TODAY'S NUGGET: Midnight Run (1988) - Intricate Setup-Payoffs in an Excellent Action-Comedy-Thriller

[Quick Summary: A stubborn former-cop-turned-bounty-hunter has to transport an equally stubborn, bail jumping accountant from NY to LA.]

I think the rousing success of this film was due to:
- 50% casting (an unlikely, equal pairing of De Niro* and Grodin) and
- 50% a strong script (two strong characters, motives, chemistry, conflict, irony).

The script is a fun and looks so easy.  However, on a closer examination, I am impressed at the high level of difficulty, as it is quite intricate.** 

First, every scene has great subtext and is doing double or triple duty. 

Second, every scene is dependent on other scenes for context, for setups and payoffs - whether it is the next scene, the previous, or even twenty scenes later.

For example, the scenes below is funny, but funnier if you know the context:
- Bail bondsman sent Walsh (protagonist) to pick up Bouchet, a bail jumper.
- Bail bondsman also sent Dorfler in case Walsh failed.
- Walsh got to Bouchet first, but Dorfler took the quarry into his car.
- Walsh outwitted Dorfler, and took Bouchet and Dorfler's car.
- Notice this scene reveals character (revenge on the unjust) and is also a payoff.

EXT. L.A. COUNTY JAIL PARKING LOT - NIGHT

Walsh drives down the street, slowing Dorfler's car outside of the L.A. County Jail parking lot. He pulls in. Part way.

INT. DORFLER'S CAR - NIGHT

Bouchet looks at Walsh.

WALSH: Open your door.

Bouchet, confused, opens the car door. Walsh does the same with his car door. Then he BACKS UP quickly.

EXT. L.A. COUNTY JAIL PARKING LOT - NIGHT

Both doors are RIPPED off the car by the two pillars at the entrance. Then, Walsh swings Dorfler's car into the parking lot through the exit. The tires EXPLODE as Walsh proceeds the wrong way over the metal teeth tha tblock incoming traffic. Walsh keeps moving and SLAMS into a brick wall, CRUNCHING the front end. Then Walsh puts it in reverse and ROARS into the parking spot he targets, CRUNCHING the rear end of the car against another brick wall.

INT. DORFLER'S CAR - NIGHT

Walsh looks at Bouchet.

WALSH: We get out here.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script is a reminder that nothing this intricate and impeccable exists without a lot of hard work.

Midnight Run (1988)(7/31/87 draft)
by George Gallo

* "Here he proves to have comic timing of the best sort - the kind that allows dramatic scenes to develop amusing undertones while still working seriously on the surface. It's one thing to go openly for a laugh. It's harder to do what he does and allow the nature of the character to get the laughs, while the character himself never seems to be trying to be funny."

**In an interview with director Martin Brest, he said that the "script was intricate in structure that it required the two to come onto the Paramount lot on the weekend when no one was around and spread out eight folding tables in their garden area to chart out every scene. ("George actually said, "I can't take the pressure," Brest laughed,)"

TODAY'S NUGGET: Ronin (1998) - One Key to Seeing Past the Bad Writing to the Good Story

[Quick Summary: In Nice, France, a group of double-crossed mercenaries hunt down the traitor.]

Is there a big difference between bad writing and bad story? Yes.

How long does it take to figure out they are not the same? A LONG, LONG time.

What is the reason?  It is hard to understand the mechanics of WHY a story works.  It is much easier to fix one (writing), than the other (story).

For example, the narratives in this script were often overwritten and gun-happy:

The movie is essentially bereft of a plot. There's an explanation at the end, but it's arbitrary and unnecessary.

So why is the story still good?  For me, it was the emotional stakes.  Also:

“Ronin” is really about characters, locations and behavior.

As you read the two scenes below, try to ignore the length and amount of detail.  

Instead, pay attention to the flow from one scene to the next, i.e., how Deirdre behaves on the street ---> Watcher cleaning nails above. 

EXT. BACK OUTSIDE - SAME TIME.

The PAY PHONE makes a sharp noise as it's cracked back into the cradle. Deirdre stands at the phone booth, lost in thought. Then, without warning - Deirdre spins around, pulling TWO GUNS from inside her coat. The move is fast, performed with the grace of a professional killer, as Deirdre scans the horizon, but nobody seems to be watching. Deirdre  pockets her guns and steps into the shadows of the street, the better to watch -

THE BAR - And as Deirdre watches the bar we watch her.
PULLING BACK from Deirdre, UP INTO THE AIR and then MOVING THROUGH TO - 

INT. A CHEAP APARTMENT - SAME TIME

LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW, down onto the street below. Barely visible we can see Deirdre. And staring at Deirdre - THE WATCHER. Somebody we're going to see periodically through the movie. Right now he's only a SILHOUETTE with a well-defined PAIR OF HANDS. And in those hands - A KNIFE. As the Watcher watches he slowly cleans his nails with the knife, methodically, perfectly. And he watches. First Deirdre, and then turning his attention to THE BAR. He's especially interested in the bar.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: What someone does and why (behavior and motive) are more compelling to watch than another twist of plot.

Ronin (1998)(5/20/97 draft)
by David Mamet (screenplay) and J.D. Zeik (story)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Don't Look Now (1973) - The "Infamous" Sex Scene - On the Page vs. How It Was Executed

[Quick Summary: A restorer and his wife are in Venice, Italy to repair a church, but are haunted by visions of their recently drowned 7 yr. old daughter.]

I've heard a couple of things about Nicholas Roeg directed films.  The first is that you'll either love them, or really, really hate them.*

The second is that the sex scene in this film often gets cited, both negatively (too graphic and unflattering) and positively:

...probably for the first time since Christine’s death, the Baxters make love. This scene is celebrated for its passion and truthfulness, but its full emotional impact comes through the editing: The lovemaking is intercut with shots of John and Laura dressing afterwards, so that they are at once together and apart, now and later, passionate and preoccupied. There is a poignancy here beyond all reason; in a movie concerned with time, this is the sequence that insists that our future is contained in our present--that everything passes, even ecstasy.

However, on the page, this "infamous" scene is quite tame (see below).  

So, writers, remember: Film is a collaborative medium, i.e., what you write is the beginning, not the end, and relies on others' acting, execution, and editing.

INT. BEDROOM. DAY.

...The MAID bobs and leaves.

JOHN pours the drinks.

LAURA: She was pretty.

She comes and puts her arms round his neck.

LAURA: But not off duty. It's been a long time.

JOHN: Have a drink.

LAURA: Why. Lie down. You're all wet.

She takes another towel and spreads it on the bed. He look at her for a moment, then stretches out on the bed. She takes a towel and starts drying him.
She dries his ears, his throat, his chest. It is a very sensuous process.
She drops her own towel, and lies beside him, her fingers running through his hair.
He looks at her.
She kisses him slowly.
He slides over on top of her.

LAURA: Welcome home.

                                                                            FADE OVER:

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a reminder to me that the writer can't take all the credit and can't take all the blame either.  Films are the sum efforts of a group.

Don't Look Now (1973)
by Allan Scott and Chris Bryant
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier

*Roger Ebert was a fan:

I’ve been though the film a shot at a time, paying close attention to the use of red as a marker in the visual scheme. It is a masterpiece of physical filmmaking, in the way the photography evokes mood and the editing underlines it with uncertainty.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) - When They Shot Your Script & It Was Awful; Unconscious Transitions

[Quick Summary: In London, Dracula pursues Mina, who is soon to be married to Jonathan, who is trapped by Dracula's 'wives' in Transylvania.]

I could follow this script but it meandered between 4-5 characters and did not drive to a climax. It felt... muddled (?)*

However, I did appreciate two things that I learned:

1) SOMETIMES NO ONE SEES THE FLAW. The writer recounts here about seeing a first cut that was faithful to his script...and it was awful.

Why couldn’t we have solved this in the script development stage before shooting to avoid ending up in the editing room with a film that does not work? How did I not realize this in the writing stages? How did Francis Ford Coppola, the Maestro living legend, not see this coming?

Answer: Sometimes no one sees it and you have to shoot it to get perspective.

2) UNCONSCIOUS TRANSITIONS. On the page, I find it difficult to move an audience from one location to another without them realizing it.

I thought the writer of this script did a nice job of expressing the unknown looming around Mina, while moving us into Dracula's introduction using a shadow image:

...A grotesque SHADOW moves across them and the room to:

INT. CONSERVATORY - EVENING

MED. CLOSE UP MINA
Mina fixes herself in the mirror before she joins them. The SHADOW moves across the mirror. 

MINA: If I were a man, I know what I would do to make a girl love me.

Slowly, her hands reach up pressing her own breasts. The SHADOW darkens her.

EXT. CASTLE DOORWAY - NIGHT

THE SAME SHADOW - VIEW PANS
revealing what created the shadow: DRACULA, a tall old man. Hands long and hairy. Face riveting, handsome like a Tartar --and horrible at the same time. His eyes a cold vivid blue. He puts down a bowl of fruit and Oriental lantern (that made shadow grotesque) for his guest. He stands there like a statue. We PULL BACK to include Harker.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that the shadow was used to foreshadow something scary is coming and also introduce us to Dracula.  Double duty!

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)(8/22/91 shooting script)
by Jim Hart

*I tend to agree with Roger Ebert's assessment: "The one thing the movie lacks is headlong narrative energy and coherence. There is no story we can follow well enough to care about."