his dreams, and the tragedy that surrounds the birth of their child. Yet for some reason, the constant shifts in perspective, the flashbacking and flash-forwarding, cause confusion, and then concern. Initially, we assume Quaid is telling us something "true," that is, a slice of life that either influenced him, or actually occurred to him. But then things get cloudy, especially once Irons walks in. Granted, he's nothing more than a catalyst, a cog to move the story machine from one end to another, but as Quaid says in the end, "Maybe he's just made up. Maybe he's just fiction, like the book."

Okay, so what is it? What lesson are we supposed to learn? One way of interpreting The Words is that Quaid is Cooper, that he stole a book which cost him his marriage, and that several years later, he's used the scenario to "out" himself, go all media mea culpa, and clear his conscience. Of course, there would be so many holes in said plot (including the lack of legitimate period cues in the inner narrative) that it can't really be. That means that it's nothing more than a work of fiction, which then begs another question...why do we need Quaid? What is he adding to the subtext or theme? His presence asks us to accept his import, yet this interpretation consistently countermands it. The Words thinks it can outsmart us, however, providing one of those "what if" endings that raises such questions. Without some idea of the possible answer, however, all we get is frustration.

Then there is Irons' motivation, another spoiler-esque extreme. One imagines that a man whose seen his passionate, personal manuscript turned into a cause celeb for another, less deserving person would want payback. What the character wants is ownership, that is, that the man responsible for stealing the story of his life claim the horrific elements of his life as well. Actually, it's a little more esoteric than that. He wants Cooper to understand what went into the book, the kind of pain and loss that inspired its contents. He wants him to own it, to feel it, to be ashamed of being unable to find it in himself. Really? Is that the main message of the movie - that plagiarists should accept the sacrifice they are claiming as their own? Unlike other movies where literary stealing figures prominently (Secret Window, for example), there's no thriller ruse. No, Irons is a sad, depressed old coot, and he wants his 'ghostwriter' to become the same.

This all grows preposterous and rather pointless, negating anything good The Words has to offer. Irons is okay as the aging instigator, while Quaid does little except smirk and apologize. Cooper and Saldana make a cute couple, but they really don't have much to do. Everything in their relationship is expositional space saving. Perhaps the best performances come from the story within the story couple, the GI and his bride played by Ben Barnes and Nora Arnezeder respectively. They seem to have a spark, a sense of passion and purpose that others here lack. They seem to spring from the pages of a pulp novel, not some sour script contrivance. While others surrounding the main story serve offer some fun (JK Simmons as Cooper's dad, Ron Rifkin as a matter of fact literary agent), everything rests of the tales being told - and that's the movie's main failing.

Clearly, The Words is the product of a successful pitch. One can hear TRON: Legacy conceptualists Brian Klugman and Lee Sternhal sitting in a studio office, wowing the suits with their complicated, interwoven collection of stories. As they map out each step, drawing the listener in, the possible greenlight marches ever closer to confirmation. Toss in a few name casting suggestions, and the dotted line arrives for signatures. Sadly, the premise fails to produce anything other than boredom. We get mildly interested in Cooper's struggles, Irons' reality, and what the two actually mean to each other. But then the directing, again handled by our first time screenwriting duo, deadens everything. They offer little in the way of style and believe that by simply putting their stories on film, they will work. They are wrong.

And yet there is something inherently compelling about this particular set-up, something that signals a small amount of entertainment in the far reaches of your aesthetic. We are drawn into the Cooper/Irons confront, even if it doesn't pay off all that well. We also want to know if there is a core mystery here, or just a lot of literary hot air. Unfortunately, The Words won't offer an clear cut answers. They must believe their ideas are beyond clever. Instead, they're a bunch of claptrap.


The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.