TODAY'S NUGGET: Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult (1988) - One Trick When Topping a Gag With Another Gag

[Quick Summary: Lt. Frank Drebin comes out of retirement to go undercover to stop a terrorist bomber who is targeting the Academy Awards ceremony.]

Trying to top a gag with more gags is tricky.  

This script has a good example, and relies on exaggerating the next gag in line:
- Frank, Nordberg, and the Captain are hiding in plain sight.
- They are waiting for goons to appear.
- Three women are trying to drag four carriages up or down the stairs. The cops help them, reluctantly.
- The goons arrive. The cops let go of the carriages to fire at goons. 
- Then the writers mock this whole stair situation by the worst possible things into this tense moment, ex. politicians, etc.
- It's also quite funny to even mock the seriousness of this situation by distracting Frank and have him pick up a shiny object during the gun battle.

INT. TRAIN STATION - DAY

ANGLE - NORDBERG

starts FIRING, realizes he's let go of both his baby carriages. He runs out of FRAME chasing them. Right behind Nordberg, a runaway lawnmower careens through FRAME, followed by a Japanese GARDENER who throws up his hands and mouths the words, "My lawnmower!" [This parodies the "preciousness" of the carriages.]

ANGLE - FRANK

Guns blazing, diving, FIRES at the Goons.

ANGEL - GOONS

 One is hit, rolls down the stairs. The Other is hit -- he rolls up the stairs. [This gag tops the previous one because it's so random and we know people can't roll UP the stairs.]

ANGLE - FRANK

His eyes spot something on the ground. A surprised look crosses his face. Still FIRING, he bends down and picks the object up -- it's a bright, shiny quarter. What luck! Happily, Frank pockets the coin, his gun still blazing away. [Another nonsequitur that works because it's such a ridiculous tangent.]

ANGLE - ED

still struggling to free his gun from his sock. He sits down on the top stair, really goes at it. 

ANGLE - FRANK

FIRING away.

O.S. VOICE: Hey, look, it's the President!

ANOTHER ANGLE

It's BILL CLINTON coming down the stairs with his Secret Service entourage. [This tops the lawnmower as "things that shouldn't be in a shootout."]

RESUME - FRANK

surprised to see the President.

O.S. VOICE: And the Pope!

ANGLE - HIS HOLINESS

is also coming down the stairs with his Security People. [The Pope definitely tops the President as people who would never be here.]

ANGLE - HEZBOLLAH FANATIC

his body rigged with grenades and dynamite suddenly comes out of nowhere, rushes toward the President and the Pope.

FANATIC (screaming): Yee ah! [Fanatics are the absolute worst people to have in a shootout with babies, the President and the Pope.]

ANGLE - FRANK

can't believe this is happening. He whips his gun up, shoots the Hezbollah.

RESUME - HEZBOLLAH

Clothes-lined by Frank's bullet, drops like a rock.

RESUME - FRANK

O.S. VOICE: Oh my God! Look! It's disgruntled Postal Workers!

Frank turns to see 

ANGLE - TOP OF STAIRS

It's a human wave attack of Postal Workers, all in uniform, all with automatic weapons, some with mail sacks. They start spraying the place with AUTOMATIC GUNFIRE. [This made me laugh the hardest because we expect the writers to top the fanatics with someone more traditionally physically violent, and they went the emotional route to long-suffering government workers.] 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When trying to top a gag, it's helpful to try unexpected, unusual ways to exaggerate the next gag in line (emotional, physical, psychological, etc.)

Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult (1994)(2nd draft, 8th revision, 8/13/93)
by Pat Proft 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear (1991) - Exceeding the Audience's Expectations with Escalating Sight Gags

[Quick Summary: Lt. Frank Drebin must stop his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend who is trying to kidnap a scientist whose solar power research will change lives.]

I'm a sucker for clever sight gags in which the writer understands the audience's expectation and doubles down on it with a twist that exceeds that expectation.

Today's script has a good example: 

EXT. HOTEL ROOFTOP - NIGHT

ANGLE

Hapsburg forcing Jane at gunpoint into the control room. 

FRANK

FRANK: He's got Jane!

BLAM! A bullet ricochets off a girder just inches from Frank's head. He ducks behind a garbage can and FIRES back. Ed does likewise. [The audience expects a big, explosive battle.]

NORDBERG 

BULLETS ZING around him. He jams a clip into his 9mm pistol. Clips on infrared scope. Then a longer barrel...  [The audience expects Nordberg's bigger gun to make a bigger bang.]

THUG

FIRING away, takes cover behind a garbage can.

FRANK

SHOOTING away.

GOON

SHOOTING.

ANGLE 

Frank and gun are only three feet apart. [This is one of my favorite gags. We expect this intense gun battle, but definitely further than 3 ft. apart! It upends our expectation.]

NORDBERG

attaching more stuff to the pistol. It now resembles an M-60 with an ammo belt threaded through. He's starting to mount it on a huge turret. [The escalation of Nordberg's gun is amusing because it's now enormous.]

GOON

The goon's gun is out of bullets. He throws his gun at Frank. Frank throws his gun at the goon. They continue to throw guns at each other. [A gun allows shooters to aim from far away, with bullets. We do not expect the fight to end as a throwing match with the actual guns, close up.] 

FRANK: Cover me! I'm goin' in!

Frank charges in, FIRING two guns simultaneously a la Butch Cassidy.

CONTROL ROOM DOOR

The door is BLOWN AWAY. Frank stops, looks behind him.

FRANK'S POV

Nordberg, in World War II helmet, is mounted on what now looks like a a World War II cannon with crank-style turret and spider's web sight. [This final escalation is funny because it's overkill for the job.]

FRANK

runs to gaping hole in control room wall.  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the writers started with what's familiar, then added a twist that escalates or exaggerates the situation, and we're surprised. 

Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear (1991)(8/17/90 w/revisions) 
by David Zucker and Pat Proft

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Naked Gun: From the Files of the Police Squad (1988) - Impressive Variety & Number of Jokes Per Page (& A Caution)

[Quick Summary: Bumbling Chicago Det. Frank Drebin is on the case, trying to foil drug cartels and the assassinators of Queen Elizabeth II.]

My favorite part of any Zuckers-Abrams-Proft script is the number and variety of jokes stuffed in every page - visual jokes, verbal jokes, puns, slapstick, gags, etc.

For example, in this scene below, Frank is in the lab with his boss Ed and Mr. Olsen, the head of the lab:

INT. POLICE LAB - DAY

...AL enters. Since he's seven feet tall, his head is OUT OF FRAME. He's holding a shoe box. [Visually funny and interesting because we only see a torso.]

AL: Here's the package you wanted, Chief.

He sets it on the desk.

ED: Thanks, Al.

Al turns to leave. Ed stops him.

ED (cont.): Al, you're out of uniform again. Regulation headgear only. You know that.

AL: Sorry, Chief, I was just trying something different.

He places a large Mexican sombrero down on the desk and exits. Frank looks after him, a bit puzzled. Olsen opens the shoe box. He pulls out a man's shoe. [This gag is both verbally and visually funny. We don't expect a police officer wearing a sombrero, nor a tall man wearing a tall hat.]

MR. OLSEN: Here's something we developed only yesterday. To the casual observer, an ordinary shoe. But in actuality...

INSERT - SHOE

A knife springs out of the toe like a switchblade. [This is a genre joke. It's expected, but only if you've seen this contraption before in other spy or James Bond films.]

INT. POLICE LAB - DAY

MR. OLSEN: It makes quite a handy weapon... 

Now Olsen swings out more knives, various tools, scissors, bottles opener/screwdriver, corkscrew, etc. [This is a heightened joke, playing off of what we'd expect and then adding to it.]

MR. OLSEN (cont.): ...And everything a cop in the field would need. We call it the Swiss Army Shoe. [Pun of "Swiss Army knife."]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I noticed two simultaneous things: 

First, the number of the jokes per page seemed to create its own propulsive energy, and made me want to see what happened next.

However, over time, the sheer density of jokes per page became wearying to read.  I think what was really helpful was to have a different rhythm in there, i.e., Frank falling in love, to break up the same-ness of tone.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of the Police Squad (1988)(12/10/87 revised)
by Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Pat Proft 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Deep Cover (1992) - When Is It Ok to Tell, Not Show, What's Inside Her Head?

[Quick Summary: When a good cop goes undercover to try to ferret out a drug importer, will he succumb to the excesses and violence?]

Q: Screenwriting rules should never, ever, ever be broken, right?
A: I felt that way too...until I saw every one of them broken.* Stick with the "rules" until you know when, how, and most importantly WHY, to break them.

Q: *Gasp!* But WHEN? HOW? Don't tell me "I'll only know with experience."
A: I only figured it out by experience (reading and writing, reading and writing).**

Q: Can you give me an example of when to break "show, not tell"?
A: Today's action thriller script is a good example when telling what's inside a character's head works best.  

Critic Roger Ebert explains the protagonist's dilemma: 

What sets "Deep Cover" apart is its sense of good and evil, the way it has the Fishburne character agonize over the moral decisions he has to make. Most drug movies are so casual about their shootings and killings that you'd hardly think it even hurt to get shot. ...Among the many unexpected aspects of this movie is the way its characters constantly ask themselves what the right course is - and if they can afford to take it.

This is apparent in the scene below:
- The protagonist, Hull, is a good cop with strong morals.
- He swore he'd never do drugs, like his dad who died robbing a liquor store.
- However, he's put into deep undercover to ferret out a drug dealer.
- He has witnessed a lot of horrible things, but hasn't crossed the line yet.
- He hooks up with a minor drug dealer, Elias, who doesn't know Hull is a cop.
- Elias gives Hull credibility and introduces him to buyers and sellers.
- Betty owns a jewelry store that is a laundering front.
- This is the first time Betty meets Hull.
- The Note explains concisely what is going on inside of Betty.  Yes, this is "telling" rather than showing, but there's a very quick, complicated, non-verbal dynamic going on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the writer resorted to this description as the most efficient explanation. 
- Even though this is "telling," note how concise the description is.

INT. JEWELRY STORE - DAY

... She produces a vial of coke, looks questioningly at Elias.

ELIAS: By all means.

She draws out six lines. Elias does two.

BETTY (offering him the straw): Come on, Eddie 2, you're up.

HULL: No, thanks.

(NOTE: Betty is acutely attuned to Hull, and in his refusal she senses - albeit unconsciously -- two things: first, that he doesn't trust himself on drugs, therefore, he's a dangerous guy and, therefore, exciting; and, second, more important, the refusal bespeaks a repudiation of the violence and danger and, thus, a longing for goodness. Despite the seeming contradiction, she finds this even more attractive. But because she feels herself to be bad, his goodness seems only a judgment against her, and so she thinks she hates him.)

BETTY: Who is he, my mother?

HULL (smiles): Never have, never will.

Betty ignores him, does her lines.

BETTY (taunting Hull): Oooh...Cocaine, I love it and I hate it and I love it. The disease is the cure.  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If there's no other way but to "tell" rather than show, then do it. Don't let the "rules" hamper your expression.

Deep Cover (1992)(7/16/91 draft)
by Michael Tolkin and Henry Bean 

*As a new writer, I was too quick to point out screenwriting "violations of the rules." The reality is that:
- There are no rules.
- Sometimes ignoring the rules accomplishes what following the rules could not.
- A preoccupation with "rules" avoids dealing with the fact that the writing may lack maturity and craft.   
- The most important measure is "does it work?", not "does it follow the rules?" 

**Other hints on breaking screenwriting "rules": 
- The purpose of the "rules" are to give new writers general guidelines to hold on to. (ex. Cinema is visual medium, so it's important to externalize emotions, hence, "show not tell.")
- As I grew as a writer, I realized I was hanging on to the "rules" too much, and they restricted my freedom to imagine and take big swings.
- If I broke a "rule," I found it helpful to explain to myself WHY, and then make sure I wrote it down in my notes. I didn't need to explain it to the reader, but I did need to make sure I knew why, even if it was "I don't know how else to say this."
- The goal is a page turner for the reader.  The "rules" don't guarantee this.
- When a writer breaks the "rules," I've noticed that it tends to be in certain areas, like the example above, and not the whole script.  
- Any "rule-breaking" does not excuse sloppy writing.  Yes, the example above is breaking the "show, don't tell rule," but more importantly, it is also concise and written well to express a difficult emotional dynamic.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Radio Days (1987) - How Politically Incorrect Slapstick is Done Well

[Quick Summary: A series of stories showing radio's big influence on 1930s and 40s America.]

TWO THOUGHTS: 

1) A DIFFERENT ALLEN FILM. Today's script is about the broader idea of radio's impact, and a departure from Allen's smaller, more character driven stories.

2) SLAPSTICK WITH PURPOSE. I find unmotivated slapstick uninteresting.

However, today's script combines slapstick with a purpose, i.e., political incorrectness, to make a point. I chuckled at this added clever commentary.

For example, in the scene below:
- Joe is the son, grade school age. 
- Joe listens to the Avengers on the radio all the time. He wants an Avengers' ring more than anything.
- Joe and his friends are collecting money in cans for the Jewish National Fund.
- The kids break open the cans to count the pennies.  
- Rabbi Baumel catches them and is ashamed they want it for Avengers' rings.
- Rabbi Baumel calls in Joe and his parents.
- The comedy comes from the characters saying that they take offense at something...then doing exactly that ("don't slap the kid", then he slaps the kid himself).
- The rabbi and father's hypocrisy is seen in the slapping.

 INT. RABBI BAUMEL'S OFFICE. DAY.

...RABBI BAUMEL: This is not good. He must be disciplined. Radio has its place but once in awhile. Otherwise it tends to induce bad values, false dreams, lazy habits. To spend time listening to stories of foolishness and violence is no way for a boy to grow up.

JOE: You speak the truth, my faithful Indian companion. 

The rabbi, taken aback, slaps him.

RABBI BAUMEL: To a rabbi you say, my faithful Indian companion?

FATHER: Hey -- don't hit my son!

RABBI BAUMEL: What kind of upbringing is this!?

FATHER (slapping kid): I'll hit him -- but you don't hit him!

RABBI BAUMEL (slaps kid): I know better how to teach fresh children.

FATHER (slaps kid): I said I'd hit him! Leave my son alone.

MOTHER (slaps kid): No, I'll hit him! Because you're too lenient with him!

FATHER (slaps kid): This is lenient!?

RABBI BAUMEL: I'm a faithful Indian? Such impertinence.

MOTHER (slaps kid): See, I'll teach him manners, Rabbi! You and that radio! 

                                                                             CUT TO: 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The combination of two unrelated elements that make it funny.  

I expect political correctness to be serious. I expect slapstick to be amusing. I don't expect political incorrectness to be combined with slapstick and create an unexpected new category.  

Radio Days (1987)(undated draft)
by Woody Allen 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Locked Room (unproduced) - Why This Creepy, Haunted, Twisty, Pull-of-the-Past Psychological Thriller is Smashingly Great

[Quick Summary: George, the executor of his childhood best friend Fanshawe's literary estate, gets Fanshawe's work published, but isn't prepare for the success or the haunting that follows.]

First, this adaptation* is a complex psychological thriller that's creepy, bewildering, and mesmerizing, but most of all, inventive.  I couldn't put it down. **

Second, I was impressed that this script feels like reading great literature, yet I never got lost or bogged down. ***

Here's the short version of the story:

- George and Fanshawe were childhood friends. 
- Fanshawe was cooler than everyone and George admired him. 
- They both wanted to be writers, but didn't, then lost touch after college.
- Twenty years later, George is working at a Big & Tall shop, writing in his free time.
- One day, George opens the door to a letter from Fanshawe's widow.
- Fanshawe wanted George to sort through his scribblings in a locked room and get them published if they were good. They were fantastic.
- Soon George is very busy handling offers, falling in love with his widow and child, appearing on tv promoting Fanshawe's writing. 
- This is a nightmare for a good guy and aspiring writer like George.
- George is simultaneously haunted by his past envies of Fanshawe, the present sticky situation, or his hope for a future with Fanshawe's widow.

It's complicated, right? So why didn't I get lost?? I think it's because the writer understood the key role that subtext plays in psychological thrillers. 

He structured the scenes so that we question George's mental judgment, i.e., whether he's reacting to the past/present/future, and returns to it regularly.

For example, in the scene below: 
- Stuart, an editor and acquaintance, is entranced by Fanshawe's work. 
- Stuart wants to publish. George agrees.
- Fanshawe died in fiery car accident. 
- Two of the great mysteries of the story is WHY did Fanshawe leave all the responsibility to George, and what about George's hopes?
- Note that writer uses Stuart's questions to poke into the past, present, and future.
- Note how we circle back to an unspoken fear (George will not get published) and ends with a "ouch!" to his ego. 
- Also note the SPEED of the emotional pacing. It's a roller coaster ride that circles back to the competition between George and Fanshawe.

INT. GEORGE'S APARTMENT - EVENING

 ...STUART: Pity.

GEORGE: Yeah.

STUART: I mean, that he isn't around. I'd love to be able to work with him. A few little nips and tucks -- you know.

GEORGE: That's just editor's pride. You can't look at a manuscript without wanting to take a red pencil to it. I'm sure he wouldn't change a word.

STUART: Hmm, you may be right. But don't take it to heart -- we can't all be prodigies

Suddenly, Stuart looks slyly at George.

STUART: Where is he?

GEORGE: Why d'you mean?

STUART: Is he shy, your boy? Is it some Pynchon thing we've got here? You're not just fronting for him, are ya?

GEORGE: Listen, if he was still around, believe me, I'd tell him to do his own dirty work.

Stuart just smiles. Does he really think George is toying with him? Or is he toying with George?

STUART: How's it feel?

George raises his eyebrows questioningly.

STUART: Discovering a new American master.

Stuart is needling him. George refuses to rise to the bait. 

GEORGE: When do you think you'll have an answer.

STUART: Oh, I already have: we're publishing it. (at the door) Chin up. Might not be as bad as you think. 

GEORGE: What?

STUART: Reflected glory.

Stuart leaves. George pondering. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Those two words ("reflected glory") made me realize the power of subtext in this script.  

It's so much more layered and powerful than "you're not good enough" and speaks to how beautifully constructed this psychological trap is.

The Locked Room (unproduced 3/9/01 draft)
Based on the novel by Paul Auster
by Lem Dobbs 

* It's adapted from The New York Trilogy (1987), by Paul Auster, which is three interconnected detective stories ("City of Glass," "Ghosts," and "The Locked Room").  

**I have not read the book.  Several book reviewers on Goodreads either loved it or hated it.  I can understand why.  I also felt frustrated that answers weren't readily available at times reading the script.

***Purely as a side note, I did get creeped out by the psychological suspense and was glad I read it in the day time.  

TODAY'S NUGGET: This Man, This Woman (Unproduced) - One of The Best at "Can't Live With/Without You" Emotional Gridlock

[Quick Summary: After many years apart, a film director and a sculptor (who were once married)  unexpectedly meet again on a plane.]

Though unproduced, this script was written by Frederic Raphael, whom I consider one of the best at memory time jumps (see here) and showing emotional gridlock. 

Raphael is particularly good at the bittersweet of "I can't live with you, I can't live without you." This keeps us wanting to know what comes next.

For example, in the scene below:
- Matt and Martha got married, had a son, then had an acrimonious divorce for unknown reasons.
- Several years later, their paths crossed when they were seated together on a plane.
- They have just had a cautiously pleasant conversation.
- This scene shows they're defensive, so they're not connecting, yet they have a great dynamic together.
- This scene keeps us wondering what is keeping them apart.
- The banter is a trademark of this writer's voice. It's not just clever, but also pointed and humorous. 

INT. THE PLANE. DAY.

... They both "sleep", smiling faintly. This sparring is not without warmth. But it's dangerous.

MATT: Are you busy?

MARTHA: Yeah, I'm pretty busy. 

MATT: I meant, like now, are you? 

MARTHA: I meant now. What do you want me to do? Sew on a button?

MATT: Take a look at this script.

MARTHA: You know your trouble, Matthew?

MATT: Sure. I haven't done anything great. But I have made my father feel proud of me. And ashamed of himself. I set him up in business finally. I hope that was nice of me.

MARTHA: What's it all about?

MATT: My mother was right to throw him out, but I can't forgive her for marrying him.

MARTHA: That's very up-front of you, but I only meant: what's the script all about?

MATT gives her the look. What a bitch sometimes!

MATT: It's a re-make...

MARTHA: You always said they never worked.

She's hit a nerve. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really like that the gridlock comes from character, i.e., each side has something historically unresolved between them. Yet they do what everyone does in the meanwhile, and try to carry on.  

The intrigue/suspense for me is the fact that Martha is difficult and pushes Matt, but she's the only one who will tell him the truth (and vice versa). 

This Man, This Woman (unproduced)
by Frederic Raphael 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Scarlet Letter (1926) - How a Series of Images Conveys Meaning Without Words ("Cinematic Language")

[Quick Summary: After having a baby out of wedlock in the 1600s, Puritan Hester refuses to name her lover and suffers the consequences.]

Q: Someone said I need to know "cinematic language." What is that? 
A: I like to think of it as the way images can convey meaning, often without words.

Q: How do I learn how to write in a cinematic language?
A: One good way is to study silent films since they rely on images over dialogue.

Q: No dialogue?! Aren't they boring to read?! What could I learn?
A: Yes, they're a bit technical.  But they remind writers that our job is to find creative ways to STRING TOGETHER images to create deeper meaning without heavy reliance on dialogue.

For example, in this script:
- Hester and her daughter are inside the house.
- It's essentially technical shot list and there are no slug lines (unlike modern scripts). 
- However, notice that there's still structured drama through images:  The writer strings together individual images of Child (happy) + Her Mother (sad) = create a third meaning (bittersweet).
- This use of images to tell a story is called "cinematic language."

Fade in. Ins[ert] of hand. Makes Letter A in sand.

CU girl

CU Hester seated in chair

CU little girl

CU Hester looking at insert

of letter A in sand

CU Hester

CU little girl looks up at Hester and laughs

CU Hester looks down at hands and turns to right

CU little girl laughing, then looks serious, rises to feet

MS Hester seated in chair. Little girl enters to her and embraces her.

[TITLE CARD READS] Outcasts shamed
and despised' But 
Hester's happy child 
reflected the hope that 
still lay in her mother's 
heart.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I struggle with trusting audiences with my series of images.  Will they understand?  Thus, I find I tend to overwrite with dialogue.

The Scarlet Letter (1926) 
by Frances Marion*
Adapted from the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne 

*Frances Marion won two Oscars and was nominated three times.  She was one of the earliest and most prolific screenwriters (with at least 189 projects credited to her).  She also is the author of How to Write and Sell Film Stories (1937).  

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000) - An Example of How a Comeback Stinger Works (Dialogue Setup-Payoff)

[Quick Summary: A master steward must ensure a royal visit goes smoothly in order to gain his cash-strapped boss a commission from King Louis XIV.]

Q: I want to write a comeback stinger, so focus on the punch line, right?
A: It's important, but not the MOST important part.

Q: Huh?! What's more important than the punch line?
A: A punch line is the payoff. Without a proper set up, it languishes.

Q: Give me an example of a good set up.
A: Let's use today's script, which is a farce that exposes the excesses and debauchery of 1600s France. Everyone obsesses about status...except our protagonist Vatel.

In the scene below, the antagonist (de Lauzun) gets the final zinger, but note that it works because it was set up properly:
- Vatel is a steward who rose up the ranks by his own merit.
- The Marquis de Lauzun is the king's courtier, i.e., an intermediary.
- Vatel and the Marquis have the same level of authority, on opposite sides. 
- The Duchesse de Longueville is after a political promotion for her husband, and is not afraid to seduce the Marquis to get it. 
- The set up is about who can top the other in status:
--> First, de Lauzun tries to belittle Vatel. 
--> Then, Vatel uses his wits against de Lauzun. It's a draw.
--> Then, the Duchesse butts in and says she's the first to have de Lauzun's secret. It looks like she's on top. 
--> Finally, de Lauzun saying she's the last to know. He outsmarted her with the last word.

EXT. CASCADES. LATER. 

,,,Lazun notices Vatel and laughs.

LAUZUN (CONTINUED): I was just telling the Duchesse about your boyhood days in the brothels of the Ile Saint Louis.

VATEL (bows to the Duchesse): It's quite true. No one know more about the brothels of the Ils Saint Louis than the Marquis de Lauzun.

DUCHESSE (to Lauzun): I think he's just insulted you but it's hard to tell. That's a rare gift; if you punish him for it I'll tell everyone your favorite perversion.

LAUZUN (smiling to the Duchesse): But, Duchesse, you were the last to know. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The cleverness of this stinger lies in its set up.  

Here, the Marquis de Lauzun fails to ridicule Vatel with his own shortcomings.  Frustrated, he uses the Duchesse's love of gossip against her with added spite.

Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000)(1/19/99 revised)
by Jeanne Labrune
Translated and adapted by Tom Stoppard

TODAY'S NUGGET: Twins (1988) - The Purpose of the Energy Flow is to Show Character

[Quick Summary: A tall, "perfect" man goes in search of his twin, who turns out to be a short, small time crook.]

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that this draft was very well polished. 

First, it was rewritten by last week's Harris & Weingrod, and second, the great William Goldman gave it a pass too.

I really liked that:
- the purpose of the energy flow in this script is to show character, and 
- there's a control to the chaos.

For example, in the scene below: 
- This is the scene that introduces the idea these are twins by using "twinning" behaviors.
- Julius is the taller, "good" twin.
- Vince is the shorter, "bad" twin.
- Notice the largest paragraph below is all one sentence, a controlled roller coaster of a ride, much like sheltered Julius' experience of encountering a big city.
 - Then note how the energy flow and momentum ramps up and lands on the moment Julius stands in the middle of the street, absorbing all of Hollywood.
- The writers are deliberately controlling the chaos with pacing and flow. 

EXT. GRAUMAN'S CHINESE THEATER - MAGIC HOUR

Vince brushes himself off, hesitates a moment, pulling on his left ear with his right hand.

Immediately behind him, facing the opposite direction, is another man, also pulling on his left ear with his right hand. It is Julius --

-- Their backs are to each other. Without ever catching sight of one another, they move off, going their separate ways. Now, from this -- 

                                                    CUT TO: 

EXT. DOWNTOWN HOLLYWOOD STREET - NIGHT

Downtown Hollywood in all it's sleeze. There's a museum and a scientology center and every fast food place imaginable and people shouting as they sell things, "flowers" and street food and there's a porno house showing Tight 'n Tender and there's young people dressed like punks and old people boozed out and pimps and druggies and guys slumped unconscious int he gutter and crowds of tourists walking this way, that way, and there's noise and little and one more thing --

--There's Julius, case in hand, staring around, taking it all in. We're a long way from his island now. He studies all the humanity swirling around him --

                                                   CUT TO:

CLOSEUP ON JULIUS

And you can see it on his face: He loves it.

JULIUS (almost a whisper): ...How wonderful...  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked this script because it used cinematic language well.  It uses words to convey how we should feel about images, but was readable.  

I like to find Goldman scripts that are new-to-me, like this one. They are instructive since they are: a) easy to read and b) have great craftsmanship.

Twins (1988)(consolidated 4th draft, 4/27/88 with revisions)
by William Osborne & William Davies
Revisions by Timothy Harris & Hershel Weingrod and William Goldman