Contour At The Movies

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

Overall Impression – Liam Neeson brings this slick action flick to another level. 

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Bryan Mills.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: rescue his daughter, Kim.  Personal: rescue Kim.  Private: prove to himself that he still has a place in Kim’s life.

Who’s trying to stop him? – Members at various levels of a sex trade organization, operative-turned-police chief Jean-Claude, and plenty of Neeson-fodder along the way.

What happens if he fails? – Bryan’s world revolves around his daughter.  If he loses Kim to the sex slavers, he’ll no longer have a reason to live.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan –  Bryan once dedicated his life to the CIA instead of his family.  Now he’s divorced, lives alone, and feels sidelined because Kim lives with his ex-wife and her new husband. 

Wanderer – When Kim is kidnapped during her trip to Paris, Bryan uses his CIA contacts and learns that she was taken by Albanian sex slavers.  Bryan flies to Paris and, under the watchful eye of his old friend Jean-Claude, puts his long-honed skills to use.  He retraces the kidnapping, chases down leads and learns about the sale of ‘merchandise’ at a construction yard.  Bryan pretends to be a customer, finding a different kidnapped girl wearing Kim’s jacket.

Warrior – Bryan rescues the girl from the Albanians, destroying the construction yard in the process.  While he nurses her back to health, he avoids Jean-Claude, who’s been ordered to arrest him after the construction site incident.  The girl provides the location of the Albanians’ hideout, and Bryan uses Jean-Claude’s ID to infiltrate it, tear it apart, and torture their leader.  He learns that a businessman intends to sell Kim to the highest bidder, but Bryan needs Jean-Claude to get his location.  Bryan discovers that Jean-Claude has been accepting bribes from the Albanians. 

Martyr – Bryan threatens to kill Jean-Claude’s wife if he doesn’t get the businessman’s location.  By being willing to kill an innocent woman, Bryan is willing to sacrifice the very core of what he stands for: protecting the innocent.  Bryan eventually tracks Kim  to the bidder’s giant yacht, where he fights through a hoard of trained baddies to save her. 

AND, IN THE END…

IMO, TAKEN’s success lies with its great leading actor and clever execution. This isn’t to say that what transpires is any more realistic than what you’d see in the TRANSPORTER franchise (it’s made by the same folks), but it’s amazing how some actors and actresses can elevate material.

Regarding its execution, TAKEN stood out for me because it felt smart and innovative, and it’s a great illustration of the YES/NO dynamic in the Wanderer and and Warrior stages.  Providing smart answers to interesting obstacles is doubly important in these movies, since they constitute much of the action and the intrigue.  I didn’t leave thinking “I’m glad he found his daughter”…  To be honest, I didn’t care.  I was replaying the awesome torture scene in my head, or the clever ways Bryan found the information he was seeking.

This might explain why I found the ‘Professional’ and ‘Personal’ categories to be the same.  Bryan has a strong, primal goal, and there’s just enough story and character to serve the action.  Any more would’ve been too much.

It’s interesting to compare these action movies with those like DIE HARD, which had more rounded characters, probably more action, distinctive Prof./Personal/Private goals, etc.  Perhaps TAKEN and TRANSPORTER represent a separate genre of action movie.  They’re not worse because they’re lacking in certain elements – they’re just streamlined.  TAKEN’s got it where it counts, and the box office agrees. 

(NOTE: welcome back action movie karate chop.  You’ve been missed.)

                                                                                       - Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – An illuminating look at the tensions present amongst a totally displaced people.    

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Tuvia Bielski.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: lead the Jewish survivors to safety.  Personal: keep his brothers together, as a family.  Private: hold onto the will to fight.

Who’s trying to stop him? – The Nazis, Tuvia’s brother by questioning his leadership, Tuvia’s own self-doubts, and conflicts amongst the survivors.

What happens if he fails? – Tuvia and the survivors will die.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – When the Nazis begin their persecution of the Jews, Tuvia and his two brothers lose not only their parents and homes, but their place in society.   They flee into the wilderness to avoid being caught and killed.

Wanderer – When the brothers encounter other Jewish survivors, they agree to take them under their protection, necessitating raids on local farms for food and supplies.  Before long, Tuvia avenges his parents by murdering the local police chief responsible for their deaths, and the brothers begin attacking the Nazis in earnest.  However, resulting Jewish casualties cause Tuvia to reconsider this approach, which opens up a conflict between him and his brother, Zus: do they defy the Nazis by killing them, or by surviving in the forest? 

Warrior – Everyone becomes a warrior of some form: Zus joins a company of Soviet partisans to take the fight to the Nazis.  Tuvia becomes the true leader of the survivors and they start rebuilding their lives, taking on new roles for the survival of the group and training to fight.  All of this is done in the face of sickness, a deadly winter and an ever-nearing enemy.  When the Nazis finally discover their position, everybody puts their skills to the test in the final fight for survival.

Martyr – During their escape from the Nazis, Tuvia loses hope when they encounter a seemingly impassable marsh.  Tuvia’s youngest brother, Asael, inspires hope by being willing to risk almost certain death to cross it, believing that they can overcome anything if they work together.

AND, IN THE END…

I enjoyed the movie, but felt the third act wasn’t as powerful as it could have been.  That isn’t to say the final fight against the Nazis wasn’t awesome, or that the action was lacking in any way.  For me, it’s that the crossing of the marsh made for a weak MARTYR element, which diminished what followed.  

First – the marsh just didn’t seem hard enough as an obstacle, and it felt less insurmountable than some of the challenges they’d already faced.

Second – was there really a choice here?  In the circumstances, who wouldn’t choose a marsh over a squad of murderous Nazis?  I was unconvinced that this moment was powerful enough to restore Tuvia’s will to fight and survive.

Third – during the final fight, Tuvia and one of his men are pinned under fire behind some trees.  Tuvia’s man finds a grenade and runs at a firing squad, getting shot two steps into his attack.  Clearly he was willing to die fighting rather than be hunted down, but if that mentality and determination is present, was crossing the marsh really something to lose faith about?

I suppose the biggest point this raises for me is the ordering of obstacles in terms of difficulty, and how these obstacles operate.  I took away more from the failed grenade run than the marsh crossing, which I don’t think was the intent.

                                                                                           - Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – Despite the evidence, Eastwood never gets old.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Walt Kowalski.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: save his Hmong neighbors from the local gang.  Personal: teach Thao to be a man.  Private: find a reason to keep living after his wife’s death.

Who’s trying to stop him? – The gang and, to a lesser extent, himself.

What happens if he fails? – The gang will tear the Hmong family apart, if they don’t kill them first.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Walt is a widower who wants nothing to do with his two disrespectful sons, whom he doesn’t consider good men.  He’s also a racist living in an increasingly Hmong dominated community.

Wanderer – Walt catches Thao (the teenage Hmong boy next door) stealing his Gran Torino as part of his forced initiation into a gang.  When the gang later tries to take Thao, their fight spills onto Walt’s property and he warns the gang to get off his lawn.  Not only does Walt put himself in the gang’s sights, he’s now the reluctant hero of the local Hmong.  They adorn him with gifts, even though Walt just wants to be left alone.  In town, Walt involves himself further when he saves Thao’s sister from thugs.  They become friends, Walt learns about the Hmong family, their culture and the problems they face with the gang.

Warrior – Walt opens up and agrees to take Thao under his wing to let him atone for attempting to steal the Gran Torino.  The punishment turns into a friendship, and Walt takes an interest in teaching Thao to be the kind of man his sons should have been.  However, the gang continues the trouble Thao, and when Walt learns that he’s dying, he seeks to protect Thao by taking the fight into his own hands.  Unfortunately, the confrontations escalate until Thao’s sister is raped and the gang does a drive-by on the Hmong neighbors’ house.  Walt realizes that Thao’s family will never have a life unless he stops the gang for good.

Martyr – Walt literally sacrifices himself by tricking the gang into killing him in front of witnesses, ensuring that they go to jail for good.

AND, IN THE END…

I enjoyed Gran Torino on a number of levels, but the movie’s tone had me on edge.

I was particularly uncomfortable when it came to Walt’s racist remarks, and not merely because they were racist remarks.  It’s because I found them funny.  I even laughed out loud sometimes – and I certainly wasn’t the only audience member.  Walt’s racism is comically delivered, which leads me to think that the makers wanted the audience to laugh, or at least feel awkward about wanting to.

If I was forced to experience discomfort by laughing at racism, then I felt discomfort because of racism – which feels like it should be right.  But is it?  Was the filmmakers’ tactic fair?  I’d never laugh at that in the real world.  Maybe that’s part of the ‘movie experience’.

– Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – A mostly solid tale about personal sacrifice… if you can forgive Germans speaking in American and English accents.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? – Claus von Stauffenberg.

What’s he trying to accomplish? – Professional: assassinate the Nazi power players and stage a government coup.  Personal: free Germany from its real enemy – the Nazis.  Private: fight for a cause that’s worth risking his and his family’s lives for.

Who’s trying to stop him? – The Nazis and some members within Stauffenberg’s own coalition.

What happens if he fails? – Stauffenberg and everyone he knows will be executed, including his family.  Germany will remain under the control of the Nazis, and any hope of a peaceful end to the war will be lost.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – While Stauffenberg is a solder thrust into bureaucracy, he’s alone because he questions the very cause he’s fighting for, while everyone around him is dangerously loyal.

Wanderer – Stauffenberg is brought to a secret society that plans to assassinate Hitler.  They flesh out an amended operation “Valkyrie”, but to make it official Stauffenberg needs Hitler’s signature.  If that weren’t daunting enough, they must convince certain high-ranking Nazis to join their cause in order to succeed.

Warrior – The plan is put into action, but when it fails (nothing ever goes according to plan), they’ve got to come up with another before they lose their opportunity.  After the deed is carried out, Stauffenberg and his men launch the coup, gradually assuming control from the Nazis.

Martyr – After that plan fails (nothing ever goes according to plan), Stauffenberg and his men fight to the bitter end as the Nazis wrench back the control they momentarily lost.  

AND, IN THE END…

Valkyrie is about sacrifice.  What drives a person to become a martyr?  What does it mean to be a martyr?  These are all questions that should be asked about the heroes of the past if we’re to understand what they did, and why they did it.

Did Valkyrie ask these questions?  Arguably, yes.

I say ‘arguably’ because it’s a matter of opinion (and of historical knowledge).  We know that Stauffenberg and his team are doomed to failure before we see the movie, and one could argue that this robs it of any real dramatic tension: there’s no ‘will they/won’t they succeed’ dynamic. 

One could also argue (as I’m more inclined) that this worked in the movie’s favor.  Since we know they’re going to fail, we can better identify with Stauffenberg because deep down, he knows that they’re going to fail too.  I would argue that Stauffenberg understood he was making the ultimate sacrifice before he even decided to fight the Nazis, and everything after that point is a window into the mind of a martyr.  

– Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression – I don’t care what anyone thinks… I enjoyed it! Solid Spielbergian fun. ‘Nuff said.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? Jerry Shaw

What’s he trying to accomplish? Professional: Stop ARIA, the AI defense mainframe. Personal: win over Rachel. Private: Find out why his twin brother was killed and prove to himself that he isn’t useless.

Who’s trying to stop him? ARIA, Special Agent Thomas Morgan, and many, many other people along the way.

What happens if he fails? The leadership of the American government is killed, the country falls into disarray, ARIA stays active… Oh yeah, Jerry, Rachel and her son will die.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan – Jerry has cut himself off from his parents, stopped speaking to his twin brother, and lives alone. But when he’s labeled a terrorist after finding nearly a million dollars in the bank, he can’t turn to anybody! In other words: uber-orphan.

Wanderer – Not only does Jerry have no idea what’s going on, but all the main characters have questions. Special Agent Thomas Morgan is trying to figure out what Jerry’s up to, while Jerry and fellow fugitive Rachel find their lives controlled by a mysterious caller with god-like control over all things electrical. In following the caller’s orders, they learn about each other, discover that they aren’t the only pawns in this game, and wonder ‘why them?’

Warrior – When Jerry and Rachel discover that the mysterious caller is ARIA – a super computer whose apparent goal is to help the American people, Jerry and Rachel more actively fight to follow its goals. They have to elude agent Morgan, battle their way into the Pentagon, and eventually fight ARIA itself once they discover its terrible endgame.

Martyr – Jerry is captured, but Agent Morgan believes his story and sacrifices himself so that Jerry can stop ARIA. In another martyr beat, Jerry fires a weapon inside the White House to stop ARIA’s attack coming to fruition, saving everybody, but getting himself shot in the process.

AND, IN THE END…

A few people I invited to see this movie didn’t want to, claiming that it was all one big cliché that they’d seen before. Having seen the movie, I don’t totally agree with that, but it’s not an unfair view to take. What this does is highlight the importance of paying attention to clichés when making movies.

The term ‘cliché’ is one that carries a certain amount of subjectivity, but it has also become somewhat muddy over time. Clichés can be seen as conventions that were once fresh and innovative, but which have since come to be tired and overused. That said, what might be one person’s cliché could, for another person, be a necessary component to place a movie within a specific genre. Another idea to consider is that clichés become clichés because they work.

In my mind, clichés become most useful when they’re associated with audience expectation. Really cynical audience member: “What’s the point in paying money to see a movie if you know what’s going to happen, since it’s bound to be like all the others that came before it?”

Movies have been around for a while now, and surprising an audience is becoming less about creating new ideas and more about finding new takes on old ones. With this in mind, clichés can be used as a means of subverting audience expectation, and making movies fresh again. DIE HARD is a great example of this. Traditional action heroes never got hurt, their hair was always perfect, and killing people was about as difficult as eating breakfast. Enter John McClain. He hates that he has to save Nakatomi Plaza, gets glass in his feet, and is probably more beat up than any of the thugs.

Then again, some clichés never get tired, and even the tired ones have their reasons for being used. They’re just good.

Yes, EAGLE EYE’s logic is stretched to the limits of believability (and then some). Yes, the President’s in trouble again and only somebody not in law enforcement can save him.  And yes, that somebody is a nobody.

So what? I’m a nobody and I’ll never get tired of the idea that someone like me can save the world.

-– Dan Pilditch

Overall Impression — Words fail me.  This is one of the most relentlessly brilliant explorations of the soul of a hero I’ve ever seen.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? — Bruce Wayne as the Batman.

What’s he trying to accomplish? — Professional: Stop the Joker. Personal: Get Rachel to love him. Private: Discover if he has what it takes to be a real hero.

Who’s trying to stop him? — The Joker.

What happens if he fails? — People die and Gotham is torn apart.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan — Wayne Manor is already destroyed and Rachel is now seeing Harvey Dent.  The Joker begins his crime spree and says that he’ll stop if the Batman will reveal himself.

Wanderer — Batman tries to stop the Joker every way he knows how, however he’s ultimately unable to do what’s necessary and just kill the Joker, which is what the Joker would do if the situation were reversed and called for it.  Batman decides he’ll .

Warrior — The Joker reveals that he’s got Rachel and Harvey hostage.  Batman tries to beat the information out of the Joker, who eventually gives two addresses.  Batman races off to an address to save Rachel, but it’s the wrong address and Rachel dies while Harvey is disfigured.

Martyr — Proving their humanity, the passengers on the ferry ships being held hostage by the Joker give up saving themselves and do not destroy each other.  Batman gives up doing what’s right for what’s necessary, defeating the Joker and becoming the hero that Gotham needs, the Dark Knight.

AND, IN THE END…

There’s a reason why this movie has done a billion dollars worth of box office (and that’s not even counting DVD sales!)  Granted, Heath Ledger is brilliant and will win the Oscar (did I say that out loud?) but this movie belongs to the characters.  

Heroes and villains are dark mirrors of each other, but instead of going to the surface understanding of this as in the 1989 Tim Burton BATMAN, THE DARK KNIGHT plunges deep under the skin to look at the nature of villainy and heroism.

This movie should be added to every must-see list for any serious student of character development.