Contour At The Movies

Overall Impression  – A beautiful movie experience which DELIBERATELY DEFIES NARRATIVE STORY STRUCTURE.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS 

Who’s your main character? — Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch).

What’s he trying to accomplish? — Go to Alaska and have an existential experience living in the wild.

Who’s trying to stop him? — Nature, resources, the amazing people that he meets along the way, and ultimately his own rules of individuality.

What happens if he fails? — Here’s where it gets complicated.  If he fails to get to Alaska it’s no big deal because his experiences along the way are so rich (principally because of the people he meets and the effect he has on their lives.)  Because of this, we’re not invested in his goal, but in his journey.  The stakes are also mitigated by the fact that going in, most people will know what the movie is about and that the successful achieving of his goal of  getting to Alaska will lead to Chris’s death.  We therefore, if we’ve achieved any empathy for Chris, are hoping that he doesn’t get to Alaska.  I told you it was complicated…

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan — Chris gives away all of his money, cuts up his credit cards, and very early on hits the road.  The problem here is that narratively, this happens very early and with very little context.  For those who know TotallyWrite  story structure, this pulls the Central Question way, way up into what would be Act One, however since this film only loosely follows a traditional three act structure, what difference does it make?

Wanderer — Chris literally starts wandering early.  The film also cuts back and forth along Chris’s narrative time line.  The film starts with him arriving at the trailhead in Alaska, cuts back two years earlier to him  graduating, jumps forward, shifts into memory; it’s a true, rich movie experience, beautifully done and narratively compelling in it’s own way.  

Warrior — I’m not sure that there is actually a warrior moment.  Might it be when Chris starts getting himself in shape to go Alaska, somewhere around the “Slab City” section of the film?  I’d love to  hear other people’s thoughts on this.

Martyr — Chris never has to give up his goal of getting to Alaska or going into the wild, but he ends up martyring himself painfully and regretfully to his dream.

AND, IN THE END…

I believe that most aspiring (and even established) writers want to connect to the widest possible audience.   They want to write stories that get studios and producers excited.  They want their stories told faithfully and they want those stories to be seen by millions of people.  They want all of this because they know that if they are fortunate enough to get one of their scripts made and it dies at the box office, their chances of getting more work as a writer decrease.  A box office success, hopefully followed by one or two more, means that they’re a working screenwriter rather than a one-trick pony. 

INTO THE WILD is a very singular film, made through the sheer will and determination of a very singular talent — Sean Penn — who wrote and directed the movie.  One can understand why Mr. Penn would be attracted to the story of a young man, driven by his own personal beliefs to take chances others can’t appreciate.  In Chris McCandless, Mr. Penn has truly found a kindred spirit.

Its unconventional structure and lack of a clearly empathetic main character (why couldn’t Chris at some point in the two years he was gone call his parents or sister to tell them that he was okay?)  makes it clear why this film took Mr. Penn ten years to get made.  It also helps explain why it’s struggling at the box office.  It’s not because it’s a bad piece of filmmaking; in fact, it’s one of the most stunning directorial achievements of the year.  And if Hal Holbrook doesn’t get a Best Supporting Actor nomination, there is no justice.  No, the film is struggling because it was born to struggle.  Chris McCandless didn’t care what you thought of his journey, he was taking it regardless.  The same can be said for this film.

INTO THE WILD is a perfect movie for writers to watch.  It’s beautiful, it’s unconventional, and if you’re looking for a mainstream screenwriting career, it’s exactly the kind of movie you write AFTER you become as big as Sean Penn.

Overall Impression — Infectious fun that compensates for a certain lightness of story.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? – Tracy Turnblad.

What’s she trying to accomplish? – She’s trying to fall in love with Link, get the Corny Collins show integrated, and win the Miss Teenage Hairspray competition.

Who’s trying to stop her? – Station manager Velma Von Tussle.

What happens if she fails? – The black kids are relegated to only performing once a month on television and she loses the one boy who could love her for who she is.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan — Tracy is an outcast in school, ridiculed by all except her best friend.

Wanderer — Tracy learns some new dances, meets the black kids at school, and eventually makes it onto the Corny Collins Show.

Warrior — Now a celebrity, Tracy starts championing the cause of integration, while also having caught Link’s eye.

Martyr — She’s willing to give it all up in order to give the black kids a chance to dance on a live broadcast.  By doing this she might lose the competition, Link, and her own spot on the show.  She doesn’t care, and even though she loses the competition (to a very worthy kid), she wins Link (and he wins her by doing the right thing.)

AND, IN THE END…

Tracy is classic traveling angel.  A real Pollyanna who only sees the positive aspects of life, she has a positive effect on everyone’s life; her mom, her best friend, the black kids, and ultimately herself.

The film works well on many levels, and my niggling complaint is that the dramatic turns are very surface.  Then again, nobody was trying to make CITIZEN KANE.  I’ll shut up now.  It’s a fun movie,  structurally sound, that’s so good we don’t care that Tracy actually ISN’T the best dancer on the floor or that her mom looks like that guy from GREASE.

Overall Impression — A well-crafted movie that tries to do everything right and succeeds from a structural viewpoint, but is ultimately undone by some unclear character motivations.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? – Christian Bale’s Dan Evans.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Save the family ranch by getting the outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) onto a prison train.

Who’s trying to stop him? – The evil land owner, Ben Wade, and the outlaw’s bandits.

What happens if he fails? —  He loses everything he has; his ranch, his money, and the little respect his wife and sons have for him.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan –  Not only is Dan is completely helpless in his drive to save the ranch from the land owner  who has cut off his water rights, even his wife doesn’t believe in him any more.  He’s orphaned not only from his community but from his family.

Wanderer –  He takes the job to help bring Ben Wade to the prison train, and has to negotiate through dangerous territory to get there.  At first, he is more reactive on the trip, allowing others to dictate the terms of how to bring Ben in.  He also begins to learn more about Ben and his code of ethics.   Similarly, Ben learns about Dan as well.

Warrior —  As the pressure mounts and more and more members of the escort party get killed, Dan steps up and takes a more active role in bringing Ben in, refusing all opportunities to give up.  It becomes not about the money, but about respect.

Martyr –  It comes down to just Dan, who in order to secure the respect of his eldest son, risks everything to get Ben to the train on time. 

AND, IN THE END… 

Another really admirable movie that falls apart at the end, though not because of lack of “TotallyWrite-ness.”  Basically, everything is in the right place, but the film runs into a huge character motivation problem with Ben at the end.   Ben’s willingness NOT to be too much of a hinderance to Dan becomes so problematic as to ultimately undo the thin logic that was holding it all together.

An interesting observation: the very smart Gilbert Maclean Evans once pointed out to me that all movies (and by all we mean “most”) are about the main character’s drive to get respect.  3:10 TO YUMA wears that drive on its’ sleeve.

Overall Impression — Crass, rude, and I loved it.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? — Seth Rogen’s slacker-stoner, Ben.

What’s he trying to accomplish? —  Ben’s trying to figure out how to be a good boyfriend and potential father.

Who’s trying to stop him? —  To an extent, his slacker buddies as well as the girl he…uh…knocked up, Alison (Katherine Heigl) as well as her sister and brother-in-law.

What happens if he fails? —  He loses the one girl he’s ever met who could possibly love him.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Ben is a happy, broke, stoned slacker who is forced to leave his “community” when he sleeps up and gets Alison pregnant.

Wanderer — Ben tries to figure out how not to be so rude and objectionable, how to fit in with Alison’s family (particularly her sister) and how to be a good match for Alison whom  he love and who is beginning to love him.  The problem is that he’s not really committed to doing the right thing, but to making it look like he’s doing the right thing.

Warrior —  After Alison rejects a marriage proposal, Ben starts fighting harder to be the right person for her.  Unfortunately this only involves trying to fit her into his slacker life.  He also starts getting more antagonist as his efforts fail. 

Martyr – Finally, Ben realizes that real changes have to be made.  He moves out of the apartment he shares with his friends, gives up the empty dream of launching his snarky website, gets a job, and by doing so, finally becomes the person Alison and their baby needs.

AND, IN THE END… 

Such a great, simple story.  Of course, what puts this over the top is the outrageous humour which, while crude in many places, is so grounded in reality and uniquely funny that it’s hard not to be impressed. 

I’m often telling writers that they have to “bring something to the party.”  What I mean is that if they write a scene that ANYONE could have written, then who needs them?  There are so many moments in KNOCKED UP where Judd Apatow and/or his crazy-talented cast bring something to the party that I can’t help but smile with admiration while also marveling at the minds that came up with the word “smish-smortion.”

Overall Impression — A feel-good movie that tries a little too hard, with a seriously misplaced antagonist.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? — John Cusack’s character of David.

What’s he trying to accomplish? –  He’s trying to adopt a troubled child.

Who’s trying to stop him? — His own personal doubts, his sister, the adoption board (who questions whether David is the right parent for this child,) but ultimately it’s the child himself who is the antagonist of the film.  YIKES!

What happens if he fails? — A very cute, very special kid doesn’t get adopted by the one person on the planet who is right for him.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan — David’s a widower, however it’s been a few years and early in the film we meet Harlee, played  by Amanda Peet, who seems to be interested and available.  I mention this because it weakens anyone’s orphan status to have Amanda Peet interested in them in the first few scenes of a film.  For example, imagine SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE.  How heartbroken would you be for Tom Hanks if the film began a year or two after his wife died and Amanda Peet was hanging around him, interested and available?

Wanderer — David decides to adopt a child and tries to figure out how to get through to this over-imaginative kid who thinks he’s from Mars.

Warrior — David becomes increasingly less willing to indulge the kid’s fantasies, while also trying to convince the adoption board and his family (and himself!) that he’s right for the boy.

Martyr — To the film’s detriment, David doesn’t actually have to sacrifice anything at the end.  It’s not like he’s given an either-or choice between the kid and his job, or the kid and some desired relationship.  This is a big weakness of the story.

AND, IN THE END…

David’s lack of sacrifice makes the story less compelling than it could have been.  John Cusack’s  charming, the kid is cute, Amanda Peet is available (have I mentioned that before?), the script is serviceable…yet…ultimately nobody cares.  

MARTIAN CHILD falls apart towards the start of Act Three when the adoption board is placated.  With them out of the way, what’s left to interfere with the adoption?  Surprise!  The boy himself who, in spite of brilliantly pretending in front of the adoption board that he no longer thinks he’s from Mars, still does.  The final confrontation is between David and the boy.  

An inviolate rule of storytelling is that the final confrontation is always the Good Guy vs Bad Guy over Stakes.  So…David fights for the boy against THE BOY?!  Big mistake, and to my way of thinking about story, this is the big failing of the script.

The boy doesn’t seem intent on wanting to be at David’s house until the very, very end of the film which seriously undercuts the audience empathy.  If the boy doesn’t care, why should we?

TRIVIA — MARTIAN CHILD is based on the novel of the same name by David Gerrold which is a semi-autobiographical story of his adoption of his son.  David Gerrod is a science fiction writer perhaps best known for the famous TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES episode of the original STAR TREK series.  Back in my misguided youth when I was a serious Trekker, I wrote to David Gerrold and told him I wanted to be a writer just like him.   He wrote back and was very encouraging to a 16 year  old geek fanboy.  I am in his debt.

Overall Impression — Odd, inconsistent tone that veers between cartoon comedy and serious violence.  Cool effects, though.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? — Sam Witwicky.

What’s he trying to accomplish? —  Save the world by enabling the good robots to defeat the bad robots.

Who’s trying to stop him? — Megatron, as well as certain governmental factions (though they come around to his side towards the end.)

What happens if he fails? — The world falls to the evil Decepticons.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Sam is a geek loser at school.  Uncool, doesn’t have a car, doesn’t have a girl.

Wanderer – Tries to figure out what’s going on with his new car and all these other vehicles which suddenly are able to transform into giant robots.  He eventually realizes that the glasses he’s gotten from his famous explorer grandfather are a key to this puzzle.

Warrior —  He goes head to head with the authorities while the good Autobots get more engaged with the bad Decepticons.

Martyr —  Sam is willing to risk himself to save Optimus Prime from Megatron.

 AND, IN THE END…

I SO wanted to love this movie and ended up only liking it.  The sad thing is that I didn’t feel particularly good about myself when that happened.  It appealed to that part of me that likes loud noises, big film scores, cool effects…all the surface gloss and glitter.  But there’s that other part of me that wants a more involving story with real emotions, and this film didn’t have it.

Compare this to either of Michael Bay’s ARMAGEDDON or THE ROCK.  Both superior action movies because we cared about the people in them as well as their relationships.

Overall Impression — Interesting in the way watching a car crash is interesting.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? – Nicole Kidman’s character, Margot.

What’s she trying to accomplish? —  To stop her sister from marrying the wrong guy.

Who’s trying to stop her? – The guy, Margot’s son, and Margot’s sister.

What happens if she fails? – Her sister marries a highly dysfunctional man.   But seeing how she’s dysfunctional herself, how much do we care?

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Margot leaves the city and goes to the old, family house on the water the week before her sister’s wedding.  Even though she’s with her son, she’s in the throes of figuring out how to leave her husband.

Wanderer —  Margot tries to get to know the fiance (Jack Black) but doesn’t bond with him, while also trying to figure out how to get her sister to understand how wrong this guy is.

Warrior — Margot kinda comes out and tells her sister not to marry him, after kinda dancing around it.  Herein lies a major weakness; stories can’t survive with their main character being a kinda warrior.

Martyr – I’m not really sure what she gives up or sacrifices.  There is a moment at the end when she’s about to send her son off to be with her husband, but she chases after the bus and gets on to travel with her son.  I guess she gave up something, though as I’m not really sure what her big goals were relative to her son, this beat fails.

 AND, IN THE END…

Another great cast squandered with self-indulgent storytelling.   I’m not sure for whom this movie was made, but unpleasant characters running around saying and doing unpleasant things seems to me like something that would appeal to only a small handful of potential audience members.  The movie is being released very slowly, in the hope of generating some Oscar buzz for Noah Baumbach who wrote and directed the also unpleasant but somehow better THE SQUID AND THE WHALE.  

Overall Impression — No TOY STORY…but what is? 

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? – Barry, the Bee (voiced by Jerry Seinfeld.)

What’s he trying to accomplish? —  He’s trying find his place in the hive, which leads him to wanting to stop the humans from taking the bee’s honey.

Who’s trying to stop him?  – The bees who want him to follow tradition and the humans who don’t like the idea of treating insects like equals.

What happens if he fails? – Shockingly…the world comes to an end!  Hat’s off to the writers for pulling this one off.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Barry is misunderstood by his friends and family.  

Wanderer – Barry leaves the hive, gets caught in bad weather and finally meets the girl of his dreams…sorta.  She’s human.  The more time he spends with her the more they like each other, until he discovers that humans take honey from bees and sell it.

Warrior – Barry decides sue the humans.  He wins the case and humans aren’t allowed to take honey anymore.  No honey, no pollination.  No pollination, no plant life.  No plant life…worldwide catastrophe!

Martyr – Barry has to save the girl directly (she’s in a plane that’s going to crash) as well as save the world by getting the bees back on the job…but with improved cooperation between human and insect.

AND IN THE END…

I was all ready to be disappointed with BEE MOVIE, but I actually rather liked it.  It’s weakness comes from the outlandishness of the plot, so it ends up feeling more clever than smart, but that was always part of SEINFELD’s charm.  Not that there’s anything wrong with it…

Overall Impression — A sweet movie with a great cast.  

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? – Steve Carell’s Dan Burns.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – He’s trying find love…and unfortunately for him the object of  his affection is his brother’s new girlfriend (Juliette Binoche).

Who’s trying to stop him? – Everyone!  The family thinks she’s great, his brother’s a jerk, she’s clearly getting interested in him…but stealing your brother’s girlfriend is wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

What happens if he fails? – The girl of his dreams will leave forever, or worse, marry his brother which will mean a lifetime of torture for Dan.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan –  Dan’s a widower, who has all but given up on finding a woman as wonderful as his dead wife.

Wanderer –Dan travels to a family reunion where he cute-meets a great girl, only to discover that she’s his brother’s new girlfriend.   He tries avoiding her, avoiding his feelings, but eventually realizes that he can’t, so he goes…

Warrior – …negative on her!  He tells her that whenever he thinks about her, he’s going to think about her flaws.  He even goes out on a date with a wildly inappropriate local girl to make Marie think he’s not interested in her (which just serves to make her more interested in him!)

Martyr – A little weak, here.  As I recall, Dan only gives up his reluctance to tell Marie how he feels.  This leads to a fight with his brother, Marie leaving, and ultimately…getting back together again.  More pointedly, he does give up on not allowing his daughter to drive (he lost his license and now needs her to drive him to the city to find Marie) but this is thin.

AND IN THE END…

Dying is easy…comedy is hard.  And romantic comedy is hardest of all. DAN IN REAL LIFE does a great job but falls a little short in the “martyr” beats.  Not a lot short, only a little.  Still, a nice story, well acted and well told.

Overall Impression – A little too long, but a classic two-hander with Mssrs Washington and Crowe commanding the screen.

 THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? – In spite of the dominance of  Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) Russel Crowe’s Richie Roberts is the main character.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – He’s trying to stop the flow of the newest, most potent heroin on the streets of Harlem.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Dirty cops and Frank Lucas.

What happens if he fails? – People will continue to die from this potent heroin, as well as from the organized crime syndicate behind it. 

 THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Richie is separated from his wife who is in the process of taking his young son away from him.  He’s also a pariah in the police department for being one of what seems to be a very few uncorrupt cops.

Wanderer – Richie puts together a team of cops to track down where the new heroin is coming from.

Warrior – Richie and his team eventually discover that Frank Lucas is behind it, and the closer he gets the more dangerous it becomes for him, both from inside the force and from the streets.

Martyr – Richie refuses to take a lot of dirty money…again!   He also gives up his son to his wife, recognizing that his lifestyle would not give his son the homelife the son needs. 

AND, IN THE END…

Richie has a clearly defined code of ethics which plays perfectly off of Frank Lucas’s clearly defined code of ethics.  In this way, the film is not dissimilar to HEAT, with a driven cop and a ruthless yet ‘principled’ (and I use that term loosely) gangster going head to head with each other.  A very solid script and a good piece of storytelling.