The Ugly Cliche

I’ve been writing fiction since I was in second grade, so I’ve had a lot of time to think about it. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned about the art of creation, it’s that your story has to be more real than reality is. And while the your audience may experience that magical suspension of disbelief if all or part of your plot is implausible, this effect is ruined when hollow, unrealistic characters highlight this so much that it’s impossible to get lost in your work.

That’s my major problem with The Ugly Truth. I’m sure this post will give away nothing, as the adverts tell you everything you need to know: the main female is hilariously neurotic and uptight, and it takes a crass, sexist, sexily unshaven man to loosen her up by turning her into the perfect object to land her dream guy! But lo, he has fallen for her! They almost admit their feelings, there is the misunderstanding that leads to an emotional scene, but finally (in a hot air balloon, for Christ’s sake) they embrace their love, and kiss while leaning dangerously out of the basket.

Abby is the picture of unrealistic neurosis – she’s chronically single and looking for the perfect guy, and viciously defensive of her idealistic views of love. Her career success isn’t enough – she will never be complete without her wine drinking, cat loving, caring professional. She resorts to “crazy” extremes to ensure her mate is perfect (a background check on a guy you met via internet dating sites? Tsk, tsk). And do you remember that kid on the playground who would whisper expletives to the little girls? He grew up to be Mike: “I’m offensive! And sexist! Observe me trotting out every cliche gender stereotype I can think of! Do you hear how bold am I to save these things? Are you listening to how edgy I am? ARE YOU LISTENING?”

Our world – the real world, where Mike would be fired on the first day of his segment on the show, and where Abby has romantic options aside from Captain Crassness and Dr. Wonderboy* – is connected by a fraying thread to the magical land of the film. There’s no challenge in movie; it’s a comfortable world where men and women are so simple to understand (because they’re all the same). This is exemplified in a scene where Mike “helps” Abby make Dr. Colin Perfectionstein desperate to date her. Clearly all men think that a casual request for a date is desperate. So hang up on him, call him by the wrong name, leave him on indefinite hold and he’ll be eating out of your hand! He predicts to the second when the good doctor will call again, knowing  he’d be intrigued by the bad manners of a woman he’d met exactly once before. Wowed at his precognitive abilities, Abby follows Mike like a puppy, and he sexually harasses his way into her heart while teaching her how to be exactly what every single male ever wants from a woman.

You could probably make a decent case that the movie is really encouraging the Abbys of the world to be themselves instead of becoming an eternally appeasing lovebot to get a mate. But it’s done so poorly that it’s a hard theory to support. I mean, how does Abby actually end up with Mike? Sure, she ends the relationship with the good doctor because he doesn’t love her as she is, but Mike only falls for her after he’s tarted her up a bit. So I suppose the real lesson to take from this film is that you can be yourself as much as you like, as long as your hair is down and grabbable and your shoes were not selected for comfort.

Either way, you don’t need me to point out that no one actually behaves like this in real life.

If you’d like to write romantic comedies, here’s a little tip. A lot of what people are looking for here is vicarious emotion. That’s why we want “typical” characters, roles we could neatly daydream ourselves into. And that’s why the conflict comes with tears, the stirring music, and usually one of the lovers looking longingly at a photograph or memento of the other but too proud to admit to whatever mistake they’ve made. Finally, the lovers are reunited when one party admits their misstep and asks forgiveness. Love is declared and the music over the credits is triumphant. The Ugly Truth is just filled to the brim with opportunities for one lover or the other to do something, anything, to create a real interpersonal conflict. Instead, the screenwriters looked at all those options, shook their heads in dismay, and then one said “I know! A huge misunderstanding fueled by coincidence!” No one is to blame here – Abby’s boyfriend just happened to show up at the hotel to surprise her, and Dame Fortune dictates that he has to change his clothes, and who would have guessed that Mike would knock at the door while he was still shirtless and muscular. When Abby and Mike fight in the hallway, it’s not because they still haven’t resolved their divergent views of the world, but because of this simple misunderstanding.

Even the resolution to this contrived conflict isn’t effective. Abby, shrill harpy that she is, is so insensitive as to focus on Mike’s insults rather than let the two or three “but I love you” statements block out everything else he’s saying. He’s opening up the doors to his heart just enough to throw rocks at her. That, at least, is somewhat true to life. People who feel hurt hesitate to open up and can throw out cruel and defensive things. It is not, however, realistic for this to lead directly from “you’re an insensitive dick” to “kiss me, you fool!” in roughly 45 seconds.

I’ve written some horribly embarrassing, sloppy pieces of fiction in my life, I can admit. But out there, somewhere, a writer is toasting farewell to the last of their literary credibility with Sony Pictures subsidized vodka tonics.

* Post-script for the writers of this film: if one of your characters is such a horribly contrived image of “perfection” that members of your audience insist that he must be part of a sinister trick one character is playing on the other, it’s time to consider a career change. I mean, Colin affirms his love of cats in the exact words Abby uses to describe the man of her dreams. This is not okay.

1. They’re drop-outs.
Interestingly, Anna’s badass quotient here exceeds Steve by far, having dropped out of secondary school at 16. She briefly returned to school to take some classes in fashion, but soon dropped out with the declaration that “You either know fashion or you don’t.” Meanwhile, Steve waited until he’d completed a semester at Reed College to leave it behind, as he wanted to honor his adoptive parents’ request that he give higher education a fair shot. Anna went back to working at the renowned boutique Biba, and Steve worked at Atari to make money for his spiritual retreat to India.

2. They’re both big fans of “spiritual retreats.”
Maybe we’re exaggerating in Anna’s case, but most would say that disappearing with Bob Marley for a week definitely counts. It may not be the same as Steve’s trip to India where he experimented with psychedelics, shaved his head and became a Buddhist, but the unknown parts of Anna’s adventure were likely just as fascinating.

3. 21 was a good age for them.
At 21, Anna got her first job in fashion journalism and first let it be known that she wanted to be editor of Vogue. Having been hitting up the social scene since her teens, by the time she entered her 20s anything seemed more interesting than a vodka tonic. Meanwhile, Steve founded Apple Computer with his friend Steve Wozniak. It bears comparison that when Steve Wozniak was 21, he was just meeting Steve Jobs – and Jobs was 16, already convincing Wozniak to invent the personal computer that would become the foundation of their company.

4. They don’t date quietly.
Whether it’s denying paternity or dating Joan Baez to get closer to the spirit of Bob Dylan, Steve’s known for pushing the limits of dating. Although Anna doesn’t go for denying parenthood or dating folk singers, she started dating older men at age 15 (in that case, a man 9 years her senior) and kept up the habit for years. It’s safe to say that both avoided dating experiences (and accidental children) that could hold them back, and kept striving to move upwards in the social stratosphere. Despite their obvious adventurousness and love of fleeting power, both have been married and Jobs still is (and has taken back that paternity denial of yore).

5. They’ve clashed with authorities…a lot.
It takes a lot to get fired from a position you created in a company that you created. For anyone who’s watched Pirates of Silicon Valley, it’s evident that Jobs earned his disgrace at the hands of John Sculley. Also, Jobs didn’t limit himself to antagonizing other authorities within Apple – his opinion that IBM (a more powerful competitor, at the time) was the enemy was a driving force behind his work on the Macintosh. Of course, Anna’s no innocent here, either. Fired from her junior fashion editor position at Harper’s Bazaar in nine months for putting the desires of her editor behind her own innovations, Wintour is known for stepping on the toes of many gatekeepers of the industry. Even when she first interviewed to work at Vogue with editor-at-the-time Grace Mirabella, Anna declared that the job she was after was Mirabella’s, and the interview ended shortly thereafter.

6. They clash with subordinates…a lot.
Known as “Nuclear Wintour” as soon as she began working at British Vogue, Anna is legendary for tearing apart the workforces and creative approaches of the publications she’s worked with. Acting as a strict curator, Wintour’s alienated many of the creatives beneath her by demanding new directions despite intense time pressures. Similarly, Jobs is renowned for his tantrums and rages when facing work he doesn’t like. Not limiting his tantrums to verbal bashings, when he first returned to Apple in 1996 he terrorized the campus with impulsive and brutal firings.

7. They define their industries.
I know this was said in the introduction, but it bears repeating – Steve Jobs spearheads innovation and trends in technology as Anna Wintour spearheads innovation and trends in design. The impact they’ve had on their respective industries has shaped the work of their contemporaries and their competitors for years, and will continue to for as long as they are active members. Surely, there’s something to be learned from their common examples of playing with fire, taking the consequences like a baller, and leveraging power with confidence. Just as surely, hanging out with a Marley…it can’t hurt.

As I see it, there’s an inherent problem when the term “tolerant” is a generous description for a country’s attitude towards its gay citizens. The term “tolerant” has never sat well with me, as some additional definitions of “tolerate” are “to put up with something or somebody unpleasant,” and “to allow.” This presumes that a government has control over homosexuality, with the corollary that with the end of tolerance would cause the end of homosexuality. It also slips in the connotation that there really is something “unpleasant” about homosexuality, which the heterosexual world is putting up with just to be polite. Referred to by Out Magazine as the “gay capital of the Middle East,” one would think Tel Aviv stands for something more than “tolerance” to more people. Also, one would hope that Israeli politicians would agree that calling the Tel Aviv pride parade a “filth parade” isn’t a middling faux pas.

The fact is, the politicized denigration of any group of citizens is always an inhumane way to handle differences of opinion. In a system where “tolerance” of the gay community is considered adequate (and there are even mixed messages about that), how will anyone be motivated to reevaluate their dogmas? It is not the fault of the Knesset that an unknown gunman murdered two gay civilizians, and surely the Shas’ denunciation of the hate crime is sincere. However, politicians would do well to discuss their opinions humanely and respectfully on the national stage, and set an example of fair and supportive discourse for citizens to follow. The gay community in Israel needs true support in its time of mourning and thereafter, not political fronting.

As more and more people turn to social media for instant news, it makes it easier for malicious people to not only infect the stream with falsehoods, as we saw/still see with the Iran Election, but to completely block people from getting to the information in the first place. I don’t have any good solutions to this problem, but it is obviously something we should all be talking about a lot more.

The world would be a different place today if it weren’t for Star Wars. People wouldn’t walk around all day making Chewbacca noises for no apparent reason, the U.S. government wouldn’t secretly be in the process of making lightsabers and America’s first Death Star a reality and most people would still be afraid to make out with their sister. It would also be impossible for people to use the force and take people’s clothes off with their minds.

Truth. Keep it real, and may the Force be with you.

Google does have an ever-growing suite of applications, and talented engineers creating and unifying them further. While Apple is a recognized innovator in the consumer product space, Google is the same for the space of internet services and applications. And there is definitely room for more innovation in the space of mobile services, and particularly VoIP technologies. While “regular” VoIP isn’t really a threat to AT&T, the reason is that the user experience of VoIP is sub-par, even in those that have a wide set of services – they are usually not very well integrated with each other, or with the phone. With the advent of push technologies and Google’s gifted manpower, they are the company most likely to provide and support a service powerful enough to supplant native calling and texting. From that perspective, allowing Google Voice applications to remain in the store would be to leave a gaping hole in AT&T’s defenses, which are already quite worn. But now that the FCC is involving itself, it’s not going to get easier for the cellular behemoth.

As far as the FCC goes, it’s interesting to see them stumble into the mobile space. Apple has been rejecting applications ever since the store was conceived of, and AT&T has had a death grip on their iPhone exclusivity deal (which is also coming under fire). Furthermore, the mobile space has always been messy and frustrating – mobile service providers occupy the same circle of Hell as insurance agents and tax attorneys as far as consumers are concerned. As Sascha Segan points out, there are bigger issues in the mobile space that really need to be tended to first:

The FCC’s time could be much better spent on actual industry-wide, anti-consumer collusions like overcharging for individual text messages, locking people into contracts well beyond the point when they’ve paid off their phone subsidies, or making exclusivity deals that prevent rural users from getting access to particular phones.

After all, such fundamental changes would allow consumers to easily switch to a phone they could install GV on, and this debacle would be irrelevant. FCC’s James Schlichting points out “pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497)” exist, and it’s great to know that there are proceedings taking place. However, I’m surprised they aren’t focusing on those directly instead of sending letters to a company that is not on the decision-making end of wireless open access or handset exclusivity. I wouldn’t go so far as Segan to suggest that Eric Schmidt’s shoulder-nudge and wink-wink relationship with President Obama has played a role in the Apple smackdown, but since most FCC investigations go nowhere, I wouldn’t rule it out as a passive aggressive way to get on Apple’s case.

Google’s increasing move into Apple’s space, and Apple’s increasing desire to control every inch of that space have not been good bedfellows. It’s hard to imagine that Apple could maintain a completely healthy relationship with a direct competitor in both the phone and OS space for very long…
- Engadget

Isn’t a “completely healthy relationship” one where neither company has any undue sway over or actionable insight into the motivations and plans of the other? This paints Apple as a monopolist punishing Schmidt for Google’s entry into the mobile and OS space, and I find that unrealistic. As far as I can tell, it would be completely unhealthy to maintain a position where your direct competitor has more insight into the moves you’re planning to make than most of your employees do. Competition aside, it still doesn’t make sense for Schmidt to be on the board; having him step out of any discussion where he may have a conflict of interest is an efficiency killer. Also, Google has been making daring moves into several new spaces, and the areas in which Google may come to compete are completely unforeseen. Apple’s task isn’t to appeal to fair-weather fans, it’s to protect the company’s interests, as is true of any corporation. I have difficulty seeing an alternative that doesn’t consist of Apple making a poor business decision that impedes the efficiency, equity and security of the Board of Directors. Or as Fake Steve Jobs puts it:

You sat in our meetings and learned all of our secrets. You listened to our product development plans. Then you went off and copied our products and now you’re trying to fuck me in the ear with my own ideas. …”Don’t be evil?” Is there anyone left in the entire world who still believes that?

If Steve Jobs were on Google’s Board of Directors and the same thing went down, I highly doubt Google would be perceived as a tyrant, but as a company making an appropriate decision based on the way the cards were falling. But as Gizmodo says, “Pick your sides; this should be fun.”

Funny People problematically strives to be equally good at drama and comedy, in a film confronting death and Hollywood self-obsession. Unfortunately, the humor usually falls flat and the drama is painfully rendered. It is simply not okay to devote two-and-a-half hours to character development when none of the characters develop, and all of the characters are completely unlikeable. For example, Adam Sandler’s George Simmons, a comedian who survives a close call with leukemia, stays the same incorrigible (and incidentally, unfunny) asshole that he was from the beginning. With little to no self-awareness and a lot of baseless self-involvement, he maintains the same modes of expressing these traits throughout the film: mocking Seth Rogen’s character, mocking others to the point that it’s painful to watch, and randomly rekindling relationships that the viewer can’t even believe were kindled in the first place.

One of these is with his ex-fiancée, a spineless ex-actress rendered by Leslie Mann, who starts out the film ignoring Simmons, twenty minutes later sobbing and confessing that he was “the one,” and spending most of the film being obsessed with him for no comprehensible reason. (Note to Judd Apatow: this does not count as character development, it counts as misogyny at best.) Some parts of their re-courtship would be cute if you weren’t set up to hate both of the oblivious characters, and if the characters didn’t predictably end up where they started (deluded, separated and feeling betrayed – causing the audience to feel wholly betrayed as well). Meanwhile, Seth Rogen’s brand of “development” is a passive alternation between being sycophantic (as Simmons’ assistant) and whining about Simmons’ antics. The only time that his character hits the nail on the head is when he finally says something about how fucked up it is that Simmons took his second chance at life and chose to stay the same asshole. By that time, however, it’s over two hours into the film and he’s saying what the audience already knew, only out loud and with a garish attempt to look emotionally distressed. He doesn’t punctuate the film with nearly enough humor to make up for the damage he’s done as a terrible dramatic actor, and even the lines that are on point aren’t enough to redeem him.