[Quick Summary: A recent widower takes a road trip to his daughter's wedding.]
*WARNING: This post contains spoilers.*
If you don't want to know the ending, STOP READING NOW.
*Crickets*
Everyone gone? Good.
Here's the script* in a nutshell:
- Warren is forced into retirement.
- Then Warren's wife Helen dies early on, but he's not exactly heartbroken.
- Warren struggles in this new life, so he takes a road trip to his daughter's wedding.
- On the way, he revisits his alma mater, and makes a fool of himself.
- He arrives at the wedding, and isn't thrilled with his future in-laws.
- Warren returns home to face that his life has lost meaning.
So how would you end the story with a satisfying (but not necessarily happy) ending?
Let's work backwards:
- The writers wanted Warren to return home, depressed, and gets an unexpected, hope filled letter.
- In order to justify this ending, the writers went back to Act 1 and created an orphan kid.
- Warren writes to this kid periodically throughout Act 2.
- The letters show us Warren's mental state and growth.
- Then when lonely Warren gets home --> He reads the first letter from this kid --> Someone cares.
Why is this ending satisfying to me?
Warren has lost a lot along the way.
But he started out disconnected, and he ends connected.
In the end, the journey was worth what he gained.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A satisfying ending resolves a big issue.
About Schmidt (2002)
by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor
From the novel by Louis Begley
* FYI: The film's plot differs somewhat from the novel.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Alice in Wonderland (2010) - Never Violate the "Intention of the Book"
[Quick Summary: Alice revisits Wonderland, and faces off with the Jabberwocky.]
I admit this isn't my favorite book.
However, I did like this script adaption because it was faithful to the "intention of the book" (see William Goldman's advice on adaptions).
A couple of examples:
BOOK: Alice begins the story by stepping through the looking glass. [Intention? She wants adventure.]
SCRIPT: Alice chases a rabbit to escape her surprise engagement party. [Intention? Also adventure.]
BOOK: Alice wakes up at the end with a revelation. [Intention? She's changed.]
SCRIPT: Alice wakes up and deals with the proposal. [Intention? She's changed.]
This was pretty eye-opening for me.
Finally, I could put my finger on what bugged me about bad adaptions, and why others were good despite added/subtracted material.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Never violate the intention of the book.
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
by Linda Woolverton
Based on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
I admit this isn't my favorite book.
However, I did like this script adaption because it was faithful to the "intention of the book" (see William Goldman's advice on adaptions).
A couple of examples:
BOOK: Alice begins the story by stepping through the looking glass. [Intention? She wants adventure.]
SCRIPT: Alice chases a rabbit to escape her surprise engagement party. [Intention? Also adventure.]
BOOK: Alice wakes up at the end with a revelation. [Intention? She's changed.]
SCRIPT: Alice wakes up and deals with the proposal. [Intention? She's changed.]
This was pretty eye-opening for me.
Finally, I could put my finger on what bugged me about bad adaptions, and why others were good despite added/subtracted material.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Never violate the intention of the book.
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
by Linda Woolverton
Based on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
Thursday, April 17, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: How the Pros Give Each Other Story Notes (& More Good Stuff)
Why didn't I read William Goldman's Which Lie Did I Tell?: More Adventures in the Screen Trade (2001) sooner?!
Don't be like me.
READ IT NOW.
It will answer questions such as:
- "What does a screenwriter do when he is asked to damage his own screenplay?" (p. 92)
- When is a story NOT a film? (p. 162, with in-depth explanation)
- What is the one thing doctoring a script is really about? (p. 328)
However, if you've stuck it out this far, I bet you just want to know about story notes.
Goldman does something in this book that I've never seen anywhere else.
He wrote an original screenplay for this book...then handed it for comments to these six screenwriting friends:
Peter & Bobby Farrelly
Scott Frank
Tony Gilroy
Callie Khouri
John Patrick Shanley
Then he INCLUDED their written comments.
They are helpful, focused, and excellent. You'll see:
- What pros look for in a story
- How each dissects (and explains) the strengths and weaknesses
- What bothers them, what they like
It will take time to read the screenplay and all the comments.
But if you want to see how a working writer thinks, (or if you want to BE that writer someday), it's worth it.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I learned what I, as a writer, must "protect to the death." (p. 179-180)
Don't be like me.
READ IT NOW.
It will answer questions such as:
- "What does a screenwriter do when he is asked to damage his own screenplay?" (p. 92)
- When is a story NOT a film? (p. 162, with in-depth explanation)
- What is the one thing doctoring a script is really about? (p. 328)
However, if you've stuck it out this far, I bet you just want to know about story notes.
Goldman does something in this book that I've never seen anywhere else.
He wrote an original screenplay for this book...then handed it for comments to these six screenwriting friends:
Peter & Bobby Farrelly
Scott Frank
Tony Gilroy
Callie Khouri
John Patrick Shanley
Then he INCLUDED their written comments.
They are helpful, focused, and excellent. You'll see:
- What pros look for in a story
- How each dissects (and explains) the strengths and weaknesses
- What bothers them, what they like
It will take time to read the screenplay and all the comments.
But if you want to see how a working writer thinks, (or if you want to BE that writer someday), it's worth it.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I learned what I, as a writer, must "protect to the death." (p. 179-180)
Monday, April 14, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Proposal (2009) - The Rom-Com Moment That Whets My Appetite
[Quick Summary: To avoid deportation, a book editor cons her assistant into a fake engagement.]
I love the rom-com moments when the two characters connect...and then are separated.
The tension just whets my appetite.
ex. Richard has just rescued Margaret, and they are laughing. [Finally, they have connected!]
"The two stare at each other for a beat. There's a real spark. They might kiss.
RICHARD: Gertrude wants me back. [Uh-oh. A real monkey wrench.]
Whoah. Not what she was expecting. She looks down. [Confusion is good fuel.]
MARGARET: And?
RICHARD: Well. It seemed like you were having...second thoughts. [He fishes around the unknown. Will she confess how she really feels?]
MARGARET: Yeah. I was. [Ugh. She gives the socially acceptable answer.]
RICHARD: Maybe we should do it. Come clean.
MARGARET: Put me down.
Richard puts Margaret down near the boat. She tries to regain her composure.
MARGARET: You wanna call it off? [Oh no! She retreats to save face.]
RICHARD: If you do.
MARGARET: Fine. It's over. We'll tell them when we get back."
As this scene ends, there is heightened tension and questions.
This is what keeps me turning the pages...what happens next?!?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I must believe there's a LEGITIMATE reason (i.e., how Richard feels about Gertrude) for them not to be together.
Without it, the tension just doesn't exist.
The Proposal (2009)
by Peter Chiarelli
I love the rom-com moments when the two characters connect...and then are separated.
The tension just whets my appetite.
ex. Richard has just rescued Margaret, and they are laughing. [Finally, they have connected!]
"The two stare at each other for a beat. There's a real spark. They might kiss.
RICHARD: Gertrude wants me back. [Uh-oh. A real monkey wrench.]
Whoah. Not what she was expecting. She looks down. [Confusion is good fuel.]
MARGARET: And?
RICHARD: Well. It seemed like you were having...second thoughts. [He fishes around the unknown. Will she confess how she really feels?]
MARGARET: Yeah. I was. [Ugh. She gives the socially acceptable answer.]
RICHARD: Maybe we should do it. Come clean.
MARGARET: Put me down.
Richard puts Margaret down near the boat. She tries to regain her composure.
MARGARET: You wanna call it off? [Oh no! She retreats to save face.]
RICHARD: If you do.
MARGARET: Fine. It's over. We'll tell them when we get back."
As this scene ends, there is heightened tension and questions.
This is what keeps me turning the pages...what happens next?!?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I must believe there's a LEGITIMATE reason (i.e., how Richard feels about Gertrude) for them not to be together.
Without it, the tension just doesn't exist.
The Proposal (2009)
by Peter Chiarelli
Monday, April 7, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Bullitt (1968) - Two Hints About Action Writing
[Quick Summary: After a witness in his protection is shot, Lt. Bullitt hunts for the killer.]
I was interested in Bullitt because:
- Steve McQueen liked it enough to sign on.
- I need help writing interesting action scenes.
I knew that "action" stories are about movement.
However, this script pointed out that "action" does not mean the hero is moving all the time, i.e., "He jumps. He hits. He pivots."
I was happy as long as the story kept my mind's eye kept roving about, and picking up clues.
I found these hints helpful:
1 - Sometimes a well placed detail deepens the action.
ex. "EXT. MUSTANG - DAY
Bullitt pulls himself out of the Mustang. Two wheels are bent and a tree has punctured the radiator. [The wheel and tree detail shows how much our hero is willing to risk.]
He runs in the direction of the burning Dodge."
2 - It's ok to go beyond the hero's point of view (reaction shots, etc.)
ex. "EXT. GAS STATION
Two men run out from the office. One goes back in for a fire extinguisher. They head for the burning wreck. [The men demonstrate the level of danger before Bullitt arrives.]
Bullitt comes running down in the direction of the fire. He stops as:
EXT. BURNING DODGE
explodes in a spectacular ball of flame..."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've been (unnecessarily) stuck in the hero's POV too long.
Bullitt (1968)
by Alan Trustman & Harry Kleiner
Based on the novel, "Mute Witness", by Robert L. Pish
I was interested in Bullitt because:
- Steve McQueen liked it enough to sign on.
- I need help writing interesting action scenes.
I knew that "action" stories are about movement.
However, this script pointed out that "action" does not mean the hero is moving all the time, i.e., "He jumps. He hits. He pivots."
I was happy as long as the story kept my mind's eye kept roving about, and picking up clues.
I found these hints helpful:
1 - Sometimes a well placed detail deepens the action.
ex. "EXT. MUSTANG - DAY
Bullitt pulls himself out of the Mustang. Two wheels are bent and a tree has punctured the radiator. [The wheel and tree detail shows how much our hero is willing to risk.]
He runs in the direction of the burning Dodge."
2 - It's ok to go beyond the hero's point of view (reaction shots, etc.)
ex. "EXT. GAS STATION
Two men run out from the office. One goes back in for a fire extinguisher. They head for the burning wreck. [The men demonstrate the level of danger before Bullitt arrives.]
Bullitt comes running down in the direction of the fire. He stops as:
EXT. BURNING DODGE
explodes in a spectacular ball of flame..."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've been (unnecessarily) stuck in the hero's POV too long.
Bullitt (1968)
by Alan Trustman & Harry Kleiner
Based on the novel, "Mute Witness", by Robert L. Pish
Monday, March 31, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Magnificent Seven (1960) - One Scene Changed My Mind
[Quick Summary: Seven gunslingers are hired to protect a farming town from thieves.]
I wasn't prepared for this turning point in the script.
It made me feel for Chris:
"HILARIO: It would be a blessing if you helped us.
CHRIS: I'm sorry - I'm not in the blessing business.
HILARIO: No, no. We offer more than that. We could feed you every day.
TOMAS: And we have this.......
Out of a bandana, Tomas lays on the bed, we see, as he spreads it open ---everything of value from the village; inexpensive jewelry, medallions, the Old Man's watch - etc.
CHRIS: What's that?
TOMAS: It's everything we own, everything of value in the village.
CHRIS: I've been offered a lot for my work, but never everything."
This reversal was very effective:
- Chris turns down the job offer.
- The villagers offer him (literally) everything they have.
- Their plight stirs something in him (perhaps the challenge)?
- He changes his mind to help.
I was much more moved by this moment of compassion than the later violence.
After this scene, Chris was a richer, deeper character for me.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Can one scene changed my mind about a character? Yes!
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
by Walter Newman
I wasn't prepared for this turning point in the script.
It made me feel for Chris:
"HILARIO: It would be a blessing if you helped us.
CHRIS: I'm sorry - I'm not in the blessing business.
HILARIO: No, no. We offer more than that. We could feed you every day.
TOMAS: And we have this.......
Out of a bandana, Tomas lays on the bed, we see, as he spreads it open ---everything of value from the village; inexpensive jewelry, medallions, the Old Man's watch - etc.
CHRIS: What's that?
TOMAS: It's everything we own, everything of value in the village.
CHRIS: I've been offered a lot for my work, but never everything."
This reversal was very effective:
- Chris turns down the job offer.
- The villagers offer him (literally) everything they have.
- Their plight stirs something in him (perhaps the challenge)?
- He changes his mind to help.
I was much more moved by this moment of compassion than the later violence.
After this scene, Chris was a richer, deeper character for me.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Can one scene changed my mind about a character? Yes!
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
by Walter Newman
Monday, March 24, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Touch of Evil (1958) - When to "State the Obvious"
[Quick Summary: A newly married Mexican cop investigates a bombing, kidnapping, and corruption in a border town.]
In 1958, confidence in Orson Welles was low.
- It had been 12 years since his last Hollywood film.
- Universal released Touch of Evil "as a cheap bottom-of-the-bill thriller and declined to enter it officially in a competition at the 1958 Brussels World Fair..."* It won first prize anyway.
If you read this script:
- Don't miss how Welles fleshed out this novel.**
- Notice how Welles punctuates a run of dialogue:
However, here, it also marks the moment that the stakes have risen.
Ah-ha! It's used for emphasis and transition. *Light bulb goes on*
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is another tool for my writing toolbox.
I'm learning more and more when and where to use the right tool.
Touch of Evil (1958)
by Orson Welles
Based on the novel, Badge of Evil, by Whit Masterson
* Touch of Evil: Orson Welles (Rutgers Films in Print, Vol. 3), p. 41.
** See "The Evolution of Orson Welles's Touch of Evil from Novel to Film" by John Stubbs, Cinema Journal 24, no. 2 (Winter 1985): 19-39. It is reprinted here, and contains a thorough comparison of the book, draft #1, and Welles's final draft.
In 1958, confidence in Orson Welles was low.
- It had been 12 years since his last Hollywood film.
- Universal released Touch of Evil "as a cheap bottom-of-the-bill thriller and declined to enter it officially in a competition at the 1958 Brussels World Fair..."* It won first prize anyway.
If you read this script:
- Don't miss how Welles fleshed out this novel.**
- Notice how Welles punctuates a run of dialogue:
"They eye each other carefully, in silence. This is clearly a case of hate at first sight."The last sentence states the obvious (which I've always tried to avoid).
However, here, it also marks the moment that the stakes have risen.
Ah-ha! It's used for emphasis and transition. *Light bulb goes on*
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is another tool for my writing toolbox.
I'm learning more and more when and where to use the right tool.
Touch of Evil (1958)
by Orson Welles
Based on the novel, Badge of Evil, by Whit Masterson
* Touch of Evil: Orson Welles (Rutgers Films in Print, Vol. 3), p. 41.
** See "The Evolution of Orson Welles's Touch of Evil from Novel to Film" by John Stubbs, Cinema Journal 24, no. 2 (Winter 1985): 19-39. It is reprinted here, and contains a thorough comparison of the book, draft #1, and Welles's final draft.
Monday, March 17, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Dirty Harry (1971) - How to Use Camera Angles Appropriately
[Quick Summary: A cop hunts a serial murderer who taunts the San Francisco police.]
When I get stuck, I read scripts that have stood the test of time.
I'd recommend today's script for anyone who has trouble describing locations and/or spatial distances.
One technique the writers used is frequent camera angles.
I know, I know, I KNOW.
We're "not supposed to use camera angles."
Why? Because:
- Writers can get sloppy and overuse them
- Writers are accused of "directing on the page."
However, I'd argue that they're used here (appropriately) for emphasis:
ex. "CLOSE - HARRY [on roof of Bldg. #1]
as he looks up from dead girl to skyscraper overlooking area. [The shot highlights the closeness of the two buildings.]
ANOTHER ANGLE
as Harry crosses and looks up at Building #2 in b.g. [This action points out where the sniper could have gotten a clear shot.]
REVERSE ON HARRY
Makes up his mind, spins around and exits quickly from rooftop. [This reaction shot shows Harry makes quick decisions.]
EXT. BLDG. #2 STREET - DAY
We are HOLDING on Harry as he long-strides up the street toward us. We SPIN with him as he passes and discover that we are near the base of Building #2. As Harry moves toward it, we PAN UPWARD." [This solidifies the relationship between Buildings #1 & 2.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I must justify each use of a camera angle.
Dirty Harry (1971)
by H.J. Fink, R.M. Fink, and Dean Riesner
When I get stuck, I read scripts that have stood the test of time.
I'd recommend today's script for anyone who has trouble describing locations and/or spatial distances.
One technique the writers used is frequent camera angles.
I know, I know, I KNOW.
We're "not supposed to use camera angles."
Why? Because:
- Writers can get sloppy and overuse them
- Writers are accused of "directing on the page."
However, I'd argue that they're used here (appropriately) for emphasis:
ex. "CLOSE - HARRY [on roof of Bldg. #1]
as he looks up from dead girl to skyscraper overlooking area. [The shot highlights the closeness of the two buildings.]
ANOTHER ANGLE
as Harry crosses and looks up at Building #2 in b.g. [This action points out where the sniper could have gotten a clear shot.]
REVERSE ON HARRY
Makes up his mind, spins around and exits quickly from rooftop. [This reaction shot shows Harry makes quick decisions.]
EXT. BLDG. #2 STREET - DAY
We are HOLDING on Harry as he long-strides up the street toward us. We SPIN with him as he passes and discover that we are near the base of Building #2. As Harry moves toward it, we PAN UPWARD." [This solidifies the relationship between Buildings #1 & 2.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I must justify each use of a camera angle.
Dirty Harry (1971)
by H.J. Fink, R.M. Fink, and Dean Riesner
Monday, March 10, 2014
2014 OSCARS: Her (2013) - What Clear Subtext Looks Like
[Quick Summary: A man falls in love with his computer operating system.]
Her has great subtext.
I was very impressed by how clear the subtext is to the audience.
ex. "THEODORE: Yeah, I just wanna get it done. Sign the papers, be divorced, move forward. [Hooray for me!]
SAMANTHA: That's great, Theodore. That must feel so good. I'm so happy for you!
THEODORE: Me too. I'm meeting her on Wednesday to do it.
SAMANTHA: Oh. Huh. Are those things usually done in person? [I don't think you should.]
THEODORE: No, but we fell in love together, and we got married together, and it's important to me to do this together.
SAMANTHA (feeling off, but trying to be positive): Oh...right. Good. [This is bad.]
THEODORE: Are you okay?
SAMANTHA: Yeah. I'm okay. I'm happy for you. It's just...I guess I'm just thinking about how you're going to see her and her opinion is still really important to you, and she's beautiful, and incredibly successful, and you were in love with her. (beat) And she has a body. [Tell me I don't have to worry.]
THEODORE: And we're getting divorced...
SAMANTHA (laughs): I know, I know. I'm being silly. [I'm not imagining things.]
THEODORE (sing-song): ...soooo I'm avail-able.
They both laugh."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For clear subtext, keep the meaning simple.
Don't make the audience make two leaps of logic (it's too confusing).
Her (2013)
by Spike Jonze
Her has great subtext.
I was very impressed by how clear the subtext is to the audience.
ex. "THEODORE: Yeah, I just wanna get it done. Sign the papers, be divorced, move forward. [Hooray for me!]
SAMANTHA: That's great, Theodore. That must feel so good. I'm so happy for you!
THEODORE: Me too. I'm meeting her on Wednesday to do it.
SAMANTHA: Oh. Huh. Are those things usually done in person? [I don't think you should.]
THEODORE: No, but we fell in love together, and we got married together, and it's important to me to do this together.
SAMANTHA (feeling off, but trying to be positive): Oh...right. Good. [This is bad.]
THEODORE: Are you okay?
SAMANTHA: Yeah. I'm okay. I'm happy for you. It's just...I guess I'm just thinking about how you're going to see her and her opinion is still really important to you, and she's beautiful, and incredibly successful, and you were in love with her. (beat) And she has a body. [Tell me I don't have to worry.]
THEODORE: And we're getting divorced...
SAMANTHA (laughs): I know, I know. I'm being silly. [I'm not imagining things.]
THEODORE (sing-song): ...soooo I'm avail-able.
They both laugh."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For clear subtext, keep the meaning simple.
Don't make the audience make two leaps of logic (it's too confusing).
Her (2013)
by Spike Jonze
Monday, March 3, 2014
2014 OSCARS: Nebraska (2013) - Lucid? Or Not?
[Quick Summary: A son takes his father on a road trip from Montana to Nebraska to pick up a "winning" lottery ticket.]
I thoroughly enjoyed this fast read, as well as several podcasts with this screenwriter, Robert Nelson.
Nelson stated that he deliberately left it up to the audience whether or not the Woody character is lucid, or not.
So what does that look like on the page?
One thing I noticed was that Woody acts unlike most people.
The audience has to decide if his behavior is inappropriate, or just eccentric.
Example 1 - Woody's logic is questionable.
ex. "DAVID (reading): Mega Sweepstakes Marketing. Dad, this is a total come-on. It's one of the oldest gimmicks in the book. I didn't even know they did this anymore.
WOODY: They can't say it if it's not true.
DAVID: They're just trying to sell you magazine subscriptions.
WOODY: It says I won.
DAVID: So let's mail it in. I'll help you.
WOODY: I don't trust the mail with a million dollars."
Example 2 - Woody doesn't/can't explain his actions.
ex. "ROSS: He still thinks he 's going to Lincoln to get his money.
WOODY: Gotta get there by the 5th.
ROSS: Hey Dad, how come you didn't think of fixing the truck first or take a bus? Why'd you just start walking?
Woody looks up a moment, thinks about that, then gets back to work. David leads his brother out of the garage."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how this script left room for the audience to make decisions.
I was a participant, rather than just a bystander.
Nebraska (2013)
by Robert W. Nelson
I thoroughly enjoyed this fast read, as well as several podcasts with this screenwriter, Robert Nelson.
Nelson stated that he deliberately left it up to the audience whether or not the Woody character is lucid, or not.
So what does that look like on the page?
One thing I noticed was that Woody acts unlike most people.
The audience has to decide if his behavior is inappropriate, or just eccentric.
Example 1 - Woody's logic is questionable.
ex. "DAVID (reading): Mega Sweepstakes Marketing. Dad, this is a total come-on. It's one of the oldest gimmicks in the book. I didn't even know they did this anymore.
WOODY: They can't say it if it's not true.
DAVID: They're just trying to sell you magazine subscriptions.
WOODY: It says I won.
DAVID: So let's mail it in. I'll help you.
WOODY: I don't trust the mail with a million dollars."
Example 2 - Woody doesn't/can't explain his actions.
ex. "ROSS: He still thinks he 's going to Lincoln to get his money.
WOODY: Gotta get there by the 5th.
ROSS: Hey Dad, how come you didn't think of fixing the truck first or take a bus? Why'd you just start walking?
Woody looks up a moment, thinks about that, then gets back to work. David leads his brother out of the garage."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how this script left room for the audience to make decisions.
I was a participant, rather than just a bystander.
Nebraska (2013)
by Robert W. Nelson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)