TODAY'S NUGGET: State of Play (2009) - Multiple Causes of Urgency Within a Scene

[Quick Summary: A journalist (whose college friend is now a current Congressman) investigates the suspicious death of the Congressman's mistress.]

Continual threats to life and limb gets exhausting after awhile in thrillers. 

Thus, I was interested to see what else today's script would do differently. It's not a perfect script,* but I liked that there was creative use of urgency.

For example, the scene below has layers.  It's not just about Cal escaping the elevator, but that he's found the killer and needs to let someone know.

Just prior to this scene:
- Cal has a photo of the killer, Bingham, and traces it back to the latter's apartment.
- Cal recognizes Bingham at the door and they briefly exchange pleasantries. 
- Cal backs off and gets in the elevator.
- Also note: This is a turning point scene that occurs on p. 79 of 125, not earlier at the midpoint, nor later at the climax.

INT. COMPLEX ELEVATOR -- NIGHT

CAL with the phone. Doors closing and...Signal loss. 

CAL: Shit!

CAL descending. 5...4...3...  Chunk.

It has stopped. Everything suddenly black. then, a moment later, an emergency light powers on. But the car isn't moving.

CAL trapped. Coincidence? Can't be. Fuck...

Pulling his phone -- saving it around the car -- searching for a signal -- there, up by the ceiling, a flicker.

CAL (PHONE)(CONT'D): Jimmy. Cal McAffrey...just tell Bell I've found the killer. Five-sixty-six, Jasper Avenue. Five-six-six Jasper! I need cops. I need cops here immediately!

CAL perched on the railing -- wedged near the ceiling -- bent like a contortionist to hang with the signal and --

THE ELEVATOR jolts! -- power on -- CAL falling hard to the floor -- barely catching his breath as the elevator drops a few feet before stopping suddenly and -- 

THE DOORS OPEN TO

INT. COMPLEX LOBBY -- DAY

An empty lobby. CAL steps out cautiously. Did Bingham take the stairs? 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that this wasn't the run-of-the-mill "I must escape" type of urgency.  There's a different purpose and consequences if Cal fails. 

State of Play (2009)(11/1/07 draft with revisions)
by Matthew Michael Carnahan
Revisions by Tony Gilroy, Peter Morgan, Billy Ray
Based on the BBC miniseries created by Paul Abbott

* I was confused by the ending on the page. I think it was trying to connect a lot of dots in a short period of time.  I note that this film was an adaptation of a BBC tv mini-series that ran 6 episodes, so perhaps it was trying to condense too much into a 2 hr. film?

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: 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 Locked Room (unproduced) - Why This Creepy, Haunted, Twisty, Pull-of-the-Past Psychological Thriller is Smashingly Great

[Quick Summary: George, the executor of his childhood best friend Fanshawe's literary estate, gets Fanshawe's work published, but isn't prepare for the success or the haunting that follows.]

First, this adaptation* is a complex psychological thriller that's creepy, bewildering, and mesmerizing, but most of all, inventive.  I couldn't put it down. **

Second, I was impressed that this script feels like reading great literature, yet I never got lost or bogged down. ***

Here's the short version of the story:

- George and Fanshawe were childhood friends. 
- Fanshawe was cooler than everyone and George admired him. 
- They both wanted to be writers, but didn't, then lost touch after college.
- Twenty years later, George is working at a Big & Tall shop, writing in his free time.
- One day, George opens the door to a letter from Fanshawe's widow.
- Fanshawe wanted George to sort through his scribblings in a locked room and get them published if they were good. They were fantastic.
- Soon George is very busy handling offers, falling in love with his widow and child, appearing on tv promoting Fanshawe's writing. 
- This is a nightmare for a good guy and aspiring writer like George.
- George is simultaneously haunted by his past envies of Fanshawe, the present sticky situation, or his hope for a future with Fanshawe's widow.

It's complicated, right? So why didn't I get lost?? I think it's because the writer understood the key role that subtext plays in psychological thrillers. 

He structured the scenes so that we question George's mental judgment, i.e., whether he's reacting to the past/present/future, and returns to it regularly.

For example, in the scene below: 
- Stuart, an editor and acquaintance, is entranced by Fanshawe's work. 
- Stuart wants to publish. George agrees.
- Fanshawe died in fiery car accident. 
- Two of the great mysteries of the story is WHY did Fanshawe leave all the responsibility to George, and what about George's hopes?
- Note that writer uses Stuart's questions to poke into the past, present, and future.
- Note how we circle back to an unspoken fear (George will not get published) and ends with a "ouch!" to his ego. 
- Also note the SPEED of the emotional pacing. It's a roller coaster ride that circles back to the competition between George and Fanshawe.

INT. GEORGE'S APARTMENT - EVENING

 ...STUART: Pity.

GEORGE: Yeah.

STUART: I mean, that he isn't around. I'd love to be able to work with him. A few little nips and tucks -- you know.

GEORGE: That's just editor's pride. You can't look at a manuscript without wanting to take a red pencil to it. I'm sure he wouldn't change a word.

STUART: Hmm, you may be right. But don't take it to heart -- we can't all be prodigies

Suddenly, Stuart looks slyly at George.

STUART: Where is he?

GEORGE: Why d'you mean?

STUART: Is he shy, your boy? Is it some Pynchon thing we've got here? You're not just fronting for him, are ya?

GEORGE: Listen, if he was still around, believe me, I'd tell him to do his own dirty work.

Stuart just smiles. Does he really think George is toying with him? Or is he toying with George?

STUART: How's it feel?

George raises his eyebrows questioningly.

STUART: Discovering a new American master.

Stuart is needling him. George refuses to rise to the bait. 

GEORGE: When do you think you'll have an answer.

STUART: Oh, I already have: we're publishing it. (at the door) Chin up. Might not be as bad as you think. 

GEORGE: What?

STUART: Reflected glory.

Stuart leaves. George pondering. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Those two words ("reflected glory") made me realize the power of subtext in this script.  

It's so much more layered and powerful than "you're not good enough" and speaks to how beautifully constructed this psychological trap is.

The Locked Room (unproduced 3/9/01 draft)
Based on the novel by Paul Auster
by Lem Dobbs 

* It's adapted from The New York Trilogy (1987), by Paul Auster, which is three interconnected detective stories ("City of Glass," "Ghosts," and "The Locked Room").  

**I have not read the book.  Several book reviewers on Goodreads either loved it or hated it.  I can understand why.  I also felt frustrated that answers weren't readily available at times reading the script.

***Purely as a side note, I did get creeped out by the psychological suspense and was glad I read it in the day time.  

TODAY'S NUGGET: Fracture (2007) - When Anthony Hopkins is Thrilled that Ryan Gosling Can't Find the Right Gun (Motives & Tension)

[Quick Summary: A prosecutor is pitted against a diabolical suspect who freely admits to shooting his own wife, but the gun on the scene is the wrong one.]

I stumbled across this riveting read, which features Ryan Gosling (prosecutor Willy) vs. Anthony Hopkins (murder suspect Crawford) in a "locked room" murder. * **

I was impressed how the writers kept the tension rising through motives:
- Mr. Crawford's wife was having an anonymous affair with a LAPD detective.  
- Crawford arranges to kill his wife, while this detective is on duty. 
- Crawford admits he killed his wife, but the gun at the scene belongs to the detective! 
- Crawford likes to play games and HAS to win (motive).
- Prosecutor Willy, who is leaving for a cushy law firm job, could let this case slide.
- But Crawford has done his homework on Willy, who also HAS to win (motive).
- Willy still has no clue to where the gun is, even on when the trial begins. We can't stop watching! We need to know what happens! 

I really liked the scene below, as it is a turning point for Willy:
- Marchand is the senior Scene Investigation Division tech in charge of searching the house.
- Note how Willy's desire to win drives him NOT give up, even though the facts now favor Crawford.
- Because Willy cannot get to his goal, we're curious to see what he'll do next.
- I really like how motives drive the tension.

INT. CRAWFORD HOUSE - LIVING ROOM - DUSK

WILLY: What about the neighbors' property? He could have thrown it over the hedges. 

MARCHAND: We checked. (beat) He might have passed it off to somebody, Willy. Had an accomplice, waiting, out the back.

Willy shakes his head, grim. Pacing.

WILLING: This isn't an accomplice sort of guy.

He slows. Looking across the room at the big Rube Goldberg device. As he moves toward it:

WILLY: This is a ...guy who likes to show off.

He examines the intricate workings, eyes traveling the clutter of metal and wires and motors. 

Checks Marchand - who shakes his head.

WILLY: You sure?

MARCHAND: I'm sure.

Willy grimaces. Fuming, relentless: 

WILLY: It's a physical object. It can't just vanish. We're missing something - some step in the story.

He begins walking through the crime, "the stations of the cross" - re-enacting it, starting from the front door, methodical, reciting it to himself:

WILLY: The neighbor sees her get home. He's already inside. She lets herself in. A minute or two later: blood-pattern says she's standing over there - he's somewhere around here.

Willy stands where Crawford was. Raises a finger-gun.

WILLY: Boom. 

As Willy goes to where Jennifer fell:

MARCHAND: But then he carries her back there. Why? 

Willy walks along the path defined by the drops of blood:

WILLY: Because he's gonna need time. To confess. When he's alone with the cop. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A character like Willy, who is this strongly motivated, will naturally conflict with others, which in turn, drives the tension.

Fracture (2007)(1/6/05, with revisions)
by Dan Pyne

*I've been attempting to read as many E. Max Frye scripts as possible, even ones he's rewritten, such as this one. 

**As a side note: This script is well written and reads really fast.  Scripts this good often have a lot of help, and I counted 6 writers listed on the cover page. 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Birth (2004) - A Turning Point that is Creepy as Hell

[Quick Summary: A 10 y.o. boy tries to convince a newly engaged woman that he is her dead ex-husband reborn, and wants to marry her again.]

Does this story have a big ick factor? Was it creepy as hell? Yes. 

However, it was very well written, in large part because the question of reincarnation - which these characters don't believe in - is played for real.  

For example, a turning point (below) hooked me because it delves into a universal fear about creepy kids.  What would you do with a kid like this who is unrelenting?

NOTE: The main character is Anna, and Laura is her sister.

INT. MORGANS' APARTMENT - HALL - SAME

The doorbell rings. BETTY emerges from the kitchen, walks the length of the hall, and opens the front door to MR. & MRS. DRUMMOND and their TWO DAUGHTERS. They are armed with FLOWERS and PRESENTS. DAVID is with them. THE GIRLS bolt into the dining room as BETTY takes MR. and Mrs. Drummond's coats. She ushers them into the dining room, then returns to the kitchen. The camera remains in the hall. Suddenly, the hall light is extinguished and, for a beat, we wait in darkness.

Suddenly, Anna appears behind Betty and they both emerge from the kitchen. ANNA carries the CANDLELIT CAKE. Betty walks ahead of her.

DINING ROOM - EVENING

Betty turns the lights off in the dining room. Anna enters with the cake. Everyone claps and sings 'Happy Birthday'. Eleanor blows the candles out. Claps and congratulations and kisses. 'Hip Hip' shouts JOSEPH. 'Hooray', they reply.

Betty turns the lights back on. And there, in the corner, ANNA sees DAVID. 'Hip Hip' shouts JOSEPH. And DAVID looks back, as baffled as she is shocked. 'Hooray', they reply.

INT. ELEVATOR - MOVING - EVENING

Anna and David travel down, side by side. He's too frightened to look at her and she's too angry to look at him. She takes a $10 bill from her purse and folds it in her hand.

They continue their descent in silence....

[I deleted several scenes here where she has the front desk put him in a taxi.]

INT. MORGANS' APARTMENT BUILDING - CORRIDOR - EVENING

The elevator doors open at Anna's floor, and she exits the elevator. LAURA is waiting there, and she and ANNA walk back to the apartment together. 

LAURA: That was him.

ANNA: Yes.

LAURA: Betty thought he was with the Drummonds, the Drummonds thought he was with us.

ANNA: You didn't tell anyone, did you?

LAURA: No.

They arrive at the apartment door. Laura rings the bell.

LAURA (CONT'D): What are you going to do?

ANNA: Nothing. It's over. It's a moot issue. (a pause) Finished.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think this turning point was very effective for me because it plays into a universal theme of fear and feeling helpless.  

Also, it's not just a crescendo into a tense moment, but a moment where a decision has to be made (turning point).

Birth (2004)(draft dated 9/1/02)
by Jean-Claude Carriere & Jonathan Glazer
Additional dialogue by Milo Addica

2024 OSCARS: May December (2023) - Suspense, Which Lends an Edge, Lies in Character

[Quick Summary: To portray their relationship, an actress spends time with a controversial couple (Gracie was 36 and Joe was 13 when they met).]

Q: Isn't sex with an underage minor is an icky subject matter for a feature?
A: I thought so, but this the writer did something interesting with it.  

Q: What was so interesting?
A: She added suspense, which lends an edge to the story, akin to a psychological thriller.

Q: Like waiting for the other shoe to drop?
A: Yes.  After Gracie went to jail and exited, she still married the guy. Now this actress (Elizabeth), shows up to study them, and Joe is seeing his life differently.  

Q: How do the other characters add to the suspense?
A: We never know what they're thinking or going to do next. ex. As Elizabeth starts to mimic Gracie, is she getting involved with Joe for herself or for the film? 

Q: What do you think is a key to this suspenseful edge?
A: One of the keys is the Gracie character. They all say she knows exactly what she's doing, but are we sure?

The scene below showcases Gracie, who the writer said she wrote as the "center of her universe."  In her worldview, everything is cheery, and/or ignored. 

Note the hold she has on everyone, and her obliviousness (is it?) that it affects anyone adversely.  We keep on reading to see if she really is that oblivious, or not:

INT. ATHERTON-YOO KITCHEN - DAY

...Gracie thinks about it, skeptical. Then, suddenly lightly: 

GRACIE: Alright.

Elizabeth and Joe both look relieved.

GRACIE (CONT'D): Of course I talk to Georgie. And to Billy and Cassidy. I'm their mom.

ELIZABETH: Sure...

JOE: Cassidy was just here last -- (looks at Gracie) What was it? ...And we'll see everyone at graduation...

GRACIE: The twins are in the same class as Cassidy's son Peter, my grandson. So we'll all be at graduation together, which you're welcome to come to if you're still in town.

A big smile.

GRACIE (CONT'D): Now who wants cake?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script surprised me on a few fronts:
- The basis of this relationship is an unpleasant topic, but it wasn't the point of the script.
- I'd never thought to put this kind of suspenseful spin, and that it would work because it's about character.
- Going deeper into character made this script more interesting than my initial glance at the logline.

May-December (2023)(undated)
Story by Samy Burch & Alex Mechanik
Screenplay by Samy Burch

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

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

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

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

Critic Sheila O'Malley explained it much more eloquently:

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

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

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

INT. WARFIELD ELEMENTARY - KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM - LATER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY'S NUGGET: Gone Girl (2014) - Keeping Characters on the Razor's Edge of Tension

[Quick Summary: When his wife, famed "Amazing Amy," goes missing, Nick is hounded by press, public, and police as a suspect in her disappearance.]

I was really impressed how this script was able to show the character's motive, conflict, and also keep the tension on a razor's edge (could go either way).

I've divided the scene below to demonstrate different elements: 

SECTION 1: At the "Find Amy HQ" in a hotel, Nick ducks out for some privacy.  Notice this is a setup for conflict and doubt in our minds.

INT. HALLWAY - DAY

The hallway is VACANT. Nick's DISPOSABLE begins  buzzing. He ducks father down the hall. NICK is picking up just as: SHAWNA peers around the corner. Nick abruptly ends the call.

SHAWNA: Nick? I just wanted to introduce myself. My name's Shawna Kelly.

Nick nods: thanks. He's seething at the interruption. [He wants to answer this call but interrupted by a nosy stranger.]

SHAWNA (CONT'D): I'm so sorry for your...troubles.

NICK: That's very kind.

He gives her an after-you gesture but she doesn't budge. [Is he trying to be polite? Or something else?]

SHAWNA: Are you remembering to eat?

NICK: Lotta cold cuts.

Again: After you. [Nick tries again, fails.  This increases the conflict.]

SHAWNA: I'm going to fix you up my world-famous Chicken Frito Pie.

NICK: That's very sweet of you and very unnecessary.

He tries again to get past her. He pats her on the arm as a goodbye, she puts her hand on top of his.

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

SECTION 2: When this stranger isn't getting the response she wants, she ups the stakes.

SHAWNA: You have to keep up your strength.

She digs through her handbag, grabs a cell. Jams her face against his. [She's pushing into his comfort zone physically, like the world's attention is on him metaphorically.]

SHAWNA (CONT'D): Say: Chicken frito pie!

NICK - just wanting to leave - reflexively grins. CLICK. She shows him the photo: The two of them, cheek to cheek, Shawna's glossed lips pouty. Without context (and even with), the photo is wildly inappropriate, a little sleazy.  [His immediate regret: Is it real? Fake?]

NICK: Oh. You know what? That's-please delete that would you?

SHAWNA: It's a nice photo. [She stonewalls him.]

NICK: It's just not appropriate. Do me the favor, would you? SHAWNA debates.

NICK (CONT'D): I'm asking you nicely: Please delete the photo. [His politeness is pushed to the limits.  His motive to self-protect has layers to it.]

NICK tries to lean past her and hit delete. She holds the cell away from him-hey!-he tries to grab it.

SHAWNA: What is wrong with you?

NICK grabs her arm. It's the first time he seems dangerous. [This is the climax of the scene. What will he do?]

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

SECTION 3: Now that he's lost the battle, what will he do?

NICK: You can't share that with anyone. [We understand his position.]

SHAWNA: I'll share it with anyone I like.  [We understand her position.]

SHAWNA scrambles past him, shoots down the hall to the elevator.

SHAWNA (CONT'D): Asshole.

NICK rests his head against the wall. Breathes.

NICK: Pull it together, Dunne.  [Interestingly, I empathized with his plight...and was still suspicious.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Because I BELIEVED it could go either way, the tension worked.  The key was that both characters' motives and conflicts were clear.

Gone Girl (2014)(shooting script, 8/29/13)
by Gillian Flynn
Adapted from her novel.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Primal Fear (1996) - Why EXPAND the Intro from One to Three Pages?

[Quick Summary: A defense attorney volunteers to defend a 19 y.o. street kid who is accused of murdering the Archbishop.]

I do not often read earlier drafts since too many things can affect the final shooting script, even weather or change of directors!

However, I happened to see the first page of an early draft of this script and was struck by the REASON for the changes. 

IN THE EARLY DRAFT: Vail, the defense attorney, is being interviewed by a magazine writer, who asks if a funny courtroom story was true. It wraps up p.1.

IN THE LATER DRAFT: This one pager is expanded to three pages, and I do like this version much better.

Why is the expansion? It shows Vail's point of view on the law. It sets the tone, as well as our expectations of what this ride will be like.

What does it look like on the page? Over a black screen with credits, page one begins with the magazine writer and Vail discussing that funny courtroom story.

The second page begins:

INT. VAIL'S OFFICE - DUSK

Tight on a sputter water faucet and hands. Into a cup, splash to the face and mouth. Vail. Tuxedo shirt on. Studs finally in place. Top button undone. Tie drapes over his shoulder.

VAIL: Truth? How do you mean? 

In the adjacent room, a magazine writer sits at a coffee table cluttered with notes, pencils, ashtray and ashes.

CONNERMAN: Well, I'm not sure how many ways there are to mean it.

Vail appears in the bathroom door attempting to knot the bow tie of his tuxedo.

VAIL: There's only one? One truth? (loudly) Naomi!! (shrugs) You're right there's only one that matters -

NAOMI CHANCE, an attractive Black woman comes in from another room. Vail needs her help with the tie. To Connerman, continuing - 

VAIL: The one I create in the minds of those twelve men and woman sitting on the jury. If you want to call that the illusion of truth? - well, that's up to you.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The early draft laid out a good foundational p.1, which the later draft was able to build upon.  

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the early draft exposed the need for a deeper explanation, as found in the latter draft.

Primal Fear (1996)(6/13/94* and 4/10/95, revised)
Written & revised by Steve Shagan
Based on the novel by William Diehl

*Trivia: I was particularly interested in this earlier draft, in large part because its author was the great thriller writer Steven Zaillian.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Copycat (1995) - Invisible (Yet Clear) Transitions During Rising Conflict

[Quick Summary: An agoraphobic psychologist must overcome fear to work with a homicide detective hunting a copycat serial killer.] 

I am always interested in reading scripts by Frank Pierson (Dog Day Afternoon, Cool Hand Luke) or Jay Presson Allen (Prince of the City, Cabaret).*

So I was surprised to stumble across this script with them both listed.**

Both of them have put in a lot of hours in the salt mines, which I think it shows best in how they craft the transitions.  

One way I like to judge transitions is whether the script can direct the mind's eye crisply from shot to shot, or into and out of a scene (good flow), without confusion.

I give extra bonus points for the fewest amount of words (economy).

Here is a great example below.  Notice the clarity of rising conflict and flow (people on shore --> body in water --> boats --> doc --> cop). 

EXT. BAYSIDE RESTAURANT - BELVEDERE OR SAUSALITO - DAY

A BRIGHT LOVELY DAY, PEOPLE DINING AND DRINKING IN THE SUN, on a deck that faces the Bay and San Francisco's towers beyond. Young people, drinks in hand, dressed to go to a summer wedding, mingle and laugh and chatter. A young woman stands leaning back against the wooden rail, her back to the Bay. A young man faces her, talking, laughing. HE LEANS CLOSE TO WHISPER IN HER EAR AND SHE LEANS BACK, DRAWING HIM CLOSER TO HER - SEXY! AS HE WHISPERS HE CAN SEE OVER HER SHOULDER INTO THE WATER BELOW.

REVERSE, CLOSE: YOUNG MAN - His face registering horror at what he sees: he shops speaking, and the GIRL turns to look down to see what it is he's looking at, and begins to SCREAM...

THEIR P.O.V.

Below, floating in the water is ANDY, wearing his bright jacket, except it's not all of Andy. HIS HEAD IS MISSING.

                                                                                            CUT TO:

REVERSE: (TIME HAS PASSED). FROM WHAT WOULD BE ANDY'S P.O.V. - FACES LOOKING DOWN   M.J., QUINN, SAKS AND CORONER'S MEN...

THEIR P.O.V.     NOW RUBBER BOATS HAVE BEEN TIED IN A RING AROUND THE BODY. DOC IS DOING HIS WORK, PREPARATORY TO LIFTING THE BODY OUT OF THE WATER...

HE PULLS A WALLET OUT OF THE POCKET AND HOLDS IT UP TO THE PEOPLE ABOVE.

M.J. TAKES IT. BEGINS TO LOOK THROUGH IT...    SHE IS NUMB WITH EXHAUSTION AND SORROW.

                                                                                         CUT TO:

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was really impressed that I didn't notice the transitions at all.  Somehow it was one less barrier to experiencing the characters' P.O.V.

Copycat (1995)(3rd draft, dated 7/4/94)
by Frank Pierson and Ann Biderman and Jay Presson Allen

* For further reading, these are excellent interviews: Pierson, Allen.

**They're not formally credited, so I presume this was a re-write job.

2021 OSCARS: Promising Young Woman (2020) - Well-Rounded Characters Come With Attitudes/Agendas That Will Cause Conflict

[Quick Summary: After her life goes off the rails, angry Cassie seeks revenge on men with a targeted agenda.]

This is a very sharply written script, very focused in tone and intent.  It is a throwback to the really good female led thrillers of yore.

For me, the script works because the writer stayed true to the character all the way through, and did not shirk back when things turned ugly in Act 3. 

Also, characters are fully rounded, even the minor ones.  

In the scene below, notice:
- How each character has a distinct attitude that is easily distinguished.
- How these attitudes/agendas lead to conflicts that push the story forward.

INT. MAKE ME COFFEE SHOP - LATER 

...GABBY:  Um. A hot chocolate please.

CASSANDRA starts making it. The men are now openly staring at GABBY, whispering.

JEFF: I'd never let my daughter go out looking like that. Nothing to the imagination.

but the way he's looking at her is not that of a concerned parent.

CASSANDRA glares at him. She leans forward and whispers to GABBY.

CASSANDRA: Do you want me to freak those fuckers out?

GABBY glances over at them.

GABBY (low): No, no! Please don't! Please don't say anything. Please.

She is bight red with embarrassment. Almost in tears.

CASSANDRA: It's alright. Don't worry. Don't worry about those creeps. Fuck 'em.

She passes GABBY her drink.

CASSANDRA (CONT'D): On the house.

GABBY (small): Thanks.

GABBY makes her way to the door trying to keep as far from the table as she can while the men watch, sniggering.

CASSANDRA comes over to wipe their table and - oops! - she knocks a hot coffee into JEFF's lap.

He leaps up.

JEFF: JESUS!

CASSANDRA: Would you look at that! Right in the crotch!

GABBY turns and stifles a smile at CASSANDRA as she leaves. CASSANDRA winks at her.

CASSANDRA (CONT'D): Let me get you a fresh one, sir. Hope I didn't burn you.

He watches her go, furiously.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was particularly impressed how cleanly defined these characters were, unapologetic and driven. I may not agree with their POV, but I understood them.

Promising Young Woman (2020)
Written and directed by Emerald Fennell

TODAY'S NUGGET: Conspiracy Theory (1997) - Deepening Emotional Jeopardy w/Multiple Motives

[Quick Summary: Jerry, a raving conspiracy theorist, convinces Liza, a Justice Dept. attorney, that  someone is after him for what he knows.]

I liked this script because: 1) It's more about characters than plot; and 2) To do that, the writer expanded the emotional jeopardy element.  How did he do that?

I think it is because he gave Jerry a multiple motive.  He wants to protect Liza because she's the only one who will help him, but also because he's in love with her.

Every scene has a deeper subtext (see below). The agents think Jerry is concerned about Liza to save himself (plot), but his motive is more personal (character).

INT. CROWN VICTORIA - PARKED - NIGHT

Agent Lowry leans forward to look up to the window of Liza's apartment. Behind him, he hears the back door open, Agent Murphy slide in the backseat. As Lowry eases back: 

LOWRY: How's your bladder?

The barrel of Murphy's black 9mm is pressed squarely against Lowry's temple.

VOICE Not bad. (cocks hammer) How's yours?

It's Jerry in the backseat! Lowry's a pretty cool customer. He regards Jerry evenly in the rearview.

LOWRY: Lots of folks are looking for you.

Lowry's hand toward a .45 on the front seat.

JERRY: Then you must be the smart one. Hands on the steering wheel.

A little nudge of the 9mm and Lowry does as he's told.

JERRY: Thank you.

LOWRY: You're welcome. Where's my partner?

JERRY: I like that. A gun to your head and you ask about your partner. He's okay. May have a headache for a few days. Are you here with honorable intentions?

LOWRY: I'm not sure what you mean.

JERRY: You should think of me as Liza Sutton's guardian angel.

LOWRY: That's ironic. Because we're here to protect her from you.

JERRY: You're here because you figured I might show up.

LOWRY: It seemed like a possibility. What about your intentions? Are they honorable?

JERRY: I'm not a violent man, Mr. Lowry. Not by nature anyhow. But if you hurt Liza in any way, I'll kill you. Does that seem honorable?

LOWRY: Well, I don't know if --

Jerry creases the back of his head with the gun barrel As he slumps over unconscious...

JERRY: Seems honorable to me.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I had not thought to double up on jeopardy like this before.  It gives characters a deeper pool to explore.

Conspiracy Theory (1997)(12/11/95 draft)
by Brian Helgeland

TODAY'S NUGGET: Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) - Empathizing with the Killer-Protagonist

[Quick Summary: Though paid to bring Dickie Greenleaf back from Italy, Tom Ripley becomes obsessed with his life, willing to kill several times for it.]

It's not that Ripley wants to be Dickie, and might also be in love with him. It's that he lurks, trying to exist by taking from Dickie, i.e., a parasite and super-creepy.

The clever, uncomfortable, odd thing about this script is how it makes you empathize with Ripley, a killer and manipulator.  

It's very good at helping us feel what it's like being an outsider like Ripley.

In the scene below:
- Marge acknowledges everyone's feeling about Dickie, which mirrors Ripley's.
- Note that the other characters have more physical movement than Ripley, but we're remain focused on his reactions because he's the unpredictable one.

EXT. THE OCEAN, ABOARD THE BIRD. DAY

The boat is drifting. Freddie and Dickie and Marge are swimming, then Marge climbs back onto the boat, where Ripley is sitting alone, reading.

MARGE: You really should go in, it's marvelous.

RIPLEY: I'm fine.

She approaches him, conscious of his isolation. She's in a red bikini, and she towels herself dry as they speak.

MARGE: Are you okay?

RIPLEY: Sure.

They watch Dickie and Freddie fooling around in the water.

MARGE: The thing with Dickie - it's like the sun shines on you and it's glorious, then he forgets you and it's very very cold.

RIPLEY: So I'm learning.

MARGE: He's not even aware of it. When you've got his attention you feel like you're the only person in the world. That's why everybody loves him. Other times...

There's a yell from Dickie as Freddie wrestles with him.

DICKIE (laughing and choking): He's drowning me!

MARGE: It's always the same whenever someone new comes into his life - Freddie, Fausto, Peter Smith-Kingsley - he's wonderful - did you meet him, he's a musician, ? - ...and especially you, of course...and that's only the boys.

They watch as Freddie pushes Dickie under the surface.

MARGE: Tell me, why is it when men play they always play at killing each other...? I'm sorry about Cortina by the way.

RIPLEY: What about Cortina?

MARGE: Didn't Dick say? - he talked to Freddie...apparently it's not going to work out - (Ripley's devastated, Marge notices, can't look at him) Freddie says there aren't enough rooms.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Characters do not need to be likeable or sympathetic (I agree with what the character is doing), but do need to be empathetic (I understand why they're acting this way).

Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)(draft dated 11/1/99)
by Anthony Minghella
Based on the novel by Patricia Highsmith

TODAY'S NUGGET: Collateral (2004) - Action Gains Depth from Character

[Quick Summary: Max, an innocent L.A. taxi driver, is roped into assisting Vincent, an assassin who is picking off five victims in one night.]

THREE THOUGHTS:

1) "This is a rare thriller that's as much character study as sound and fury." Also, it's rare that a script 167 pgs. (yes, 167) reads half as long.

2) Action gains depth from character.

I was surprised that the script dared (dared!) break away from the 5 assassinations ...and make a pit stop to visit Max's mom in the hospital?  I loved it.

Mann is working in a genre with "Collateral," as he was in "Heat" (1995), but he deepens genre through the kind of specific detail that would grace a straight drama. Consider a scene where Vincent asks (or orders) Max to take him to the hospital where Max's mother is a patient. The mother is played by Irma P. Hall (the old lady in the Coens' "The Lady-Killers"), and she makes an instant impression, as a woman who looks at this man with her son, and intuits that everything might not be right, and keeps that to herself.

These scenes are so much more interesting than the standard approach of the shifty club owner or the comic-relief Big Mama. Mann allows dialogue into the kind of movie that many directors now approach as wall-to-wall action. Action gains a lot when it happens to convincing individuals, instead of to off-the-shelf action figures. - Roger Ebert (my emphasis)

3) Why does this hospital scene work here?

First, the more we learn about character, the higher the stakes.
- ex.  Max's mom has been bothering the dispatcher because Max has not shown up for his nightly visit.  Max is a dutiful, henpecked son. 
- ex. Vincent makes them go because he thinks changes in routine are suspicious.

Second, more stakes = more leverage, as Vincent learns below:

ex.  INT. HOSPITAL ROOM, LOWER FLOOR - MAX - NIGHT

MAX: Hey, mom. How many times do I have to ask you not to do that?

IDA: Do what?

MAX: Talk about me like...I'm...not...in the room, here.

IDA (to Vincent): What's he sayin'?

VINCENT: Ida, he says he's standing right here. In the room. Here.

IDA (to Max): Yesss, you are, honey. (back to Vincent) He's sensitive.

VINCENT: I know. But I'm sure you're proud of him.

IDA (directed at Max): Of course I'm proud. You know, he started with nothing. Look at him today. Here. Vegas. Reno...

Vincent looks at Max...squirming under the exposure.

MAX: Mom, Vincent's not interested. (to Vincent) Let's go.

VINCENT: No. I am interested.

IDA: What's your name, again?

VINCENT: Vincent...

MAX: I came to see you. I saw you. You look fine. Let's go.

He's kissed her and wants to get out of there.

IDA: Limousine companies.

VINCENT: Yeah?

IDA He drives famous people around, you know?

VINCENT: Limousine companies? What an achievement...

Max heads for the door...

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really like the character stuff because stakes deepen layers, which is emotionally enriching (vs. non-stop wall-to-wall action that can be emotionally numbing).

Collateral (2004)(8/24/03 draft w/revisions)
by Stuart Beattie, with revisions by Frank Darabont, Michael Mann

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Game (1997) - Baiting at a Vulnerable Moment

[Quick Summary: A lonely rich man is lured into a game which may or may not be real.]

I can totally see why David Fincher wanted to direct this film, since it's a story built on suspense and extremes.

I also thought it was an exploration of baiting a man who has everything.

How do you keep him motivated? Curiosity. String out answers to up suspense. 

This often requires a bit of setup, as we will see in the scene below:

- Prior to this scene, Schuyler has visited a mysterious company called CRS at the urging of a friend because "CRS will solve his problems."
- Schuyler goes for a physical exam.
- Schuyler has not heard back, and now the baiters stoke Schuyler's curiosity with rejection:

ex. INT. SCHUYLER'S OFFICE - DAY

...Schuyler sits behind the desk and tilts back in his leather chair, thinking. He flips through his Rolodex, finds a number and dials it on his speakerphone. He gets a MALE VOICE this time:

GARY (filter): CRS, this is Gary speaking.

SCHUYLER: Yes, hello Gary, this is Schuyler Van Orton...I came in a few weeks ago...I'm going to be otu of town briefly and, I was wondering when, um, your service was supposed to start --

GARY (filter) (after a beat): Yes...I have you here on the computer...I'm terribly sorry, Mr. Van Orton, but apparently your application was rejected...

SCHUYLER: Really? But...forget it, thanks.

He hangs up, looks out the window with a disappointed expression.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be fooled - this script might seem plot driven but is actually 100% character driven.

 I liked that the writers knew Schuyler so well that they knew what and how to bait him to expose his flaws which give him dimension and an arc.

The Game (1997)(1/7/92 with revisions)
by John Brancato and Michael Ferris

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: Laura (1944) - Building Tension & Suspense Through Characters' Actions

[Quick Summary:  A detective falls in love with the murder victim that he's investigating.]

THREE RANDOM THOUGHTS:

1) Wow, what a great read! Fast, suspenseful, twists, and a surprise ending.

2) This is a first for me: This script has three V.O. narrators, who each speak for about 1/3 of the film, and it did not bug me.

3) I thought the writers did an excellent job of building tension and suspense, especially through the characters' actions.  What does that look like?

Simply put, the characters did not act as I thought they would. Their behavior is inconsistent. Or they lie when I expect truth. Or they tell the truth and it's weak.

---> As a result, I found myself paying closer attention.  What are they doing? Why?

---> This led to me feeling the tension rise.  How will this resolve? I need to know! 

Let's look at an example.  In the scene below:
- Shelby was Laura's fiancee. He is too eager to spill the beans.
- Waldo was the guy she left for Shelby.  He is suspicious of everyone.
- Mark is the detective.  He is uncomfortable falling for a dead victim.
- The three men are now revisiting the scene of the crime, Laura's apartment. Shelby thinks he knows where Laura kept the key to her country house.

ex. "INT. BEDROOM - FULL SHOT

Shelby is at the bureau as Mark and Waldo enter. Mark sits down, leaning back on the bed, and takes the puzzle from his pocket. He concentrates on it. Shelby suddenly reacts and pulls out a key. [Why is the detective playing with a puzzle NOW?]

SHELBY: I knew I'd seen it around...Here it is...!

He tosses it on the bed beside Mark who pulls his notebook out of his pocket, glances at it, and goes righton with his puzzle. [This is an unexpected reaction. I would've pounced on the key.]

MARK: That's funny. I got a list of the things in that drawer. The key wasn't in there when the place was gone over... [This is a seasoned detective who is tough to impress.]

Shelby looks embarrassed. [He knows that he's been caught.]

WALDO: Then it's made a recent reappearance? [Waldo rubs it in.]

Mark doesn't look up. [No reaction = This is unexpected.]

MARK (quietly to Shelby): You put it in there, didn't you?

SHELBY: Well...I... didn't want to hand it to you while...Waldo was present.

WALDO: Why? I do not habitually collect old keys. [Clever retort.]

SHELBY (still to Mark): I didn't want him to know I had it. It doesn't concern him... [A confession that will spike Waldo's fury.]

FULL SHOT - ANOTHER ANGLE

Mark just leans back, balancing the puzzle, as Shelby and Waldo turn toward each other like fighting cocks. [Note how the writers use conflicting motives of Shelby vs.Waldo to ratchet up the tension first with words, then behavior.] 

WALDO (complacently): Everything about Laura concerns me -- perhaps more than you. [Mild dismissal.]

SHELBY (cuttingly): really? But she happened to decide to marry me. [Stronger dismissal.]

WALDO (bristling): That may have been a fatal decision! [Accusation.]

SHELBY (with quiet anger): For your own good, Waldo, I'm warning you to stop implying that I had anything to do with Laura's death. [Warning shot.]

WALDO: All right, I'll stop implying. I'll make a direct statement. [He calls Shelby out.]

Shelby lunges grimly at Waldo, but Mark simply puts up his leg barring the way. [Words escalate into a physical act.]

MARK (to Waldo): Guys with glass jaws shouldn't lead with their beards, Mr. Lydecker.

MED. FULL SHOT - TOWARD MARK

Waldo glares at Mark, furious at his inattention.

WALDO (raging): Will you please stop fooling with that ridiculous puzzle!! [Frustration gushes out.]

MARK (calmly): No. It keeps me calm... (significantly) And sometimes it makes other people lose their tempers --and say things they wouldn't ordinarily say.  [This is the climax of the scene. Now it all makes sense.]

Waldo controls himself. Mark now puts the puzzle away and starts getting up off the bed. He picks up the key and pockets it.

MARK: Maybe we better get going now."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When someone acts as I do not expect, it makes me more curious.  ex. Mark was so casual about clues and deliberately did not rise to the bait.

Laura (1944)(final draft, 11/29/43, with revisions (12/21/43))
by Jay Dratler and Ring Lardner, Jr.*
Based on the novel by Vera Caspary

*On IMDB, the screenplay is credited to Jay Dratler and Samuel Hoffenstein and Betty Reinhardt.  Ring Lardner, Jr., was uncredited, probably due to him being blacklisted during the HUAC era.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The General's Daughter (1999) - A Moment of Emotional Risk

[Quick Summary: A detective for the military CID investigates the obscene, very public death of a respected female captain, who is also the general's daughter.]

CON: I have a few issues with this script.

PRO: However, on the page, it is an excellent visceral read.

What makes this a compelling thriller to read, despite its flaws?

One thing that struck me was the protagonist (Brenner) was constantly putting himself in physical, emotional, and career jeopardy to find the truth. He took risks.

I liked the example below because it does several things:
- White takes a surprisingly fun, and emotional, risk.
- It's a great "meet cute" scene that slides in a lot of information about her.
- Because he met her in person, it explains White's personal motive to find her killer.

In the scene below:
- White is doing a horrible job at fixing his flat tire.
- Ann Campbell, the soon-to-be-victim, stops to help.  She is an army Captain.

ex. "EXT. FORT MACCULLUM - DAY

...it's a few minutes later  -- she's finishing up. Her movements fast and skilled.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: So how long have you taught at mechanic's school?

LT. WHITE: I work at the Armory -- just been there a few weeks. And you never let up, do you?

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL (head shake): This is just heaven -- y'see, in the Army, all the capital G Guys say we can't keep up, we're too weak.

LT. WHITE: Obviously, you don't believe that.

ANN CAMPBELL. CLOSE UP. She looks at White a moment. Then --

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Physically, there may be a point, but mentally, we're much tougher. For example, I would never betray you -- (looks at White now) -- but if I slept with you, if I told you how wonderful and strong you were, hell, you'd betray anyone.

WHITE, considering this.

LT. WHITE: I hope that's a proposition, Captain.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Just theory, Lieutenant.

LT. WHITE: LT. WHITE: Damn.

She stands, brushes herself off.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: That should do it. (starts off) Luck to you.

LT. WHITE: You probably run Mechanic's school.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Psyops.

He doesn't get it.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Psychological Operations. I teach there.

LT. WHITE: What do you teach?

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL (getting into her car): Mostly, we fuck with people's minds.

And she flashes her wonderful smile, waves, drives off.

White stands looking after her.

LT. WHITE (softly): Thanks..."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This scene made a fictional world a little more real to me.

I'd rather see a moment of humor or emotional risk, i.e., relationship stuff, more than a constant stream of plot -- plot -- plot -- plot, which is boring and not real.

The General's Daughter (1999)(11/19/97 draft)
by Christopher Bertolini and William Goldman
Based on the novel by Nelson DeMille

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Strange Days (1995) - From Scriptment to Draft

[Quick Summary: Lenny, a shady dealer in VR "experiences," is trying to find a psycho-sexual killer who killed his friend Iris and may be after his ex-girlfriend.]

Director Ridley Scott said in a round table interview recently: 

The studio head's job, I think, is read the fucking material. You can't delegate material. I can tell within a paragraph whether I'm going to be in good hands or not. By the time I get to page 10, I'm beginning to perspire because I'm thinking, "Please don't drop the ball; please don't drop the ball." Page 30, I'm now beads of perspiration. "Holy shit, we're really getting there." And so writing is everything. Everything else is dressing. Sorry, actors. (Laughter.) (my emphasis)

Is that really true? Yes.  One gets a "feel" after reading many scripts.*

What about material that is admittedly messy and too long? Yes, even then, there's a focus, a feel that "I'm in good hands." 

Today's scriptment is a good example.  It's a messy and flawed early draft, but there's a solid story spine, the setups and payoffs, etc.** 

The script drops and adds things, but keeps the essentials from the scriptment.

One thing that I liked in both drafts was that they kept the odd, futuristic mood.

The scene below is nearly the same in both drafts:

ex. "A stairwell. Lane sprinting up, two steps at a time. Trying the door at the second floor landing. Locked. Shit.

Running up. Dizzying whirl as we run, up and up.

The POV is finally broken by a ...
                                                                                          CUT TO:

INT. UNDERGROUND GARAGE

But we don't know where we are yet. We see a man in extreme close-up: just his eyes and mouth. The eyes are closed, the eyeballs tracking under the lids like he is watching a movie in there. This is LENNY.

LENNY: This is great...the doors are all locked. Who are these losers, friends of yours?
                                                                                          CUT TO:

BACK TO POV as we reach the fifth floor landing. Lane is coming unglued as he finds this door locked. We look down, see cops coming two floors below. One cranks off a couple rounds at us and we snap back from the railing. Pounding up the last flight. Finally! The door is unlocked."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The writer's most important job is to convey the ideas from the head to the page.

It doesn't have to look great, but it does have to be on the page.  This is very helpful in case someone else has to take over the writing duties (as happened here).

Strange Days (1995)(Cameron's published scriptment)
by James Cameron

Strange Days (1995)(script draft dated 8/11/93)
by James Cameron and Jay Cocks

*How do I define "many"? When I was at a small production company, I estimated:
-About 30-40 new scripts came in the door every week.
-The development execs read between 10-20 on weekends, maybe another 10 during the week.

**The scriptment is worth reading to see how Cameron thinks.  In his words:

So what you have in your hands is at once a kind of pathetic document; it is as long as a script, but messy and undisciplined, full of cheats and glossed-over sections. But it is also an interesting snapshot of formatting a moment in the creative process. It contains notes and references and textures that do not exist in the finished script. It takes the time to gaze around at a grim future world and paint it in neon colors...it gets in the mood first, then tells the story. p. ix.