TODAY'S NUGGET: Thief (1981) - What a Great Transition Looks Like

[Quick Summary: A thief tries for one last score, but the local mafia will not let him go.]

This film was Michael Mann's directorial debut, and broke ground for many reasons. (See here and here.)

However, I was impressed by the transitions.

Transitions are not just getting in and out of scenes, but also how the beats move us from one moment to the next.

ex.  "FRANK: I want you with me and make this happen. So I am asking: Be with me. Be my woman. I will be your man. (beat) I got a way...I could make it happen faster, much faster. I'm asking...(beat)...You know?

Jessie stares out the window into the shiny black night and lights. Then her eyes cross back to Frank.

There's a long pause. Frank holds both her hands tighter on the table. They stare at each other across the table. She smiles."

So here's the flow:

- Frank lays out his heart to Jessie.
- The easy way out would've been to have Jessie say, "OK", here.
- Instead, we SEE her stare out the window (indecision).
- We SEE her look at Frank and pause (is he worth the risk?)
- Frank squeezes her hands (please, take a risk on me).
- She stares some more (she waffles)
- Then she smiles (she is on board!)

We have transitioned from two individuals ---> one team.

It's such a strong visual to SEE her fall in love vs. her TELL us.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: What is the only way to understand what transitions are and how to write them?

Experience, i.e., reading a ton of scripts.

Thief (1981)(final draft)
by Michael Mann
Based on the novel "The Home Invaders" by Frank Hohimer

TODAY'S NUGGET: Dead Poets' Society (1989) - Why Keating is A Great Antagonist

[Quick Summary: A boarding school English teacher inspires a group of students to take charge of their lives.]

Oh, Mr. Keating is such a great antagonist!

Can you see how he gets the wheels turning in the boys' heads?

ex.  "INT. KEATING'S CLASSROOM - DAY

Keating paces around the class, teaching.

KEATING: A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don't use very sad, use --

Keating snaps his fingers and points to Knox.

KEATING: Come on Overstreet, you twirp.

KNOX: ...Morose?

KEATING: Good! Language was invented for one reason, boys --

He snaps his fingers again and points to Neil.

NEIL: To communicate?

KEATING: No. To woo women. And, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won't do in your essays.

Keating paces then suddenly leaps onto his desk."

He is a passionate teacher who makes learning fun.
---> Which gets the boys to think differently.
---> Which stirs up their desire for "carpe diem" adventures.
---> Which provokes change in the boys...even when Keating is not on screen.

Could any antagonist ask for more?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: An antagonist's job is to change the protagonist. 

I believe bonus points are in order if the antagonist is long gone from the screen, and he's STILL changing the protagonist.

Dead Poets' Society (1989)(undated)
by Tom Schulman

TODAY'S NUGGET: Seven (1995) - Elevating a Horror Script

[Quick Summary: Two detectives track down a serial killer whose kills with a "7 deadly sins" theme.]

Very good script.

Very good structure and characters.

But I don't particularly like horror, so why did I continue to read? 

Because the writer had something to say about making decisions and justice:

ex. "SOMERSET: Well, I'm glad you asked. If you were chosen...as if by some higher power, your hand was forced...well...

Somerset turns in his seat to look Doe in the eye.

SOMERSET: ...then it's strange you took so much pleasure in it.

Somerset stares at Doe. Does stares back. After a moment, Somerset turns back to the road ahead.

SOMERSET: You enjoyed torturing those people. That's not really in keeping with martyrdom, is it?

It's the first time anything's gotten to Doe. He's ashamed though trying not to let it bother him."

Here, Somerset makes Doe reconsider his motives for his rampage.

No one escapes self-examination, not even the antagonist.

This immediately sets this script apart because most horror scripts do not grapple with the human dilemma at its core.

Lesser scripts just focus on the gory bits.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I relied on the human dilemmas in order to make the gorier bits easier to read.

Seven (1995)
by Andrew Kevin Walker

TODAY'S NUGGET: American Werwolf in London (1981) - Don't Shrink from a Less Than Happy Ending

[Quick Summary: In London, an American teen turns into a werwolf.]

The wise and wonderful John Landis says that he was very lucky to make movies in the 1970-80s.

He also bemoans that studio movies today insist on "very happy endings where everything is all neatly tied [up]."

ex. Knocked Up (2001) - "Have sex, without protection, get pregnant, with an asshole...then the jerk you slept with will mature, become a wonderful person, and you'll have a wonderful life

ex. Juno (2007) -  "If you're a high school girl, you'll give away the kid, you give it away, it will mean nothing, and it will be fine."

Today's studios wouldn't risk more unsettling fare:

ex. Fast Times of Ridgemont High (1981) - She gets pregnant, and her brother takes her [in] for an abortion.

ex. Animal House (1981) - Ends in civil insurrection, chaos.

Landis doesn't shrink back in American Werwolf either: The werwolf eats people. It must die.

Landis makes a choice and doesn't try to soften the consequences.

ex. "In that brief instant, Alex realizes it will kill her."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be afraid of unhappy endings. Be afraid of unsatisfying endings.

American Werwolf in London (1981)
by John Landis

TODAY'S NUGGET: Three Days of Condor (1975) - Every Scene Should Convey a Single Shot

[Quick Summary: After a CIA researcher's co-workers are mass murdered, he uncovers a huge conspiracy.]

I hate vague aphorisms.

What does "every scene should convey a single shot" mean?

I know it's a true observation, but for heaven's sake, give me EXAMPLES, people, EXAMPLES!!

This Sidney Pollock directed script happens to have excellent ones:

ex. "EXT. PHONE & TURNER

We should be aware of how menacing PASSERSBY seem to TURNER.

TURNER: I told you, my name's Turner - I work for you! Something's happened, somebody came in and --!

MITCHELL: Identify yourself.

TURNER can only hold tight to the phone, his mind blank. So, very clear, level:

MITCHELL: What is your designation?

It's like talking to a goddamn computer: if you don't speak its programmed language, it won't respond. TURNER makes an enormous effort:

TURNER: This is...oh...Condor!"

The scene = A panicked Turner is on the phone and tries to get help.

The shot = Anxious Turner is in the phone booth. People pass by.  Maybe they look in?  Turner struggles to stay calm.

Notice how the writing directs the mind's eye:

- The focus is on Turner and his paranoia.
- Whether inside or outside the booth, it's all about how Turner acts and reacts.
- It's easy to see the whole interaction in one shot. 
 
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Think in terms of 1 scene = 1 shot. 

Keep scenes clean (clear, no clutter, not too much busyness).

Three Days of Condor (1975)
by Lorenzo Semple Jr. and David Rayfiel
Based on the novel Six Days of Condor by James Grady

P.S. on Dreams on Spec (2007)

Be sure to watch the extra Interviews with established writers.  Really fun war stories.

(They're on the DVD, but I'm not sure if they're available via streaming.)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Dreams on Spec (2007) - Screenwriters chasing the dream

If you're a screenwriter, this is an eye opening documentary.

It has the usual famous screenwriter interviews, but I particularly like how it shows the sacrifice and struggles of not famous writers:

- One writer has been working on a script for three years. It's tough on his family.

- Another writer has his script re-written by the director.  He is not happy with the changes.

- A former creative executive-turned-writer downscales to a small apartment in order to write and direct her first film.

You get to see what it's like when:

- A writer switches managers.
- A writer seeks help from a script consultant.
- A writer gets to see his first film produced.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you're serious about writing, this is as close to reality as I've seen.

But if you don't want to know how the sausage is made; if you don't want the glamor stripped from the process, don't watch this.

Dreams on Spec (2007)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Bad Day at Black Rock (1955) - Clues are Spice, Not Meat (Pacing)

[Quick Summary: A stranger arrives to an unwelcome reception at Black Rock.]

Read this script NOW.

One Oscar winning screenwriter called it an "airtight...seamless" script.

Paul Thomas Andersen said he learned directing from the director's commentary for this film.

For me, I learned about how to dole out the clues (pacing).

ex. A stranger (Macreedy) arrives by train in a small town.

He announces he needs to drive to Adobe Flat (p.6), a few miles away, but we don't find out why until about p. 27.

Did you see that? Page TWENTY-SEVEN!

So what does happen between the clues?

- He has to deal with the WHOLE town.
- He runs into the biggest landowner, Smith, who bullies the town.
- He can't rent a car, get a room, or a decent meal.
- Everyone, except him, knows the guilty secret about Adobe Flat.

If this were written today, Macreedy would be hinting and/or dropping clues for the whole 27 pages.

I marvel at this script because he does not.

Instead, the meat of the story is Macreedy's character conflicts versus the town folk.

Clues are reserved as spice, to be used sparingly.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've been using clues as meat for way too long.

Bad Day at Black Rock (shooting script)(1955)
Written by Don McGuire and Millard Kaufman
Based on the story, "Bad Day at Hondo" by Howard Breslin

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Adjustment Bureau (2011) - Adapting a Short Story into a Feature

[Quick Summary: The Adjustment Bureau continues to keep apart a couple in love.] 

Today I decided to reverse engineer this script.
 
How did the screenwriter expand the short story into a film?

In the short story:
- David Norris works at an insurance company.
- He's married.
- It happens in a day and within 18 pages.

In the screenplay:
- David Norris is a congressman.
- He's single and falls in love.
- It happens over 6+ years, and 129 pages.

After reading William Goldman's book, I know audiences should be ok with these superficial changes as long as:

1) The emotional core was the same.
2) That the emotional core was protected at all costs.

In the short story, the emotional core is: "Should I tell my wife the truth?"

In the script, the writer structured the story around this question.

The script asks this question three times - all at major turning points, all with higher stakes.

Check them both out for yourself.  They're worth the read.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To do justice to a short story, stick close to its emotional core.

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
by George Nolfi
Based on the short story, "The Adjustment Team", by Philip K. Dick

TODAY'S NUGGET: Mud (2012) - Moving the Reader Along Visually

[Quick Summary: Two 14 y.o. boys discover a murderer hiding out on a small island.]

In a "Conversation with writer-director Jeff Nichols", he says:

[A script is] more about visually moving your reader through the story and on the page.  So every line, other than descriptions for clothes, and possibly the look of a house or a location...[is] brief....

[E]verything else is a shot in the movie. But I use no camera direction. Camera direction bugs the hell out of me. You don't know what the camera is going to do. Just tell me what I'm looking at, and that will get me there much faster than you trying to tell me what the movie's gonna look like. 

A line that you write can give you the point of view that you need, everything you need. 'He looks through the back of the van to see XYZ burning in the distance' .... From that description, you already know where the camera is going to be. And what it's going to be pointed at.  And what it's going to be seeing. And how it's going to be moving.  It's harder to write this way.  It's very easy to say, "We move with him through the parking lot."

Nichols does walk the walk:

ex. "Ellis turns and grabs one end of the cooler. Neckbone slaps back the security latch and opens the door with his free hand.  They walk out."

Here's how this moved me along visually:

- I saw a shot of two boys walking out with a cooler between them.
- But the script never says 'Neckbone takes the other end of the cooler.'
- It's unnecessary to say so. Why?  We infer it from "they walk out".
- A strong POV ('we're leaving' intent) + Movement = The cooperation between Ellis and Neckbone is self-explanatory.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Write more about what I'm looking at, tinged with the character's point of view.

My new unit of writing measurement is the shot.  

Mud (2012)(shooting script)
by Jeff Nichols