Contour At The Movies

Wasting no time, the geniuses (and all around good guys) over at Mariner Software have shared with me their plans to push a Contour for iPad app through their development process.  This will be in addition to the very, very, very forthcoming Contour for iPhone app.

The above is just a taste of what the iPad version might look like, but one thing’s for certain…it’s exciting times!

– Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – Unmemorable fun with a smattering of man love, a dash of anti-Semitism, and a mean hook.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Sherlock Holmes.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: Stop Lord Blackwood. Personal: Cope with the impending marriage of Watson. Private: Learn that emotion and feeling is just as important as thinking and logic.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Lord Blackwood.

What happens if he fails? –  Holmes, Watson, and Irene Adler will get killed, and the world will be taken over by a crazed genius.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Holmes lives the life of a recluse which is made worse by the fact that his trusted friend, Watson, is moving out to get married.  Nothing intrigues him or confounds him, and he resorts to various diversions to keep himself entertained: predominantly opium and bare-knuckle fighting.

Wanderer – Holmes is called upon to solve the mystery of Lord Blackwood, an aristocrat heavily involved in mysticism who was hanged and has now seemingly risen from the grave.  He is also reunited with the pretty con-artist, Irene Adler who has a case for him.

Warrior – Holmes is brought to Lord Blackwood’s father who tells him about the secret society that his son is involved with.  Holmes now fights to stop Lord Blackwood, reluctantly teaming up with the shady and untrustworthy Irene whom he knows has a secret employer.

Martyr – Holmes works with Inspector Lestrade and is brought before one of the more powerful members of the secret order Blackwood controls.  Holmes escapes and together with Watson and Irene risk their lives to save Parliament and defeat Blackwood.

AND, IN THE END…

Sherlock Holmes is a perfect studio movie; which is to say that it’s completely unwritable and unsellable by an aspiring writer.

Aspiring writers don’t have the clout or the access to sell this kind of story.  No matter how well written a spec Sherlock Holmes script may be, is the world clamouring for another Holmes story? No.  What got people excited about this Sherlock Holmes story was both the reimagining of Holmes as a drug-using action hero and the one actor in Hollywood who could play this Holmes: Robert Downey, Jr.   This was the right actor, in the right movie, at the right time.  For aspiring writers, this type of planetary alignment just doesn’t happen.

As a script, Sherlock Holmes is serviceable.  I don’t know that there’s anything in particular one can learn from its structure or execution that can’t be learned better elsewhere.  As an object lesson in the business of writing stories however, Sherlock Holmes is very informative.

Look at the stories you are working on.  Ask yourself what it is about them that’s going to get people excited?   If you don’t have the access or the clout to deliver those elements, you may want to rethink your business plan.

Oh, and another thing; if you’re a gifted director who’s recently ended a multi-year relationship with a wacky, Kabbalah-spouting spouse, go easy on the negative associations with Jewish iconography in your movies.   One doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what you’re thinking.

- Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – As smart and distant a movie as it’s main character.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Ryan Bingham.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: Keep his job, which involves helping people lose theirs. Personal: Maintain a relationship interruptus with a fellow traveller he meets hit and miss on the road.  Private: learn that putting down roots isn’t a form of death and that human connections are as important as human disconnections.

Who’s trying to stop him? – His boss who wants to turn his job into ‘virtual’ firing instead of face-to-face.

What happens if he fails? – The job he loves will be altered into something he hates, as will the life that he loves.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Ryan is a man without a real home.  Even though he has an apartment, it has the feel of having barely been lived in, which is the reality.  Ryan spends most of his time traveling.

Wanderer – Ryan has to travel and train Natalie, a young hotshot at his company who has a plan to make what Ryan does obsolete.  Ryan’s attempts to show Natalie the ropes are thinly disguised ploys to demonstrate to her and their boss that his job is irreplaceable.  While on the road, Ryan also meets Alex, a female executive who travels almost as much as he does. They develop a relationship.

Warrior – When Natalie gets dumped by her boyfriend, Ryan’s ‘unpack your backpack’ philosophy is quietly vindicated.  Oddly, the more he swings Natalie over to his way of thinking, the more he gets swung over to wanting human connection, largely because of his relationship with Alex.

Martyr – Ryan walks out on the dream lecture he wanted to give (he’s a motivational speaker) in order to pursue Alex.  Unfortunately, Alex had a secret which leaves Ryan more broken and alone at the end of the film than he was at the start.

AND, IN THE END…

This is a very good movie with nothing really innovative to tell us.  Do we ever, ever actually buy into Ryan’s ‘what’s in your backpack?’ way of living his life?  Do we ever think to ourselves that we want to be like Ryan Bingham?  That his worldview, job, or lifestyle is in any way enviable?  No.  Ryan Bingham is a human zoo exhibit.  We get to see how some other species lives and then we move on.

Perhaps the point of the film is to make us more appreciative of our lives by comparing ours to the protagonists.  But Ryan Binghan isn’t Precious Jones.  We never cheer on Ryan’s worldview the way we cheer for Precious to change hers,  and when he does attempt to change and he is made bereft as a result, we are left with a very ambiguous message.

As everyone who knows me and my writing can attest to I’m a storytelling market capitalist.   Stories are products, audiences are customers, and the customer is always right.  UP IN THE AIR is doing good business but at the end of the day do people want to leave their homes, pay a babysitter, and spend their money and time watching a story that not only tells them what they already know (human contact is good) but doesn’t reward a earnest and not unattractive main character who tries to embrace this message?

It’s interesting to compare UP IN THE AIR with THE BLIND SIDE.  Both feature award-contention performances, strong main characters, were released around the same time, and cost about the same to make ($30 million) however THE BLIND SIDE is about human empowerment and UP IN THE AIR is about human disempowerment.  At the risk of oversimplifying, this may be why THE BLIND SIDE has earned around three times what UP IN THE AIR has made.  That doesn’t just translate into extra trips to the bank for the filmmakers of THE BLIND SIDE, albeit true, it translates into a story that is being sought out and heard by more people than UP IN THE AIR’s.

And to a storyteller, that’s better than being bumped up to first class.

- Jeffrey Alan Schechter

So, I was checking out Roger Ebert’s online review for the the movie UP IN THE AIR (my own will be online shortly) when I got to the bottom of the review’s webpage and found this series of sponsored ads automatically pinned to the review by Yahoo’s algorithmic brain:

Why these four?  Well, “Online College Degree” I assume is there because Anna Kendrick plays a character described as an “ambitious new graduate.”

The two refinance ads I assume are there because the review talks about the subject of the film; people being fired (and presumably being grateful to know that they can help their cashflow by refinancing their homes.)

And why the ad for “Aloe Vera Product?”  Because the film co-starts Vera Farmiga.  Duh!

- Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – Whether you’re a fan of Tarantino or not, if you love the language of movies you must, Must, MUST see this movie.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – There are really TWO stories at work here, however the main character is Shoshanna Dreyfus .

What’s she trying to accomplish? – Professional: Kill Nazis. Personal: Not be discovered to be a Jew in hiding.  Private: Avenge the death of her family.

Who’s trying to stop her? – At the most basic level, SS soldier Hans Landa.

What happens if she fails? – She will be discovered and killed.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Shoshanna’s family is wiped out by Nazis when they are given up by the dairy farmer who has hidden them.

Wanderer – Shoshanna inherits a movie theatre in Paris where she blends into the city life until she is courted by the pestering war hero Frederick Zoller.

Warrior – Zoller convinces Goebbels to hold a premiere at Shoshanna’s cinema, inspiring Shoshanna to come up with the idea to kill all of the Nazis who will be in attendance.  She recruits her lover to help, and together plot the destruction of her theatre and all the people in it.

Martyr – Shoshanna gives up her beloved cinema and ultimately her life to carry out her plan, unaware that there is a band of murderous “Basterds” in the theatre with the same idea.

AND, IN THE END…

Quentin Tarantino seems like such a train-off-the-rails in interviews that it’s hard to imagine him inspiring so many talented people to work at the highest levels in the business which they so clearly do in his movies.  But perhaps I’m just jealous, because here is a man who doesn’t just loves movies more than I do, he loves them more than ANYONE does.  That love must be contagious because not only is INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS a lesson in audacious dialog, it’s a master class in filmmaking and acting.  Every shot is beautifully composed and lit; every performance is startling and pitch perfect.  Much like PULP FICTION, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a multi-strand story, layered with stunning dialog and punctuated by machine gun fire.

Why have I pegged Melanie Laurent’s character ‘Shoshanna’ as the main character when it’s Brad Pitt’s face on the posters?  I’ll grant that it’s tricky identifying the hero of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, but  I always fall back on five principles when trying to determine the main character:

Principle #1 – The climactic battle  is always ‘the Good Guy vs the Bad Guy over the Stakes.’ In INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, one might argue that at the end it’s Brad Pitt’s character battling Landa over whether he’ll stop the Basterds plot to kill Hitler, but it’s not much of a battle.  More of a chit-chat.  Shoshanna is fighting to carry HER revenge plot to it’s conclusion.

Principle #2 – The main character is the one who changes the most from the start of the film to the end.  Aldo is exactly the same at the end as he is in the beginning.  Shoshanna goes from dirty, scared girl to self-assured, self-sacrificing woman.

Principle #3 – The main character is exactly like the main opponent, but with a moral center. The Nazis want to kill Jews.  Shoshanna wants to kill Nazis.  And while it’s true that so do the Basterds, their desire is built on racial revenge: they’re all Jewish.  Shoshanna is the one whom the Nazis were personally cruel to, the one with the deepest wound.  She has a moral centre, and the Basterds…well…perhaps less so.

Principle #4 – The main character drives the action. Aldo gets his order from OSS.  Shoshanna comes up with her plan on her own, by her own.

Principle #5 - The main character usually gets the biggest martyr moment at the end. Hands down, Shoshanna gives up the most in order to see her plan through.

Not unlike PULP FICTION, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS doesn’t violate the rules of storytelling (vis Contour) but demonstrates how structure need not be formulaic.  It’s also an object lesson on scriptwriting that gets noticed.  I often caution people against trying to launch themselves with a script that’s too difficult.  I have to believe that if Joe Blow from Ogallala had written INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, people would have sat up and noticed him.   An ear for dialog, an understanding of human nature, the ability to communicate your love and passion for story with single-minded devotion, an innate comprehension of how stories work, and cajones the size of Nazi-Occupied France are all you need to be your own Tarantino.

- Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – Not the Second Coming, but it’ll do for now.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Jake Sulley.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: Integrate into the Na’vi people to help them. Personal: Find his place in the world now  that he’s lost use of his legs.  Private: Unclear.  Possibly believe in something in the aftermath of his brother’s death (but I may be projecting.)

Who’s trying to stop him? – Both the Na’vi, who don’t trust him, and Colonel Miles Quaritch, who feels that Jake’s gone native.

What happens if he fails? – The Na’vi will be destroyed and their sentient planet will be laid waste.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Jake’s twin brother is dead and — thanks to sharing his genius brother’s genome code — Jake is an outcast both to the scientists on the planet (he has no training) as well as to the soldiers who are less than sympathetic to a paraplegic soldier on such a hostile planet.

Wanderer – After being nominally accepted by the indigenous people of the planet, the 10 foot tall Na’vi, Jake is trained DANCES WITH WOLVES style in how to be a member of their race.

Warrior – As Jake has fallen in love with the warrior princess Neytiri, Jake fights for his rightful place amongst the people, slowly being accepted as one of them.

Martyr – Jake gives up his association with being human in order to live and fight with the Na’vi against the destruction of their culture.

AND, IN THE END…

AVATAR redefines epic for the new, 3D awareness.  As always, James Cameron is filthy with creativity and light on meaningful dramaturgy.  His story rockets along like a neurotoxin-tipped arrow and is completely and totally serviced by the characters and dialog.  I know that sounds like damning with faint praise, but it really isn’t.  One doesn’t go to a Cameron movie expecting to hear Tarantino.  You go to see a visual impresario at work, and in the case of AVATAR you get your money’s worth.

AVATAR’s problem isn’t that it’s predictable; anyone who’s seen DANCES WITH WOLVES knows the AVATAR story.  The problem with the movie is that AVATAR wears its’ story on its’ sleeve as heavily as its’ politics.  It’s the evil corporate goon from ALIENS, teamed up with the evil company from TERMINATOR 2, employing the evil soldiers from THE ABYSS.  Cameron has an anti-establishment song to sing, only we’ve heard it before.

The  compelling aspect of AVATAR isn’t the story but the integration of 3D technology into the story.  For all it’s faults, what AVATAR does do is single-handedly usher in the era of adult 3D movies.  No cheap gimmicks here; just the dawning of a new era in immersive story-telling.  For that alone, AVATAR needs to be respected.

Ultimately, AVATAR is a standard story told in game-changing style.

- Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – A movie that generates small smiles instead of big laughs — which I can only assume was not the intent of the filmmakers.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Jane (Meryl Streep.)

What’s she trying to accomplish? – Professional: Decide if she should give her ex-husband another chance. Personal: Find love.  Private: Be okay being comfortably middle-aged.

Who’s trying to stop her? – Noone, really.  She has her own uncertainties, and her ex-husband’s nightmare of a wife and stepson are certainly an issue, but Jane’s obstacles are really her own doing.

What happens if she fails? – Absolutely nothing.  She either ends up with her über-repentant husband (played nicely by Alec Baldwin) or ends up with the puppy dog eyed  architect who adores her (played by the largely wasted Steve Martin.)

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – The last of Jane’s children is off to college and she is, for the first time since her divorce 10 years earlier, completely alone (except for her great house, great job, great friends, and great life.)

Wanderer – After attending her son’s graduation in NY, she hooks up with her ex-husband and has a drunken fling with him, starting the process for Jane of trying to figure out how to be the ‘other’ women; even if it’s with her ex-husband.

Warrior – As the smitten architect who is remodelling her home becomes more smitten with her, Jane has to fight to keep her relationship with her ex from spiralling out of control, keep her kids from finding out (supposedly, we are told towards the end) so that they don’t get hurt again by their mom and dad’s relationship, and decide who she really wants to be in love with.

Martyr – Because she has two suitors, each one eager to be with her and neither one a total jerk, Jane stands to lose little or nothing.  She seemingly gives up nothing, sacrifices nothing.

AND, IN THE END…

IT’S COMPLICATED is a movie that suffers from a surfeit of star-power, much of it misplaced. Meryl Streep has trouble finding a date?!  Alec Baldwin is a good guy?!  Steve Martin is earnest?!   One can imagine the excitement as word came in that these three agreed to be in the movie, but however good they are on paper they do not serve the needs of the story.

The  movie is also hamstrung by it’s own gentility.   The average audience member can no more relate to the polite, warm, and (dare I say?) ‘uncomplicated’ lifestyle of the protagonists than they can relate to the characters in a Victorian comedy of manners.

Another problem with the film is that we are told many things but shown very little.  We are told that Jane hasn’t done the deed in 10 years, but we aren’t shown why.  We are told that Jane doesn’t want to hurt her kids, but we don’t see that they’re damaged goods, though they tell us that they were in their incredibly well-scrubbed undamaged way.  We are told that Jane’s ex-husband is a jerk, but he’s actually…uh…nice.  In many scenes, he’s a lot nicer than Jane.  Perhaps that’s the point of the story: how JERK plus TIME plus INTROSPECTION equals NICE GUY, but again we are told this in a speech by the ex-husband.

The story itself is as mild as the characters inhabiting it.  With the exception of deciding not to subject her kids (all young adults) to the vagaries of starting up a relationship with their dad again, Jane seemingly has very little going on that will fall apart regardless of who she chooses to be with.  SOPHIE’S CHOICE, it isn’t.  Ultimately the story collapses from being top-heavy with talent and bottom-light with conflict.

Here’s a bad pitch version of the same story, just a little different: Jane’s bakery business is failing, her kids have all moved out, she’s barely holding onto the house because she’s poured every penny she has into keeping the business going, she hasn’t gotten laid in a decade…and into THIS situation comes two guys.  The first is her rich ex-husband who had been a world-class jerk and may or may not still be (Jane can’t tell because he’s really ‘walking the walk’), and the second is sweet, sincere architect Adam who is caught between a rock and a hard place: Jane’s really late paying for the plans for the renovation she can now no longer afford (Adam’s boss wants Adam to collect NOW!) however he’s falling in love with her.    Oh, and Jane is played by Kathy Bates, not Meryl Streep.

- Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – A movie as slight as a one-hit wonder, but just as endearing.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – ‘Young’ Carl.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: Get his life together (at the insistence of his mother) by living on a pirate radio ship with a rowdy bunch of DJ’s.Personal: find out who his real father is.  Private: have a relationship with the father he’s been waiting his entire life for.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Ostensibly, Sir Alistair Dormandy, the government official charged with trying to shut down pirate radio.  Additionally, his mother who is vague about who his father really is.

What happens if he fails? – He will never know his father, and then when he does know who is father is, he and his father will actually die due to the government’s inaction when the ship starts to sink.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Carl doesn’t have much of a relationship with his mother, and doesn’t know who his father is.

Wanderer – Carl tries to learn how to fit in aboard the pirate radio ship, slowly becoming familiar with its’ peculiar rhythms.

Warrior – Carl gets the idea put into his head that one of the DJs might be his father, so he sets out to figure out which one.

Martyr – There are multiple martyr beats running simultaneously.  Once the government announces that pirate radio is illegal, everyone decides to keep broadcasting and risk jail time.  Then, with the ship sinking and Carl now aware of who his father is, Carl risks his own life to save his father from drowning.

AND, IN THE END…

PIRATE RADIO’s plot is more a series of episodes rather than a full story.  It actually reminded me of M.A.S.H.; a group of quirky, completely entertaining characters live and love together in tight quarters, doing something noble.  In M.A.S.H., the characters are saving lives.  In PIRATE RADIO, they’re saving rock and roll.

The fun of this movie is definitely NOT the story, the thinness of which is merely a delivery vehicle for the joy of spending time with a group of colorful and funny, characters.  And don’t mistake ‘colorful and funny’ for ‘well-defined.’  We never know who anyone really is or how they got that way.  There’s nary a backstory to be found.  Instead, it’s like going to a great party and being immediately drawn in by the people there. By the end of the night you feel like you’re one of them, without really knowing who ‘them’ is.

The movie is a brilliant example of funny writing given to memorable characters.  You leave the theater not enlightened, but certainly entertained.  Who wouldn’t want to spend a few deranged hours with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Bill Nighy, Nick Frost, and Rhys Ifans as they spin tunes, bond, and make the world a better place one transistor radio at a time?

- Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – Ignore those logic questions scratching at the back of your brain.  The movie’s kinda fun!

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Nick Rice.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: put an end to Clyde’s vendetta against the broken justice system. Personal: fix his relationship with his family.  Private: learn how justice should really be won.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Clyde Shelton.

What happens if he fails? – Clyde will continue killing people (including innocents) all over the city.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Nick’s focus is on his work instead of his family.  His approach to legal justice might also be seen as misguided, dubious and self-serving.

Wanderer – Nick joins forces with his colleague (Sarah) and a local detective, and together they try to figure out how and why Clyde’s killing people when he’s locked up in a maximum security prison.  When those attached to the case start dying after Nick doesn’t take Clyde’s demands seriously, Nick makes it his sole mission to stop Clyde.

Warrior – Nick throws everything into the investigation, eventually becomes the city’s DA, and races against time to stop Clyde’s murderous agenda.

Martyr – Nick is willing to die to stop the bombing of important government officials, and later risks his legal career by tricking Clyde into killing himself.

AND, IN THE END…

There’s certainly some dubious logic at work in LAW ABIDING CITIZEN (e.g., How does Clyde leave his cell for any length of time without the prison guards noticing?), but that’s a conceit that I have no trouble overlooking.  If that sort of thing got to me, I’d have issues with a lot of movies!  Like in HOME ALONE: why would Kevin take on a pair of bumbling burglars when he could simply call the police?  Answer: who cares?!  The movie’s fun!

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN is an interesting take on the notion that the hero and villain create one another.  When high-flying lawyer Nick takes on Clyde’s case following the murder of Clyde’s family, his feeling of injustice at Nick’s handling of things creates his belief that the justice system is broken – and so begins Clyde’s vendetta.  This in turn brings Nick into action as the hero.  Similar cycles appear all the time in movies.  Batman: Jack Napier kills Bruce Wayne’s parents, creating Batman; Batman later causes Jack Napier to fall into a vat of acid, creating The Joker.  The Incredibles: Mr. Incredible crushes Buddy Pine’s dream of becoming a superhero, so he becomes Syndrome.  Syndrome’s antics later cause Mr. Incredible to come out of hiding and resume his crime-fighting career.  It’s a kinda cool pattern to watch out for.

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – A technically wonderful movie, but sadly it loses steam rather quickly.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Max.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: rule the Wild Things and keep ’sadness’ away.  Personal: forge a friendship with Carol. Private: learn the importance of family.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Some of the Wild Things are skeptical of Max (and kinda want to eat him!), and their idiosyncrasies throw up some challenges, but much of Max’s conflict is internal.

What happens if he fails? – Max will never be part of a family, and the Wild Things will probably eat him.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Max lives completely inside his imagination, which puts him at odds with the real world around him. He doesn’t have a dad, and his teenage sister has begun ditching him for her friends.  Soon, Max becomes the only human amongst the Wild Things.

Wanderer – Max gets to know the Wild Things, starts developing a friendship with Carol, begins to explore the island and learns about being part of a unit with creatures he can understand and relate to.  Max learns that Carol has been harboring a dream home (of sorts) for the Wild Things.

Warrior – Max leads the Wild Things as they make Carol’s vision a reality.   They act like a real team and build their new “base”.  However, when tensions rise between the Wild Things, Max must struggle to settle the disputes and keep the group from falling apart.  They begin to suspect that Max isn’t the magical leader he claimed to be, and Carol turns on him.

Martyr – To escape Carol, Max must let himself be “eaten” by a Wild Thing so he can hide in its stomach. Max realizes he can’t help the Wild Things, and decides he must return to the real world.

AND, IN THE END…

I think if I saw WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE a second time, I’d enjoy it more.  Most of my energy was spent trying to figure out what was going on, why stuff was happening, etc..  Then again, if this all happened in the mind of a wildly imaginative kid, maybe that’s to be expected.  Normally it doesn’t make a big difference to my enjoyment/understanding of a movie, but in this case, I think not having read the book beforehand was a big handicap!

That aside, the movie was rich in a lot of ways.  The puppetry really was amazing.  The level of imagination, feeling of fun and adventure – it really does make you feel as if you’re in a kid’s imagination; or maybe it reminded me of how easy it was to live in my own world when I was that age.   Max trying to be the king of the Wild Things was also a fun spin on the dynamic of a difficult child learning the challenges of parenting.

One issue I had with Max was that I just didn’t like him that much, despite elements present to make him a sympathetic character.  There’s certainly undeserved misfortune: Max’s father has left, a new father figure might be moving in, he lives in his own world and nobody understands that apart from him, he doesn’t seem to have any friends his own age, and so on.  However, all that sympathy went down the drain for me when Max bit his really, really nice mother.  Obviously this is only my opinion, but it draws attention to how you should be careful how you make your character sympathetic.  Or, to make sure you don’t undo the sympathy you’d built up for your character.

- Dan Pilditch