TODAY'S NUGGET: Miami Vice (2006) - Growing Romance Between Characters

[Quick Summary: Crockett and Tubbs try to thwart a Central American drug deal.]

I find this quote from Michael Mann interesting:

I know the ambition behind it, but it didn’t fulfill that ambition for me because we couldn’t shoot the real ending. But whole parts of the film are very evocative to me still, especially when it comes to the romance. It was about how far somebody goes when they’re undercover, and what that really means because, ultimately, who you become is yourself on steroids, manifested out there in the real world. There’s an intensity to your living that’s incredible — the relationships in that world, the really heightened experience of it. And this is from speaking to some people who’ve done a lot of very dangerous, deep undercover over long periods. That’s what Crockett does.

First, I liked the ending of this first draft - it's quite romantic.

Second, I don't really associate "romantic" with Michael Mann, so the amount of romance in the story surprised me (somewhere between 40-50%).

It's a subtle trust thing that grows between Crockett and Isabella, as symbolized by her finally accepting sunglasses in the scene below:

EXT. OPEN OCEAN - "BORN TO WIN"

cuts and then leaps over swells. In seven seconds they're doing over 70 knots. And Crockett holds it there as...

ISABELLA

The wind whips her hair behind her, now. The two are small against the smooth 50' long hull.  Crockett hands her wraparound shades for her eyes. She doesn't want them...

CROCKETT (through headset): So where's the best place for mojitas?

ISABELLA: Bedeguita del Medio. It's the only place for mojitas...

CROCKETT: Where's that?

ISABELLA: Off a little alley with cobblestones. Hemingway went there...

CROCKETT: The Keys?

ISABELLA: Havana.

CROCKETT: Havana? Cubans don't like us or my business...

ISABELLA: Are you afraid? (smiles; Crockett shakes his head "no") Good. And you don't need a visa. Cause you're with me.

EXT. OPEN OCEAN - OVERHEAD "BORN TO WIN" - DAY

rockets from one swell to the next, getting airborne. Wind and salt electrify Isabella.  She turns to Crockett and smiles, putting on the glasses, now. Crockett gestures to her knees.  She should keep them bent. Crockett pushes it to 75 knots...

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The dangerous situation + high stakes make falling in love an even higher tightrope...or addictive experience, depending on how you look at it.

Miami Vice (2006)(9/22/04, 1st draft)
by Michael Mann
Based on "Miami Vice" created by Anthony Yerkovich

TODAY'S NUGGET: Collateral (2004) - Action Gains Depth from Character

[Quick Summary: Max, an innocent L.A. taxi driver, is roped into assisting Vincent, an assassin who is picking off five victims in one night.]

THREE THOUGHTS:

1) "This is a rare thriller that's as much character study as sound and fury." Also, it's rare that a script 167 pgs. (yes, 167) reads half as long.

2) Action gains depth from character.

I was surprised that the script dared (dared!) break away from the 5 assassinations ...and make a pit stop to visit Max's mom in the hospital?  I loved it.

Mann is working in a genre with "Collateral," as he was in "Heat" (1995), but he deepens genre through the kind of specific detail that would grace a straight drama. Consider a scene where Vincent asks (or orders) Max to take him to the hospital where Max's mother is a patient. The mother is played by Irma P. Hall (the old lady in the Coens' "The Lady-Killers"), and she makes an instant impression, as a woman who looks at this man with her son, and intuits that everything might not be right, and keeps that to herself.

These scenes are so much more interesting than the standard approach of the shifty club owner or the comic-relief Big Mama. Mann allows dialogue into the kind of movie that many directors now approach as wall-to-wall action. Action gains a lot when it happens to convincing individuals, instead of to off-the-shelf action figures. - Roger Ebert (my emphasis)

3) Why does this hospital scene work here?

First, the more we learn about character, the higher the stakes.
- ex.  Max's mom has been bothering the dispatcher because Max has not shown up for his nightly visit.  Max is a dutiful, henpecked son. 
- ex. Vincent makes them go because he thinks changes in routine are suspicious.

Second, more stakes = more leverage, as Vincent learns below:

ex.  INT. HOSPITAL ROOM, LOWER FLOOR - MAX - NIGHT

MAX: Hey, mom. How many times do I have to ask you not to do that?

IDA: Do what?

MAX: Talk about me like...I'm...not...in the room, here.

IDA (to Vincent): What's he sayin'?

VINCENT: Ida, he says he's standing right here. In the room. Here.

IDA (to Max): Yesss, you are, honey. (back to Vincent) He's sensitive.

VINCENT: I know. But I'm sure you're proud of him.

IDA (directed at Max): Of course I'm proud. You know, he started with nothing. Look at him today. Here. Vegas. Reno...

Vincent looks at Max...squirming under the exposure.

MAX: Mom, Vincent's not interested. (to Vincent) Let's go.

VINCENT: No. I am interested.

IDA: What's your name, again?

VINCENT: Vincent...

MAX: I came to see you. I saw you. You look fine. Let's go.

He's kissed her and wants to get out of there.

IDA: Limousine companies.

VINCENT: Yeah?

IDA He drives famous people around, you know?

VINCENT: Limousine companies? What an achievement...

Max heads for the door...

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really like the character stuff because stakes deepen layers, which is emotionally enriching (vs. non-stop wall-to-wall action that can be emotionally numbing).

Collateral (2004)(8/24/03 draft w/revisions)
by Stuart Beattie, with revisions by Frank Darabont, Michael Mann

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Insider (1999) - Subtext --> Actors --> Aha! Bridge

[Quick Summary: 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman fights his parent company (CBS) which shuts down his hot story about tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand.]

In an interview, writer/director Michael Mann stated that his focus was subtext:

INTERVIEWER: There seem to be five things going on in every scene.

MANN: I wanted to direct, I tried to direct the subtext.

He then mentions a particular scene (below):
(Note that:
- Wigand has been fired from working at B&W, a tobacco company.
- Wigand is bound by a confidentiality agreement to B& W, but wants to talk.
- Lowell is asking for Wigand's help on a case unrelated to B&W.)

 INT. A HOTEL ROOM, LOUISVILLE - EARLY EVENING

...WIGAND: Should I just take the documents now?

LOWELL: If you want to do it.

He turns to leave...Lowell gets the door for him...Wigand momentarily slows...

WIGAND: I worked as the head of Research and Development for Brown & Williamson Tobacco company. I was a Corporate Vice President. Mr. Bergman...

And he goes out the door... Lowell's still. Wigand's job title resonates. Lowell turns to the window, casually looking into the early evening...and he comes face to face with what Wigand was staring at, The Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company Headquarters Building, lit up right across the street...

Mann spoke about how the actors played the subtext to get us to the aha! moment:

Al Pacino just took over Lowell’s great reporter’s intuition to sit there and laser-scan Jeffrey with his eyes. You know, he looks at him, looks at him, and doesn’t move, until, after all the fidgeting and shuffling with the papers, Russell, as Jeffrey, gets to say his great line—”I was a corporate vice president”—with the attitude “Once upon a time, I was a very important person.” And that [Mann snaps his fingers] is when Lowell has it. Suddenly, here’s the significance of this meeting: “He’s the former head of research and development at Browne & Williamson Tobacco Company, and he wants to talk to me.” Without hitting anything on the head with exposition, without any of that awful dialogue, like “Boy, have I got a lead which may give us the newsbreak of the decade,” you know that Lowell knows he’s on the scent of a helluva story.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This example shows what subtext is needed to be on the page for the actors to play that kind of subtext.

The Insider (1999)(11/5/99 draft)
by Eric Roth and Michael Mann

TODAY'S NUGGET: Last of the Mohicans (1992) - Describing What the Insult Feels Like

[Quick Summary: An Englishman, adopted as a boy by the Mohicans, fights off French soldiers and a Huron war party.]

SHORT VERSION: It's a fine script for the historical drama it is trying to convey.  However, I'm not sure why I wasn't as moved as I'd hoped.

MY FAVORITE LINE: I thought the descriptor of Cora (below) was very accurate in terms of how the men view her.

Also, it shows how Heyward, who wants to marry Cora, was a bad match. 

INT. MUNRO'S HEADQUARTERS - CORA - NIGHT

...WIDEN: Heyward, Munro, Cora. We've entered mid-argument. An adjutant comes and goes. Heyward and Munro are sensitive to appearances in front of the adjutant. Cora couldn't give a damn.

...HEYWARD: And who are these colonials to pass judgment on England's policies in her possessions? And come and go without so much as a "by your leave?"

CORA: They do not live their lives "by your leave." (beat) They hack it out of the wilderness with tehir own two hands, burying their dead along the way.

HEYWARD (distant): You are defending him because you've become infatuated with him.

Cora is having her intelligence written off as a hormone attack. [This perfectly describes what the insult feels like.] She contains her fury.

CORA: Duncan, you are a man with a few admirable qualities. But taken as a whole, I was wrong to have thought so highly of you.

Heyward's shot through the heart.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes only a metaphor can describe a feeling.

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)(7/31/90 2nd draft, revised)
by Michael Mann
Adapted by Michael Mann and Christopher Crowe
Based on the novel by James Fenimore Cooper and the 1936 screenplay by Philip Dunne

TODAY'S NUGGET: Manhunter (1986) - What "Cinematic" Looks Like On the Page

[Quick Summary: Graham, a forensic specialist needs Dr. Lecter's help to track down the Red Dragon, a serial killer.]

I've always known that screenwriting was difficult, but I didn't know WHY.

So far, I've realized:
1) It requires a certain kind of skill set.  Some have it, others don't.
2) NO ONE has been able to explain it well.
3) Reading scripts for gems is the only way I've been able to figure it out.

For example, you'll see the phrase "cinematic" thrown around a lot.  A script should be "cinematic." Do you know what that is?  I couldn't figure it out (see #2 above).

Luckily, there's a great example in today's script.

In the scene below:
- Graham (protagonist) has asked for Price to do further tests.
- They are getting results from Price over a speaker phone.
-  I think it's cinematic and lands well because its visuals rely on: a) the non-reaction of Graham AND b) the reaction of Springfield.
- I will also note that this is a skill only born from a lot of writing experience and the confidence from having written a great deal.*

INT. ATLANTA DETECTIVE BUREAU - SQUAD ROOM

...CRAWFORD: Jimmie, it's me, Jack Crawford, and you got Will Graham here.

JIMMIE PRICE (V.O.): I got a partial print with a tented arch that's probably a thumb and a fragment of a palm off the nail of Mrs. Leeds' left big toe. (beat) Thumbprint came off the oldest kid's left eye. It stood out against an eight-ball hemorrhage from the gunshot wound.

CRAWFORD: Can you make an identification off it?

JIMMIE PRICE (V.O.): Maybe. If he's ever been printed and in my Index.  It want to work these up in my own darkroom. I'll fax the prints down to you this afternoon.

Hangs up.

SPRINGFIELD

thought Graham was ridiculous about the eyes and the killer touching Mrs. Leeds. Now Springfield's expression is very changed.

GRAHAM'S

face is blank as he leaves. The gratification is all in Crawford's look to Springfield. Springfield watches Graham all the way to the door, then follows him out.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Though it was visual, I really felt Graham get his due from Springfield. To me, that's what is cinematic: Seeing what the characters feel.**

Manhunter (1986)(8/12/85 draft)
by Michael Mann
Based on the novel, "Red Dragon," by Thomas Harris

*Why do I say this? Because the writer is ending a scene in a very cinematic, visual manner and it works.  Because only someone who has written a lot and knows what works does not care that every screenwriting book will say it is "incorrect" because it should "show, don't tell."

**Or as actor Toby Jones put it: "...the thing about screen acting is that you can read people's thoughts. You are trying to register something inside and usually the eyes in cinema are where you will register that."