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

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

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

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

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

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

 INT. KITCHEN. DAY

...Don is unsure if he should reply.

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

They eat silently again. Michelle sees some BEEKEEPER GEAR.

MICHELLE: I see you're an apiarist.

TEDDY: Of sorts.

MICHELLE: I've taken an interest as well.

TEDDY: Mm. So I've heard.

MICHELLE: Magnificent creatures. Honeybees.

TEDDY: Yes, indeed. Very much so.

MICHELLE: Earth's most admirable creation.

Teddy looks up. A brief moment of unexpected connection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

She extends her hands to Smoke to stop him.

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

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

CORNBREAD: What ya'll doing?

The three continue to stare without budging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY'S NUGGET: Fat City (1972) - Strong Introduction to a Character

[Quick Summary: At the same gym, life is repeating itself in the lives of two boxers (one older, one younger).]

THREE THOUGHTS: 

1) HUSTON ON EXPRESSING IDEAS. I agree with what John Huston wrote in his autobiography about the difficulty of expressing the writer's ideas:

The most important element to me is always the idea that I'm trying to express, and everything technical is only a method to make the idea into clear form. I'm always working on the idea: whether I am writing, directing, choosing music or cutting. Everything must revert back to the idea; when it gets away from the idea it becomes a labyrinth of rococo.  

2) FILM VS. SCRIPT. I watched this film first and thought, "What's the point?" I couldn't figure out what Huston's central idea was. 

When I read the script, it also meandered and seemed pointless...until the last 2 pages coaleses into a full circle moment that explains the pointlessness.  

3)  STRONG INTRODUCTION. I did like the strong introduction to the protagonist, Billy Tully (below) because it sets the tone and our expectations.

In this scene:
-  Tully was a good boxer, but has gone to seed.  
- His wife left him, which was a turning point for when things went sour, and from which he hasn't recovered.
- Here, we see that he's the kind of guy always trying to escape responsibility.  
- I also liked that it didn't try to do overload the audience with too much information. This sets the mood of a guy who's sloppy with his work.

INT. STOCKTON BOX FACTORY - TULLY, SAW OPERATOR, FOREMAN, OTHER WORKERS - NIGHT

Tully goes to a saw that is not in use. The SAW OPERATOR, an aging, discouraged-looking man, rises as Tully approaches.

SAW OPERATOR (carefully extinguishing cigarette; yelling over noise of saws): Foreman's been by.

TULLY (voice raised): What he say?

SAW OPERATOR (same pitch): Wanted to know if you were here yet. Said I thought you were in the can.

Tully takes up his position on opposite side of table from the Saw Operator, who now switches on saw and begins feeding small boards into it. Tully stacks the sawed pieces according to size.

THE FOREMAN, a large, muscular, fairly young man, comes up to Tully.

FOREMAN (loud): Well, Tully, I see you finally made it.

TULLY: I got here on time. I been in the lavatory.

FOREMAN: I was just in there. I didn't see you. 

TULLY: When you came in I went out. You walked right by without seeing me.

FOREMAN: I don't have to see you, Tully. If you'd walked past me I'd of smelled you. I 'd know that wine breath anywhere. I could close my eyes and walk right to you. (reaches out, takes an incorrectly sorted piece of wood from Tully's stack, moves it to proper place) Look what you're doing here! Are you drunk? Lucky for you you're not running a saw.

TULLY: Now you got a lot of nerve. In the first place I'm not drunk and, in the second place, I wouldn't have one of your damn saws. I'm not leaving any of my fingers behind for these wages.

FOREMAN (turning away; disgustedly): I never seen such a bunch of deadbeats as on this night crew!

As he walks away, Tully begins to sweat and swallow. He grimaces, closes his eyes. Nausea overcomes him. He gestures to the Saw Operator to stop the saw, hurries away. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked this introduction because it leaves us with more questions than answers. What will he do next?

Fat City (1972)(11/4/70 draft)
by Leonard Gardner and John Huston
Adapted from the novel by Leonard Gardner

TODAY'S NUGGET: Empire of the Sun (1987) - The Art of Planting Symbols with Misdirection (Setup)

[Quick Summary: A 11 y.o. English school boy struggles to survive in China during the Japanese occupation of WWII.]

I didn't read this because it was directed by Steven Spielberg, starred Christian Bale, or that it was based on author J.G. Ballard's life.

I was interested because it was written by playwright Tom Stoppard, who knows how to structure for the most dramatic effect.*

For example, the scene below does not seem to be hiding anything:
- Jim's parents are taking him to a party in nearby Chinese countryside.
- There are several English speaking Brits and Americans in the community.
- Mr. Maxted is a fellow party attendee.
- After Jim wanders off after his toy plane, the audience thinks it knows what this scene is about: a fearful encounter with a Japanese sergeant. 
- The audience doesn't really notice the toy plane, which will become an important symbol later for Jim.
- This scene a setup for a much deeper payoff near the end of the film. 
- The misdirection of the scene is that there is more than one meaning, but we'll only know it later, when we recall this scene.
- It's real artistry to know the dramatic effect this will have on the audience later, i.e., the recall to this scene is much more emotionally satisfying rather than spelling it out explicitly.

EXT. ABANDONED AIRFIELD - DAY

...JIM'S POV - THE MODEL PLANE 

sails quite a ways and lands on top of a ruined blockhouse. Jim runs after it and starts climbing up the slope. From his vantage point, Jim sees a FULLY-ARMED JAPANESES SOLDIER looking up at him from a trench only a few yards away. Then he sees that there are MORE SOLDIERS sitting along the whole length of the trench...and that there is a second trench also full of JAPANESE SOLDIERS, sitting and smoking and glancing up at Jim. He has come across a company of Japanese infantry concealed on the old battlefield. As Jim watches, a JAPANESE SERGEANT gets to his feet casually picking up his rifle and stamping out a cigarette. The sergeant climbs out of the trench and, ignoring Jim, moves to start cutting off Jim's retreat. Sighing quietly to himself, the sergeant starts to climb up the slop toward Jim. Jim is now frightened. Jim's father's voice is HEARD calling from the distance. 

JIM' FATHER (os): Jamie!

The sergeant stops climbing and looks thoughtful.

We SEE Jim's father, still dressed as a pirate, anxiously searching the field and calling Jim's name. From where he is, Jim's father can see the Japanese sergeant and more Japanese  infantry half-concealed in the grass. Then he sees Jim approach in the distance. Jim's father makes to start running. He is immediately stopped by Maxted's level voice.  

ANOTHER ANGLE

We see Maxted has also moved into the airfield.

MAXTED: Stand still, John.

Jim's father holds his breath while Jim approaches, skirting another trench, watched by Japanese soldiers.

JIM'S FATHER (frightened): Hello, Jamie. Don't run.

Jim reaches his father and they turn and walk back hand-in-hand toward the house, Maxted also waiting for them on their way. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Another way to conceal information from the audience is to put it in the scene, but add a more imminent threat as the misdirection.

Empire of the Sun (1987)(undated draft)
by Tom Stoppard
Based on the novel by J.G. Ballard

*As a side note, I felt less alone when I read this quote from Stoppard that he also lacked understanding of his own processes: 

“If there’s anything God-given about writing, with me it’s the gift of dialogue,” says Tom Stoppard. “Not to be falsely self-deprecating about this in a nice English way: I know I write nice dialogue. But I don’t know how I write nice dialogue.” 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Wait Until Dark (1967) - Four Excellent Elements of a Thriller + Good "NOTEs"

[Quick Summary: After her husband misplaces a drug-stuffed doll that he accepted from a fellow passenger, three cons attempt to get his blind wife to disclose where the doll is hidden.]

TWO THOUGHTS: 

1) FOUR EXCELLENT ELEMENTS OF THIS THRILLER ADAPTATION:

 - The TONE is fun. 
- The ATMOSPHERE is suspenseful, ex. we're worried about the 3 cons finding the neighbor kid who's helping the protagonist.
- The STRONG THROUGH LINE is easy to explain, i.e.,  a blind woman confronts three cons.
- The MOOD is uplifting, then turns dark, which is great for visual drama.

2) THE WRITERS INCLUDED HELPFUL "NOTEs".

A "NOTE:" to the reader is generally an aside or a helpful tip. They're generally frowned upon because they're distract from the narrative and/or are poorly written.

So when is a "NOTE" helpful? 

One good use is in the explanation of overall conventions in the script. This saves on the need to repeat explanations and avoid confusion. 

In this script, for example, the writers used "NOTEs" to explain: 

a) How phone conversations would be filmed. 

NOTE: The telephone convention used here is as follows: When someone is speaking on the phone in CLOSEUP, with the receiver big in SHOT, we can hear what he hears (i.e., the other voice ON FILTER); when anyone is speaking on the phone in the b.g. of a LONG SHOT, we can only hear what someone else as distant as the CAMERA could hear (i.e., a one-sided conversation). This convention is observed throughout the film. 

b) How the three cons would have multiple roles. They're pretending to be several people, in order to confuse the blind protagonist.

[NOTE: Mike and Carlino have played these parts, or parts very like them, before and they are superb at it. In fact, the one thing that holds all three men together - Rost, Carlino and Mike - is that all of them, to their own degree and in their own way, are most at their ease when playing  a part. In Rost's case, the characters he selects are much more dangerous, much harder to pull off. But Mike and Carlino (within the area they select) are perfect. And there is never one moment when any of the three fall out of character. All three derive some personal pleasure from their performances.)

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: My favorite element was the clarity of the through line. 

Also, one good purpose for a "NOTE" is to avoid confusion for the reader (vs. a bad purpose, such as for the writer to micro-manage the production).

Wait Until Dark (1967)(11/25/66 draft)
by  Robert and Jane-Howard Carrington
From the play by Frederick Knott

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Limey (1999) - Do You Know How (& More Importantly, WHEN) to Use the "Flash Cut"?

[Quick Summary: An unpredictable English ex-con comes to L.A. to kill the man whom the con thinks killed his daughter.]

I like to see how other writers use literary devices because knowing about a tool isn't the same as knowing how (and more importantly, when) to use it.  

For example, in today's script, writer Lem Dobbs uses the "flash cut" as a device to peer into a character's present thinking (i.e., subjective mental state).*

A good example is the scene below:
- Wilson is a criminal who has an estranged daughter Jenny.
- Jenny left the UK and moved to California and died.
- Jenny's boyfriend at the time was Valentine.
- Wilson thinks Valentine killed Jenny but doesn't know why yet.
- Valentine is now living with Adhara. This scene occurs at their home when a party is about to begin. 
- All these flash cuts are from Wilson's POV. Nothing has happened yet. 
- Note how it gives the audience a SUBJECTIVE feel what Wilson is thinking.

INT. HOUSE

Valentine turns to greet Adhara who's come downstairs looking great.

ADHARA: Gee, for someone who doesn't like buffets...

VALENTINE: Do you see me eating? 

FLASH CUT:

WILSON, walking toward Valentine. Something in his face says violence is imminent.

VALENTINE glad handing more guests.   

WILSON

watching.

FLASH CUT:

WILSON. Again, walking toward Valentine. This time his hand reaches into his jacket. For the gun.

WILSON

hands Ed his drink.  

ED: Where you going?

Wilson says nothing. Starts to move inside the house.

ED: You're not gonna do nothin' in front of all these people...

FLASH CUT:

WILSON. Getting closer to Valentine.

VALENTINE. Oblivious.

WILSON. Closer. The hand is coming out. With the gun.

WILSON

Part of the way across the living room. Wearing the same expression we saw int he first flas cut: violence.

VALENTINE

chatting away.

WILSON

closer.  

FLASH CUT:

WILSON. Just a couple of feet away. Gun out.

VALENTINE. Sensing trouble. Turning toward Wilson...

WILSON

still moving through the crowd, getting closer. Hand reaching into his jacket.

VALENTINE

smiling, talking.  

FLASH CUT: 

WILSON. Five feet away. Gun extended now. 

VALENTINE. Facing the barrel. About to die.

WILSON. Closer still. The crowd seems to be getting thicker. Hand still in his jacket. 

VALENTINE. Still doesn't know what's coming.

 WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The writer used the "flash cut" judiciously.  Its purpose is psychological, to create a mood, and not simply to dump information.  

The Limey (1999)(9/17/98 draft w/revisions)
by Lem Dobbs 

* This is an unusual purpose than other flashes of time:

- the "flash back" which takes the audience back into the character's subjective memory, or
- the "flash forward" which  is most often used to show objectively what will happen in the future.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Deep Cover (1992) - When Is It Ok to Tell, Not Show, What's Inside Her Head?

[Quick Summary: When a good cop goes undercover to try to ferret out a drug importer, will he succumb to the excesses and violence?]

Q: Screenwriting rules should never, ever, ever be broken, right?
A: I felt that way too...until I saw every one of them broken.* Stick with the "rules" until you know when, how, and most importantly WHY, to break them.

Q: *Gasp!* But WHEN? HOW? Don't tell me "I'll only know with experience."
A: I only figured it out by experience (reading and writing, reading and writing).**

Q: Can you give me an example of when to break "show, not tell"?
A: Today's action thriller script is a good example when telling what's inside a character's head works best.  

Critic Roger Ebert explains the protagonist's dilemma: 

What sets "Deep Cover" apart is its sense of good and evil, the way it has the Fishburne character agonize over the moral decisions he has to make. Most drug movies are so casual about their shootings and killings that you'd hardly think it even hurt to get shot. ...Among the many unexpected aspects of this movie is the way its characters constantly ask themselves what the right course is - and if they can afford to take it.

This is apparent in the scene below:
- The protagonist, Hull, is a good cop with strong morals.
- He swore he'd never do drugs, like his dad who died robbing a liquor store.
- However, he's put into deep undercover to ferret out a drug dealer.
- He has witnessed a lot of horrible things, but hasn't crossed the line yet.
- He hooks up with a minor drug dealer, Elias, who doesn't know Hull is a cop.
- Elias gives Hull credibility and introduces him to buyers and sellers.
- Betty owns a jewelry store that is a laundering front.
- This is the first time Betty meets Hull.
- The Note explains concisely what is going on inside of Betty.  Yes, this is "telling" rather than showing, but there's a very quick, complicated, non-verbal dynamic going on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the writer resorted to this description as the most efficient explanation. 
- Even though this is "telling," note how concise the description is.

INT. JEWELRY STORE - DAY

... She produces a vial of coke, looks questioningly at Elias.

ELIAS: By all means.

She draws out six lines. Elias does two.

BETTY (offering him the straw): Come on, Eddie 2, you're up.

HULL: No, thanks.

(NOTE: Betty is acutely attuned to Hull, and in his refusal she senses - albeit unconsciously -- two things: first, that he doesn't trust himself on drugs, therefore, he's a dangerous guy and, therefore, exciting; and, second, more important, the refusal bespeaks a repudiation of the violence and danger and, thus, a longing for goodness. Despite the seeming contradiction, she finds this even more attractive. But because she feels herself to be bad, his goodness seems only a judgment against her, and so she thinks she hates him.)

BETTY: Who is he, my mother?

HULL (smiles): Never have, never will.

Betty ignores him, does her lines.

BETTY (taunting Hull): Oooh...Cocaine, I love it and I hate it and I love it. The disease is the cure.  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If there's no other way but to "tell" rather than show, then do it. Don't let the "rules" hamper your expression.

Deep Cover (1992)(7/16/91 draft)
by Michael Tolkin and Henry Bean 

*As a new writer, I was too quick to point out screenwriting "violations of the rules." The reality is that:
- There are no rules.
- Sometimes ignoring the rules accomplishes what following the rules could not.
- A preoccupation with "rules" avoids dealing with the fact that the writing may lack maturity and craft.   
- The most important measure is "does it work?", not "does it follow the rules?" 

**Other hints on breaking screenwriting "rules": 
- The purpose of the "rules" are to give new writers general guidelines to hold on to. (ex. Cinema is visual medium, so it's important to externalize emotions, hence, "show not tell.")
- As I grew as a writer, I realized I was hanging on to the "rules" too much, and they restricted my freedom to imagine and take big swings.
- If I broke a "rule," I found it helpful to explain to myself WHY, and then make sure I wrote it down in my notes. I didn't need to explain it to the reader, but I did need to make sure I knew why, even if it was "I don't know how else to say this."
- The goal is a page turner for the reader.  The "rules" don't guarantee this.
- When a writer breaks the "rules," I've noticed that it tends to be in certain areas, like the example above, and not the whole script.  
- Any "rule-breaking" does not excuse sloppy writing.  Yes, the example above is breaking the "show, don't tell rule," but more importantly, it is also concise and written well to express a difficult emotional dynamic.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Scarlet Letter (1926) - How a Series of Images Conveys Meaning Without Words ("Cinematic Language")

[Quick Summary: After having a baby out of wedlock in the 1600s, Puritan Hester refuses to name her lover and suffers the consequences.]

Q: Someone said I need to know "cinematic language." What is that? 
A: I like to think of it as the way images can convey meaning, often without words.

Q: How do I learn how to write in a cinematic language?
A: One good way is to study silent films since they rely on images over dialogue.

Q: No dialogue?! Aren't they boring to read?! What could I learn?
A: Yes, they're a bit technical.  But they remind writers that our job is to find creative ways to STRING TOGETHER images to create deeper meaning without heavy reliance on dialogue.

For example, in this script:
- Hester and her daughter are inside the house.
- It's essentially technical shot list and there are no slug lines (unlike modern scripts). 
- However, notice that there's still structured drama through images:  The writer strings together individual images of Child (happy) + Her Mother (sad) = create a third meaning (bittersweet).
- This use of images to tell a story is called "cinematic language."

Fade in. Ins[ert] of hand. Makes Letter A in sand.

CU girl

CU Hester seated in chair

CU little girl

CU Hester looking at insert

of letter A in sand

CU Hester

CU little girl looks up at Hester and laughs

CU Hester looks down at hands and turns to right

CU little girl laughing, then looks serious, rises to feet

MS Hester seated in chair. Little girl enters to her and embraces her.

[TITLE CARD READS] Outcasts shamed
and despised' But 
Hester's happy child 
reflected the hope that 
still lay in her mother's 
heart.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I struggle with trusting audiences with my series of images.  Will they understand?  Thus, I find I tend to overwrite with dialogue.

The Scarlet Letter (1926) 
by Frances Marion*
Adapted from the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne 

*Frances Marion won two Oscars and was nominated three times.  She was one of the earliest and most prolific screenwriters (with at least 189 projects credited to her).  She also is the author of How to Write and Sell Film Stories (1937).  

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000) - An Example of How a Comeback Stinger Works (Dialogue Setup-Payoff)

[Quick Summary: A master steward must ensure a royal visit goes smoothly in order to gain his cash-strapped boss a commission from King Louis XIV.]

Q: I want to write a comeback stinger, so focus on the punch line, right?
A: It's important, but not the MOST important part.

Q: Huh?! What's more important than the punch line?
A: A punch line is the payoff. Without a proper set up, it languishes.

Q: Give me an example of a good set up.
A: Let's use today's script, which is a farce that exposes the excesses and debauchery of 1600s France. Everyone obsesses about status...except our protagonist Vatel.

In the scene below, the antagonist (de Lauzun) gets the final zinger, but note that it works because it was set up properly:
- Vatel is a steward who rose up the ranks by his own merit.
- The Marquis de Lauzun is the king's courtier, i.e., an intermediary.
- Vatel and the Marquis have the same level of authority, on opposite sides. 
- The Duchesse de Longueville is after a political promotion for her husband, and is not afraid to seduce the Marquis to get it. 
- The set up is about who can top the other in status:
--> First, de Lauzun tries to belittle Vatel. 
--> Then, Vatel uses his wits against de Lauzun. It's a draw.
--> Then, the Duchesse butts in and says she's the first to have de Lauzun's secret. It looks like she's on top. 
--> Finally, de Lauzun saying she's the last to know. He outsmarted her with the last word.

EXT. CASCADES. LATER. 

,,,Lazun notices Vatel and laughs.

LAUZUN (CONTINUED): I was just telling the Duchesse about your boyhood days in the brothels of the Ile Saint Louis.

VATEL (bows to the Duchesse): It's quite true. No one know more about the brothels of the Ils Saint Louis than the Marquis de Lauzun.

DUCHESSE (to Lauzun): I think he's just insulted you but it's hard to tell. That's a rare gift; if you punish him for it I'll tell everyone your favorite perversion.

LAUZUN (smiling to the Duchesse): But, Duchesse, you were the last to know. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The cleverness of this stinger lies in its set up.  

Here, the Marquis de Lauzun fails to ridicule Vatel with his own shortcomings.  Frustrated, he uses the Duchesse's love of gossip against her with added spite.

Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000)(1/19/99 revised)
by Jeanne Labrune
Translated and adapted by Tom Stoppard

TODAY'S NUGGET: Twins (1988) - The Purpose of the Energy Flow is to Show Character

[Quick Summary: A tall, "perfect" man goes in search of his twin, who turns out to be a short, small time crook.]

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that this draft was very well polished. 

First, it was rewritten by last week's Harris & Weingrod, and second, the great William Goldman gave it a pass too.

I really liked that:
- the purpose of the energy flow in this script is to show character, and 
- there's a control to the chaos.

For example, in the scene below: 
- This is the scene that introduces the idea these are twins by using "twinning" behaviors.
- Julius is the taller, "good" twin.
- Vince is the shorter, "bad" twin.
- Notice the largest paragraph below is all one sentence, a controlled roller coaster of a ride, much like sheltered Julius' experience of encountering a big city.
 - Then note how the energy flow and momentum ramps up and lands on the moment Julius stands in the middle of the street, absorbing all of Hollywood.
- The writers are deliberately controlling the chaos with pacing and flow. 

EXT. GRAUMAN'S CHINESE THEATER - MAGIC HOUR

Vince brushes himself off, hesitates a moment, pulling on his left ear with his right hand.

Immediately behind him, facing the opposite direction, is another man, also pulling on his left ear with his right hand. It is Julius --

-- Their backs are to each other. Without ever catching sight of one another, they move off, going their separate ways. Now, from this -- 

                                                    CUT TO: 

EXT. DOWNTOWN HOLLYWOOD STREET - NIGHT

Downtown Hollywood in all it's sleeze. There's a museum and a scientology center and every fast food place imaginable and people shouting as they sell things, "flowers" and street food and there's a porno house showing Tight 'n Tender and there's young people dressed like punks and old people boozed out and pimps and druggies and guys slumped unconscious int he gutter and crowds of tourists walking this way, that way, and there's noise and little and one more thing --

--There's Julius, case in hand, staring around, taking it all in. We're a long way from his island now. He studies all the humanity swirling around him --

                                                   CUT TO:

CLOSEUP ON JULIUS

And you can see it on his face: He loves it.

JULIUS (almost a whisper): ...How wonderful...  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked this script because it used cinematic language well.  It uses words to convey how we should feel about images, but was readable.  

I like to find Goldman scripts that are new-to-me, like this one. They are instructive since they are: a) easy to read and b) have great craftsmanship.

Twins (1988)(consolidated 4th draft, 4/27/88 with revisions)
by William Osborne & William Davies
Revisions by Timothy Harris & Hershel Weingrod and William Goldman

TODAY'S NUGGET: S.O.B. (1981) - Looseness & Freedom to Write Wild Hijinks in Satire

[Quick Summary:  A director decides to reshoot his box office bomb as an erotic film, jeopardizing the reputation of his rated-G leading lady.] 

In this script, writer/director Blake Edwards wanted to talk about those people who, like leeches, feed off of creative people, then turn on them.

I admire that his writing accomplishes several things: 
a) It's bold, daring (ex. the protagonist doesn't speak for the first 50+ minutes!)
b) It's committed to humor, while skewering people's foibles.
c) It maintains a looseness and freedom to take unexpected swings.

In the scene below:
- Polly is the wicked gossip columnist.
- The other characters are: Ben (publicity), Irving (doctor), Culley (director replacing Felix), Lila (came with Culley).
- Felix, the protagonist director, has not spoken and is trying to kill himself in the other room.
- Polly has been unsuccessful in getting inside the house for a scoop.
- Note how the scene begins how we expect, but doesn't end as we expect.
- Also note that nothing is off the table for a laugh, even a falling protagonist.

INT. FARMER BEACH HOUSE - DAY

...The door flies open and there stands Polly.

BEN: Ahhh... Hello, Polly... 

IRVING: Amazing coincidence. I was just talking about you. [I love that this line is both ironic and kissing up to Polly.]

POLLY: Were you, Irving? Hello, Culley, Ben...I hear Felix tried to commit suicide.

BEN: Felix? Suicide?

Culley laughs, Irving joins in followed by Lila and finally, Ben.  [We know Felix has been trying to kill himself, so we're in on the joke.]

BEN: Ridiculous.

Felix comes crashing through the ceiling and lands on Polly. [What a surprise! I expected the sycophants sucking up to the powerful gossip columnist.  I did NOT expect the crash entrance that complicates how to deal with Polly.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I like that the physical comedy embodied the satire.  

In other words, Polly is trying to get a scoop on a director's possible suicide.  His leeches pretend he's not. The director's body flies into the scene, obviously attempting the suicide. 

This is using satire (irony, sarcasm, ridicule) to make the point that the leeches who demand so much the director are the same ones sending him to his death.  

S.O.B.  (1981)(3/5/80 revised)
by Blake Edwards.

* S.O.B. = Standard Operating Business

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Pink Pather Strikes Again (1976) - Three Examples of How Inspector Clouseau Slapstick Works

[Quick Summary: After former Inspector Dreyfus leaves an insane asylum, he sends assassins after Inspector Clouseau.]

Blake Edwards wrote and directed the original Inspector Clouseau/Pink Panther films.*  Today's script is #4 of his 8 films.**

These scripts are a joy to read because:
a) the joke is always on Clouseau, who is clueless;
b) the slapstick is constantly moving him out of the fire into the frying pan;
c) the slapstick is inventive.

Here are three examples:

EXAMPLE 1: ROMANTIC JOKE ON CLOUSEAU - A Beautiful Mysterious Woman thinks she's slept with Clouseau, when it was actually another spy, James. 

INT. MUNICH HOTEL FIFTH FLOOR HALLWAY - NIGHT

The elevator doors open and Clouseau exits, walks to his door, is about to put the key in the lock when he realizes that the Clerk has given him the bedroom key. He walks back, unlocks the bedroom door and enters as James [the English spy] exits from the sitting room.  

INT. CLOUSEAU'S SUITE - BEDROOM - NIGHT

Dark. The lights in the sitting room have been turned off. Clouseau makes his way to the light switch. CLICK. No lights in here. He makes his way into the sitting room, bumps into a table. We HEAR the Beautiful Mysterious Woman SIGH. Clouseau turns the lights on in the sitting room.The Beautiful Mysterious Woman awakens, gets up and goes into the bathroom. Clouseau comes back into the bedroom, gets undressed and puts on his pyjamas, goes back into the sitting room. The Beautiful Mysterious Woman comes out of the bathroom and climbs back into bed. Clouseau turns off the sitting room light, bumps into the table again and returns to the bedroom. He climbs in bed. A long silence, then Clouseau lets out a yell, leaps from the bed and runs into the sitting room, hits the table, turns on the lights and carefully makes his way back to the bedroom where he freezes at the sigh t of the Beautiful Mysterious Woman in his bed. 

B.M.W. (smiling wickedly): Forgive me, darling. I just washed my hands and they must have been freezing. 

CLOUSEAU: Yes. Freezing. Hands.

It dawns on him that he must be in the wrong apartment. He hurries across the room, opens the door, checks the room number, and returns, checks his key. 

EXAMPLE 2: "OUT OF THE PAN, INTO THE FIRE" SCHTICK - One mistake leads to another.

INT. MUNICH HOTEL LOBBY - NIGHT

A CLEANING MAN. vacuuming. A SERVICE REPAIR MAN standing on a stepladder, putting new light bulbs into the huge crystal chandelier. Clouseau trips on the vacuum cleaner cord, stumbles into the ladder, knocking it out from under the Service Repair Man who grabs the chandelier. While the Service Repair Man swings from the chandelier and the Cleaning Man unplugs the broken vacuum that is spewing a geyser of dirt, some of the hotel staff rush to give aid, take the ladder form Clouseau who then continues his way to the desk as if nothing has happened.  

EXAMPLE 3: INVENTIVE "TOILET" HUMOR 

INT. PUBLIC TOILET - NIGHT

Clouseau enters, waits. The Mexican Assassin enters. A man exits a stall and Clouseau goes in as the East German enters. A man exits a stall on the other side of Clouseau and the East German takes it. We are WATCHING three pairs of legs. Clouseau's shoe lace is untied. He bends to tie it. The TWO "WHUMPS" SOUND almost like one. The life goes out of the two pairs of legs on either side of Clouseau. The Assassin's silenced gun clatters to the tile floor. Clouseau stands, FLUSHES TOILET and emerges, exits short.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really am impressed by the inventive ways the writers get Clouseau out of worse and worse situations.  It's like kids playing on the page.

The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976)(11/19/75 revised)
by Frank Waldman and Blake Edwards

*FYI: The first Inspector Clouseau film featured a diamond called the "Pink Panther." It was so popular that subsequent Inspector Clouseau films were dubbed "Pink Panther" films even though they didn't feature the diamond again.

**I imagine Edwards was not super-thrilled that studios wanted many sequels.  

However, I also imagine the studios were eager to get Edwards back because:
1) the public was still interested in Clouseau even a decade later; and 
2) two Clouseau projects without Edwards weren't as well received.

Here's the list of Pink Panther/Blake Edwards films.  I included the two non-Edwards projects in bold, just for reference: 

- The Pink Panther (1963) - David Niven
- A Shot in the Dark (1964) - Peter Sellers
- Inspector Clouseau (1968) - Alan Arkin
- "The Pink Panther" animated tv series (1969) 
- The Return of the Pink Panther (1975) - Peter Sellers
- The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976) - Peter Sellers
- Revenge of the Pink Panther (1978)  - Peter Sellers
- Trail of the Pink Panther (1982) - Peter Sellers
- Curse of the Pink Panther (1983) - Peter Sellers
- Son of the Pink Panther (1993) - Roberto Benigni

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Cotton Club (1984) - Breaking Through Writer's Block with 4-5 Word Summaries

[Quick Summary: Several stories of a coronet player getting mixed with mobster, racial tensions, in the Roaring Twenties and early Depression.]

There were three things I really liked in this script:

1) THIS LINE OF DIALOGUE:  

DUTCH: ...You make a livin' with that horn?

DIXIE: I'm eatin' but I'm not getting fat.

2) THE FACT THAT THIS SCRIPT JUMPS AROUND A LOT BUT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT. Critic Roger Ebert explains what is in the mix:

Coppola has a way, in this film, of telling all the different stories without giving us the impression he's jumping around a lot. Maybe the music helps. It gives the movie a continuity and an underlying rhythm that makes all of the characters' lives into steps in a sad ballet. We like some of the characters, but we don't have much respect for them, and the movie doesn't bother with clear distinctions between good and evil. "The Cotton Club" is a somewhat cynical movie about a very cynical time, and along with the music and the romance there is racism, cruelty, betrayal, and stunning violence. Romance with a cutting edge.

3) MOST SLUG LINES INCLUDED 4-5 WORD SUMMARY OF "WHAT IS THIS SCENE ABOUT?" It's not a gimmick; it broke through my writer's block.

I was stuck recently and tried this trick to summarize the scene before I wrote it.  Behold!  It cut down on distractions and focused me immediately.

I will note that it was seeing all the various examples that helped.  So I encourage you to read it and page through it for inspiration when you're stuck.

Here are five examples (they're underlined as presented in the script):
- EXT. DWYER APARTMENT - DAY: VINCE SAYS HE'S MARRIED
- EXT. COTTON CLUB - DAY: EXIT AUDITION/SEE LILA ROSE
- INT. HOOFER'S CLUB - DAY: SUGAR REMINDS SANDMAN HE'S LATE
- INT. UBANGI CLUB - NIGHT: BAD JAM SESSION
- INT. DWYER APARTMENT - NIGHT: TEA & TOAST WITH PSYCHOPATH

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've been returning to this script again and again, just to look at the 4-5 word summaries for different ways to tackle scenes.

The Cotton Club (1984)(8/22/83 shooting script)
by William Kennedy and Francis Ford Coppol/a

2025 OSCARS: Nickel Boys (2024) - The Line That's Very Complicated to Execute

[Quick Summary: In 1966 Florida, two young boys navigate life in a reform school.]

PROGRAMMING NOTE: For this year's 2025 Oscar roundup, I'm going to feature my single favorite line from each of the 10 scripts.

One of the hallmarks of this film is that it's told in one point of view at a time.

Because it's always from one person's POV, cinematographer Jomo Fray has said that the following line looks simple on the page, but not in execution.*

In this scene:
- This is from Elwood's POV.
- Elwood sits next to his grandma Hattie on a bus.
- The camera starts from Elwood's eye level, then underneath his bus seat.
- How did they make room for the camera to flip upside down? How did they light the scene for the complicated camera move (above the seat --> below the seat)?!
- I am impressed they left in such a complicated camera move in the script, especially because the budget was low.

INT. CITY BUS - FRENCHTOWN - 1966 - DAY (D15)

 ...As Hattie's hand turns a page, Elwood sees a LITTLE GIRL slide herself feet first from under their seat forward into the space between his own shoes, all the way until her face is visible.

... Elwood bends all the way forward and looks under his seat watching the kid slide backwards under other seats, legs and shoes of passengers toward the back of the bus.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Despite a shoestring budget, these writers were bold enough to aim high.  Don't let your budget dictate to your creativity.

Nickel Boys (2024)
by RaMell Ross & Joslyn Barnes
Based on the novel by Colson Whitehead

*Sorry, I really tried to keep this post to a single line (the last one starting with "Elwood bends"), but it was hard to explain without context.

2025 OSCARS: Conclave (2024) - One Line That is Underlined May Have a Different Meaning Than Another

[Quick Summary: After the Pope dies, the Dean of the Conclave must manage the voting process for the new Pop and discovers hidden motives of the candidates.]

PROGRAMMING NOTE: For this year's 2025 Oscar roundup, I'm going to feature my single favorite line from each of the 10 scripts.

We writers are told a lot of "don'ts":  "Don't put in camera moves (directors don't like that)." "Show, don't talk about feelings (actors don't like that)."  

These days, I take them "under advisement", i.e., ignore them, because I've seen writers do those very things -  BUT THEY KNEW WHAT 'RULES' TO BREAK.

---------------

Q: In the above paragraphs, why do I only remember the underlined part?
A: Underlining emphasizes things.

Q: Have you seen any effective uses of underlining?
A: I will cite two lines from this script, in same scene, only because they show how underlining does different things:
- The first emphasizes what is in Lawrence's mind and emotions.
- The second is later in the scene, and emphasizes a shift in tone.

INT. PAPAL SUITE - SITTING ROOM - NIGHT

...Lawrence is holding the x-ray to the light, staring in silence, struck that he is looking at the very heart of the man he revered.

....The contest has begun.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Like any good tool, the emotional impact that comes with underlining is best used sparingly.

Conclave (2024)(final draft, w/revisions)
by Peter Straughan
Based on the novel by Robert Harris

TODAY'S NUGGET: Frantic (1988) - "Lean & Economical"Jealousy for BOTH Parties in One Scene

[Quick Summary: After an American doctor and his wife arrive in Paris for a cardiac conference, she is kidnapped, setting him off on a wild chase to free her.]

This script was co-written by Roman Polanski, and re-written by his Chinatown writer, Robert Towne. 

I thought the first third of the script was great, but the rest was somewhat predictable.  Or, as Roger Ebert always puts it best:

It’s a professional comeback for the director of “Rosemary’s Baby” and “Chinatown,” who was recently reduced to serving as gun-for-hire on the dreary “Pirates.” Every scene of this film feels like a project from Polanski’s heart – a film to prove he is still capable of generating the kind of suspense he became famous for. And every scene, on its own, seems to work. It is only the total of the scenes that is wrong. The movie goes on too long, adds too many elaborations and tacks on too many complications, until the lean and economical construction of the first hour begins to drift into self-parody. (emphasis mine)

I attribute that "lean and economical construction" to Towne because it contains: 
a) his trademark clever observations of human emotions; and
b) fully rounded parts. No one is simply there to prop up the protagonist. 

For example, the scene below is about jealousy -- for BOTH parties:
- Dr. Richard and his wife Sondra arrive at the hotel.
- At the desk, he is given a message from a Dr. Alembert to confirm a lunch.
- No one is supposed to know when they're arriving.
- Sondra resigns herself that Richard is going to choose the doctor over her.
- Not how quickly the tables are turned for both of them. This appears often in Towne's scripts and it's difficult to do.

INT. SUITE - BEDROOM - WINDOW

...Again she indicates the note in Richard's hand.

RICHARD: Don't confirm the lunch.

SONDRA (furious): Why not? You did tell Alembert when we were arriving a day early, didn't you, obviously you want to see him -- come on now, Richard, give me the note and don't mess around. [She feels hurt and jealous, assuming his work is more important.]

She goes for it with a swipe and misses. Richard puts it in his mouth and chews it. [I love this action because it was so unexpected from a serious doctor.]

RICHARD (as he chews): ...I didn't tell him when we were arriving...Maurice Alembert is chairman of the convention...(having some difficulty) ... not only that --  [I like this added bit of humor.]

SONDRA: Richard, don't swallow it, you'll choke -- [She is more concerned about his welfare than her feelings.]

RICHARD (still chewing): -- Oh now. [More humor.]

SONDRA: Well at least let me get you some water to wash it down.

RICHARD (following her into the bathroom): ...Not only that, Maurice Alembert doesn't give a goddam about me ever since he saw you at the Berkeley seminar last year. 'Ow is your charming wife? Be sure and bring Sondra when you come..' I'm not the only man in Paris who wants to sleep with my wife! [It's amazing at how quickly Towne turns the tables on Sondra because Richard is jealous too. This is not a one sided relationship. ]

Sondra pauses, glass in hand over the bathroom sink.

SONDRA: -- At the Berkeley seminar? ...Was he the one with the long legs who took is shoes off when he spoke? [More humor because she didn't realize who Alembert was, or her effect on him.]

RICHARD: Never mind. You're not spending the day with anybody but me.

He takes her in his arms, pausing to spit out the last of the Alembert note in the sink. Sondra suppresses a giggle and kisses him.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Towne's craft for construction is on full display here.

It's not that both parties are jealous, or that the tables are turned for both of them, but that it all happens in ONE scene in such a crisp, but emotional, manner.

Frantic (1988)(final draft, 4/10/87, with revisions)
by Roman Polanski & Gerard Brach (uncredited: Robert Towne, Jeff Gross)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Personal Best (1982) - What the "Weather of These Women's Hearts" with Power Dynamics Looks Like

[Quick Summary: Complicated power dynamics arise when Chris, a second string female college athlete, gets involved with Tory, her bisexual female friend/competitor/role model.]

Q: Why are writer Robert Towne's scripts still so great?
A: He combined two things writers have in short supply: confidence, and an understanding of people that he was able to express on paper.

Q: I understand people. Why aren't my characters as well-rounded?
A: Roger Ebert explains what makes Towne so good:

What distinguishes “Personal Best” is that it creates specific characters–flesh-and-blood people with interesting personalities, people I cared about. “Personal Best” also seems knowledgeable about its two subjects, which are the weather of these women’s hearts, and the world of Olympic sports competition. (emphasis mine)

Q: You mean fickle feelings? What's the big deal?
A: Towne is exceptionally good at knowing how to play humans against each other.  He can tease several strands of human emotion into one coil.*

It is evident in the scene I've chosen below, as well as the scene prior.

In the prior scene:
- Chris meets Tory's ex-boyfriend Willie Lee at a party after an Olympic trials meet.
- Tory drinks and dances with Willie Lee, smokes a joint, and takes coke.
- The coach (another of Tory's ex-flings) enters and sees Tory is unwell.
- He tells Tory to go to bed, but Tory refuses to go without Chris.
- Chris is happy talking with friends.
- Tory tells Chris it's "time for bed," but Chris isn't ready to leave.
- Angry Tory yanks Chris, ends up hitting a fellow competitor.  She is escorted out.
- The coach pulls Chris aside to asks her to continue to look out for Tory.
- Wow, look at all the various strands of emotion that Towne pulled! EVERYONE had different secrets (agendas, addictions, crushes, etc.)

In the scene below:
- The next day, Tory apologizes to Chris, who doesn't understand why Tory was so angry.
- Notice here that Chris begs Tory to stay together.  Later, when Chris is stronger, and Tory wants to help her, Chris will push her away.
- Also note the ebb and flow of the power dynamics.  In the previous scene, Tory was the needy one.  Now it has flipped and Chris is the vulnerable one.

INT. FALCON - CAL POLY TRACK PARKING LOT - DAY

TORY: You worry about what everybody thinks - why should you be different with me?
CHRIS: I guess I'm not.

She starts out of the car.

TORY: There's only one thing to do Chris - see other people.
CHRIS: See other people? What are you talking about?
TORY: Either we're together or we're not together.
CHRIS: Jesus Chris, Tory, we're friends.
TORY: Yeah, we may be friends but every little once in a while we also fuck each other - and you can't face that.  It hurts - and pain is pain and to do anything you got to live with it and you can't and I can't make you. Either we move out or I move out and we really are friends.
CHRIS:  -  no.
TORY: No?

Chris is clearly stunned by Tory. 

CHRIS: - I..I..need to be around you. I need to know you're there..I..Just need to be around you.

Tory smiles tightly.

TORY: Oh hell, don't worry. We'll still work out together.
CHRIS: No that's not it you make me feel like I can really do something, like I'm really gonna do..I just need you...

She trails off clutching at Tory's hand. Tory stares at Chris' white-knuckled hand over hers. WIth mild disgust: 

TORY:  - for what?

Chris continues to stares at her own lap. Tory impatiently turns away and looks out the window. Finally, a whisper: 

CHRIS: I just need you.

Tory mutters 'oh, fuck' at the seeming tepid response and starts out of the car. She's jerked back by the fierce grip Chris has on her hand. Surprised and annoyed she turns on Chris.

CHRIS

stares back trembling, then finally has to look down again - still grips Tory's hand.

TORY

tries to hold out but her resolve finally breaks.

TORY: All right, weirdo, let's go work out. C'mon, c'mon, c'mon - 

Chris nods gratefully and the two bound out of the car.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't find the characters talking about feelings boring here at all. I think it's because they made unexpected, yet very honest choices, with stakes.

Personal Best (1982)
Written & directed by Robert Towne

* As a sidebar, I will note:
1) Showing these patterns of behavior often requires more time, i.e., higher page count.

2) I was surprised that I did not feel any dragging in the 172 pages of this script. 

3) Towne wrote AND directed this script, so was likely not hemmed in by someone else demanding fewer pages.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Wuthering Heights (1939) - I Don't Want Him, But I Don't Want You to Have Him Either

[Quick Summary:  A servant recalls the story of her master Heathcliff's doomed love for his childhood sweetheart Cathy.]

MY TWO THOUGHTS:

1) OLIVIER. This film and Rebecca (1940) gave actor Lawrence Olivier his first two Oscar nominations, in back-to-back years. 

I like to think it's partly due to the excellence in writing.

2) PING-PONG CONFLICT & MOTIVES = CRUCIBLE. I really liked how the writers juggled Cathy's various internal/external conflicts & motives.  

Heathcliff loves Cathy, but she knows he's not good for her and decides to marry neighbor Edgar. Rejected, Heathcliff starts to court Isabella, Edgar's sister.

In this love triangle, Cathy ping-pongs between several internal/external conflicts: 
- She half-wants him; she doesn't want him.
- She sees he is a wrong fit for Isabella; she doesn't want Isabella to have him.
- She's newly married to Edgar.
- She's trying to establish a relationship with new sister-in-law Isabella.  

When they're mixed, they create a crucible, like in the scene below:
- Edgar and Cathy's house is next door to Heathcliff's estate.
- Isabella lives with Edgar and Cathy.
- This scene occurs in Isabella's room.
- Cathy's goal is to warn Isabella, but Isabella is suspicious of her motives. 
- Notice that in this crucible, we don't really know which of Cathy's conflicts are motivating her.
- Is her concern for herself, Isabella, or Heathcliff? (internal)
- Does she love Edgar, or is she still in love with Heathcliff? (external)

Isabella has risen, and moves as if to pass Cathy. Cathy takes her by the shoulders, shakes her.

CATHY: You fool! You vain little fool!

ISABELLA: Let me pass.

CATHY: I won't be silent any longer. I'm going to tell the truth. You're old enough to hear it. You're strong enough.

ISABELLA: Let me pass, Catherine.

CATHY: Not till I open your eyes.

ISABELLA: My eyes are quite open, thank you.

CATHY: He's been using you...Don't you see what he's been doing - using you to be near me, to smile at me behind your back - to try and rouse something in my heart that's dead...dead! I'll not have it any longer!...And I'll not allow you to help him any longer....

ISABELLA (softly): It's you who are vain and insufferable. Heathcliff's in love with me.

CATHY (wildly): It's a lie!

ISABELLA: It's not a lie. He's told me so. He's kissed me...

CATHY (seizing her arm, digging her nails into her wrist): He's what!

ISABELLA (exulting): He's kissed me. He's held me in his arms. He's told me he loves me!

CATHY: I'm going to your brother.

She almost throws Isabella down in a gesture of rage.

ISABELLA (hitting every raw nerve): Go to him. He's asked me to marry him...Tell Edgar that! We're going to be married! That Heathcliff's going to be my husband!

CATHY (a moaned guttural): Isabella, you can't. Heathcliff is not a man but something horrible and dark to live with.

ISABELLA (slowly and cruelly): Do you imagine, Catherine, I don't know why you are acting so -- Because you love him...

CATHY (flaming): How dare you say that!

Cathy flies at Isabella and slaps her viciously. Isabella doesn't flinch.

ISABELLA: Yes, you love him! And you're mad with pain and jealousy at the thought of my marrying him! Because you want him to pine for you and dream of you, to die for you...while you live in comfort and security as Mrs. Linton.

CATHY: You little fool

ISABELLA (unflinching): You don't want him to be happy. You want to hurt him, destroy him. But I want to make him happy --and I will..I will!

There is a knock at the door.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's natural that this many strong conflicts/motives within a single character will lead to such an explosive situation. 

However,  it's rare to hit on the right combination of conflicts like this so well.  This is a very high level of craft.

Wuthering Heights (1939)
by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur
Based on the novel by Emily Bronte

TODAY'S NUGGET: Stagecoach (1939) - Why a Director Needs a Writer

[Quick Summary: Under the threat of a possible ambush by Geronimo, a group of stagecoach passengers work together on their journey to safety.]

THE DIRECTOR: This is the film that made Hollywood forever notice director John Ford.*  The action! The spectacular vistas! The drama! 

However, he couldn't have done this film without:
1) the short story by Ernest Haycox; and
2) screenwriter Dudley Nichols** to adapt it and juggle the storylines of 7 actors.

THE SHORT STORY:  Ford's son first read this short story in Collier's and told his dad about it.  If you ever have writer's block, read this for its pacing alone.

THE SCRIPT: Once you read the short story, you'll see what a wonderful job Nichols did to fill in the holes.  

First, he flesh out each character's background, which was thin.  Second, he created situations for them to interact and pull together, which also was absent.

My favorite scenes looks bland on the page, but is elevated in the hands of director John Ford:
- The stagecoach has stumbled upon the Ringo Kid (John Wayne), a stranded outlaw.  The marshal on board insists he come with them to a rest stop.
- Ringo has connected with another outsider, Dallas, a female passenger of ill-repute.
- At the rest stop, Dallas helps another pregnant passenger have her baby.  Afterwards, she walks outside for some air, and Ringo starts to follow her.
- Before he goes outside, his friend Chris, the Mexican station manager, warns him of upcoming danger.
- This scene may seem so-so written here, but I urge you to see it in the film because it's clearer there that Ringo's attention is torn between his heart and his head.

...Dallas comes out of a door father down the passage, putting a shawl round her shoulders, and walks down the corridor away from camera without seeing Ringo. Ringo starts to follow her. Just before he reaches her, Chris comes out of another door carrying a lamp. Ringo stops.  [This is the moment where head and heart clash.]

Chris, seen from the side holding the lamp, stands close up to Ringo, his manner secretive.

CHRIS (in a low, warning voice): Kid, I know why you go to Lordsburg, Kid. I like you. I knew your poppa. He was a good friend of mine. If you know who's in Lordsburg you stay away...I think.

RINGO (guardedly): You mean Luke Plummer?

He lights his cigarette from Chris's lamp.

CHRIS: Luke...Ike...Hank... all there together. I saw them.

A wild shine comes into Ringo's eyes and he grips Chris's arm eagerly.

RINGO: You sure of that, Chris?

CHRIS: Sure I can tell you the truth.

As Chris nods, Ring's eyes gleam.

RINGO: Thanks, Chris. That's all I wanted to know.

He moves away towards the door, watched by Chris.

CHRIS: You crazy if you go...I think. You stay away, Kid. Three against one no good.

Ringo takes no notice and goes outside.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The script seems like it's no big deal that "Chris comes out of another door."  

However, add this to Ford's actual staging (Ringo goes down a hall and is stopped when Chris comes out of a hall/door to the left), and it's really effective psychologically.

Stagecoach (1939)***
by Dudley Nichols and Ben Hecht
Based on the short story, "Stage to Lordsburg," by Ernest Haycox

*I find this ironically funny because Ford had already won an Oscar for best director in 1936 for The Informer, yet he didn't seem to gain any ground from it.  He was again nominated for best director for Stagecoach, but didn't win.

**Nichols was a four time Oscar nominee.   He won his only Oscar for the script of The Informer (1935), which was also John Ford's first Oscar for best director. 

**This script has been published in several forms: anthology (Nichols edited); script and the short story by Haycox; script alone (online).

PROGRAMMING NOTE: When an Oscar Winning Writer (& Four Time Nominee) Points Scripts Out to You...

TWO PROGRAMMING NOTES:

1) FYI: UPCOMING SCRIPTS WILL BE OUT OF 20 Best Film Plays, edited by Dudley Nichols.

Nichols was not only an Oscar winning writer (and four time nominee), but he published scripts to be read and studied, long before it was popular to do so.*  

If Nichols thought I should read them, then I should read them.

2)  WHY READ SUCH OLD SCRIPTS?  I am hoping to combat a few things at the same time:

a) "SAME-NESS."  A cinematographer who I admire recently stated that there is too much "same-ness" in today's stories.  He's right.

Let's try to combat that by viewing the wide variety in these old scripts.

b) CHEAP. GOOD. FAST. ONLY PICK 2.   Today's market wants Cheap + Good + Fast, but it's not possible.

You can have Cheap + Fast, but it won't be Good.

You can have Cheap + Good, but it won't be Fast. 

You can have Good + Fast, but it won't be Cheap.

Perhaps reading these older scripts can remind us what kind of great stories can still be done for a dime, without sacrificing excellence. 

In other words, the process of reading these scripts won't be Fast, but will help with the Cheap + Good.

*He also co-edited: Best Film Plays, 1943-4. Best Film Plays of 1945.