TODAY'S NUGGET: Mona Lisa Smile (2003) - A Hard CUT TO: Transition That Works

[Quick Summary: When an art teacher arrives for a one year stint at Wellesley, an all women's university, she challenges her students to think differently.]

In my own scripts, I am often afraid the reader will not understand, so I over-explain with a lot of slug lines.

Thus, it was refreshing to see a script that uses the hard CUT TO: with very little explanation, and it is still clear what is happening.

Why does this work here? 

I think perhaps because there's still a unity of character.  Here, the CUT TO: is essentially a pivot for the viewer - same character, different setting.

For example, in the scene below:
- Katherine is showing her first art class slides and debating what is good art.
- This is followed by a hard CUT TO: Katherine considering a room for rent.
- Note the unbroken flow from professional Katherine to private Katherine.
- Note also that the writers understand how to translate cinematic language on the screen versus written language on the page. ON THE SCREEN: Nancy speaks --> we see the room.  ON THE PAGE:  CUT TO: -->  Nancy's line  --> "pull back to" --> the slug line. 

INT. CLASSROOM (CONTINUOUS)

...CLICK! She startles them with ANOTHER SLIDE. A STUNNING, HANDSOME MAN WITH LONG GOLDEN RINGLETS.

KATHERINE (CONT'D): Albrecht Durer, Self-Portrait, late fiftheenth century.

JOAN: Where does this fit in?

KATHERINE: It doesn't. He's so dreamy I just like to look at him.

And the girls burst out laughing led by Giselle. Katherine is thrilled. Betty is fuming.

                                                                           CUT TO:

NANCY: Don't you just love Chintz?

Pull back to reveal that we are:

INT. VICTORIA HOUSE - BEDROOM - TWILIGHT

An explosion of floral patterns on every surface. Katherine stands, holding the real estate section of the WELLESLEY NEWS.

NANCY: And look.

She pulls back the floral bedcover to reveal matching floral sheets.

KATHERINE: They match.

NANCY: Sweet, right?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'd never really considered the hard CUT TO: could be used with unity of character.

Mona Lisa Smile (2003)(4/2/02, 2nd draft)
by Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal

TODAY'S NUGGET: Confessions of a Nervous Man (1953; Live TV) - Cinematic Transitions Useful on Live Narrative TV

[Quick Summary: While waiting for opening night reviews, a playwright relives his angst getting his play ("The Seven Year Itch") to the stage.]

Though I don't usually read tv scripts, I made an exception for this one because:
1) it's written by renowned playwright and screenwriter George Axelrod,* and
2) it was for live tv (an episode of the "Studio One" show).

Given that it was for live tv, I was impressed that this script used so many cinematic techniques, particularly in the transitions.

For example, in the scene below:
- Camera movement (dissolves) and stage cues (music, sound) indicate the story was moving to a dream sequence.
- Though the script says "dream sequence," it's actually more of a fantasy sequence of the Author character's fears.
- Notice how "tight head shot" to slow dissolve is the equivalent of going into someone's mind space.

MAN: Relax, baby -- you got a smash -- a smash -- all you got to worry about is what to do with the money...

THE MAN MOVES ON...

AUTHOR (muttering again):  Atkinson....Kerr...Chapman...the critics are sitting there...destroying me..right now...

THE CAMERA HAS MOVED IN TO A TIGHT HEAD SHOT.

SOUND: RAPID TYPING FROM THREE TYPEWRITERS FADES IN

THE MUSIC BECOMES DREAM...OR RATHER NIGHTMARE IN QUALITY.

SLOW DISSOLVE TO:

THREE DESKS WITH THREE TYPEWRITERS BEHIND WHICH SIT THREE FIENDS. EACH DESK HAS A NAME PLATE: ATKINSON...KERR...AND CHAPMAN....

THE FIENDS ARE TYPING FURIOUSLY AND GIVING OUT WITH DREADFUL GHOULISH LAUGHTER AS THEY SPEAK.

ATKINSON: Tedious....

KERR: Dreary and uninspired....

CHAPMAN:  Sets Broadway back fifty years....

ALL THREE LAUGH GHOULISHLY TOGETHER

ATKINSON: Contrived, unoriginal and tasteless..

KERR: Left this reviewer with a distinct feeling of nausea....

CHAPMAN:  Stamp out this ugly thing!

ALL LAUGH AND TYPE FURIOUSLY. THE LAUGHTER MINGLES WITH THE MUSIC AS WE DISSOLVE TO:

TIGHT CLOSE SHOT OF THE AUTHOR'S ANGUISHED FACE. HE STRUGGLES TO PULL HIMSELF TOGETHER. HE DRINKS A LITTLE OF HIS DRINK.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script showed me how much can still be done on live tv with just transitions, and without editorial cuts or special effects.

"Studio One: "Confessions of a Nervous Man" (1953)
by George Axelrod

*The Seven Year Itch, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Manchurian Candidate.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Cutthroat Island (1994) - Effective Onomatopoeia in an Action Sequence ("JING! JING!")

[Quick Summary: A thief is rescued by a female pirate in order to help her locate two other pieces of a treasure map.]

BAD NEWS: I feel that this script starts off strong, with great, promising characters, but then it becomes a bit predictable at the end.

GOOD NEWS: The action sequences surprised me! They're so visceral and alive.  

It was so unusual how the writers captured the sound and motion with onomatopoeia.  I felt like I was with the characters in the middle of the fight.

For example, in the scene below:
- Morgan (female pirate) was insulted by Frenchman Toussant.
- Her suitor, Lord Ainslie, challenged Toussant to a duel.
- Later, Morgan asks Toussant to cancel the duel.  If he does not, she will fight him.
- Toussant won't back down, so Morgan shoots off the tip of his ear.
- Note how the onomatopoeia (JING! JING!) reads and sounds exactly like the clashing, and how it  especially convinces you that you're a participant.

EXT. SEBASTIAN'S ISLAND

...She starts for her horse. Toussant grabs one of the rapiers that's been stuck point first into the sand in front of the Second

TOUSSANT: I say you missed.

Morgan stops, her back to him, and waits.

TOUSSANT (continuing): This duel is not over. 

Resolutely, Morgan turns, walks over and pulls the other rapier out of the sand, slashes it, once, twice, through the air to get a sense of its heft. When she's ready, she takes off her hat and, shaking her hair loose, assumes the "en garde" position in front of Toussant.

MORGAN: We don't have to do this.

TOUSSANT: I can accept nothing less.

JING!..., JING!..., JING!, JING!, JING!, JING! They feel each other out. Toussant is fabulous. But Morgan is his equal. JING!, JING!, JING!...JING!, JING!, JING! SLASH! Woussant winces. Morgan has drawn first blood. JING!, JING!, JING! Toussant attacks. SLASH! Morgan cuts him again. JING!, JING!, JING!, JING! SLASH! SLASH! SLASH! Roussant puts three slices int he front of Morgan's shirt. Blood wells from the cuts under two of them As she moves, we can almost see her breasts. JING!, JING!, JING! Circling around each other, they edge out onto a flat, rocky point.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the right onomatopoeia gets the reader into the journey faster, which is half battle for a writer.

Cutthroat Island (1994)(dated 4/12/94)
by Robert King and Marc Norman
Story by Michael Frost Beckner & James Gorman and Bruce A. Evans & Raynold Gideon

TODAY'S NUGGET: Oklahoma Crude (1973) - Primal Ferocity of a Single-Minded, No Excuses Female Lead

[Quick Summary: When a big oil company harasses a woman who owns a small oil field, her only allies are her estranged father and a stranger.]

Before he co-wrote (and won the Oscar for) Shakespeare in Love (1998), Marc Norman wrote this script with an unapologetic, ambitious female lead.* 

It may sound trite, but I've read a lot of single-minded male characters, undistracted by ideas of balancing work and family, but not female ones.

What is interesting about Lena is her sheer force of will.  This is her fight and she's willing to die for it.**  Why do I believe that? Why am I curious to follow her?

I think it's because her stubbornness, the stuff of legends, leads her to wild places.  

For example, in an early scene below:
- We see how hard bitten Lena has become.
- Her absentee dad Cleon comes to her plot of oil field.  This is their first contact and he tries to offer help.
- Notice how her motive is all about survival. She doesn't even waste a syllable on him.
- Also note: There were no slug lines (INT./EXT.) in this script.  Rather, it was broken into chapters.  The one below is titled, "LENA'S FATHER SHOWS UP."

His eyes rove her -- land on her folded hands. He smiles faintly, and gingerly lays his hand on top of hers.

CLEON (CONT'D): Look...

Lena recoils, snatches up the rifle.

LENA: Stay back.
CLEON (CONT'D): Look at your hand. It's the same as mine.

He tries to get her to compare them.

CLEON (CONT'D): Look at it -- you got my hand. (desperate) Damn it, Lena -- I come to help you. LENA: Me and my oil land!
CLEON: No -- to help you. To help you hold out, if that's what you want.

Lena looks up at him and chuckles bitterly.

LENA: Can you use a rifle?

Cleon makes a sort-of gesture.

LENA (angry): Handle a derrick, maybe? Can you drill a hole?
CLEON: I can learn..!
LENA: Just get out of here!
CLEON: No!
LENA (shouting): What the hell good are you?
CLEON: I'm your pa, Lena!    
LENA: So? You gonna read me nursery rhymes?

She stands, turns her back on him, and starts up the hill.

CLEON: Lena! You can't do it all by yourself.

She spins, raging.

LENA: Just fuck off
CLEON: Don't do this...    
LENA: I mean it!

Cleon falls to his knees in prayer.

CLEON: I can't, Lena...
LENA (exploding): Get out of here, you...scumbag son-of a bitch!

Cleon's mouth drops open. Lena fires, wildly, from the hip -- hit hat flies off.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I don't see female characters like this in more modern scripts.  There's something refreshing about a character who is this focused on the present, and not worried with "having it all."

Oklahoma Crude (1973)
by Marc Norman

 *It was played by actress Faye Dunaway (after Bonnie and Clyde, but before Chinatown).

**As an aside, she was not "likeable", and I was fine with it. I liked that this script took such a big swing on a female character.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Ice Harvest (2005) - When Wide/Close/Tight Camera Shots Works for an Action Montage

[Quick Summary: A shady lawyer tries to make off with $2M that was stolen from a Wichita, Kansas mob boss.]

Q: Why were you interested in this action-dark comedy?
A: Because it's from the great writer-director Robert Benton, who is mostly known for dramas.*

Q: What did you like about it?
A: I thought the action montage (below) was interesting because it reads so easily on the page.  I didn't notice the camera shots.

Q: GASP!! Camera shots?! Isn't there a "rule": Do not to include camera shots?
A: Yes.  (Though you know I believe in guidelines, not the so-called "rules.") 

Q: Why can they break this "rule"?
A: The purpose of the so-called "rule" is for new writers to avoid using &/or mishandling a device they don't know how to (or why to) use them.  

Experienced writers will knowingly use camera shots when they have a specific purpose for them, as shown in this scene below.

NOTE:
- Vic has been chasing Charlie and his co-conspirator Roy.
- Vic has just shot Roy.
- I like that the close ups are saved for big important, climatic scenes like this one.

EXT. LAKE BASCOMBE - NIGHT

...A QUICK SERIES OF SHOTS:

ON ROY: as he hits the deck like a ton of bricks. [Roy is the first sign of this dock falling like dominoes.]

INSERT OF SEVERAL PILINGS --as they give way. We HEAR the sound of rotting wood being torn apart.  [We see and hear the cause. Also, we're not in any single POV.]

TIGHT ON CHARLIE --who guesses first what's going to happen and grabs for one of the taller pilings.  [Close up of our protagonist = "important," in cinema language.]

RIGHT ON MORE OF THE DOCK'S CRUCIAL UNDERPINNINGS--as they start to collapse. [This builds on the previous insert of the pilings, building tension.]

CLOSE ON VIC--looking around, unable to grasp what is going on. [Close up to show another character is confused at an important moment.]

WIDE SHOT--We see the dock from some distance away and in slow motion the last section of it (where Charlie, Vic and Roy have been standing) begins to sag and give way. [Wide shot show the extent of what is befalling the three men.]

CLOSER IN--Roy's body begins to slide down toward the ice below. [Close shot of the beginning of Roy slipping away, both metaphorically and actually.  This extends Charlie's anguish because Roy was the only one who had the info about the hidden money.]

MED. SHOT VIC--as his feet go out from under him and he lands on the sloping dock. [The medium shot is useful to see where Vic slips and lands.]

ON ROY'S CORPSE--as it lands on the ice below, making a terrible sound and sending out cracks in every direction. An instant later the empty trunk hits, opening a hole in the ice.  [This shot completes the arc of where Roy ends up and dovetails next shot.]

TIGHT ON VIC--who beings to slide down the slippery incline; frantically grabbing at whatever with his free (he won't surrender the gun in the other). His slide is slow, but he can't stop it, and as he disappears into the gap in the dock (following Roy), he even tries to grab onto Charlie. Failing, he too disappears into the void. A split second later, WE HEAR A THUD, FOLLOWING BY A CRACKING SOUND from below. [Tight shot for Vic's big finale. Vic follows Roy, metaphorically and actually.]

ON CHARLIE, still hanging onto the piling for dear life, looking over his shoulder.  [Charlie is the lone survivor, and we want to see all of his reaction.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't notice the camera shots because they had a purpose. In this big moment, I expected (and wanted to see) close up reactions.

The Ice Harvest (2005)(undated draft)
by Robert Benton & Richard Russo
Based on the novel by Scott Phillips

*The films that he wrote (& may have also directed) include: Kramer v. Kramer; Places in the Heart; Superman; Bonnie & Clyde; What's Up Doc?  He has 7 Oscar nominations (1 win for direction and 3 wins for writing).

TODAY'S NUGGET: Love's Labour Lost (2000) - "[Love] Kills Sheep" Sight Gag in Shakespeare

[Quick Summary: This is a musical adaption of a Shakespeare play, set in the 1930s, in which four friends swear off love.]  

BAD NEWS:

I admire Kenneth Branagh's attempt to do something new by adding dance and musical numbers to a lesser known Shakespearean play, but I didn't believe it.

Roger Ebert writes about a few problems:

"Love's Labour's Lost" is hardly ever performed on the stage and has never been previous filmed, and there is a reason for that: It's not about anything. In its original form, instead of the songs and dances we have dialogue that's like an idle exercise in easy banter for Shakespeare. (my underline)

As a result: 

It's like a warm-up for the real thing. It makes not the slightest difference which boy gets which girl, or why, and by starting the action in 1939 and providing World War II as a backdrop, Branagh has not enriched either the play or the war, but fit them together with an awkward join....Like cotton candy, it's better as a concept than as an experience.

GOOD NEWS:

1) I did like the updated use for the homonym (1 word, 2 meanings) for "Ajax", then used to reference a tragic Trojan War figure, and now for a cleanser.

2) Branagh furthers the turn of phrase with an actual sight gag: the cleanser, i.e., love, has killed the sheep! This visual is a funny, clever way to show a metaphor.

INT. LIBRARY -- DAY

BEROWNE prowls the circular gallery.  He passes books which he ignores and cleaning materials, which he does not. Next to an abandoned servant's broom there is a well known brand of bleach. This inspires him.

BEROWNE: By the Lord, this love is as mad as Ajax,

He glances out the window. A sheep grazes in the park. After a moment it falls over unconscious.

BEROWNE: It kills sheep!

But in this state, any form of madness is understandable.

BEROWNE (CONT'D): It kills me, I a sheep! I will not love. If I do, hang me; I'faith, I will not.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I particularly like this sight gag because it works for those who understand the literal level (cleanser kills sheep), but also those who get the humor of the deeper level (those who know historical Ajax + the cleanser).

Love's Labour Lost (2000)
by Kenneth Branagh and William Shakespeare

TODAY'S NUGGET: Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988) - A Foil Role Worthy of a Best Supporting Actor Nomination

[Quick Summary: Against all odds, Preston Tucker, famed for building WWII combat turrets, decides to build the Tucker "car of tomorrow."]

Though this was an ok script, how did it end up netting Martin Landau an Oscar nominated performance for best supporting actor?

Well, first, he had direction by Francis Ford Coppola, which couldn't hurt.

Second, he played the character of Abe, a realistic NYC businessman and Tucker's biggest ally.  Abe is also is used as a foil, often exposing Tucker's blind spots. 

For example, in the scene below, he tries to reason with Tucker, who only wants to think big.

Notice how Abe's practicality is contrasted by Tucker's impracticality (or is it vision?)*, which is the point of the scene.

INT. DEN - DAY

Abe is talking. Tucker, Vera, and Eddie are in the room.

ABE: ...which leaves three war surplus plants we've got a shot at. A long shot, because everybody in the country's trying to get them, but it's worth a try. One's perfect. Nice and little. The other's too big. Cost twice as much to re-tool, but we could swing it if we had to.

TUCKER: What's the third one?

ABE: Impossible. The Dodge plant, where they built the B-29 engines in Chicago.

TUCKER: What's wrong with that?

ABE: It covers 475 acres for one thing, with sixteen buildings. One of them is seventy-three acres long. One building. The biggest building in the world under one roof.

Vera and Eddie look at each other, knowing exactly what Tucker will say.

CLOSE ON TUCKER.

TUCKER: It's perfect!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A good foil will push back against the protagonist, and thus reveal things in the protagonist we did not know before. 

A foil is often the main antagonist, but could even be an ally, like Abe here.

Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988)(revised shooting draft, 5/5/87)
by Arnold Schulman and David Seidler

*Just for fun: Only 50 Tucker automobiles were made, and I think Preston Tucker would be thrilled that they are now valued over $1+M.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Rachel, Rachel (1968) - Making the Unfamiliar Familiar

[Quick Summary: After a big city boy asks her out, a lonely grade school teacher, who lives with her mother, starts to daydream about where her life is going.]

Though he's read thousands of scripts, Black List founder Franklin Leonard recently said that he still looks for scripts that "transport" him somewhere.

But what does that look like on the page? 

This week's script is a good example of transporting us into a character's head because it made the unfamiliar very familiar in a few sentences.

FYI: I will note that this wonderfulness does come with some messiness.  We are in Rachel's POV, which is subjective, moody, and prone to tangents.

As a result, the story was sometimes jumbled and weird. (But perhaps that's the point?  After all this IS called "Rachel, Rachel.")

I liked the scene below, which instantly makes the unfamiliar familiar:
- This is the first time we see Rachel's mother in her own social setting.
- Within a few short sentences, we know the relationship between these women is long standing, competitive, and a relief from daily life (eating, smoking).
- We know Mother is concerned about appearances ("company eyeglasses," "elfin frames of delphinium blue" says a lot in a few words).
- Though I may not know these characters, I know this situation of playing games at someone else's house. It felt like I was sitting at this table.

INT. DINING ROOM - CLOSE SHOT - MOTHER - NIGHT

It is later now. Mother looks cute with her curly hair and "company eyeglasses", with their elfin frames of delphinium blue.

MOTHER: Oh, Verla! You're not going to no-trump!

CAMERA PULLS BACK to show Mother playing bridge at the dining-room table with her cronies, VERLA, FLORENCE, and HOLLY. They have consumed everything on the platter and are smoking up a storm.

VERLA: Now don't be a sore loser, May. When you come to my house, you can win!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I am impressed by the speed which I simply felt I dropped into this scene. It is a masterful economy of writing.

Rachel, Rachel (1968)
by Stewart Stern
Based on the novel "A Jest of God", by Margaret Laurence

TODAY'S NUGGET: Turning Point (1977) - Delivering an Emotionally Satisfying End of Character Arc

[Quick Summary: A former dancer faces her decision to give up ballet, after her daughter joins a NYC company that features her (the mother's) former competitor.]

This week's script was a huge pop cultural sensation when it was released.* 

Perhaps one of the reasons is how the writer delivered emotionally satisfying endings, for both mother and daughter separately.

For example, in the scene below:
- Emilia, the daughter who has just joined this NYC company, has been dating Yuri, a very talented fellow dancer. 
- She's been wrapped up in him, thinking they're a couple.
- However, he's been seeing other women without telling her.
- This hits her hard, but it matures her. 
- How does the writer show the triumphant end of her character arc? Through her changed behavior. 
- Notice how she is no longer swayed by every emotion and  keeps it professional ("better give me more support").
- Also note that the fruits of the maturity are not just in private, but also in public ("she smiles -> but not for him -> it's a performer's smile").

INT. MISKOFF THEATRE - UNDER THE STAGE - NIGHT

...She starts to pull away, but he, holding her, makes her dance and then lifts her up in the air just as Wayne lifted Deedee. He smiles up at her.

YURI (coaxing): Emilia...?

She looks down at him. He is very handsome, very appealing. She inclines down just a little, then stops. Cool, confident:

EMILIA: You better give me more support tomorrow night.

He adjusts their position.

CLOSE SHOT - EMILIA

Now she smiles. But not for him. It is a performer's smile, a ballerina smile. Her head goes up, her back arches gracefully and as her hands and arms reach up, her whole body shoots up through the ceiling.

INT. STAGE  - MINSKOFF THEATRE

And there she is, on stage, in full costume and makeup, dancing with Yuri and dancing magnificently. They are perfect together -- as partners on stage. They finish spectacularly and applause breaks like a cloudburst.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really liked the description "her whole body shoots up through the ceiling" because it's not only how the character felt, but also how I felt going through the arc with the character. 

Turning Point (1977) 
by Arthur Laurents

*Also, it garnered 11 Oscar nominations, including ones for actors Anne Bancroft, Shirley MacLaine, Mikhail Baryshnikov, and writer Arthur Laurents (his only nomination).

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Way We Were (1973) - When You Need to Beef Up the Guy's Part; Pollack's 1st Rule in a Love Story

[Quick Summary: After WWII, an idealistic political activist and a super-popular society guy try to navigate being a couple despite their opposite temperaments.]

TWO THOUGHTS :

1) BEING REWRITTEN.  This was the situation here:

- Writer Arthur Laurents wrote the role of Katie for Barbra Streisand.
- According to director Sydney Pollack (here), Laurents was so committed to Katie's story that the love interest, Hubbell, was not as strong a character.
- Thus, Robert Redford wouldn't sign on.  Streisand wrote about it (here): 

Bob was concerned that the script was so focused on Katie that Hubbell's character was underdeveloped. (He was right.) Bob asked Sydney, 'Who is this guy? He's just an object...He doesn't want anything. What does this guy want?' In Bob's opinion, he was 'shallow and one dimensional. Not very real.' ' A pin-up girl in revers,' as Sydney put it."

[She told Pollack], "Give him anything he wants."

Write more scenes to strengthen his character. Make it equal....So Sydney hired two excellent writers, David Rayfiel and Alvin Sargent, to beef up Bob's part and go deeper, beneath that golden-boy exterior. And I told Ray to pay him whatever he wanted. But Bob's answer was still no. I was heartbroken.

In other words, it's sometimes necessary to get another (more objective) writer(s).

2) POLLACK'S FIRST RULE IN A LOVE STORY.  All the above goes to why the original draft didn't work.  Pollack put it well (here):

Never make one character attractive at the expense of the other. You have to bring the character up but not at a partner's expense.

Note in this re-written scene below:
- This is a more balanced meeting of equals, who both upend expectations.
- Katie and Hubbell were in a college writing class together.
- She wanted to be a writer, but isn't as good as he was. Writing comes easily to him, but he can't share it with his friends.
- This was a chance meeting at an outdoor restaurand their first real conversation.

MED. SHOT - KATIE

She makes for the curb, trying to sneak off into the darkness. But softly comes:

HUBBELL'S VOICE: Have a beer?

FULL SHOT - KATIE AND HUBBELL

She stops dead and turns to him. He grins.

HUBBELL (continuing): It's a celebration.

KATIE: Team team team.

HUBBELL: Wrong.

KATIE: Your crew won.

HUBBELL: Oh well, we always win. That's easy.

KATIE: That's right, everything's easy, I forgot. (pause) Listen, I'm sorry but I've...well, I've let the months slide by without telling I...I really loved your story. You're a good writer and...

HUBBELL: Thanks, Katie.

KATIE: ...I'll see ya. I've got to get to work.

She starts off.

HUBBELL: Hey, Katie? I sold one.

KATIE (turning): Huh?

HUBBELL: I sold a story.

KATIE (softly): Jesus. Oh boy, Hubbell. Congratulations.

Hubbell holds out a stein of beer.

HUBBELL: Drink.

She hesitates. Then takes it, holds it up.

KATIE: To your first novel.

HUBBELL: Hey. Not so fast.

KATIE: Why not!

HUBBELL: Okay. Why not. You say so. 

KATIE: I say so.

They clink steins and drink. Then he looks at her. They smile.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'd never considered "bringing a character up" to the level of the other character in a love story.

This is especially eye-opening in light of the several crossed out, rewritten pages in this draft, where the Hubbell role is not as well written as Katie's role.

The Way We Were (1973)(A.S. draft, 7/21/23)
by Arthur Laurents, Alvin Sargent(uncredited)

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Fortune Cookie (1966) - How to Do Irony Right

[Quick Summary: After a crooked lawyer convinced his brother-in-law to fake an injury, the latter has qualms.]

Though this isn't the strongest Wilder-Diamond script, I did like the crooked lawyer, Willie, who is the quintessential example of an ironic character.

Let's see how his actions and words are the opposite of what he means:

INT. GINGRICH OFFICE - DAY

Willie has the phone to his ear, but is covering the mouthpiece with his hand.

WILLIE (to tailor): I'd like to have a matching tie and handkerchief - nothing flashy - maybe something like this.

He opens his coat to reveal the lining - blue polka dots on a white ground. [He actually wants something flashy.]

WILLIE (into phone): Sorry, You were saying? 

INT. O'BRIEN'S OFFICE - DAY

O'BRIEN (into phone): In return for a release from all future claims, we are willing to compensate your client with a lump sum - say, two thousand dollars. Fair enough?

INT. GINGRICH OFFICE - DAY

WILLIE (into phone): It may be fair - but it's not enough. I had a slightly different figure in mind - say, five hundred thousand? [He knows $500k is not fair for a fake injury.]

INT. O'BRIEN'S OFFICE - DAY

O'BRIEN (into phone): Five hundred thousand? (a reaction from the other partners) You're being grotesque! (boiling over) Let me tell you something, Gingrich - as one member of the Bar to another - if indeed you are a member of the Bar - 

INT. GINGRICH OFFICE - DAY

The tailor is removing Willie's coat, and as he talks, Willie switches the phone from one hand to the other, to accommodate him. [He's showing that he's more interested in his suit than the negotiation.]

WILLIE: Look, Mr. O'Brien, I don't want to be unreasonable. You say two thousand - I say five hundred thousand - tell you what - let's split it down the middle. [His reasonable 'split down the middle' IS unreasonable because it greatly favors his side.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This character is shameless and swings for the fences with gusto.  It reminds me to let all the flaws hang out.  

Don't be so subtle the reader can't see how the actions and meaning are opposite each other.

The Fortune Cookie (1966)
by Billy Wilder & I.A.L. Diamond

TODAY'S NUGGET: Ninotchka (1939) - Breaking Up a Couple with "The Lubitsch Touch"

[Quick Summary: When a Russian bureaucrat goes to Paris to sell seized jewels, she falls for a guy who represents all she stands against.]

I first encountered German director Ernst Lubitsch in a story about writer-director Billy Wilder posting a sign in his office, "What would Lubitsch do?"

Who was this revered director? And what exactly was his famous "Lubitsch touch"?

After reading this quote by Samson Raphaelson (who wrote 9 films with Lubitsch), I think this "touch" is more about his approach:

 ...I never caught Lubitsch ever thinking in terms of a formula; that is, he wouldn't say, "How can ve use a door in this scene?"...He would face the problem and say, "Vat do ve do here? How do ve lick dis? How do ve say it vit style? How do ve say it different? How do ve say it different and good? Different and true?" but he was also one of the few great practitioners who was not a victim of his own inventions and of his own style. In The Smiling Lieutenant, for instance, he used a minimum of dialogue and only at the high moments - this was soon after talking pictures came in, still using the rich resources of silent invention, so that the dialogue would become the cream, the peak of a scene. (my underlines)

Today's script is one of Lubitsch's top 3 favorites and most often cited.  

It is a prime example of: 1) doing a breakup differently; and 2) holding off on dialogue until the high point.

In the scene below:
- Ninotchka has come to Paris to sell the jewels of the former Grand Duchess Swana, who now resides in exile in Paris.
- Ninotchka falls for Leon.
- Swana is Leon's ex-girlfriend and is suing for her jewels back. 
- Meanwhile, someone stole the jewels back for Swana.
- After Swana bleakly states the reality of the situation, notice how this breakup is different.  Ninotchka and Leon are matter-of-fact and holding back emotions.
- I love how previously Ninotchka would not drink champagne nor ask for a funny story, and now she does, i.e., she's changed.
- The dialogue peaks when Leon expresses he will never be the same (see below):

INTERIOR, SMART NIGHT CLUB

...SWANA (rubbing it in): It is unfortunate that you have so few more days in Paris. (she turns to Leon) Be sure and redouble your efforts so that madame can take some pleasant memories when she returns to Moscow. (she rises, Leon rising too) Good night. (Ninotchka nods without answering. To Leon) Good night, Leon.

LEON (coldly): Good night, Swana.

Swana leaves the table. Leon sits again. The mood of the two has been changed by the problem of their separation, which has been brought before them. They sit in silence for a moment. Ninotchka speaks first. 

NINOTCHKA: Now I think I need a glass of champagne. 

Leon fills their glasses. They drink. Then Leon takes Ninotchka's hand.

NINOTCHKA (trying to break the mood): Quickly, please...tell me one of your funny stories.

LEON: A funny story?

NINOTCHKA: You never finished the one about the two Scotchmen with the names.

LEON: Well, there were two Scotchmen. One was named McIntosh and one was named McGillicuddy. They met on the street.

He stops.

NINOTCHKA: Go on.

LEON: No, darling. I'll tell you another story, a much better one. (with deep sincerity) The only thing that will be over on Thursday is the lawsuit. There will be no Thursday for us. Not next week or any week. We won't let it happen. I'll tear it out of the calendar. Is that a good story? ["Tear the calendar out" is a beautiful image. What a different way to say he'll never forget her.]

NINOTCHKA (touched): Wonderful -- if one could believe it.

LEON: You must, darling.

NINOTCHKA (lifting her glass): To the loveliest story I ever heard.

They drink. The orchestra starts a number.

NINOTCHKA (afraid of where the conversation may lead): Shall we dance?

They both start toward the dance floor.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This breakup is so poignant because it's got deep emotional truth that's so graceful, elegant, and amusing too.

The more I read about Lubitsch's work ethic, the more I realize that "how do we say it different?" takes a whole hell of a lot of work.

Ninotchka (1939)(shooting draft)
by Charles Brackett & Billy Wilder and Walter Reisch
Based on the original story by Melchior Lengyel

TODAY'S NUGGET: Love in the Afternoon (1957) - If You're Having Trouble Writing a Romantic Chemistry, It Starts With...

[Quick Summary: The daughter of a detective falls for the playboy that her father is shadowing.]

Q: When creating romantic chemistry, "start with the status quo,"* right?
A; Yes.  It is "what is missing" from the protagonist's life. 

Q: So "what is missing" = the antagonist. 
A: Not exactly.  

Q: Ok, if it's not "getting the guy," then what is it?
A: It is what the protagonist is missing emotionally, which the antagonist may point out or helps her realize. 

Q: What does status quo look like on the page?
A: There's a good example in today's script. 

The writers took their time laying out Ariane's inner and out life.**  She's curious, smart, but feels excluded.

So when she and the playboy hit it off later, we understand why she's so taken by him.  She's included in on a grand adventure, which fills that emotional need.

In this scene from the first ten minutes: 
- We see that Ariane yearns for adventure, love. She is lonely.
- We want to root for her.  She's considerate about her Papa, persistent, curious.
- Note also how humor is used to establish the fun tone, especially Ariane's parting line.

THE OFFICE

Ariane puts the cello aside, gets up, comes into the office. Chavasse has opened the briefcase, and taken out the camera.

ARIANE: I'm worried about you, Papa. You've been working every night.

CHAVASSE: It's my busiest season.

ARIANE: You need a rest, Papa.

CHAVASSE: Thank you, darling, but in my profession -- it's like being a doctor. I have to be on call night and day. A good doctor can never rest -- not until the patient is out of bed.

ARIANE: I never thought of it that way.

CHAVASSE:You shouldn't think of it at all!

ARIANE: Sorry, Papa.

CHAVASSE: How are things at the Conservatory?

ARIANE: So-so. We're rehearsing.

CHAVASSE: Rehearsing what?

ARIANE: A symphony. Haydn's 88th. You see -- I always tell you what I'm doing. But you never tell me what you're doing.

CHAVASSE: That's because I love you. And because I want to protect you from these sordid matters I have to deal with. Now go back to your cello.

ARIANE: Yes, Papa. Wouldn't you like some breakfast?

CHAVASSE: Later. I have some work to do in the darkroom. I'm expecting a client.

He has taken the roll of film out of the camera, now crosses to the door of the darkroom, opens it.

ARIANE: When Mama was alive, I'm sure you discussed your work with her.

CHAVASSE: Your Mama was a married woman.

ARIANE (with affection): I'm so glad.

She goes back to her room.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I often worry about taking too long to establish the status quo.  However, this script showed me I should take my time for a great pay off later.

Love in the Afternoon (1957)
by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond
Based on the novel by Claude Anet

*For more explanation and examples, see Ch. 7 "Structuring Conflict" in Writing the Romantic Comedy (2020, 20th anniversary edition), by Billy Mernit (here).

**I found it interesting to see that it took the writers 36 PAGES before the girl and guy meet in person! Though to be fair, she learns about his situation through her dad and sees his photo early on.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Stalag 17 (1953) - How to Avoid "Stagey" Adaptation of a Single Location Play

[Quick Summary: When two American soldiers are killed in an escape from a German POW camp, the soldiers suspect a mole in their barracks.]

Though plays are often set in a single location, it can seem stagey on film, i.e., artificial, claustrophobic, or simply boring for lack of movement.

So how did writer-director Billy Wilder avoid staginess in this famous film? 

1) THE STORY LENDS ITSELF TO CLOSE QUARTERS.  He chose this story which IS all about the claustrophobia and boredom of barracks.

2) CLOSE QUARTERS = PRESSURE. The soldiers need each other to survive.

This becomes even more apparent when they wrongly identifies one of their own as the traitor/mole. Suddenly, the barracks become a pressure cooker.

3) EXPANDING WHEN NECESSARY.  Wilder wisely added several outdoor scenes to give the audience room to breathe from the cramped indoor shots.

4) FRAMING.  I was very impressed by Wilder's use of the screen and space. Nearly every inch of the frame is stuffed with faces or some action.* 

So why didn't it feel stale or too busy?  He made sure there was constant movement: friction and action, people coming and going in and out of doors.

A good example is the scene below.  Note:
- This is an early scene which introduces all the characters. 
- Examine how there's constant movement between and among the characters. It feels less like the limits of a stage, and more like good use of a cramped space.

THE FAR END OF THE BARRACK

This is the strategic spot of the story. In the five tiers of bunks live our major characters.

In the upper bunk lies HOFFY. Little fellow. Plenty of authority. The Barrack Chief. His eyes are wide open. He is studying his wristwatch, the phosphorescent numerals shining in the dark.

In the other bunks lie the others, wide awake, tense:

DUKE, big bellyacher.

TRIZ, six-foot-three, ninety-eight pounds.

PRICE, the barrack Security Chief. Quiet, touch of class.

MANFREDI, no cover, fully dressed.

HARRY, bug-eyed, cocky.

BLONDIE, fair-skinned, boyish.

JOHNSON, fully dressed like Manfredi. Scared.

SEFTON, casual. In his mouth a cold cigar butt.

Hoffy again. Still staring at the wristwatch. This is the moment. He lifts the metal dogtags off his chest and jiggles them. This is the signal.

Duke instantly slides out of the bunk, grabs up his blanket and moves toward the window. A searchlight beam sweeps across. Duke goes flush on the ground. The light passes on. Duke gets up again and starts hanging the blanket over the window.

Now the others go into action, silently, efficiently. Except for Manfredi and Johnson they are all in long winter underwear, some in slacks and socks.

As for Sefton, he is lying in his bunk just watching them.

Blondie hangs a blanket over the window. Triz swings one over the clothesline to shield off their end of the barrack.

Hoffy and Price light a couple of handmade lamps: margarine in tin cans with the wick stuck inside.

Manfredi and Johnson are putting on their leather jackets.

Harry tries to awaken STOSH in the bunk above him. The wooden boards around Stosh's bunk are plastered with Betty Grable cheesecake. Harry pokes him. Stosh does not respond. Harry interlocks his fingers, puts them close to Stosh's ears and cracks them in a SHARP SALVO. Stosh opens his eyes, dazed. Harry pats Stosh's cheek.

HARRY (in a whisper): Get up, Animal! Betty Grable's on the phone!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If the play-to-be-adapted is in a single location, why? Pressure? Can it benefit a film? Or is expansion necessary to get that same effect?

Stalag 17 (1953)(shooting draft)
by Billy Wilder and Edwin Blum
Based on a play by Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski

*My favorite scene is where there are guys planning at a table in the foreground, and "guilty" Sefton in the background.  There are bunks to the left and right, so the men's faces are essentially lined up in a column, filling the screen from top to bottom.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Wicker Man (1973) - Why "Recognizably Strange" is Effective Horror Behavior

[Quick Summary: After receiving an anonymous letter about the disappearance of a missing child, a by-the-book policeman arrives on a remote island to investigate.]

Q: What makes this odd film stand out? Why is there a cult like fan following?
A: It's a proper horror film, i.e., properly unsettling and weird.

Q: Horror films explore what we fear.  What is the fear here?
A: Something is very wrong when no one (except for the protagonist) is concerned about a missing child on a remote island.

Q: How did the writer make such a weird story, well, weird?
A: One of the keys was what one critic called, "recognizably strange" things. 

The script starts off with the typical straight-laced policeman. I recognize this character and how he'd respond in situations.  I identify with his reasoning. 

Then odd "recognizably strange" things start to happen to him, yet no one (but him) is alarmed.  They're just 15% or so off of normal. Just enough to dismiss him....

For example, in the scene below:
- Mrs. Morrison has just denied to Sgt. Howie that her older daughter is missing.
- She exits, leaving Howie with the her younger daughter Myrtle.
- We are unsettled by Mrs. Morrison's matter of fact reaction --> now add Myrtle's.
- Note how no one is trying very hard to convince Howie.  In fact, the indifference is frightening and infuriating to a by-the-book cop.

INT. PARLOUR OF SWEET SHOP - DAY

...We now see that the child is doing a drawing of a hare with huge ears and whiskers which she is copying from a copper mould that has plainly been used to make the chocolate hares. She looks up and hands Howie a dropping paint brush.

MYRTLE: Here you are. You can fillin the ears in grey.

Neat, clean Sergeant Howie is horrified to find his hand suddenly sticky with paint, and quickly takes the paint rag to clean himself. Carefully he selects a clean brush and starts on the ears.

HOWIE: Myrtle, do you know Rowan?

MYRTLE: Of course.

Howie is startled by the answer.

HOWIE: You do?

MYRTLE: Course I do, silly.

HOWIE: Where is she now?

MYRTLE: In the fields. She runs and plays all day.

HOWIE: Will she be back for tea?

MYRTLE (laughing uproariously): Tea? She doesn't have tea.

HOWIE: Why not? Doesn't she like it?

She stops laughing abruptly and stares at him contemptuously.

MYRTLE: Hares don't have tea, silly.

HOWIE: Hares!

MYRTLE: She's a hare. Rowan's a hare. She has a lovely time.

Howie sits thunderstruck. The door to the shop opens and Mrs. Morrison re-appears....

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the script lulled me in with recognizable behavior --> becomes "recognizably strange" --> bizarre frightening behavior.  

This gradual slide was very believable!

The Wicker Man (1973)
by Anthony Shaffer

TODAY'S NUGGET: Blackboard Jungle (1955) - How to Involve the Audience (2 +2)

[Quick Summary: A new English teacher at an inner city school is faced with unruly students and jaded faculty.] 

Early in my writing journey, I heard a lot of things about writing that I did not understand.  Several came from Billy Wilder's 10 rules. For example:

- The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.

- A tip from Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They'll love you forever.

But how does one DO that? No one could tell me. I despaired.  (And by the way, the ONLY way I've learned is to read.*)

What does that LOOK LIKE?  Let's look at today's script, a deserving Oscar winner.

In the scene below:
- This is a 1950s, tough inner city school with students out for trouble.
- Lois Hammond, a fellow new teacher, is going to give Rick (protagonist) a lift home. 
- This scene sets up a connection between Lois and Rick, which someone will take advantage of later (plot point: team building hidden in a shared battle zone).
- Notice the shoes early + single shoe later = trouble (2 +2).
- Notice how you lean in when you spot 1st clue --> see 2nd clue --> what happened to Lois? This very fine writing is great suspense.

INT. STAIRCASE

...LOIS HAMMOND

She adjusts her second stocking. She starts down stairs. Her black-and-white pumps clack hollowly on stairway.

SECOND FLOOR CORRIDOR - RICK

He quickly approaches elevator. He pushes button. The elevator rises carrying half-a-dozen teachers. Among them are Josh Edwards and Jim Murdock. Their voices drift of of cage.

JOSH EDWARDS: Why -- they didn't even know their multiplication tables.

MURDOCK: 'Course not. All they can multiply is themselves. (general laughter)

JOSH EDWARDS: How are they ever graduated?

MURDOCK: Graduated? They got to be 18 and they're thrown out to make room for more of the same kind.

Rick watches elevator ascend. He decides to use stairway, starts down on the run.

STAIRWAY - SHOOTING DOWN

Rick descends. The stairway is deserted except for him.

FIRST FLOOR - FOOT OF STAIRS

Rick comes down. he stops. He looks down corridor for Lois Hammond.

CORRIDOR - RICK'S VIEWPOINT

It is empty, shadowy.

CLOSE - RICK

He looks in other direction toward exit. Lois Hammond is not waiting. He hesitates, shrugs, starts toward exit. MOVE with him. He passes the closed library doors. He stops, turns, looks down.

CLOSE - FLOOR 

Near library doors lies a black-and-white woman's pump. Rick leans in and picks it up.

CLOSE - RICK

He looks at shoe in puzzlement. He goes back several steps to the library doors. He looks thru glass portion of doors. 

Thru doors, at far side, between two walls of books, can dimly be seen two struggling figures.

Rick pushes at the doors. They are locked. He rattles doorknobs. They won't budge.

Holding the shoe by the sole, he smashes the glass with the high heel. He reaches in and opens door. He enters quickly.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's often trial and error to figure out exactly what info to give an audience.  In this case, the shoe was perfect, as it spiked our curiosity.

Blackboard Jungle (1955)(final draft, 8/10/54)
by Richard Brooks
Based on the novel by Evan Hunter

*Early in my journey, I heard "to write, you need to read."  

"Yeah, yeah, so what?" I thought, smugly to myself. "I already read a lot." 

What I did not realize is:

a) How MUCH I had to read.  It took me a few years for me to realize I wasn't reading enough scripts, then several more years to up my intake of a wider range of novels, plays, everything I could get my hands on.  

b) My job as a writer depends on reading. From the start, it was obvious to me that I needed to read to educate myself. 

However, it took me a long time to understand that a large part of my value as a writer is to have fresh, new IDEAS for the rest of the team.  I will only find those ideas by reading.

TODAY'S NUGGET: No Time to Die (2021) - Upending Expectations with a Character with a Different Energy

[Quick Summary: After Bond leaves MI5, he's drawn back in by the disappearance of a scientist who has stolen "Heracles" that leads to a very personal connection.]

BAD NEWS: I simply did not connect with this film, despite an abundance of top tier writers, beautiful cinematography, locations, action stunts, and actors.

If I had to boil it down, I'd say the story was not fun or as suspenseful as others. With reliance on tech, there was no need for Bond to figure his way out of a corner.

GOOD NEWS: However, there was one fun bit that I did enjoy: Paloma and the Cuba scenario.

First, she's a new agent who is not polished and does not make perfect decisions.  She's competent, yet she's still learning on the job and isn't afraid to admit it. 

Second, she brought a different energy that was very welcome. She is impatient, eager to get on with things, and we like her all the better for it.

Third, the Cuba scene became more entertaining because I didn't know what to expect from this character. She upends Bond's expectations.

In the scene below, we see the difference she makes: 

INT. WINE CELLAR - SANTIAGO BUILDING - NIGHT

Paloma stops at a wine cellar. She takes out a key, nerves still have her shaking as she unlocks the door.

BOND: This your room?

PALOMA (clearly it's not): It's a wine cellar. Okay, come here.

She starts undoing his shirt.

BOND: Don't you think we ought to get to know each other just a little before we...

PALOMA: Oh! No, no, no, no. I'm sorry.

She steps back, unrolls a suit bag she had stowed. It's a tuxedo. He smiles.

BOND: Alright.

PALOMA: You do it.

BOND: Do you min... (signals for her to turn around)

She turns her back. Bond starts to undress.

BOND (CONT'D): This is going to go brilliantly.

PALOMA: I know. (smiling) I've done three weeks training.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Paloma has a very different energy than most agents in this series.  She's not jaded or smooth or experienced, and that's fun to watch.

No Time to Die (2021)(undated)
by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge
Story by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Cary Joji Fukunaga

TODAY'S NUGGET: Spectre (2015) - When in Need of High Flying Action, Walk on a Wall

[Quick Summary: A message from the past sends Bond after an organization called SPECTRE, which has ties to his past.]

I've been reading Bond scripts because I want to figure out why some turn into good films and some do not.* 

For me, Spectre was very confusing, and somewhat boring.  

I think was because the story itself lacked ingenuity, despite a beautiful looking script. Going into Bond's past makes sense, but it wasn't enough.

(That must have been a terrible frustration to the creative team.  After all, what is still unexplored after 23 films of over-the-top adventures?)

I will cite my favorite scene below.  It combines the characteristic of the character (cleverly resourceful at getting to the rooftop) and high flying action that fans love.

INT. HOTEL ROOM - LATE DAY

...With her back to Bond, Estrella takes a sip of her drink, crawls onto the bed, and turns to see him opening the window:

ESTRELLA: But...where are you going?

BOND: To check out the view.

And we follow him OUT OF THE WINDOW.

EXT. HOTEL/ROOFTOP - LATE DAY

Dangerously high up, he jumps...

Lands on a rooftop.

He keeps low, walking coolly along the very edge of the roof, the street clearly visible below...In the distance we can see the crowded square. The drums more distant now...

He reaches his destination, and stops. Looks across the way at some apartments. Day of the Dead FLOATS and STILT-WALKERS passing between...Now he ducks behind a low wall on the rooftop.

Takes out his Walther PPK, and an additional piece of equipment. Clips the piece onto the hand grip of the gun with a satisfying clunk. Inserts the earpiece.

Bond now tests his gear - raises the gun, points it down into the crowd.

We wee a faint laser beam emanating from beneath the barrel.

A laser microphone.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really liked how clever Bond was getting to the rooftop because it actively required him to utilize his skills, and was not merely coincidence.

Spectre (2015)(shooting script, 10/17/14)
by John Logan, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade

*So far, this is my running list of things I've learned about Bond scripts:

1) Though they may borrow something from the novels or short stories, there is no formula.  The writers essentially start from scratch, which is tough to replicate.

2) These films are intrinsically weird, outlandish, fanciful, and/or outrageous, but they have an internal logic that fans seem to like in varying degrees.

3) The films often follow (but not always) the scripts.  Even when they follow the script, it does not guarantee a good film.

4) Some scripts are horrible to read, but turn out good films. Other scripts are beautiful on the page, but turn out bad films.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Witness for the Prosecution (1957) - Adding New Humor & Character When Expanding a Short Story

[Quick Summary: A famous barrister agrees to defend the beneficiary of a murdered rich widow, but surprises await.] 

THE SHORT ANSWER

Q: What's the best way to expand a short story and make it interesting?
A: Interesting characters.

THE LONG ANSWER

Let's take this short story by Agatha Christie.

The main character is the solicitor Mr. Mayherne, who does all the investigation and footwork.  Sir Charles, the barrister, is only mentioned twice in passing.

However, in the script:

1) The writers brought forward the barrister (now called Sir Wilfrid) as the main character. He will do a lot of the investigation/interviewing in his office.

2) But how does the audience know he's any good at investigating?* 

The writers were smart and demonstrated his wily nature in a situation BEFORE the case begins (scene below):

- Sir Wilfrid has a heart attacks and has just returned from the hospital. 
- He doesn't like his new restrictions nor the nurse Miss Plimsoll.
- He is willing to bend the rules to his advantage.
- Note how the added shrewd, sneaky humor makes him interesting to follow.

THE ANTEROOM OF SIR WILFRID'S CHAMBERS (DAY)

...He proceeds toward his office, ignoring the reception line-up. In passing he whisks the flowers from Miss McHugh's hand.

SIR WILFRID: Thank you very much. Everybody back to work.

MISS McHUGH: Sir Wilfrid, please -- if you don't mind -- I would like to read a little poem which we have composed to welcome you --

She has whipped out a long sheet of legal-size paper, typewritten on both sides.

SIR WILFRID (interrupting): Very touching, Miss McHugh. You can recite it after office hours, on your own time. Now back to work.

He starts for his room, sees Miss O'Brien sobbing, her cheeks streaked with tears.

SIR WILFRID: What's the matter with you?

MISS O'BRIEN: Nothing ---- I'm just happy that you're your old self again.

SIR WILFRID (a sweeping gesture with his cane): One more manifestation of such sentimentality -- whether in poetry or prose -- and I shall instantly go back to the hospital.

MISS PLIMSOLL: Not very likely. They won't take you back. (to the staff) He wasn't really discharged, you know -- he was expelled. For conduct unbecoming a cardiac patient.

SIR WILFRID: Put these in water -- (shoving the flowers at her) Blabbermouth! (to his clerk) Come on in, Carter.

He goes on into his office, followed by Carter.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes adaptations require going beyond the short story. Know what the film needs.

Here, audiences expect a defense attorney vs. witness showdown in this genre. Thus it made sense to make Sir Wilfrid the protagonist, though he is not in the short story.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)(6/10/57 final script)
by Billy Wilder and Harry Kurnitz
Based on the novel by Agatha Christie

*After all, UK barristers generally work in the higher (appeals) courts. This is different work than that of solicitors who focus on the lower (trial) courts

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Body Snatcher (1945) - Why the Blackmailer's Chilling Speech Lands Well (Motive)

[Quick Summary: After a student suspects that his mentor (Dr. MacFarlane) is illegally obtaining cadavers, the supplier (Gray) begins to harass them.]

 Dr. MacFarlane has a nice, comfortable life.  

The only fly in his ointment is Mr. Gray, who supplies him with cadavers.

Since Gray has old dirt on MacFarlane, he relishes sponging off him.

When MacFarlane finally confronts Gray about 3/4 into the script, it is chilling.  

Why does it land so well?

Part of it is well-drawn characters.  But also, part of it is the structure.

The script spends the first 3/4 setting up the rocky relationships with student Fettes, Dr. MacFarlane, and Mr. Grey. (I was rooting for Fettes.)

Then it all pays off in the last quarter, when Gray finally explains his motive to MacFarlane in this explosive admission:

INT. GRAY'S LIVING QUARTERS - NIGHT

...Gray shrugs.

MACFARLANE: What I was going to say is this -- wouldn't you be more comfortable at Leith in a neat little house?

GRAY: Would you bribe me to leave you be?

MACFARLANE: I would make you rich.

GRAY: It wouldn't be half so much fun for me, Toddy, as to have you come here and beg --

MACFARLANE (cutting in): Beg -- beg of you! You crawling graveyard rat!

He chokes off the last speech and glares at Gray. He is almost trembling with the effort to control himself.

GRAY: Aye -- that is my pleasure.

As he speaks he is refilling MacFarlane's glass

MACFARLANE: Well then -- I beg you -- I beseech you --

GRAY (shaking, his head and grinning): But then I wouldn't have the fun of having you come here and beg again, Toddy.

They look at each other. MacFarlane bends over in his chair. Gray hitches himself forward a little on the table, ready, waiting, then relaxes as MacFarlane begins to speak.

MACFARLANE: But why, Gray? Why?

GRAY: Because it would be a hurt to me to see you no more, Toddy. You're a pleasure to me.

MACFARLANE: A pleasure to torment me?

GRAY: No -- a pride to know that I can force you to my will. I'm a small man -- a humble man -- and being poor, I've had to do much that I did not want to do. But so long as the great Dr. MacFarlane jumps at my whistle, that long am I a man -- and if I have not that, I have nothing. Then I am only a cabman and a grave-robber.

MacFarlane looks at him. As he looks, he realizes he has heard the truth and that Gray will never leave him in peace. Now he, in turn, attempts cunning....

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This gut punch is doubly horrific because of the roller coaster ride in the previous 70+ pgs.  Without it, this moment loses steam.

The Body Snatcher (1945)
by Philip MacDonald and Carlos Keith
Based on the story by Robert Louis Stevenson

TODAY'S NUGGET: Skyfall (2012) - Rising Action & Tension in Service of a Theme (Betrayal)

[Quick Summary: When someone from M's past threatens all of MI6, Bond tracks down the threat, but it gets very personal.]

Q: What have you learned about Bond scripts you've read (16 so far)?
A: The scripts are sprawling beasts unto themselves, often hard to wrangle.

Q: What's one of the difficulties?
A: The writers are always trying to deliver new spectacles, but it's not easy to sustain. I often go numb reading yet another action-packed, high stakes scene.  

Q: In this script, what does work on the page AND on screen?
A: I have not seen it often in Bond scripts but I think they're at their best when the mounting tension (due to conflicting emotion) is in service of a theme. 

Here, it is betrayal.

For example, Bond is betrayed in the scene below:
- Bond is fighting a guy on top of a train.
- Eve has a sniper gun, but can't get a shot.
- Back in the London, M orders the shot, effectively putting Bond at risk. 
- Note how each character is shown with emotional conflict (see below).

ON THE TRAIN:

Bond and Patrice struggle. Below the train, a treacherous fall the waterfall and river far below --

Bond can hear Eve and M on his earpiece:

EVE (V.O.): There's a tunnel ahead...I'm going to lose them...

AT MI-6: 

M is isolated. [This shows M alone, likely feeling lonely, vulnerable.]

All the screens are down. Everyone watches M. [She's alone, shouldering responsibility.]

M (V.O.): Can you get into a better position?

ON THE OVERPASS: 

Eve's POV through the scope: Bond and Patrice locked together.

EVE: Negative. There's no time.

She blinks away sweat. Finger tensing on the trigger. [Eve's nervous, conflicted. She could kill 007.]

The train's about to disappear.

ON THE TRAIN: 

Bond and Patrice roll across the train roof --

Bond can hear M and Eve on his earpiece -- [He has no idea if M will sacrifice him.]

The train's starting to go into the tunnel!

ON THE OVERPASS:

Eve still has the gun trained on them.

Seconds left now.  [This increases tension. Audience wonders if she'll take the shot.]

AT MI-6:

It's now or never.

M: Take the shot...I said, take the shot.

EVE: I can't. I may hit Bond-- [She's conflicted.]

M: Take the bloody shot. [She makes a decision, for better or worse.]

SIMULTANEOUSLY:

Eve fires--

Bond and Patrice twist--

Eve's shot slams into Bond!

His whole body recoils violently -- shot in the side and ribs -- blood sprays -- the impact is huge -- sending him sailing from the car --

Bond flies through the air--

Off the train--

He falls, past the train, past the tracks--

Down toward the river and waterfall below--

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To improve meaningless action, consider if it's related to the theme.  If not, can it be reframed so it is? Or is it tangential?

Skyfall (2012)(undated)
by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, and John Logan

TODAY'S NUGGET: Casino Royale (2006) - How to Introduce a New Bond

[Quick Summary: After getting his 00 license, Bond has to enter a high stakes poker game to stop a banker who is financing terrorists.]

As I read these Bond scripts and hear complaints about the films,  I begin to grasp how difficult it is to get the alchemy right.  Each film is truly a bespoke effort.

This script begins the Daniel Craig era, whose scripts are markedly more pleasurable to read on the page, compared to previous eras.* 

It tackles one of the greatest pressures, i.e., introducing a new actor to play Bond, with real flair.

In this scene:
- I really liked how this introduction included the usual (danger, proficiency on the job) but also an emotional layer (grappling with his first kills).

- I also like how easy they make it for a non-Bond fan to comprehend.  Everyone understands playing games and one-upmanship, which are strong themes here.

- Finally, Dryden and Bond are trading verbal punches.  Note how the flashback doesn't interrupt the flow. It adds weight behind Dryden's "made you feel it" line.

INT. MODERN OFFICE -- NIGHT

Dryden grabs the pistol, levels it -- Bond still hasn't moved.

DRYDEN: Shame, we barely got to know each other.

He pulls the trigger. Click. Bond holds up the magazine.

BOND (with humor): I knew where you hid your gun, I suppose that's something.

DRYDEN (has to smile): True. (lays gun down) How did he die?

BOND: Your contact?

INT. CRICKET GROUND - CLUB HOUSE -- DAY

Fisher backs up to a washbasin, turns on the tap, throws water on his sweating face - his eyes never leave the door. Suddenly, a burst of cheering from outside. Fisher instinctively brings the gun up. A second door, behind him, crashes open. Bond. He spins but James grabs him, knocks the gun out of his hand.

Fisher attacks. The two tumble into the stalls. The fight is chaotic, both men trying to hit each other in a confined space until the stall partitions fold like dominoes. They fall into the shower room. Fisher fights like a madman until finally Bond forces his head into the basin, now overflowing with water. James holds him under until the body stops writhing and kicking. Not a clean kill by any means. He lets the body slide to the floor, steps back, considering the dead man. Hating him for making this feel so much like...killing. 

INT. MODERN OFFICE -- NIGHT

BOND: Not well.

DRYDEN: Made you feel it, did he? (sees the truth in Bond's eyes) Well, no worries, the second is --

Bond raises his silenced Walther and fires, cutting off the words before they reach Dryden's lips.

BOND: Yes. Considerably.

Bond holsters his weapon and heads for the door.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was surprised by how much Bond was feeling the pathos (sadness, sympathy, compassion). It surprised me and made a deeper impact.

Casino Royale (2006)(2nd revisions by Haggis, 12/13/05)
by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis
Based on the novel by Ian Fleming

*I will not say that Craig era scripts are "better", just more readable.  The reason that these films have been great are their creativity, imaginativity, originality, and inventiveness, which do often look very messy on the page.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Two for the Road (1967) - Rare, Innovative Use of Flashback (Or, The Oscar Nominated Script Everyone Turned Down)

[Quick Summary: A troubled couple, married for ten years, go on a road trip in the south of France.]

TWO THOUGHTS:

1) REJECTION: When your script is the most forward thinking, seamless use of flashback that has been seen, everyone is going to turn you down.*

2) NEW USE OF FLASHBACK:Newer writers tend to use flashback to explain backstory (please avoid the lazy exposition dump).  

Wiser writers eventually realize that it can be used to show the character's past emotions are also the present ones (like here, here, here).

But the really rare writers, like Frederic Raphael (Far From the Maddening Crowd, Eyes Wide Shut) find another innovative way in. 

On the DVD commentary, director Stanley Donen stated:

I think this one of the [] major differences in the way we reorganized this movie....It wasn't simply a flash from one period back to another one and back to the present what we were trying to do was say that all sequences in this movie are the present. Everything you see in their life is carried with them from the beginning of their relationship until the end of their lives. So that every sequence would feel just as present as any other. There was no one time in the picture when we said, "This is the time period of the picture." The picture is the entire period, is the present. (bold mine)

The result is that the script slips from present to past WITHOUT any time stamp in the slugline, as if it is all present.  But how does one not confuse the reader?

 

I think it's because the clarity of writing is exceptional.  In particular, the writer understands how to transition emotions by the juxtaposition of images.

 

In the scene below:

- Notice how few words were used to indicate the shift in time.
- There are several time periods: a) When the couple when they met (past); b) When they went on a trip with Cathy and family (past); c) When they're older (present). 

- Can you spot the moment of the time shift and emotional shift?

INT. CITROEN (2 CV). DAY.  [Here, M & J begin debating.]

...JOANNA: No?

MARK: But no, but no. The nicely brought up American girl may play it cool and modern, but what she wants is what her grandmother wanted --

Joanna produces a banana and offers it to Mark.

 

EXT. ROADSIDE. DAY. [J confronts M.]

The banana skin flung into the ditch. 

MARK (over): Your head stuffed and mounted on the living-room wall!

Mark and Joanna are hitching along the roadside again.

MARK: And if you don't want it that way, take your loving self elsewhere - I'm speaking quite generally, of course.

JOANNA: Of course. Who was she?

MARK: Whaddaya mean?

He grins and hands her a peach.

INT. CAB. GIANT ARTICULATED LORRY. DAY. [M defends --> ends with transition visual]

Joanna bites the peach.

MARK: Her name was Cathy Seligman, if you must know.

Joanna offers the Driver some grapes off the bunch. He smiles at her agreeably and takes some. The lorry has eased away from us somewhat and the cab slides forward out of shot.

EXT. THE ROAD. DAY. [Completed transition to new visual, new emotional dynamic, new time period.]

The articulated lorry moves forward to clear the frame.

MARK (O.S.) Selfish, grasping, Philistine, materialistic, stubborn, opinionated - I was crazy about her.

The lorry clears the frame and we pick up the car which appears to follow it (without a cut). It is a Ford station wagon with four Adults and a Child in it. Tags hang from the luggage on the roof.

EXT. THE NAME HOWARD MAXWELL MANCHESTER IS ON THEM. [This image is an ironic contrast to his words.]

Cathy is looking out of the window.

MARK (as we hold on Cathy): Mrs. Howard Maxwell Manchester, no less, Luckily for you, you'll never be called up to spend too much time in her company.

Cathy is very pretty and doesn't look quite as vampirish as Mark's young tongue suggested. It is some three years later and the Manchesters and the Wallaces are making a joint expedition, as we shall shortly see.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To me, the transitions are seamless, so that the flashbacks - visually, emotionally, story wise.- feel like they're all a whole.

 

This is one of those structures that's hard to explain verbally.   Even Donen's pitch to Audrey Hepburn was met with skepticism, until she read the script.

Two for the Road (1967)

by Frederic Raphael

* On the DVD commentary, famed director Stanley Donen said that studios couldn't envision how the flashback structure would work:

 

"I suppose that is why the readers of the script couldn't grasp what was going to come over on film...

...‎...[E]very other company in town [except 20th Century Fox] turned down the script. They all felt the picture was far too complicated for anyone to possibly understand. And there was no way that people could follow what was going on the way Frederic Raphael and I had planned this scheme of time throughout the film. I wrote a little letter at the head of the script saying to everyone,"Please, when you read this script, pay particular attention to everything that is said, every word of time, and so on. But please, take my word for it, when you see it, there will be no problem at all. You'll just sit back and relax. The picture will unfold before you, and you will not have any problem not knowing which stage the events are happening." However, in spite of my plea, no one believed in the picture, except Dick Zanack and David Brown, who I am happy to say, gave me the money to make the film."

 

TODAY'S NUGGET: A Simple Favor (2018) - How Mood Can Extend from Character

[Quick Summary: After cool mom Emily asks blogger mom Stephanie to pick up her son after school, Emily goes missing and Stephanie is drawn into a nightmare.]

I wasn't wild about this story, but the script is well written and clearly conveys what the filmmakers set out to do.

One of the things that impressed me was how it conveyed a mood of suspense.

Critic Sheila O'Malley explained it much more eloquently:

It's insightful about the head games women can play with each other, but it doesn't burden itself with trying to be "meaningful." ....Mood-setting is one of the most important aspects of film-making, and so many films fail to establish the proper mood from the jump. "A Simple Favor,"... knows exactly what it needs to do to establish the mood for all that will follow.

The script does a good job of setting up that not-so-cool mom Stephanie is a people pleaser.  She is anxious and vulnerable, and so are we, the audience.

In the scene below:
- Parents are discussing Easter egg hunt duties.
- Stephanie is constantly on the defense, wanting approval.  This will be the perfect situation for cool mom Emily to take advantage of.
- Note how the mood extends from the character, i.e., Stephanie's internal anxieties influence her behavior with others.

INT. WARFIELD ELEMENTARY - KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM - LATER

...Stephanie's in a quandry. She wonders whether to erase her name from DECORATIONS or SNACKS. Always the problem-solver, Stephanie tries to come up with an equitable solution:

STEPHANIE: What if I just erase myself from decorations and leave it for Emily? Then if she can't make it, I'll still bring my balloons and helium tank.

STACY: Please tell me you don't actually own  a helium tank.

It just slipped out of Stacy - and she regrets it. Stephanie is a bit hurt by the comment but tries to hide it.

STEPHANIE: I think lots of people own helium tanks, Stacy. If they don't, they should. Kids love balloons, especially floaty ones.

MRS. KERRY (trying to save Stephanie): It's a perfect plan, Stephanie. We'll leave decorations open for Emily.

Stephanie looks proud, then notices the other parents staring at her like she's an alien. She deflates a bit.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Well before the antagonist arrived, I was surprised at how anxious this character made me feel.  That's setting a good mood!

A Simple Favor (2018)(7/10/17 draft, rev. by Paul Feig)
by Jessica Sharzer
Based on the novel, A Simple Favor, by Darcey Bell

TODAY'S NUGGET: The World is Not Enough (1999) - If You're Going to Put "M" in a Cage...

[Quick Summary: Bond delves into threats against an oil heiress, and uncovers a plot involving nuclear warheads.]

In this script, I found the stakes somewhat confusing (not surprised), the plot very action-y (not surprised), but I was surprised that they put M in a cage.

Granted, it is dubious that the head of MI-6 would get so involved with a mission.* 

Also, it's rather convoluted how she gets to the remote location, i.e., request of the heiress, whom she's known since a child.

However, I give the writers props for  is something NEW and NEVER BEFORE SEEN in any of the previous 19 Bond films (out of 25 films).  

In the scene below:
- I really liked how efficiently the writers described M's cell (it was shot as written). 
- I like how close quarters were used to increase a sense of menace.
- I also liked that this scene doesn't just increase tension and stakes, but it's also Elektra's emotional blood-letting too.  She's been wanting this purge. 
- The film was also helped immensely by Judi Dench's performance as M, as her blistering delivery gave the scene a thrilling frisson.

INT. ROOM - MAIDEN'S TOWER - MOMENTS LATER

Elektra opens a heavy door, she and Renard pass through to...

A SMALL ROOM...a window set in the stone on one side. The other side is divided off by a WALL OF BARS, creating a cell which now contains: M.

The cell is bare, except for a camp bed in the corner. M betrays no fear. A quiet defiance burns in her.

ELEKTRA: Just as I promised.

Renard steps forward. Bars separate him from M.

RENARD: My executioner.

M: Over-praise, I'm afraid. But my people will finish the job.

ELEKTRA: Your people? Your people will leave you here to rot just like you left me. You and my father. He didn't think my life was worth the chump change he spent on a day at the stock market.

M: Your father...

ELEKTRA: Is nothing. His kingdom he stole from my mother. The kingdom I will rightly take back.

ELEKTRA leaves. Renard is left alone with M.

M: She's insane. Is that what you did to her?

RENARD: No. I'm afraid it is what you did.

He crosses close to the bars.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you're going to cage the head of MI-6 (and Judi Dench), it can't be a gimmick. Give her something meaningful to play against, like Elektra's rage.

The World is Not Enough (1999)(undated draft)
by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, & Bruce Feirstein

**I've heard that Bond fans grouse, "Why is M out in the field? Isn't she more valuable at headquarters?"

TODAY'S NUGGET: Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - The Writer's Job is To Find Ideas

[Quick Summary: Bond faces off with a media mogul who provokes a UK-China war for the benefit of his media empire.]

Q: You don't like reading first drafts, so what's the point here?
A: It's the only draft widely available.

Q: But the final script is so, so different. Isn't this a waste of time?
A: Not if you want to know WHY stories work (or not).

Q: I don't need to. I know the screenplay format.
A: The technical stuff is only part of the job. And in my opinion, the easiest.

Q: Fine, fine. What are you looking for?
A: The sifting of ideas.* 

Q: Huh? I have a bazillion ideas!
A: But how do you know if it's the right idea? And how to best execute it? 

This script is the beginning of that sifting process.  

It lays out a potential villain, a manipulating media mogul out to cause a shipwreck and steal 1/3 of the UK's gold reserves. Good idea, right?

But along the way, I simply stopped caring.  The execution in this early draft didn't deliver mogul vs. Bond thrills, despite a lot of action scenes. 

However, it did flesh out a villain and his wife (ex-lover of Bond's).  Here is one line which I thought made clear the villain** is the manipulative type:

HARMSWAY: I give this boat to mankind - selflessly - in pure charity - asking nothing for myself...But the cable TV rights.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This early draft got the tone and action pacing right.  However, it is searching for better situations, which is the endless job of the writer.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)(1st draft, 8/23/96)
by Bruce Feirstein

*Screenwriter Jean-Claude Carriere, who has thought a lot about screenwriting, said it much better in an interview:

The work of a screenwriter is not only to write a film and to know all about the technical side of things: the sound, the images, the editing. His work, his function, is to look for new ideas. That is very important. To be able to offer a bouquet of different ideas. Not only one.

** For Bond fans: He is re-named Elliott Carver in the films.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Keeper of the Flame (1942) - When Crafting a "Perfect" Line of Dialogue

[Quick Summary: After a popular national hero dies in a bridge accident, a journalist seeks to separate fact from fiction, but falls for the man's widow.]

Donald Ogden Stewart (screenwriter, novelist, playwright) was a studio writer who adapted six scripts featuring Hepburn, Tracy, or both.* 

I have liked the delicate balance of his scripts.  He was always driving to a point without being too obvious, or on-the-nose.

So when I saw that he included an alternative line of dialogue for a pivotal scene here, I wondered, "Was he worried about being too on the nose?"

I can see him trying to hit a certain tone with that line (and its alternative).

In the scene below:
- It is the first meeting of journalist Steve O'Malley and widow Mrs. Forrest.
- He has managed to get around security and up to the house. 
- This is about "do I trust you?" Mrs. Forrest is particularly hiding secrets.
- I've bolded the line and its alternative below.  Both are good, but feel just shy of the mark.

INTERIOR - FRONT HALL - FORREST HOME

...

STEVE: I had visioned ---I'm very sorry to do this to you, Mrs. Forrest. I had hoped perhaps just to leave a note. A friend of Mr. Forrest's told me you might be glad to see me. (as Christine looks at him inquiringly) The gatekeeper's boy.
CHRISTINE: Poor little Jeb --
STEVE (sympathetically): He thinks he killed his hero --

Christine give him a sharp look.

STEVE (continuing): --because he didn't warn him about the bridge.
CHRISTINE (in a curious, dry-mouthed tone): Really? (after a moment) Boys loved Mr. Forrest. I've had letters. Sweet letters. Heart-breaking letters. He was the light of their eyes. (her voice dulls) It seems that the light has gone out.
STEVE: No. (she looks at him) It burns brighter than ever. It must burn always. We must see to that.
CHRISTINE (a little coldly): We?
STEVE: Yes. We. Everybody who was guided by that light, who drew warmth from that flame. You can protect the flame.
CHRISTINE: I tried to.
STEVE: Let us help you. You aren't alone. That's what I came to tell you.
CHRISTINE: I tried. (she looks at Steve for a moment) I had wondered if you spoke as you wrote.
STEVE: I speak as I feel -- and I feel deeply about this.
CHRISTINE: What do you want from me?
STEVE: The life of Robert Forrest.
CHRISTINE (almost bitterly): I can't give it to you -- it's been taken away.
STEVE: You can tell it to me.
CHRISTINE (coldly): The facts of his life are there for anyone to read.
STEVE: I want you to read them to me. I want the truth. [This is better than the tired, old "I want you to tell me the truth." But it's still a little boring.]

The following is an alternative line for the above:

STEVE: Will you read them to me? [This is also a smart way of saying the same thing, but is it witty enough?]
CHRISTINE (resentfully): What would you like -- the size of his underwear, the color of the hair on his chest, the sound of his laugh, the touch of his hand --? (her voice rises emotionally)
STEVE: I'm sorry. I'll go now. But perhaps tomorrow --
CHRISTINE: I don't understand you, Mr. O'Malley. Why should I tell you anything? I've seen you five minutes. I don't know you, anything about you. I wish you would go.
STEVE: I've seen you five minutes -- and I feel that I know you very well.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When you're are trying, trying, trying to craft that impossible perfect line, cut yourself some slack. 

Give it your best - it's "close to this" - and move on.

Keeper of the Flame (1942)(7/7/42 draft w/revisions)
by Donald Ogden Stewart
Based on the novel by I.A.R. Wylie

* He wrote four scripts starring Hepburn: Holiday (1938), The Philadelphia Story (1940), Keeper of the Flame (1942), Without Love (1945).

He wrote four scripts starring Tracy:  Keeper of the Flame (1942), Without Love (1945), Cass Timberlane (1947), Edward, My Son (1949).

TODAY'S NUGGET: Hitchcock's The Lost Night (Unproduced) - Clash of Writer vs. Director's Vision; Double Use of Prop for Suspense

[Quick Summary: After his brother's murderer escapes from prison, an insurance salesman goes undercover in Finland to find the man via his wife and kids, but ends up falling in love.]

Though I don't typically read unproduced scripts, this one (well, two) got me thinking about how a writer may/may not be able to work with a director's vision.

The 1978 draft.  I went in cold to this unsigned draft, not realizing it was likely written by Ernest Lehman (6 time Oscar nominee; North by Northwest). 

There are some holes, but it's got Lehman's elegance to it.

The 1980 rewrite draft. Then I read this still-in-progress draft by David Freeman and Hitchcock in the last six months of the latter's life.* 

I liked many of the Hitchcock touches, especially fleshing out of shots.  I did not like that it lost some of Lehman's elegance throughout. 

Working with a Director.  After reading these two scripts (and Freeman's experience coming into the process), I'm now seeing how visions did not gel.

Lehman wrote a good script, but Hitchcock did not like it. I wonder now - was Hitchcock after something else? Maybe pushing, fumbling for something new?**

Opening scene. Lehman's opening is elegant, but conventional: The protagonist looks out of an office window.  He sees a  news crawl about the escaped convict.

Freeman/Hitchcock's opening has a very different tone: more attention grabbing, both ridiculous and suspense filled.  

It starts at the prison with the accomplice, Brennan, who is trying to throw a rope ladder to the antagonist, Brand:

EXT. LONDON - ARTILLERY ROAD - 6:45 PM

A drizzly London evening in the fall.

Wormwood Scrubs Prison and Hammersmith Hospital sit side by side. Artillery Road, hardly more than a service lane runs between them.

...Brennan has the boot open, about to remove a rope ladder.

BRAND (V.O.): God damn it, what are you doing there? It's all going to be over...It's too late...

Headlights illuminate the boot as Brennan is removing the ladder. He drops it quickly and turns to see an old Morris approaching.

He closes the boot and reaches into the mums, turning off the walkie-talkie, silencing Brand's voice.

The Morris stops adjacent to Brennan. An Elderly Couple are in the car. The woman leans across her husband and speaks to Brennan.

ELDERLY WOMAN: Excuse me young man, we're looking for the hospital.
ELDERLY MAN: Hammersmith Hospital. It's on Du Cane --
BRENNAN: Yes...Yes. This is it. Straight on and turn  to the left. Visitors' entrance is to the left.
ELDERLY MAN (to his wife): What did he say?
ELDERLY WOMAN (loudly): He said it's to the left for the visitors' entrance.

OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL

BRAND: What's wrong? What is it? Answer me damn you, answer. What is it?

ARTILLERY ROAD

ELDERLY MAN: Where should we park?
ELDERLY WOMAN: My husband wants to know...
BRENNAN: On the street. Park on the street. You just go up and turn to the left. Hurry or you'll miss visiting hours. They're very strict.
ELDERLY WOMAN (re Brennan's flowers): Mums?
BRENNAN: Yes. Hurry along now.
ELDERLY WOMAN (holds up bouquet): Me too. For our daughter-in-law. Her liver's shot to hell.
BRENNAN: Lovely. Hurry along.
ELDERLY WOMAN: Thank you. (loudly to her husband) It's to the left. We park on the street.

The Morris pulls away, slowly.

Brennan opens the boot again, grabs the rope ladder and flips on the walkie-talkie. When it clicks on, a torrent of abuse comes out.

BRAND (V.O.)(midsentence; almost in tears): ...not going back. Where the bloody hell are you? I can see the first of them coming back. You've bollixed it. You bloody Irish ass. I'm not going back. I'm not. I'm not going back.
BRENNAN: We're there. We're there.

He drops the mums on the ground, and tries to find a spot to throw from. He steps back into the road, then moves forward again and climbs up onto the back of his car.

The mums are on the ground with Brand's pleas coming out.

BRAND (V.O.): You drunken ass. You bloody Irish fool. You've killed me. You've done it. It's on your head.

Brennan winds up and tosses the ladder, hard and high.

PRISON SIDE OF WALL

As the ladder comes floating over the wall.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I do wish the two drafts could've been married closer, as both have strengths missing in the other (elegance, creative play).

Also, I do admire the double use of the mums in Hitchcock's opening as 1) walkie-talkie camouflage, and 2) focal point to increase suspense.

The Short Night (11/9/78, revised)
by Ernest Lehman (I think)
Based on the novel, "The Short Night," by Ronald Kirkbride

The Short Night (1980, revised) - unproduced script published in 1984
by David Freeman

*I highly recommend reading Freeman's book, which has several fascinating chapters about his daily routine working with Hitchcock in these last six months.

At this point in time (1979-80), Hitchcock was not in the best of health, and would pass soon.  His last (and 53rd) film, Family Plot (1976), had come out three years earlier, and not to rave reviews. It was written by Lehman.

** In his review of Family Plot, Roger Ebert notes: "...it's a delight for two contradictory reasons: because it's pure Hitchcock, with its meticulous construction and attention to detail, and because it's something new for Hitchcock -- a macabre comedy, essentially." (my emphasis)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Goldeneye (1995) - Improving a Villain from Early to Later Drafts (Betrayal)

[Quick Summary: After Russians have stolen plans for the Goldeneye weapons program, Bond must stop them.]

Generally, I don't tend to read early drafts unless:
1) There are no other drafts available; and/or
2) I'm particularly interested in how the writer(s) solved problems. 

Today's script meet both of these criteria.  It was written by Michael France, who eventually received "story by" credit on the final film. 

BEST THING OF THIS EARLY DRAFT: It lays out the dynamic between Bond and an antagonist Trevelyan, who defected to Russia. Not much motive, stakes.

BEST THING THAT LATER DRAFTS DID: The writers upped Trevelyan from mere 'defector' to 006 and added a betrayal which increased motive and stakes.  

Now Trevelyan is agent 006 --> he and Bond team up for a botched mission --> Bond thinks 006 is dead --> 006 survives, works for Russia, comes after Bond.

You can see how a baseline antagonism in the scene below (early draft) would be heightened by the addition of a personal betrayal (later draft): 

EXT. AN OUTER PART OF THE PALACE - BOND

...BOND

walks toward Trevelyan, regaining his aplomb as he does. Two things are crystal clear. One is that bond want to kill this man very much. The other is that it's taking all his self-discipline to avoid attempting it here.

Trevelyan, on the other hand, wears the smirking armor of a man who feels he's already decisively vanquished his opponent.

BOND: Augustus Trevelyan --

TREVELYAN (indicates reception): I'll miss this particular struggle -- won't you, James? As Frederick the Great once said -- "Diplomacy without armaments is like music without instruments." (points to Kremlin wall) Now that it's over, I can tell you -- part of my charade is that I'm buried right over there -- three plots down from Khrushchev. Seems childish now. (offers his hand) You are surprised to find me still alive, I suppose?

BOND: More than that -- I'm delighted. (doesn't take hand) It's always been a great disappointment to me that I wasn't able to kill you personally.

Trevelyan laughs genuinely, as is this were a bon mot instead of the very real threat it is. He withdraws his hand.

TREVELYAN: Don't be ridiculous, Bond. It was a schoolboy's game that we played a long time ago. Two empires, battling to change the world. The battle is over -- (gestures around) -- and it seems to me that the world has not changed so much for it. Now, men like  you and I look for new games. That is all.

BOND (with quiet contempt): Is that how you live with betrayal and murder, Trevelyan? By calling it a game?

New Trevelyan seems genuinely disappointed in Bond.

TREVELYAN: That question is beneath both of us, James. I might as well ask yo if the vodka martinis ever completely still the voices of all the men you've killed. (still conversational) OR if you ever find forgiveness, in the arms of all those women, for the one that you failed to protect (dismissing him) My conscience is clean, James. Yours, I think, is rather crowded.

Bond's fury is silent -- controlled -- but unmistakable -- 

BOND: Certainly there's room for one more --

TREVELYAN (ice): Please, James, no embarrassing bravado, no vows to kill me -- you had your opportunity some time ago. (starting a certainty) You won't get another.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the writers turned the Trevelyan character from a mere villain to one who has real personal issues with Bond. 

He was one of many (early draft) and became a stand out (later drafts).

Goldeneye (1995)(1st draft, 1/94)
by Michael France