Sheldon Flender: Let’s say there was a burning building and you could rush in and you could save only one thing: either the last known copy of Shakespeare’s plays or some anonymous human being. What would you do?
With the later half of set of movies we are watching we see the tropes that are used to make a ‘writer’ movie get deconstructed. With Bullets over Broadway we see hat the writer’s inspiration for their work is not always handed down to them from on high by the muses. Especially, in this case where we are not sure who is the muse and who is the writer.In fact, before we can discuss the Jungian type relationship between Cheech and David, we tackle the idea of there being only one writer. It is myth to think that the writer or artist get to success by completely by their own means. People always need a little help. Perhaps, that is accepted that there is central focus on one writer who is inspired by the one muse, which is literally based off of mythology. (Help me I think I’m going into structuralism and Derrida.)
I feel that we do not give due credit to ensemble work when it comes to writing when we don’t mind it with music or acting, we expect band members to work together and the Oscars have an award for the best ensemble cast. Some how this does not translate to other mediums, and when it is done it is always seen as something special, when most television shows have writing crew.
David and Cheech are at their best when working together even though they do not both get the recognition at this point. Things start to go off the rails when David gets too wrapped up in fame created by something that he only had a little hand in, and Cheech bites the bullet because as something that is completely his, and off someone he shouldn’t. They balance each other out with the other doing thing that the other couldn’t, David being something of the mouth piece or cipher who can adapt to the world of Broadway, while Cheech is allowed to have some distance that allows him to be part of the real world he writes about.
The main source of comedy in this film is that David is being praised for work he didn’t really write all that much of. On the opposite side David is told ‘Don’t speak,’ every time that he wants to say something that actually came from him. ‘His’ work is what’s being praised any people are assuming he’s great because he wrote it, we do not know where the separation begins or ends.
There is also the idea of the artist creating his own ‘moral universe.’ Part of me accepted the eccentricities of all the actors and writers from Flenders to Helen, because we expect celebrities, especially artists to be weird. However, while artists tend to break boundaries, which society may follow after on, we can see with David that not all artist believe in that. Some of the people in the film, it seems as something of defense mechanism. Example, this statement seems somewhat delusional to viewers, but is something somebody might actually say.
Sheldon Flender: [bragging] I have never had a play produced. That’s right. And I’ve written one play a year for the past twenty years.
David Shayne: Yes, but that’s because you’re a genius. And the proof is that both common people and intellectuals find your work completely incoherent. Means you’re a genius.
In the end David gets so tired of the moral universe of the artist and seems to go to the other extreme of being a ‘man.’ However, I think he might have started to write again, because there had to be some spark that got him to write in the first place. Or at least become stage manager, he does have flair for stage directions.
