Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Creadon's Sundance Bow 'Wordplay' Revels in Hard Times

If you think the cult surrounding Will Shortz–the estimable editor of the New York Times Crossword Puzzle–is a mostly NYC phenomenon, filmmaker Patrick Creadon has news for you. Actually, he has a whole documentary: Wordplay, a brilliant crossword opus which premiered this morning to a packed house at Sundance’s Prospector Square Theatre.

Wordplay director Patrick Creadon, enjoying his first screening of his first-ever Sundance Film Festival (Photo: STV)

In profiling Shortz–from his college degree in “enigmatology” (AKA puzzle-making) to his colorful fan mail–Creadon uses the editor as a hub to survey the impact and influence of the Times Crossword. When he is not checking in with a handful of competitive puzzlers around the country as they prepare for the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament, the director hobnobs with the likes of Bill Clinton, a trash-talking Jon Stewart, the Indigo Girls (who only semi-joke about their inclusion in one Times Crossword as the “highlight of our careers”) and a very, very philosophical Ken Burns among others.
“The idea was always really to learn more about Will Shortz, to find out who he is and how he does what he does,” Creadon told the crowd following the screening. “We kind of thought that the film was just going to be about the New York Times Crossword, but as we got to know more about Will–he’s devoted his entire life to this, he has this annual tournament that he runs, he’s on NPR every Sunday–we knew we had to tell those stories too. And then we also really thought it would be fun to sort of find out more about the puzzle throught the eyes of people who are fans of the puzzle.”
And while Wordplay will inevitably be construed by cynics as a feature-length Times commercial, Creadon sustains a tension that makes its climactic crossword sequence feel like one of Murderball’s wheelchair rugby clashes. Moreover, his diversion into the construction and editing of crosswords is classically rich, inventive documentary fodder. Creadon never condescends to his subjects, even as they hold forth on matters like the power of the letter Q (“I’d just like to say for the record that I don’t go around generally talking about my favorite and least favorite letters of the alphabet,” former tournament champ Trip Payne announed after the film). He allows the perfect amount of breathing room and context for the film to grab its viewers, even as he could probably trim one or two interview segments to shape a leaner, stronger narrative.
Either way, the film made me smile, which is no small feat considering the high ratio of crap I’ve been seeing over the last few days (Police fans will be disappointed to know that the movement to ceremonially burn the Sundance print of Stewart Copeland’s documentary/home movie Everybody Stares gathers steam every hour). The Reeler will return to the Wordplay beat Sunday morning when Shortz, Creadon and the film’s gaggle of puzzle solvers gather for breakfast and a stab at the Sunday Times Crossword. Knowing my own puzzle luck, I hope they bring along plenty of erasers.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “Creadon's Sundance Bow 'Wordplay' Revels in Hard Times”

  1. Kash Sullivan says:

    Loved the movie and all the people in it. Creadon made them come to life and made me care about their stories. It was great fun!

  2. Eileen Doran says:

    Pat: What a great movie. I have known Pat Creadon since he was a boy. Finally got to see your film at the Nashville Film Festival.
    Good Work!
    Eileen Doran (Pat’s sister in Nashville)

  3. Alex says:

    This movie will be enjoyed by everyone who’s ever picked up a newspaper. I helped film small bits of the final tournament, and Patrick really captured the love and dedication that the contestants have for this simple pasttime.

  4. The Hensels says:

    Congrats to Tom Sawyer. You’ve come a long way! Could not happen to a nicer person. Wish there was an opening night in Chicago so we could hit you up for some tickets, but, alas, we will help with the bottom line by buying our tickets, hopefully in a long, long, line tonight in Highland Park, Il. If the 90’s belonged to Weinberg then the 00’s belong to Creadon. Hope to see you nominated for a….. just can’t say it but we got our fingers crossed.
    Robyn and Jim

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon