[Quick Summary: After he is convinced to swap in another baby for his stillborn, an American ambassador and his wife are not prepared for the destruction that follows.]
ME: "What exactly is horror?
MYSELF: It's blood and guts.
ME: That's lazy. This script is clearly horror, i.e., scary, but WITHOUT much blood and guts. So why is it still horror?
MYSELF: How does the dictionary define it?
ME: "(n.) painful and intense fear, dread, or dismay."
MYSELF: A-ha! Now you see why used the shorthand of "blood & guts"?
In other words, rely on "fear, dread, or dismay" (not blood & guts).*
ex. "INT. LIBRARY
Thorn turning to Kathy; pleased.
KATHY: I like her.
THORN: Yes.
KATHY: Where did you find her?
THORN (taken aback): Where did I find her?
KATHY: ...Yes.
THORN: I didn't find her, I assumed you found her.
They exit.
INT. ENTRY HALL - ANGLE ON KATHY
KATHY (shouting up the stairs): Mrs. Baylock!
INT. UPSTAIRS - SAME - ANGLE ON MRS. BAYLOCK
about to open the door to the child's room.
MRS. BAYLOCK (turning): Yes?
ANGLE ON KATHY
ascending the stairs, Thorn behind her; pausing as they reach the landing.
KATHY: I'm sorry, we're a little confused.
MRS. BAYLOCK (stiffening): Why is that?
KATHY: We don't know how you got here.
MRS. BAYLOCK: By taxi. I sent it away.
KATHY: What I mean is, who 'called' you?
MRS. BAYLOCK: The agency.
KATHY: ...The agency?
MRS. BAYLOCK: They saw in the papers you'd lost your first nanny, so they sent you another.
ANGLE ON KATHY
amazed.
THORN: ...very enterprising.
KATHY: I'll call to confirm that.
MRS. BAYLOCK: That'll be fine. Here are my references.
There passes an uneasy silence: all staring dumbly at each other.
MRS. BAYLOCK: If you'll excuse me now.
KATHY (uneasy): Yes, of course.
Mrs. Baylock reaches for the door... CUT TO:
INT. THE CHILD'S ROOM - SAME
as the boy sits on the bed gazing out the window...slowly turning as he hears the door opening.
ANGLE ON THE NANNY
ENTERING; closing the door behind her, and locking it -- turning to gaze at the child. As she does, her expression transforms --her body stiffening, as though she is gazing upon something of incomparable beauty.
ANGLE ON THE CHILD
vaguely frightened.
CLOSE ANGLE ON MRS. BAYLOCK
moved.
MRS. BAYLOCK (fighting to control her voice): ...Fear not, little one. I'm here to protect Thee.
CAMERA HOLDS on her face."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For horror, it's all about building the fear, dread, or dismay.
The Omen (1976)(dated 9/8/75)
by David Seltzer
*I once read a spec horror script that was pages of blood and gore, but failed to build any fear/dread/dismay. It was boring.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Monday, August 28, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Femme Fatale (2002) - Voyeurism & Increasing Tension
[Quick Summary: A double crossing French con woman flees her conspirators, and when she's forced to return home, she runs a con to avoid the retribution.]
As mentioned last week, De Palma chooses "more controversial terrain: suspense, violence and eroticism."
I'd also like to add "voyeur" a minor addition to the list.*
Voyeurism is all about:
- Watching and seeing, which is why it works well with film format.
- Danger of being discovered, which increases the tension.
But how do you make 'watching and seeing' interesting on the page?
My two thoughts:
1) As always, the audience always need to wonder what is going to happen next.
2) But in this script, the added twist is that even the voyeur is wondering.
Note in the example below:
- How each scene lures the voyeur (and us) into wanting to see more
- How there is danger to Larry, to Mrs. Watts, which keeps us anxious, curious
[FYI: Larry is a papparazzo following Mrs. Watts, the femme fatale.]
ex. "INT. LARRY'S VW - AFTERNOON
...As the driver's side of the LEXUS sweeps past [Larry], he catches a glimpse of a face.
A classic model's profile if [sic] wasn't marred by that ugly shiner spreading out from under her sunglasses and down her left cheek.
Could this be the LADY OF THE HOUSE with "photo op" written all over her face?
LARRY speed after her to find out....
EXT. PLACE PIGALLE - NIGHT
The LEXUS parks in front of a SEX SHOP. LARRY finds a parking place across the street as MRS. WATTS gets out of her car and walks over to a STREET WHORE. They talk for a few seconds, then MRS. WATTS folls the STREET WHORE into the shop.
LARRY, grabs a camera out of the car, and crosses the street to get a closer look.
Through the window, he watches MRS. WATTS talk to the MANAGER. LARRY snaps off a few shots. A little insurance in case SHIFF tries to muscle him again.
The MANAGER motions MRS. WATTS to follow him. As they move toward the rear of the store, the STREET WHORE turns to face the front door. LARRY ducks down out of sight. He retreats back behind a newsstand. When he turns back to look, the STREET WHORE has returned to the street and MRS. WATTS and the MANAGER have vanished. LARRY rubs his hand across his mouth. What the hell is going on? He looks up and sees two figures silhouetted in the second story window. One's a woman. One's a man. They appeared to be in a heated argument. Finally the woman opens her purse and flings something down on the floor. The man kneels down to retrieve it. The woman slowly pulls up her skirt, turning her back to the window. Her hand reaches behind her back and grips at the shade cord. Grabbing hold of it, she pulls down the shade, cutting off LARRY'S VIEW.
A few minutes later, MRS. WATTS emerges from the SEX SHOP carrying a BROWN SHOPPING BAG. She gets back into the LEXUS and drives of.
What was that all about? A bag of sex toys for an evening adventure? A perplexed LARRY continues tailing her....
LARRY watches from his car as MRS. WATTS checks in[to a hotel]. While she's occupied with the DESK CLERK, LARRY slips out of his car, crosses the road, and looks into the side window of the LEXUS. Resting in the bottom of the SHOPPING BAG is a GUN and a BOX OF BULLETS.
LARRY ducks down from view as MRS. WATTS returns to her car, takes out the SHOPPING BAG and returns to the hotel. LARRY follows."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even in 'watching and seeing' scenes, the character is actively reacting to what he/she is seeing.
Femme Fatale (2002)(dated 11/21/00)
by Brian De Palma
*I hope that critic Roger Ebert might agree with me. He wrote: "This is a movie about watching and being watched, about seeing and not knowing what you see."
As mentioned last week, De Palma chooses "more controversial terrain: suspense, violence and eroticism."
I'd also like to add "voyeur" a minor addition to the list.*
Voyeurism is all about:
- Watching and seeing, which is why it works well with film format.
- Danger of being discovered, which increases the tension.
But how do you make 'watching and seeing' interesting on the page?
My two thoughts:
1) As always, the audience always need to wonder what is going to happen next.
2) But in this script, the added twist is that even the voyeur is wondering.
Note in the example below:
- How each scene lures the voyeur (and us) into wanting to see more
- How there is danger to Larry, to Mrs. Watts, which keeps us anxious, curious
[FYI: Larry is a papparazzo following Mrs. Watts, the femme fatale.]
ex. "INT. LARRY'S VW - AFTERNOON
...As the driver's side of the LEXUS sweeps past [Larry], he catches a glimpse of a face.
A classic model's profile if [sic] wasn't marred by that ugly shiner spreading out from under her sunglasses and down her left cheek.
Could this be the LADY OF THE HOUSE with "photo op" written all over her face?
LARRY speed after her to find out....
EXT. PLACE PIGALLE - NIGHT
The LEXUS parks in front of a SEX SHOP. LARRY finds a parking place across the street as MRS. WATTS gets out of her car and walks over to a STREET WHORE. They talk for a few seconds, then MRS. WATTS folls the STREET WHORE into the shop.
LARRY, grabs a camera out of the car, and crosses the street to get a closer look.
Through the window, he watches MRS. WATTS talk to the MANAGER. LARRY snaps off a few shots. A little insurance in case SHIFF tries to muscle him again.
The MANAGER motions MRS. WATTS to follow him. As they move toward the rear of the store, the STREET WHORE turns to face the front door. LARRY ducks down out of sight. He retreats back behind a newsstand. When he turns back to look, the STREET WHORE has returned to the street and MRS. WATTS and the MANAGER have vanished. LARRY rubs his hand across his mouth. What the hell is going on? He looks up and sees two figures silhouetted in the second story window. One's a woman. One's a man. They appeared to be in a heated argument. Finally the woman opens her purse and flings something down on the floor. The man kneels down to retrieve it. The woman slowly pulls up her skirt, turning her back to the window. Her hand reaches behind her back and grips at the shade cord. Grabbing hold of it, she pulls down the shade, cutting off LARRY'S VIEW.
A few minutes later, MRS. WATTS emerges from the SEX SHOP carrying a BROWN SHOPPING BAG. She gets back into the LEXUS and drives of.
What was that all about? A bag of sex toys for an evening adventure? A perplexed LARRY continues tailing her....
LARRY watches from his car as MRS. WATTS checks in[to a hotel]. While she's occupied with the DESK CLERK, LARRY slips out of his car, crosses the road, and looks into the side window of the LEXUS. Resting in the bottom of the SHOPPING BAG is a GUN and a BOX OF BULLETS.
LARRY ducks down from view as MRS. WATTS returns to her car, takes out the SHOPPING BAG and returns to the hotel. LARRY follows."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even in 'watching and seeing' scenes, the character is actively reacting to what he/she is seeing.
Femme Fatale (2002)(dated 11/21/00)
by Brian De Palma
*I hope that critic Roger Ebert might agree with me. He wrote: "This is a movie about watching and being watched, about seeing and not knowing what you see."
Monday, August 21, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Body Double (1984) - Writing an Erotic Scene
[Quick Summary: An out-of-work actor watches a beautiful woman through a telescope, and when she is murdered, he chases her killer.]
I don't really like reading sex scenes on the page.
Frankly, they're often handled poorly, and I do not appreciate the writer trying to show off and/or shock me with yet another orgy scene that is neither sexy nor erotic.
So what's does a good erotic scene look like on the page?
I find it ironic that I cite this De Palma script as a good example.*
However, I admit that he explains well about what it should look like on the page: **
ex. "Sam goes over to the telescope.
Looks through the viewfinder.
SAM: There's one very special feature to this house...
Sam fiddles with the viewer.
Pans to the side --up and down.Finds what he's looking for --
SAM: Come here, Jon. Meet my favorite neighbor.
Jon approaches.
An expression of doubtful bemusement on his face.
JON: Hey, Sam, what're you --
Sam grabs his arm.
Positions him at the telescope.
SAM: Just take a look.
Reluctant, but curious, Jon leans over.
Presses his eye to the lens. CUT
INT. SAM'S HOUSE
POV
THROUGH THE TELESCOPE
EXT. FAMILY OF 4 HOUSE
Out of focus:
A family of four at the dinner table.
INT. SAM'S HOUSE
SAM (o.s.): See her?
JON (o.s.): Huh? Just a fmily.
SAM (o.s.): Not them, lower.
Jon pans down.
A jiggly movement.
EXT. GLORIA'S HOUSE
Focuses on the window below the family.
There in the window, a WOMAN.
Standing in the shadows.
A candle on the window sill.
Her face is obscured.
Like an eclipsed sun.
The woman, GLORIA, is drinking wine.
And touching herself.
Slowly, sensually, her breasts.
She puts the wine glass down.
Unbuttons her blouse.
Shrugs it off.
Beneath, she wears a thin silk camisole.
She unhooks her skirt.
It puddles to the floor.
She puts one foot up on a chair.
Touches her leg.
Caresses herself.
INT. SAM'S HOUSE
JON
at the telescope.
Fighting a battle.
And losing.
He cannot tear himself away.
Sam smiles.
SAM: Nice, huh?
And Sam retreats into the bedroom to pack."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The protagonist's reaction to what he sees, i.e., the change in him, is as important for us to see as what he's focused upon.
Body Double (1984)(revised 12/16/83)
by Robert . Averch and Brian De Palma
Story by Brian De Palma
*First, because his scripts are not really my cup of tea.
Second, if you didn't know already, De Palms is quite a divisive filmmaker, who chooses "more controversial terrain: suspense, violence and eroticism." (emphasis mine)
**I like that he says that eroticism, in his words, is "a bit of an illusion."
I don't really like reading sex scenes on the page.
Frankly, they're often handled poorly, and I do not appreciate the writer trying to show off and/or shock me with yet another orgy scene that is neither sexy nor erotic.
So what's does a good erotic scene look like on the page?
I find it ironic that I cite this De Palma script as a good example.*
However, I admit that he explains well about what it should look like on the page: **
A lot of filmmakers think that just showing people kissing each other, and having a very good time, is enough. But so often their eyes are closed, and you can’t see their faces. The audience is completely shut out. In Hitchcock movies, you can see that they are kissing each other on the neck, and talking. They’re kissing lightly on the lips, and you can see their eyes. You see how they’re reacting. That’s what creates the eroticism of the scene. - Moviemaker (emphasis mine)Note in the scene below how many times De Palma directs us back at the protagonist's (Jon) reaction. We get involved as Jon gets involved:
ex. "Sam goes over to the telescope.
Looks through the viewfinder.
SAM: There's one very special feature to this house...
Sam fiddles with the viewer.
Pans to the side --up and down.Finds what he's looking for --
SAM: Come here, Jon. Meet my favorite neighbor.
Jon approaches.
An expression of doubtful bemusement on his face.
JON: Hey, Sam, what're you --
Sam grabs his arm.
Positions him at the telescope.
SAM: Just take a look.
Reluctant, but curious, Jon leans over.
Presses his eye to the lens. CUT
INT. SAM'S HOUSE
POV
THROUGH THE TELESCOPE
EXT. FAMILY OF 4 HOUSE
Out of focus:
A family of four at the dinner table.
INT. SAM'S HOUSE
SAM (o.s.): See her?
JON (o.s.): Huh? Just a fmily.
SAM (o.s.): Not them, lower.
Jon pans down.
A jiggly movement.
EXT. GLORIA'S HOUSE
Focuses on the window below the family.
There in the window, a WOMAN.
Standing in the shadows.
A candle on the window sill.
Her face is obscured.
Like an eclipsed sun.
The woman, GLORIA, is drinking wine.
And touching herself.
Slowly, sensually, her breasts.
She puts the wine glass down.
Unbuttons her blouse.
Shrugs it off.
Beneath, she wears a thin silk camisole.
She unhooks her skirt.
It puddles to the floor.
She puts one foot up on a chair.
Touches her leg.
Caresses herself.
INT. SAM'S HOUSE
JON
at the telescope.
Fighting a battle.
And losing.
He cannot tear himself away.
Sam smiles.
SAM: Nice, huh?
And Sam retreats into the bedroom to pack."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The protagonist's reaction to what he sees, i.e., the change in him, is as important for us to see as what he's focused upon.
Body Double (1984)(revised 12/16/83)
by Robert . Averch and Brian De Palma
Story by Brian De Palma
*First, because his scripts are not really my cup of tea.
Second, if you didn't know already, De Palms is quite a divisive filmmaker, who chooses "more controversial terrain: suspense, violence and eroticism." (emphasis mine)
**I like that he says that eroticism, in his words, is "a bit of an illusion."
Monday, August 14, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Blow Out (1981) - Laying Story Pipe
[Quick Summary: After recording the sounds of a car "accident," a movie sound effects guy is hunted for that recording.]
This script surprised me in two ways:
First, the plot is intriguing and fairly...well, normal (though it's De Palma, so not THAT normal).
Second, I was ok that the inciting incident* (the car accident) occurs on p.15.
- So what was happening from p. 1-14? The writer was laying down what I call "story pipe," which is necessary to setup a situation or a setup a payoff later.**
- What is the "story pipe" that kept me turning pages from 1-14?
ex. "Jack nods. Sam starts to pace again.
SAM: And I still don't understand what a smart guy like you is doing this shit for.
JACK: Hey, I do the sound - you do the shit!
SAM (getting mad): No - you do the shit -- like that wind in the trees. Sounds like you're whistling in the crapper.
JACK: It's out of the library. We've used it a million times.
SAM: That's the trouble. I've heard it a million times -- get something new.
Jack nods.
SAM: And what about that scream? We got to dub it.
JACK (innocently): Right. (beat) Know any good screamers?
SAM: I got a few ideas."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be afraid to lay story pipe. Make sure it isn't backstory.***
Blow Out (1981)(shooting script, dated 10/21/80)
by Brian De Palma
*Inciting incident = Act that kicks off the action
**"Story pipe" is not backstory, which is often unnecessary.
***How will I know the difference?
a) Experience over a long time.
b) Reading more scripts.
c) From good feedback from other good writers.
This script surprised me in two ways:
First, the plot is intriguing and fairly...well, normal (though it's De Palma, so not THAT normal).
Second, I was ok that the inciting incident* (the car accident) occurs on p.15.
- So what was happening from p. 1-14? The writer was laying down what I call "story pipe," which is necessary to setup a situation or a setup a payoff later.**
- What is the "story pipe" that kept me turning pages from 1-14?
p. 1-8: The script opens with a maniac stalking female college students in their dorm.
p. 9-12: We see that p. 1-8 is a film within a film, and our protagonist Jack is working the sound effects.
p. 12-14: On TV, a reporter states that the Governor McRyan will be announcing his candidacy for higher office, maybe tonight.
p. 15: Jack is recording sounds at night, near a creek, and sees McRyan's car swerve off the road into the water.- Was all that story pipe necessary? In this script, I'd say yes because it sets up why Jack is outdoors at night with a sound recorder.
ex. "Jack nods. Sam starts to pace again.
SAM: And I still don't understand what a smart guy like you is doing this shit for.
JACK: Hey, I do the sound - you do the shit!
SAM (getting mad): No - you do the shit -- like that wind in the trees. Sounds like you're whistling in the crapper.
JACK: It's out of the library. We've used it a million times.
SAM: That's the trouble. I've heard it a million times -- get something new.
Jack nods.
SAM: And what about that scream? We got to dub it.
JACK (innocently): Right. (beat) Know any good screamers?
SAM: I got a few ideas."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be afraid to lay story pipe. Make sure it isn't backstory.***
Blow Out (1981)(shooting script, dated 10/21/80)
by Brian De Palma
*Inciting incident = Act that kicks off the action
**"Story pipe" is not backstory, which is often unnecessary.
***How will I know the difference?
a) Experience over a long time.
b) Reading more scripts.
c) From good feedback from other good writers.
Monday, August 7, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Dressed to Kill (1980) - Formatting; A Series of Shots
[Quick Summary: When a woman is murdered by a blonde, the lone witness becomes the blonde's new target.]
YOU: THAT IS NOT "STANDARD" FORMATTING!
ME: Yes, I know.
YOU: Do you care???
ME: Nope.
YOU: Why not?! I don't get it. Everyone is so uppity about formatting.
ME: Because IF the writing shows the story so I can connect the dots...
...and IF I get swept up in the story
...and IF it makes me feel intensely for the characters
...and IF it delivers the punch, the climax, the ending
...then the script works. I don't notice the formatting.
YOU: So what's the deal with formatting "rules"?*
ME: They are like training wheels. You use them:
- As a fallback.
- When you're unsure what the producers want.
- Until you don't need them as much, i.e., When you're the director and know how to write in a series of cinematic shots.
De Palma is a good example of the last category.
Note below:
- how it is a series of cinematic shots
- how the shots build on each other
ex. "INT. ELEVATOR
When the elevator finally arrives, KATE steps in the car. She hears the sound of footsteps rushing down the hall. She frantically pushes the "close" button. The doors shut before the person coming down the hall can reach her. She is crying openly now and is thankful that no one is in the car to witness her shame. She pushes the lobby button and the car descends. As she pulls her finger off the button she realizes she's left her wedding ring on the bedside table.
KATE: Oh God!"
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Pay closer attention to how the shots build upon each other, because the sum of those shots is what the audience sees.
Dressed to Kill (1980)
by Brian De Palma
* Remember: On this blog, "rules" = guidelines. They are not etched in stone.
YOU: THAT IS NOT "STANDARD" FORMATTING!
ME: Yes, I know.
YOU: Do you care???
ME: Nope.
YOU: Why not?! I don't get it. Everyone is so uppity about formatting.
ME: Because IF the writing shows the story so I can connect the dots...
...and IF I get swept up in the story
...and IF it makes me feel intensely for the characters
...and IF it delivers the punch, the climax, the ending
...then the script works. I don't notice the formatting.
YOU: So what's the deal with formatting "rules"?*
ME: They are like training wheels. You use them:
- As a fallback.
- When you're unsure what the producers want.
- Until you don't need them as much, i.e., When you're the director and know how to write in a series of cinematic shots.
De Palma is a good example of the last category.
Note below:
- how it is a series of cinematic shots
- how the shots build on each other
ex. "INT. ELEVATOR
When the elevator finally arrives, KATE steps in the car. She hears the sound of footsteps rushing down the hall. She frantically pushes the "close" button. The doors shut before the person coming down the hall can reach her. She is crying openly now and is thankful that no one is in the car to witness her shame. She pushes the lobby button and the car descends. As she pulls her finger off the button she realizes she's left her wedding ring on the bedside table.
KATE: Oh God!"
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Pay closer attention to how the shots build upon each other, because the sum of those shots is what the audience sees.
Dressed to Kill (1980)
by Brian De Palma
* Remember: On this blog, "rules" = guidelines. They are not etched in stone.
Monday, July 31, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Obsession (1976) - The Secret is Not the Creepy Parts
[Quick Summary: After his wife and child die in a kidnapping, a Southern real estate investor falls into a deep emotional freeze, until he meets his wife's look alike.]
In the land of "De Palma weird,"* this story is mild, but the twist is creeeeepy.
I thought that I'd be too creeped out to read on...but it's an addictive page turner.
Why? Why is this creepy but good vs. other creepy thriller/horrors just tedious?
I think the secret is NOT THE CREEPY PARTS:
1) The secret is to lay out a character's emotional dilemma that stirs our empathy.
ex. In this story, Michael Courtland has his wife and child stripped from him, then he descends into hell. His wound never heals and he is emotionally stuck in 1957.
2) Now the character's RESPONSE to the dilemma can go screwy/creepy/wild.
ex. Twenty years later, he meets a woman who looks like his dead wife. He drags her to the old places, has her wear the wife's clothes. He's unmoored and doesn't notice.
Do I really need #1? Yes.
Why can't I just do smash a bunch of screwy/creepy/wild scenes together? ** #1 teaches me to care about the characters. A stream of #2 won't hold on the reader.
Note below how the writer:
- Lay out the dilemma (Mike's emotional vulnerability in his first date with Sandra)
- Lay out the threat (his spying business partner La Salle)
- Prepare us for Mike's response later when he finds out
ex. "There is an awkward moment as they say goodnight. Sandra's prepared to accept a goodnight kiss, but Michael is afraid to offer one. Instead, he extends his hand in a shy, awkward way, and she takes it.
COURTLAND: Goodnight, Sandra.
SANDRA: Buona notte, Mike.
They turn and go their separate ways. The CAMERA PANS with Courtland as he walks down the street. Suddenly it STOPS on a man watching from an alley. We ZOOM IN TO DISCOVER it's La Salle."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Take the time to first lay out the character's present emotional state and dilemma, no matter what the genre. Otherwise, it's forgettable.
Obsession (1976)
by Paul Schrader
Story by Brian De Palma and Paul Schrader
*De Palma scripts are outliers, i.e., they lie outside the normal bell curve of weird.
"De Palma weird" = My attempt to describe this outlying weirdness level.
** This is especially true of what I call "horror porn" scripts where it is scene after scene of gruesome --> more gruesome --> gross out. There is no emotional development, and it becomes tiresome.
In the land of "De Palma weird,"* this story is mild, but the twist is creeeeepy.
I thought that I'd be too creeped out to read on...but it's an addictive page turner.
Why? Why is this creepy but good vs. other creepy thriller/horrors just tedious?
I think the secret is NOT THE CREEPY PARTS:
1) The secret is to lay out a character's emotional dilemma that stirs our empathy.
ex. In this story, Michael Courtland has his wife and child stripped from him, then he descends into hell. His wound never heals and he is emotionally stuck in 1957.
2) Now the character's RESPONSE to the dilemma can go screwy/creepy/wild.
ex. Twenty years later, he meets a woman who looks like his dead wife. He drags her to the old places, has her wear the wife's clothes. He's unmoored and doesn't notice.
Do I really need #1? Yes.
Why can't I just do smash a bunch of screwy/creepy/wild scenes together? ** #1 teaches me to care about the characters. A stream of #2 won't hold on the reader.
Note below how the writer:
- Lay out the dilemma (Mike's emotional vulnerability in his first date with Sandra)
- Lay out the threat (his spying business partner La Salle)
- Prepare us for Mike's response later when he finds out
ex. "There is an awkward moment as they say goodnight. Sandra's prepared to accept a goodnight kiss, but Michael is afraid to offer one. Instead, he extends his hand in a shy, awkward way, and she takes it.
COURTLAND: Goodnight, Sandra.
SANDRA: Buona notte, Mike.
They turn and go their separate ways. The CAMERA PANS with Courtland as he walks down the street. Suddenly it STOPS on a man watching from an alley. We ZOOM IN TO DISCOVER it's La Salle."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Take the time to first lay out the character's present emotional state and dilemma, no matter what the genre. Otherwise, it's forgettable.
Obsession (1976)
by Paul Schrader
Story by Brian De Palma and Paul Schrader
*De Palma scripts are outliers, i.e., they lie outside the normal bell curve of weird.
"De Palma weird" = My attempt to describe this outlying weirdness level.
** This is especially true of what I call "horror porn" scripts where it is scene after scene of gruesome --> more gruesome --> gross out. There is no emotional development, and it becomes tiresome.
Monday, July 24, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Phantom of the Paradise (1974) - Showing Character Through Interactions
[Quick Summary: After a rock opera producer steals his music and his muse, an up-and-coming composer fights back to get everything that was stolen.]
I've read a lot of weird scripts in my day. This one is WEIRD.
Is it Bad Weird or Good Weird?
This is Good Weird, which was worth a second look because it had something worthwhile to say. (BTW, it took me at least 2/3 of the script before I got it.)
Notice how the writer show us what the characters stand for by using interactions:
- Swan (antagonist) is a creepy bastard, as seen by his interactions with the girls.
- Winslow (protagonist) is persistent, as seen by his disguise to meet Swan.
(FYI: If you read the scene below and feel creeped out, it's ok. That's the intent.)
ex. "INT. SWAN'S RECORD-SHAPED BED - NIGHT
Winslow, in drag, but determined to see Swan, lies on a massive water bed surrounded by skimpily clad singers.
GIRL ONE: When do we get to sing?
GIRL TWO: I don't think too much singing goes on here.
GIRL THREE: I've been here 12 times and I don't get to sing -- all I get is to come back.
GIRL FOUR: What do you do here?
GIRL THREE: You'll see.
GIRL FIVE: Can't you sing on your back?
GIRL SIX: I've never tried.
GIRL FIVE: Well, if you can sing standing up, you can sing lying down.
GIRL SEVEN: Why don't you take off your slip?
GIRL EIGHT: I'm waiting for Swan.
GIRL SEVEN: He won't miss anything, if you do it now.
GIRL FIVE: Yeah -- you're being auditioned right now.
GIRL ONE: What do you mean?
GIRL THREE (whispered): The whole place is bugged.
GIRL FOUR: You're kidding.
GIRL THREE: No...no, Swan is watching us right now...
Suddenly Dorian enters the room from his sunken bath. Winslow leaps up, confronting him.
WINSLOW: Mr. Dorian, you remember me. I'm Winslow Leach.
DORIAN: Who let this fag in here?! (yelling to the guards) Get her out of here!
Winslow rips off his wigs.
WINSLOW: Mr. Dorian! It's me, Winslow.
The guards arrive and grab hold of Winslow.
GIRL FOUR: Hurry up, we're cooling off fast.
Dorian turns his back on Winslow and lustfully approaches the bed.
WINSLOW: Don't you remember me? Mr. Philbin gave you the music of my cantata. You're auditioning girls for the chorus. I'm Winslow Leach! I wrote it!
The guards drag Winslow from the room as Dorian slips into the rapidly cooling flesh pile.
DORIAN (to Girl Four): Hand me that telephone."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The reader can tell a lot about your protagonist (and antagonist) by how other characters react to him/her.
Phantom of the Paradise (1974)(dated 11/23/74)
by Brian De Palma
I've read a lot of weird scripts in my day. This one is WEIRD.
Is it Bad Weird or Good Weird?
This is Good Weird, which was worth a second look because it had something worthwhile to say. (BTW, it took me at least 2/3 of the script before I got it.)
Notice how the writer show us what the characters stand for by using interactions:
- Swan (antagonist) is a creepy bastard, as seen by his interactions with the girls.
- Winslow (protagonist) is persistent, as seen by his disguise to meet Swan.
(FYI: If you read the scene below and feel creeped out, it's ok. That's the intent.)
ex. "INT. SWAN'S RECORD-SHAPED BED - NIGHT
Winslow, in drag, but determined to see Swan, lies on a massive water bed surrounded by skimpily clad singers.
GIRL ONE: When do we get to sing?
GIRL TWO: I don't think too much singing goes on here.
GIRL THREE: I've been here 12 times and I don't get to sing -- all I get is to come back.
GIRL FOUR: What do you do here?
GIRL THREE: You'll see.
GIRL FIVE: Can't you sing on your back?
GIRL SIX: I've never tried.
GIRL FIVE: Well, if you can sing standing up, you can sing lying down.
GIRL SEVEN: Why don't you take off your slip?
GIRL EIGHT: I'm waiting for Swan.
GIRL SEVEN: He won't miss anything, if you do it now.
GIRL FIVE: Yeah -- you're being auditioned right now.
GIRL ONE: What do you mean?
GIRL THREE (whispered): The whole place is bugged.
GIRL FOUR: You're kidding.
GIRL THREE: No...no, Swan is watching us right now...
Suddenly Dorian enters the room from his sunken bath. Winslow leaps up, confronting him.
WINSLOW: Mr. Dorian, you remember me. I'm Winslow Leach.
DORIAN: Who let this fag in here?! (yelling to the guards) Get her out of here!
Winslow rips off his wigs.
WINSLOW: Mr. Dorian! It's me, Winslow.
The guards arrive and grab hold of Winslow.
GIRL FOUR: Hurry up, we're cooling off fast.
Dorian turns his back on Winslow and lustfully approaches the bed.
WINSLOW: Don't you remember me? Mr. Philbin gave you the music of my cantata. You're auditioning girls for the chorus. I'm Winslow Leach! I wrote it!
The guards drag Winslow from the room as Dorian slips into the rapidly cooling flesh pile.
DORIAN (to Girl Four): Hand me that telephone."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The reader can tell a lot about your protagonist (and antagonist) by how other characters react to him/her.
Phantom of the Paradise (1974)(dated 11/23/74)
by Brian De Palma
Monday, July 17, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Holy Matrimony (1943) - Sight Gag
[Quick Summary: When a famous but shy painter returns to London, he takes on the identify of his recently deceased valet in order to paint in peace.]
DEEE-lightful! This script is smart, fun, witty, and rapier sharp.
First, I had to applaud the writer* who made me laugh with a 123 word sentence with NO PUNCTUATION. It even looks funny on the page. Gutsy move.
Second, when I chuckled at this sight gag, I knew I was in good hands:
ex. "Dissolve to:
Montage - Letter
Occupying much of the screen, the envelope is stamped and addressed to PRIAM FARRLL, ESQ. The address itself should be indecipherable. Superimposed on the letter are:
(1) English railway train.
Dissolve to:
(2) Ocean liner.
Dissolve to:
(3) Black native paddling dugout canoe up river.
Dissolve to:
(4) Black native driving primitive oxcart along dirt road.
(5) Black native runner racing through jungle."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Why does this sight gag amuse me? Is it the exaggeration? The sequencing? The economy and clarity of what he's trying to convey? All of it?
Holy Matrimony (1943)
by Nunnally Johnson
Based on the novel, "Buried Alive," by Arnold Bennett
*Nunnally Johnson is no ordinary top notch writer. Just look at his laudable range in films: Grapes of Wrath, The Three Faces of Eve, How to Marry a Millionaire, The Dirty Dozen, etc.
DEEE-lightful! This script is smart, fun, witty, and rapier sharp.
First, I had to applaud the writer* who made me laugh with a 123 word sentence with NO PUNCTUATION. It even looks funny on the page. Gutsy move.
Second, when I chuckled at this sight gag, I knew I was in good hands:
ex. "Dissolve to:
Montage - Letter
Occupying much of the screen, the envelope is stamped and addressed to PRIAM FARRLL, ESQ. The address itself should be indecipherable. Superimposed on the letter are:
(1) English railway train.
Dissolve to:
(2) Ocean liner.
Dissolve to:
(3) Black native paddling dugout canoe up river.
Dissolve to:
(4) Black native driving primitive oxcart along dirt road.
(5) Black native runner racing through jungle."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Why does this sight gag amuse me? Is it the exaggeration? The sequencing? The economy and clarity of what he's trying to convey? All of it?
Holy Matrimony (1943)
by Nunnally Johnson
Based on the novel, "Buried Alive," by Arnold Bennett
*Nunnally Johnson is no ordinary top notch writer. Just look at his laudable range in films: Grapes of Wrath, The Three Faces of Eve, How to Marry a Millionaire, The Dirty Dozen, etc.
Monday, July 10, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Julia (1977) - Flashbacks That Nail the WHAT, Not the WHY
[Quick Summary: On a request from her best childhood friend Julia, Lillian Hellman is asked to deliver a package into Nazi occupied Berlin. Based on a true story.*]
My Three Thoughts:
1) My hat is OFF to you, Mr. Alvin Sargent. This is an incredible script.
When was the last time that I didn't want a script to end? I cannot remember.
2) For a tutorial in suspense, do NOT miss the train scene at the end.
3) I like flashbacks, but only if you know how to use them.**
Here, Sargent is extremely precise in how he's using flashbacks: To nail the protagonist's present emotions. What is Lillian feeling now? (Not WHY, but WHAT.)
Notice the FLOW of the next three scenes (I have edited for length):
[Lillian is in Paris and has not heard from Julia. Then Johann, a friend of Julia's, shows up with a request: Would Lillian smuggle money to Berlin for Julia?
Lillian asks for time to decide. Johann walks away.]
Another angle Lillian
walking on the path.
JULIA (O.S. - young girl): Lilly, you don't have to come this way. Go down under. Wade across.
Cut to
EXT. A TRAIL IN THE ADIRONDACK MOUNTAINS - DAY
Angle on a fallen tree which serves as access from one side of a relatively deep ravine to the other. Water rushes down the ravine. Julia and Lillian (children) have approached the tree. They study the pros and cons, Lillian with some trepidation. Finally, Julia moves with great alacrity across the fallen tree. Lillian remains on the edge of the ravine behind her. She is contemplating the depths. Quiite clearly her fear is increasing.
Angle on Julia
on the tree trunk as she reaches the other side. She looks back toward Lillian.
Her P.O.V. Lillian
Standing frozen in the distance.
Full shot
We wait a moment for Lillian to decide. Finally she makes her move. Carefully, she puts one foot on the log....
as Lillian continues on slowly. She moves closer to the other side. Finally, she is only a few yards from making it. She freezes again. We can feel the panic coming on her. She is about to lose her balance and starts to get down to her knees, but she slips off the log. As she does, she throws her arms around it and holds on for dear life. She is hanging beneath the log.
JULIA: Pull yourself up!
LILLIAN: I can't!
JULIA: Hold tight - just hold tight.
[Julia pulls Lillian up on the log. They are safe!]
....Closer shot Lillian and Julia
as they lie on their sides, exhausted.
LILLIAN: I'm sorry.
JULIA: It's all right.
She looks at Lillian like a good teacher, smiles.
JULIA: You'll do it next time.
Cut to
EXT. THE TUILERIES - ANGLE ON LILLIAN
walking on the path. The gardens are breathtaking, but Lillian is oblivious to everything around her, even a line of schoolchildren who nearly bump into her as they move with their teacher along the path."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't notice the flashbacks. (That's how I knew they must have been unusually well crafted.)
Julia (1977)
by Alvin Sargent
Based upon the story by Lillian Hellman
*The forward notes that there is still great debate whether Ms. Hellman's memoirs and recollections are entirely true, or all or partly fictional.
**The "rule" says to not use flashbacks. Why? Because it's too often used to dump information. That is lazy. Don't do that.
My Three Thoughts:
1) My hat is OFF to you, Mr. Alvin Sargent. This is an incredible script.
When was the last time that I didn't want a script to end? I cannot remember.
2) For a tutorial in suspense, do NOT miss the train scene at the end.
3) I like flashbacks, but only if you know how to use them.**
Here, Sargent is extremely precise in how he's using flashbacks: To nail the protagonist's present emotions. What is Lillian feeling now? (Not WHY, but WHAT.)
Notice the FLOW of the next three scenes (I have edited for length):
Scene #1 - Lillian is in shock at the request. She must decide by tomorrow and doesn't have any guarantees.
Scene #2 - Flashback of Lillian in trouble. Fear --> trust in Julia.
Scene #3 - In the present, Lillian walks in a daze. The flashback shows us the war inside her, i.e., WHAT she's feeling inside now.ex. EXT. THE GARDENS OF THE TUILERIES - LONG SHOT
[Lillian is in Paris and has not heard from Julia. Then Johann, a friend of Julia's, shows up with a request: Would Lillian smuggle money to Berlin for Julia?
Lillian asks for time to decide. Johann walks away.]
Another angle Lillian
walking on the path.
JULIA (O.S. - young girl): Lilly, you don't have to come this way. Go down under. Wade across.
Cut to
EXT. A TRAIL IN THE ADIRONDACK MOUNTAINS - DAY
Angle on a fallen tree which serves as access from one side of a relatively deep ravine to the other. Water rushes down the ravine. Julia and Lillian (children) have approached the tree. They study the pros and cons, Lillian with some trepidation. Finally, Julia moves with great alacrity across the fallen tree. Lillian remains on the edge of the ravine behind her. She is contemplating the depths. Quiite clearly her fear is increasing.
Angle on Julia
on the tree trunk as she reaches the other side. She looks back toward Lillian.
Her P.O.V. Lillian
Standing frozen in the distance.
Full shot
We wait a moment for Lillian to decide. Finally she makes her move. Carefully, she puts one foot on the log....
as Lillian continues on slowly. She moves closer to the other side. Finally, she is only a few yards from making it. She freezes again. We can feel the panic coming on her. She is about to lose her balance and starts to get down to her knees, but she slips off the log. As she does, she throws her arms around it and holds on for dear life. She is hanging beneath the log.
JULIA: Pull yourself up!
LILLIAN: I can't!
JULIA: Hold tight - just hold tight.
[Julia pulls Lillian up on the log. They are safe!]
....Closer shot Lillian and Julia
as they lie on their sides, exhausted.
LILLIAN: I'm sorry.
JULIA: It's all right.
She looks at Lillian like a good teacher, smiles.
JULIA: You'll do it next time.
Cut to
EXT. THE TUILERIES - ANGLE ON LILLIAN
walking on the path. The gardens are breathtaking, but Lillian is oblivious to everything around her, even a line of schoolchildren who nearly bump into her as they move with their teacher along the path."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't notice the flashbacks. (That's how I knew they must have been unusually well crafted.)
Julia (1977)
by Alvin Sargent
Based upon the story by Lillian Hellman
*The forward notes that there is still great debate whether Ms. Hellman's memoirs and recollections are entirely true, or all or partly fictional.
**The "rule" says to not use flashbacks. Why? Because it's too often used to dump information. That is lazy. Don't do that.
Monday, July 3, 2017
TODAY'S NUGGET: Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) - Personify the Inner Conflict
[Quick Summary: A tribunal decides the innocence or guilt of four German judges who were on the bench during WWII.]
How do you make a 1948 war crimes trial that lasted 8 months appealing? Relevant?
This script could've been a boring trial, but writer Abby Mann* kept it interesting:
- The story follows Justice Haywood (played by Spenser Tracy) who is a fish-out-of-water. He is very curious, and takes us outside the courtroom into every day life.
- I expected the courtroom scenes that follow the prosecutor, defense attorneys, etc. However, I did not expect so many character scenes outside the courtroom.
- I really liked how Mann structured the story to show Haywood's inner conflict about judging other judges' innocence or guilt:
1) We see glimpses of the inner conflict, here and there, mixed with humor.**
2) Mann personifies the German point of view through the character of Mrs. Berholt, a German widow with whom Haywood bonds with over music.
She represents the Germans (like her husband) who did not want the Nazis in power, but were swept up in the mess, and falsely accused of crimes and punished.
She makes Haywood face the fact that the issues are not black and white:
"ex. MRS. BERHOLT: What did he know about the crimes they cited him for? (pause) He was placed on trial with the other military leaders. He became part of the revenge which the victors always take on the vanquished...(simply, devastatingly)...it was political murder. (pause. Quietly look at Haywood) You can see that, can't you?
Pause. There is a moment. Haywood speaks finally. Obviously terribly moved by what she has said but not looking at her.
HAYWOOD (finally): Mrs. Bertholt. I don't know. (pause) I don't know what I see. (pause) I shouldn't be here right now talking to you. But I want to understand. I want to understand. I have to.
Mrs. Bertholt looks at him a moment. The stooped, agonized bulk of man sitting on the couch. She realizes how fully he is involved with his case and how much he really wishes to do what is right.
He is giving back to her the memory of the people in America that she had most come to admire. There is a moment.
MRS. BERTHOLT (gently): Would you like some more coffee?
HAYWOOD (quietly): Yes. I would.
Mrs. Bertholt begins to pour."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One way to show the protagonist's inner conflict is to set him/her against another antagonist/friend/bystander who strongly takes one side in the conflict.
Now the protagonist's inner opinions will be brought out in the open.
Judgment at Nuremburg (1961)
by Abby Mann
Adapted from his 1959 teleplay (play here)(original 1959 video broadcast here)
*FYI: Mann is also the writer who brought the great Kojack (1973) to tv.
**The glimpses were just enough. I so appreciate that it is not heavy handed conflict, ALL THE TIME. Otherwise, it would have felt like a lecture.
How do you make a 1948 war crimes trial that lasted 8 months appealing? Relevant?
This script could've been a boring trial, but writer Abby Mann* kept it interesting:
- The story follows Justice Haywood (played by Spenser Tracy) who is a fish-out-of-water. He is very curious, and takes us outside the courtroom into every day life.
- I expected the courtroom scenes that follow the prosecutor, defense attorneys, etc. However, I did not expect so many character scenes outside the courtroom.
- I really liked how Mann structured the story to show Haywood's inner conflict about judging other judges' innocence or guilt:
1) We see glimpses of the inner conflict, here and there, mixed with humor.**
2) Mann personifies the German point of view through the character of Mrs. Berholt, a German widow with whom Haywood bonds with over music.
She represents the Germans (like her husband) who did not want the Nazis in power, but were swept up in the mess, and falsely accused of crimes and punished.
She makes Haywood face the fact that the issues are not black and white:
"ex. MRS. BERHOLT: What did he know about the crimes they cited him for? (pause) He was placed on trial with the other military leaders. He became part of the revenge which the victors always take on the vanquished...(simply, devastatingly)...it was political murder. (pause. Quietly look at Haywood) You can see that, can't you?
Pause. There is a moment. Haywood speaks finally. Obviously terribly moved by what she has said but not looking at her.
HAYWOOD (finally): Mrs. Bertholt. I don't know. (pause) I don't know what I see. (pause) I shouldn't be here right now talking to you. But I want to understand. I want to understand. I have to.
Mrs. Bertholt looks at him a moment. The stooped, agonized bulk of man sitting on the couch. She realizes how fully he is involved with his case and how much he really wishes to do what is right.
He is giving back to her the memory of the people in America that she had most come to admire. There is a moment.
MRS. BERTHOLT (gently): Would you like some more coffee?
HAYWOOD (quietly): Yes. I would.
Mrs. Bertholt begins to pour."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One way to show the protagonist's inner conflict is to set him/her against another antagonist/friend/bystander who strongly takes one side in the conflict.
Now the protagonist's inner opinions will be brought out in the open.
Judgment at Nuremburg (1961)
by Abby Mann
Adapted from his 1959 teleplay (play here)(original 1959 video broadcast here)
*FYI: Mann is also the writer who brought the great Kojack (1973) to tv.
**The glimpses were just enough. I so appreciate that it is not heavy handed conflict, ALL THE TIME. Otherwise, it would have felt like a lecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)