TODAY'S NUGGET: The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) - Sex as a Metaphor

[Quick Summary: On the 1968 eve of the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, a serial bed-hopping surgeon meets a woman who wants monogamy.]

Q: Is there a lot of sex in this script?
A: Yes (and nudity too*).

Q: Is it gratuitous? 
A: No, because the main character, Tomas, focuses a lot on it.  But when it debuted for its sexuality and sensuality. 

Q: But if that was all, why does the film still resonate with audiences? 
A: I think Roger Ebert said it best: 

What is remarkable about "The Unbearable Lightness of Being," however, is not the sexual content itself, but the way [director Phillip] Kaufman has been able to use it as an avenue for a complex story, one of nostalgia, loss, idealism and romance.

Q: How? What's so great that this script got an Oscar nomination?
A:  I think it's the way the story unfolds and how Tomas arcs. Ebert made very astute observation about where Tomas begins:

For him [Tomas], sex seems like a form of physical meditation, rather than an activity with another person.

Tomas then learns that freedom from any commitment (that "lightness of being") becomes unbearable. 

Q: What surprised you about the script?
A: I'd heard a lot about the writer (the often cited Jean-Claude Carriere), but little about what makes his writing so special. I came to see:

1) He writes longing really well. I felt it build through the script.

2) This script surprised me at how deftly Carrier gets to the heart of the matter. There's a direct simplicity that is deceiving because it's really difficult to write well.

In the scene below:
- This is a very early scene (p. 2), in the hospital operating suite.
- Dr. Tomas has just gotten his latest fling (Nurse) to flash him in another room, while his colleagues have been eavesdropping on them.
- Notice how each of the characters voices the various opinions about sex (spoken), and how they think it will satisfy (ex. unspoken need for attention, status, etc.)

IN PREPARATION ROOM. Nurse's face is flushed as she buttons her robe and silently brushes past Tomas. Their cheeks touching. 

IN PREPARATION ROOM. Nurse's face is flushed as she buttons her robe and silently brushes past Tomas. Their cheeks touching. 

NURSE: Will I see you in three weeks?

TOMAS: Exactly three weeks.

ADJOINING ROOM. She exits. Tomas goes into adjoining room and sees JAN and JIRI have been eavesdropping on him.

JAN: Tomas, I caught him spying again.

JIRI: Not spying, just learning. I want to know how you do it, you bastard. She's incredible. How can you not see her for three weeks?

Tomas and Jan being to have some fun with Jiri.

TOMAS: Because it's the rule of threes, Jiri.

JIRI (he wants to know - a pupil): What rule of threes?

Tomas acts like he doesn't want to explain, so Jan volunteers.

JAN: It's simple, Jiri. But it must be very carefully worked out. Either you see a woman three times in quick succession and then never again, or you maintain a relationship over the years but make sure that the meetings are at least three weeks apart.

JIRI: And what else?

TOMAS: Nothing else. That's the basis of the erotic contract.

JIRI: A contract?

TOMAS: Yes. An unwritten contract that stipulates that sentimentality has no place in a relationship.

JIRI: But what about love?

JAN: The contract stipulates that you exclude all love...

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sex is a metaphor for Tomas' life: It's his way, all the time.  However, his shift from "I" to "we" did not happen as I expected it to.  

It's hard to explain, but it's truly moving how his imperfections become exposed upon meeting Tereza and facing war, and the longing becomes contentment.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)(revised draft, 9/4/86)
by Jean Claude Carriere and Philip Kaufman
Based on the novel by Milan Kundera

* In Roger Ebert's review, he wrote: 

There is a lot of nudity in the film but no pornographic documentary quality; the camera does not linger, or move for the best view, or relish the spectacle of nudity. The result is some of the most poignant, almost sad, sex scenes I have ever seen - sensuous, yes, but bittersweet.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Body Double (1984) - Writing an Erotic Scene

[Quick Summary: An out-of-work actor watches a beautiful woman through a telescope, and when she is murdered, he chases her killer.]

I don't really like reading sex scenes on the page.

Frankly, they're often handled poorly, and I do not appreciate the writer trying to show off and/or shock me with yet another orgy scene that is neither sexy nor erotic. 

So what's does a good erotic scene look like on the page? 

I find it ironic that I cite this De Palma script as a good example.*

However, I admit that he explains well about what it should look like on the page: **

A lot of filmmakers think that just showing people kissing each other, and having a very good time, is enough. But so often their eyes are closed, and you can’t see their faces. The audience is completely shut out. In Hitchcock movies, you can see that they are kissing each other on the neck, and talking. They’re kissing lightly on the lips, and you can see their eyes. You see how they’re reacting. That’s what creates the eroticism of the scene. - Moviemaker (emphasis mine)

Note in the scene below how many times De Palma directs us back at the protagonist's (Jon) reaction.  We get involved as Jon gets involved:

ex. "Sam goes over to the telescope.
Looks through the viewfinder.

SAM: There's one very special feature to this house...

Sam fiddles with the viewer.
Pans to the side --up and down.Finds what he's looking for --

SAM: Come here, Jon. Meet my favorite neighbor.

Jon approaches.
An expression of doubtful bemusement on his face.

JON: Hey, Sam, what're you --

Sam grabs his arm.
Positions him at the telescope.

SAM: Just take a look.

Reluctant, but curious, Jon leans over.
Presses his eye to the lens.                                                                  CUT

INT. SAM'S HOUSE

POV
THROUGH THE TELESCOPE

EXT. FAMILY OF 4 HOUSE

Out of focus:
A family of four at the dinner table.

INT. SAM'S HOUSE

SAM (o.s.): See her?

JON (o.s.): Huh? Just a fmily.

SAM (o.s.): Not them, lower.

Jon pans down.
A jiggly movement.

EXT. GLORIA'S HOUSE

Focuses on the window below the family.
There in the window, a WOMAN.
Standing in the shadows.
A candle on the window sill.
Her face is obscured.
Like an eclipsed sun.
The woman, GLORIA, is drinking wine.
And touching herself.
Slowly, sensually, her breasts.
She puts the wine glass down.
Unbuttons her blouse.
Shrugs it off.
Beneath, she wears a thin silk camisole.
She unhooks her skirt.
It puddles to the floor.
She puts one foot up on a chair.
Touches her leg.
Caresses herself.

INT. SAM'S HOUSE

JON
at the telescope.
Fighting a battle.
And losing.
He cannot tear himself away.
Sam smiles.

SAM: Nice, huh?

And Sam retreats into the bedroom to pack."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The protagonist's reaction to what he sees, i.e., the change in him, is as important for us to see as what he's focused upon.

Body Double (1984)(revised 12/16/83)
by Robert . Averch and Brian De Palma
Story by Brian De Palma

*First, because his scripts are not really my cup of tea.

Second, if you didn't know already, De Palms is quite a divisive filmmaker, who chooses "more controversial terrain: suspense, violence and eroticism." (emphasis mine)

**I like that he says that eroticism, in his words, is "a bit of an illusion."

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

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

Two Thoughts:

1) PROTAGONIST-ANTAGONIST SWITCHEROO

I want to complain today.* I am irritated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ex. "MED. SHOT - STRUTT AND DETECTIVES

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

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

DETECTIVE: Can you describe her, Mr. Strutt?

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

As he writes the DETECTIVE begins to grin.

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

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

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

CLOSE-UP OF STRUTT ONLY

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

CLOSE-UP - MISS CROFT

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

CLOSE SHOT - STRUTT AND THE DETECTIVES

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

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

He looks off suddenly."

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

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

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

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

TODAY'S NUGGET: Klute (1971) - "It Can't Be Just About Sex"

[Quick Summary: A small town detective has only one clue to find a missing friend: a city prostitute.]  

Most scripts today have too much sex and/or badly written sex in them.

The result is gratuitous sex scenes that feel hollow...

...or (even worse) bore the reader.

Why is this so?

Many scripts fail to heed the rule: 

"...[I]t can't be just about sex.  If there's more sex going on, something else must be going on as well. So use the act to illustrate the action." (p. 188) 

So before writing a sex scene, I recommend:

1.  Closely reading Billy Mernit's chapter "Being Sexy." 

The rules for a rom-com couples apply to all couples.

2.  Reading (and re-reading) Klute, one of the sexiest thrillers I've read.

This script has less nudity than today's scripts, but it's sexier.

Klute is a detective who is trying to find his missing friend.

Bree is a jaded prostitute who last saw the friend.  She uses sex as a defense [the 'something else going on.']

When Bree finally beds Klute, it's a haunting, soulless act.

The sexual dynamic has a purpose:
-  Klute reveals a tender side to Bree.
-  Bree reveals an emptiness to Klute.
-  It also sets their relationship up for the rest of the film.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For couples to work, it's can't be just about sex.

Klute (1971)
by Andy Lewis and David E. Lewis