2016 OSCARS: Straight Outta Compton (2015) - A Romantic Scene? Turning Point? Both?

[Quick Summary: The formation, demise, and aftermath of the 1980s rap group N.W.A. through the eyes of three members, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, and Eazy-E.]

I liked, but did not love, this script.

However, I did like how three intertwining journeys were melded into one story.

And I did like this touching scene below.

Don't be fooled by its simplicity. 

It may only look like the moment Cube falls in love (personal), but it represents a bigger turning point in the overall story.

It's the moment that:
- Cube has just left N.W.A. (professional) and lost his friends (personal).
- He is at his lowest point (personal and professional).
- He meets his wife for the first time (personal).
- He begins a new phase of his career as a solo artist and as a writer (professional).

ex. "INT./EXT. T-BONES CAR - MOMENTS LATER

Cube rides in the passenger seat, pretty low at this point.  No money, no group. JINX MOUTH IS RUNNING, but Cube's in a daze --doesn't hear a word he's saying.

JINX: Can't believer you left the group, man. What you gonna do now? Guess we gotta start working on some solo stuff, huh? Cube? Cube?!

As the car pulls up to a stop light, Cube looks over, spots a beautiful YOUNG LADY in a nice jeep on rims. She's [sic] looks back over at him, their eyes locked. Is this love at first sight? After a few magical moments. Cube finally speaks.

CUBE: How you doing? My name O'Shea. What's yours?

KIM: Kim.

CUBE: Hey Kim -- You the best thing I've seen all day.

She smiles.

CUBE (cont'd): You believe in love at first sight?

KIM: What you think?

She is the only one that can get Cube to smile at this point."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Once in awhile, a romantic scene can represent more than just a romance, i.e., a significant personal and professional change/turning point.

Straight Outta Compton (2015)
by Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff
Story by S. Leigh Savidge & Alan Wenkus and Andrea Berloff

2016 OSCARS: Spotlight (2015) - Unexpected Theme; Subtext

[Quick Summary: Boston Globe's Spotlight team tracks down secret settlements and lawsuits that proved the Archdiocese had knowledge its priests were molesting children.]

Before you:
- Avoid reading this script because of the subject matter...
- Skip it because "you know what happens"...
- Get too stagnant and only read stuff that's comfortable...

This script is for you (and me).

You see:
- I didn't want to read this if it was graphic or salacious.
- I thought I knew what the theme was (abuse of power).
- I run out of ideas if I'm in my comfort zone too long.

I discovered:
- The script is very respectful, and not graphic or salacious.
- At the end, the theme was better, more thought provoking than I could see coming.
- I learn more when pushed outside my comfort zone.

I also have renewed appreciation for the effectiveness of subtext. Here, Barbara subtly pressures her husband Robby to conform.

ex. "INT. BARBARA'S CAR, WOLLASTON PARKING LOT - LATER

Robby gets in. She pulls off.

BARBARA: How'd you play?

ROBBY: Not too bad. Shoulda left my putter at home.

BARBARA: How's Jimmy?

ROBBY: Good. He brought up the suit.

BARBARA: Really? What'd he say?

ROBBY: He was thrilled about it.

BARBARA: It's not a surprise, Robby. The Church does a lot a good in this town.

Robby nods, but something about that doesn't sit right."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The theme (sort of) announced at the end truly surprised me. It was there all along, but I wasn't looking for it.

Spotlight (2015)
by Josh Singer & Tom McCarthy

2016 OSCARS: Inside Out (2015) - How to Make the Reader Feel

[Quick Summary: Five Emotions try to steer their human, Riley, from birth to 11 years old.]

I read this in a screenwriter interview recently:

There is something [in my script] that they connect to emotionally. I think that’s what we’re in the business of doing... Some write really smart scripts, but if I’m left doing more thinking than feeling, then it has failed to do its job....[One Oscar nominated film this year is] a really well-made film but it leaves me somewhat empty. I’m not walking away asking questions about the human condition. (emphasis mine)

That's the holy grail for me. How do you make the reader feel?

In this Pixar script, the writers seemed to rely on small, very primal, visual cues.

The scene below focuses on the unfamiliar, and a baby's automatic reaction to it.

On the surface, it is just about an unfamiliar food (taste), an unfamiliar scent (smell),

But emotionally, we recognize --> connect --> experience that universal unease.

ex."Dad lifts a spoonful of food to Riley's mouth.

INT. HEADQUARTERS

JOY: Hmmm. This looks new.

FEAR/SADNESS: Do you think it's safe?/ What is it?

ON THE SCREEN: a spoonful of broccoli.

DISGUST enters.

DISGUST: Okay, caution! There is a dangerous smell, people. Hold on, what is what?

JOY (V.O.): This is Disgust. She basically keeps Riley from being poisoned, physically and socially.

DISGUST: That is not brightly colored or shaped like a dinosaur...Hold on guys...It's broccoli!

Disgust GAGS and pulls a lever.

INT. KITCHEN

YOUNG RILEY: Yucky!

Riley swats the broccoli. It flies into Dad's face."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I found that small, primal, visual actions on the page seem to tap more easily into my feelings (right brain) vs. thinking (left brain).

Inside Out (2015)
by Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, and Josh Cooley
Story by Pete Docter and Ronnie Del Carmen

2016 OSCARS: Ex Machina (2015) - Freeing Yourself from Too Much Back Story

[Quick Summary: A computer programmer goes encounters new artificial intelligence on a remote island.]

I like that this script is quite light on its feet, even though it's a four-hander.*

I suspect one reason might be something writer/director Alex Garland mentioned in passing (here).

In this interview, he talks about his how his first idea for Caleb (protagonist) was that he was a university professor specializing in consciousness, and married.

However, Garland found that explaining Caleb's back story took time away from what interested him, i.e., the relationships between the four main characters.

He changed Caleb to a computer programmer, single, no family.

This seemed have to freed him up to focus more on the present than the past. 

ex. "CALEB: Some believe language exists in the brain from birth, and what is learned is the ability to attach words and structure to the latent ability.

Beat.

CALEB (cont'd): Would you agree?

AVA: ...I don't know. I have no opinion on that.

Beat.

AVA (cont'd): I like to draw.

CALEB says nothing.

Just watches AVA. Again, lets the non-sequitur sit.

AVA (cont'd): I don't have any of my pictures with me now, but I can show you them tomorrow.

CALEB: That sounds good. I'd like to see them.

AVA: Yes.

Beat.

AVA (cont'd): Will you come back tomorrow, Caleb?

CALEB smiles slightly.

CALEB: Yeah. Definitely.

AVA also smiles.

And suddenly -

- there is a strong sense of something very human there. In the way the smile lights up her face.

AVA: Good."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometime heavy back story is necessary. Sometimes it's not (here). Use the right tool for the right situation.

Ex Machina (2015)
by Alex Garland

*Four (main/important) characters

2016 OSCARS: Bridge of Spies (2015) - Theme; Pushing Characters into Tight Corners

[Quick Summary: In 1957, a U.S. insurance lawyer is asked to defend an alleged Russian spy in court, then negotiate for a mutual spy exchange.]

Once again, we've entered Oscar season.

Once again, I have no idea what makes a script "Oscar worthy."

I do agree, though, that this script deserved a nomination.

- It's a smooth, smooth read.
- There is no fat, i.e., extraneous scenes.
- Each scene is crystal clear about intent, yet still very interesting.

However, I was most impressed how every scene showcased the theme, i.e., having the courage to make unpopular decisions.

The protagonist, Jim Donovan, is all alone in defending a Russian spy in court, and then negotiating an unprecedented prisoner exchange. He only has his conscience.

How do you show courage?  Here, the writers pushed Donovan into tight corners to:

1) Isolate him (requiring courage), and
2) Force him into making decisions, even if unpopular.

ex. "LOBBY OF COURTHOUSE

Tom Watters, Donovan in the middle, Mary on the other side.

WATTERS: Jim, you did a great job. You fulfilled your mandate, and then some. But the man is a spy, and the verdict is correct, and there's no reason to appeal it.

DONOVAN: There's ample procedural reason. We know the search is tainted, and the Fourth Amendment issues are always going to weigh more heavily in an appellate forum -- we've got a good shot.

WATTERS: What the goddamn hell are you talking about -- We were supposed to show that he had a capable defense which we did, why are you citing the goddamn Constitution at me?

DONOVAN: Tom, if you look me in the eye and tell me we don't have grounds for an appeal. I'll drop it right now.

WATTERS: I'm not saying that. You know what I'm saying.

MARY: Tom is saying there's a cost to these things, Jim.

WATTERS: That's right!

MARY: A cost to both your family and your firm.

Donovan gives a helpless look at her."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the scene above ends.  It's very clear Donovan must decide, but even he doesn't know what to do. This keeps me turning the pages.

Bridge of Spies (2015)
by Matt Charman, and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen