TODAY'S NUGGET: Cutting Edge (1992) - A Strong Voice + Economy of Writing (Clarity, Pacing, What the Characters Want)

[Quick Summary: When a female skater loses her skating partner, she and a hockey player team up as a doubles pair for the next Olympics.]

Q: What is "voice"?
A: "Voice" can be defined as "how a writer tells a story that is unique to him/her." 

Q: Is voice truly evident on the page? That is, that a particular writer wrote a script?
A:  Sometimes.  It's not just a point of view, but HOW the writer leads you through the story.

Q: What is a good example of a strong voice?
A: One of the strongest voices I've seen is writer Tony Gilroy, whose scripts I'll be posting about in the upcoming weeks (both original and rewrite jobs).*

Q: What is it about Gilroy's voice that is so evident? 
A: I think one would hire Gilroy because you like the way he tells a story. I like the way he balances tone in the dramas and action thrillers that he's known for. 

He has distinct brisk pacing, a way of getting into the story fast, and sustaining suspense, all while being very clear about what the characters want.  

Today's script is an unusual one: 
- It's Gilroy's first produced film credit as a writer.
- It is also sort of a sports/romance/action story to boot.
- Though this is a younger Gilroy script, it has all his trademark pacing and clarity.

In the scene below: 
- It is the1988 Calgary Olympics.
- There is a simplicity of two athletes of very different temperaments on a collision course.
- We are clear what each wants: to win.
- Note the economy of writing.  In a very few words, we feel the urgency of the moment, yet the Doug and Kate's mutual annoyance of encountering an obstacle.  

INT. THE BOWELS OF THE SADDLEDOME

An empty passageway. DOUG is lost. Sweating. Cursing. Charging blindly ahead. From above, the MUFFLED ROAR of the crowd. If he could claw his way up to the ice he'd do it.

                                                                           CUT TO:

A DIFFERENT PASSAGEWAY

KATE striding ahead -- rounding a corner  and -- SMACK! -- right into DOUG -- a head-on collision and it's no contest -- KATE sent flying on her ass --.

DOUG (barely stopping): -- Does this go up to the ice?

KATE stares at him, incredulous. "THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER" begins to play in the distance.

DOUG: Is this the way to the ice?

KATE (still sitting there): Why you barbarian jerk -- is that all you have to say?

Screw this, DOUG is already several steps away and moving. 

KATE: Where were you raised, in a barnyard?

DOUG stops mid-stride. This kind of shit demands at least a moment of his time.

DOUG: Honey, where I'm from we stand for the National Anthem.

Now he's gone. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I was impressed by how much takes place in such little space on the page.  It takes a lot of drafts to hone a script to get it into this shape. 

The Cutting Edge (1992)(4/15/90 draft)
by Tony Gilroy 

*Interestingly enough, the only other writer who had this strong of a voice (i.e., I could spot his invisible fingerprints on the page) is the legendary writer,  William Goldman, who was one of Gilroy's mentors. 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Why "Vari-Speed" Tells Us About Character

[Quick Summary: Holmes and sidekick Dr. Watson are on the trail of an enemy that wants to destroy England.

I wasn't surprised that this script was tailored to its director Guy Ritchie, who favors cinematic techniques like swish pans, slow motion, etc.

I was surprised to see how the writers included these techniques on the page, ex. "vari-speed" in the scene below. 

I think it works because it shows the speed of Holmes' thoughts. In other words, "vari-speed" is about character, not just a cool technique. 

INT. CATHEDRAL CRYPTS - ENTRANCE - NIGHT 

 ...We see Holmes' eyes from the shadows, as he lowers his jacket and thinks through his plan of attack.

HOLMES (V.O.): Head cocked to the left, partial deafness in right ear. FIrst point of attack.

PRE-VISUALIZATION IN VARI-SPEED

FOCUS ON the spot behind the man's right ear, just at the top of the jaw -- the most vulnerable point. Holmes launches a hammer blow, and we ramp from 24 fps to 00 fps (ULTRA SLOW MOTIONS) as he makes contact. The man's head is thrown back as he spins round.

HOLMES (V.O.): Then throat, paralyze vocal chords, stop screaming.

BACK TO 24 fps. The man's mouth opens to cry out. we RAMP BACK UP TO 400 fps as his Adam's Apple is struck with a precision karate chop, strangling his scream.

HOLMES (V.O.): Stink of alcohol, heavy drinker -- knuckles to liver.

BACK TO 24 fps, RAMPING TO 400 fps as a devastating knuckle-punch to the liver doubles up the bowler-hatted thug and crumples him to his knees.

SECOND-TIME ACTION - SUPER FAST REPEAT OF ABOVE

Holmes flashes out of the shadows, moving so fast that we can barely see what he's doing.

THWACK! Hammer blow to ear.
CRACK! Karate chop to throat.
WHAP! Knuckle punch to liver.

BACK TO NORMAL MOTION as the man crumples to the ground, Holmes takes his bowler hat from his head and flips it onto his own in one super fast move.

Holmes drags the battered man into the shadows, lifts his lantern and proceeds down the spiral staircase. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Beware using a cool technique without linking it to character. One works. The other will come off flat.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)(9/29/08 draft)
by Michael Robert Johnson and Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg

Story by Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson

TODAY'S NUGGET: Spartacus (1960) - "What is Going on in Each Scene? What's the Most Interesting Way to Play It?"

[Quick Summary: In ancient Rome, Spartacus leads of revolt of gladiatorial slaves in a fight for freedom.]

THREE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THIS FILM: 

1) After Paths of Glory (1957), star Kirk Douglas teamed up again with director Stanley Kubrick on Spartacus (1960), one of the most expensive films of its time. 

2) Writer Dalton Trumbo did not like how the POV was rewritten because it shrunk his larger scale to a smaller scale (his"Two Conflicting POV" report here). 

3) Director Stanley Kubrick observed:

The making of any film, whatever the historical setting or the size of the sets, has to be approached in much the same way. You have to figure out what is going on in each scene and whats the most interesting way to play it. With Spartacus, whether a scene had hundreds of people in the background or whether it was against a wall, I thought of everything first as if there was nothing back there. Once it was rehearsed, we worked out the background.  (my bolding)

A good example of this is the death of a gladitorial slave, in the scene below:
- Marcus Crassus is a general and politician who is hungry for power.
- Crassus is with his friend Glabrus, who is getting married to Claudia.  
- They have come to the gladitorial school to purchase a private gladitorial fight, in honor of the upcoming wedding. 
- Batiatus is the owner of the gladiator school.
- Slaves were often paired off to fight each other, sometimes to the death.  
- Here, Spartacus and Draba are paired up. 
- Draba has a trident and net. He subdues Spartacus, then spares him.  
- Draba heads for the those that purchased him, as vengeance. 
- What is going on in this scene? It explains what is at stake for slaves if they do not resist and revolt. It also shows how unyielding Crassus is.
- What is the most interesting way to play it? Draba's death is very dramatic and involves the bad guy, Crassus.  In the background, the guards' actions emphasize the main action.

FULL SHOT - FIELD AND GALLERY

Draba has reached the fence. There a guard tries to intercept him. Draba skewers him and flings his body away as if scattering trash. He climbs the fence, lunges upward into the gallery and toward the box. Other guards are not closing in from all directions. As Draba leaps toward the box, the first guard gets within throwing distance. He hurls his heavy pilum at Draba. The eighteen inches of steel imbeds itself in the gladiator's ebony body, but still he plunges upward, his trident in position to throw, his eyes on his deadly enemies in the box. A second pilum finds its mark, but already Draba has groped his way almost to the box, the spears dragging from the body.

FLASH SHOT - ARENA - SPARTACUS

stupefied, staring, just extricating himself from the net.  

FLASH SHOT - THE BOX

Batiatus hides behind it. Glabrus leaps in alarm to his feet. Crassus moves not a muscle. Chill as steel, utterly fascinated by the possibilities, he watches the approach of Draba. Claudia, trying to get out o the box, stumbles, falls and SCREAMS.

ANOTHER ANGLE - INCLUDING BOX AND DRABA

Guards rushing UP on him in b.g. Draba, the two spears still sticking in his back, makes a final lunge. His hands grasp the edge of the box. His eyes glare up at the occupants, fierce and horrible and lost. Crassus, in the meanwhile, has slowly risen. Calmly, he slips a tiny bejeweled dagger from his belt. And then, as Draba's great arms reach out to seize him, he bends forward between those terrible arms (exactly as a bullfighter risks life by bending forward between the horns for the death thrust) and deftly inserts the knife into Draba's spinal cord just above the shoulder-line. Even before the knife is withdrawn, Draba is dead. The effect is instantaneous (again as in a bullfight when a member of the corrida severs the spinal counterpart of a wounded and dying bull.) The great African, like his counterpart the bull, curls convulsively into the birth position his head forward between his arms, his knees drawn upward -- but he was dead before the reflex action of death was made visible.  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I realized that I often skip the importance of nailing "What's going on in each scene?" because I'm more worried about "What's the most interesting way to play it?"

Spartacus (1960)(1/16/59 final draft, revised)
by Dalton Trumbo
Based on the novel by Howard Fast
 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Paths of Glory (1957) - A Villain's "I'm Not Sorry at All" Final Speech

[Quick Summary: During a court martial, a French colonel defends his regiment over refusing to shoot at fellow French officers in a suicide mission that was ordered by a General.]

Every villain doesn't think he's a villain.  He thinks he's justified for what he's done.

This script does a great job of exploring how a villain thinks, and ends in a great summation speech at the end (below).

In this scene:
- Gen. Rousseau called for the suicide mission.
- Col. Dax is a lawyer who was drafted into the war.
- The "guilty" regiment was ordered to choose a few soldiers to be punished for the whole regiment. They were to be shot with a firing squad.
- After the soldiers were absolved, Rousseau and Dax walk together.
- Note how Rousseau's musings show that he's thoughtful, but not particularly moral. He rationalizes away what he has done.  

EXT. VARIOUS ANGLES - PARADE GROUND

...They walk along in a friendly silence.

GEN. ROUSSEAU (expansively): Which one of us was on the side of the angels, I wonder.

COL. DAX: I'm not sure I follow you, sir.

GEN. ROUSSEAU: Well, take, for instance, the case of the early Christians. What was it, perhaps more than anything else, that strengthened and solidified them? -- persecution, wouldn't you say? The cruelest kind of injustice. Tyranny gave birth to the Manga Carta. Callousness and indifference to human welfare brought about the French Republic. And so on through History. It may be that progress comes really through a kind of challenge. And who is to say that if those men had been shot today, that it wouldn't have been a step towards the end of a certain kind of despotism in the army?

COL. DAX: General, you have a very strange theory there. I am not at all sure that I agree with you. 

GEN. ROUSSEAU: I'm not at all sure I agree with myself. You know, perhaps when they say man is a rational animal, what they really mean is that he has a limitless ability to rationalize, to make excuses for himself, to feel self-righteous no matter what he does. I don't know why I'm rambling on like this. Probably because there's nothing left for me to do but talk. You know, Colonel, I am undoubtedly a very wicked man - but I don't feel wicked inside. Though, I suppose that's  a prerequisite for being labeled truly wicked. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I thought these last two lines were particularly chilling because Rousseau is rational yet has lost a moral center. 

The Paths of Glory (1957)(undated draft)
by Stanley Kubrick and Jim Thompson 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Mindhunters (2004) - How to Make an Information Dump More Interesting to Watch (Clarity of Purpose)

[Quick Summary: After a group of FBI trainees are dropped off on a deserted island for a weekend training exercise, one of them starts killing them off, one by one.]

I thought this script did a great job of bringing the audience into the psychological game that's being played.  How did the writers do it?

They had to find a way to quickly get into the minds of the trainees, explain how they think (essentially an information dump), yet maintain a brisk pacing. 

The writers knew that the most traditional and efficient way to do this is through interviews of the trainees.  Their new addition here was using new technology.  

For example, in the scene below: 
- Harris, the FBI trainer, has brought the trainees to an isolated island for training.
- Someone has a beef with all of them. Weird things start to happen.
- Sara, one of the trainees, goes looking for information and finds a laptop with her fellow trainees' initial interviews.  
- Notice that this is an information dump, but a necessary and efficient one. 
- The interview is a tried-and-true technique, but the writers used a more modern tool here to do so (the laptop). 
- Also, Sara is seeking clues, so the interviews feel more like answers to her questions vs. telling the audience information. 

INT. THE DORM ROOMS -- MOMENTS LATER

...Sara's eyes SWING to the LAPTOP on J.D's bed.

THE SCREEN

is filled with STAR-BURSTS - a SCREEN-SAVER program.

She presses the command button. The computer comes to life.

ON THE SCREEN -- J.D. APPEARS ON VIDEO TAPE

In the middle of an INTERVIEW.

J.D. (on tape): ...If there's one thing I've learned working for the Bureau, there's always a cause and effect. Even in the sickest criminal mind.

HARRIS (V.O.)(on tape): But do you want to crawl into that kind of mind?

ANGLE THE GROUP

as they stare at the laptop - dumbfounded.

J.D. (on tape): Do I want to? No. But will I? Yes.

ANGLE THE LAPTOP -- AS THE SCREEN

turns to SNOW

and ANOTHER INTERVIEW blinks on.

BOBBY (on tape): I'd be walking, just minding my own business, and a squad car would pull over. I used to carry a photo ID just to prove I lived in the neighborhood.

HARRIS (V.O.): Why Behavioral Science?

BOBBY (on tape): You're the best...

TIGHT ON BOBBY

BOBBY: That's my psych-eval interview...

ANGLE THE LAPTOP --

SNOW again...

ANOTHER INTERVIEW blinks on.

NICOLE (on tape): I was 11 years-old. I came home from school and mom was unconscious . The police took him away. It's the first time I remember feeling safe. We never heard from dad again...

ANOTHER ANGLE - LUCAS

LUCAS (on tape): I left medical school to join the Bureau because I thought I could be more effective on the front lines. (beat) What can I say? I'm an adrenaline junkie.

ANGLE - RAMON 

RAMON (on tape): Once I got a taste of homicide, there was no turning back. There's not a helluva lot more satisfying than seeing a killer brought to justice.

ANGLE - VINCE

VINCE (on tape): I was that kid. The one who knew everything there is to know about serial killers. I've always wanted to be a mindhunter. The accident hasn't changed that.

ANGLE - SARA

SARA (on tape): Her killer sent me letters from different mailing services for a year after we found the body. Told me everything he did to her. (beat) Every single thing.

TIGHT ON SARA

flushing crimson...

AND THE SCREEN FREEZES. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't particularly notice the information dump about other characters here because the scene had real clarity of purpose.  

That is, Sara was seeking answers, so watching her register new information was more interesting to watch than if I was told it.

Also, the laptop was cool updated tech to use in a film, but it didn't replace knowing the fundamentals of drama (re: how to convey information through interviews).

Mindhunters (2004)(12/17/00 revised draft)
by Wayne Kramer, revisions by Kevin Brodbin, Kario Salem

2026 OSCARS: Train Dreams (2025) - When Someone Becomes Important to You (Combination of Voice Over + Action)

[Quick Summary: The life of beauty and heartache of Robert Grainier, a logger and railroad worker.]

Q: What's this film about?
A: It's a quiet story about beauty of the world and the passage of time.  It's got a mood and atmosphere to it that's reflective, like a tone poem. 

Q: That sounds boring. What makes it so special to be nominated?
A: The writing sneaks up on you, and fits perfectly with a protagonist who doesn't say a whole lot, but feels things deeply and simply. 

For example, in the scene below:
- Robert lost his family early in life and was raised by foster parents.
- He experienced a lot of things, but has remained uninvolved and unconnected emotionally.
- Things changed when he meets his wife, Gladys.
- Suddenly something makes connection worthwhile and it changes him.
- This scene below is the first time he notices her, a moment of seismic importance.
- He is someone who is unused to communicating.
- Notice how the writers honed the writing to bring out the truthfulness of the moment, yet its simplicity.  They chose to use voice over + drop of the gaze, in order to give the latter more meaning. 

INT. METHODIST CHURCH - YEARS LATER

Grainier is in his early 30's, looking like a stray animal. Singing along to the hymns. It's a small church. Not more than two dozen in the congregation.

NARRATOR (V.O.): He felt that nothing much attracted his interest, until, that is, he met Gladys Olding.

He watches GLADYS, singing in the choir. Her voice stands apart to him.

But when she looks at him, he's too shy to hold her gaze. He looks down to his choir book. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm not a huge fan of voice over, but here, it's used well.  

It gives context to the drop of the gaze, i.e., Robert is shy, yet really wants to connect, which is unusual for him.     

Train Dreams (2025)(undated)
by Clint Bentley & Greg Kwedar
Based on the book by Denis Johnson

2026 OSCARS: Hamnet (2025) - Telling, Not Showing" is Effective When the Pressure is Too Much (Emotional Life)

[Quick Summary: After William Shakespeare marries the forest-loving Agnes, they grieve the death of their son Hamnet.]

This script has a typical story arc about healing a rift when tragedy happens: 

Will and Agnes meet, marry, and have kids --> Their son Hamnet dies and they grieve --> They are reunited through Will writing the play "Hamlet." 

One thing I really liked about the script is how it expresses small emotional moments that eventually pile up into a barrier of communication. 

I thought it was interesting that the writers did this by breaking the "show, not tell rule"* with the reverse, i.e.,"telling and not showing."  

For example, in the scene below: 
- Will has been very unhappy at his father's glove making business.
- He and Agnes are married and living at his parents' house.
- Agnes wakes up in the night. Will is not there. He's trying to write at night.
- She tries to comfort him, but he yells at her.
- Notice how the "telling and not showing" is to clarify indescribable feelings, or a short cut language.  To explain it on screen is unnecessary.

INT. HENLEY HOUSE - ATTIC - NIGHT

...Once Susanna stops fussing, Agnes comes back to Will. She gently touches the back of his neck, trying to sooth him. But he turns his head away, wiping any tears he may shed. He will never let her see him weak.

WILL (CONT'D): I'm sorry. I've had too much to drink.  

She takes his hand. He flinches.

WILL (CONT'D)(controls himself): Please. Not now.

AGNES: What are you afraid I will see?

WILL: I'm a violent, dangerous man.

He is holding all the emotions in. They are threatening to burst out of his chest and kill him. [I particularly like this description of something he can't express.]

AGNES: You are none of that. You're a good man, a good man. 

He puts his arm around her waist. He lets her rub her fingers through his hair, soothing him.

AGNES (CONT'D): Is it...are you..do you wish we had not...wed? Is that it?

He looks up at her, his face pained, aghast.

WILL: No. Never. How could you say such a thing? You and Susanna are all I live for. Nothing else matters.

AGNES: What is it, then?

WILL: ...I don't know. I'm lost. I have lost my way, Agnes. The landscapes you saw... (changes his mind) It's nothing. It's nothing.

She knows what he means. Those landscapes she saw haven't been realized, and it's torturing him. But he says no more after that. [Note this "breaks a screenwriting rule" that you shouldn't include anything that can't be seen.  I think it's very effective here to explain emotions that the characters don't have to explain to each other.]

AGNES: ...What can I do for you?

WILL: Nothing, my love. Nothing.

She is now at a complete loss. 

WILL (CONT'D): Please go back to sleep. I need to work. All is well. I just need to work.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think "telling, not showing" can be effective.  Here, it connects a lot of dots for the reader quickly for things that are unnecessary to belabor.

Hamnet (2025)(undated)
by Chloe Zhao & Maggie O'Farrell
Based on the novel by Maggie O'Farrell

*You know how I feel about the so-called "screenwriting rules." They're guidelines when you need help. They're not absolute.  

2026 OSCARS: Frankenstein (2025) - Guillermo del Toro Explains the Elements of Horror (Plus an Example)

[Quick Summary: Victor Frankenstein creates a monster that becomes his undoing.]

PRO: This is the film that Guillermo del Toro has wanted to make for decades.

CON: This script is too long.

PRO: The film has garnered 9 Oscar nominations.  

CON: Its budget from Netflix was a whopping $120M, with only $144,496 gross (one territory). However, grosses don't seem important to this streamer. 

PRO: I tend to avoid horror, but was intrigued by Guiellermo del Toro's explanation of the genre:

"The essence of horror - the two, and only two, things that create horror: something that is there and should not [be], or something that should not be there and is there." 

An example of one of these elements is in the scene below:
- Dr. Frankenstein has created the Creature. 
- Frankenstein fell for brother's fiancee, Elizabeth, who was kind to Creature.
- Frankenstein is enraged that she'd choose Creature over him.
- The Creature fights with Frankenstein, then releases him. 
- Frankenstein hunts the Creature into the North Pole.
- Note that the Creature takes up the dynamite voluntarily.  We expect him to die, but when he does not, it's horrifying ("something that should not be there and is there").

EXT. INT ESPLANADE - NIGHT

... The Creature sinks the Knife into Victor's SHOULDER - THUNK!

The Creature fetches the dynamite. Victor pulls the knife out - bleeding.

CREATURE (CONT'D): You - put your faith in this? This?! (beat) But if it does not, I will come for you - again! And make you regret it. (Beat) Light it... Light it!!!

Victor obeys. Trembling and covered in blood.

The Creature embraces the dynamite as if it was a baby - a prize - a cherished possession: tight upon his chest. 

Victor crawls away and then gets up - limps away. Arm dislocated and bleeding, artificial limb almost entirely loose.

 The Creature is engulfed by the EXPLOSION. A CRATER forms.

But - when the smoke clears: The Creature rises again: ONE EYE SOCKET is empty - His chest, jagged with wounds- 

One of his hands with EXPOSED knuckles points at Victor: 

CREATURE (CONT'D): Now- run- 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Though I don't really like horror, I found del Toro's explanation helpful in writing suspense, i.e., when something isn't as we expect, it's frightening.

Frankenstein (2025)(Sept. 2024, final shooting script)
by Guillermo del Toro
Based on the novel by Mary Shelley 

2026 OSCARS: Bugonia (2025) - Why It's Not Really About the Dialogue, But the Subtext

[Quick Summary: Two cousins kidnap a biomedical corporate executive, whom they're convinced is an alien, to get her to stop destroying the earth.]

This script is a 2-3 hander and is a quick read.  

I really admired how it made us connect with the characters.  I think it stems from the characters really trying to communicate something, a very exposing thing.

The amazing thing was how it's all in the subtext, not the words. 

For example, in the scene below:
- Teddy convinced his cousin Don to kidnap Teddy's boss, Michelle.
- They have brought her to their home.
- Michelle tries to escape by admitting to "being an alien."
- Teddy makes a dinner of spaghetti for her, him, and Don.
- Michelle tries to talk to Don, but Teddy discourages discussion of any personal nature.
- Undeterred, she tries again to find a connection through a neutral topic, bees. 
- Notice that she takes the first step to finding common ground.  She is the one who exposes herself and gives her opinion on bees. 
- When Teddy responds with a similar opinion, they have a moment of connection.
- Their unspoken feelings of "I respect you, I like you because we like the same things" is in the subtext of their similar opinions and shared smiles.

 INT. KITCHEN. DAY

...Don is unsure if he should reply.

TEDDY: You'll have to excuse my colleague. He prefers not to converse.

They eat silently again. Michelle sees some BEEKEEPER GEAR.

MICHELLE: I see you're an apiarist.

TEDDY: Of sorts.

MICHELLE: I've taken an interest as well.

TEDDY: Mm. So I've heard.

MICHELLE: Magnificent creatures. Honeybees.

TEDDY: Yes, indeed. Very much so.

MICHELLE: Earth's most admirable creation.

Teddy looks up. A brief moment of unexpected connection.

TEDDY: Well, shit. I've literally said those exact words before.

They lock eyes for a moment. Michelle smiles with respect. Teddy almost reciprocates, then turns back to his plate. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: There's real craft in creating that subtext. It's not what is actually said, nor the meaning of the words (bees are magnificent), but the understanding of human nature that we tend to lower our walls with the people with whom we agree. 

Bugonia (2025)(undated)
by Will Tracy
Based on the film Save the Green Planet!

2026 OSCARS: Sinners (2025) - How to Explain Vampire Rules Without Explaining Them ("Show, Not Tell" in Reactions)

[Quick Summary: Troubled twins set up a juke joint in the South, but vampires stand in the way of its success.]

In this well written script, I particularly enjoyed how the writer built suspense with an uneasy feeling that something is wrong.

For example, in the scene below:
- Smoke and Stack are twins who have come back to the South, after fleeing Chicago. 
- They have decided to set up a juke joint and charge cover fees.
- They hire Annie to cook for the joint.
- Annie is a practitioner of the occult, and was once an item with Smoke.
- One of their employees, Cornbread, has been missing for awhile and returns. 
- Notice how the scene starts out with an argument and Cornbread's offer to help.
- Though viewers may not know the vampire rule (you have to be asked to enter a building), they sense that Annie is uneasy about something. 
- She does not say out loud what she suspects, but challenges Cornbread to act. 
- I thought it was clever how Cornbread avoids the question and throw the focus back on Annie.
- Also, it's unusual to create a reveal of this vampire rule without telling it, but showing in the reactions and other dialogue unrelated to what is being revealed.

 

INT. ENTRY HALLWAY - JUKE JOINT - LUMBER MILL - NIGHT - CONTINUOUS

 ...Cornbread finally notices Smoke is covered in blood.

CORNBREAD: Goddamn Smoke...what happened to you?

SMOKE: What happened to me? Stack is dead. What the fuck happened to you? You was supposed to be watching the place. Not taking a hour long piss.

CORNBREAD: I'm sorry. Well let me come in and help.

Annie clocks this. [Annie is the first to have suspicions.]

She extends her hands to Smoke to stop him.

Smoke looks back at Annie confused. Delta Slim as well.

They stare at Cornbread, who stares back at them with an almost comically confused expression. 

CORNBREAD: What ya'll doing?

The three continue to stare without budging.

CORNBREAD (CONT'D): Smoke. Just step aside and let me on in. [He needs an invitation.]

ANNIE: Why you need him to do that? You big and strong enough to push past us. [Annie confronts him with a question that requires him to act first. This is, in essence, "showing, not telling" about the vampire rules, which the audience may or may not know about. ]

CORNBREAD: Because that wouldn't be very polite of me now, would it? I don't know why I'm even talking to you. Probably your fish sandwich that made me so sick. Using that old stale grease. [Cornbread knows she is suspicious, so he tries to distract her.] 

ANNIE: I ain't never used stale grease and you know it.  [His accusation puts her on the defensive about her food.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One way to "show and not tell" the vampire rules is to require the vampire to violate the rule, i.e., to act.

"Show, not tell" usually means visuals and not dialogue.  The example above was a rare instance of using other dialogue and reactions, rather than what I expected, i.e., visuals alone.

Sinners (2025)(undated draft)
by Ryan Coogler /