Monday, May 28, 2018

TODAY'S NUGGET: Escape from L.A. (1996) - Satire in an Action Film

[Quick Summary: After he is infected with a viral time bomb, Snake Plissken must retrieve a prototype from the prison island of L.A. in order to get the antidote, or die.]

Ah, the sequel.  How to do it right fifteen years after the original?

I'll be honest...It wouldn't have occurred to me to satirize the genre.* It's brilliant.

I think it's the reason that the over the top, crazy special effect scenes don't come off as "trying too hard."  It is not meant to be taken seriously and takes the pressure off.

And it's a lot of fun!

For example, the ridiculous tsunami vs. car chase mocks all car chases:

ex. "The water sweeps them up until they disappear under the blackness...

Until suddenly Pipeline pops up on top of the tsunami, riding on his surfboard, arms outstretched, feet braced.

And then Plissken pops up beside him, surfing clumsily on top of the tsunami wave, kneeling on his surfboard.

They blast down Wilshire Canyon at 80 miles an hour. Plissken is wobbly on the surfboard, but he manages to stay on top of the wave. Finally, he gets the hang of it, glances over at Pipeline who grins from ear to ear.

PIPLINE: Awesome, Snake, AWESOME, man!

Plissken looks up ahead...

HIS POV - MOVING THROUGH WILSHIRE CANYON

Five feet from street level. An old van speeds along what's left of Wilshire Boulevard, right on the canyon's edge. It veers around debris in the street, changes lanes suddenly, hell bent for leather.

Plissken and Pipeline move closer and closer to the van as the tsunami sweeps them along.

Now they move alongside the van, and Plissken stares over...

CLOSER - THE VAN

Behind the wheel is Map To The Stars Eddie, diving like a lunatic, his teeth bared and set, madder than shit.

Plissken's eye widens, burns.

PLISSKEN (to Pipeline): See you later.

And suddenly Plissken stands up, shifts his weight, and the surfboard slides sideways, across the surface of the tsunami all the way over to the edge, right next to the van.

MAP TO THE STARS EDDIE

glances to his left...

HIS POV - PLISSKEN

is surfacing the tsunami not 10 feet away from him.

Map To The Stars Eddie stares in absolute horror. Plissken tips the board again, and slides another 5 feet closer...

AS MAP TO THE STARS EDDIE

Jams on the pedal, and the van screams forward...

AS PLISSKEN

Stands up and leaps from the surfboard...

For a moment he is airborne, leaping across the gap to the van...and slams into the side of the van. He grabs on to the roof, hangs on with one hand, his body whipping against the rocking, bucking side. Map To The Stars Eddie starts swerving, trying to throw Plissken off."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When ridiculing a car chase, still play it real.

In the scene above, Snake might be riding a tsunami, but he is still on a mission to find the prototype and Eddie is the key.

Escape from L.A. (1996)(undated draft)
by John Carpenter, Debra Hill, and Kurt Russell

*"...But “Escape From L.A.” has such manic energy, such a weird, cockeyed vision, that it may work on some moviegoers as satire and on others as the real thing."

Monday, May 21, 2018

TODAY'S NUGGET: Unfaithful (2002) - Putting 2+2 Together Through Behavior

[Quick Summary: A happily married wife slides into an affair with an intriguing rare book dealer, and her husband finds out.]

This is a "cheatin' story," in common parlance.

However, this script is anything but common. 

First, it is a drama that does not rely on formulas or the tropes of a thriller or sci-fi:
That's what's intriguing about the film: Instead of pumping up the plot with recycled manufactured thrills, it's content to contemplate two reasonably sane adults who get themselves into an almost insoluble dilemma. - Roger Ebert (my emphasis)
Second, the characters "tell" us everything through behavior rather than dialogue:
Connie Sumner's heart and other organs have their reasons for straying outside a happy marriage in "Unfaithful,'' but the movie doesn't say what they are. This is not necessarily a bad thing, sparing us tortured Freudian explanations and labored plot points. It is almost always more interesting to observe behavior than to listen to reasons.  - Roger Ebert (my emphasis)
 In the scene below, I liked how the writers let the audience put 2 +2 together.

We see Connie +We see the young couple in love = We add up that this is the way Connie longs to feel.

ex. "INT. PARTY STORE - SOHO - AFTERNOON

Connie glances up at the ramshackle bank of black-and-white surveillance monitors hanging haphazardly near the ceiling. In one of them, a YOUNG COUPLE can been seen trying on funny hats and clowning with each other. Even watching the fuzzy monitors, Connie senses an electricity between them.

Slowly, she begins moving through the aisles, half shopping and half seeking the Couple. She keeps peering at the monitors, seeing herself in one and the Couple in another.  They move to another aisle, disappear from view, reappear on a different monitor.

She turns a corner, and there they are, only now they're no longer clowning but kissing. Nothing else exists for them except each other.

Then they pull apart and begin SIGNING to each other tenderly. Connie realizes that they are deaf."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's so rare to have a gripping story about characters dealing with reality w/o special effects, car chases, explosions, and/or robots.

I think it also gives the story a timeless feel to it.

Unfaithful (2002)(6/14/00 draft)
by Alvin Sargent, William Broyles, Jr., Stephen Schiff
Based on the film "La Femme Infidele" (1969), by Claude Chabrol

Monday, May 14, 2018

TODAY'S NUGGET: Nuts (1987) - "Likeable"; Note Behind the Note; Handling Unlikeable Characters

[Quick Summary: At a competency hearing, a public defender struggles to defend his new client, an ill-mannered psychiatric patient who is accused of manslaughter.]

Three Related Thoughts (especially for new writers):

1) "LIKEABLE" - There is a myth out there that a character must be likeable (whatever that means). I disagree.

I think the character needs to be understandable, whether or not you like him/her.

2) NOTE BEHIND THE NOTE. Writers are always looking for the most precise and concise words. We assume that everyone communicates that way too, right?

Actually, no.  Most people are often vague, verbally sloppy, and/or unaware.

A prime example is when an executive, director, actor, producer, etc. says, "But the character is not likeable..." What does that mean? They usually do not know.

Part of your job as a screenwriter is to: a) recognize when this is happening, and b) figure out what that person is really trying to convey (note behind the note). 

DO NOT automatically assume this character SHOULD be likeable.

DO pause, regroup, and ask questions. Is the character hard to relate to? Unclear what his/her motives are? What is the confusing part?

3) IRRITATING & UNPLEASANT.  How does one handle an unlikeable character?  Today's protagonist is a good example of how to do this well.

Claudia is a difficult, off-beat prostitute who is hospitalized. But is she really insane?

I liked how the writers did not excused her behavior, but kept her motives clear and slowly revealed secrets. We may not like her, but do start to understand her.

The scene below is her first real meeting with Levinsky, a public defender and her 2nd defense attorney (she bloodied the first one in court). 

ex. "INT. TINY CONFERENCE ROOM - NEW YORK COUNTY PRISON HOSPITAL

... LEVINSKY (he pulls a file from his briefcase): Well, what we've got here is a seven-thirty process, a process whereby...the patient does not understand the charge against him or her, and whereby a patient is incapable of assisting in his or her own defense.

CLAUDIA: You married?

LEVINSKY: What?

CLAUDIA: You got a missus?

LEVINSKY: Yes.

CLAUDIA: She give good head?

LEVINSKY: Look,, you want to talk about your situation, here? You've been indicted for manslaughter, first degree.

CLAUDIA: I know all that. Tell me why you're really here.

LEVINSKY: The truth?

CLAUDIA (getting worked up): No, Levinsky, the bullshit. I love listening to bullshit, especially when I'm drowning in it. I know why you're here. You're here to see for yourself if I'm crazy -- no, no, no, you're here to see just how crazy I am.

LEVINSKY: Two psychiatrists say you're incompetent.

CLAUDIA: Morrison and Arantes. Frick 'n Frack. Arantes can barely speak English and Morrison's a very weird guy. I flashed and he didn't even look. (she flashes now) How 'bout you, Levinsky, are you weird, too?

LEVINSKY: I must be okay, I'm looking.

She covers up and walks across the room.

LEVINSKY: Your mother said to tell you she loves you.

CLAUDIA: Fuck my mother! Why didn't you tell me you were working for them?

LEVINSKY: Look, lady, I came here to do my job in good faith. You can cooperate and maybe it goes your way. Or, you can yell at me and tomorrow I move to commit and that's the end of that.

CLAUDIA: You creep lawyers are all alike. As long as you get your fee you don't care who goes where for how long.

LEVINSKY: Hey, wait a minute. I don't take any money from you.

CLAUDIA: Now...this one comes in here, wearing the worst tie I've ever seen, and tells me that if I don't kiss ass he's going to walk out on me. Well, walk!

LEVINSKY: And, be held in contempt of court? No thank you. I'm stuck with you...."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how it was clear from the start what Claudia wanted, but her motives and secrets were only revealed little by little. It kept me engaged.  

Nuts (1987)(final draft, dated 10/15/86)
by Darryl Ponicsan and Alvin Sargent
Based on the play by Tom Topor

Monday, May 7, 2018

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Electric Horseman (1979) - Filled with Messages, But Not a "Message Movie"

[Quick Summary: A retired rodeo star-turned-breakfast-cereal-spokesman steals a maltreated $14M spokes-horse, and is pursued by a journalist looking for a story.]

Roger Ebert's review made me think:
...But although this is a movie filled with messages, it's not a message movie. (1) The characters and plot seem to tap-dance past the serious stuff (2) and concentrate on the human relationships. (3)
(1) I liked that this is a movie with a message (vs. message movie*).

(2) Ebert is right that it did "tap-dance past the serious stuff." However, I don't think every movie is meant to address/solve all the ills of the world.

(3) This was the light bulb moment for me.  The reason that the film works is because of the focus on the human relationships.

For example, how do we discuss treating animals right (without being preachy)?

Create conflict that is based on character (caring for animals vs. not caring). 

In the scene below, notice how Sonny is only one who is concerned about the horse.  Everyone else has a different priority - the show, employers, etc.

ex. "INT. "SHOWROOM" - ON STAGE - NIGHT

Only the work lights. The giant room is in blackness. Sonny half listens to DANNY MILES, the famous industrial show director. Eight showgirls stand on stage, bored.

DANNY: After the circle, you dismount. come down to your mark, stage right --

SONNY: --Where's the horse?

DANNY: Bring in the damn horse! [Even the language exposes how the horse is seen as a thing and not valued.]

Sonny stares into the darkened room. The horse is led on stage. A Wrangler maneuvers him to a mark.

DANNY (continuing): Spot, please!

A spotlight hits Rising Star. He gleams.

DANNY (continuing): God, he's a beauty. Look at him shine. [To him, horse = thing.]

CLOSE - SONNY

On his turf. He looks the horse over appraisingly, runs his hand down his shoulder, smells his hand.

SONNY: You'd shine, too, if you were covered with fly spray.

DANNY (to Wrangler): Now, Sonny rides in, circles three times -- applause, applause, applause -- then he dismounts on this mark. (to Sonny) Sonny, your first line is -- [He is not paying attention to Sonny.]

Sonny isn't listening. He walks around Rising Star, patting him, clucking. He listens to the horse's labored breathing.

SONNY: He's got shipping fever.

WRANGLER: Had the vet his afternoon.

SONNY: What you got him on?

WRANGLER: Penicillin.

A cynical look from Sonny.

WRANGLER (continuing): ...and a little Bute.

SONNY: For that tendon?

Wrangler nods.

SONNY (continuing): Should be bandaged.

WRANGLER: They think it don't look right...you know, for the public. [This conflict reveals that the wrangler knows what is best for the horse, yet he still compromises.]

SONNY: Muscled up pretty good, isn't he?

DANNY: Sonny, the first thing you do after you dismount is you say -- [Still not paying attention.]

SONNY: --your horse is stoned.

WRANGLER: How we gonna get him up in front of all these people...with lights...and cables, and... [He's bowed to pressure.]

DANNY: Excuse me, gentlemen! Sonny, your first line is --"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To avoid the "message movie" trap, keep focused on the relationships, and how the character's beliefs/desires/wants conflict with others.

The Electric Horseman (1979)(draft dated 8/30/78, by Alvin Sargent (uncredited))**
by Robert Garland
Screen story by Paul Gaer and Robert Garland
Story by Shelly Burton

*Message movies tend to be too preachy for me.  Actually, I wouldn't mind a little preaching, as long as it was entertaining, but it's a hard balance to find.

**As you may have noticed, I've been reading a string of Alvin Sargent scripts.  Here, I'm guessing that he was hired to do a rewrite polish, given the date on this script and having just written Bobby Deerfield for director Sidney Pollack.

perPage: 10, numPages: 8, var firstText ='First'; var lastText ='Last'; var prevText ='« Previous'; var nextText ='Next »'; } expr:href='data:label.url' expr:href='data:label.url + "?&max-results=7"'