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