2014 OSCARS: Dallas Buyers Club (2013) - Creating Fictional Characters that Don't Exist in Real Life

[Quick Summary: Ron Woodroff fights for illegal meds to treat his AIDS symptoms.]

*WARNING: MILD SPOILERS*

QUESTION: Of these main characters, who was a real person?

a) Ron Woodroff
b) Rayon
c) Dr. Eve Saks

ANSWER: Only Ron Woodroff.

Were you surprised as I was?

I'm not always a fan of creating fictional characters when portraying a real person's life.  So why does it work here?

I think it's because these made-up characters have a specific purpose.

1 - Dr. Eve Saks

Dr. Saks was created to show how even the "experts" knew very little about battling AIDS in 1985.

She represented doctors skeptical of the AZT medications.

Without her, we would only see one side of the debate (the pharmaceutical company). 

2 - Rayon

Rayon was created to track Ron Woodroff's emotional growth.

Through Rayon, we saw how Ron got involved in other people's lives.

Without Rayon, we would only see "business Ron" and not "personal Ron."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I need a specific reason to create a fictional character that rings true.

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
by Craig Borten & Melisa Wallack

2014 OSCARS: American Hustle (2013) - For A Natural Jump in Space/Time

[Quick Summary: Two cons take down the mayor of NJ, and the feds.]

Once upon a time, I used too many sluglines, and for the wrong reasons.

You see...I didn't trust my readers.

Did they catch that we were moving from room to room?

Did they get we jumped ahead four hours?

I've found the best cure is to see how other writers do it.

Here's a good example of a space and time jump:

ex. "Irving sits holding court with some friends by the pool when he turns and sees Sydney for the first time. [Where are they in relation to each other?]

PUSH IN ON: Irving. He looks up, they lock eyes across the party.  [Ah ha! "Across the party" = across the room.]

SYD REACHES FOR A SLICE OF FRUIT ON HIGH SET PLATE WHEN IRVING'S HAND GRABS HER ARM -- she turns, taken aback -  [Irving must have moved if he's close enough to touch.]"

This flow really works:
- First, they spot each other.
- We then see their locations are across the room.
- So the next time they are together, it makes sense that space/time has passed.

Also, I liked how the audience gets to put 2 + 2 together for themselves.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For a space/time jump to feel natural, it has to be set up properly with a logical progression (see each other --> opposite side of room --> see them together).

American Hustle (2013)
by Eric Warren Singer & David O. Russell

2014 OSCARS: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) - Breaking the 4th Wall is Possible (But Rare)

[Quick Summary: This is the story of Jordan Belfort's epic rise and fall on Wall Street.]

I always thought breaking the 4th wall was an absolute no-no.

But in this script, the characters speak to the camera THREE times.

For example:

"INT. JORDAN'S OFFICE - DAY (FEB '95)

Donnie pours champagne nearby, oblivious to Jordan, who sits at his desk, speaking directly to camera:

JORDAN: Of the two million shares being offered for sale, a million belonged to me, held in phony accounts by my ratholes. Once the price hit the high teens, I --

Jordan abruptly stops. A beat, then:

JORDAN: Like I said before, who gives a shit? As always, the point is this --

BACK TO SCENE -- Donnie hands Jordan a glass of Dom.

DONNIE: 22 million in three fucking hours!"

Usually this technique will pull the viewer out of the story.

However, it works here because:

- It's short and limited in use.

- It's used for a very specific reason, i.e., to show us that Jordan is only concerned with results, and is ballsy enough to say it to your face.

The writer also does a clever thing: He has Jordan speak to the camera ---> continue the conversation in the scene.  This blending keeps the momentum going and we do not feel any drag.


WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I now have seen how breaking the 4th wall is possible and effective.

However, I still place breaking the 4th wall at the top of my "Use With Extreme Caution" list.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
by Terence Winter
Based on the book by Jordan Belfort

2014 OSCARS: Philomena (2013) - A Breather Before Escalation

[Quick Summary: Years after her son was taken, an Irish mother travels with a journalist to find the truth.]

This script gets one of my highest praises: It's a pleasurable read.

I liked the smooth way the writers turn up the heat on Martin:

"To escape his embarrassment he walks over to JANE, standing close by.

MARTIN: Could I get a glass of...Pinot Grigio please?

JANE is obviously not in the mood for niceties:

JANE: It's just red or white.

MARTIN: Oh yes, sorry. White then please.

But as she pours it, there is the first glimmer of recognition. She's sure she's seen Martin before."

There's a subtle, but definite uptick in conflict:

- Martin is embarrassed by colleagues (conflict)
- He tries to escape into alcohol (release)
- Instead he gets a smart bartender (more conflict)

I think it works because of the "release" beat.

With it, there's good rhythm.  The audience has a breather before escalation.

Without it, there's only conflict-conflict-conflict.  There's no momentum to escalate.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's like shifting from first to second gear in a manual car. There's always a lull before moving to a faster gear.

Philomena (2013)
by Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope
Based on the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by Martin Sixsmith

2014 OSCARS: 12 Years a Slave (2013) - Tone of Hope; Visual Foreshadowing

[Quick Summary: After he is sold into slavery, Solomon Northrup, a free man, struggles to survive.]

I knew this story would be an emotionally tough read ... and it was.

However, I'll remember this script for two reasons:

1) A consistent tone of hope.

One of the main character's traits is hopeful.  When you read the script, it permeates every scene.

ex. "Solomon's confidence shifts, but to resolve rather than fear. Papers or none, he will not be easily cowed."

2) An excellent use of visual foreshadowing.

Foreshadowing is used to hint at something in the future.

Notice how the writer used it here to prepare the reader for a shift:  

ex. "Hamilton lingers a bit too long and a bit too close to Solomon for Brown's taste. [The ewwwww factor is high.]

With more than a bit of signification: 

BROWN: Hamilton! Nothing more we can do for him.

HAMILTON: Such is the pity.

Displaying an odd sort of disappointment, Hamilton slinks away from the bed. [Notice the choice of verb. This is going to get worse, isn't it?]

He crosses to, and BLOWS OUT A CANDLE. The room goes dark with a blackness more than night. [This visual sums up the present situation, as well as hints at the future too.]

Brown and Hamilton exit.

Solomon lays in the dark and moans. His sounds becoming MORE AND MORE DISTRESSED." [The crescendo in action = Definitely worsening.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Note to Self: Foreshadowing is a basic writer's tool from freshman English class.  Why haven't you used it more often?

12 Years a Slave
by John Ridley
Adapted from the memoir of Solomon Northrup

2014 OSCARS: Before Midnight (2013) - Portraying Arguments

[Quick Summary: The last of a trilogy. Celine & Jesse revisit the past during their vacation.]

Today, I read a review of Boyhood, which just premiered at Sundance 2014.  It is also written and directed by Richard Linklater.

The critic writes:

...[A]s a general rule [about Boyhood], Linklater is less interested in narrative than observation.

To me, this sums up Before Midnight as well.  It's all character, all dialogue, and little plot.

Ordinarily, I would dismiss a script that lacked the usual Hollywood markers...but realized that's the very reason to take a closer look.

One of the things I liked was how the writers got in and out of arguments.

ex. Friends offer to babysit while the couple has a night away.
- Celine and Jesse love the hotel room.
- As the night goes on, Celine sees the room as a burden.
- Jesse tries to put a positive spin on it.
- Celine uses this as a jumping board for other issues re: Jesse's work travel.

ex.  Celine deals with issues by jumping to conclusions. Jesse wants to field options. Each struggles to be heard.  (This is particularly good from p.91 to the end.)

These were clean fights:
- The arguments had clear points of view.
- The general discussion became personalized. ex. The group discussed men and women. Celine turned it into Jesse and her.  This is true to life.
- The mini-fights had mini-resolutions, which built up to the mega-fight, and a mega-resolution.  The writers didn't shoot for a mega-resolution from the start (which doesn't seem true to life).

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It is such an astute observation that people quickly personalize general discussions...and then argue about them.

Before Midnight (2013)
by Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke, & Julie Delpy

2014 OSCARS: The Scripts

I'm going to begin my reviews of 2014 Oscar nominated scripts in the next few weeks.

Where can you find the scripts?

I'd recommend Go Into the Story for the best legal downloads.

Oscars, here we come!

TODAY'S 3rd NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part IIIC - My (Embarrassing) Confession

[Quick Summary: During their annual hunting trip, four childhood friends encounter an eerie being.]

3 - My (Embarrassing) Confession

I confess I didn't read this book in its entirety.

This novel flummoxed me, which is no doubt my fault.  I just couldn't follow it. 

However, I did skim nearly every page in preparation for reading the script.

It paid off tenfold:

- I'd never have understood just how much of the novel is in the script.

- I'd never have grasped how EVERY line in the script is truthful to the book (even though every line may not be IN the book).

- I'd never have seen how sprawling, difficult raw source material can be distilled into a screenplay.

So if you want to skip straight to the script, let me state something controversial:

READ (or skim) THE BOOK FIRST. 

 WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't regret the time I spent on the book.

William Goldman said in his forward to this shooting script that he spends SIX months on an adaption - the FIRST FOUR months reading and re-reading the book!

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman & Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part IIIB - Make 'em Laugh & Scream at the Same Time

[Quick Summary: During their annual hunting trip, four childhood friends encounter an eerie being.]

2 - TONAL CHANGES (Make 'em Laugh and Scream at the Same Time)

Tone is hard to explain.

How to change a tone is even harder.

However, a light bulb went on when I read "make 'em laugh and scream" at the same time in Stephen King's forward.

The book has several chapters to get the reader to that place.

However, a script must get there in few scenes.

I thought the writers did a nice job of capturing funny with scary:

ex. In this scene, Pete and Henry nearly run over a woman at the side of the road: 

"HENRY: Hello.

Nothing.

PETE: Forget it, H., she's gone.

Pete pulls his gloves off and leans down close to her face, where he CLAPS his hands loudly in front of her nose.

PETE: Hello!

Suddenly the woman's hand shoots up and grabs Pete's leg! Henry jumps, but Pete SCREAMS, pulling away in terror and falling on his ass in the snow. Henry drops down in front of the woman.

HENRY: Ma'am, can you hear me? Are you okay? Hello!

In reply, she FARTS deafeningly. Henry has to back off.

HENRY: I wonder if that's how they say 'hello' in these parts?

PETE: Phew! Listen, Miss Roadkill, you almost got us dead...say something.

The woman, BECKY, turns, registers them as if for the first time.

BECKY: I have to find Rick."

[FYI: The farts aren't just funny here; they're an important indicator.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I could sense the tonal change, even if I couldn't explain it at first.

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman & Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part IIIA - Characterization

[Quick Summary: During their annual hunting trip, four childhood friends encounter an eerie being.]

In the forward to this shooting script, Stephen King writes:

[F]ilmmakers get blinded by the visual possibilities of sequences the want to adapt, and then they get their heads in a box: They believe they are making genre films.... The complexity of the story tends to get lost. So do the characterization and the tonal changes.

I tried (but failed) to write a single post about my reactions to the script.

So I divided them up in a terribly unoriginal manner:

1 - Characterization
2 - Tonal Changes (Make 'em Laugh and Scream)
3 - My (Embarrassing) Confession 

FYI: There are a few mild spoilers ahead. 

----------------------------------
1 - CHARACTERIZATION

Everyone talks about character, but what IS it?

So far, I gather that it's a combination of a person's motives, decisions, and reactions.

This script helped me by showing me fine character work in dialogue.

Note the subtext going on here:

ex. "HELICOPTER GUY (amplified): HOW MANY ARE YOU? HOW ME ON YOUR FINGERS. THIS AREA IS UNDER TEMPORARY QUARANTINE. YOU MUST STAY WHERE YOU ARE!

BEAVER: What do you mean, quarantine? We got a sick guy down here?

BEAVER and JONESY (overlapping): -- We need help here! -- Real sick guy here! --

JONESY: Take him with you now!

HELICOPTER GUY (booming on): GREAT YOU MUST NOT LEAVE. THIS AREA IS UNDER QUARANTINE.

BEAVER (screaming): What's so damn great? We got a guy here could be dying! We need some help!

GUY IN HELICOPTER (makes an A-OK sign): GLAD YOU'RE OKAY. THIS SITUATION WILL BE RESOLVED IN 24 TO 48 HOURS.

Stunned, Beaver and Jonesy watch the big copter fly away."

This is great because the audience must put 2 + 2 together: 

- The helicopter guy speaks in a helpful manner, but his (unspoken) message is "You're on your own."
- The men are reassured everything is under control, but see the lie and know there's a huge problem.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: "...Without character there is no horror, no laughter, no empathy, no nothing." - S.King

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman & Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King