Contour At The Movies

Overall Impression — Gone are the quips, the easy going air of superiority.  It’s an action movie, first and foremost and a well-structured one with an interesting stakes character.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s your main character? — James Bond

What’s he trying to accomplish? — Defeat the plans of the evil Dominic Greene (professional), keep Camille safe as she seeks revenge (personal), and avenge the death of his girlfriend Vesper Lynd (private).

Who’s trying to stop him? — Dominic Greene.

What happens if he fails? — Camille dies, and the South American peasants are left without water.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan — Bond is all alone after the death of Vesper Lynd in CASINO ROYALE.  Even though he’s called off by M, he continues to seek vengeance and is the outcast of MI-6.

Wanderer — Bond travels to various exotic locations (apparently, the most in any Bond film) following the trail and leads which will bring him to those who betrayed and killed Vesper.

Warrior — Bond meets Camille, saves her and realizes that they have a shared destiny.  He now knows who is behind Vesper’s death (Greene) and is actively pursuing him and the cartel who are threatening

Martyr — Bond is willing to give up his own life to help Camille get the revenge that he himself was unable to get.

AND, IN THE END…

I’m not sure who pulled the trigger (so to speak) on the idea of making Bond the “blunt object” that M accused him of being in the previous Bond movie (CASINO ROYALE) but blunt he is.  I saw a review that likened Daniel Craig to a crash test dummy.  He certainly doesn’t get much chance to emote, and his Bond doesn’t arouse much empathy for a man who just lost the one girl who could love him for who he is.  That being said, the film follows the rules of structure and thanks to hyperkinetic action is never uninteresting to watch.  Tellingly though, neither the story nor Bond’s journey lingers in memory.  Ultimately this is a film that leaves us shaken, but not stirred.

Overall Impression — A feel-good movie that tries a little too hard, with a seriously misplaced antagonist.

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Who’s the main character? — John Cusack’s character of David.

What’s he trying to accomplish? –  He’s trying to adopt a troubled child.

Who’s trying to stop him? — His own personal doubts, his sister, the adoption board (who questions whether David is the right parent for this child,) but ultimately it’s the child himself who is the antagonist of the film.  YIKES!

What happens if he fails? — A very cute, very special kid doesn’t get adopted by the one person on the planet who is right for him.

THE FOUR ARCHETYPES

Orphan — David’s a widower, however it’s been a few years and early in the film we meet Harlee, played  by Amanda Peet, who seems to be interested and available.  I mention this because it weakens anyone’s orphan status to have Amanda Peet interested in them in the first few scenes of a film.  For example, imagine SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE.  How heartbroken would you be for Tom Hanks if the film began a year or two after his wife died and Amanda Peet was hanging around him, interested and available?

Wanderer — David decides to adopt a child and tries to figure out how to get through to this over-imaginative kid who thinks he’s from Mars.

Warrior — David becomes increasingly less willing to indulge the kid’s fantasies, while also trying to convince the adoption board and his family (and himself!) that he’s right for the boy.

Martyr — To the film’s detriment, David doesn’t actually have to sacrifice anything at the end.  It’s not like he’s given an either-or choice between the kid and his job, or the kid and some desired relationship.  This is a big weakness of the story.

AND, IN THE END…

David’s lack of sacrifice makes the story less compelling than it could have been.  John Cusack’s  charming, the kid is cute, Amanda Peet is available (have I mentioned that before?), the script is serviceable…yet…ultimately nobody cares.  

MARTIAN CHILD falls apart towards the start of Act Three when the adoption board is placated.  With them out of the way, what’s left to interfere with the adoption?  Surprise!  The boy himself who, in spite of brilliantly pretending in front of the adoption board that he no longer thinks he’s from Mars, still does.  The final confrontation is between David and the boy.  

An inviolate rule of storytelling is that the final confrontation is always the Good Guy vs Bad Guy over Stakes.  So…David fights for the boy against THE BOY?!  Big mistake, and to my way of thinking about story, this is the big failing of the script.

The boy doesn’t seem intent on wanting to be at David’s house until the very, very end of the film which seriously undercuts the audience empathy.  If the boy doesn’t care, why should we?

TRIVIA — MARTIAN CHILD is based on the novel of the same name by David Gerrold which is a semi-autobiographical story of his adoption of his son.  David Gerrod is a science fiction writer perhaps best known for the famous TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES episode of the original STAR TREK series.  Back in my misguided youth when I was a serious Trekker, I wrote to David Gerrold and told him I wanted to be a writer just like him.   He wrote back and was very encouraging to a 16 year  old geek fanboy.  I am in his debt.