TODAY'S NUGGET: Hard Times (1975) - I Can't Explain It

[Quick Summary: Chaney, an uncommon street fighter, temporarily partners up with Speed, a hustler hunted by loan sharks.]

**WARNING TO NEW WRITERS: Read about 50 scripts before you read this one.**

Once in very long while, I read a script that is a rare exception to a rule, and I can't explain why it works. 

This is one of them.

My general rule: The protagonist is the character whose arc changes the most.  

I've had writers ask, "Does the character HAVE to change? Why can't he/she remain the same from beginning to end?"

I usually reply, "Because it's boring.  Watching a character change and learn is interesting."

ex. Bertha (protagonist) begins as a self-absorbed lawyer.  Devious Debbi (antagonist) is the opposing counsel and pushes Bertha to grow.  At the end, Bertha lets someone else take the credit (transforms from selfish to generous).  

Here, however, the writer Walter Hill does not follow the rule.

Chaney does not really change from beginning to the end (in fact, everyone else changes more), AND HE IS STILL INTERESTING.

Why does it work here?

I don't know for sure.

All I know is that the protagonist is mysterious, sympathetic, and keeps us guessing what his next step will be. 

All without any big internal change or emotional arc.

That's really hard to do.

One in a million.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you can write a mysterious, sympathetic, what-will-he-do-next character without an emotional arc, you clearly don't need my blog.

For the remaining 99% of us writers, I highly recommend an emotional arc.

Hard Times (1975)
Written and directed by Walter Hill

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Thief Who Came to Dinner (1973) - Decisions, Decisions

[Quick Summary: Webster, a computer programmer-turned-thief, gets an unexpected partner in crime who helps him outwit a smart insurance claims man.]

Whoooooeeee! What a fun ride!

Unlike last week, I found this script engaging, especially because of Webster's unpredictable decisions in sticky situations.

- He is sneaky.

ex. As Webster steals from Mrs. Donner's jewelry box, Mrs. Donner and her escort return home. Webster sweats bullets, but dodges them both.

- He confronts.

ex. Webster lifts jewels from a mansion, but two necking teens in a car block his escape.  Exasperated, he shines a light on them.

WEBSTER (shouting): What the hell's going on here! This is private property.
BOY (still wide-eyed): I didn't know this place had a watchman.
WEBSTER: You know it now! Haul ass or I'll have the cops here in five minutes.
BOY: Yes, sir. Sorry, sir. Leaving right now.

- He is unafraid to backpedal.

ex.  Laura urges Webster to break into her house.  He does it to impress her, but he learns too late that it's someone else's house.

WEBSTER: Never mind that. Where are the Tylers?
LAURA: Upstairs, asleep, I suppose. They're certainly smart enough to recognize a dull party, they left long before we did.
WEBSTER: Thank you very much. It's been nice knowing you,  I wish you well. Good night.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A character can continue to surprise audiences with the decisions he/she makes.

The Thief Who Came to Dinner (1973)
by Walter Hill

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Getaway (1972 & 1994) - What to Do With the "Girl"

[Quick Summary: After a criminal and his wife are manipulated into robbing dirty money, they cross and double-cross their way to Mexico.]
 
Who's that action man? Walter Hill!

Who's dan-ger-ous? Walter Hill!

Who can you count on for guns ablazing? Walter Hill!

How many Hill scripts have I read? Um...one.

So for the next several weeks, I'll steep myself in his body of work.

My first script is The Getaway, both 1972 and 1994 versions.

I didn't like either script, as I often could not figure out what the story was trying to say.

However, the one good thing in these scripts is the way Carol is written.

Carol is the only real "girl" character in a sea of men, and most scripts would treat her as mere window dressing.

But here, she has real weight:

- She makes active decisions as Doc's full partner.
- She stirs up doubt in Doc, which makes him human.
- She makes mistakes that increases the stakes, ex. losing the suitcase of money.

Carol is important, even as a supporting character, because her behavior has a direct affect on Doc McCoy.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even if you have a small "girl" role, make her influence felt on the protagonist.

The Getaway (1972 & 1994)
by Walter Hill (based on the novel by Jim Thompson)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Elizabethtown (2005) - When an End Does Me Wrong

[Quick Summary: When a recently fired sneaker designer travels to Kentucky to oversee his father's funeral arrangements, he finds unexpected love.]

In Act 1, I loved the premise of this script, i.e., a guy is sent to retrieve his father's corpse.

In Act 2, I liked the characters, i.e., lost son, smart-ass flight attendant, relatives with grudges.

In Act 3, I became extremely irritated.  First, there is a 7 page speech...by Hollie, Drew's mother.

"Hollie?! Why Hollie?" you ask.

Exactly my point.  This is Drew's story.

Drew flies out to Elizabethtown, KY to deal with his father's family. He falls for the flight attendant, learns about his dad, gets over failures.

Hollie, on the other hand, breaks down and stays in Oregon.

She only appears in Kentucky around p. 105.  And for that she gets a big "this is what I've learned" speech?

No no no.

Second, Act 3 read as if there was no end in sight.

Roger Ebert writes about his first viewing of the first cut: "It seemed to end, and end, and end."*

Reading it also felt that way.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Please - no new people, & wrap it up ASAP in Act 3.

Elizabethtown (2005)
Written & directed by Cameron Crowe

*Ebert saw the film twice. The first was longer and shown at the Toronto Film Festival.  The final cut was much tighter, and had 18 min. trimmed.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vanilla Sky (2001) - An Unsatisfying Read

[Quick Summary: An heir to a NY fortune searches for answers after he wakes up again and again to what could be a surreal dream or a nightmare.]

I simply don't understand this script.  I wish I did.

In Act 1, David Aames, Jr. is pursuing the girl of his dreams (literally).

In Act 2, he's in dreams, he's out of dreams, he plunges into nightmares, he wakes up from nightmares.

In Act 3, he comes to a self-realization in the end, and wants to live a real life.

But what was the point of his journey?

The ending doesn't have any easy answers (fair enough), but I wish the script was clearer about why Aames needed self-realization.

I was at a loss, and ended up not liking this script very much.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  This Cameron Crowe script was unlike any other I've read.

It was a technically adept Crowe script, but it felt odd.

It was not just the genre, but the tempo, the mood, the narrative line.  Probably because it was an adaption?

Vanilla Sky (2001)
by Cameron Crowe
Based on a screenplay "Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)" by Alejandro Amenabar & Mateo Gil

TODAY'S NUGGET: Hoffa (1992) - Transitions & Emotional Impact

[Quick Summary: Jimmy Hoffa gives his life to and for the Teamsters.]

I once heard someone ask a famous screenwriter, "What separates a good writer from a great one?"

"Transitions," he said.   It's always stuck with me.

As I read this script, I noticed that the transitions were not just a location change.

ex. "ANGLE
In a long shot, the armed strikebreakers thrashing their way into the line of the strikers.

ANGLE
A young woman screaming.

ANGLE
INT. THE R.E.A. BUILDING. The businessmen we saw in the previous sequence, pressed forward in the window of a paneled board room, looking down. [This smooth move from the freightyard to the boardroom is a reaction shot.]

ANGLE

Their POV, the slaughter in the freightyard below.

ANGLE

In the freightyard. Ciaro, clubbing a man to the ground. Looks around. [We move back to the freightyard to see the action.]

ANGLE HIS POV

Hoffa. Being set upon by two strikebreakers....

ANGLE

INT. THE BOARDROOM.  A man's hand closes the curtains on the fight below. [Back to the boardroom for another reaction shot.]

INT. UNION HALL. NIGHT.

A line of long drawn faces. Men and women dressed in their "best'. Nodding at the camera, moving on. There is a break in the line, to reveal, behind them, a huge floral [funeral] wreath...." [This scene is the consequences of the fighting.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  You can use transitions to drive an emotional point home.

In the example above:

- Action in freightyard --> Boardroom's REACTION is to panic
- Action in freightyard --> The funeral is the CONSEQUENCES

[By the way, this is something the reader is not even conscious of (but the writer should be!)]

Hoffa (1992)

by David Mamet

TODAY'S NUGGET: Almost Famous (2000) - The "Do or Die" Moment

[Quick Summary: A precocious 15 y.o. teen struggles between being a Rolling Stones journalist and a friend when he hits the road with the 1970s band Stillwater.]

Hurrah! Your protagonist is one step from a turning point.

Now don't screw it up. [Yeah, I'm talking you, writers.]

Don't make that last step too big (ex. William suddenly gets superpowers.)

Or too small (ex. William fails to speak up, thus ending the story early.)

In this script, Cameron Crowe does a nice job of escalating the stakes, which sets up that last step and gives it extra punch.

ex.  William stands at the backstage door of his first assignment.

The bouncer won't let him in (attempt #1).

Super-groupie Penny Lane helps William, but still no success (attempt #2).

Finally the band arrives, and rejects his plea for an interview

William, now emboldened, blurts out his heartfelt understanding of the band's music (last step).

This last step is the right size because:

- William takes action
- It pushes the story forward (what will happen next?)
- It's realistic that he'd go for it, since he's tried twice

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  The last step before a turning point is the "do or die" moment.

Almost Famous (2000)
Written and directed by Cameron Crowe

TODAY'S NUGGET: Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) - Dialogue is 90% Setup

[Quick Summary: A slice of life from the point of view of a group of American teens.]

I liked this script, but it's not my favorite Cameron Crowe script.

Since I don't know why yet, I'll leave you with a favorite scene.

This one features Brad, the high school senior who works after school at a fast food chain, and his boss.

"INT. CARL JR.'S
Dennis heads back to his office when he sees something in the trash bin.

DENNIS: Did you throw away those fries, Hamilton?
BRAD: They were left over from the last shift.
DENNIS: Those were perfectly good fries, Hamilton. (glares at Brad) Perfectly good.
BRAD: But they weren't mine.

Brad laughs, goes back to work."

I liked this scene because it shows us so much about Brad's internal life:

- He takes pride in his work.
- He is not afraid to challenge authority.
- He has a sense of humor.

Most people will only see the clever dialogue.

But if you're smart, you'll notice how the scene was constructed for maximum effect.

There's a careful combination of conflict (battle of authority), topic (french fries), and setting (at the deep fryer) that makes the dialogue work.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Dialogue is 90% setup, 10% payoff.


Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Book and screenplay by Cameron Crowe

TODAY'S NUGGET: Say Anything (1989) - How To Have More Icing

[Quick Summary: A recent high school grad romances the valedictorian for one last carefree summer.]

Darn you, Cameron Crowe!

How do you make such a talky script like Say Anything work (because it really does)?!

Here are 4 things that I saw that worked:

1 - There's very little narrative (sometimes 1-2 lines per page).  The reader is allowed to imagine most of the details.

2 - The essentials are very specific.  Each character's motive, flaws, and purpose are unambiguous.

ex. Lloyd is optimistic and undeterred in pursuing Diane, despite the fact she's out of his league.

3 - The dialogue is realistic, conflicted, and funny, but mostly conflicted.

ex. LLOYD: "I wanna get hurt!"

4 - The conflict is familiar, and never false for the character. 

ex. Lloyd wants to date Diane (familiar).  Dating her never stops being important to him (never false).

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Scripts could probably handle a lot more dialogue (the icing) if the structure (the cake) is set up right to handle it.

Say Anything (1989)
Written & Directed by Cameron Crowe

TODAY'S NUGGET: Odd Couple 2 (1998) - D.O.A. of a Good Sequel

[Quick Summary: Thirty years later, Felix and Oscar reunite for a road trip to their children's wedding.]

Neil Simon had a huge hit with The Odd Couple play in 1965.

But then came:

- A huge movie (1968)
- A popular tv series (1970-75)
- A cartoon (1975)
- A sitcom (1982-83)
- A reunion tv movie (1993)

If you were Simon in 1998, would you write a sequel 30 years after the original?

I am glad he did because this is a good sequel script.

It keeps enough of what made the original special, and continues to develop the characters with new challenges

Unfortunately, the timing sucked.

Generations grew up with other Odd Couples.  Matthau/Lemon had moved on to the similar Grumpy Old Men (1993).

Neil Simon said it best:

"If this were 1967 instead of 1999, The Odd Couple [2] would have made a perfect sequel on the heels of the first one....[It] would have had the same energy as the first one." *

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes a good sequel can be dead on arrival.

* Preface of The Odd Couple 1 &2.


The Odd Couple 2 (1998)
by Neil Simon