TODAY'S NUGGET: Limitless (2011) - Two Conflict Texture

[Quick Summary: After a day-trader gets hooked on a mind-enhancing drug, thugs and his boss come after him.]

Bad news - I so wanted to like this script.

But I wasn't keen on it, despite that there's solid writing and premise. 

Good news - I did enjoy the double conflict scene on p. 16-17.

Eddie has just swallowed his first pill. 

He encounters the ranting landlord's wife just as the pill kicks in. 

There are 2 things happening at once:
 1) Eddie grapples with new physical effects from the chemicals (internal conflict)
 2) He has to disarm the shouting wife (external conflict)

Here's how the writer described it:

"The room is changing...springing into sharper focus.

EDDIE (V.O.): Everything had more definition...more dimensions...

There seems to be a little more light, too --he can see more clearly. The SOUND drops out for a moment; he can see VALERIE'S FACE, mouth contorted, continuing to heap the abuse, but there's something in her eyes that's not mean...something anxious.

EDDIE (V.O.): "I was blind, but now I see."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Two conflicts at once has a different texture than one.

As a writer, you need to know which texture will work the best.

Sometimes you need two. Sometimes you only need one.

Limitless (2011)
by Leslie Dixon
Based on the novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn

TODAY'S NUGGET: Grosse Pointe Blank (1997) - Allowing the Reader to Add 2 + 2

[Quick Summary: A marked hitman reunites with his first love at their high school reunion.]

I love it when scripts allow the reader put 2 + 2 together.

(Pssssssssstttttt! It's also called "show not tell.")

Here's a great example in the introduction of Martin, the protagonist:

[The italics are my reactions to the script as I read it.]

- Camera focuses on a golf ball. [We're on a golf course.]
- We see yellow trousers. [This is a man.]
- He chips the ball into a hole. [He can play golf.]
- Hands clean the iron's face. [He's knows about golf.]
- "Both hands are gloved, instead of one, and the gloves are black." [WHOA. Wait a minute. Why are his gloves black and not white? Hitmen wear black gloves. Ah ha! He's a hitman.]

Note how the writers led me through the logical process.
1) They laid out the clues
2) The clues were bite sized, so that the reader could jump to the desired conclusion
3) They let me connect the dots

I loved that they trusted the reader to make those leaps.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's tough to fashion the right sized clue.

If it's too esoteric, the reader won't make the connection.

If it's too patently apparent, the reader feels insulted.

Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
by D.V. deVincentis, S.K. Boatman, & John Cusak

TODAY'S NUGGET: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) - Outlandish Dialogue Needs _______

[Quick Summary: A thief and a p.i. witness witness a female body being dumped, which leads to an unruly L.A. mystery.] 

I really liked this script because Harry (thief) is a first rate raconteur.

His dialogue is fast, off the seat of the pants, and effective. It gets him out of the most absurd situations.  

I just couldn't stop reading, so why does it work so well? 

One reason may be the scene structure, i.e.,  solid setups and payoffs.  

The dialogue can be extreme and outlandish AS LONG AS the structure holds it together:

ex. Harry and his partner rob a toy store. His partner is shot and killed.
- Harry runs and is wounded. [Setup is that Harry is running scared]
- He runs into a building and opens a random door to a casting call.
- Sweaty and bloody, he is still picked for the next audition. [Twist]
- He goes along with it because a cop is searching the building. [Increased stakes]
- The audition scene is a confrontation between the police and a killer (Harry). [Callback to when Harry's partner was shot.]
- Harry reads the lines, which could easily be his own confession. He falls apart. [Payoff]
- Harry is so convincing that he is hired. [Payoff of dialogue being so great] 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Always, always, always structure first.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)
by Shane Black  

TODAY'S NUGGET: Donnie Brasco (1997) - Applause for a "Passive" Protagonist

[Quick Summary: In the 1970s, an undercover FBI agent seems to like mobster life than his real life.]

I loved how this script turns the definition of "active protagonist" on its head.

Donnie Brasco is one of the first undercover FBI agents in the NY mob.

His job is to gather intelligence and set out bait...and then wait for the prey to bite.

So on the surface, Donnie often LOOKS passive.

ex. At their first meeting, Donnie lets Lefty approach first.
ex. Donnie offers to help facilitate mob deals, but never initiates.

It's only later, however, that we realize this is Donnie's plan.

He is actually quite active behind the scenes.

ex. Donnie lets Lefty scold and teach him.  Lefty thinks he's in control.

ex. Donnie sets up a mole in the Florida mafia. He maneuvers Lefty into a meeting with the Florida mob. Lefty believes he is the Big Man.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Donnie's casual passivity disguises his activity.

This is how a good writer follows (and breaks) the rules.

Donnie Brasco (1997)
by Paul Attanasio
Based on the book, "Donnie Brasco," by Joseph D. Pistone with Richard Woodley

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Birds (1963) - The "Cute Meet" Feeling

[Quick Summary: After a San Francisco socialite follows a man to a seaside town, she is attacked by birds.]

The Birds is horror, right?

I ask because it has a GOOD "cute meet" rom-com scene at the beginning:

- Melanie, the spoiled socialite, is in a pet store buying a bird.

- Mitch, a stranger, asks for her help.

- Melanie is annoyed he thinks she is a clerk, but she plays along.

- He asks to see a bird. She pretends to know what she's doing. A bird gets loose. Chaos.

- Mitch pulls the rug from under Melanie.

- He walks off, and leaves her hanging.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: What sparks! What romance!  I longed for them to be together.

This is how a "cute meet" should leave us feeling. 

The Birds (1963)
by Evan Hunter
Based on the novel "Birds" by Daphne Du Maurier

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vertigo (1958) - How to Twist in (Late) Act 2

[Quick Summary: A detective-turned-p.i., is hired to follow a wife who is reliving a family curse.]

A few days ago, I watched a recent thriller with a late Act 2 twist.

The twist was a humdinger (fine) and unbelievably crazy (ok by me).

Unfortunately, it was barely based in character, and seemed to be tacked on as a shocker.  THAT was unacceptable.

So how did Hitchcock set up a late Act 2 twist?  Let's check out Vertigo:

Madeline (the wife) dies about 2/3 in the script.

(This is not a surprise.  She's obsessed over Carlotta's death, look, grave, etc.)

The twist has several steps:
- Madeline dies.
- Scottie (the p.i.) is brokenhearted, but one day he sees Judy in Madeline's old room. [This keeps Madeline alive.]
- Scottie confronts Judy, and learns she has been living there for 3 years. [The Madeline mystery deepens, though she's dead.]
- Scottie begins to date Judy. [Is Scottie moving on?]
- Judy isn't who we think she is. [Scottie is in for a stun in Act 3.]

Why this works:
-  Acts 1-2 established Madeline's mysterious behaviors.  Late Act 2-3 clarifies them through Judy.
- The twist reveals Madeline's CHARACTER. This is no time for a plot point just to include a cool CGI effect.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A good late twist reveals more character.

A bad late twist is often more about the twist than the character.

Vertigo (1958)
by Alec Coppel & Samuel Taylor
Based on the novel "d'Entre les Morts" by Pierre Boileau & Thomas Narcejac

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - Location, Location, Location

[Quick Summary: An innocent mistake pulls a tourist into an international assassination plot.]

As far as Hitchcock scripts go, this wasn't my favorite.

But I would like to mention the ballsy choice of set pieces:

- French Morocco
- Savoy's Hotel
- taxidermist shop
- Royal Albert Hall
- Moroccan embassy

Hitchcock plays with the audience's expectations of these locations.

When unexpected things happen in dignified locations, it's quite a startling contrast.

ex. Jimmy Stewart tracks the kidnapper...to a taxidermy shop (?!)
ex. Jimmy then finds the head conspirator...preaching in a pulpit (?!!)
ex. Doris Day sings at the Moroccan embassy while her son is captive upstairs.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The locations impacted me more subconsciously than I'd realized.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
by John Michael Hayes

TODAY'S NUGGET: To Catch a Thief (1955) - When Sparks Fly

[Quick Summary: A retired cat thief is framed for burglaries he didn't commit.]

The One Thing I Liked the Least:
 - The script takes a long time to get going.

The One Thing I Liked the Most:
- Francie is a strong lead who pins Robie from the very beginning.

She knows what she wants + invites interaction with Robie = Romantic fireworks

ex. "I've been waiting all day for you to mention that kiss I gave you last night."
ex.  "The kind of man I want doesn't have a price."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Francie takes no prisoners, and Robie bobs and weaves like a champ. They're equally matched, i.e., sparks fly.

FYI: The Francie-Robie exchange on p. 51-52 is a good read.

To Catch a Thief (1955)

by John Michael Hayes

TODAY'S NUGGET: Strangers on a Train (1950) - One Reason to Drop a Plot Line from a Book

[Quick Summary: On a train, a man with a problematic wife meets a stranger who offers to kill the wife -- if the man will kill the stranger's father.]

In the book, Guy meets a stranger on a train called Bruno.

Bruno agrees to kill Guy's wife, and Guy will kill Bruno's father.

However, in the script, Guy refuses, but Bruno kills Guy's wife anyway.

For the rest of the story, Bruno insists that Guy hold up his end of the "agreement."

Why doesn't the script include the double murder?

I'm not sure, but only one murder does dial up the psychological pressure on Guy.

ex. Bruno feels justified about invading Guy's social circle to drop hints.

ex. Guy cannot tell the police, so Bruno has eternal leverage over Guy.

ex. Bruno needs Guy to act immediately, which increases the urgency.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Hitchcock seems to have favored more tension here over a second murder plot line.

Strangers on a Train (1950)
by Raymond Chandler & Czenzi Ormonde
Adapted from the novel by Patricia Highsmith

TODAY'S NUGGET: Saboteur (1942) - Hitchcock's Bombs & the Shift of Power

[Quick Summary: Barry, an aircraft laborer, is accused of sabotage, and uncovers a conspiracy.]

This is my two cents: The script starts out strong, then wanders

...and wanders...

...and wanders.

However, it was nice to see examples of Hitchcock's famous formula for suspense, i.e., "the audience knows there's a bomb under the table."

Ex. 1:  Barry confronts the shady lawyer, Mr. Tobin, at home.

When Tobin is away, his granddaughter toddles over to Barry.

She innocently hands him a dropped telegram.  It is from the real saboteur to Mr. Tobin. [This is the bomb.]

Tobin returns. [Will the bomb go off?] 

Tobin calls Barry out for reading the telegram, and his thugs corner Barry. [Bomb is released.]

Ex. 2: The cornered Barry picks up the granddaughter. [Another bomb.]

He uses her as a shield to escape. [Will the bomb go off?]

He puts her down and gets away. [Bomb goes off.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  A bomb is interesting to watch because it often benefits one side over the other (Ex. 1 above).

After it is released, the story is at a new level, usually because there's a mad scramble to  re-shift the power back (Ex. 2 above).

Saboteur (1942)
by Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison, & Dorothy Parker