Hello everyone, welcome. Today I am going to be talking about a less well known horror movie, Pontypool. I have a certain affection for this movie as for me it takes an established idea and changes it well, and also it is what I might consider to be a short story movie. As usual, this is not a review, but a basic overview and then applying it to your writing.
Pontypool is essentially a Zombie movie, set in the rural Canadian town of Pontypool. It is heavily implied the locals are very much involved in everyone else’s business, and for news beyond gossip the citizens turn to Grant Mazzy, the Talk Radio DJ with aspirations beyond his (local) station. It is implied he was once mainstream, and respected in the business. Mazzy, played by Stephen McHattie, is desperately trying to matter in a situation where he doesn’t feel relevant. And then, strange things start happening in the town. People start acting in herds, chanting repetitive nonsensical phrases, attempting to kill and eat other townsfolk though none of that is shown on screen.
Like I said, it is a zombie movie. However, and this is the part that had my attention, there was a twist on the idea of zombie infection – the zombie virus/condition was not transmitted through fluids, bites, scratches or even airborne transmission. It was transmitted through infected words.
Yep, I said infected words. And despite IMDB only rating Pontypool pretty average, I have to say, this was a brilliant idea.
Zombies, if you’ll forgive the pun, have been done to death since the 60s. Anyone who has seen one Zombie movie knows that the contagion spreads through bites and scratches and that despite these dangers there are ways to defend against them. Polearms, Armour, Guns, chopping off hands and teeth. All are viable defences.
Pontypool has taken a genre that everyone is familiar with, everyone knows the tropes and introduced an X factor, changing mode of transmission. And this makes the story fresh. It brings about a new perspective on the Zombie genre and I would like to examine the process here.
Take a genre that everyone is familiar with, that has established rules and tropes.
Take something integral to that genre. And then change it.
Now that I think about it, Pontypool is not the only story I have encountered that plays with genre stereotypes.
For part of my degree, when studying romance, I was required to read Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. We were taught that a standard trope of the romance formula was that the hero or heroine falls for someone (maybe not the right someone), pursues them, all the while obstacles appear in their path (in the form of the other man/woman, or the fact that the person is not the right person for them in the first place). The romance is essentially a quest narrative with the reward being the protagonist getting together, happily, with the right person at the end of the novel.
Rebecca doesn’t do that. The nameless protagonist marries her love by page 50. But this isn’t happilyy ever after. Now the protagonist has to come to terms with settling down, which is nowhere near as exciting as the brief romance on the Riviera, and she is constantly compared to her husband’s deceased first wife. How do you find love when your opponent is a ghost? (not literally, she is dead and only her memory remains).
Mitchell & Webb, the British comedy duo, did a fantastic sketch turning this on its head.
In this case, the effect is comedic – taking the idea of a husband holding his wife to the impossibly standard of his other wife – in this case, his future wife rather than his first wife.
How can we use this? Truthfully, I have been wracking my brain about this for a while now, trying to figure out other corruptions of tropes that might serve as a starting point – and let me tell you, it hasn’t been easy!
Have a think about your favoured genre.
What are the accepted practices of that genre? Are any of them often repeated? How do they come together? What can you change about one element? What effect does this have?
I cannot create a list of possibilities, but lets try at least one – fantasy.
Young/childlike hero. Possibly with a powerful artifact. (Works for The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Sword of Shannara, The Belgariad. Sword of Truth)
There is a mentor, possibly an old man and maybe even a wizard. (Works for all of the above)
The Mentor may die, to motivate the protagonist (Actually, only 2 of 6. You can increase to 4 if you change it to removal of the mentor to force the protagonist to act on their own terms. It has been a while since I read the Belgariad or the Sword of Shannara. I cannot recall this happening in those books).
There is an evil power from times gone past. They might have an army (More or less true for all, though Smaug doesn’t have an army but he is an evil from times long past).
The destruction of the evil power is linked to the protagonist or their artifact. (again, works for all)
There is usually a journey involved, both geographic and metaphoric. (not really the case for Harry Potter, at least not physically, but he does grow over time throughout the stories. In every other listed story there is a long journey involved).
Let’s put that all together.
A youthful/naive protagonist, possibly with an artifact, is induced to go on quest by a wizard/grandfather/mentor figure. They must travel far to find the ancient evil that now threatens, as only the protagonist/artifact are capable of defeating the evil. (when written like this it really does sound cliche, doesn’t it?)
Lord of the Rings plays around with the artifact idea. Frodo Baggins must carry the Ring of Power to Mount Doom to destroy it, but in doing so he must carry it into the realm of Sauron – potentially delivering it into his hands. So, the thing of power that can destroy the enemy is also its greatest weapon.
Harry Potter does not go on a geographic journey, he goes to school and grows that way. What other ways might a person grow knowledgeable without having to walk longer than the Proclaimers?
Why is it only the Protagonist that can carry the artifact? In the Sword of Shannara, it is due to Royal Blood. In the Belgariad, if I recall, it is the same. In the Lord of the Rings, it is the innocence of Hobbits, acting as a shield against the malevolence of the Ring of Power. In the sword of truth it is worthiness, as determined by the mentor character. What other characteristic might make the Protagonist appropriate? Does that change them from youthful and idealistic or naive?
Why is the mentor often portrayed as a Grandfatherly wizard? Because to a youth, the elderly know everything that has gone before? They might even be perceived as a bridge to the time of the evil. They are powerful, but lack something the hero has (youth, for instance). Maybe something else portrays some of these characteristics? Or maybe the mentor idea has no place in your story. If so, who/what motivates an teaches the protagonist?
Does the grandfatherly wizard have to be the mentor? Can their role be shifted in the story? If so, to what?
Does there have to be an artifact to destroy, or that can destroy the evil? Could there be something else instead?
Does the Evil have to be from times gone by? If not, what does that do to the whole quest narrative/roadmap?
I hope that has left you something to think about. If you have any ideas, feel free to share them, or link me to your bestseller when it hits amazon. Happy writing!