[Quick Summary: As three sisters juggle how to care for their dying father, old resentments and memories resurface.]
This script was ok, but not my favorite.
However, I did like the scene below. It shows us that Eve is already the responsible, steady, middle child at age 16, all in one scene:
ex. "INT. LIVING ROOM - WESTWOOD HOUSE - CONTINUOUS
Lou, his back to her, is pouring Scotch.
He turns and looks at his daughter. A sheepish smile.
LOU: Hey. I'm all you've got.
He sinks down on the couch, glass in hand and, while still sitting up, passes out.
HOLD ON THE ROOM a beat...
Eve looks at him. She walks over and takes the glass out of his hand and puts it on the table.
She picks up his feet and moves them onto the couch. He is now half-sitting, half-lying, in a very awkward position.
A beat while Eve evaluates whether she has doe all she can. Then, slowly and quietly, she backs out of the room.
ROLL CREDITS
END CREDITS"
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I could tell a lot about who Eve was and her maturity level, from her actions in just one scene.
Hanging Up (2000)(draft dated 4/29/97)
by Nora Ephron and Delia Ephron
Based on the novel by Delia Ephron
Monday, December 31, 2018
Sunday, December 23, 2018
TODAY'S NUGGET: Altered States (1980) - Dialogue + Rhythm = Building to a Specific Emotion
[Quick Summary: In his search for the Ultimate Truth, a scientist becomes obsessed with a little known drug that brings his altered state of consciousness into reality.]
I had difficulty getting my mind around this script. The story is odd:
- The ambivalent scientist agrees to marry another scientist, who loves him.
- She accepts that he's not sure what love is. He says it's the only way to keep her.
- Seven years and two kids later, they divorce.
- She still loves him, but he sees his life as a sham.
- He leaves her and the kids to search for Self.
- He finds a Mexican hallucinogen that regresses his mind.
- He travels through time and space to his past human origins.
- He takes the hallucinogen home for research and unleashes results so scary that his colleagues and ex-wife try to intervene.
However, my interest in these characters did not diminish despite other distractions.*
Why? I think it's because Paddy Chayefsky knew how to wield words to build clear emotions. In the scene below, he used dialogue + rhythm = feels like bursting out.
A few suggestions as you read:
- Don't be afraid of the length and dense black print.
- Try skimming for content. Focus on HOW he says the words, not WHAT.
- Notice that each paragraph is actually one thought.
- Notice the rhythm is fast, unfettered.
- Each thought (one per paragraph) are verbose BIG ideas + Fast rhythm = Three Big Ideas squashed together in a small space makes it feel like an explosion.
Prior to the scene below:
- Jessup, the protagonist, has just announced to his friend Rosenberg that he is divorcing Emily.
- Jessup then suggests all his friends go to dinner with him and Emily.
ex. "INT. DOM'S RESTAURANT
...If we can make anything out of all this esoteric jabber, it will be Jessup's discourse to Sylvia Rosenberg, sitting at his right. Jessup, who is having a lot more wine than he usually does, is loaded and talking loudly -
JESSUP (to Sylvia Rosenberg): -- As a matter of act, the year I spent in India was disappointing. No matter how you slice it, yoga is still a state-specific technology operating in the service of a n a priori belief system, not much different from other trance-inducing techniques. Of course, the breathing exercises are effective as hell. The breathing becomes an entity in itself, an actual state of consciousness in its own right, so that your body breathing becomes the embodiment of your breath. But it's still a renunciatory technique to achieve a predetermined trance state, what the zen people call an isness, a very pure narcissism, Freud's oceanic feeling. What dignifies the yogic practices is that the belief system itself is not truly religious. There is no Buddhist god per se. It is the Self, the individual Mind, that contains immortality and ultimate truth -
EMILY (interrupting her own colloquy to shout from her end of the table): What the hell's not religious about that? You've simply replaced God with the Original Self!
JESSUP (shouts back): Yes, but we've localized it! At least, we know where the Self is! It's in our own minds! (he stands, not too sturdily) It's a form of human energy! Our atoms are six billion years old! We've got six billion years of memory in our minds! Hell, our hydrogen atoms are even older! (he has begun to weave a bit in and out of his place at the table) Memory is energy! It doesn't disappear! It's still in there! (he wheels to Rosenberg, ignoring the nervous interest he is causing at neighboring tables) There's a physiological pathway to our earlier consciousnesses! There has to be! And I'm telling you it's in the goddamned limbic system! -
PARRISH (roaring happily): Jessup, you are a whacko!
JESSUP: What's whacko about it, Mason? I'm a man in search of his true self. How archtypically American can you get? Everybody's looking for their true selves. We're all trying to fulfill ourselves, understand ourselves, get in touch with ourselves, face the reality of ourselves, explore ourselves, expand ourselves. Ever since we dispensed with God, we've got nothing but ourselves to explain this meaningless horror of life. Well, I think that true self, the original self, that first self is a real, mensurate, quantifiable thing, tangible and incarnate, and I'm going to find the fucker -"
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was impressed that Jessup's emotional life was so strong that I stayed interested, despite the copious scientific gobblety-gook.
Altered States (1980)(undated 1978 draft)
by Paddy Chayefsky
Based on his novel.
* ex. Length (141 pgs.), dense narrative, long scientific exposition, etc.
I had difficulty getting my mind around this script. The story is odd:
- The ambivalent scientist agrees to marry another scientist, who loves him.
- She accepts that he's not sure what love is. He says it's the only way to keep her.
- Seven years and two kids later, they divorce.
- She still loves him, but he sees his life as a sham.
- He leaves her and the kids to search for Self.
- He finds a Mexican hallucinogen that regresses his mind.
- He travels through time and space to his past human origins.
- He takes the hallucinogen home for research and unleashes results so scary that his colleagues and ex-wife try to intervene.
However, my interest in these characters did not diminish despite other distractions.*
Why? I think it's because Paddy Chayefsky knew how to wield words to build clear emotions. In the scene below, he used dialogue + rhythm = feels like bursting out.
A few suggestions as you read:
- Don't be afraid of the length and dense black print.
- Try skimming for content. Focus on HOW he says the words, not WHAT.
- Notice that each paragraph is actually one thought.
- Notice the rhythm is fast, unfettered.
- Each thought (one per paragraph) are verbose BIG ideas + Fast rhythm = Three Big Ideas squashed together in a small space makes it feel like an explosion.
Prior to the scene below:
- Jessup, the protagonist, has just announced to his friend Rosenberg that he is divorcing Emily.
- Jessup then suggests all his friends go to dinner with him and Emily.
ex. "INT. DOM'S RESTAURANT
...If we can make anything out of all this esoteric jabber, it will be Jessup's discourse to Sylvia Rosenberg, sitting at his right. Jessup, who is having a lot more wine than he usually does, is loaded and talking loudly -
JESSUP (to Sylvia Rosenberg): -- As a matter of act, the year I spent in India was disappointing. No matter how you slice it, yoga is still a state-specific technology operating in the service of a n a priori belief system, not much different from other trance-inducing techniques. Of course, the breathing exercises are effective as hell. The breathing becomes an entity in itself, an actual state of consciousness in its own right, so that your body breathing becomes the embodiment of your breath. But it's still a renunciatory technique to achieve a predetermined trance state, what the zen people call an isness, a very pure narcissism, Freud's oceanic feeling. What dignifies the yogic practices is that the belief system itself is not truly religious. There is no Buddhist god per se. It is the Self, the individual Mind, that contains immortality and ultimate truth -
EMILY (interrupting her own colloquy to shout from her end of the table): What the hell's not religious about that? You've simply replaced God with the Original Self!
JESSUP (shouts back): Yes, but we've localized it! At least, we know where the Self is! It's in our own minds! (he stands, not too sturdily) It's a form of human energy! Our atoms are six billion years old! We've got six billion years of memory in our minds! Hell, our hydrogen atoms are even older! (he has begun to weave a bit in and out of his place at the table) Memory is energy! It doesn't disappear! It's still in there! (he wheels to Rosenberg, ignoring the nervous interest he is causing at neighboring tables) There's a physiological pathway to our earlier consciousnesses! There has to be! And I'm telling you it's in the goddamned limbic system! -
PARRISH (roaring happily): Jessup, you are a whacko!
JESSUP: What's whacko about it, Mason? I'm a man in search of his true self. How archtypically American can you get? Everybody's looking for their true selves. We're all trying to fulfill ourselves, understand ourselves, get in touch with ourselves, face the reality of ourselves, explore ourselves, expand ourselves. Ever since we dispensed with God, we've got nothing but ourselves to explain this meaningless horror of life. Well, I think that true self, the original self, that first self is a real, mensurate, quantifiable thing, tangible and incarnate, and I'm going to find the fucker -"
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was impressed that Jessup's emotional life was so strong that I stayed interested, despite the copious scientific gobblety-gook.
Altered States (1980)(undated 1978 draft)
by Paddy Chayefsky
Based on his novel.
* ex. Length (141 pgs.), dense narrative, long scientific exposition, etc.
Monday, December 17, 2018
TODAY'S NUGGET: Rainmaker (1997) - How to Show a Character Revealing Knowledge
[Quick Summary: While studying to take the bar exam, Rudy takes on a case of a dying leukemia patient whose insurance company refused to pay for treatment.]
What is the most interesting way to show a character revealing knowledge, especially when he/she knows something that the audience does not?
I found a few clues in this script:
1) The character does not need to explain everything. It leaves some mystery!
2) Allow for the audience to make the leap of logic (but don't require huge leaps of logic that no one can follow).
Notice below:
1) In the first scene, Rudy has an idea who is wiretapping his phone, but he does not tell us. Instead, there is a cut to a conversation with Rudy and Deck.
2) This leap is easy to follow: Rudy thinks he knows who the wiretapper is --> Rudy and Deck lay a trap for the wiretapper.
ex. INT. CLUB AMBER - DAY
Rudy, Deck and Butch are seated in a corner booth, having drinks and looking at the performers.
BUTCH: The bugging device is manufactured in Czechoslovakia, medium grade in quality, and feeds a transmitter located somewhere close by. It wasn't planted by cops or feds.
DECK: Someone else is listening.
Rudy is stunned.
BUTCH: Who else would it be?
RUDY: I've got an idea. Go to a pay phone...
DISSOLVE TO:
EXT. PAY PHONE - DAY
Deck is at an outdoor pay phone.
DECK (on phone): Just checking in. you need anything from downtown?
INT. RUDY'S OFFICE - DAY
Rudy is on the phone, talking to Deck. He's sewing a button on his jacket.
RUDY: Nah. Oh, guess who wants to settle now?
DECK (O.S.): Who?
RUDY: Dot Black.
DECK (O.S.)(incredulous and phony): Dot Black?
RUDY: Yeah, I stopped by this morning to check on her, took her a fruitcake. She said she just doesn't have the willpower to suffer through the trial, wants to settle right now.
DECK (O.S.): How much?
RUDY: Said she'd take a hundred and seventy five...
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a much more creative way of showing what Rudy knows ("I think I know who it is" ---> lay trap) rather than boring exposition.
Rainmaker (1997)(1st draft, dated 7/11/96)
by Francis Ford Coppola
Adapted from the novel by John Grisham
What is the most interesting way to show a character revealing knowledge, especially when he/she knows something that the audience does not?
I found a few clues in this script:
1) The character does not need to explain everything. It leaves some mystery!
2) Allow for the audience to make the leap of logic (but don't require huge leaps of logic that no one can follow).
Notice below:
1) In the first scene, Rudy has an idea who is wiretapping his phone, but he does not tell us. Instead, there is a cut to a conversation with Rudy and Deck.
2) This leap is easy to follow: Rudy thinks he knows who the wiretapper is --> Rudy and Deck lay a trap for the wiretapper.
ex. INT. CLUB AMBER - DAY
Rudy, Deck and Butch are seated in a corner booth, having drinks and looking at the performers.
BUTCH: The bugging device is manufactured in Czechoslovakia, medium grade in quality, and feeds a transmitter located somewhere close by. It wasn't planted by cops or feds.
DECK: Someone else is listening.
Rudy is stunned.
BUTCH: Who else would it be?
RUDY: I've got an idea. Go to a pay phone...
DISSOLVE TO:
EXT. PAY PHONE - DAY
Deck is at an outdoor pay phone.
DECK (on phone): Just checking in. you need anything from downtown?
INT. RUDY'S OFFICE - DAY
Rudy is on the phone, talking to Deck. He's sewing a button on his jacket.
RUDY: Nah. Oh, guess who wants to settle now?
DECK (O.S.): Who?
RUDY: Dot Black.
DECK (O.S.)(incredulous and phony): Dot Black?
RUDY: Yeah, I stopped by this morning to check on her, took her a fruitcake. She said she just doesn't have the willpower to suffer through the trial, wants to settle right now.
DECK (O.S.): How much?
RUDY: Said she'd take a hundred and seventy five...
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a much more creative way of showing what Rudy knows ("I think I know who it is" ---> lay trap) rather than boring exposition.
Rainmaker (1997)(1st draft, dated 7/11/96)
by Francis Ford Coppola
Adapted from the novel by John Grisham
Monday, December 10, 2018
TODAY'S NUGGET: A Simple Twist of Fate (1994) - Updating a Novel; How Do We Know a Character is Changing?
[Quick Summary: After a 1 y.o. girl stumbles into his house, a lonely, gold hoarding, furniture builder raises her as his own child, until her real father show up years later.]
TWO THOUGHTS:
1) UPDATING A NOVEL. This is an excellent update of a 1861 novel. It is humorous. It is sets up and pays off beautifully. The characters are well defined.
However, something was missing for me. Perhaps Rogert Ebert knew why:
This script was helpful in reminding me that we need:
a) To show WHY a character is changing
b) Then to show the character MAKING DIFFERENT DECISIONS than before.
Before the scenes below:
- Michael lost a wife (to infidelity) and a child (he thought was his but it wasn't).
- He now builds custom wood furniture. He cashes in his checks for gold coins.
- He is now fostering Mathilda, a 1 y.o. orphan.
-------------------------------------------------
Scene #1: Why Michael changes. Notice the emotional connections.
ex. "INT. MICHAEL'S WORKSHOP - DAY
Michael is hard at work building a playpen. The child, wearing overly-large safety goggles, watches him. Michael concentrates on his work, and hears something uttered from the child.
MICHAEL (off-handed): What?
MATHILDA: Dad-dy.
He looks at Mathilda and she stares at him giggling. The full importance of what has happened hits him.
--------------------------------------------------
Scene #2: Michael makes a different decision than a previous visit.
ex. INT. MRS. SIMON'S ANTIQUES - DAY
Michael cashes a check at the antique store, but this time, instead of getting gold, he loads up on things a baby might enjoy.
MRS. SIMON: Hope you don't mind me saying it, but it's been a while since you bought something for someone else.
Michael looks at the baby rattle in his hand and recognizes the truth, but responds with a joke:
MICHAEL (straight-faced): This is for me.
He stoically shakes the rattle."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: First, take the time to lay out WHY the character is changing --> Then show the character MAKING A DIFFERENT DECISION.
A Simple Twist of Fate (1994)(drafted dated 8/2/93)
by Steve Martin
Adapted from the novel "Silas Marner," by George Eliot
TWO THOUGHTS:
1) UPDATING A NOVEL. This is an excellent update of a 1861 novel. It is humorous. It is sets up and pays off beautifully. The characters are well defined.
However, something was missing for me. Perhaps Rogert Ebert knew why:
The point is, though, that they are Victorians, living in the last century among fears and mores we no longer possess. When you take a Victorian story and plop it down in the 20th century, as "A Simple Twist of Fate" does, you get a strange interruption of the rhythm - as if the characters are dancing to unheard music. They do things that are inexplicable unless you realize they're living according to the codes and cliches of the last century....Try as I might, I just couldn't accept this Victorian story in modern dress....2) HOW DO WE KNOW A CHARACTER IS CHANGING? This question haunts me. How does one show the process of change??
This script was helpful in reminding me that we need:
a) To show WHY a character is changing
b) Then to show the character MAKING DIFFERENT DECISIONS than before.
Before the scenes below:
- Michael lost a wife (to infidelity) and a child (he thought was his but it wasn't).
- He now builds custom wood furniture. He cashes in his checks for gold coins.
- He is now fostering Mathilda, a 1 y.o. orphan.
-------------------------------------------------
Scene #1: Why Michael changes. Notice the emotional connections.
ex. "INT. MICHAEL'S WORKSHOP - DAY
Michael is hard at work building a playpen. The child, wearing overly-large safety goggles, watches him. Michael concentrates on his work, and hears something uttered from the child.
MICHAEL (off-handed): What?
MATHILDA: Dad-dy.
He looks at Mathilda and she stares at him giggling. The full importance of what has happened hits him.
--------------------------------------------------
Scene #2: Michael makes a different decision than a previous visit.
ex. INT. MRS. SIMON'S ANTIQUES - DAY
Michael cashes a check at the antique store, but this time, instead of getting gold, he loads up on things a baby might enjoy.
MRS. SIMON: Hope you don't mind me saying it, but it's been a while since you bought something for someone else.
Michael looks at the baby rattle in his hand and recognizes the truth, but responds with a joke:
MICHAEL (straight-faced): This is for me.
He stoically shakes the rattle."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: First, take the time to lay out WHY the character is changing --> Then show the character MAKING A DIFFERENT DECISION.
A Simple Twist of Fate (1994)(drafted dated 8/2/93)
by Steve Martin
Adapted from the novel "Silas Marner," by George Eliot
Monday, December 3, 2018
TODAY'S NUGGET: Year of the Dragon (1985) - Showing Respect, With Irony
[Quick Summary: A blunt, newly promoted police captain vows to clear Chinatown of the Asian mafia who is importing heroin.]
TWO RANDOM THOUGHTS:
1) A VERY BLUNT SCRIPT. Stan is a good, but unpopular, cop, who bulldozes anything blocking his mission to wipe out the Asian mafia.
He takes life like a linebacker - hit, move on, hit, move on. He feels things, but there is little contemplation. He is blunt, with little finesse.
This script mimics this: It is mostly action - hit, move on, hit, move on. It is also lonely and sad. Everyone else suffers the consequences of Stan's workaholism.
2) SHOWING RESPECT. There have been many criticisms about this film.
However, I liked one scene in particular because:
- It gives us a rare moment to breathe.
- It simultaneously is credible for this culture (showing respect for one's elders) AND shows irony.
Previous to the scene below:
- Uncle Yung was the mafia leader. Tai was hungry to be leader.
- Uncle Yung's restaurant was just ransacked by thugs.
- Uncle Yung does not know that Tai secretly hired these thugs.
- At the mafia meeting, Tai unseated Uncle Yung.
Notice how Tai is "smoothing Uncle's exit" with a show of respect, yet it is still ironic (we know Tai is responsible, but Yung does not):
ex. "INT. SHANGHAI PALACE - DAY
A half dozen PLASTERERS fill in bullet holes on the wall. Yung is having a cup of tea. two dozen workmen -- PAINTERS, ELECTRICIANS, GLAZIERS are at work already putting the restaurant back in shape.
Joey Tai is sitting with Harry Yung.
A WAITER pours tea for them. Yung's dark-spectacled wife circles in the background.
They sip tea. Pause.
TAI: When will you be able to reopen for business?
YUNG: There is much to do as you can see.
TAI: Yes. It was gracious of you to serve me tea. (stands up) I must go.
Yung stands. The ceremony is brief and private. Tai hands over a red envelop, fat as a small pillow and full of money, with both hands. Yung does not open it.
But gives a sign it has been accepted. If there is pain there is no sign of it on his face. Nothing shows. The transition of power in Chinatown is complete.
As Tai walk out of the restaurant, Yung's wife joins him. Looking at Joey Tai, she mutters in Chinese, which we subtitle.
YUNG'S WIFE: In the presence of your enemy, hide your broken arms in your sleeve."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's ok to hide facts from the characters, but not the audience. I think this is why the irony works here.
Year of the Dragon (1985)(final draft, 9/4/84)
by Oliver Stone and Michael Cimino
Based on the novel by Robert Daley
TWO RANDOM THOUGHTS:
1) A VERY BLUNT SCRIPT. Stan is a good, but unpopular, cop, who bulldozes anything blocking his mission to wipe out the Asian mafia.
He takes life like a linebacker - hit, move on, hit, move on. He feels things, but there is little contemplation. He is blunt, with little finesse.
This script mimics this: It is mostly action - hit, move on, hit, move on. It is also lonely and sad. Everyone else suffers the consequences of Stan's workaholism.
2) SHOWING RESPECT. There have been many criticisms about this film.
However, I liked one scene in particular because:
- It gives us a rare moment to breathe.
- It simultaneously is credible for this culture (showing respect for one's elders) AND shows irony.
Previous to the scene below:
- Uncle Yung was the mafia leader. Tai was hungry to be leader.
- Uncle Yung's restaurant was just ransacked by thugs.
- Uncle Yung does not know that Tai secretly hired these thugs.
- At the mafia meeting, Tai unseated Uncle Yung.
Notice how Tai is "smoothing Uncle's exit" with a show of respect, yet it is still ironic (we know Tai is responsible, but Yung does not):
ex. "INT. SHANGHAI PALACE - DAY
A half dozen PLASTERERS fill in bullet holes on the wall. Yung is having a cup of tea. two dozen workmen -- PAINTERS, ELECTRICIANS, GLAZIERS are at work already putting the restaurant back in shape.
Joey Tai is sitting with Harry Yung.
A WAITER pours tea for them. Yung's dark-spectacled wife circles in the background.
They sip tea. Pause.
TAI: When will you be able to reopen for business?
YUNG: There is much to do as you can see.
TAI: Yes. It was gracious of you to serve me tea. (stands up) I must go.
Yung stands. The ceremony is brief and private. Tai hands over a red envelop, fat as a small pillow and full of money, with both hands. Yung does not open it.
But gives a sign it has been accepted. If there is pain there is no sign of it on his face. Nothing shows. The transition of power in Chinatown is complete.
As Tai walk out of the restaurant, Yung's wife joins him. Looking at Joey Tai, she mutters in Chinese, which we subtitle.
YUNG'S WIFE: In the presence of your enemy, hide your broken arms in your sleeve."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's ok to hide facts from the characters, but not the audience. I think this is why the irony works here.
Year of the Dragon (1985)(final draft, 9/4/84)
by Oliver Stone and Michael Cimino
Based on the novel by Robert Daley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)