Contour At The Movies

Overall Impression – Gotta be my favorite zombie movie ever.  Probably one of my favorite MOVIES ever.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Columbus.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: survive the zombie armageddon.  Personal: win Wichita.  Private: fix his ‘survival rules’ – stop avoiding attachment, learn to enjoy the little things, and (occasionally) be the hero.

Who’s trying to stop him? – The zombies, but also Wichita and her sister.

What happens if he fails? – They’ll all die.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Columbus is one of the most ‘orphaned’ characters I’ve seen.  He’s one of the few surviving humans.  He’s separated from his family.  He’s never had a girlfriend.  He avoided people even before they were zombies.   He even says, “We are all orphans in Zombieland”.  Columbus meets Tallahassee, and they team up, refusing to use their real names to avoid attachment.  They meet Wichita and her younger sister, who con the guys, steal Tallahassee’s ride and abandon them.

Wanderer – Columbus and Tallahassee go searching for a new vehicle, discover some weapons, and find Wichita and her sister again… only to be taken hostage once more.  They learn that the girls are headed to a zombie-free amusement park.  Columbus learns that his parents are dead, and feels lost as a result.  However, as the group travels, Columbus and Wichita bond, and he realizes he has something worth living for.

Warrior – Columbus decides to stick with the group and tries in earnest to win Wichita.  They drive into Hollywood and party in Bill Murray’s mansion, and Columbus puts the “moves” on Wichita.  However, in the end the ‘no attachment’ rule wins out and Wichita and her sister ditch the guys once more, heading to the amusement park alone.  Columbus decides to man up and pursue Wichita, and he and Tallahassee race to the amusement park – which has become overrun with zombies.

Martyr – Columbus faces down his greatest fear – a clown zombie – and is willing to die to save Wichita and her sister from the zombie-infested amusement park.

AND, IN THE END…

I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s take on zombies: they’re hilarious, and ZOMBIELAND makes the most of that.  Boasting some extremely memorable characters, this was total anarchic, ridiculous fun from start to finish.  Please run out and see this movie before it leaves theaters.  If nothing else, see it for what’s probably the most hilarious cameo to come along in a while.

Much like in TITANIC or PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, it’s somewhat up for debate as to who the main character is: Columbus or Tallahassee?  There are some tests to help determine this:

1 – At the end of the movie, it’s the hero versus the villain over stakes.  Very close, but I’d go with Columbus. He clashes most directly with the zombies over the stakes characters (Wichita and Little Rock).

2 – The hero changes the most from the start to the finish.  I’m still undecided on this one.  Perhaps Tallahassee, by a hair.

3 – The hero is like the villain, but with a moral centre.  Definitely Tallahassee.  Zombies destroy without reason, love blood and guts, and have one-track minds (brains!).  What’s Tallahassee like?  He destroys without reason, loves blood and guts, and has a one-track mind (twinkies!).  The only difference between the two, apart from a pulse, is that Tallahassee has a moral centre.

4 – The hero drives the action.  Again very close, but I’d say Columbus makes most of the decisions.  (Notably, to save the girls from the amusement park).

5 - The hero is willing to sacrifice the most in Act 3. Tallahassee has something of a death-wish, and killing zombies is what he lives for.  Columbus on the other hand hates danger, and has to face his worst nightmare – the clown zombie.  I’d say Columbus.

In my book, Columbus emerges as the main character, but that doesn’t mean that Tallahassee’s character isn’t developed enough that he couldn’t be.  Clearly this test is somewhat subjective, but it’s always interesting to see who people peg as the main character in movies such as PIRATES, LETHAL WEAPON, RUSH HOUR, TITANIC, etc.  What’s your take?

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – While it doesn’t really tread any new territory, Pandorum boasts some genuinely creepy moments.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Bower.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: reactivate the ship’s power core so they can reach a new Earth.  Personal: find his wife. Private: fend off the effects of ‘pandorum’ and accept that they’re all that’s left of humanity.

Who’s trying to stop him? – The mutants, and to an extent, Payton.

What happens if he fails? – Everybody on the ship will die, as will the human race’s last chance for survival.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Bower awakens on a derelict ship adrift in deep space.  He brings another survivor out of hyper-sleep, (Payton) and they soon realize that they’re completely cut off from Earth, with no idea where they are or what happened to the ship.  They soon learn that if they don’t reactivate the ship’s power core, they’ll never reach the planet Titan.

Wanderer – Bower and Payton make a plan: Bower will move through the ship whilst Payton directs him to the core from a control room.  Whilst exploring the ship, Bower tries to figure out what happened, picks up an anti-riot gun, meets a couple of vicious survivors (Nadia and Manh), and soon learns that the ship is infested by terrifying humanoid mutants.

Warrior – Bower convinces Nadia and Manh to help him, and as a team they evade and fend off the mutants whilst heading for the core.  The stakes are upped as Bower realizes that the ship is essentially an ark, and that the future of Earth’s legacy is in his hands.  When they discover that Payton is behind everything, Bower must stop him in order to find a way off the ship.  All the while, Bower must combat the effects of ‘pandorum’.

Martyr – Bower is willing to crawl across a sea of mutants in order to reach the core, and is later again willing to sacrifice himself to stop Payton.

AND, IN THE END…

Why do architects of the future love designing terrifying space ships?  How about some carpet?  Even the odd recliner?  Obviously, the setting might be a little less scary if you took that approach, but isn’t that preferable to a setting that’s obviously trying to be scary?  In my mind it is.  In fact, it might’ve been creepier if Pandorum had been set on a plush ship that had decayed over the 900-odd years it was adrift.  Or not.  Anybody got any thoughts on this?  I personally find it hard to ignore a set that draws attention to itself in such a way, and so i start thinking of it as a set.  One horror flick’s setting that totally sucked me in was The Descent.  A cave’s a cave, and caves are creepy.  It’s hard for me to find holes in that.

ANYWAY.  There was a lot I loved about Pandorum.  I jumped, a lot, and the atmosphere was great at evoking panic and claustrophobia.  Even more noteworthy was the general feeling of abandon, for which the ORPHAN element is largely to thank.  Actually, this is one of the most extreme cases of movie orphaning that I’ve come across.  They’re adrift in deep space.  They’re the last of humanity (their home, Earth, has been destroyed).  They’re confused, and lost on a huge ship.  Bower has lost his wife.  The list goes on, and this orphan thread is continued and amplified throughout the duration of the film, which only makes Bower’s goals harder to achieve.  Pandorum might not be in theaters for very long, but I think it’s worth checking out to see that dynamic in action.

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – Death gets creative.  IN 3D!

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Nick.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: stop Death and survive.  Personal: keep his girlfriend alive.  Private: N/A.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Death, and anybody who doesn’t believe Nick’s story.

What happens if he fails? –  They all die.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Nick and a select few are the only survivors of a tragedy at the race track.  Nick soon starts having visions, premonitions of gruesome deaths.

Wanderer – When the survivors of the tragedy start dying, Nick figures they were supposed to die in a certain order, and that he’s having premonitions of how the next person in the chain will be killed.  He thinks that if they can keep the next victim alive, they can cheat Death by ‘breaking the chain’.  A security guard helps Nick remember the order they were supposed to die in.

Warrior – Nick and his gf race against Death to prevent the demise of the next victims, which include their friends, but soon realize that Death is kinda hard to overcome.  Throw into the mix the fact that Nick remembered the order incorrectly, and it becomes a frenzied battle for survival. Eventually, they think they’ve broken the chain for real.

Martyr – Only they’re wrong, and Nick must risk his life to stop Death and save his girlfriend. Ultimately, this turns out to be futile.

AND, IN THE END…

This won’t come as much of a surprise, but THE FINAL DESTINATION’s biggest offering is seeing attractive teens getting splattered, in 3D. Plot-wise, the fourth installment is so similar to its predecessors that you know beat for beat what’s going to happen.  Indeed, the characters seem to be the only ones not to realize that fighting Death is futile – he’s gonna get you in the end!  The only element of mystery in this movie is how the kids are going to die.

One complaint that tends to crop up about movies with attractive teens getting splattered is that the characters are a little too 2D, which normally means that you don’t care about them.  While I think it’s fair to claim that cannon fodder doesn’t need character depth, I also find horror movies to be far more affecting if you care about the fodder being splattered.  Just watch Aliens.

The root cause of zero character depth is often a lack of any real private goals, of which THE FINAL DESTINATION is a prime example.  If that wasn’t enough, I found them to be largely unsympathetic.  After all, how much can you care about a group of rich, attractive, largely arrogant teens?  This all sounds pretty negative, but in a weird way, it acted as a reverse appeal that made me want to see them die a gruesome death!  When a character that I’ve been led to hate gets splattered by an engine, I feel pretty good!  Given the tidy $65m that THE FINAL DESTINATION cleared at the box office, perhaps 2D characters that everybody loves to hate are the way to go with teen-splatter movies.

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – An incredible action-horror classic that deserves a place on your DVD shelf.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Ripley.

What’s she trying to accomplish? –Professional: wipe out the aliens for good.  Personal: forge new relationships with Newt and Hicks.  Private: get over her fear of the aliens.

Who’s trying to stop her? – The aliens, Burk.

What happens if she fails? – They’re all gonna die, man!

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Ripley is found marooned in space, the only survivor of her massacred crew.  She has outlived everybody she knew, including her daughter.  She’s totally alone.

Wanderer – Ripley meets the marines, including Hicks and Bishop.  They prepare for war and investigate a colony believed to be harboring aliens.  They investigate, discovering clues that indicate an alien attack, and find Newt, a young girl who managed to survive.  Ripley negotiates her feelings for her lost daughter as she befriends the helpless Newt, and they soon learn that aliens have nested in the colony.

Warrior – Ripley takes command of the marines as they try to fend off the aliens long enough to escape the planet.  When she loses Newt, Ripley must venture back into the alien nest to rescue her.

Martyr – Ripley faces the alien queen one on one, and is willing to die to blast it out of an airlock and destroy the aliens forever.

AND, IN THE END…

Definitely one of my top 10 favorites.  It’s got it all: a great antagonist, a unique and driven heroine, and marines splattering aliens with giant guns. ALIENS is also great to study because it’s so well structured.

One element I’ll draw attention to is ALIENS’ solid ending.  When Ripley blasts the alien queen out of the air lock, she simultaneously destroys the aliens for good (PROFESSIONAL), saves Newt (PERSONAL), and overcomes her ultimate fear (PRIVATE). By definitively answering the PROFESSIONAL, PERSONAL, and PRIVATE components of the Central Question as closely together as possible, ALIENS delivers a satisfying ending that’s on the mark, clean, and has impact.

Another example, STAR WARS: when Luke fires the final proton torpedo, he simultaneously destroys the Death Star (PROFESSIONAL), saves Princess Leia (PERSONAL) and gives himself over to The Force to become a Jedi like his father (PRIVATE).  A third example, SPIDERMAN: Peter Parker simultaneously defeats the Green Goblin and saves New York (PROFESSIONAL), saves MJ (PERSONAL) and accepts his responsibility as a superhero (PRIVATE).

Paying attention to when the Central Question is answered also helps you avoid structuring a movie that keeps going… and going… and going.  With this approach, you’ll know when the movie should end, because after the Central Question is answered, there isn’t much more to say!

On a random note, I’ve always thought that puppets beat CG when it comes to believing that characters and creatures are real, my logic being that puppets are made of something tangible, whereas CG just objects just aren’t really there.  IMO, The aliens in ALIENS are infinitely more believable that anything that could be created with CG, even today.  I’d be interested in hearing some opinions on this.  When it comes to creating something filmic… puppetry or CG?

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – A sweeping epic that’s as fresh now as the day it was released.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Kambei Shimada.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: lead the samurai in defending a peasant village from 40 bandits.  Personal: bridge the samurai/peasant caste division. Private: figure out if it’s possible to overcome the negative social conventions placed on samurai.

Who’s trying to stop him? – The bandits, dissent among the samurai, and conflicts between the samurai and the peasants.

What happens if he fails? – The bandits will kill the samurai and the villagers.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Kambei is a ronin – a rogue samurai with no master.

Wanderer – Kambei finds and recruits six samurai whom he believes are necessary to defeat the bandits. They travel to the village, where longstanding tensions between the samurai and peasant castes become apparent.  Eventually they learn to trust each other, and Kambei forms his strategies to fight the bandits and trains the peasants for battle.  When some bandit scouts are killed, a few samurai undertake a preemptive strike, learning that the bandits possess not only superior numbers, but also three muskets.

Warrior – Under Kambei’s leadership, the samurai try to hold the peasants together as they launch a variety of attacks and defenses against the bandits, whittling down their vast numbers through strategy and guerilla tactics.  They also try to reduce the bandits’ advantage by taking their muskets, the youngest samurai Katsushiro begins an affair with a village girl, and Kikuchiyo becomes more active in his goal to earn respect as a samurai.

Martyr – The samurai and the peasants stage a final battle to wipe out the bandits for good, risking everything by luring them into the village.

AND, IN THE END…

There’s so much packed into this movie that I can barely scratch the surface, but one element I’d like to draw attention to is how fleshed out the samurai characters are, due in no small part to the fact that each samurai, to a greater or lesser extent, featured his own path from ORPHAN to MARTYR.  For example, Kambei’s protege Katsushiro starts off as a masterless samurai ORPHANED by his aristocratic heritage.  He becomes a WANDERER through his tutelage under Kambei and as he negotiates his feelings for a village girl.  He’s a WARRIOR when the fighting starts and as he pursues the village girl, and switches to a MARTYR along with everyone else in the final showdown.

Additionally, SEVEN SAMURAI is said to have established certain plot points that’ve become convention in modern movies.   The most obvious of these is the hero’s gathering of allies into a team to accomplish a specific goal, and if Wikipedia’s to be believed, Roger Ebert speculated that SEVEN SAMURAI established the practice of introducing the main character involved with an undertaking unrelated to the main plot (e.g., Kambei is introduced rescuing a child from a thief).  In hindsight, the movie didn’t feel as dated as I’d expected it to, and that’s probably because it’s filled with filmic elements present in so many contemporary films.

Lastly, you can’t have a samurai movie without some good old fighting, and SEVEN SAMURAI boasts some of the most intelligent sequences I’ve seen.  If you want a great action movie with some incredible depth, give this one a look-see.

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – A fun and inventive movie that really sucks you into Mark Whitacre’s confused, paranoid world.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Mark Whitacre.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: help the FBI gather evidence against a supposed worldwide price fixing conspiracy organized by his company.  Personal: keep his personal life intact.  Private: deal with paranoia caused by his bipolar disorder.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Mostly obstacles brought on by his bipolar condition, at times being the FBI and his coworkers.

What happens if he fails? – Consumers the world over will remain victims of price fixing, and Whitacre and his family will lose everything.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – When the FBI investigates a price fixing conspiracy rooted in Whitacre’s company, he can’t talk to anybody and feels like he’s being watched – he becomes an outsider in his own life.  Additionally, Whitacre’s unique way of looking at the world sets him apart.

Wanderer – Naively believing that he’s going to become a hero and secure the top job at the company after the ‘bad elements’ have been rooted out, Whitacre becomes an FBI informant.  Working with agent Shepard, they figure out the best way to gather workable evidence.  Gradually, the FBI learns that Whitacre isn’t he saint he made himself out to be, and that his accounts are as much fantasy as truth.

Warrior – When Whitacre’s ever-changing accounts threaten the case, the FBI tries to sort truth from lies and keep Whitacre on track.  However, Whitacre becomes aware that being an informant is ruining his life instead of improving it.  As he contends with financial, professional, personal and media fall-out, Whitacre starts doubting himself and what he’s gotten himself into.

Martyr – When Whitacre finally starts telling the truth, he becomes what he was trying to avoid: the fall guy. Even after everything he’s done for the FBI, his lies and criminal activity (which he’d justified in his mind) burn him more than anyone he was trying to incriminate. Whitacre loses everything and goes to jail in the name of ‘justice’.

AND, IN THE END…

I’m still wrapping my head around THE INFORMANT!, which I think is its intended effect.  Mark Whitacre is such an enigma that he had trouble discerning between reality and his own fiction, and the movie does such a great job of pulling you in that when Whitacre is revealed as untrustworthy, you start questioning the film’s events as much as the characters do.

THE INFORMANT! provides an interesting twist on the notion that the hero must give up what he wants before he can get what he needs.  Often, the hero willingly becomes a martyr, or at the very least, accepts that there are no other means by which success can be achieved.  By contrast, Whitacre can be seen as an unwilling martyr.  He wanted nothing more than for the FBI to go away, leaving him with his perfectly planned life.  Instead Whitacre had everything taken from him, which really amped up a feeling of poignancy that might not have existed had he been willing and compliant.  It’s interesting to see how a movie’s message can vary by making the main character a willing or unwilling martyr.

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – A thrilling, in-the-moment sci-fi that never lets up.  Topical, fantastic and stylish.  This one’s a winner.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Wikus Van De Merwe.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: evade his corrupt father-in-law (and pretty much everyone else on Earth) and find a way to reverse his transformation into an alien.  Personal: get back to his wife.  Private: get over his prejudice against the aliens.

Who’s trying to stop him? – His father-in-law, hired mercenaries, thugs within the alien camp, and himself.

What happens if he fails? – Wikus will be captured, killed and used by the military to utilize the alien weaponry, and the aliens will never escape Earth.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – When Wikus gets infected by a mysterious fluid created by the aliens, he starts to transform into one of them!  Neither human nor alien, he becomes outlawed not just from his wife, but from humanity itself.

Wanderer – Wikus goes on the run from his father-in-law, who seeks to use Wikus’ evolving DNA to utilize alien weaponry.  Realizing that the only place he can hide is the alien concentration camp, Wikus learns to live as a refugee, and soon meets Christopher, who created the fluid responsible for Wikus’ transformation.  Christopher needs that very same fluid to re-power the alien space ship so his people can escape Earth.  Wikus realizes that he can help Christopher retrieve the fluid capsule from his father-in-law.  If they succeed, Christopher vows to use his ship’s resources to return Wikus to his human self.

Warrior – Wikus fights the local thugs to procure some alien weapons, and he and Christopher fight their way into his father-in-law’s compound to find the fluid.  They must now survive long enough to return to the camp and deliver the fluid to the alien ship, fending off not only commandos hired by Wikus’ father-in-law, but the thugs of the concentration camp as well.  Throughout this, Wikus must battle his own prejudices against the aliens, whom he has hated for so long.

Martyr –Wikus realizes this mission isn’t just about him – an entire species’ survival is on the line.  He stops thinking selfishly and is willing to give his life to ensure that Christopher reaches the ship, using an alien battle suit to single-handedly hold off the bad guys.

AND, IN THE END…

This is one of the most grounded sci-fi movies I’ve ever seen, and it wasn’t just the documentary style that brought it down to Earth (so to speak).  The locales, subject matter, themes… even the aliens themselves presented something that felt too familiar for this story to be deemed outlandish.  Without doubt, these stylistic and thematic similarities to your everyday tragic news story contributed to District 9′s grip on this viewer.

There are too many elements of the movie that I’d like to talk about, so I’ll just pick one: Wickus as a sympathetic character.  At the beginning of the story, Wikus is a dim-witted, cruel, prejudiced, weak-willed man, so much so that I couldn’t wait until he inevitably got what he deserved.  Not exactly sympathetic! His only saving grace is that he truly loves his wife, who becomes the lifeline Wikus clings to over the course of the movie.  And that’s enough.  That link to his wife is all Wikus needs to drive his action, and was enough for me to root for him.

Basically, District 9 illustrates that, even if there are ten reasons to hate the main character, as long as you have one genuine reason to sympathize with them, then it’s enough to get the audience rooting.  Besides, what Wikus suffers through is so horrific that I’d feel sorry if it were happening to Darth Maul.

- Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – Actually and totally two distinct stories: 2 heroes, 2 plots, 2 arcs, with a connection between the stories that is ‘wahfer theen.’

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who are the main characters? – Julie Powell & Julia Child.

What are they trying to accomplish? – (JULIE) Professional: Cook her way through Julia Child’s cookbook.  Personal: Become a writer.  Private: Feel like she’s got value and worth.

(JULIA) Professional: Write and publish a French cookbook for English speakers. Personal: Become a writer. Private: Feel like she’s got value and worth.

Who are trying to stop them? – (JULIE) No one, really.  She is caught in a numbing job as a civil servant, she has a doubting mother, but the real villain is her own insecurity.

(JULIA) No one, really.  She is an ambassador’s wife who meets small resistances on her way to, first becoming a Cordon Bleu chef, and then a published writer.

What happens if they fail? – Not much in either case.  (JULIE) Julie claims to have never finished anything, so cooking her way through Julia Child’s cookbook in one year would represent a huge personal victory for her, however she has a wonderful husband and great friends who will still be there for her if she fails.

(JULIA) Julia also has a wonderful husband and great friends.  If she fails to get her book published, she will be unsatisfied but her life would continue.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – (JULIE) Julie has an emotionally terrible job handling insurance claims in the wake of 9/11.  She’s just moved to a small apartment over a pizza shop and is struggling to find something she can do that feels valuable to her.

(JULIA) Julia has just relocated to Paris (awwww, poor girl!) and even though she loves Paris she is trying to find something to do to fill her life and give it more meaning.

Wanderer – (JULIE) Julie gets the idea to do what she knows…cook…and share her journey through the new medium of blogging.  She starts working her way through all 536 recipes in Julia Child’s cookbook, setting a deadline of one year to cook them all, wondering if anyone is even reading her blog.

(JULIA) Julia loves cooking and decides to become a Cordon Bleu chef.  She finishes the course and begins to teach with two friends who pull her into their plan to write a cookbook.

Warrior – (JULIE) As Julie’s readership increases, so does her commitment and drive to finish what she set out to accomplish, taking a toll on her marriage.

(JULIA) Julia begins writing her opus cookbook, navigating the waters of partnership with her two co-writers as well the various rejections she gets from publishers.  Additionally, as her husband gets reposted to different cities she goes with him, never giving up her goal of finishing the book no matter how long it may take.

Martyr – (JULIE) With her marriage a bit shakier because of her journey of self-discovery (at least, that’s what we’re wanted to feel), Julie has to back off of her drive to reassess what’s important in her life.  Her husband comes back to her and with his encouragement, she accomplishes her goal.

(JULIA) For the life of me, I cannot think of anything that Julia Child gives up to reach her goal.

AND, IN THE END…

JULIE & JULIA is a good movie, but not a great movie.  Ultimately the stakes are too slight and both stories runs out of dramatic steam in and around act three, as evident by the weak martyr sections.  The connection between the stories is intellectual and thematic, and ultimately not as satisfying as it may have been had both Julie and Julia been in each other’s world, and with a connection between the stories stronger than the revelation that the elderly Julia Child was unimpressed with Julie’s efforts in the blogosphere.

What is fabulous about JULIE & JULIA is Meryl Streep.  Just the night before I watched THE RIVER WILD, another Meryl Streep movie, on cable with my wife.  After seeing JULIE AND JULIA my wife commented in admiration “If I didn’t know Meryl Streep, I wouldn’t believe both parts were played by the same person.”

This is a movie that will succeed on a variety of merits, its story being the least of them.  Meryl Streep will get yet another Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Julia Child, Amy Adams was well cast, the film was pretty to watch and very entertaining.  Was that the sound of adults laughing I heard in the theater last night?  Yes!

In spite of an act three that fell like a partially collapsed soufflé, JULIE & JULIA will definitely appeal to an audience hungry for a story without robots and explosions…unless you consider an overcooked Boeuf Bourguignon a special effect.

– Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – More mature, more dark, and more complex than previous movies.  As Harry himself grows up, so do the films.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Harry Potter.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: Figure out Draco’s plan by befriending Professor Slughorn, and stop Voldemort.  Personal: Win Ginny.  Private: Accept the reality that he’s the chosen one, and that a confrontation with Voldemort is inevitable.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Draco, the Death Eaters, Snape…but ultimately it’s Voldemort.

What happens if he fails? – Both the wizard world and the muggle world will be overrun, Voldemort will win, and everything Harry loves will be destroyed.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Harry is the wizarding world’s most famous orphan, and his being “outed” as the Chosen One makes him both desirable to others as well as an outcast.

Wanderer – Harry learns that Professor Slughorn is in possession of a memory that Dumbledore believes is crucial to their learning how to destroy Voldemort.  Harry also learns that Draco is up to something.  He also realizes his feeling for Ginny in earnest, thrown into relief because she’s seeing somebody else.

Warrior – Harry tries to befriend Slughorn to procure the true memory, and moves closer to Ginny.  When Harry and Dumbledore learn that Voldemort split his soul and stored each part in a ‘horcrux’, they journey to a cave to destroy one.

Martyr – Harry and Dumbledore risk death to retrieve the ‘horcrux’, and Dumbledore later martyrs himself so that Harry can live to fight Voldemort.

AND, IN THE END…

This is definitely one of my favorite Harry Potters.  Certainly there were some elements I wished could’ve made it into the movie, or were explored more fully, but that’s inevitable.  It’s also inevitable that, being the sixth of seven stories in the series (though HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS is now going to be two movies), this movie feels like an episode of a much larger story.

HARRY POTTER has always been about a boy’s quest for acceptance, embracing his role in a larger world, and the seeking of revenge against those that harmed his family.   There’s a nice parallel in this particular installment between Harry and Draco.  Draco’s star is on the wane at Hogwarts, he has been selected by a powerful wizard for a dangerous mission, and he wants revenge against those who have harmed his father.    It’s exactly this type of “unity of opposites” that creates the most potent conflicts.

– Dan Pilditch & Jeffrey Alan Schechter

So, I was halfway through watching TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN in a theater in Toronto when my wife called me.  My father-in-law, who had been ill, was not doing well and she really wanted to leave for Los Angeles to see him.  RIGHT…NOW!

Sensing the urgency in her voice, I left the theater in the middle of the film.  This was last Wednesday.  I just got back last night.  The good news is the my father-in-law is doing much better.  The better news is that I didn’t have to watch the rest of TRANSFORMERS 2.

Okay…that’s a cheap shot and lazy writing.  As long-time readers of this space know, I’m a stickler for story logic.  I hate when things happen in scripts because the writer wants or needs them to happen, and not because the story has earned the right for that event to happen.   Even up to the halfway mark, TRANSFORMERS was so rife with unexplained events, illogical plot points, bad characters development, and by-the-numbers dialog that I had started squirming in my seat.  Before my wife called me I literally couldn’t wait for this movie to be over.  Characters were doing things and acting in ways completely inconsistent with what was happening around them, all for the sake of the joyride that this movie was supposed to be.  I felt like if the writers didn’t care what was on the screen, why should I?

It was on the plane to Los Angeles that I got to thinking about the movie in greater detail.  It dawned on me that TRANSFORMERS might be something more than just another bad movie.  The writers were the same guys who wrote the new STAR TREK, one of my favorite movies of the year.  What the…?   How could they have written both?

Were they really this bad and STAR TREK was one of their broken clocks (under the idea that even a broken clock is right twice a day)?  Maybe STAR TREK was polished (uncredited) by better uncredited polishers than TRANSFORMERS?  It’s possible.

I then looked at the talent behind the camera.  Michael Bay.  Steven Spielberg.  Don’t these guys know how to tell a story?  Of course they do.  I’m spitting distance from nobody.  Don’t they know at least as much as I do about structure, character, and story logic?

And then I started to think, what if the illogical action, the unmotivated character turns and reactions, even the awful and unfunny comic relief characters…what if they were the herald of a new sensibility in storytelling?  I’m not kidding.  What if TRANSFORMERS 2 is actually a NEW FORM OF STORYTELLING?

I remember watching MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING and marveling at how concise the setup was: Scene 1, Julia Roberts says that she has a deal with a friend to get married if they’re both single at the age of 30; Scene 2, Julia Roberts goes home and gets a phone call from said friend saying that he’s getting married and wants her to come to the wedding; Scene 3, she’s on the way to the airport to break up the wedding.  Back in the old days there’d be 10 minutes or so spent on establishing the Julia Roberts character; what she’s like at work, the state of her love life, her life as a single woman.  And after a few scenes you’d hear about the deal with the friend.  And a few scenes later she’d get the phone call.  And a few scenes later (after some agonizing) she’d be on the plane.

But here was all of that story development delivered one, two, three.  I was elated! It felt to me as if the filmmakers were saying “Hey!  We’ve had 100 years of cinema.  We all know what’s going to happen, so let’s just get there and have some fun.”

Could the braintrust behind TRANSFORMERS be doing the same thing?  ”Screw the logic!  This is the biggest action movie of the year.  DEAL WITH IT!”  Perhaps the seeming willful abandonment of logic is not laziness but a new paradigm of storytelling?  Let’s call it “rollercoastering.”  When you get on SPACE MOUNTAIN, you don’t need to know how the damn thing works.  As a matter of fact, you want the rollercoaster to do wildly unexpected things that seem to defy the logics of mechanics.  I’m upside down!  I can’t see the track!

Perhaps TRANSFORMERS doesn’t have logic because the filmmakers felt it doesn’t need logic.   People are going to this particular ride for the lights and special effects around the rollercoaster car, not the track beneath it.  And certainly, TRANSFORMERS isn’t being punished at the box office.

Perhaps logic in an action movie five years from now — having seamless story structure in a $200 million dollar SFX extravaganza —  will be the exception and not the rule.   Or there will be a new category of action blockbuster for those who crave the thrill and care less about story.   Actually, there already is a category of movie like that.  Porn.  Another cheap shot, I know.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see how other big-budget blockbusters handle storytelling moving forward from this point.  Is TRANSFORMERS the start of a rollercoastering trend — a new paradigm of storytelling — or just a bloated, poorly written movie that is the right movie for the right audience at the right time?

I don’t know, but I’ll be watching to see how it pans out.  Bottom line is that my father-in-law is doing better, and one of the storytelling conventions that hasn’t been beaten out of me is the happy ending.

– Jeffrey Alan Schechter