TODAY'S NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part IIIA - Characterization

[Quick Summary: During their annual hunting trip, four childhood friends encounter an eerie being.]

In the forward to this shooting script, Stephen King writes:

[F]ilmmakers get blinded by the visual possibilities of sequences the want to adapt, and then they get their heads in a box: They believe they are making genre films.... The complexity of the story tends to get lost. So do the characterization and the tonal changes.

I tried (but failed) to write a single post about my reactions to the script.

So I divided them up in a terribly unoriginal manner:

1 - Characterization
2 - Tonal Changes (Make 'em Laugh and Scream)
3 - My (Embarrassing) Confession 

FYI: There are a few mild spoilers ahead. 

----------------------------------
1 - CHARACTERIZATION

Everyone talks about character, but what IS it?

So far, I gather that it's a combination of a person's motives, decisions, and reactions.

This script helped me by showing me fine character work in dialogue.

Note the subtext going on here:

ex. "HELICOPTER GUY (amplified): HOW MANY ARE YOU? HOW ME ON YOUR FINGERS. THIS AREA IS UNDER TEMPORARY QUARANTINE. YOU MUST STAY WHERE YOU ARE!

BEAVER: What do you mean, quarantine? We got a sick guy down here?

BEAVER and JONESY (overlapping): -- We need help here! -- Real sick guy here! --

JONESY: Take him with you now!

HELICOPTER GUY (booming on): GREAT YOU MUST NOT LEAVE. THIS AREA IS UNDER QUARANTINE.

BEAVER (screaming): What's so damn great? We got a guy here could be dying! We need some help!

GUY IN HELICOPTER (makes an A-OK sign): GLAD YOU'RE OKAY. THIS SITUATION WILL BE RESOLVED IN 24 TO 48 HOURS.

Stunned, Beaver and Jonesy watch the big copter fly away."

This is great because the audience must put 2 + 2 together: 

- The helicopter guy speaks in a helpful manner, but his (unspoken) message is "You're on your own."
- The men are reassured everything is under control, but see the lie and know there's a huge problem.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: "...Without character there is no horror, no laughter, no empathy, no nothing." - S.King

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman & Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part II - King's Opinion Why This Script is Good

I just had to share this one last quote from King's forward.

He explains further why he thinks so highly of this script:

Maybe the most notable thing is what you won't find here: the easy shortcuts, the stereotyping, the reliance on shock effects to replace the work of building characters the audience is willing to care about.  Believe it or not, I have never been particularly interested in horror; what I care about is how people react to the unexpected, the painful, and the terrible --Jonesy's accident, for instance, which isn't a bit supernatural. The business of good fiction, whether on film or the printed page, is saying something true about how we live, how we get along, and how we die.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) - "...This is One of the Very, Very Good Adaptions of My Work..."

A NOTE TO MY READERS: I hope you'll grant me some leeway, as I'll be posting my usual Monday script-of-the-week much later this week.

I blame it on Stephen King.

He writes this in the forward to the print version of the shooting script:

And speaking of tonal changes...sure, I like to make people scream, but I also like to make 'em laugh. Best of all, I like to get the readers of a story to a place where they want to do both at the same time. So far as I can tell, only the version of Dreamcatcher scripted by Bill Goldman (who also wrote the screenplays for Misery and Hearts in Atlantis) and Lawrence Kasdan has succeeded in transferring this emotional paradox to the screen....

Wow! That's a serious compliment.

He goes on:

It's not my job to tell you why this particular adaption works so well.  You have the screenplay in front of you, and if you haven't read the novel, you can buy an inexpensive paperback copy at your local bookstore (or take it out of the library, if you're a tightwad).  I'll just say that a close and thoughtful comparison of the two will teach you a great deal about the delicate and difficult art of turning a complex 600-page novel into a film that runs two hours and ten minutes.

In other words, read the book first.

I admit this seems like a lot of unnecessary work...and the resulting film wasn't even reviewed all that positively.

However, King convinced me:

At the risk of repeating myself, this is one of the very, very good adaptions of my work, and the book that follows is a valuable artifact showing how successful adaption is accomplished.

Ah, now I see.

I should be more concerned about grasping the messy process of adaption, not just the end product.

Also, I should pay attention if King approves of someone else's writing.

After all, he's not been so keen on others:

Others - I'm thinking chiefly of Christine and Stanley Kubrick's take on The Shining - should have been good but just...well, they just aren't. They're actually sort of boring. Speaking just for myself, I'd rather have bad than boring.

So I'm off to read the book first, and will post later this week.

Thanks in advance for understanding! 

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman and Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S NUGGET: Mumford (1999) - Another Example of When a Character Doesn't Change

[Quick Summary: The new, helpful psychologist in town hides a secret.]

Mumford is an excellent psychologist.

He listens more than he speaks, and people flock to him.

In fact, they're so occupied that it slips by that Mumford has a secret....

...so Mumford doesn't really change for 50 pages
...AND it's still interesting.

How does Kasdan do that without an arc in the first hour?! 

I've encountered a lack of a character arc before (here and here), but still am not sure how it works.

However, this script did give me one clue:

Mumford has engaging reactions.

ex. "LATER. The bar crowd has thinned. both Mumford and Skip have had a few. In fact, Mumford is now carefully pouring them each another drink from a bottle of Glensomething on the table.

MUMFOR: You want me...to be...your friend.

Skip beams. Mumford leans forward in the same confidential way Skip did before; he indicates that Skip should lean in too.  Mumford is almost whispering --

MUMFORD: But that's not what's really going on... (Skip is excited)...What's really going on is...you have some problems and you want some therapy, but you feel it could be very bad for Panda Modem stock if word got out that you were having head problems.

Skip confirms that's it.

MUMFORD: Can I ask you a personal question?

SKIP: Of course! That's exactly what I want.

MUMFORD: Have you thought about getting a wife?"

I so enjoyed Mumford's reactions (and his mysterious secret) that I was ok without the usual character arc that I am used to.  Weird. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Again, not for amateurs. But boy, it works.

Mumford (1999)
by Lawrence Kasdan

TODAY'S NUGGET: Wyatt Earp (1994) - Why You Should Read Scripts

[Quick Summary:  The personal side of how Wyatt Earp became a feared Wild West lawman.]

Please don't be dense like me.

For years, I scoffed at the value of reading scripts.

"Read?! REAL writers WRITE. What could I learn from reading?"

I didn't care that every famous screenwriter said to do it.

It was optional, right? I believe the answer is no.

It takes time and is a pain, but it's the only way to teach how to tell a story.
--------------------------------------------------
An example from today's script: 

"DOC (impressed): Bat Masterson. You're the man that killed Sergeant King in Sweetwater?

Bat nods, not knowing Doc's feelings about the deceased.

DOC: Got you in the leg, I understand. My congratulations to you, sir. King was a skunk of the first order.

BIG NOSE KATE: I wish you'd got him before he shot poor Molly Brennan. She was a sweet girl.

This is a subject of real feeling for Bat, who loved the dead girl. Quietly --

BAT: Yes she was, ma'am...."
--------------------------------------------------
How do you interpret the bolded sentences above?

A new writer might think, "That's wrong.  Those sentences violate the "show, don't tell rule."

However, a seasoned writer who has read many scripts will realize:

- It's ok to violate the rule if it helps the story.
- These sentences are NOT telling.  They are describing REACTION SHOTS to the dialogue.  That is why it is so easy to visualize this story.

I was naive to think I could pick up these tricks of the trade by reading once in a blue moon.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Reading scripts is your continuing education.

I recommend setting a reading curriculum for yourself.

Don't stop learning.

Wyatt Earp (1994)
 by Lawrence Kasdan and Jake Kasdan 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Bodyguard (1992) - Safe is Not Good

[Quick Summary: A bodyguard is hired to protect an actress, and inadvertently falls in love.]

This was Lawrence Kasdan's first screenplay.

I'd heard it was quite impressive.

To see for myself, I managed to finagle an original/early draft.

Did it live up to the hype? Yes.

Is it worth hunting down? Yes.  

Did I like it better than the shooting draft? Yes.

Why? Because it's riskier, ballsier, and the characters are allowed to be more flawed.

ex. Rachel Marron actively tries to make Frank pay for rejecting her.

ex. The bad guy's hijinks on the golf course involved a senator and two little boys. [Great suspense.]

I liked that characters had more regrets and no free passes.

In the shooting draft, I often felt it took an emotionally safer road.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Take more risks.

Safe is not good four letter word for stories.

The Bodyguard (1992; early draft, undated)
by Lawrence Kasdan

TODAY'S NUGGET: Silverado (1985) - More fun

[Quick Summary: Four gunslingers descend on Silverado to right wrongs in intertwining stories.]

I liked this script very much.

Lawrence Kasdan might be my new "go to" guy for ensemble writing.

Two things to marvel at:

1)  The degree of writing difficulty that ensembles require.

ex. Last week's script  = 7 high school classmates who are reliving their common pasts in a confined crucible.

This week's script = 4 people whose 4 story lines cross over each other in real time.

2) It's never takes itself too seriously and is fun to read.

ex. "The three men ride hell-for-leather away from town. At the first bend they leave the road and head off cross-country their horses straining up craggy hillsides and sliding down dusty slopes. There is some good riding going on here." (italics mine)

I laughed at the last sentence.  It captures the tone perfectly.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Need more fun. Need more fun. Need more fun.

Silverado (1985)
by Lawrence Kasdan & Mark Kasdan

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Big Chill (1983) - Keep It Simple & Specific

[Quick Summary: A group of college buddies gather for the funeral of one of their own.]

I felt deeply when I read this script.

First, it's an amazing ensemble piece that juggles seven protagonists/antagonists.

Second, every story line felt so realistic and honest.

ex. "HAROLD: I want you to sit with Chloe.
MICHAEL: Okay.
HAROLD: I've got to be up there, and it's a little touchy with Alex's folks.
MICHAEL: I understand.

Harold gives him a "I knew you would" squeeze.

MICHAEL: Who's Chloe?

Harold gestures discreetly in Chloe's direction.

HAROLD: It's Alex's girlfriend.

Michael peers into the pews.

Harold indicates Chloe in the front row, which they have almonst reached. Michael is impressed, brightening at the sight of her. But when he speaks to Harold, he's all solicitous friend.

MICHAEL: I'll take care of her."

I think the keys are:
- The writing is simple (but not simplistic).
- The actions reflect very specific feelings (and not vague).

These put me inside the character...all seven of them.

Now that's a high level of skill.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Keep it Simple and Specific.

The Big Chill (1983)
by Lawrence Kasdan & Barbara Benedek

TODAY'S NUGGET: Return of the Jedi (1983) - How to Introduce an Ewok

[Quick Summary: While the rebels disable the Death Star's shield on Endor, Luke faces Darth Vader.]

I'm a big Ewoks fan. (I can't believe some people are not.)

How would I have introduced such a new creature to a franchise?

I would've probably dived in with the physical description, i.e., "short, bear-like, cuddly."

However, the writers had a more effective way to draw the reader in.

They began with character actions, then physical attributes:

"EXT. FOREST CLEARING - LEIA'S CRASH SITE

A strange little furry face with huge black eyes comes slowly into view. The creature is an EWOK, by the name of WICKET. He seems somewhat puzzled, and prods Leia with a spear. The princess groans; this frightens the stubby ball of fuzz and he prods her again. Leia sits up and stares at the three-foot-high Ewok."

Here's my short break down:

1 - Black eyes enter the screen [Not too much detail]
2 - He's puzzled [Now we're curious at his curiosity]
3 - He pokes Leia [Action and movement]
4 - He's frightened, but pokes again [We see his brave action]
5 - She wakes and sees a 3 ft. teddy bear [Finally the whole picture]

I liked that we didn't know the Ewok was 3 ft. until the end.

It's a surprise, and adds respect that such a short fellow would attempt the previous behavior.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  If possible, describe a character with behavior first.

Return of the Jedi (1983)
by Lawrence Kasdan & George Lucas

TODAY'S NUGGET: Body Heat (1981) - I Didn't See the Twist Coming

[Quick Summary: After a lawyer falls for a smart, married blonde, their plot to kill her husband falls apart.]

I consider myself a master at anticipating twist(s).

It's a matter of pride that nothing escapes my eagle eye...

...except I DIDN'T see it coming in this script.

How did that happen?!

I won't reveal too much (the less you know, the better).

However, I will say that this script is really good because it doesn't try too hard to be clever, or fool the reader (as many new writers try to do).

Instead, it relies on a tale that's snags your emotions so much that you're not looking for any twist.

I was hooked as Racine fell for a girl, and ached in her absence.

I identified, invested, and rooted for this unlikely couple.

They were good together. They would defy the odds.

Then WHOMP! 

The twist arrived, unexpected, unwanted, full of backlash and back-peddling.  

I applaud the writer.  He fooled me, fair and square, and I left a satisfied reader.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I often pay too much attention to the 'twist' moment.

If I focus more on the setup, the twist will (ironically) be better. 

Body Heat (1981)
by Lawrence Kasdan