Contour At The Movies

I couldn’t be more pleased or proud to announce the official release of Contour for iPhone.  The gang at Mariner Software have done a great job.  Now you can work on your story brilliance on the go as well as at your desk or on your laptop.  And at $4.99, the program is a total no-brainer…even if you DON’T own the desktop version.

Great job to Michael, Corey, and the entire Mariner gang.

– Jeffrey Alan Schechter

I just saw a trailer for my new, next favorite movie.  Scott Pilgrim vs The World.

– Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – Alice’s return trip to Wonderland is curiously forgettable.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Alice.

What’s she trying to accomplish? – Physical: defeat the Jabberwocky and save Wonderland from the Red Queen.  Emotional: decide whether or not to get married.  Spiritual: learn that she can choose her own path.

Who’s trying to stop her? – The Red Queen, the Knave of Hearts, plus Alice doubting that she’s the Alice that Wonderland wants her to be.

What happens if she fails? – Alice and her friends will die, and the Red Queen will continue to rule Wonderland unopposed.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Alice has forgotten her first trip to Wonderland, so when she does return, it’s like venturing into a new world.  She’s also forgotten that Wonderland taught her to make her own destiny instead of doing what people tell her to do.

Wanderer – Alice explores Wonderland, meeting all of her old friends and learning what the Red Queen has done.  She tries to figure out if this is all a dream, and whether or not she’s the Alice that everybody hopes she is.  She learns that Alice, whether that be her or another Alice, is destined to defeat the Jabberwocky and free Wonderland from the Red Queen.

Warrior – Alice sets out to rescue the Mad Hatter from the Red Queen and to retrieve the fabled sword needed to defeat the Jabberwocky.

Martyr – Alice accepts her destiny as the White Queen’s champion, and faces the fearsome Jabberwocky one on one to save Wonderland.

AND, IN THE END…

This attempt to retell ALICE IN WONDERLAND as a linear story instead of a somewhat random series of events could have a certain appeal, and there’s nothing wrong with trying to add more depth to an already rich story.  On the other hand, by making sense of the non-sensical, you risk taking the heart out of what Wonderland is about.

Alice’s return to Wonderland felt a little flat, and even tedious at times.  Her first adventure was incredibly weird, and incredibly memorable.  As a result, I couldn’t buy that she’d chalked her first trip up to a dream, let alone that she spent the entirety of the movie convinced that she wasn’t the same Alice that had visited Wonderland previously.  Alice and her audience have already experience Wonderland, yet Alice is the only one who can’t remember anything about that incredible first trip.  Maybe it’s inevitable that this adaptation felt slightly old hat…  How much wonder is left in Wonderland when you’ve been there countless times before in other adaptations?

That being said, a lot about ALICE IN WONDERLAND is new, and often very fun.  The Mad Hatter’s crew and the Red Queen throw out some laughs, and it goes without saying that this is an incredibly visual movie.  I might have enjoyed the film more had I seen it in 3D.

One thing WONDERLAND does well is illustrating the power of ‘kick the dog’.  This land is so full of animal characters that you can tell who the bad guys are, and how bad they are, by how severely and how often they ‘kick the dog’.

The Red Queen is the worst animal abuser: she whacks rodents around the lawn using bird clubs, uses pigs as footstools, decapitates a frog servant, and holds a dog’s family hostage!  Next down the list is the Knave: while the Red Queen’s henchman isn’t exactly nice to the animals of Wonderland, he’s kinda chummy with his evil horse.  Follow this pattern down to Alice’s wimpy would-be fiancé, who’s about to squish a caterpillar on his shoulder before Alice manages to save it.

- Dan Pilditch

• #mscbuys Finished the first draft of "MY STORY CAN BEAT UP YOUR STORY!" The exclamation mark is part of the title. Am excited, though. #

I know I’ve been a bit lax updating movies here at Contour At The Movies lately, but I’ve been making the big push to finish up  my book for Michael Wiese Publishers, ‘My Story Can Beat Up Your Story!’ I’m having a great time writing the book, and I think that’ll show when it’s published in 2011.  Thanks also to the brave and patient souls who are reading and critiquing chapters-in-progress.

In the meantime, I’d like to share two things with you: a website and a game.  The website is by a script consultant named Dr. Stan Williams who has written a book called ‘The Moral Premise.‘  He deals extensively with the Hero’s inner need in a very complete and spiritual fashion.  Good, good stuff.  You can read his blog at http://moralpremise.blogspot.com.

While chatting this morning with my buddy, Austin-based screenwriter Alvaro Rodriguez, we invented a new game which I’m dubbing ‘Contour Keywords.’  Here’s how it’s played (two-player version):

1. Think of a movie and look it up at www.imdb.com.
2. Look up the Keywords associated with the movie (you can find Keywords listed in the menu bar on the left side of the IMDB webpage under “Storyline”.)
3. Using the first four keywords, share them with your opponent and see if he or she can guess the movie.  If they can, they get a score of 4.  If they can’t, keep adding keywords until your opponent guesses the movie.   Your opponents score increases by one point for each additional keyword.  Make sure you eliminate any keywords that are too obvious (CITIZEN KANE’s first keywords are “Reporter, Rosebud, Newspaper, and Power.”   Obviously, “Rosebud” makes it too obvious, so drop that keyword and go to the next word on the list, “Last Words.”
4. Each person picks 5 movies and players  alternate turns.  The person with the score closest to 20 (a perfect score) wins.  The loser has to give the winner a first look deal and 10% commission for a year.  Or a beer.
5. Try not to pick movies that are too obscure.  Better yet, agree on a genre, era, movie star, etc ahead of time.

I’ll start.  Name this movie: “Sequel, karate, prison fight, mixed martial arts.”

Yup,  Bloodsport 2.

– Jeffrey Alan Schechter

Overall Impression – A classic I wish I’d seen sooner.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Ted Kramer.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: balance being a single parent with his treasured career.  Personal: develop a genuine father/son relationship.  Private: realize what his priorities in life are.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Ted’s his own worst enemy, but deflectors include his ex-wife and his boss at the ad agency.

What happens if he fails? – Ted will lose his son.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan –Ted’s a ghost to his family because he puts his work first.  He barely has a relationship with his wife, and has pretty much no relationship with his son.

Wanderer – Ted figures out how to balance being a single parent and a working professional, and wrestles with why his wife left him and abandoned their son.  His priorities begin to change as his son becomes more important in his life.

Warrior – Ted starts experiencing genuine pleasure in being a real father, but when his ex-wife returns seeking custody of their son, Ted does everything in his power to build his case to win the upcoming court battle, including getting a new job in one day.

Martyr –  Ted and his ex-wife go to court, where the lawyers tear both of them apart.  Ted loses custody of his son, and while he could appeal the court’s decision, to do so would only make his son suffer, so he decides to let the kid stay with his mother.

AND, IN THE END…

The premise behind KRAMER VS KRAMER never sparked an interest for me when I was younger, but I wish I’d seen it sooner.   It’s a funny, moving movie, and Kramers Sr. and Jr. make for a great pairing.

Often, the first plot point of a movie introduces the hero, the villain or the victim (often as the stakes character).  The second plot point illustrates the hero’s flaw in relation to the stakes character.  If Kramer senior is the hero, and little Kramer is the stakes character, then what is Kramer senior’s flaw?  He’s a workaholic and never has time for his family. In contrast, little Kramer is a play-aholic and ONLY has time for his family.  These characters are polar opposites, conflict inevitably happens, and they learn and grow from each other.

Of course, the pairing of opposites isn’t anything new, but it’s always interesting to see how such dynamics play out, and valuable to learn from them when they’re done so well.

- Dan Pilditch

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