2013 OSCARS: Zero Dark Thirty (2012) - Three Layered Dialogue

[Quick Summary: Maya, a CIA targeter, hunts and finds Osama bin Laden.]

I was fully to prepared to skip this script.

The controversial topic and hype just became too much.

After I read it to complete the list of Oscar scripts, I was glad I did because it is exceptionally well-crafted.

Yes, it's a heavy topic (and I'm not sure I'd want to get in that head space again.)

But I'd recommend this script, if only for the dialogue.

On a first glance, it may seem to be all exposition.  But if you look closely, the dialogue almost always has three layers:  

- Layer 1:  Basic exposition
JESSICA: How's the needle in the haystack?
MAYA: Fine. [You know Maya is still looking for something.]

- Layer 2: Subtext
JESSICA: Facilitators come and go, but one thing you can count on in life is that everyone wants money.
MAYA (smiling): You're assuming that Al Qaeda members are motivated by financial rewards. They're radicals.  [Subtext is that these are competitors.]

- Layer 3: Moves the script forward
JESSICA (bigger smile): Correct. You're assuming that greed won't override ideology in some of the weaker members.
MAYA: Money for walk-ins worked great in the cold war, I'll give you that. [Twist; has Maya made a concession?]
JESSICA: Thank you.
MAYA: Just not sure those tactics are applicable to the Middle East. [Pushes us forward to the next scene where Maya tries harder.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  It wasn't obvious to me at first, but Maya uses dialogue as a weapon.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
by Mark Boal

2013 OSCARS: Moonrise Kingdom (2012) - My Two Rules About Ensembles

[Quick Summary: A 12 yr. old Kahki Scout and his girlfriend run away together, in hot pursuit by parents, and a scout troop.]
 
I'm not a big fan of Wes Anderson films, but I do like this script.

It abides by (then stretches) my two rules of ensembles:

1)  Even in an ensemble, there are 1-2 lead characters. *

Here, Sam and Suzy Bishop (the kids) are clearly the leads.

They easily could have been overshadowed by four very active adult characters, but the script is careful to keep the focus on the children.
 
2) Multiple subplots are fine, but they must SUPPORT the main character's story. 

Scout Master Ward, Captain Sharp, Mr. and Mrs. Bishop each have their subplots.  That's right - there are FOUR additional arcs.

However, the reader never forgets about Sam and Suzy.

How did the writers do it?

The supporting characters have separate subplot arcs, but each one supports the main plot.

ex. Scout Master Ward loses his status --> rescuing the kids restores his honor.

ex. Captain Sharp loses the woman he loves --> rescuing the kids gives his life new meaning.

ex. Mr. and Mrs. Bishop have a troubled marriage --> rescuing the kids brings them together.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Strong ensembles have strong (but not overpowering) subplots.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
(The above link has an interactive script, plus a separate PDF.)
by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola

*If you insist on multiple main characters, please read my post on The Best Years of Our Lives (three main characters face the same problem).

Those types of stories need much more structure to keep the story clear and unified. 

2013 OSCARS: Flight (2012) - No Easy Way Out

[Quick Summary: After an intoxicated pilot lands a billion-to-one flight, he boils over as questions abound.]

I can see why Denzel wanted to play the pilot, Whip.

Whip doesn't take responsibility.

He doesn't have tough conversations or relationships.  He either walks away, or reaches for the bottle.

But after he saves a flight while high, he cannot hide.  His coping mechanisms no longer work.

I liked that the script is really hard on Whip.

It was so satisfying to see him face everything he's avoided.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I respect characters who earn their victories.

Flight (2012)
by John Gatins

2013 OSCARS: Django Unchained (2012) - I'll Admire From Afar

[Quick Summary: A black ex-slave turned bounty hunter rescues his wife from her plantation slave owner.]

Here's my two cents on this Oscar nominated winning script:

#1 - There are several tortures, rapes, and senseless killings.

They are not gratuitous.  Each one has a purpose.

However, I have a nasty suspicion that the cruelty depicted could easily have happened...and it made the ugliness ten times worse to stomach.

#2 -  The script shows Tarantino knows story and how to tell it.

His skill is the only thing that makes this terrible topic bearable.

Is the script worth reading? Yes.  It is daring, provocative, and unafraid.

Would I read it again? No.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I admire this script for its audacity.

However, I did not enjoy the read, particularly the inhumane violence against Broomhilda.

Django Unchained (2012)
Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino

2013 OSCARS: Amour (2012) - Anatomy of Loss

[Quick Summary: After a wife suffers two strokes, her loving husband struggle to cope.]

I admit I was not looking forward to reading this Oscar nominated script.

Would a husband caring for his dying wife keep my interest?

The answer is YES.

Anna's husband Georges is losing his vibrant wife in increments.

The script shines as each scene shows the loss, and then how Georges overcomes it.

The losses begin small.

ex. Anna goes mute for a few seconds. Georges panics.

Then they become larger.

ex. Anna becomes incontinent. Georges cleans up.

Then a great big avalanche.

ex. He covers up Anne's spiraling decline from their daughter.

I felt this escalating structure rather than saw it.  I was too worried how upbeat Georges would face the next decision.

Now that's good writing!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I became more invested as the losses grew.

The increase in tension and suspense were a nice side benefit.

Amour (2012)
by Michael Haneke