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: 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

TODAY'S NUGGET: Goldfinger (1964) - Give the Bad Guy a Memorable Entrance

[Quick Summary: After Goldfinger kills a traitor who has helped Bond, Bond hunts him down and discovers his nefarious plans for Fort Knox's gold.]

With no DVDs or VHS tapes in the 1960s, there were no repeat viewings of films unless you bought another ticket or caught them on tv.

Films were meant to be consumed in (and remembered from) one sitting. 

How you make the bad guy memorable? A clever entrance generally does the trick.

In the first 10 pgs. of this script, this one stood out to me. It makes the audience pay attention to the visuals:

INT. BONITA'S DRESSING ROOM - NIGHT

...He walks to a hook on the wall removing his holster.

BONITA: Why do you always wear that thing?

BOND (hanging his holster on the hook): I have a slight inferiority complex. (he turns to her) Where was I? --Oh, yes.

TRACK IN SLIGHTLY as he embraces her.

ANGLE OVER THEM

As Bond kisses her, an assailant -- CAPUNGO -- approaches from behind a wardrobe in b.g., brandishing a cosh.

FAVORING BONITA

She opens her eyes and looks at him over Bond's shoulder.

CAPUNGO 

approaches raising a cosh.

FAVORING BOND

He leans back from Bonita looking into her eyes.

BOND'S POV - BONITA'S LEFT EYE

The pupil reflects Capungo approaching with the raised cosh.

MEDIUM SHOT

Bond suddenly swings Bonita around. Capungo smashes her on the head.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I did not remember this bad guy's name...but I did remember his entrance via pupil reflection.

Goldfinger (1964)(undated)
by Richard Maibaum & Paul Dehn
Based on the novel by Ian Fleming

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Lookout (2007) - How to Show Man at War with Himself

[Quick Summary: Now hampered by a head injury, Chris is a frustrated bank janitor who impulsively decides to assist thugs with a bank heist, then regrets it.]

Chris is angry because he is hampered by a head injury:

- He must write everything down because of his frequent memory lapses.. 
- He has difficulty in social situations because of frontal lobe problems. 

What does Chris want? His old life back.

What is the obstacle?  His trauma. This protagonist is his own greatest antagonist.*

So how do you externalize that a man at war with himself?

I saw one method in this script:
- First, present the protagonist with a routine situation.
- Have the protagonist react in an odd way so we see his internal problem.
- Have other characters react and/or say what the protagonist is probably thinking.

The scene below shows how Chris' trauma gets in the way of what Chris wants most (externalizing the antagonist).

ex. "INT. BAR - NIGHT

...Chris then turns away, sees the BARTENDER watching him. [Normal situation: Chris needs to pay the bar tab.]

BARTENDER (loud, slow): Two-fifty. For. The. Beer.  [This is an insult, disrespectful to Chris.]

"Gary" turns back now and watches as Chris fumbles about for the right amount of cash, pays his tab.

BARTENDER (cont'd): Thank. You. Very. Much.

Gary keeps looking at Chris now. Finally: [Chris's reaction is not to speak up when others would. We see he is used to this treatment and shame.]

GARY: You hard of hearing or something?

CHRIS: No.

Gary nods, turns as the bartender sets Gary's change on the bar, starts to move away when Gary grabs his arm.

GARY: Excuse me...(reads his name tag)...T.J.

The bartender looks down at Gary's hand on his arm.

GARY (cont'd): He's not deaf.

BARTENDER: What?

GARY: He just told me, he's not deaf. [Gary is saying what Chris is embarrassed to say.]

The bartender glances at Chris, pulls his arm free.

BARTENDER: I know he's not.

GARY: There some reason, then, why you keep raising your voice every time you talk to him?

The bartender glances at Chris, then...

BARTENDER: So he can understand.

GARY: Why wouldn't he? [Again, he speaks what Chris thinks.]

The bartender is uncomfortable. Gary looks at Chris.

GARY (cont'd): Can you understand him?

CHRIS: It's no problem...

GARY: Can you understand him?

CHRIS: Yes.

Gary looks at the bartender, and smiles, but it isn't mirth or good cheer that the bartender reads on Gary's face.

GARY: So now you know.

BARTENDER: Now I know.

The guy can't get out of there fast enough. Gary shakes his head."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I'm glad to have found this example, as they do not show up much.

The Lookout (2007)(3/26/04 draft w/revisions)
by Scott Frank

*This takes up the first 2/3 of the script. The last 1/3 is the heist and the usual bad guys take over as antagonists.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Flightplan (2005) - When the Antagonist's Identity is Delayed

[Quick Summary: When a widow flies back to the U.S. with her husband's casket, her fragile mind is strained when her 4 y.o. daughter goes missing on the plane.]

What I liked about this script:
- Strong female lead
- It's a real page turner
- Interesting mystery: Is the mother delusional with grief or not?
- Several nice twists & turns, red herrings

What I didn't like about this script: The antagonist takes too long to show up.

I do understand why structurally there is a delay in the reveal.

First, there is plenty of pipe to lay down (ex. the search of the plane; why the female protagonist, Kyle, is distraught; etc.)

Second, the antagonist is continually manipulating Kyle's situation from off screen.  So he is "there," although we do not see him.

Third, part of the mystery is who the antagonist could be.

Fourth, it's a matter of taste and preference how to tell this story.

But for my two cents, the script didn't zip as much until the antagonist shows up (well into Act 2), as in the scene below (SPOILERS AHEAD):

ex.  "INT. AIRJEST - UPPER DECK - ROW 35 -WINDOW - CONTINUING

She rushes toward the window. Through it she sees the apron of the tarmac:

A Plain FBI SEDAN approaches. CARGO-GUYS off-load suitcases and golf-clubs. There's that pallet bearing the Mercedes and its smashing window

...And David's casket, rolling off a conveyor belt.

But now Kyle has to picture Julia inside it. God no... 

Her legs fail her; she literally folds toward the floor. Breathing feels impossible. We stay on her, tight on her face, as:

CARSON (cont'd): She'll wake up in about an hour, give or take, and find herself face to face with your husband. You fuck with me, even a little, and she'll die in there - there's about five hours worth of oxygen inside.

A four year-old girl, in a coffin with a corpse. It's unimaginable, enough to drive a mother mad.

And that's just what it's doing - we can see it Kyle's eyes.

She backs away from the window, into the aisle. Carson takes out his phone, casually.

CARSON (cont'd): Now. Let's talk about your exit strategy.

She's about to explode. It's coming...

CARSON (cont'd): After the money is wired  you're going to --

Bang. She goes off.

In a blur, she has bolted down the aisle, catching Carson completely off-guard.

CARSON: Goddamit...

He takes off after her."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even when it doesn't work for me, I admire when writers attempt a bold structure (here, concealing the antagonist's identity as late as possible).

Flightplan (2005)(current revisions by Billy Ray, dated 6/8/04)
by Peter Dowling, rev. by Larry Cohen, Terry Hayes, and Billy Ray

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Juror (1996) - An Emotionally Compromised Villain

[Quick Summary: "The Teacher" threatens a female juror in order to manipulate her, then becomes enamored with controlling her.]

Each film is only as good as its villain. Since the heroes and the gimmicks tend to repeat from film to film, only a great villain can transform a good try into a triumph. - Roger Ebert

To me, this script stands out because of The Teacher, a cold and calculating villain.

1) The Teacher is a typical bad guy who enjoys the power play...

The Teacher keeps Annie (protagonist) in line by threatening her son Oliver. 

This is a fairly typical setup, but his added pleasure in his work increases my disdain.

ex. "INT. RODNEY'S CAR - DRIVING - DAY

The Teacher stares at Annie's hand, till she forces herself to release his sleeve. He smiles.

THE TEACHER: Don't you trust the Teacher, Annie?

ANNIE: Yes. I trust you! Yes.

THE TEACHER: But it's like trusting in the whim of God, isn't it? This random Rodney, he does whatever he pleases. He just drifts...

He lets the car slide out into the left lane. The pastures are just a green smear, whipping by. Annie puts her wrist to her mouth, bites at it, staring through the windshield.

THE TEACHER: The least error, and you're plunged into hell...Annie, what if he should suddenly wake up and see he's in the wrong lane? He overcompensates -

He turns the wheel sharply and floors the accelerator, and suddenly, they're aiming straight at Oliver. Six hundred yards away...five hundred...

EXT. THE ROAD AHEAD - DAY

Oliver is on the right-hand shoulder, the same side as the car. As it roars down behind him, on a killing path, he is still unaware of it. Four hundred...Three hundred...

INT. RODNEY'S CAR - DRIVING - DAY

Annie is curled into a terrified ball, her feet almost on the dash. she claws at her own face, screaming.

ANNIE: OH GOD! OH GOD! PLEASE!

THE TEACHER: Who will protect you?

ANNIE: THE TEACHER!

THE TEACHER: Who will shield you?

ANNIE: THE TEACHER!

THE TEACHER: Did you say the judge?

ANNIE: NO! JUST YOU! JUST YOU! MY GOD! GOD! PLEEEEEAAASSSE!

She slams her hands against her door, the seat, her feet are kicking the dash, she is screaming, screaming, her eyes locked on that purple shirt dead ahead of them...."

2) ...But he's also emotionally involved (though may not recognize it).

This is what ups the ante. He seems rational. He think this is just business.

But the truth is that he's irrational, and it's very PERSONAL.

He cannot see himself objectively and deludes himself, which makes me curious to see what happens next.

ex. "INT. THE TEACHER'S COTTAGE - DAY

The Teacher stops the tape, rewinds, punches up the volume. When he plays this segment again, we can hear the SOUND very distinctly. It's Annie shushing her son.

ANNIE (on tape): Shh. (beat) Juliet? No. Do your homework.

The Teacher turns...

On ONE wall of the attic, across from his electronic racks, we see a visual catalogue of Annie's life. Photos of her house, grocery store, laundromat. Maps of her movements. Copies of photos we've seen in Annie's own house - friends relatives, Mickey. These artifacts are labelled, dated, cross-referenced, minutely annotated. The display is frightening, almost unhinged in its obsessive detail: the Annie Museum. Centered, almost like an altar, is a large facial closeup of Annie, and beside this, a grainy enlargement of her santos figure."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I like the irony that this villain thinks he is in control of everything, but cannot control himself.

The Juror (1996)(2nd draft dated 3/18/95)
by Ted Tally
Based on the novel by George Dawes Green

*Ebert also stated that this general principal applied to all epic serials, especially the "James Bond" movies.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Marnie (1964) - Conned by a Pretty Girl

[Quick Summary: Thief, liar, and embezzler Marnie is caught in a criminal act by wealthy Mark, who falls for her and tries to unravel her frozen emotional past.]

Two Thoughts:

1) PROTAGONIST-ANTAGONIST SWITCHEROO

I want to complain today.* I am irritated.

This is Marnie's story. It is about HER fear of men, desire, and intimacy.

So why does it feel like the protagonist (Marnie) switch to the antagonist in the second half? And antagonist (Mark) becomes the protagonist?

After a little cooling off, I did see that this is a tough adaption.

It is not easy making this character's internal life apparent in the external world.

Marnie is so self-protective, so self-absorbed in her own pain that she doesn't pay much attention to anyone, much less men.   

She has no real motivation to break out of that cocoon...so Mark has to do it.

Though I don't like it, I can see why the writer did it this way.

2) CONNED BY A PRETTY GIRL: Establishing her M.O.

Marnie is pretty, which is why she gets jobs that she is not qualified to have.

In the amusing scene below, we see how she used her looks to con one male owner:

ex. "MED. SHOT - STRUTT AND DETECTIVES

STRUTT (fairly screaming): No damn it! That's Miss Croft! I told you people over the phone! Marion Holland! She's the one! Marion Holland!

One DETECTIVE takes a notebook out as his partner crosses the foreground toward the safe.

DETECTIVE: Can you describe her, Mr. Strutt?

STRUTT: Certainly I can describe her! (his little eyes narrow in bittersweet memory) Five foot five. One hundred and ten pounds. Size eight dress. Blue eyes. Black hair...wavy. Even features. Good teeth...

As he writes the DETECTIVE begins to grin.

STRUTT: What's so damn funny? There's been a grand larceny committed on these premises!

DETECTIVE (straightens his face): Yes sir. You were saying... (reads from notes) 'Black hair, wavy...even features, good teeth...' She was in your employ four months? .... What were her references, Sir?

There is a pause during which the CAMERA MOVES gently forward to include a

CLOSE-UP OF STRUTT ONLY

STRUTT (this one really hurts): Well...as a matter of fact...her...uh...yes, I believe...(lamely)...she had references, I'm sure.

CLOSE-UP - MISS CROFT

MISS CROFT (blandly): Oh, Mr. Strutt, don't you remember? She didn't have any references at all!

CLOSE SHOT - STRUTT AND THE DETECTIVES

STRUTT stiffens with indignation at this betrayal. The DETECTIVES remain tactfully deadpan.

STRUTT (clears his throat): Well...uh...she worked the copying and adding machines...no confidential duties, you know.

He looks off suddenly."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes solutions are downright inelegant and clunky.

On the other hand, it was elegant to expose Strutt's embarrassing mishaps and showcase Marnie's clever con....

Marnie (1964)(shooting draft, 10/29/63)by Jay Presson Allen
From the novel by Winston Graham

*My first complaint: This script is LONG (201 pgs.)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Escape from New York (1981) - Antagonists + 1 Goal = Unity & Clarity

[Quick Summary: Convict Snake Plissken has 24 hrs. to find and rescue the U.S. President in NYC, which now is essentially a prison island ruled by the Duke.]

What I like about John Carpenter scripts: They are very clear.

For example, Escape is about a man vs. his environment.

It could've been confusing because there are multiple antagonists:

First, Plissken commits a crime, then
--> He is jailed
--> He's offered his freedom if he rescues the President from NYC, a place so treacherous that the police avoid it.
--> He arrives in NYC (p. 41) and ducks and dodges criminals to locate the President*
--> He finally meets the biggest antagonist, the Duke (p. 84)*

I think the script was so clear because it has the unity of a single goal, i.e., no matter how many obstacles, Plissken focuses on finding the President and getting him out.

ex. "PLISSKEN: Mister President...

The man turns around. He is DRUNK. He holds a bottle of awful-looking yellow liquid. He wears the President's coat and the vital signs bracelet. He grins drunkenly.

DRUNK: I'm the President. Sure, I'm the President. I knew when I got this thing I'd be President!

Plissken grabs him.

PLISSKEN: Where'd you get it?

DRUNK: Woke up. There it was. Like a miracle!

Holding his arm, Plissken WHACKS the vital signs bracelet against the wall!"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Go ahead and create multiple antagonists!

(As long as you have a unity of goal to keep the story focused, that is.)

Escape from New York (1981)(shooting script, dated 6/10/80)
by John Carpenter and Nick Castle

**I was surprised that Plissken gets to NYC so late, and meets the big Duke even later, but it works here!

TODAY'S NUGGET: Suspicion (1941) - Great Villain + Wrong Casting + Studio Interference = Wrong Ending

[Quick Summary: A young woman is entranced, wooed, and married to a wastrel , and soon finds that her new husband may be trying to kill her.]

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

Johnnie Aysgarth is an excellent villain in this story.

I believe he's shady, devious, underhanded, and unreliable.

I believe he's also in love with his new wife, Lina McLaidlaw. 

I believe he would indeed lie, mislead, and cheat for the funds to keep her.

However, I do not believe the ending in the script, i.e., that he is redeemed.  It is not consistent with Johnnie's character or his choices.

I think Hitchcock thought the same because he wanted a darker ending.

Unfortunately, he had wrongly cast Cary Grant as Johnnie.  The studio didn't think audiences would buy him as a killer, and thus insisted on the current, happier ending.

I would've believed Hitchcock's darker version over the present one.

I think it's because Johnnie has the charisma to sell it:

ex. "ALICE: And Johnnie insisted on meeting you.

LINA (looking at Johnnie): Why?

The girls giggle but before they have time to reply Johnnie says very simply:

JOHNNIE: Well, I understand from these charming ladies that a really bang-up, eligible young man is an unusual sight in this part of the country. My heard was touched.

SEMI-CLOSEUP - Lina and Johnnie. Johnnie remains calm and smiling and Lina is flushed and embarrassed. Behind this we hear others chattering simultaneously."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm comforted that even Hitchcock had to compromise, and sometimes it wasn't always for the best.

Suspicion (1941)
by Samson Raphaelson, Alma Reville, and Joan Harrison
Based on the novel,, "Before the Fact," by Francis Iles (pseudonym for A. B. Cox)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Primary Colors (1998) - Showing Motive (By Absenting the Antagonist)

[Quick Summary: A young campaign worker helps a charismatic Southern governor run during the Presidential primary.]

In 1998, I didn't see this film in the theater.

Bill Clinton had just begun a second term, and who needed a story with a parallel "Clinton-like" character?

I wish I would've known then that this story is really about MOTIVES.

The writer, Elaine May, did two smart things in this script:

1) She created an ensemble to show the range of motives.

2) She does not put the candidate, Gov. Stanton, in every scene (as Roger Ebert points out here).

Because of #2, the ensemble must talk about their views on Stanton ---> We see what really drives them.
 
ex. Skeptical Henry is now working on Stanton's campaign.
March is a reporter and his ex-girlfriend.

"MARCH: And that's the kind of man you want to work for? A man who just wants to get elected?

HENRY: No. I want to work for a man who fights the good fight and then watch a Republican get elected. [Sarcasm reveals a new position.]

MARCH: What's the difference? Can you tell?

HENRY: Yes. I can tell the difference between a man who believes what I believe and lies about it to get elected, and a man who just doesn't give a fuck. And I'll take the liar. [He's gone 180.]

MARCH (staring at him): How did he do this to you?

HENRY: Do what? What are you talking about? Why are you making this guy into the devil? Why don't you, at least, get to know him. Take some time, maybe spend a few days with us here. I miss you, honey, and we could be together...

MARCH: God, I think you'd fuck me to get some good press for Stanton.  [She tells him the truth.]

He stares at her for a moment...then turns and walks away."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Deliberately remove the antagonist from time to time.

It will make the other characters talk and reveal themselves.

Primary Colors (1998)
by Elaine May
Based on the novel by Joe Klein

TODAY'S NUGGET: Dead Poets' Society (1989) - Why Keating is A Great Antagonist

[Quick Summary: A boarding school English teacher inspires a group of students to take charge of their lives.]

Oh, Mr. Keating is such a great antagonist!

Can you see how he gets the wheels turning in the boys' heads?

ex.  "INT. KEATING'S CLASSROOM - DAY

Keating paces around the class, teaching.

KEATING: A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don't use very sad, use --

Keating snaps his fingers and points to Knox.

KEATING: Come on Overstreet, you twirp.

KNOX: ...Morose?

KEATING: Good! Language was invented for one reason, boys --

He snaps his fingers again and points to Neil.

NEIL: To communicate?

KEATING: No. To woo women. And, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won't do in your essays.

Keating paces then suddenly leaps onto his desk."

He is a passionate teacher who makes learning fun.
---> Which gets the boys to think differently.
---> Which stirs up their desire for "carpe diem" adventures.
---> Which provokes change in the boys...even when Keating is not on screen.

Could any antagonist ask for more?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: An antagonist's job is to change the protagonist. 

I believe bonus points are in order if the antagonist is long gone from the screen, and he's STILL changing the protagonist.

Dead Poets' Society (1989)(undated)
by Tom Schulman

TODAY'S NUGGET: Wild Bill (1995) - What is a Good Motive?

[Quick Summary: The rough and tumble life of Wild Bill Hickok, from Nebraska to Deadwood.]

Wild Bill is pretty memorable, but I kept thinking about the antagonist, Jack McCall.

McCall is a cowardly gunman with a grudge, who follows Wild Bill.

I thought he had a "good" grudge, since his motive convinced me.

What makes a motive convincing anyway?

I remembered author Patricia Highsmith who wrote:

"It's much easier to create from positive, affection emotions than from negative and hateful ones. Jealousy, while powerful, I find of no use at all, and it most resembles the disease cancer, eating away and giving nothing."*

Here, McCall's mother and Wild Bill had a relationship long ago.

The mother languished and died, and McCall always blamed Wild Bill.

Out of love for his mother (positive emotion), McCall swore he'd kill Wild Bill (grudge).
 
Love would easily energize McCall through the whole story.

But vengeance or jealousy (negative emotions)? Perhaps a few scenes, but they don't have nearly the same kind of sustaining energy.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For motives, think in terms of positive emotions.

Wild Bill (1995)
Written & directed by Walter Hill

* Plotting& Writing Suspense Fiction, by Patricia Highsmith, (1983, p. 24).