The Shearer and the Gypsy
Houston ChorleyPenpusher
When a small town shearer incapable of change falls in love with a backpacker unable to settle down. He must learn to leave his home behind for love to truly flourish.
Share
Have an account? Sign In Now
Interesting.
I suggest to find something better than “incapable of change”(it seem too much a blueprint for the real thing)… maybe “a stubburn small town shearer”?
You can condense in one sentence.
Finally, I think the second part need to be a little more specific: I’m not sure if the movie is about a searer and a backpacker travelling together or a backpacker who ‘trouble’ the shearer little world. The 2 possibilities are interesting as I expect a lot of conflict due to the strong opposition of the characters.
Is there a more tangible goal other than ‘learning’ to leave his town? Something the character is trying to accomplish?
This is a boy meets girl story needles to say this is a well trodden path. So as with all boy meets girl stories its what prevents them from begin together that makes it interesting.
What is standing in the way of them being together?
Her being incapable of settling down and him being incapable of change are not it this obstacle needs to be an external force that either one or both of them have to fight to stay together. Also as most romances go you need to keep your lovers at ends with each other don’t let them be lovey-dovey until act 3.
Hope this helps.
I agree with Nir, ?”learn to leave his home behind” does not really convey a proactive story. ?Can’t he just check-out a self-help book from the library?
A more active and difficult external goal is needed, e.g:
After the love of his life mysteriously disappears in the night, a shy sheep shearer frantically searches for her but is stonewalled ?by the wealthy local farmers.?
Probably not the story you had in mind, but searching for a missing loved one against formidable obstacles with a hint of ?foul play is more active than reading a book
When Shearer met Gypsy…..
Why doesn’t the backpacker “learn to settle down”?
There’s obviously a conflict of lifestyles and temperaments here — they are intrinsically an odd couple. Which has potential for drama in “reel” life, if not much for a long lasting relationship in real life.
But, alas, the logline seems biased in favor of the backpacker. In fact, the logline seems to give away the ending: the story is not about whether he’s going to leave, but when. “He must learn to leave his home behind.” So where is the suspense?
I suggest there would be more dramatic tension and emotional honesty if both characters have equally compelling and cogent arguments for their lifestyles. (After all, somebody has to stay home and rear and shear the sheep. Otherwise the backpackers will have to pursue their vagabond lifestyle buck naked.)
It seems to me that in the best and most believable relationship dramas it’s a fair and balanced fight: both sides have equally valid reasons for their positions and choices. Both are equally right. And both are equally wrong.
In real life and reel life, does it make emotional sense that having one party doing the capitulating is sufficient for “true love to flourish”? (What reciprocal sacrifices, what compromises is the backpacker making?) Or does “true love” flourish when couples find common ground, mutual understanding and acceptance, make reciprocal compromises, tradeoffs?
If the sheep shearer is going to run away with the backpacker, then it seems to me it ought to be planted even before he meets her that he’s a misfit in his current life, discontented with shearing sheep. That’s the cause; her coming into his life is the catalyst for him to do something about it.
But then, why not go against the Hollyweird stereotype which almost always favors the foot-loose and free-spirited? Why not a story about a vagabond whose subjective need is to learn how to settle down “for true love to flourish”?
fwiw