TODAY'S NUGGET: Daniel (1983) - Tricky Adaption Problem; Theme That You Intend

[Quick Summary: A young man relives the heavy cost of the accusations, incarcerations and trials of his Jewish parents during the 1940s.]

You're a hungry screenwriter. (Producer or director is ok too.)

You're reading script after script, and you've gotten comfortable...and bored.
 
What do you do?

Answer: To up your game, you read and study scripts of advanced difficulty.

(In sports terms, it's called boxing/wrestling above your weight class.)

This is an advanced script.*

Ok, ok, it has a slow start.  Yes, the scattered timeline is distracting.

No, it did not do well at the box office, and reviews were mixed.

Even the director said the final film "succeeded in some cases, did not succeed in others." (p. 121)

However, I still believe it's worth reading because:

1) Sidney Lumet directed it.

Lumet never failed to choose emotionally challenging material that had something important to say (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico).

2) It shows you how to tackle a tricky adaption problem.

Daniel, for a director, presented nightmarish problems because, first of all, you must find out how to make that internal life clear, and find the visual equivalent of Edgar's [E.L. Doctorow's] poetry, of Edgar's nonreality.  How do you make a picture seem real? But you can't use reality because it's not a realistic novel. The time fracturing that Edgar did was the only way to tell the story... (Interview with Lumet, p. 121)

3) It shows you that the theme you intend may not be what comes across.

I read the script but was still unsure of its theme. Film reviewers were too. 

Then I read this quote from Lumet:

I was at that point in my life, again without knowing it, very ready for anything to do with family. My children were growing up and, like all people who have been, well, obsessive about work, I started wondering what damage I had caused. Who was paying for my obsessiveness? Had my kids paid for my obsessiveness? And from a thematic point of view that to me is the largest single element in Daniel.  To me, it is a book about who pays for your passion. Because passion is such a part of one's life. (p. 119-120)

A-ha! The theme is how parents' decisions affect their children. Not an easy theme.

I saw how the writer here did it, and wondered, "Could I make it clearer?"

I am not sure I could (but perhaps someone smarter than me could.) 

You've got to admit, though, that this writer had guts to try for it.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Read hard scripts to broaden your horizons of what works or does not work. Don't be afraid to aim high, even if it doesn't quite make it.

Daniel (1983) 
by E.L. Doctorow, based on his novel, The Book of Daniel 

*It is also the rare case where I think it was best that the novelist adapted his own work.  But also note this novelist/book editor/professor/playwright/screenwriter has been winning awards since 1975.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Prince of the City (1981) - Showing the Grey of Corruption

[Quick Summary:  Corrupt narcotics cop agrees to inform on his fellow cops for the Chase Commission, but isn't prepared for the heavy toll it takes.]

Could you write a script showing how corruption is a fast and easy crime?

The correct answer is NO, and this script shows why:

1) Corruption is a repeated behavior over time, i.e., a pattern.

INTERPRETATION: Your script will probably be long. Here, it's 183 pgs.

2) Corruption trips up people in the details.

INTERPRETATION: Your script, like this one, will likely be very dense, with multiple characters, locations, and/or situations.

3) The effects of corruption on the participants and families are heavy.

INTERPRETATION: This script is an ambitious, troubling, realistic portrayal of what cops have to do when waging a war against drugs, and it isn't nice and neat.

This script really shines in showing egos, doubts, and dilemmas. 

Danny Ciello is a good man, loyal friend. and an effective NYPD narcotics cop who does many questionable things in the line of duty.

He protects his squad, but he also passes drugs to informants. 

He won't squeal on his friends, but when Brooks Paige (U.S. Attorney's Office) comes asking for help, Danny is flattered and wants to play in the big leagues.

In the scene below, Ciello is talking to his wife Carla:

ex. "CIELLO: But Carla... I've found a very important friend.

CARLA: More important than your old friends?

CIELLO: It's different. This guy Paige... it's crazy but I want to run up the wall for him. Remember that old science fiction movie When the Earth Stood Still? And this tall, good-looking guy from another planet came and fixed everything -- Michael Rennie? You just looked at him and knew he could handle it...

CARLA: What is it you think this Paige's going to handle so great?

CIELLO: (a beat) Well, Loughlin, for one.

CARLA: Loughlin shouldn't have been in in the first place.

CIELLO: (suddenly miserable) I know that. I know..."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even though there was no easy answers and it was all greys, I felt the ending was well-earned, which was no easy feat.

Prince of the City (1981)
by Jay Presson Allen and Sidney Lumet
Based on the book by Robert Daley

TODAY'S NUGGET: Serpico (1973) - The Uncomfortable Character

[Quick Summary: When officer Frank Serpico refuses bribes, his fellow officers are out for his blood.]
 
The real Frank Serpico said: 

“They took the job I loved most,” he said. “I just wanted to be a cop, and they took it away from me.”

Did he say that in 1967 when he testified against fellow cops?

No, he said that in 2010, FORTY THREE years later.

What does this tell you about him? That he holds grudges? That he's soured?

To me, it says this man believed deeply in the principles that his badge represented.

It was a belief so deep that he was willing to suffer great personal discomfort and pay the price, even if it meant losing his badge (and he did). 

Why is this character so interesting? This article about the film put it well:

[Serpico is] ‘a driven character of Dostoyevskian proportions, an anti-cop cop.’ And the positioning of Serpico as a man with this dual nature, one foot in each world but never wholly accepted into either, heightened his isolation and discomfort in almost every aspect of his life, making for a compelling human drama. 

ex. "Serpico and Peluce are sitting at a table, food and soft drinks on trays in front of them. Serpico takes a bite of the sandwich, makes a face, opens the sandwich and looks at the meat.

SERPICO: This is 85% fat!

He starts to get up.

SERPICO: Hell, I saw some real lean beef over there.

Peluce grabs him by the arm.

PELUCE: Take it easy. Don't be so fussy. it's free. Listen, Charlie's an okay guy. We give him a break on double-parking on deliveries.

Serpico is disconcerted. He senses there's a kind of protocol here that he should not defy -- and he doesn't want to offend Peluce. He sits down.

SERPICO (diffidently): Couldn't I pay for it...and get what I want?

PELUCE: You pay for yours...I'd look pretty dumb. (pause) Frank, generally...you just sort of take what Charlie gives you.

He looks somewhat sheepish. On Serpico's face there is surprise and then a look of disgust."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I feel the trendy thing is to create morally ambiguous characters and duck the uncomfortable questions for another day (that never comes).

This character was refreshing because he couldn't be bought and actually had to make many uncomfortable decisions that had tough consequences.

Serpico (1973)
by Waldo Salt & Norman Wexler
Based on the book, "Serpico," by Peter Maas

TODAY'S NUGGET: Suspicion (1941) - Great Villain + Wrong Casting + Studio Interference = Wrong Ending

[Quick Summary: A young woman is entranced, wooed, and married to a wastrel , and soon finds that her new husband may be trying to kill her.]

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

Johnnie Aysgarth is an excellent villain in this story.

I believe he's shady, devious, underhanded, and unreliable.

I believe he's also in love with his new wife, Lina McLaidlaw. 

I believe he would indeed lie, mislead, and cheat for the funds to keep her.

However, I do not believe the ending in the script, i.e., that he is redeemed.  It is not consistent with Johnnie's character or his choices.

I think Hitchcock thought the same because he wanted a darker ending.

Unfortunately, he had wrongly cast Cary Grant as Johnnie.  The studio didn't think audiences would buy him as a killer, and thus insisted on the current, happier ending.

I would've believed Hitchcock's darker version over the present one.

I think it's because Johnnie has the charisma to sell it:

ex. "ALICE: And Johnnie insisted on meeting you.

LINA (looking at Johnnie): Why?

The girls giggle but before they have time to reply Johnnie says very simply:

JOHNNIE: Well, I understand from these charming ladies that a really bang-up, eligible young man is an unusual sight in this part of the country. My heard was touched.

SEMI-CLOSEUP - Lina and Johnnie. Johnnie remains calm and smiling and Lina is flushed and embarrassed. Behind this we hear others chattering simultaneously."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm comforted that even Hitchcock had to compromise, and sometimes it wasn't always for the best.

Suspicion (1941)
by Samson Raphaelson, Alma Reville, and Joan Harrison
Based on the novel,, "Before the Fact," by Francis Iles (pseudonym for A. B. Cox)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Spellbound (1945) - Connecting Scenes Help Flesh Out World

[Quick Summary: A female psychiatrist falls in love with an amnesiac who has seen a crime.] 

In my own writing, I have a bad habit of hitting only the big story points and rushing through connecting scenes.

It results in a horribly confusing, bumpy read.

Connecting scenes are vital to fleshing out an imaginary world for your reader.

For example, in the scene below from Spellbound,* Hitchcock uses them to show what is happening in the world while Constance is sleeping and unaware.

Note that the writer takes the time to include:

- What is written on the note.
- The note slipped under the door.
- The note appearing on the other side of the door and Constance sleeping.

ex. "INSERT J.B.'s hand writing a note.

We see the note:

"I cannot involve you in this for many reasons. One of them being that I love you. When the police step in, tell them I am at the Empire State Hotel in New York. I prefer to wait alone for the end. Goodbye. J.B."

His hands fold the note and put it into an envelope. He writes her name, "Dr. Petersen" on it in his bold, heavy script.

DISSOLVE:

INT. CORRIDOR - SEMI-CLOSEUP - NIGHT

We see a man's shadow and hand insert the envelope under the door to Constance's room.

INT. CONSTANCE PETERSEN'S OFFICE - CLOSEUP - NIGHT

The envelope appears on the other side of the door. CAMERA PANS UP from it and we see through into the moonlit bedroom. We can just discern the recumbent figure of Constance, sleeping."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I would've axed the last scene as unnecessary since the next scenes tell us Constance was sleeping.  However, there's more visual impact because it's included.

When in doubt, err on the side of more visual impact. 

Spellbound (1945)
by Ben Hecht
Suggested by the novel, "House of Dr. Edwards," by Francis Beeding

*Not one of my favorite Hitchcock films.

2016 OSCARS: Room (2015) - What Peril Looks Like

[Quick Summary: A 26 y.o. mother and her 5 y.o. son, who are hostages in a 10' x 10' shed, dare to escape.]

I was afraid of this script. I did not want to read it.

I kept saying to myself, "This is the most I've ever dreaded reading a script."

But to complete my tour of the 2016 Oscar scripts, I had to read it.

So I did, and I'm telling you, "You should read this script."

If it helps, I list the top three questions that I had prior to reading this script:

QUESTION #1: Why would I want to go there?
ANSWER: Yes, the story takes place in a horrible situation, but Donoghue, the writer/novelist, finds the joy and empathy. By p. 2, I knew I was in good hands.

QUESTION #2: Is it scary? I'm squeamish.
ANSWER:  Yes, in a good way. It's more about the non-stop suspense and tension.

QUESTION #3: I've seen characters in danger. What's the big deal?
ANSWER: This is tension of the highest order - peril, I tell you, PERIL.

The stakes are extremely clear, and the consequences more immediate.

It boils down to a razor's edge, minute by minute survival.

ex. Can Ma's mental health hold out one more day?

In the scene below, note how the writer ups the stakes (Jack is hurt, Ma might be).

Note also how she simultaneously:
- explains what happened (a 5 y.o. escaped alone)
- moves the story forward (need to find Ma ASAP)
- ends the scene (writer lets the reader piece together what the cops are thinking through action, not dialogue) 

ex. "JACK (louder): Old Nick. But that's not his name.

OFFICER PARKER: Did this Nick guy hurt you?

She goes to touch his lip, but he flinches away.

JACK: I bit me by accident. And the, the, the -

He pats the ground to remember the word.

JACK: The hard of the street. I jumped and smasheded my knee.

He remembers Bad Tooth and takes it out of his mouth.

OFFICER PARKER: What's that, Jack?

JACK: A bit of Ma.

Both officers peer at Bad Tooth, and exchange a dark look."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Peril is an extremely dramatic device. Keep all other things (B story line, settings, etc.) fairly simple so as not to draw focus away from it.

Room (2015)
by Emma Donoghue
Based on the novel by Emma Donoghue

2016 OSCARS: The Martian (2015) - Hats Off

[Quick Summary: An American astronaut is stranded on Mars while his team tries to bring him back home.]

Hats off to you, Mr. Drew Goddard.

Hats off for making me read 118 pgs. lickety split.

Hats off for getting me emotionally invested despite all the astronaut gibber jabber that I did not understand, did not need to understand, but made me believe.

ex. "BRUCE: The hull's mostly there to keep the air in. Mars' atmosphere is so thin you don't need a lot of streamlining. By the time the ship's going fast enough for air resistance to matter, it'll be high enough that there's practically no air.

VINCENT: You're sending him to space under a tarp.

BRUCE: Yes. Can I go on?"

Hats off for the combination of humor and adventure.

ex. "ANNIE: How do you know that? Why does "Elrond" mean "secret meeting?"

BRUCE: The Council of Elrond. From Lord of the Rings. It's the meeting where they decide to destroy the One Ring.

ANNIE: I so quit right now."

Hats off to some of the best lines in my recent memory:
- "I'm gonna have to science the shit out of this."
- Pathfinder rides on top of Rover 1 like Granny Clampett.
- He labels a few ration packs as he sets them aside: "Departure," "Birthday," "Last Meal..."

Hats off for an exceptional script, both moving and poignant.

Hats off to you, sir.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was impressed that all the elements (narrative, dialogue, story, characters, ensemble) were balanced just right to strike the exact right tone: adventure, serious, funny, moving.  I do not know how he did it.

The Martian (2015)
by Drew Goddard
Based upon the novel by Andy Weir

2016 OSCARS: Carol (2015) - The Bridge to Take Us Between POVs

[Quick Summary: Therese, a young 1950s shopgirl, gets involved in a relationship with Carol, a married woman and mother in a difficult situation.]

This well-written script has:
- an elegant tone (which I expected) and
- nearly constant movement (which I did not).

The writer moves us from one POV to the next seamlessly.

(OK, there's a lot of black print on the page, but the movement makes it work.)

In the scene below, note how a package is used to bridge us between POVs:

ex. "EXT. THERESE'S APARTMENT. LATE NIGHT.

THERESE stands in front of a postbox, wearing a coat over her night clothes. There's not a soul in sight in the cold night.  She looks at a small package addressed to "Mrs. H. Aird" for a moment before dropping ti into the postbox. She looks up at her window a moment before being seized by a chill and running up the stoop to her building.

EXT. SUBURBAN NEW JERSEY STREET. LATE MORNING.

A MAILMAN pulls up to a large stone house with a gabled roof, along the stately residential street. He grabs a handful of mail, jumps down and begins walking up the driveway.

INT. CAROL'S HOUSE. ENTRANCE. LATE MORNING.

Mail is dropped through the letter slot, including THERESE'S package to CAROL. FLORENCE, CAROL'S housekeeper, glances over to the entry while mopping the floor."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's handy to use an object to bridge the viewer between POVs.

Carol (2015)
by Phyllis Nagy
Based on the novel, The Price of Salt, by Patricia Highsmith

2016 OSCARS: Brooklyn (2015) - Romance is Emotional Risk

[Quick Summary: Eilis is a 1950s young Irish immigrant who is torn between New York and Ireland.]

What a lovely, lovely read!

I loved the quiet drama of heartache and homesickness.

I especially loved watching Eilis and Tony fall in love.

This kind of romance is a dying art in a world where it's so easy to hide behind electronics and pretending rejection doesn't exist.

Romance requires connection, which requires possible rejection and risks.

The scene below is probably the midpoint of their romance, where they're "bound together...and has further implications for the outcome of the relationship." (p. 113; Mernit)

Note the bold emotional risks:
- Tony puts himself out there for rejection.
- Eilis takes a chance on a guy with a much bigger home field advantage.

ex. "TONY: You're in a good mood, right?

She looks at him.

EILIS: Yes. Why?

TONY: It's just...I like how you're being, I don't know the word. When you go along with everything.

EILIS: Amenable?

TONY (delighted with this addition to his vocabulary): Yeah. Amenable. OK, so while you're being amenable..Can we go see a movie this week? When you're not at night classes? And if the date goes well, can we see a movie next week too?

EILIS: I'll sign up for two movies.

TONY: Really?

EILIS: Yes. Even if the first date is a disaster, I'll give it another chance.

Tony's smile couldn't be any broader."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Lacking romance? Try larger emotional risks.

Brooklyn (2015)
by Nick Hornby
Adapted from the novel by Colm Toibin

2016 OSCARS: The Big Short (2015) - The Appeal (or Not) of Fact Intensive/ Documentary Style

[Quick Summary: When a U.S. investor foresees that the housing market will fail (and bets millions that it will fail), others notice and follow suit.]

Here's the story in a nutshell:

- Everyone believed mortgage bonds were fail proof.
- In 2005, Michael Burry, an investment banker, saw that mortgages were being given to people who should not get them, i.e., bad credit plus no jobs. (subprime).
- Burry bought MILLIONS in credit default swaps, i.e., insurance on the mortgage bonds.
- If the bonds tanked, Burry would get paid HUGE (10 to 1, 20 to 1).
- Other investors got wind and started doing the same.

The sad parts are:

- These investors were betting for a U.S. financial collapse so they could profit.
- This was all legal and based on greed.
- The Securities Exchange Commission wasn't paying attention.
- The government had to bail banks out for their greed.

Did I like the script? Yeeessssnooooo.

I admire the filmmakers for attempting to crack this subject matter, as it is very complex and dense.

The script is well written, but there are so many facts that it felt like a documentary.

I focused more on learning than getting involved in the story.

ex. "MICHAEL BURRY: Did you find it odd that when the tech bubble burst in 2001 the housing market in San Jose, the tech center of the world, went up?

YOUNG ANALYST: Huh. I guess. I mean, no. It's housing. It's always AAA rated, low risk.

MICHAEL BURRY: Yes....That's the idea... (he knows what he needs now) I need you to get me the top 20 selling mortgage bonds.

YOUNG ANALYST: So you want to know what the top 20 selling mortgage bonds are?

MICHAEL BURRY: No. I want to know what mortgages are in each one.

YOUNG ANALYST: Wait, aren't those bonds made up of thousands and thousands of mortgages?

MICHAEL BURRY: Yes.

The Analyst waits for Burry to complete the thought but he doesn't.

YOUNG ANALYST: Right away Dr. Burry."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Writers need to know what kind of story they're dealing with (& what the producers want), in order to see if you and the project are a good fit.

I learned that a fact intensive story/documentary style doesn't really appeal to me.

The Big Short (2015) 
by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay
Based upon the book by Michael Lewis