Week 33 of Year 8
Psi Chi Analysis
Again I avoid writing about the ComiCon. Instead, I have far more exciting news. I am planning out a comic depicting a therapist to superheroes with a caveat I will not reveal. I am glad to construct a space where I can air my dissatisfaction with some types of characters and create homages to those I like. I promise myself to realize it at least an (hour?) every day until I either finish or grow tired of it. In my experience though, neglecting the work or at least not researching for it breeds the contempt of boredom. This makes sense in retrospect: without activating a particular creative concept for expansion from internal or external sources, the corollary ideas dry up. I repeat the same favored aspects until they are the sum of what I remember and insufficient to support a story.
Not this time. I know the steps I must complete to proceed. The format is semi-episodic, each episode blends two cases the therapist undertook in that period. Further, I employ a frame story around each, so these are anecdotes the protagonist tells her apprentice. The shorter elements are the real change for me. In the past, I have given myself over to creating plans for novel length treatments of the ideas I create. Occasionally, I thought of one limited enough for short story treatment but saw unending space stretching behind.
Now, I can see the truth Mckee identifies, in Story , when he asserts that restricting the scope of a story simplifies but enriches the telling. I sense this in the ease of creating the anecdotes rather than the frame story. I can base each around a simple idea, like "an invulnerable person can't feel anything finer than an RPG." This needs an invulnerability, a psyche before and after sensory deprivation, and her recommendation.
In contrast, the frame story demands I project out the consequences of the rise in powered beings, the market status, intergovernmental relations, the extended border of scientific understanding and engineered derivations of the change, and many more aspects that posit the decisions of millions of people over the course of ten or twenty years. Further, this aspect fails to inspire because it solely acts to explain those consequences. I consider showing part of a case around each anecdote but do not feel like making it thematically related to the other two. When an episode of Grey's Anatomy depicts four patients that help the cast deal with death or superstition, it wounds my suspension of disbelief. The form I chose avoids improbable relation since the therapist chooses which stories to relate, but the technique sours my mouth anyway. I mostly avoid thinking about the frame story.
Nonetheless, it is one of the elements I must still roughly create. I do not know who Vivian, the therapist, was before her change, nor who she became afterward. Her solution to a Romeo & Juliet type problem also sits in obscurity. Though I know how to pay homage to My Name is Earl , the base offense waits until I understand Vivian more.
Once I decide how those unfold, I will further detail the individual episodes. At the moment, I know the basic conflicts the invulnerable person will present and her suggestions to him. Next, I must brainstorm how he meets her, the general information exchanged in the uncovery phase, his reaction to her suggestion, and what she has to do to convince him of her seriousness. I repeat this for all the tales. Concurrently, I shall design the costumes for the heroes and Vivian's face. The setting does not trouble me since I shall limit locales to those I have visited. Penultimately, I will make a script and ask family and friends to rate the emotional plausibility of the work. I elected sensational solutions to the difficulties the powers present her with. I finish by drawing the comic and probably posting the results on deviantart.
Children of Men
This is an average film. If you see the trailer, you know (almost) everything that will happen in the movie. If you see V for Vendetta or read 1984 , you will be better entertained. Alfonso Cuaron chose a dystopia and gave it a novel reason: universal infertility. He does not explain the phenomenon nor why it suddenly ends in the person of Ki, an illegal alien. That is the only aspect the trailer withholds. Apparently, the UK adopted siege mentality in the face of angsty violence on all sides.
Now you have all the information to project the entire story. Depressed male shares the common cynicism about the future. He has an upbeat elder friend, but more importantly, divorced from the leader of the resistance. They found a pregnant woman. They try to drive her to scientists to figure out why her fetus came to term. But the resistance is just as corrupt as the xenophobes in blue, so our anti-hero strikes out alone. Eventually, he gets into the ghetto for deportees to smuggle the mother to the nearby pickup zone. The end is left as an exercise for the reader.
In the supplementary material, he tells us the background is the most important. Without it this is just a road movie. The setting crew built compelling sets. It is bombed out Kosovo, Stalingrad. The crew shot for archetypal and got generic, which is the fault of the story. I have read the classic dystopian stories and am unimpressed. I recently played half way through Half-Life 2 , so maybe my expectations are too high for the moment. I could be overexposed. I think not. The situation teaches nothing new. The plague comes mysteriously and is cured mysteriously. Society plays Russian Roulette until it sees the second coming, whence all fall to their knees. The hero's journey always promised to break his ennui. The problem stems from the lack of tension independent of immediate threats to the main characters. I feared/hoped someone would find out she became pregnant and shoot the fetus, ostensibly to save it from pain of still birth or from jealousy.
Another aspect that bothered me was the special features. I always hope the DVD includes a commentary track. Instead, the crew filmed two "documentaries" critically analyzing Children of Men and Cuaron's body of work. He hired four "philosopher and historian" professors to reveal the marvelous symbolism of the movie I just watched. Make no mistake, these talking heads know their craft. I nodded my head as one explained the propriety of making an escape by boat, a rootless vessel with no connection to the past. That way, the society could be made entirely anew. I like understanding a work from a deeper perspective, but to make it the centerpiece of the special features felt like so much self-congratulations. The others were normal plaudits for the team: how we made the digital baby, how we made the battle scenes (which had great believability).
If you like number conclusions, it is 65/100. I do not regret seeing Children of Men , but will never again.