TODAY'S NUGGET: It Takes Two (a.k.a. Househusbands)(1988) - Don't Be Afraid of Longer Character Descriptions in a Comedy

[Quick Summary: After two complete opposites are paired up on the neighborhood watch, they have to pull together to deal with dead bodies and a drug cartel.]

I was attracted to this script because of its original title, "Househusbands."  Unfortunately, the story didn't stick with me for long afterwards.*

However, I did like how the writers characterized the characters so you'll remember them. They're descriptive and fun to read, and carry the point without forcing it.  

Most importantly, I felt something when I read them.  

For example:

1) This character seems to shout "Stay away!"

ex. "Duncan is an extremely cheap looking girl, about twenty. Her hair is ratted; clothes black leather. Lipstick the color of exposed lung-tissue. Eye makeup...not even Stephen King has the balls to write about. Lewd knuckle tattoos, mantlepiece breasts and hickeys all over her neck and chest.  Right now, she has the passenger visor down and is analyzing Dale's reflection on the clip-on mirror."

2) This character seems to have secrets beneath the surface. 

ex. "Otto almost smiles. His eighty rounds per second sense of humor working." 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Fun is key in comedies, so don't be afraid to give character descriptions more space on the page if you need it.  

I have a bad habit of short changing the descriptions, favoring utility over a fully rounded character. I need to remember that some characters just need more space.

It Takes Two (a.k.a. Househusbands)(1988)(8/16/88 1st draft)
by Thomas Szollosi and Richard Christian Matheson

*I haven't seen the finished film, but it seems to be very different than this first draft.  

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: Duplicity (2009) - Why Do I Believe the Chemistry (& Fireworks) Between These Characters?

[Quick Summary: Two industrial spies, who are in a secret love affair, are on opposite sides of a case.]

Tony Gilroy writes scripts that actors want to play. 

Why? One reason is because the chemistry between characters has real conflict and interesting dynamics.  I want to see how these fireworks resolve.  

For example, in the scene below: 
- Ray is being followed.
- His work buddy, Dale, is watching his back. They're on the phone together, trying to figure out  who is following Ray.
- In Grand Central Station, Ray recognizes Claire. He follows her into a store.
- Notice how FAST the writer gets us into the action. Ray blows by the usual "hi how are you" --> straight into his beef with Claire. 
- The audience sees Ray's behavior and realizes (without being told) that Ray and Claire know each other. Only someone familiar would bypass the usual greetings.
- Also: the suspense draws me in (WHY is he so mad?).
- Also: the provocative, snappy dialogue keeps me reading ("You charm me. Seduce me. Screw me.")

INT. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE -- DAY

... CLAIRE blinks. But she's a big girl. It's a public place...

CLAIRE: Look, seriously, I don't know you think I am, but wh-

RAY: You charm me. Seduce me. Screw me. Then you dope me and ransack my hotel room. (he still can't believe it) And how sick is this? Last thing I remember before I passed out whs how much I liked you.

CLAIRE: I'm sorry...I just...you don't look crazy, which is the only reason I'm not screaming for a security guard, but --

RAY: I can't believe you're going this way. 

CLAIRE: Is this...(glancing around) ...it's a joke, right?

RAY: You have any idea how far my ass was hanging out because of you?

CLAIRE: Is this? Are you selling something? What are you selling?

RAY: I got up the next morning, went back to the consulate and practically crawled over glass to get a copy of the guest list. Then I spent the next twenty-four hours trying to figure out if you were working for MOSSAD, the Syrians, or the Russians.

CLAIRE: Really...(maybe he is crazy) And who was it?

RAY: Still working for the C.I.A.? (like he nailed her) We're supposed to be on the same side, Theresa. Which was a lousy cover name for you, by the way -- you're not a THeresa. 

CLAIRE: What the hell are you talking about?

RAY: American Consulate. Dubai. You and me. Fourth of July, 2003.

CLAIRE: You are crazy (Does this ever work?)

RAY: We were drinking red, white and blue Margaritas. I had a knee brace. You had a toe ring -- first toe ring I ever saw, by the way.

CLAIRE: If you follow me, I'll scream.

And she's walking -- fast -- back the way she came -- back into the Perfume Jungle, and he's right on her ass --

...RAY: Come on... you don't want security any more than I do.

CLAIRE: You're right, I want the cops.

RAY: They're gonna want your name.

CLAIRE: Leave me alone! (wheeling on him and --)

HER PURSE -- the strap catching his arm -- tearing -- THE BAG SPILLING OPEN TO THE FLOOR and --

CLAIRE: -- look -- look what you did! --

CLAIRE dropping -- grabbing at the stuff that's spilled --

CLAIRE: --get away -- just -- you hear me? --

RAY: Oh no...

And the way he said it -- the way he looks -- something fundamental has shifted here suddenly --

RAY: You?

There -- at his feet -- her keys -- a KEYCHAIN -- a little Rubik's cube (Eight ball? Troll?) keychain and --

RAY: You? You're the drop...(pulling an identical keychain from his pocket --) I'm ...

CLAIRE: You? You're the meet? (yup) No... 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I believed the chemistry because they're both continuing to engage in the fight, trying to get what they want, even though something isn't adding up. Ray wants answers and Claire wants to avoid him. 

Duplicity (2009)(undated)
by Tony Gilroy

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) - The Devil IS in the Details (Twist)

[Quick Summary: Bourne, a guy on the run with amnesia, goes back to his roots to find out how he became an assassin.]

Though the Bourne films varied for me,* all the scripts are good to excellent.  

I admire the writers for continuing to find ways to create new obstacles for Bourne.   It's tough to surprise today's audiences, who are often wise to genre tropes.  

Thrillers have a lot of fast paced action, but I'm always impressed when there's a twist that relies more on brains than brawn. 

For example, today's script had a small, clever detail that snuck by me. 

Yes, it's a small, but the devil IS in the details, isn't it?

EXT. UPPER EAST SIDE -- LATE AFTERNOON

Bourne exits from the subway. Bourne walks north.

INT. HUB

Wills pacing...Bourne's profile is up on Screen 2. It says "David Webb (AKA Jason Bourne)" on the profile.  A tech comes to Wills.

TECH: Sir, this may be nothing but, look at Bourne's birthday.

Wills looks at the profile. Bourne's birthdate is listed as 9/13/70.

WILLS: What about it?

TECH: Well, Landy told Bourne his birthday was 4/15/71 so...

Wills gets it instantly.

WILLS: Everything stops. (to the room now) EVERYTHING STOPS! LISTEN UP! (they're listening) New assignment. Numbers. Four.  Fifteen. Seventy-one. What do they mean?

Wills grabs his headset --

EXT. CRASH SITE -- DAY

A CRI agent approaches Vosen.

CRI AGENT: Landy gave Bourne a false birthday. Wills thinks it's a code. 

It sinks in for Vosen...oh...shit... 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I liked this twist because it relied on observation, not having superior gadgets. 

The Bourne Identity (2007)(final shooting script, 7/20/2007)
by Tony Gilroy and Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi
Story by Tony Gilroy
Based on the novels by Robert Ludlum and Universal's "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Ultimatum"

* How I ranked the Bourne films:
- Bourne Identity: It's the freshest and most original.
- Bourne Supremacy: I wanted to see what happened to Marie.  
- Bourne Utlimatum: I'd lost patience with the "guy on the run with amnesia."   

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Bourne Identity (2002) - In the Suspense Genre, Danger = Possibility of Failure

[Quick Summary: A man waking up with amnesia realizes that he's an assassin.] 

What is the difference between:
a) the Suspense genre and 
b) regular suspense that is found in all stories?

According to one Hitchcock quote, the Suspense genre is marked by danger, and I always find interesting in HOW various writers include it.  

For instance, writer Tony Gilroy brought fresh life to the tired suspense genre in the Bourne adaptations by making the audience feel the danger to the protagonist.

The scene below is from a first draft:
- The "Professor" is chasing Bourne and Marie. 
- Notice how your eye keeps moving because the stakes are high and there's a real possibility of failure. 
- Also notice that the tension lies in the maybes: Maybe Bourne will get caught and we'll never get answers. Or Marie will die and he'll lose connection to the world.

THE METRO PLATFORM

The PROFESSOR lands on the other side -- both racing down the platform -- PROFESSOR tearing up the wall behind them and -- HERE COMES  A TRAIN -- on BOURNE and MARIE's side -- traveling the opposite way -- temporary refuge.  Not for long -- there's no way out on this end of the platform. They skid to a halt -- just as --

THE TRAIN DOORS OPEN -- STARTLED STRAPHANGERS  stare at BOURNE and MARIE as they stop onto the platform -- take off running.

THE PROFESSOR has to turn his bike around. He's quick -- but it gives BOURNE and MARIE a two second head start.

BOURNE and MARIE almost at the other end of the platform -- gunfire ripping up the windows behind them. Gonna go for the steps -- be here come --

THE ANGRY COPS -- remember them? -- the ones who took the ride down the steps -- they're firing now and --

BOURNE and MARIE turn back -- the PROFESSOR is firing and there is only one option -- 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  What undergirds danger is the possibility of failure, which requires the push-pull of tension. 

I also think this story's frame work lends itself to suspense because it's the ultimate life or death situation, survival of the fittest. 

The Bourne Identity (2002)(9/20/00 Paris draft)
by Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron
Based on the novel by Robert Ludlum 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Proof of Life (2000) - One Way to Express Jeopardy (Hope-Fear-Hope-Fear)

[Quick Summary: In South America, an American wife hires a negotiator to arrange for the release of her husband, an engineer who was kidnapped.]

Q: How do you make the audience feel for the protagonist in an action thriller?
A: Danger and personal stakes are well worn tropes.

Q: But I have a dangerous situation in my script and it doesn't work. Why?
A: Perhaps there isn't enough jeopardy, i.e., the possibility that the protagonist could lose.

Q: Could you give me a good example of this see-sawing feeling?
A: I think Tony Gilroy scripts do a great job of making the audience feel they're constantly on the back foot and never assured of success.

For example, today's script stacks the deck against us:
- It is set in a foreign location where language and culture are barriers.  
- A crime (kidnapping) has occurred to Alice's husband, a civil engineer.   
- Alice has no experience with terrorists.
- Her only hope is Terry is a hardened, experienced negotiator, who at one point, walks away from helping her.
- A more specific example is the scene below, which happens early in the script to start us realizing that  the margin of error is very thin in Terry's job.
- Here, Terry has just made the trade for the hostage, Lenoir.
- Notice how the hope-fear-hope-fear that doesn't let the reader off the hook easily.
- Also notice that how this scene establishes Terry's ability and credibility.

 

TERRY'S JEEP -- THE LOCAL DRIVER -- stuck in the mud -- panic making it worse - -just finding traction as TRACER ROUNDS tear into him and --

THE TWO CHECHEN TANKS searching for targets --

TERRY still coming -- waving a sidearm at THE CHOPPER PILOT -- "don't move!" -- dragging LENOIR in under the rotors -- [We are hoping Terry will succeed.]

A RUSSIAN JEEP EXPLODING behind them and --

INSIDE THE CHOPPER  -- total chaos -- LENOIR scrambling in -- THE PILOT SCREAMING IN SLAVIC -- he's freaking out -- pulling up already -- too soon because -- [Fear: Oh no! Don't go!]

TERRY hasn't cleared the threshold -- tossed back -- head slammed against the door as he falls -- rocked -- grabbing at the doorframe -- hanging there! -- nothing but instinct keeping him from falling and -- [Hope: He's hanging in there.]

THE GROUND pulling away and --

LENOIR reaching for TERRY -- trying -- but THE PILOT -- there's something wrong -- something new -- no time -- suddenly he's jerking the stick and --

THE CHOPPER spilling sharply to one side and --

TERRY falling -- falling into the cockpit and -- [Fear: Oh noooo!]

WHOOOOOSK! -- AN ANTI-TANK ROCKET -- a blur -- already on them -- already past -- they've been hit! -- creased -- A LANDING SKID torn away from the undercarriage! -- the helicopter tilting -- overreacting -- stalling -- for a moment it looks like they're beating it in and -- 

THE PILOT fighting to keep it up -- CURSING AND SPUTTERING IN SLOVAK -- LENOIR rolling on the floor in pain -- his bandaged hand crushed in the turbulence and --  [Lots more fear.  This will not end well.]

FINALLY TO

TERRY pulling himself into a window seat. He's dazed. Looking down as the earth begins to pull away. As the chopper starts to level off.   [Whew! Hope.  Leveling off is good.]

TERRY wiping at the blood from a deep cut above his eye. Wiping it away so he can see. Trying to get a grip. To focus. Something. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For that gut wrenching feeling, discomfort and the possibility of not succeeding must reign.

Proof of Life (2000)(7/6/99 draft)
by Tony Gilroy 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Devil's Advocate (1997) - A Great Writer is Inventive in Getting the Audience into the Character

[Quick Summary: A defense lawyer makes a deal with the devil to defend him.]

I think what sets a good writer apart from a great writer is inventiveness.  

I particularly look for unusual visual (which is often called "cinematic") ways into characters that we've not seen before. 

For example, this script presents who the Milton character is in one startling image: 

INT. CATHOLIC CHURCH - DAY

Milton down below. Lowering a single finger into the holy water. Instantly -- it's boiling and we --

                                         HARD CUT TO; 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think this image is quite inventive because it's arresting and also makes me more curious about what's the character will do next. 

The Devil's Advocate (1997)(1/18/97 shooting script)
by Jonathan Lemkin and Tony Gilroy
Based on the novel by Andrew Neiderman
 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Mindhunters (2004) - How to Make an Information Dump More Interesting to Watch (Clarity of Purpose)

[Quick Summary: After a group of FBI trainees are dropped off on a deserted island for a weekend training exercise, one of them starts killing them off, one by one.]

I thought this script did a great job of bringing the audience into the psychological game that's being played.  How did the writers do it?

They had to find a way to quickly get into the minds of the trainees, explain how they think (essentially an information dump), yet maintain a brisk pacing. 

The writers knew that the most traditional and efficient way to do this is through interviews of the trainees.  Their new addition here was using new technology.  

For example, in the scene below: 
- Harris, the FBI trainer, has brought the trainees to an isolated island for training.
- Someone has a beef with all of them. Weird things start to happen.
- Sara, one of the trainees, goes looking for information and finds a laptop with her fellow trainees' initial interviews.  
- Notice that this is an information dump, but a necessary and efficient one. 
- The interview is a tried-and-true technique, but the writers used a more modern tool here to do so (the laptop). 
- Also, Sara is seeking clues, so the interviews feel more like answers to her questions vs. telling the audience information. 

INT. THE DORM ROOMS -- MOMENTS LATER

...Sara's eyes SWING to the LAPTOP on J.D's bed.

THE SCREEN

is filled with STAR-BURSTS - a SCREEN-SAVER program.

She presses the command button. The computer comes to life.

ON THE SCREEN -- J.D. APPEARS ON VIDEO TAPE

In the middle of an INTERVIEW.

J.D. (on tape): ...If there's one thing I've learned working for the Bureau, there's always a cause and effect. Even in the sickest criminal mind.

HARRIS (V.O.)(on tape): But do you want to crawl into that kind of mind?

ANGLE THE GROUP

as they stare at the laptop - dumbfounded.

J.D. (on tape): Do I want to? No. But will I? Yes.

ANGLE THE LAPTOP -- AS THE SCREEN

turns to SNOW

and ANOTHER INTERVIEW blinks on.

BOBBY (on tape): I'd be walking, just minding my own business, and a squad car would pull over. I used to carry a photo ID just to prove I lived in the neighborhood.

HARRIS (V.O.): Why Behavioral Science?

BOBBY (on tape): You're the best...

TIGHT ON BOBBY

BOBBY: That's my psych-eval interview...

ANGLE THE LAPTOP --

SNOW again...

ANOTHER INTERVIEW blinks on.

NICOLE (on tape): I was 11 years-old. I came home from school and mom was unconscious . The police took him away. It's the first time I remember feeling safe. We never heard from dad again...

ANOTHER ANGLE - LUCAS

LUCAS (on tape): I left medical school to join the Bureau because I thought I could be more effective on the front lines. (beat) What can I say? I'm an adrenaline junkie.

ANGLE - RAMON 

RAMON (on tape): Once I got a taste of homicide, there was no turning back. There's not a helluva lot more satisfying than seeing a killer brought to justice.

ANGLE - VINCE

VINCE (on tape): I was that kid. The one who knew everything there is to know about serial killers. I've always wanted to be a mindhunter. The accident hasn't changed that.

ANGLE - SARA

SARA (on tape): Her killer sent me letters from different mailing services for a year after we found the body. Told me everything he did to her. (beat) Every single thing.

TIGHT ON SARA

flushing crimson...

AND THE SCREEN FREEZES. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't particularly notice the information dump about other characters here because the scene had real clarity of purpose.  

That is, Sara was seeking answers, so watching her register new information was more interesting to watch than if I was told it.

Also, the laptop was cool updated tech to use in a film, but it didn't replace knowing the fundamentals of drama (re: how to convey information through interviews).

Mindhunters (2004)(12/17/00 revised draft)
by Wayne Kramer, revisions by Kevin Brodbin, Kario Salem

TODAY'S NUGGET: To Live & Die in LA (1985) - A Good Example of "It's All About the Relationship" as Motive

[Quick Summary: A Secret Service agent pulls out all the stops to chase the counterfeiter who killed his partner.] 

I still hate the pat answer, "It's all about the relationship between the characters," because whatever does that mean?

Today's script partially answered that question for me.  It's a great example of how a relationship can motivate a loner (here, the protagonist).

In the scene below:
- Chance is the protagonist.
- He and Hart are Secret Service partners. Hart retires in 3 days.
- Because there's so much betrayal in his work, Chance trusts very few people, and is very loyal to them, especially Hart.
- This scene shows that rare moment where Chance feels safe. It explains so much of why he'd chase Hart's killer to the ends of the earth.
- Also notice the end of the scene when Chance feels the threat to his prized friendship.  There's a subtle change in tone and mood, i.e., character motivated.

EXT. PARKING LOT - UTRO'S - LATE DAY

Chance and Hart walking toward their cars.

CHANCE: Got something for you.

He opens the lid of his trunk and removes a graphite fishing rod folded into a 15-inch leather carrying case. 

CHANCE (continuing): Your retirement present.

HART: You're a week early.

CHANCE: It's burning a hole in my trunk.

Hart opens the case and brings the rod to full seven-foot extension.

HART: What the hell --

CHANCE: They tell me the trout jump all over it.

Hart puts his arm around Chance. They embrace warmly.

CHANCE: I'm gonna miss you, Amigo.

HART: Me, too.

CHANCE: Listen, I know you got somethin' goin' tomorrow.

HART (smiling): You readin' my mail again?

CHANCE: Master. (pause) Where?

Hart shakes his head 'No".

CHANCE (continuing): You're not goin' out alone.

HART: I got three more days on the job and I want to make the most of 'em. No sense the two of us running down the same lead.

CHANCE: We're partners.

HART: Damn straight we are. And when the bust goes down it's ours. Like always.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script helped me see better that what Chance wanted most was that connection, and how resulted in his behavior (also known as "character motivated action"). 

To Live & Die in LA (1985)(11/8/84 draft)
by William Friedkin and Gerald Petievich

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

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

TWO THOUGHTS: 

1) FOUR EXCELLENT ELEMENTS OF THIS THRILLER ADAPTATION:

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

2) THE WRITERS INCLUDED HELPFUL "NOTEs".

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

So when is a "NOTE" helpful? 

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

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

a) How phone conversations would be filmed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INT. HOUSE

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

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

VALENTINE: Do you see me eating? 

FLASH CUT:

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

VALENTINE glad handing more guests.   

WILSON

watching.

FLASH CUT:

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

WILSON

hands Ed his drink.  

ED: Where you going?

Wilson says nothing. Starts to move inside the house.

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

FLASH CUT:

WILSON. Getting closer to Valentine.

VALENTINE. Oblivious.

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

WILSON

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

VALENTINE

chatting away.

WILSON

closer.  

FLASH CUT:

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

VALENTINE. Sensing trouble. Turning toward Wilson...

WILSON

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

VALENTINE

smiling, talking.  

FLASH CUT: 

WILSON. Five feet away. Gun extended now. 

VALENTINE. Facing the barrel. About to die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critic Roger Ebert explains the protagonist's dilemma: 

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

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

INT. JEWELRY STORE - DAY

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

ELIAS: By all means.

She draws out six lines. Elias does two.

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

HULL: No, thanks.

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

BETTY: Who is he, my mother?

HULL (smiles): Never have, never will.

Betty ignores him, does her lines.

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY'S NUGGET: The 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: Sunset (1988) - Regaining One's Dignity in a Parting Shot (Blake Edwards' Style + Setup-Payoff)

[Quick Summary: After lawman Wyatt Earp agrees to consult on a film starring Tom Mix, they trace a murder by the sadistic studio head that leads to a battle at the first Academy Awards.]

I really enjoy Blake Edwards' ability to construct a parting shot that's deeper than just a funny line of dialogue.  They're witty, with a character flourish.

For example, in the scene below:
- Actor Tom Mix is going to play lawman Wyatt Earp in a film.  
- The sadistic studio chief has decided to hire the real Wyatt Earp to act as a consultant. 
- The studio chief has sent his studio police man, Dibner, to track down Tom Mix (star) and Wyatt Earp (hired consultant).  
- Dibner hired two stunt men to rough up Tom and Wyatt at this restaurant. 
- Tom has just threatened Dibner and slammed him up a wall.
- Wyatt now steps up. 
- Note how the construction of this scene sets up the parting shot: Tom has physically threatened Dibner --> Wyatt threatens too --> Tom (and the audience) know Wyatt's threat has more force --> Tom tries to regain his dignity by "setting Wyatt straight" --> Tom's parting shot makes fun of the credibility he lacks compared to Wyatt

INT. EL COYOTE - NIGHT

...WYATT: I don't know what he told you, Marvin, but seein' as how I'm more civilized than he is I'd like to put in my two cents worth. From here on, you give me any more trouble and I'm gonna kill you. Understand?

DIBNER: Yes.

WYATT: Say it. Convince me.

DIBNER: Any more trouble...you'll kill me.

WYATT: I believe you. So from now on, whether you live or die, it's up to you.

DIBNER (shakes his head): 'Scuse me.

He hurries into the men's room.  Wyatt turns to go but Tom stops him.

TOM: Just a minute. We better get somethin' straight right now!

WYATT: What's wrong?

TOM: I threatened I was gonna drag him behind my horse then you waltz in pretty as you please an' threaten to kill him. I don't like bein' out-threatened.

WYATT: I'm sorry. 'Won't ever happen again.

TOM: Okay...

They walk away.

TOM (continuing): Bad as bein' upstaged. 'Got to remember I'm a star.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This parting shot works because: 
a) it has deeper meaning about character, i.e., Tom's attitude about himself; and 
b) it was constructed (setup) from the scene so that it becomes a satisfying payoff.

Don't be fooled into simply tacking on an amusing line. If it doesn't have deeper meaning, it does not resonate, and thus, is not as funny. 

Sunset (1988)(3/20/87 with revisions)
by Blake Edwards
Based on a novel by Rod Amateau

TODAY'S NUGGET: Wrongfully Accused (1998) - A Clever, Spoof Comedy with a Double Take Sight Gag

[Quick Summary: A wrongfully accused man must track down the one-eyed, one-armed, and one-legged man to clear his name.]

Q: What do you think are the best films in the genre?
A: Airplane (1980) and Naked Gun (1988), which star one of the best spoof comedy actors ever, Leslie Nielsen.  (He also stars in today's featured script.)

Q: Spoof comedies are hard to write.  Why didn't you like this one?
A: Around this time, the genre seemed to be running out of new ideas.  

Q: What do you like to see in a spoof comedy?
A: When the story goes off on unexpected tangents.  Or showing something you think you know --> springing a surprise --> which makes you do a double take.

ex.  Today's script does have a great double take sight gag:
- Our hero, Ryan Jack Harrison is at a bait shop, on the run.
- He sees a 'wanted' poster of his own face.
- He draws "big, Buddy Holly glasses, a long ZZ Top beard, and blacks out a few teeth" on the poster.  We immediately ask ourselves, "How is this going to help?!
- The bait shop owner is Roman.
- I love this scene because it's a rare to have a double take WITHIN a sight gag.

INT. "ROMAN'S" - DAY

...[Ryan]starts to leave. Roman pulls a gun.

ROMAN: Don't move, Harrison!

Ryan is about to raise his hands when Roman pushes him aside. Roman's gun is trained on:

ANGLE - MAN

Big Buddy Holly glasses, long ZZ Top beard, and a few blacked out teeth. He looks exactly like Ryan's alterations on the poster.

ANGLE - RYAN

Quietly exits.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that this sight gag was so simple.  I expected Roman to go after Ryan, but instead, Roman went after "Ryan."

Wrongfully Accused (1998)(4/11/97 revised)
by Pat Proft

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Firm (1993) - How Robert Towne Sneaks Something Extra Into A Montage

[Quick Summary: When a white shoe Memphis law firm seduces a new law school grad, he discovers that it is not the trustworthy firm that he had thought it to be.]

Q: What is the purpose of montages? 
A: Most writers use them as fast and quick information dumps, ex. back story, additional facts, minor characters, etc.

Q: You mean there are other uses?
A:  Experienced writers will make them do double duty, ex. add motives in subtext. 

But exceptional writers will sneak something unusual into them. For example, in today's script, writer Robert Towne shows the characters' emotional progression.

In the scene below:
- Mitch is beginning to work at The Firm. 
- Previously, he and his wife Abby were living in a small Boston apartment, but very happy.
- Yes, this is a standard information dump of their new lives in Memphis.
- But it also shows what motivates the couple (wealth, connection).
- And most impressively, it moves us through emotional changes through increased separation, physically (spending time apart) and emotionally (not a team).

MONTAGE - DAY

A. Mitch's office: An exquisite cherrywood desk is put in place.

B. School Classroom. Abby writing on the blackboard, "My name is Abigail McDeere."

C. Mitch's office. An Early American painting being carefully hung on the wall.

D. Mitch's face watching luxurious items put in place in the office.

E. Tailor shop. Through the window we see Mitch being fitted in new clothes. Avery, arms folded, watches.

F. The Firm. Mitch at the huge library table, pouring over various volumes.

G. McDeere House. Abby, propped up in ed alone, grading papers.

H. Mitch's fingers as he runs them along the leaded panes of an imposing breakfront.

I. Mitch's office -- transformed. Oliver beams at Mitch, behind his exquisite desk, in his perfect office.

K. McDeere house. Night. Mitch rushes in, looks for Abby. Hearsay comes bounding up, jumps on Mitch.

Mitch notices a note wrapped around his collar. He unrolls it. WE SEE it reads: GAVE UP WAITING. SHARE BOWL OF KIBBLE WITH BEARER OF NOT. YOUR FIRST WIFE  ABBY.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The level of difficulty in this montage reminds me why Robert Towne was so sought after for his craftsmanship.

First, it is simple to read. Second, I marveled at depth of the emotional arc, while still maintaining the speed of the narrative. It still felt like these are real people, in a real relationship. Third, it's cinematic. 

The Firm (1993)(12/2/92 draft)
by Robert Towne & David Rayfiel
Adapted from the novel by John Grisham

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Money Train (1995) - Active Decisions is One Way to Carry One's Point Without Forcing It

[Quick Summary: A NYC transit cop tries to steal the express "money train," despite the protestations of his foster brother and fellow transit cop.]

A recent New York Times Book Review gave a high compliment: "a sensitive writer who can carry his point without forcing." 

This could easily be applied to writer David Loughery, whose description of action always delights  me because they're a continual see-saw of suspense.  

One of his secrets is that neither the protagonist or the bad guy has the upper hand for long. Both must make active decisions.

For example, in the scene below:
- The Torch just set John's girlfriend, a fellow cop, on fire.
- John, the protagonist, has to constantly make decisions (A or B?)
- This keeps us constantly off balance and engaged.
- To me, this effectively "carries the point" that John is the underdog (vs. "forcing" with frequent reminders 'but don't worry - John is experienced! John is the cop!')

INT. TUNNEL #2 - DAY

John runs through the darkness, gun ready. He can hear The Torch somewhere up ahead, footsteps echoing back. The tunnel comes to a division, breaking off into two tunnels.  [Which tunnel, John?]

John stops.

Which way did The Torch go? John listens. No footsteps. No noise. John's nostrils flare. He can smell gas. It leads into the left tunnel.  Cautiously, John enters, swallowed up in the darkness.

Then --wham! -- John is struck from behind with a rotting plank in the hands of The Torch. John loses his gun and falls to his knees. The gun skitters into the darkness.  [John makes the right decision, but has another problem and has lost a weapon. What is the next decision?]

With a giggle, The Torch drops the rotted plank and runs to retrieve John's fallen gun, unaware that his hose is leaking a trail of gas behind him. [The Torch, who is not immune from problems either, helps inform John's next decision..]

Stunned, still on his knees, Johns sees the trail of gas droplets and follows it with his eyes to where the The Torch is standing, grinning like a crazy raccoon, pointing John's own gun at him.  [I like this mix of uncertainty and danger. It is a good way to sustain suspense.]

THE TORCH: See what happens when you play with fire?

With his free hand, The Torch reaches inside his coat and pulls out his gasoline bottle, intending to spray it on John. He doesn't notice that John has reached into his own coat pocket and comes out with a book of matches. [The scales tip toward John, for now.]

JOHN: Somebody gets burned. 

John ignites the whole book of matches and throws it on the trail of gas droplets. Foom! A line of flame runs to The Torch and right up his leg, setting him on fire.

Whoosh! The Torch lets out a scream of surprise as his gas-soaked coat blazes up. He squeals and spins around as flames erupt all over him.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Don't allow your characters to have it easy for long.  Don't ever stop creating situations where they have to make active decisions.

The Money Train (1995)(shooting script, 12/30/94 w/revisions)
by David Loughery

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

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Body Snatcher (1945) - Why the Blackmailer's Chilling Speech Lands Well (Motive)

[Quick Summary: After a student suspects that his mentor (Dr. MacFarlane) is illegally obtaining cadavers, the supplier (Gray) begins to harass them.]

 Dr. MacFarlane has a nice, comfortable life.  

The only fly in his ointment is Mr. Gray, who supplies him with cadavers.

Since Gray has old dirt on MacFarlane, he relishes sponging off him.

When MacFarlane finally confronts Gray about 3/4 into the script, it is chilling.  

Why does it land so well?

Part of it is well-drawn characters.  But also, part of it is the structure.

The script spends the first 3/4 setting up the rocky relationships with student Fettes, Dr. MacFarlane, and Mr. Grey. (I was rooting for Fettes.)

Then it all pays off in the last quarter, when Gray finally explains his motive to MacFarlane in this explosive admission:

INT. GRAY'S LIVING QUARTERS - NIGHT

...Gray shrugs.

MACFARLANE: What I was going to say is this -- wouldn't you be more comfortable at Leith in a neat little house?

GRAY: Would you bribe me to leave you be?

MACFARLANE: I would make you rich.

GRAY: It wouldn't be half so much fun for me, Toddy, as to have you come here and beg --

MACFARLANE (cutting in): Beg -- beg of you! You crawling graveyard rat!

He chokes off the last speech and glares at Gray. He is almost trembling with the effort to control himself.

GRAY: Aye -- that is my pleasure.

As he speaks he is refilling MacFarlane's glass

MACFARLANE: Well then -- I beg you -- I beseech you --

GRAY (shaking, his head and grinning): But then I wouldn't have the fun of having you come here and beg again, Toddy.

They look at each other. MacFarlane bends over in his chair. Gray hitches himself forward a little on the table, ready, waiting, then relaxes as MacFarlane begins to speak.

MACFARLANE: But why, Gray? Why?

GRAY: Because it would be a hurt to me to see you no more, Toddy. You're a pleasure to me.

MACFARLANE: A pleasure to torment me?

GRAY: No -- a pride to know that I can force you to my will. I'm a small man -- a humble man -- and being poor, I've had to do much that I did not want to do. But so long as the great Dr. MacFarlane jumps at my whistle, that long am I a man -- and if I have not that, I have nothing. Then I am only a cabman and a grave-robber.

MacFarlane looks at him. As he looks, he realizes he has heard the truth and that Gray will never leave him in peace. Now he, in turn, attempts cunning....

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This gut punch is doubly horrific because of the roller coaster ride in the previous 70+ pgs.  Without it, this moment loses steam.

The Body Snatcher (1945)
by Philip MacDonald and Carlos Keith
Based on the story by Robert Louis Stevenson