TODAY'S NUGGET: Married to the Mob (1988) - How to Not Lose the Reader, Despite Various POV

[Quick Summary: After her mobster husband is murdered by his boss, Angela is determined to make a new life with her son, but the mob won't leave her alone.]

Q: What sets this script apart for you?  
A: It captures different points of view, but never loses focus on the protagonist.

Q: How does it do it?  Especially maintaining such clarity? 
A: I think it's the unity of the subject matter.  There's a variety of points of view, but they're all about the same subject, i.e., Angela.

For example, in the scene below:
- Angela is a sweet woman, who was oblivious to the shenanigans of Sal, her dead mobster husband.  Everyone makes assumptions about her. 
- Tony, Sal's best friend, is the head mobster. 
- Tony is married to Connie and is afraid of her.
- Tony killed Sal because Sal was sleeping with Tony's side girlfriend.
- Tony wants to sleep with Angela, and keeps tabs on her, even after she's moved away.
- Tony and his underling Tommy show up at Angela's new apartment.
- Note the multiple points of view (Connie, Ed, Mike, Tommy, Tony). Each segment adds important information, AND they're united by the subject matter, Angela.
- Also note how: a)  the unity of subject matter, plus b) CAPITALIZED location slugs helps the reader easily switch points of view. This is great clarity of writing.

EXT. RIVINGTON STREET - AT THAT MOMENT

IN FRONT OF ANGELA'S BUILDING

Angela, Tony and Tommy come out of the building and pause on the steps. 

TOMMY: Look, Ange, Rose wants to have you out for dinner next week. How's Thursday?

ANGELA: I really don't think...

TOMMY: Or Friday?

ANGELA: Umm...

TOMMY: Or any night that's good for you.

ANGELA: I tell you, Tommy...I'm so busy with the move, getting set up and everything. I don't even know if we're gonna stay here. Why don't I give you a call when I get settled?

TOMMY (disappointed): Sure, I understand. But don't forget, okay? Promise?

ANGELA (squirming): Sure, Tommy.

TOMMY: Take care, Angie. If you need anything...

ANGELA: Thanks, Tommy. So long.

He gives her a big hug and heads for the car.

DOWN THE BLOCK

peering over the steering wheel of the white Cadillac is Tony's worst nightmare -- Connie. She watches with keen interest.

IN FRONT OF ANGELA'S BUILDING

TONY: It was great seeing you, Angela.

Tony takes Angela's hand. She stiffens. He plants a gentle kiss on her hand while looking into her eyes.

IN THE WHITE CADILLAC

Connie watches as Tony kisses Angela's hand. Connie's worst suspicions are confirmed. She's absolutely livid.

FROM A BASEMENT STAIRWELL

Ed video-tapes Tony and Angela. Connie's white Cadillac zooms past.

IN FRONT OF ANGELA'S BUILDING

Tony gives Angela a meaningful look.

TONY (in Italian): Ci vediamo, cara.

Tony gets into the car and Tommy drives off. Angela is emotionally exhausted.

ANGELA (moans): Oh, God.

AT THE FIFTH FLOOR WINDOW

Mike has seen Tony's farewell. Mike shakes his head ruefully as he watches Angela walk down the street. He moves away from the window.

AT THE CORNER

Angela stops in front of the "Hello, Gorgeous!" beauty salon. IN the window there's a mirror with an inscription reading: ARE YOU READY FOR A BRAND NEW YOU? Angela looks at her reflection in the mirror. She can see that the events of the day have caught up to her. She tugs at her Chez Ray hairdo, obviously displeased. Then Angela notices a sign in the window that reads: "Help Wanted." 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To keep things clearer for the reader, create sign posts in the structure for the audience, ex. unity of subject matter + capitalized locations.

Married to the Mob (1988)(7/14/87 draft)
by Barry Strugatz & Mark R. Burns

TODAY'S NUGGET: Mona Lisa Smile (2003) - A Hard CUT TO: Transition That Works

[Quick Summary: When an art teacher arrives for a one year stint at Wellesley, an all women's university, she challenges her students to think differently.]

In my own scripts, I am often afraid the reader will not understand, so I over-explain with a lot of slug lines.

Thus, it was refreshing to see a script that uses the hard CUT TO: with very little explanation, and it is still clear what is happening.

Why does this work here? 

I think perhaps because there's still a unity of character.  Here, the CUT TO: is essentially a pivot for the viewer - same character, different setting.

For example, in the scene below:
- Katherine is showing her first art class slides and debating what is good art.
- This is followed by a hard CUT TO: Katherine considering a room for rent.
- Note the unbroken flow from professional Katherine to private Katherine.
- Note also that the writers understand how to translate cinematic language on the screen versus written language on the page. ON THE SCREEN: Nancy speaks --> we see the room.  ON THE PAGE:  CUT TO: -->  Nancy's line  --> "pull back to" --> the slug line. 

INT. CLASSROOM (CONTINUOUS)

...CLICK! She startles them with ANOTHER SLIDE. A STUNNING, HANDSOME MAN WITH LONG GOLDEN RINGLETS.

KATHERINE (CONT'D): Albrecht Durer, Self-Portrait, late fiftheenth century.

JOAN: Where does this fit in?

KATHERINE: It doesn't. He's so dreamy I just like to look at him.

And the girls burst out laughing led by Giselle. Katherine is thrilled. Betty is fuming.

                                                                           CUT TO:

NANCY: Don't you just love Chintz?

Pull back to reveal that we are:

INT. VICTORIA HOUSE - BEDROOM - TWILIGHT

An explosion of floral patterns on every surface. Katherine stands, holding the real estate section of the WELLESLEY NEWS.

NANCY: And look.

She pulls back the floral bedcover to reveal matching floral sheets.

KATHERINE: They match.

NANCY: Sweet, right?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'd never really considered the hard CUT TO: could be used with unity of character.

Mona Lisa Smile (2003)(4/2/02, 2nd draft)
by Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal

TODAY'S NUGGET: Risky Business (1983) - How a Line of Dialogue Set Up the Next Three Scenes (Unity of Theme)

[Quick Summary: After his parents leave for the weekend, chaos ensues in a high schooler's house.]

Roger Ebert wrote:

The very best thing about the movie is its dialogue. Paul Brickman, who wrote and directed, has an ear so good that he knows what to leave out. This is one of those movies where a few words or a single line says everything that needs to be said, implies everything that needs to be implied, and gets a laugh. When the hooker tells the kid, "Oh, Joel, go to school. Learn something," the precise inflection of those words defines their relationship for the next three scenes.

So what is their relationship for the next three scenes?  I think it's about how Joel sees it (adolescent sex) vs. how Lana sees it (business):*

SCENE 1 - Because Lana still has his mother's glass egg, Joel has no choice but to leave her at his house while he is at school. He is desperately unprepared for a pop quiz.

SCENE 2- Meanwhile, Lana checks out all the silverware, art, etc.  She takes his dad's Porsche for a drive.

SCENE 3 - Joel returns home to find Lana has invited her hooker friends to use the house for customers.  Here is the scene when he returns home and finds out:

EXT. JOEL'S HOUSE - AFTER SCHOOL - DAY

Joel stops his station wagon midway up the driveway. Miles is hanging out in the front yard. Joel goes to him.

MILES: Hi Joel.

JOEL: What's going on?

MILES: I'm waiting for Glenn?

JOEL: Where is he?

MILES: Inside.

JOEL: In the house?

MILES: He wanted to meet her.

JOEL (not pleased): What is this?

Joel goes toward the house. Glenn exits. He sports a wide grin.

JOEL: What're you doing?

GLENN: I was inside.

JOEL: I can see that.

GLENN (vamping awkwardly): So... you're home now...

Something is definitely up.

JOEL: Yeah, I live here, remember?

Joel turns to look at Miles. Conveniently, Miles is facing the street, his back turned to them.

JOEL: Is Lana still here?

GLENN: She's inside.

JOEL: Tell me you didn't do anything with her --

GLENN: Who? Lana?

JOEL: Yeah.

GLENN: No. Nothing. I just met her. She's nice.

JOEL: You're sure. You didn't do anything with her.

GLENN: Yeah. I swear.

Joel looks back at Miles. He's holding back a chuckle.

JOEL: You fucked her, didn't you?

GLENN: No.  I told you.

JOEL: Yes. You did.

GLENN (indignantly): I did not fuck her, Joel.

JOEL (after a beat): Okay.

GLENN: Ask me about Vicki.

JOEL: Who's Vicki?

A VOICE from the front door. It comes from a tall blonde on a rather large frame. VICKI'S about eight hard years older than Lana.

VICKI: Are you Joel?

Glenn punches Joel's arm gratefully.

GLENN: Owe you one.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I was impressed how the dialogue ("go to school, learn something") nailed the theme, which was then played out in the next three scenes.

Risky Business (1983)(3rd draft, 11/30/81)
by Paul Brickman

*Ebert is not often "astounded," so I thought I'd include his thoughts:

"The next best thing about the movie is the casting. Rebecca De Mornay somehow manages to take that thankless role, the hooker with a heart of gold, and turn it into a very specific character. She isn't all good and she isn't all cliches: She's a very complicated young woman with quirks and insecurities and a wayward ability to love I became quietly astounded when I realized that this movie was going to create an original, interesting relationship involving a teenager and a hooker. The teenage kid, in what will be called the Dustin Hoffman role, is played by Tom Cruise, who also knows how to imply a whole world by what he won't say, can't fell, and doesn't understand."

TODAY'S NUGGET: Kagemusha (1980) - What is the Premise/ Central Story Question/ Promise?

[Quick Summary: A thief who resembles a samurai warlord is drafted into becoming his body double during a time of war.]

BAD NEWS: I find Kurosawa scripts to be very dense.

Also, I have difficulty seeing on the page what he saw in his head.

GOOD NEWS: I never have trouble locating the premise/central story question/promise that he makes with the audience. 

Why? Because there is defined unity, i.e., everything points to the central question.

In the example below, the warlord Shingen gives an urgent speech from his sick bed. No one knows that it will also be his death bed.

Notice how the writers use the speech to instruct the men and to lay out the stakes:

ex. "*A ROOM IN THE TEMPLE

Arm rest on bedding. Shingen, with white bandage on chest, sits and leans on the arm rest. From his posture and expression, it can be seen that his condition is far from good.  [The big man is ill while at war with other warlords. What will happen?]

Darkened expressions on faces of Katsuyori, Baba, Yamagata, Kosaka, Oyamada and others surrounding Shingen. [Reaction of gloomy followers.]

SHINGEN: It is regrettable. I guess I will not see the Takeda flag fly in the capital.

KATSUYORI (impatiently): Father, what are you saying...

SHINGEN: Don't get excited. It has been my lifelong dream to place the Takeda flag in the capital. But, if I should die now, do not dwell on this dream of mine. If it is known that I've departed, Oda, Tokugawa and other enemies will rush into our domain. Do not reveal my demise for three years and guard the domain well. Do not make a false move. If my orders are not observed an you move our soldiers in vain, it will mean the end of the Takeda clan. Listen well, all. This is my last will. [This is the promise of the film: Why do our heroes go to extremes to create and protect a false double of Shingen? To protect the clan. To carry out his dying wishes. The rest of the film will answer: Do they succeed?]

Nobody speaks. Shingen, with extreme exhaustion and changed face, laughs deliriously and with bright eyes.

SHINGEN: This Shingen is not dead yet. I've spoken as I did because of the one in the a million chance that I should go. No, I won't die.

But these words give an impression of impending death to all present. Heavy air sets in."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Keep the premise/ central story question/promise clear in the story.

If you wander from it, you will have confusion and lack unity.

Kagemusha (1980)
by Akira Kurosawa & Masato Ide

TODAY'S NUGGET: Escape from New York (1981) - Antagonists + 1 Goal = Unity & Clarity

[Quick Summary: Convict Snake Plissken has 24 hrs. to find and rescue the U.S. President in NYC, which now is essentially a prison island ruled by the Duke.]

What I like about John Carpenter scripts: They are very clear.

For example, Escape is about a man vs. his environment.

It could've been confusing because there are multiple antagonists:

First, Plissken commits a crime, then
--> He is jailed
--> He's offered his freedom if he rescues the President from NYC, a place so treacherous that the police avoid it.
--> He arrives in NYC (p. 41) and ducks and dodges criminals to locate the President*
--> He finally meets the biggest antagonist, the Duke (p. 84)*

I think the script was so clear because it has the unity of a single goal, i.e., no matter how many obstacles, Plissken focuses on finding the President and getting him out.

ex. "PLISSKEN: Mister President...

The man turns around. He is DRUNK. He holds a bottle of awful-looking yellow liquid. He wears the President's coat and the vital signs bracelet. He grins drunkenly.

DRUNK: I'm the President. Sure, I'm the President. I knew when I got this thing I'd be President!

Plissken grabs him.

PLISSKEN: Where'd you get it?

DRUNK: Woke up. There it was. Like a miracle!

Holding his arm, Plissken WHACKS the vital signs bracelet against the wall!"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Go ahead and create multiple antagonists!

(As long as you have a unity of goal to keep the story focused, that is.)

Escape from New York (1981)(shooting script, dated 6/10/80)
by John Carpenter and Nick Castle

**I was surprised that Plissken gets to NYC so late, and meets the big Duke even later, but it works here!

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Warriors (1979) - Unity & 9 Protagonists

[Quick Summary: After the Warriors are falsely accused of killing a rival gang leader, they are the target of every gang in town, and struggle to get home.]

I like ensemble casts, don't you?

Usually I get mired in scripts with large casts, but I found this one an easy read, because it remembered a couple rules of ensembles:

1 - Pinpoint a leader, i.e., one character who puts the whole story in context. It helps the audience follow along.

In this script, The Fox is a member of a New York gang called the Warriors.

The Warriors are blamed for shooting a rival gang leader during a truce.  

The Fox saw the real shooter.  Thus, he becomes the reason for the story, and for the whole manhunt.

2 - If there are multiple protagonists, antagonists, &/or story lines, they should all be unified in action (cf. Aristotle's Poetics).

The nine Warriors (protagonists) are split up and face many antagonists.

The script moves between their various adventures (multiple story lines):

ex. Swan is captured by the Dingos. Swan must escape a straightjacket to get back to the team.

ex. The Fox regrets bringing Mercy, who was with the Orphan gang, on the journey.  Is Mercy a spy or an innocent?

ex. Cowboy and Rembrandt are lured into a gang chick's lair, and escape an ambush.

So why doesn't the script drag with so many characters and stories?

I think it's because the characters are unified by the same enemy (all gangs) and the same goal (make it home together).

There are several individual stories, but they all move in one direction ----> toward home.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's the unity of story that keep ensemble scripts clear.

The Warriors (1979)
Written and directed by Walter Hill
Based on the novel by Sol Yurick