TODAY'S NUGGET: 12 Angry Men (1957) - The Invisible Structure of a Talky Script

[Quick Summary:  Twelve NYC jurors debate the fate of a young man accused of killing his father.]

Q: Why is dialogue so tricky, especially for new writers?
A: I think it's because they try to make dialogue carry things that it is not meant to.

Q:  "Telling" the plot instead of "showing," right?
A: Yes. 

Q: What about 12 Angry Men?  It's a very, very, very talky script where the jurors "tell" the defendant's story.
A: Yes, but that is not what the story is really about.

Q: What do you mean? 
A: It's really about the jurors' beliefs and attitudes.   It's not about what they say, but how they say it, when they say it, and how they persuade or defend.

Q: How did the writer do that? 
A:  Structure!  Here, the juxtaposition of dialogue revealed more than the words did.

Notice in the scene below:

• #8 (our hero) argues with juror #6 --> It reveals #6's faulty reasoning
•  #4's comment reveals his beliefs --> #8 identifies an opponent

ex. "#6: I don't know. I started to be convinced, uh...you know, very early in the case. Well, I was looking for the motive. That's very important. If there's no motive where's the case? So anyway, that testimony from those people across the hall from the kid's apartment, that was very powerful. Didn't they say something about an argument between the father and the boy around seven o'clock that night? I mean, I can be wrong.

MEDIUM SHOT   #11, #10, #9, #8  FROM ACROSS THE TABLE

#11: It was eight o'clock. Not seven.

#8: That's right. Eight o'clock. They heard an argument, but they coulen't hear what it was about. Then they heard the father hit the boy twice, and finally they saw the boy walk angrily out of the hosue. What does that prove?

CLOSE UP #6

Any time he is working on his own ideas he feels himself on unsteady ground, and is ready to back down. He does so now.

#6: Well it doesn't exactly prove anything. It's just part of the picture. I didn't say it proved anything.

MEDIUM SHOT  CENTERING ON #'S 6, 7, 8

#8: You said it revealed a motive for this killing. The prosecuting attorney said the same thing. Well I don't think it's a very strong motive. This boy has been hit so many times in his life that violence is practically a normal state of affairs for him. I can't see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder. [#8 discredits #6]

MEDIUM SHOT   #4

#4 (Quietly): It may have been two too many. Everyone has a breaking point.

CLOSE UP   #8

Looking across at #4, and realizing instantly that this will probably be his most powerful adversary.  #4 is the man of logic, and a man without emotional attachment to this case." [#8 recognizes opponent]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Juxtaposing Character A's dialogue against Character B's can reveal more unspoken things (ex. strategy, attitudes) than their words could.

12 Angry Men (1957) 
Story and screenplay by Reginald Rose

TODAY'S NUGGET: Strip Search (2004) - Hypocrisy; Visual Irony

[Quick Summary: Several stories, in 2 parts.  After 9/11, the same line of questioning is used for 2 interrogations in 2 countries.  One is "acceptable," the other is not.]

This script made me uncomfortable, and it should.

If I had to summarize the theme, it would be "Hypocrisy: You can dish it out, but you can't take it."

In one story, the writer uses parallel situations in the US and in China: 

- When the US gov't questions and humiliates a character born in another country, it seems acceptable.

- But when China questions and humiliates a US character - with the exact same questions, tone, actions, etc. - it is unacceptable.

This is not a "feel good" or (apparently) popular film. But it is thought provoking.

(I wonder if it would have been different if it was a satire?)

I found that mere juxtaposition of the same dialogue for the US scenes and then the China scenes allows the audience to put 2+2 = Hypocrisy.

Also, the writer then added this scene as a summary of our attitude today. Note the visual irony of the last line:

ex. "EXT. BATTERY PARK/MANHATTAN - DAY

MCGRATH buys hot dog from VENDOR, as JOHN SCANLON, newspaper reporter, calls to him.

SCANLON: Yo, Ned --

MCGRATH turns, sees SCANLON, groans.

SCANLON (cont.): I hear you fellows made a bust today, arrested some terrorist.

MCGRATH: Who told you that?

SCANLON: I never reveal my sources. This terrorist --

MCGRATH (bites into hot dog): I don't know what you're talking about

SCANLON: Ned, come on --

MCGRATH: We haven't arrested anyone, that's the truth.

SCANLON: Are you holding anyone? Questioning anyone? Sticking a hot poker up some poor towel-head's ass?

MCGRATH (eats): No comment.

SCANLON: At least give me the schmuck's name --

MCGRATH: No comment. (eats) You know the way these "schmucks" manipulate the judicial system -- and the media -- to their advantage.

SCANLON: My editor's been biting off my dick. Tell me something --

MCGRATH: You give me your source, I'll see what I can do.

SCANLON shakes his head, frustrated.

SCANLON: Ned, come on, this is me. We've always helped each other out. I spin for you, you spin for me. Remember in Kazakhstan --

MCGRATH (finishes hot dog): Ancient history, pal, back before the flood.

MCGRATH tosses napkin into trash can, goes. On SCANLON, looking up at where the World Trade Center used to be...

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I need to be more aware of how the juxtaposition of scenes (A, B, C) build on one another (A+B+C) to equal (= D) what I want the audience to conclude.

Strip Search (2004)(final draft; dated April 24, 2003)*
by Tom Fontana

*This was a tv movie on HBO, directed by Sidney Lumet.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Night Falls on Manhattan (1996) - Dealing With Moral Grey Areas

[Quick Summary: A new assistant D.A. is about to win a big case in which his father, a narcotics cop, is wounded while apprehending a dope dealer, but it all falls apart.]

Recently, I saw a comment on Twitter that the increased online outrage over films was because audiences today do not know how to deal with negative emotions.

This thought intrigued me.

How do we write stories that deal with negative emotions? Grey areas?

Can't we just have happy, happy stories? (NO. It's unrealistic, and worse, it's boring.)

For me, Sidney Lumet was a master of delving into moral grey areas. 

He didn't shy away from taking you through the fire and seeing the bleakest of human behavior, yet his films always ended on a hopeful note.

This script is exceptionally grey, complicated, and human.

I think there are two keys to this script:

1) Everyone is shown with BOTH heroic and selfish traits.
2) No one can escape the tough decision(s).  Good men do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

ex. "MORGENSTERN: Sean, when we capture Jordan, and we will, he's going to be tried. It's the easiest case this office will ever have. He left one empty gun behind. His prints are on it. And I'll bet you whatever you want ballistics to find bullets in one of those four cops that came from that gun. He's the worst dope dealer in Harlem, a murderer of his own people, a monster. As I said: easiest case to ever come in this office. I hope they get him alive. Because I want him put on trial by this office. And you know who the prosecutor is gonna be?

Elihu smiles.

MORGENSTERN (cont): You, Sean. You're gonna try him.

Elihu's smile freezes on his face. Sean looks pole-axed.

MORGENSTERN (cont): That's right. You Sean. (to Elihu) You're looking at me like I'm crazy.

ELIHU: Well - Morgy - with apologies to you, Sean - Morgy, it's a giant case. Sean has never tried anything this close to this, in size, in importance.

SEAN: Mr. Morgenstern -

Morgy starts to cut in.

SEAN (cont): Morgy - Mr. Harrison's right. I'm too inexperienced - A mistake could -

MORGENSTERN: There's no problem here. My son would win this case and he's not out of high school. And he's stupid. This case is not complicated....

He eases Sean out of the room, crosses to his desk, pops a pill. Elihu is sitting in stoney silence.

ELIHU: Why are you doing this?

MORGENSTERN: He's at the top of the class. It's a simple case. I got a feeling about him.

ELIHU (after a pause): You mean it?

MORGENSTERN: You bet your goy ass I do.

ELIHU: You realize I'll have to resign.

MORGENSTERN: So, resign.

ELIHU: Morgy, I'm senior trial counsel. Turning this over to anybody but me is an insult that's incredibly damaging to me.  To my career. But to turn it over to an ADA with eight months experience is more than insulting. It's shocking, humiliating. It's unacceptable.

MORGENSTERN: Listen to me, you prick. You think I don't know what's going on? The walls have ears, my friend. Those planted stories in the papers? Morgenstern is old, Morgenstern's got heart problems, Morgenstern's lost his touch. That's your work, Eli. You and that goddamn PR firm you hired. You though I didn't know? I got lots of friends, Eli. People owe me."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: 

Night Falls on Manhattan (1996)
Based on the book by Robert Daley, "Tainted Evidence"

TODAY'S NUGGET: Running on Empty (1988) - Specificity: Helping Others Read Between the Lines

[Quick Summary: After years on the run with his parents, Danny, a talented pianist, applies to Julliard, which starts a chain of painful and freeing events.]

How do you get an audience to "read between the lines"?

How do you explain things to readers without TELLING them?

Perhaps one clue comes from Rogert Ebert, who gave this film four stars, wrote:

Lumet is one of the best directors at work today, and his skill here is in the way he takes a melodramatic plot and makes it real by making it specific.

Hmmm...specific? What does that mean?

This script is very specific, and I think that is why it's such a great read.

I noticed that the scenes have a specific intention, a specific purpose to accomplish.

Each character also has a specific intention, which often conflicts with others.

The more specific the movement or words, the more unspoken implications are understood.

EXAMPLE #1:
- The scene intention: To show the family moves often.
- Character intentions: The boys express sadness. Mom comforts, yet is realistic.

"INT. CHEAP MOTEL ROOM

The two boys from the earlier scene are lying on the motel bed watching the news. The woman is seated next to them on the bed. She's taking pins out of her hair.

HARRY (seeing the dog): There's Jomo.

WOMAN: You two get out of your jeans and into bed.

No one makes a move.

HARRY (still talking about the dog): What's gonna happen to her?

WOMAN: Someone will take her home.

Harry doesn't appear convinced.

HARRY: We never had to leave her before.

WOMAN: I'm sorry, kid."

EXAMPLE #2:
- The scene intention: To show Annie/Mom has past feelings for visitor Gus.
- Character intentions: Annie tries to maintain normalcy. Gus drags up romantic feelings.

"INT. POPE LIVING ROOM - NIGHT

Gus and Annie sit on the floor with coffee mugs. Annie leans against the foot of the couch. Gus rolls a joint.

GUS: You haven't changed a bit, Annie.

ANNIE: We better keep to discipline. It's Cynthia. (she's silent a moment) I've changed. (but she's not going to tell him about it) Under this Miss Clairol is a grey bush.

GUS (he's not to be so easily deflected): I look at you and I see you standing on the corner of Michigan Avenue in a Mexican blouse and big silver earrings.

ANNIE: That was a long time ago.

GUS: How's Artie?

This question has many levels. She knows it and answers ambiguously.

ANNIE: He's okay. He did some work in Florida on a toxic waste dump. Here he organized a food co-op. And he's trying to get his restaurant to unionize.

He didn't mean this.

GUS: How are you and Artie?

She answers this the same way.

ANNIE: We're okay. It's hard.

GUS: I think about you.

ANNIE: I think about you. (now she qualifies it) I hope you're safe.

GUS (looking around): How do you manage this? Kids. A house. A regular life.

ANNIE: I'm a good liar.

She puts down her cup and stretches out on the floor. He watches her.

ANNIE: God, I'm tired.

GUS: Here. Give me your feet."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've never really considered how to show the character's specific intent through action.  It makes sense that More Specificity = More Clarity.

Running on Empty (1988)(3rd draft, dated 1/20/87)
by Naomi Foner

TODAY'S NUGGET: Garbo Talks (1984) - Using Non Sequiturs in Comedy

[Quick Summary: A dedicated son seeks high and low to fulfill his dying mother's wish to meet Greta Garbo.]

This is a comedy.

...which ISN'T an exciting fact, except this IS a Sidney Lumet directed comedy.

...which IS exciting because Lumet did not direct many comedies at all. (In fact, he's states that he's not very good at comedy.*)   

OK, so the execution of the script may not have hit it out of the park.

But is the script good??!  Why did it attract Lumet, Anne Bancroft, and Ron Silver?

The script is a tremendous work of comedy. 

I wonder how many hours it took to hone, and hone, and hone so the comedy became this sharp.

I particularly liked how the script portrays the mother Estelle through non sequiturs.

Estelle is eccentric and maddening, but sane. 

I liked that she would choose a non sequitur and run it all the way to its furthest conclusion.

These "logical" non sequiturs fit this character well. They are broad, but not wacky. They rail against injustice, and champion the underdog.

ex.  "ANOTHER ANGLE - AS A WAITRESS

comes over.

WAITRESS: Hello.

ESTELLE: I'll have the chicken salad plate.

The waitress writes it down.

GILBERT: Just coffee.

ESTELLE (to waitress): You don't reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. That's very nice.

FAVOR WAITRESS

She hasn't the slightest idea what Estelle is talking about. Estelle sees her consternation and explains, pointing to the bottom of the menu.

ESTELLE: In the south, restaurants used to print, 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' on the bottom of  menus ---

ANGLE - GILBERT

Convulsing in his chair with embarrassment:

GILBERT: Mother, for Godssake!

FAVOR ESTELLE

She ignores him.

ESTELLE: They did this to keep black customers out. They would lie and say it was to keep out drunks, but everyone knew differently. You still see it on menus today. It's nice to see it's not on yours.

WAITRESS (after speechless beat): Anything else?"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  When Estelle goes off on a rant/non sequitur, it seems random but it is not.
She has a purpose in mind.

From a writing standpoint, it's a great way to sneak in the character's point of view on topics, while still delivering laughs.

Garbo Talks (1984)(undated)
by Larry Grusin

*I have not seen the film, but this fact could very well be true, if Roger Ebert's one star review is to be believed.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Daniel (1983) - Tricky Adaption Problem; Theme That You Intend

[Quick Summary: A young man relives the heavy cost of the accusations, incarcerations and trials of his Jewish parents during the 1940s.]

You're a hungry screenwriter. (Producer or director is ok too.)

You're reading script after script, and you've gotten comfortable...and bored.
 
What do you do?

Answer: To up your game, you read and study scripts of advanced difficulty.

(In sports terms, it's called boxing/wrestling above your weight class.)

This is an advanced script.*

Ok, ok, it has a slow start.  Yes, the scattered timeline is distracting.

No, it did not do well at the box office, and reviews were mixed.

Even the director said the final film "succeeded in some cases, did not succeed in others." (p. 121)

However, I still believe it's worth reading because:

1) Sidney Lumet directed it.

Lumet never failed to choose emotionally challenging material that had something important to say (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico).

2) It shows you how to tackle a tricky adaption problem.

Daniel, for a director, presented nightmarish problems because, first of all, you must find out how to make that internal life clear, and find the visual equivalent of Edgar's [E.L. Doctorow's] poetry, of Edgar's nonreality.  How do you make a picture seem real? But you can't use reality because it's not a realistic novel. The time fracturing that Edgar did was the only way to tell the story... (Interview with Lumet, p. 121)

3) It shows you that the theme you intend may not be what comes across.

I read the script but was still unsure of its theme. Film reviewers were too. 

Then I read this quote from Lumet:

I was at that point in my life, again without knowing it, very ready for anything to do with family. My children were growing up and, like all people who have been, well, obsessive about work, I started wondering what damage I had caused. Who was paying for my obsessiveness? Had my kids paid for my obsessiveness? And from a thematic point of view that to me is the largest single element in Daniel.  To me, it is a book about who pays for your passion. Because passion is such a part of one's life. (p. 119-120)

A-ha! The theme is how parents' decisions affect their children. Not an easy theme.

I saw how the writer here did it, and wondered, "Could I make it clearer?"

I am not sure I could (but perhaps someone smarter than me could.) 

You've got to admit, though, that this writer had guts to try for it.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Read hard scripts to broaden your horizons of what works or does not work. Don't be afraid to aim high, even if it doesn't quite make it.

Daniel (1983) 
by E.L. Doctorow, based on his novel, The Book of Daniel 

*It is also the rare case where I think it was best that the novelist adapted his own work.  But also note this novelist/book editor/professor/playwright/screenwriter has been winning awards since 1975.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Prince of the City (1981) - Showing the Grey of Corruption

[Quick Summary:  Corrupt narcotics cop agrees to inform on his fellow cops for the Chase Commission, but isn't prepared for the heavy toll it takes.]

Could you write a script showing how corruption is a fast and easy crime?

The correct answer is NO, and this script shows why:

1) Corruption is a repeated behavior over time, i.e., a pattern.

INTERPRETATION: Your script will probably be long. Here, it's 183 pgs.

2) Corruption trips up people in the details.

INTERPRETATION: Your script, like this one, will likely be very dense, with multiple characters, locations, and/or situations.

3) The effects of corruption on the participants and families are heavy.

INTERPRETATION: This script is an ambitious, troubling, realistic portrayal of what cops have to do when waging a war against drugs, and it isn't nice and neat.

This script really shines in showing egos, doubts, and dilemmas. 

Danny Ciello is a good man, loyal friend. and an effective NYPD narcotics cop who does many questionable things in the line of duty.

He protects his squad, but he also passes drugs to informants. 

He won't squeal on his friends, but when Brooks Paige (U.S. Attorney's Office) comes asking for help, Danny is flattered and wants to play in the big leagues.

In the scene below, Ciello is talking to his wife Carla:

ex. "CIELLO: But Carla... I've found a very important friend.

CARLA: More important than your old friends?

CIELLO: It's different. This guy Paige... it's crazy but I want to run up the wall for him. Remember that old science fiction movie When the Earth Stood Still? And this tall, good-looking guy from another planet came and fixed everything -- Michael Rennie? You just looked at him and knew he could handle it...

CARLA: What is it you think this Paige's going to handle so great?

CIELLO: (a beat) Well, Loughlin, for one.

CARLA: Loughlin shouldn't have been in in the first place.

CIELLO: (suddenly miserable) I know that. I know..."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even though there was no easy answers and it was all greys, I felt the ending was well-earned, which was no easy feat.

Prince of the City (1981)
by Jay Presson Allen and Sidney Lumet
Based on the book by Robert Daley

TODAY'S NUGGET: Serpico (1973) - The Uncomfortable Character

[Quick Summary: When officer Frank Serpico refuses bribes, his fellow officers are out for his blood.]
 
The real Frank Serpico said: 

“They took the job I loved most,” he said. “I just wanted to be a cop, and they took it away from me.”

Did he say that in 1967 when he testified against fellow cops?

No, he said that in 2010, FORTY THREE years later.

What does this tell you about him? That he holds grudges? That he's soured?

To me, it says this man believed deeply in the principles that his badge represented.

It was a belief so deep that he was willing to suffer great personal discomfort and pay the price, even if it meant losing his badge (and he did). 

Why is this character so interesting? This article about the film put it well:

[Serpico is] ‘a driven character of Dostoyevskian proportions, an anti-cop cop.’ And the positioning of Serpico as a man with this dual nature, one foot in each world but never wholly accepted into either, heightened his isolation and discomfort in almost every aspect of his life, making for a compelling human drama. 

ex. "Serpico and Peluce are sitting at a table, food and soft drinks on trays in front of them. Serpico takes a bite of the sandwich, makes a face, opens the sandwich and looks at the meat.

SERPICO: This is 85% fat!

He starts to get up.

SERPICO: Hell, I saw some real lean beef over there.

Peluce grabs him by the arm.

PELUCE: Take it easy. Don't be so fussy. it's free. Listen, Charlie's an okay guy. We give him a break on double-parking on deliveries.

Serpico is disconcerted. He senses there's a kind of protocol here that he should not defy -- and he doesn't want to offend Peluce. He sits down.

SERPICO (diffidently): Couldn't I pay for it...and get what I want?

PELUCE: You pay for yours...I'd look pretty dumb. (pause) Frank, generally...you just sort of take what Charlie gives you.

He looks somewhat sheepish. On Serpico's face there is surprise and then a look of disgust."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I feel the trendy thing is to create morally ambiguous characters and duck the uncomfortable questions for another day (that never comes).

This character was refreshing because he couldn't be bought and actually had to make many uncomfortable decisions that had tough consequences.

Serpico (1973)
by Waldo Salt & Norman Wexler
Based on the book, "Serpico," by Peter Maas

TODAY'S NUGGET: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) - Delaying the Reveal Gets the Reader to Participate

[Quick Summary: Two brothers rob their parents' jewelry store, but it goes very wrong.]

I find that Sidney Lumet scripts pull you in without you knowing it.

They get the reader to participate.

ex. "INT. HOSPITAL - DAY

Gina and Andy hurry down a long corridor to...

INT. HOSPITAL WAITING ROOM - DAY

They turn into it and both stop. A lone man sits hunched over in a chair with his face buried in his hands. Andy runs to him as Gina hangs back.

ANDY: Dad!

The man looks up and we see it's Charles."

Note:

- This scene does not reveal who the man is right away.
- It makes us wait to discover his identity WITH the other characters.
- We're curious about the "lone man", so we keep reading.

(Also, I like how the scene is uncluttered, i.e., not overloaded with adjectives or description.)

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't tell the reader everything immediately.

When possible, let the reader discover things with the characters.

P.S. If you're looking for how to segues into a flashback, this script has several excellent examples.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
by Kelley Masterson

TODAY'S NUGGET: #69 WGA Script of All Time - Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

[Quick Summary: Based on a true 1972 story, two robbers hold up a Brooklyn bank (one robber is financing his lover's sex change operation), and become the first inadvertent media darlings.]

Though the 1st half of the script was struggle to read, I was impressed by the opening lines:

"EXT. ELECTRIC SIGN

It FILLS THE SCREEN....It says:

2:51

This message will be a little cryptic to the movie audience on an essentially BLACK SCREEN. HOLD for a beat, then it changes: the lights flash this sign, which should explain it to everyone:

94 degrees F."

I know everything in a few sentences: 

- It's summer & hot & in the afternoon.
- We're at a bank.
- Something is about to go down at the bank.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  It's extremely smart to orient your reader to the location. 

It says, "I'm not trying to outsmart you, reader. I trust you. We're in this together."

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
by Frank Pierson

TODAY'S NUGGET: #91 WGA Script of All Time - The Verdict (1982)

[Quick Summary: When an alcoholic lawyer gets an "easy" personal injury case that is ready to be settled, he does the unthinkable & takes it to trial.]

Holy freaking cow.  Why have I not read more David Mamet?

He's known for his dialogue, but this script's subtext blew my mind.

On the surface, this is about a washed up lawyer who has only one, rather weak case.

Below the surface, Roger Ebert writes:

"Sidney Lumet and Paul Newman, seem to be going for something more; "The Verdict" is more a character study than a thriller, and the buried suspense in this movie is more about Galvin's own life than about his latest case."

How does Mamet do it? 

First, the trajectory of the case parallels Galvin's (the main character) personal recovery.

Second, when Galvin battles setbacks on the case, it's really about his own setbacks.

ex.  Early on, we learn that Galvin was a big firm lawyer who was accused of jury tampering on a case. He lost everything - wife, job, respect, etc. 

He gets now gets Deborah Ann's case.  She is in a coma now because she received the wrong anesthetic during delivery. 

Around p. 27, the doctors' lawyer offers Galvin a generous settlement of $210k...and Galvin refuses.  He wants the world to know the truth of what happened. 

But why?  Wouldn't it be better just to settle?

We only discover Galvin's reasoning around p. 53: He was also an innocent victim in the jury tampering case.  When he seeks justice for innocent Deborah Ann, he is also settling the score for his own innocent self.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've never seen subtext that is felt rather than seen.  The craft was the sublime b/c everything was clear, but nothing was heavy handed or remotely on the nose.

The Verdict (1982)
by David Mamet

TODAY’s 2nd NUGGET: #8 WGA Script of All Time – Network (1976)

[Quick Summary: Network exploits a mad, ranting news anchor for ratings.]

"Network" isn’t for sissies.

It's refreshing because it doesn't shy away from complicated characters with real moral issues. 

In fact, the script lets ALL the dirty laundry hang out so that we can talk about it.

ex. Howard was the news anchor, but he's fired.  However his last on-air rant sky rocketed the rating, so they hire him back. 

Diana the programmer exploits Howard's deteriorating mental health.   She never asks if it's right or wrong because it's the ratings that count, not people.  Thus, we get to explore how callous society has become.

ex. Max, fired president of the news division, tells his wife Louise that he's fallen for Diana, but doesn't know why.  Louise doesn't slink away.

Instead, she pins his ears back with a blistering speech:

"...This is your great winter romance, isn't it? Your last roar of passion before you sink into your emeritus years.  Is that what's left for me? Is that my share? She gets the great winter passion and I get the dotage?" 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Too many scripts try to soften the blow for a character's choices.  This script didn't. 

ex. Max jumped for a mirage & he fell.  Hard.

There were no soft landings or cute escapes.

I liked that he truly suffered the consequences of his decisions because that's what makes them REAL, three dimensional characters.

Network (1976)
By Paddy Chayefsky