Contour At The Movies

The final two days of shooting for season 2 of OVERRULED are upon us!  If all goes according to plan, Thursday, April 23 wraps production of these 13 episodes.  After that, it’s back to the normal grind of juggling many balls.

It’s been a great shoot so far, made even more exciting by having caught some promos for the series on Family Channel.  We’re told that season 1 will air either in the summer or the fall.

So…what have I learned from the experience this time around? Firstly, I think that I’ve improved my 1/2 hour comedy writing.  I used to take more time setting up a joke, now I fish for the joke in almost every line.  I’m not sure this is the right pace for features, but for 21 minutes and 5 seconds of tween television, it’s what the genre demands.

Secondly, I’ve learned what the big hole in my skillset is.  I’m awful at the politics of this business.  Not the politics of getting a show made, but the politics of knowing what I want and not making people feel off-put because of it.  

I grew up in this business thinking that people like clarity and decisiveness.  You don’t want a director, executive producer, or showrunner who dithers.  However in the hands of some people, clarity and decisiveness come off as strident.  I may be one of those people.  My enormous certainty (not to mention ego) is an acquired taste.

But what can I do?  Without falling victim to delusions of grandeur, I can look back on my career and empirically say that the greatest successes I’ve had have been when I’ve followed my own lead.

I’m reminded of that scene in BROADCAST NEWS (written by James L. Brooks) between Holly Hunter as the news producer and her boss.  Holly’s character, JANE, is relentlessly pushing her vision for how a time-critical news segment should be produced.  Her boss, PAUL, disagrees with her but SHE WON’T LET IT GO.  Finally, he looks at her and says, sarcastically “It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you’re the smartest person in the room.”  Jane looks at him, ready to cry, and says from the bottom of her heart and totally in earnest the following:

“No. It’s awful.”

– Jeffrey Alan Schechter

I’m not going to do a full breakdown of this movie, but just a quick mention.  I saw it last night on cable.  Lush, beautiful, and a total CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF A WEAK MAIN CHARACTER!!!

The two lovers Fermina and Florentino meet in their youth and he takes a vow to love her forever.  And he does.  Even though separated by her scheming father, Florentino goes from a romantic youth to a pathetic adult…unable to be apart from the girl who not only no longer loves him, but is married.  

To drown out the pain of separation, Florentino goes on a fornication rampage, chalking up over 622 conquests over 50 years while trying to achieve his goal…to wait for Fermina’s husband to die so he can win Fermina back.

LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA is a celebrated book, but as a movie Florentino is a disaster of a main character.  We aren’t rooting for him to achieve his goal, he has no real drive (waiting for someone to die of old age is not an active goal, it’s a punch line) and he’s so weak that breaks down in tears quite a lot as an adult.  If you thought Javier Bardem was scary when he was killing people, you should see him cry.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed; if you have an unsympathetic character, going after a weak goal, with no real opposition, you’re in big trouble.    This movie was made by top people, with a great cast, beautifully shot…and it all meant nothing without a good “filmic” story behind it.  Budget $45M.  Worldwide box office $11M.

I have no doubt that the book is wonderful, but rules of film structure and character driven stories are to be ignored at one’s peril.

–Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Blog reader “Twilight” asked the following question:

“I must ask something here about who is the main character in Titanic. All the time I though it was Rose, because she is the character who drives the story, or?

I also think I have read from others like Michael Haug that Rose is the Main Character.

So please tell me how you think.”

This has been a topic of some discussion for me for several years. I used to believe that Jack was the main character based on certain principles, but I’ve heard people argue (effectively) that Rose is the main character. It’s fascinating to me that it’s even a question in my mind.  I’ll outline the principles I use to help determine main character  so you can see why this is the question for me that it is:

Principle #1 – The final battle of every good story is always “The Good Guy vs the Bad Guy over the Stakes.” In TITANIC it’s Jack and Cal over Rose, meaning Jack’s the main character. THE WINNER — JACK. 

Principle #2 – The main character is the one who changes the most from the start of the film to the end. Jack appears to change the most; he goes from a loveless drifter to committed boyfriend to dead, which is a pretty big change. However, Rose also changes from someone trapped in her life and stifled to liberated. THE WINNER — A TIE. 

Principle #3 – The main character is exactly like the main opponent, but with a moral center. The antagonist is who the protagonist IS IN DANGER OF BECOMING if he or she loses that moral center. And often, the antagonist is doing EXACTLY what the protagonist WISHES in their darkest of hearts he or she could do but doesn’t because of that moral center.  In DIE HARD, John Maclean’s dark wish would be to kill his wife’s boss, take her by force, and blow up her office building…which is exactly what Hans Gruber is doing.  In RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, Indiana Jones is so much  like the bad archeologist Belloq that even Belloq calls him on it.  Is Batman really THAT different than the Joker?  

In TITANIC, if Cal is our antagonist, who is like him but with a moral center?  Rose is like him in status, but Jack is like him in desire.  He wants Rose and is as committed to being with her as Cal is, however Jack is moral and Cal isn’t.  Could Jack ever become like Cal if he loses his moral center?  The scene where both he and Cal stand together after convincing Rose to get on the lifeboat sticks in my mind because Jack is just as guilty of being protective of her as Cal is, neither taking into account HER feelings.  Could Rose become like Cal if she loses her moral center?  No, because she’s ready to kill herself before that can happen.  THE WINNER — JACK.

Principle #4 – The main character drives the action.  Jack and Rose take turns driving the action.  It’s his decision to save her life when she’s ready to commit suicide.  It’s her decision to be sketched in the nude.   It’s her decision to get off TITANIC in New York with him.  It’s his decision to martyr himself.  Still, she makes some of the most major plot decisions.  THE WINNER — ROSE, BY A HAIR.

Principle #5 - The main character usually gets the biggest martyr moment at the end.  While Rose gives up a life of leisure, she doesn’t give up her life as Jack does.  THE WINNER — JACK.

So, who’s the main character?  To be honest, I’m still not sure that it’s clear in my mind. Empirically it seems that the evidence points to Jack more strongly than it does to Rose, yet…

Is it possible that Rose is the main character and Jack is the ‘traveling angel’ who changes her life?  Is it possible that Jack is the main character and Rose is the innocent who needs rescuing? Is it possible that they’re both the main character?  

Even with all I’ve written and all I know I’m not sure of the answer, and that intrigues me.  Some very smart people say that Rose is the main character.  They might be right.  My head says Jack, but my heart says Rose.

The real question is ‘what can we, as writers, learn from this?’

TITANIC was a cultural phenomenon.  It was the right movie, at the right time and was a stunning ode to the art of movie making.  What hardly anyone thinks is that it was a well-written script.  In fact, many of the reviews were scathing about the writing.   Of course, success is the best revenge so nobody should feel too badly for Mr. Cameron.   But is it also possible that the lack of clear focus on the main character is a failing and not a virtue?  Is it conceivable that the movie could have been even better with more clarity on the main character?

To me, the biggest takeaway from this question is that if we were writing TITANIC, we should clearly choose either Jack or Rose as the main character and run with that choice.  Not being clear is not an option when you’re trying to launch your career.  

As you can see from all I’ve written, I’m wide open to thinking and rethinking about this question, so…what do YOU think?