TODAY'S NUGGET: The Naked Gun: From the Files of the Police Squad (1988) - Impressive Variety & Number of Jokes Per Page (& A Caution)

[Quick Summary: Bumbling Chicago Det. Frank Drebin is on the case, trying to foil drug cartels and the assassinators of Queen Elizabeth II.]

My favorite part of any Zuckers-Abrams-Proft script is the number and variety of jokes stuffed in every page - visual jokes, verbal jokes, puns, slapstick, gags, etc.

For example, in this scene below, Frank is in the lab with his boss Ed and Mr. Olsen, the head of the lab:

INT. POLICE LAB - DAY

...AL enters. Since he's seven feet tall, his head is OUT OF FRAME. He's holding a shoe box. [Visually funny and interesting because we only see a torso.]

AL: Here's the package you wanted, Chief.

He sets it on the desk.

ED: Thanks, Al.

Al turns to leave. Ed stops him.

ED (cont.): Al, you're out of uniform again. Regulation headgear only. You know that.

AL: Sorry, Chief, I was just trying something different.

He places a large Mexican sombrero down on the desk and exits. Frank looks after him, a bit puzzled. Olsen opens the shoe box. He pulls out a man's shoe. [This gag is both verbally and visually funny. We don't expect a police officer wearing a sombrero, nor a tall man wearing a tall hat.]

MR. OLSEN: Here's something we developed only yesterday. To the casual observer, an ordinary shoe. But in actuality...

INSERT - SHOE

A knife springs out of the toe like a switchblade. [This is a genre joke. It's expected, but only if you've seen this contraption before in other spy or James Bond films.]

INT. POLICE LAB - DAY

MR. OLSEN: It makes quite a handy weapon... 

Now Olsen swings out more knives, various tools, scissors, bottles opener/screwdriver, corkscrew, etc. [This is a heightened joke, playing off of what we'd expect and then adding to it.]

MR. OLSEN (cont.): ...And everything a cop in the field would need. We call it the Swiss Army Shoe. [Pun of "Swiss Army knife."]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I noticed two simultaneous things: 

First, the number of the jokes per page seemed to create its own propulsive energy, and made me want to see what happened next.

However, over time, the sheer density of jokes per page became wearying to read.  I think what was really helpful was to have a different rhythm in there, i.e., Frank falling in love, to break up the same-ness of tone.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of the Police Squad (1988)(12/10/87 revised)
by Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Pat Proft 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Deep Cover (1992) - When Is It Ok to Tell, Not Show, What's Inside Her Head?

[Quick Summary: When a good cop goes undercover to try to ferret out a drug importer, will he succumb to the excesses and violence?]

Q: Screenwriting rules should never, ever, ever be broken, right?
A: I felt that way too...until I saw every one of them broken.* Stick with the "rules" until you know when, how, and most importantly WHY, to break them.

Q: *Gasp!* But WHEN? HOW? Don't tell me "I'll only know with experience."
A: I only figured it out by experience (reading and writing, reading and writing).**

Q: Can you give me an example of when to break "show, not tell"?
A: Today's action thriller script is a good example when telling what's inside a character's head works best.  

Critic Roger Ebert explains the protagonist's dilemma: 

What sets "Deep Cover" apart is its sense of good and evil, the way it has the Fishburne character agonize over the moral decisions he has to make. Most drug movies are so casual about their shootings and killings that you'd hardly think it even hurt to get shot. ...Among the many unexpected aspects of this movie is the way its characters constantly ask themselves what the right course is - and if they can afford to take it.

This is apparent in the scene below:
- The protagonist, Hull, is a good cop with strong morals.
- He swore he'd never do drugs, like his dad who died robbing a liquor store.
- However, he's put into deep undercover to ferret out a drug dealer.
- He has witnessed a lot of horrible things, but hasn't crossed the line yet.
- He hooks up with a minor drug dealer, Elias, who doesn't know Hull is a cop.
- Elias gives Hull credibility and introduces him to buyers and sellers.
- Betty owns a jewelry store that is a laundering front.
- This is the first time Betty meets Hull.
- The Note explains concisely what is going on inside of Betty.  Yes, this is "telling" rather than showing, but there's a very quick, complicated, non-verbal dynamic going on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the writer resorted to this description as the most efficient explanation. 
- Even though this is "telling," note how concise the description is.

INT. JEWELRY STORE - DAY

... She produces a vial of coke, looks questioningly at Elias.

ELIAS: By all means.

She draws out six lines. Elias does two.

BETTY (offering him the straw): Come on, Eddie 2, you're up.

HULL: No, thanks.

(NOTE: Betty is acutely attuned to Hull, and in his refusal she senses - albeit unconsciously -- two things: first, that he doesn't trust himself on drugs, therefore, he's a dangerous guy and, therefore, exciting; and, second, more important, the refusal bespeaks a repudiation of the violence and danger and, thus, a longing for goodness. Despite the seeming contradiction, she finds this even more attractive. But because she feels herself to be bad, his goodness seems only a judgment against her, and so she thinks she hates him.)

BETTY: Who is he, my mother?

HULL (smiles): Never have, never will.

Betty ignores him, does her lines.

BETTY (taunting Hull): Oooh...Cocaine, I love it and I hate it and I love it. The disease is the cure.  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If there's no other way but to "tell" rather than show, then do it. Don't let the "rules" hamper your expression.

Deep Cover (1992)(7/16/91 draft)
by Michael Tolkin and Henry Bean 

*As a new writer, I was too quick to point out screenwriting "violations of the rules." The reality is that:
- There are no rules.
- Sometimes ignoring the rules accomplishes what following the rules could not.
- A preoccupation with "rules" avoids dealing with the fact that the writing may lack maturity and craft.   
- The most important measure is "does it work?", not "does it follow the rules?" 

**Other hints on breaking screenwriting "rules": 
- The purpose of the "rules" are to give new writers general guidelines to hold on to. (ex. Cinema is visual medium, so it's important to externalize emotions, hence, "show not tell.")
- As I grew as a writer, I realized I was hanging on to the "rules" too much, and they restricted my freedom to imagine and take big swings.
- If I broke a "rule," I found it helpful to explain to myself WHY, and then make sure I wrote it down in my notes. I didn't need to explain it to the reader, but I did need to make sure I knew why, even if it was "I don't know how else to say this."
- The goal is a page turner for the reader.  The "rules" don't guarantee this.
- When a writer breaks the "rules," I've noticed that it tends to be in certain areas, like the example above, and not the whole script.  
- Any "rule-breaking" does not excuse sloppy writing.  Yes, the example above is breaking the "show, don't tell rule," but more importantly, it is also concise and written well to express a difficult emotional dynamic.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Radio Days (1987) - How Politically Incorrect Slapstick is Done Well

[Quick Summary: A series of stories showing radio's big influence on 1930s and 40s America.]

TWO THOUGHTS: 

1) A DIFFERENT ALLEN FILM. Today's script is about the broader idea of radio's impact, and a departure from Allen's smaller, more character driven stories.

2) SLAPSTICK WITH PURPOSE. I find unmotivated slapstick uninteresting.

However, today's script combines slapstick with a purpose, i.e., political incorrectness, to make a point. I chuckled at this added clever commentary.

For example, in the scene below:
- Joe is the son, grade school age. 
- Joe listens to the Avengers on the radio all the time. He wants an Avengers' ring more than anything.
- Joe and his friends are collecting money in cans for the Jewish National Fund.
- The kids break open the cans to count the pennies.  
- Rabbi Baumel catches them and is ashamed they want it for Avengers' rings.
- Rabbi Baumel calls in Joe and his parents.
- The comedy comes from the characters saying that they take offense at something...then doing exactly that ("don't slap the kid", then he slaps the kid himself).
- The rabbi and father's hypocrisy is seen in the slapping.

 INT. RABBI BAUMEL'S OFFICE. DAY.

...RABBI BAUMEL: This is not good. He must be disciplined. Radio has its place but once in awhile. Otherwise it tends to induce bad values, false dreams, lazy habits. To spend time listening to stories of foolishness and violence is no way for a boy to grow up.

JOE: You speak the truth, my faithful Indian companion. 

The rabbi, taken aback, slaps him.

RABBI BAUMEL: To a rabbi you say, my faithful Indian companion?

FATHER: Hey -- don't hit my son!

RABBI BAUMEL: What kind of upbringing is this!?

FATHER (slapping kid): I'll hit him -- but you don't hit him!

RABBI BAUMEL (slaps kid): I know better how to teach fresh children.

FATHER (slaps kid): I said I'd hit him! Leave my son alone.

MOTHER (slaps kid): No, I'll hit him! Because you're too lenient with him!

FATHER (slaps kid): This is lenient!?

RABBI BAUMEL: I'm a faithful Indian? Such impertinence.

MOTHER (slaps kid): See, I'll teach him manners, Rabbi! You and that radio! 

                                                                             CUT TO: 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The combination of two unrelated elements that make it funny.  

I expect political correctness to be serious. I expect slapstick to be amusing. I don't expect political incorrectness to be combined with slapstick and create an unexpected new category.  

Radio Days (1987)(undated draft)
by Woody Allen 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Locked Room (unproduced) - Why This Creepy, Haunted, Twisty, Pull-of-the-Past Psychological Thriller is Smashingly Great

[Quick Summary: George, the executor of his childhood best friend Fanshawe's literary estate, gets Fanshawe's work published, but isn't prepare for the success or the haunting that follows.]

First, this adaptation* is a complex psychological thriller that's creepy, bewildering, and mesmerizing, but most of all, inventive.  I couldn't put it down. **

Second, I was impressed that this script feels like reading great literature, yet I never got lost or bogged down. ***

Here's the short version of the story:

- George and Fanshawe were childhood friends. 
- Fanshawe was cooler than everyone and George admired him. 
- They both wanted to be writers, but didn't, then lost touch after college.
- Twenty years later, George is working at a Big & Tall shop, writing in his free time.
- One day, George opens the door to a letter from Fanshawe's widow.
- Fanshawe wanted George to sort through his scribblings in a locked room and get them published if they were good. They were fantastic.
- Soon George is very busy handling offers, falling in love with his widow and child, appearing on tv promoting Fanshawe's writing. 
- This is a nightmare for a good guy and aspiring writer like George.
- George is simultaneously haunted by his past envies of Fanshawe, the present sticky situation, or his hope for a future with Fanshawe's widow.

It's complicated, right? So why didn't I get lost?? I think it's because the writer understood the key role that subtext plays in psychological thrillers. 

He structured the scenes so that we question George's mental judgment, i.e., whether he's reacting to the past/present/future, and returns to it regularly.

For example, in the scene below: 
- Stuart, an editor and acquaintance, is entranced by Fanshawe's work. 
- Stuart wants to publish. George agrees.
- Fanshawe died in fiery car accident. 
- Two of the great mysteries of the story is WHY did Fanshawe leave all the responsibility to George, and what about George's hopes?
- Note that writer uses Stuart's questions to poke into the past, present, and future.
- Note how we circle back to an unspoken fear (George will not get published) and ends with a "ouch!" to his ego. 
- Also note the SPEED of the emotional pacing. It's a roller coaster ride that circles back to the competition between George and Fanshawe.

INT. GEORGE'S APARTMENT - EVENING

 ...STUART: Pity.

GEORGE: Yeah.

STUART: I mean, that he isn't around. I'd love to be able to work with him. A few little nips and tucks -- you know.

GEORGE: That's just editor's pride. You can't look at a manuscript without wanting to take a red pencil to it. I'm sure he wouldn't change a word.

STUART: Hmm, you may be right. But don't take it to heart -- we can't all be prodigies

Suddenly, Stuart looks slyly at George.

STUART: Where is he?

GEORGE: Why d'you mean?

STUART: Is he shy, your boy? Is it some Pynchon thing we've got here? You're not just fronting for him, are ya?

GEORGE: Listen, if he was still around, believe me, I'd tell him to do his own dirty work.

Stuart just smiles. Does he really think George is toying with him? Or is he toying with George?

STUART: How's it feel?

George raises his eyebrows questioningly.

STUART: Discovering a new American master.

Stuart is needling him. George refuses to rise to the bait. 

GEORGE: When do you think you'll have an answer.

STUART: Oh, I already have: we're publishing it. (at the door) Chin up. Might not be as bad as you think. 

GEORGE: What?

STUART: Reflected glory.

Stuart leaves. George pondering. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Those two words ("reflected glory") made me realize the power of subtext in this script.  

It's so much more layered and powerful than "you're not good enough" and speaks to how beautifully constructed this psychological trap is.

The Locked Room (unproduced 3/9/01 draft)
Based on the novel by Paul Auster
by Lem Dobbs 

* It's adapted from The New York Trilogy (1987), by Paul Auster, which is three interconnected detective stories ("City of Glass," "Ghosts," and "The Locked Room").  

**I have not read the book.  Several book reviewers on Goodreads either loved it or hated it.  I can understand why.  I also felt frustrated that answers weren't readily available at times reading the script.

***Purely as a side note, I did get creeped out by the psychological suspense and was glad I read it in the day time.  

TODAY'S NUGGET: This Man, This Woman (Unproduced) - One of The Best at "Can't Live With/Without You" Emotional Gridlock

[Quick Summary: After many years apart, a film director and a sculptor (who were once married)  unexpectedly meet again on a plane.]

Though unproduced, this script was written by Frederic Raphael, whom I consider one of the best at memory time jumps (see here) and showing emotional gridlock. 

Raphael is particularly good at the bittersweet of "I can't live with you, I can't live without you." This keeps us wanting to know what comes next.

For example, in the scene below:
- Matt and Martha got married, had a son, then had an acrimonious divorce for unknown reasons.
- Several years later, their paths crossed when they were seated together on a plane.
- They have just had a cautiously pleasant conversation.
- This scene shows they're defensive, so they're not connecting, yet they have a great dynamic together.
- This scene keeps us wondering what is keeping them apart.
- The banter is a trademark of this writer's voice. It's not just clever, but also pointed and humorous. 

INT. THE PLANE. DAY.

... They both "sleep", smiling faintly. This sparring is not without warmth. But it's dangerous.

MATT: Are you busy?

MARTHA: Yeah, I'm pretty busy. 

MATT: I meant, like now, are you? 

MARTHA: I meant now. What do you want me to do? Sew on a button?

MATT: Take a look at this script.

MARTHA: You know your trouble, Matthew?

MATT: Sure. I haven't done anything great. But I have made my father feel proud of me. And ashamed of himself. I set him up in business finally. I hope that was nice of me.

MARTHA: What's it all about?

MATT: My mother was right to throw him out, but I can't forgive her for marrying him.

MARTHA: That's very up-front of you, but I only meant: what's the script all about?

MATT gives her the look. What a bitch sometimes!

MATT: It's a re-make...

MARTHA: You always said they never worked.

She's hit a nerve. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really like that the gridlock comes from character, i.e., each side has something historically unresolved between them. Yet they do what everyone does in the meanwhile, and try to carry on.  

The intrigue/suspense for me is the fact that Martha is difficult and pushes Matt, but she's the only one who will tell him the truth (and vice versa). 

This Man, This Woman (unproduced)
by Frederic Raphael 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Scarlet Letter (1926) - How a Series of Images Conveys Meaning Without Words ("Cinematic Language")

[Quick Summary: After having a baby out of wedlock in the 1600s, Puritan Hester refuses to name her lover and suffers the consequences.]

Q: Someone said I need to know "cinematic language." What is that? 
A: I like to think of it as the way images can convey meaning, often without words.

Q: How do I learn how to write in a cinematic language?
A: One good way is to study silent films since they rely on images over dialogue.

Q: No dialogue?! Aren't they boring to read?! What could I learn?
A: Yes, they're a bit technical.  But they remind writers that our job is to find creative ways to STRING TOGETHER images to create deeper meaning without heavy reliance on dialogue.

For example, in this script:
- Hester and her daughter are inside the house.
- It's essentially technical shot list and there are no slug lines (unlike modern scripts). 
- However, notice that there's still structured drama through images:  The writer strings together individual images of Child (happy) + Her Mother (sad) = create a third meaning (bittersweet).
- This use of images to tell a story is called "cinematic language."

Fade in. Ins[ert] of hand. Makes Letter A in sand.

CU girl

CU Hester seated in chair

CU little girl

CU Hester looking at insert

of letter A in sand

CU Hester

CU little girl looks up at Hester and laughs

CU Hester looks down at hands and turns to right

CU little girl laughing, then looks serious, rises to feet

MS Hester seated in chair. Little girl enters to her and embraces her.

[TITLE CARD READS] Outcasts shamed
and despised' But 
Hester's happy child 
reflected the hope that 
still lay in her mother's 
heart.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I struggle with trusting audiences with my series of images.  Will they understand?  Thus, I find I tend to overwrite with dialogue.

The Scarlet Letter (1926) 
by Frances Marion*
Adapted from the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne 

*Frances Marion won two Oscars and was nominated three times.  She was one of the earliest and most prolific screenwriters (with at least 189 projects credited to her).  She also is the author of How to Write and Sell Film Stories (1937).  

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000) - An Example of How a Comeback Stinger Works (Dialogue Setup-Payoff)

[Quick Summary: A master steward must ensure a royal visit goes smoothly in order to gain his cash-strapped boss a commission from King Louis XIV.]

Q: I want to write a comeback stinger, so focus on the punch line, right?
A: It's important, but not the MOST important part.

Q: Huh?! What's more important than the punch line?
A: A punch line is the payoff. Without a proper set up, it languishes.

Q: Give me an example of a good set up.
A: Let's use today's script, which is a farce that exposes the excesses and debauchery of 1600s France. Everyone obsesses about status...except our protagonist Vatel.

In the scene below, the antagonist (de Lauzun) gets the final zinger, but note that it works because it was set up properly:
- Vatel is a steward who rose up the ranks by his own merit.
- The Marquis de Lauzun is the king's courtier, i.e., an intermediary.
- Vatel and the Marquis have the same level of authority, on opposite sides. 
- The Duchesse de Longueville is after a political promotion for her husband, and is not afraid to seduce the Marquis to get it. 
- The set up is about who can top the other in status:
--> First, de Lauzun tries to belittle Vatel. 
--> Then, Vatel uses his wits against de Lauzun. It's a draw.
--> Then, the Duchesse butts in and says she's the first to have de Lauzun's secret. It looks like she's on top. 
--> Finally, de Lauzun saying she's the last to know. He outsmarted her with the last word.

EXT. CASCADES. LATER. 

,,,Lazun notices Vatel and laughs.

LAUZUN (CONTINUED): I was just telling the Duchesse about your boyhood days in the brothels of the Ile Saint Louis.

VATEL (bows to the Duchesse): It's quite true. No one know more about the brothels of the Ils Saint Louis than the Marquis de Lauzun.

DUCHESSE (to Lauzun): I think he's just insulted you but it's hard to tell. That's a rare gift; if you punish him for it I'll tell everyone your favorite perversion.

LAUZUN (smiling to the Duchesse): But, Duchesse, you were the last to know. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The cleverness of this stinger lies in its set up.  

Here, the Marquis de Lauzun fails to ridicule Vatel with his own shortcomings.  Frustrated, he uses the Duchesse's love of gossip against her with added spite.

Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000)(1/19/99 revised)
by Jeanne Labrune
Translated and adapted by Tom Stoppard

TODAY'S NUGGET: Twins (1988) - The Purpose of the Energy Flow is to Show Character

[Quick Summary: A tall, "perfect" man goes in search of his twin, who turns out to be a short, small time crook.]

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that this draft was very well polished. 

First, it was rewritten by last week's Harris & Weingrod, and second, the great William Goldman gave it a pass too.

I really liked that:
- the purpose of the energy flow in this script is to show character, and 
- there's a control to the chaos.

For example, in the scene below: 
- This is the scene that introduces the idea these are twins by using "twinning" behaviors.
- Julius is the taller, "good" twin.
- Vince is the shorter, "bad" twin.
- Notice the largest paragraph below is all one sentence, a controlled roller coaster of a ride, much like sheltered Julius' experience of encountering a big city.
 - Then note how the energy flow and momentum ramps up and lands on the moment Julius stands in the middle of the street, absorbing all of Hollywood.
- The writers are deliberately controlling the chaos with pacing and flow. 

EXT. GRAUMAN'S CHINESE THEATER - MAGIC HOUR

Vince brushes himself off, hesitates a moment, pulling on his left ear with his right hand.

Immediately behind him, facing the opposite direction, is another man, also pulling on his left ear with his right hand. It is Julius --

-- Their backs are to each other. Without ever catching sight of one another, they move off, going their separate ways. Now, from this -- 

                                                    CUT TO: 

EXT. DOWNTOWN HOLLYWOOD STREET - NIGHT

Downtown Hollywood in all it's sleeze. There's a museum and a scientology center and every fast food place imaginable and people shouting as they sell things, "flowers" and street food and there's a porno house showing Tight 'n Tender and there's young people dressed like punks and old people boozed out and pimps and druggies and guys slumped unconscious int he gutter and crowds of tourists walking this way, that way, and there's noise and little and one more thing --

--There's Julius, case in hand, staring around, taking it all in. We're a long way from his island now. He studies all the humanity swirling around him --

                                                   CUT TO:

CLOSEUP ON JULIUS

And you can see it on his face: He loves it.

JULIUS (almost a whisper): ...How wonderful...  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked this script because it used cinematic language well.  It uses words to convey how we should feel about images, but was readable.  

I like to find Goldman scripts that are new-to-me, like this one. They are instructive since they are: a) easy to read and b) have great craftsmanship.

Twins (1988)(consolidated 4th draft, 4/27/88 with revisions)
by William Osborne & William Davies
Revisions by Timothy Harris & Hershel Weingrod and William Goldman

TODAY'S NUGGET: Trading Places (1983) - Not Tipping Your Hand Right Before a Turning Point (Suspense)

[Quick Summary: A homeless man and a broker have their lives surreptitiously swapped, all for a measly bet between two rich old men.]

This buddy comedy is a gem because of its classic fish-out-of-water setup, i.e., poor guy swaps lives with rich guy. 

It also does a great job of playing the moments as real, particularly leading up to the turning points.  This leads to REAL consequences & REAL stakes.

Because there are no magic solutions and no "fake deaths", it doesn't tip the hand of what's to come next and helps keep the suspense rising.

For example, in the scene below: 
- Louis Whipple is the grandson-in-law-to-be for two elderly Mr. Dukes. 
- Louis has just tried to O.D. on prescription pills. 
- Billy Ray is the homeless man.
- Ophelia is a woman of the streets who joins the adventure.
- Billy Ray and Ophelia have been walking Louis around the park to keep him awake.
- The writers allow Louis to make mistakes and allow the situation to defeat him.  They don't try to soften the blow by a magical solution.
- As a result, we go right up to the turning point (Louis' aha! moment below ) with real stakes (the stupid bet has gone awry and is about to cause a fatality). 

EXT. A PARK - NIGHT

...The two of them fall in the snow, and Billy Ray ends up sitting on Whipple's chest, holding him down.

BILLY RAY: Try and get it through your thick skull, Whipple! This whole thing was an experiment! And you and me are the guinea pigs! They made a bet over what would happen to us!

The truth is finally starting to dawn on Whipple. He looks from Ophelia's face to Billy Ray's.

LOUIS: A bet? They ruined my life over a bet? A bet for how much?

BILLY RAY: One dollar.

Whipple finally gets it. He smiles and nods, but his left eye is twitching.

LOUIS: A dollar. Good. Okay. Fine.

BILLY RAY: You okay, man?

LOUIS: Oh, I feel wonderful. And I'm going to feel even better.

                                       CUT TO: 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One reason that I think audiences have become uninterested in "fake death" universes is because there are no consequences, no stakes, and thus little suspense.

Trading Places (1983)(June, 1982, 1st draft)
by Timothy Harris & Herschel Weingrod

TODAY'S NUGGET: Married to the Mob (1988) - How to Not Lose the Reader, Despite Various POV

[Quick Summary: After her mobster husband is murdered by his boss, Angela is determined to make a new life with her son, but the mob won't leave her alone.]

Q: What sets this script apart for you?  
A: It captures different points of view, but never loses focus on the protagonist.

Q: How does it do it?  Especially maintaining such clarity? 
A: I think it's the unity of the subject matter.  There's a variety of points of view, but they're all about the same subject, i.e., Angela.

For example, in the scene below:
- Angela is a sweet woman, who was oblivious to the shenanigans of Sal, her dead mobster husband.  Everyone makes assumptions about her. 
- Tony, Sal's best friend, is the head mobster. 
- Tony is married to Connie and is afraid of her.
- Tony killed Sal because Sal was sleeping with Tony's side girlfriend.
- Tony wants to sleep with Angela, and keeps tabs on her, even after she's moved away.
- Tony and his underling Tommy show up at Angela's new apartment.
- Note the multiple points of view (Connie, Ed, Mike, Tommy, Tony). Each segment adds important information, AND they're united by the subject matter, Angela.
- Also note how: a)  the unity of subject matter, plus b) CAPITALIZED location slugs helps the reader easily switch points of view. This is great clarity of writing.

EXT. RIVINGTON STREET - AT THAT MOMENT

IN FRONT OF ANGELA'S BUILDING

Angela, Tony and Tommy come out of the building and pause on the steps. 

TOMMY: Look, Ange, Rose wants to have you out for dinner next week. How's Thursday?

ANGELA: I really don't think...

TOMMY: Or Friday?

ANGELA: Umm...

TOMMY: Or any night that's good for you.

ANGELA: I tell you, Tommy...I'm so busy with the move, getting set up and everything. I don't even know if we're gonna stay here. Why don't I give you a call when I get settled?

TOMMY (disappointed): Sure, I understand. But don't forget, okay? Promise?

ANGELA (squirming): Sure, Tommy.

TOMMY: Take care, Angie. If you need anything...

ANGELA: Thanks, Tommy. So long.

He gives her a big hug and heads for the car.

DOWN THE BLOCK

peering over the steering wheel of the white Cadillac is Tony's worst nightmare -- Connie. She watches with keen interest.

IN FRONT OF ANGELA'S BUILDING

TONY: It was great seeing you, Angela.

Tony takes Angela's hand. She stiffens. He plants a gentle kiss on her hand while looking into her eyes.

IN THE WHITE CADILLAC

Connie watches as Tony kisses Angela's hand. Connie's worst suspicions are confirmed. She's absolutely livid.

FROM A BASEMENT STAIRWELL

Ed video-tapes Tony and Angela. Connie's white Cadillac zooms past.

IN FRONT OF ANGELA'S BUILDING

Tony gives Angela a meaningful look.

TONY (in Italian): Ci vediamo, cara.

Tony gets into the car and Tommy drives off. Angela is emotionally exhausted.

ANGELA (moans): Oh, God.

AT THE FIFTH FLOOR WINDOW

Mike has seen Tony's farewell. Mike shakes his head ruefully as he watches Angela walk down the street. He moves away from the window.

AT THE CORNER

Angela stops in front of the "Hello, Gorgeous!" beauty salon. IN the window there's a mirror with an inscription reading: ARE YOU READY FOR A BRAND NEW YOU? Angela looks at her reflection in the mirror. She can see that the events of the day have caught up to her. She tugs at her Chez Ray hairdo, obviously displeased. Then Angela notices a sign in the window that reads: "Help Wanted." 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To keep things clearer for the reader, create sign posts in the structure for the audience, ex. unity of subject matter + capitalized locations.

Married to the Mob (1988)(7/14/87 draft)
by Barry Strugatz & Mark R. Burns