TODAY'S NUGGET: The Last Detail (1973) - Dialogue Should Complement the Movement

[Quick Summary: Two sailors decide to live it up while escorting a third sailor to naval prison.]

The 1st reason to get this book: The introduction is a 1995 article Robert Towne wrote, "On Moving Pictures."* ** *** THIS IS WELL WORTH THE PRICE OF THE BOOK.

The 2nd reason: The two (Oscar nominated) screenplays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I first read the intro article, where Towne writes:

But it has always struck me that in movies, far more than any other dramatic medium, movement, not simply action, is most defining of character.

He goes on to write:

The point is that a fine actor on screen conveys a staggering amount of information before he ever opens his mouth. The screenwriter must be skillful not to interfere with or detract from that information by injudicious dialogue. He must be very skillful with dialogue to add to that information.

Then I saw what Towne meant when I read The Last Detail.

Here, Buddusky and Mulhall don't know each other, or their prisoner Meadows.

However, they have to work together and get Meadows to prison.

They begin to like Meadows, who is naive, well intentioned, and honorable.  They also discover that Meadows has light fingers, especially for candy.

The scene below is about 1/3 into the script.

Note:
-  All the movement around and between characters.
- The dialogue is teasing and complements the movement.
- Movement + dialogue = Buddusky knows Meadows's weakness, Meadows knows Buddusky knows

ex. "EXT. PHILADELPHIA STREET - DAY

The bus with CAMDEN on it rolls up. The three start out. Meadows tugs at Buddusky's arm.

MEADOWS: Hey, Bad Ass, want a candy bar?

Meadows flicks his eyes toward the candy counter. Buddusky smiles. He winks at Meadows, grabs him around the scruff of the neck and shakes him with mock roughness.

BUDDUSKY: Get your ass on the bus, sailor."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A character's movement is primary, and dialogue should complement, not compete.

The Last Detail (1973)
by Robert Towne
Adapted from the novel by Darryl Ponicsan

*Originally published in Scenario magazine, 1995.

**Even in 1995, Towne was so prescient on many topics: what silent filmmakers knew better than filmmakers today; what is wrong with superhero movies; etc.

***My favorite part is where he explains Hollywood's historic hatred toward writers: "In other words, he is the asshole who keeps everybody else from going to work."

TODAY'S NUGGET: Spartan (2004) - Shifting In, Shifting Out (from Scope to Wideshot)

[Quick Summary: Special Ops ranger hunts for the kidnapped daughter of a U.S. official.]

3 Things I Appreciate in a Script:

1) Clarity of why we are here.  Here, it's laser focused on finding a missing college girl.

2) An intriguing opening.

ex. "Now, the two men look across the ravine at the young woman, seen disappearing over a ridge.

SCOTT (quietly): ...you better catch her..."

3) It's easy to follow when shifting in/out from a scope to wideshot.

I find it helpful to study how Mamet shifts our focus from inside a scope to a wideshot. He uses clear indicators to help the reader see when:

- We're in the scope (1st line, "in green, through a sniperscope), versus
- A specific location ("in the house"), versus
- On the character in a wider shot ("on Anton").

ex. "ANGLE EXT. THE BUILDING. Where we see the man, and Scott. We see the scene in green, through a sniperscope.

ANGLE, on Anton, looking through the scope.

ANGLE CU Anton, as he sees something in the scope.

ANGLE, in the house. Scott advancing toward the man.

SCOTT: ...I just wannit to know, I just came to ask you that question...

The man backs up, past a half-open glass French door.

ANGLE, on Scott, as he advances toward the man.

ANGLE, ANTON'S POV. Through the sniperscope. The faint traces of what might be the Picasso symbol.

ANGLE, on Anton, as we see him move the sniperscope and adjust its magnification toward the symbol...."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that there was story reason for the shifting in or out. In the example above, it increased the tension as Anton watched from afar, helpless.

Spartan (2004)(draft dated Aug. 2002)
by David Mamet

TODAY'S NUGGET: Heist (2001) - A Jaded Mood

[Quick Summary: A thief is blackmailed into one last heist, which is full of crosses and double-crosses.]

This script has all the Mamet razzle dazzle: cross/double crosses, magic, heists, and complex characters.

However, it left me feeling sad and worn.

Perhaps that's apt because although these characters are motivated, loyal, and smart, their mood is jaded and tinged with sadness.

It bleeds into their actions, as seen in the example below.

Watch how these characters are motivated, loyal, and smart (all pro-active traits), but the mood, i.e., "distinctive emotional quality or character," is wearied, seen-it-all.

ex. "On Blane, as a car runs into him.

Blane hits the hood of the car.

ANGLE

On his hand, as it comes down, with a thump, on the hood of the car.

He rolls off the hood, and onto the ground.

ANGLE

On the two policeman, turning to the sound of the accident.

In the b.g. we see Moore, turning the corner.

ANGLE

On Blane, on the ground, holding his leg.

BLANE:...oh god...oh god...

ANGLE on the crowd of onlookers, as the policemen kneel to Blane. Blane starts to his feet. In the back of the crowd we see Pincus, who looks on for a second, and then melts away.

ANGLE

Sidewalk, passerby. Moore walking in the street. Pincus comes up behind him.

PINCUS (sotto): ...he's okay.

MOORE: Yeah, well, you know, that was his road game.

PINCUS: He's too old for that.

MOORE (shrugs): It's his job. Let's get to work."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I saw how mood was like another layer on top of the story.  It's similar to a sustained attitude.

Heist (2001)(draft dated Mar. 1999)
by David Mamet

TODAY'S NUGGET: Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) - Transferring Emotion to the Audience

[Quick Summary: An ensemble of real estate "closers" compete for the top spot.]

I liked what writer/director Jeff Nichols (Midnight Special, Mud, Take Shelter) said in this interview:

My stated goal as a story teller is to transfer an emotion to the audience.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard that many, many times.

But what does it MEAN? What does it LOOK LIKE? How do you DO IT?

I carried those questions in my head as I read this famous David Mamet script.

What about this script transfers emotion to the audience?

Is it his well loved, often quoted dialogue?  Well, yes, in part.

It's also the action that often contrasts with the pitter patter of dialogue.

In the scene below:
- Levene is an older co-worker, scraping by to pay for his daughter's care.
- Roma is younger co-worker on a winning streak.
- They are at their local watering hole.

ex. "Levene takes out his large appointment book, puts it up on the bar. Roma turns to the man on his other side (JAMES LINGK, a man in his thirties, nursing a drink) and begins talking to him.

ROMA (cont'd): They say...they say it was so cold downtown...grown men on the streetcorner were going up to cops begging the cops to shoot them. (to bartender) Thank you.

INSERT OF LEVENE'S APPOINTMENT BOOK

"MONDAY, FEBRUARY SIXTH.
2 p.m.: hospital
4-6 p.m.: Hendersons, Ralph and Marie V 2242 Logan, Lincolnwood
7:30 Sales promotion conference, H-Inn
9 p.m.: hospital
Call Doctor Lewenstein!!!"

ROMA (O.S.): And they say alcohol is the wrong thing to combat the cold.
LINGK (O.S.): Why says that?
ROMA (O.S.): Something I read, like the St. Bernards.
LINGK (O.S.): ...uh huh...
ROMA (O.S.): That they're not supposed to carry brandy, you know, because it's a depressant.
LINGK (O.S.): Uh huh.
ROMA (O.S.) But I subscribe to the Law of Contrary Public Opinion...

ANGLE - ROMA, LINGK, LEVENE AT THE BAR

Levene sighs, folds up his appointment book, starts to down his drink."

Why do we feel such empathy for Levene?

Because we SEE that he is burdened with work and an ill loved one, yet all the small talk also shows us that no one is paying attention.

Levene's action + unimportant small talk (dialogue) = No one sees him.

I know that feeling, don't you?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm thinking a lot more now about how to best use images + dialogue (contrasting or complementary) to convey specific emotions.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)(1st draft)
by David Mamet
Adapted from his play
                                     

TODAY'S NUGGET: Homicide (1991) - The Invisible Cut

[Quick Summary: A NYC cop is stretched between two cases: a splashy one he wants, and a small robbery case that he does not.]

Things I Do Not Find Helpful in a Script*: Directing on the page
Things I Do Find Helpful in a Script*: Invisible cuts on the page

To me, the first is generally about the visual look, sometimes at expense of story.

The second is focused on the visuals that build the story toward something.

The writer's job is to make these cuts as invisible as possible. But how?

In this script, Mamet uses cuts to:
- gather various points of view (ex. FBI team prepares to detonate a suspect's door) 
- show how a fight spirals out of control (ex. cops and murderer struggle for gun in a squad room)
- increase tension from location 1 to location 2 (see below)

Mamet does it by keeping the reader engaged and curious with what is happening. 

[For what it's worth, I was distracted by Mamet's use of "ANGLE," but it's his style.]

ex. "ANGLE
Ross looking at the sheet on the clipboard. He looks back at it. [What is on the clipboard?]

ANGLE INS
The letterhead. "Society for Comparative Linguistics" and at the bottom of the page, embossed, the address 212 W. Huron. [1st cut answers the question and asks the next one: "What's so special about that address?"]

EXT. 212 W. HURON NIGHT

Ross standing on the steps. Looking in through the glass. [2nd cut changes our location AND pushes the story forward. We now want to see what Ross is seeing.]

ANGLE POV
The lobby, empty." [3rd cut shows Ross' POV. Will he scope it out?]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was surprised how many cuts I missed while reading (an excellent thing).

Homicide (1991)(4/15/89 draft)
by David Mamet

*I speak here of a spec/selling script.  A shooting script, of course, will likely include more directing on the page out of necessity.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Gloria (1999) - Do Not Rush

[Quick Summary: A former showgirl is saddled with a 6 y.o. boy whose parents were shot by unsavory thugs.]

In my search for anything Sidney Lumet wrote and/or directed, I found this script.

I learned that:
- Lumet's version was a remake (with Sharon Stone, circa 1999).
- The great John Cassavetes wrote and directed the original (with his wife Gena Rowlands, 1980).
- I had Cassavetes' draft, which was great, as Lumet's draft is lost to the winds.

I often rush in my scripts because I'm worried I'll lose the audience's attention.

This script taught me take your time and Do Not Rush.

The audience will hang in there if each step has a purpose and builds to somewhere.

In this story:
1) We begin with Jeri (Phil's mom) on the bus, and her groceries spill. (p. 1-2)
2) Jeri gets to her apartment building and is nervous of the strange man in the lobby. (bottom p. 2)
3) Jack (Phil's dad) unlocks many bolts and chains to let Jeri in the apartment. (p. 4)
4) We meet one of our main characters, PHIL (6), and his sister Joan (7) on p. 4.
5) Jeri and Jack argue about packed bags and leaving. The kids are scared. (p. 5-10)
6) The thugs want Jack's secret ledger of the mafia's crooked deals. (p. 7)
7) GLORIA, the other main character, knocks on the door for coffee. (p. 11)

So, it took 4 pages to get to Phil, and 11 for Gloria. Is this necessary? Here, yes.

Each step BUILDS with a PURPOSE:
1) Jeri is a good, hard working, middle class mother.
2) Jeri is scared of something (tension). It makes us curious as to why.
3) The family is in imminent danger.
4) Innocent kids are involved. This is a very bad situation.
5) They are about to flee from thugs. Now I can see that this is a road trip story.
6) This sets up why there are high stakes for Phil and Gloria.
7) Once Gloria takes the kid in, she'll be hunted too.

Notice how the script took its time in showing us that this is a close, loving family. 

If it had started right at p. 7, we would not have as much sympathy for Phil's plight.

ex. "JACK: They know we're close. They know I live for my family.

JERI: How do they know?

JACK: That's all I talk about. I don't run with babes. I've got pictures of the kids in my wallet.

JERI: You talk about the kids to them?

JACK: Of course I do. I talk about the kids to everybody.

JERI goes back into the kitchen.

JERI: All right. Never mind dinner. Pack your things." 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't rush. Build story blocks with purpose.

Kurosawa was impressed too.


Gloria (1980)(rev. through 9/24/79)
by John Cassavetes

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an advanced script.*

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

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

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

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

1) Sidney Lumet directed it.

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

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

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

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

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

Then I read this quote from Lumet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Corruption trips up people in the details.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CARLA: More important than your old friends?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERPICO: This is 85% fat!

He starts to get up.

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

Peluce grabs him by the arm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY'S NUGGET: Suspicion (1941) - Great Villain + Wrong Casting + Studio Interference = Wrong Ending

[Quick Summary: A young woman is entranced, wooed, and married to a wastrel , and soon finds that her new husband may be trying to kill her.]

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

Johnnie Aysgarth is an excellent villain in this story.

I believe he's shady, devious, underhanded, and unreliable.

I believe he's also in love with his new wife, Lina McLaidlaw. 

I believe he would indeed lie, mislead, and cheat for the funds to keep her.

However, I do not believe the ending in the script, i.e., that he is redeemed.  It is not consistent with Johnnie's character or his choices.

I think Hitchcock thought the same because he wanted a darker ending.

Unfortunately, he had wrongly cast Cary Grant as Johnnie.  The studio didn't think audiences would buy him as a killer, and thus insisted on the current, happier ending.

I would've believed Hitchcock's darker version over the present one.

I think it's because Johnnie has the charisma to sell it:

ex. "ALICE: And Johnnie insisted on meeting you.

LINA (looking at Johnnie): Why?

The girls giggle but before they have time to reply Johnnie says very simply:

JOHNNIE: Well, I understand from these charming ladies that a really bang-up, eligible young man is an unusual sight in this part of the country. My heard was touched.

SEMI-CLOSEUP - Lina and Johnnie. Johnnie remains calm and smiling and Lina is flushed and embarrassed. Behind this we hear others chattering simultaneously."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm comforted that even Hitchcock had to compromise, and sometimes it wasn't always for the best.

Suspicion (1941)
by Samson Raphaelson, Alma Reville, and Joan Harrison
Based on the novel,, "Before the Fact," by Francis Iles (pseudonym for A. B. Cox)