TODAY'S NUGGET: Madly in Love (unproduced) - To Invest the Reader: Stay Emotionally True

[Quick Summary: Roger, a fear-filled writer in love, is robbed at home, and embarks on a journey to get his things back.]

I became curious about this unproduced script after I read this sentence in writer Alvin Sargent's obituary:

He mourned in recent years the failure to sell his screenplay Madly in Love, which he wrote in the late 1980s and which used his own terrifying experience at the hands of an armed intruder, as the inspiration for a romp about a man overcoming his phobias.

I feel the title is misleading, as it seems to indicate "light-hearted romance." 

Instead, it is a deeper character study of a fearful man who goes on a wild road trip, desperate not to be that afraid again. 

It's also a prime example of Sargent's invisible craftmanship for a smooth read.  

On the plot level, he has an uncanny ability to plunge the reader into the situation. 

On an emotional level, his familiar images are still interesting, and linger in one's memory long afterwards. 

For example, the script begins with the scene below:
- Roger (42) has an ex-wife, kids, and is now in love with Molly (35).
- Notice that this is a familiar walk-and-talk scene between two people on a beach...and yet, there is a depth.  We already see Roger's flaw...on p. 1-2!

EXT. BEACH - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - DUSK

...MOLLY: Great. But first let's walk. To that red neon sign.

Roger looks up the beach at a flashing red neon sign in the distance. Then he looks back toward the bluff where a green MUSTANG is parked. He turns to see she is already moving up the beach. Roger gets up. Reluctantly, he begins to move after her.

ROGER: We could watch the sunset from Omar's and have dessert.

MOLLY: Look at that sky.

Roger slows, then he stops.

MOLLY: C'mon, Rog. (turns, looks at him) Just to the sign.

He stares at her. Then shrugs with some sadly strange, defeated attitude. They look at each other.

MOLLY (CONT'D): You okay?

Then he turns toward the water, moves slowly onto some rocks. Molly continues to look at him. She understands something, and she starts slowly back. 

ROGER (looking out at water): I'm sorry. I can't help it.

MOLLY: It's all right.

They stand and both look out at the water and the sunset.

MOLLY (CONT'D): It doesn't matter.

ROGER: Sometimes things are just too far.

They sit on the rocks.

ROGER: I'm really sorry.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Why did I become so invested in these characters so soon? I think it's because the above scene was so emotionally true and left questions.

Obviously these two know each other well and still can't work it out....What now?

Madly in Love (unproduced)
by Alvin Sargent

TODAY'S NUGGET: Metropolis (1927) - How to Take Your Time in a Show, Not Tell, Moment

[Quick Summary: In a divided futuristic city, the son of the city's mastermind falls for a prophetess, who predicts a savior will unite them all and is then kidnapped.]

This story is silly!*  Even it's director thought so!** What can I learn from a SILENT, BLACK AND WHITE film?!

Yes, the plot is a bit thin.  However, I was surprised at well the silent images conveyed complex thoughts without dialogue ("show, not tell.")

One of the keys is that silent films take their time in the showing.  Their characters actually work out the logic, whereas sound films try to skip this step with dialogue.

For example, in the scene below:
- In his lab, Rotwang (mad scientist) and Fredersen (city mastermind and Freder's dad) are unable to decipher a mysterious diagram.
- Meanwhile, in the bowels of the machine room, Freder (protagonist) helps an injured worker by taking his place (and clothes).
- Title = title card of dialogue between action scenes.
- Watch how the script presents the problem (what is this diagram?) --> takes its time to work through the problem (Freder uncovers what it means).

Rotwang looks away with a smirk as Fredersen pulls the two diagrams presented to him by Grot out of his pocket. He unfolds them and holds them out to the inventor as he says:

TITLE: 'For months now, we have been finding these plans in the workers' clothing. What do they mean?'

At the dial,  Freder pulls a handkerchief from the pocket of the workers' overalls to wipe the sweat from his neck and face. A piece of paper falls out of the pocket, and as he is putting the handkerchief asway again, Freder notices it on the ground.

Freder's hand picks up the piece of paper, which has landed by his foot. He bends down to look at it - it is another of the plans.

At that moment, a maintenance worker carrying a spanner and a couple of oil cans descends a steel ladder into the machine room. 

He looks off at Freder...

While Freder continues to move the pointers feverishly in response to the flashing lights, simultaneously glancing at the paper clasped in his hand.

The maintenance worker reaches the bottom of the ladder...

As Freder, still looking at the plan, shakes his head.

A closer shot as he turns back to the dial, still looking at the plan.

The maintenance worker now steps from the ladder and walks slowly off to the right.

Freder is seen from behind, still looking at the piece of paper. The maintenance worker appears on the left, looking back furtively over his shoulder.

Freder turns as he addresses him in an undertone.

TITLE: 'At two - at the end of this shift - she has called another meeting.'

With another furtive glance around him, the maintenance worker disappears. Freder is bewildered. He looks at the piece of paper in his hand again, and calls after the worker: 'What?'

Then he turns back to the dial and frenziedly starts moving the pointers again.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Take your time in using the image to convey the thought, the feeling. Don't rely on sound, dialogue.  Cinema is moving images.

Metropolis (1927)
by Thea von Harbou

* H.G. Wells was not a fan: "The pity of it is that this unimaginative, incoherent, sentimentalizing, and make-believe film, wastes some very fine possibilities."

** Director Fritz Lang said in an interview: "Anyway, I didn’t like the picture—thought it was silly and stupid... It’s very hard to talk about pictures—should I say now that I like Metropolis because something I have seen in my imagination comes true, when I detested it after it was finished?”  

However, let's keep in mind he might have been influenced by the fact that: 1) the Nazis really admired the film and offered him a job, which is why he left Germany; and 2) his wife, the writer, got swept up in the Nazi mindset and they divorced shortly thereafter.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Private Eyes (1980) - The "Button" on A Sight Gag

[Quick Summary: Bumbling Inspector Winship and Dr. Tart investigate the deaths of Lord and Lady Morely, but barely keep up with clues, ghosts and missing bodies.]

I love Tim Conway and Don Knotts!  However I did not know this was the second of two films that they starred in together and that Conway co-wrote both.

Is the mystery good? Not particularly. The story leans heavily toward the comedy.

Is the script funny?  It is so-so, on the page.  It's definitely a two-hander and imagine that it is performance dependent on Conway and Knotts. 

I did like that the pratfalls and sight gags were well thought out.

For example, in the sight gag below:
- This scene has nothing to do with the mystery plot, but we do learn about Dr. Tart's character (impulsive, honest, follows orders).
- The writers take the time to lay out Tart's ludicrous dilemma, to eat or not eat.
- The writers end with a funny "button" on the scene:  Tart knows he's wrong to be eating now. What if it's evidence? ...And yet he takes a second one!

INT. PANTRY - NIGHT

There are a lot of canned goods in the pantry and homemade preserves. Plenty for the two to inspect. 

WINSHIP: Well, start looking.

Tart starts looking, then stops.

TART: What are we looking for?

WINSHIP: We are looking for evidence.

TART: Do you suspect Mr. Uwatsum?

Tart is still not sure what that might be. He takes down a Mason jar filled with peach halves. He looks at it, then decides to open it. Tart unscrews the top, smells the contents and is about to put it back down when he finds the aroma to his liking. He decides to sample one. He is forced to take a whole peach half. He puts it into his mouth and tries to eat it. There is a great deal of difficulty trying to manage the large peach half. (Similar to a person trying their first oyster.) Winship talks as Tart goes through the motions of trying to swallow the peach half. As Winship talks, he slowly becomes interested in Tart's controtions.

WINSHIP: I suspect everyone. That's my job. Everyone here has  motive to have killed the Morleys so we...

His curiosity gets the better of him after he stares at Tart trying to down the peach half.

WINSHIP (CONT'D): What are you doing?

TART (tries to talk): Beech.

WINSHIP: Beech?

Tart tries to correct him.

TART: Peech.

He spits on Winship.

TART (CONT'D): Orry.

He exits. Tart pops another peach into his mouth.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked the button on the scene because it was funny AND showed me a lot about Tart w/o any dialogue (heedless, impulsive, oblivious).

The Private Eyes (1980)(4/18/80, 4th rev. final draft)
by Tim Conway and John Myhers

TODAY'S NUGGET: A New Leaf (Unproduced) - Comedy w/Romance vs. Rom-Com?; A Smart Montage of Mental Fears

[Quick Summary: After squandering his inheritance, Henry decides to keep up his expensive lifestyle by marrying, and then murdering, a forgetful heiress.

MY THREE THOUGHTS:

1) UNPRODUCED SCRIPT. I rarely post unproduced scripts, but this is special.  

The acclaimed Elaine May directed A New Leaf (1971), which she adapted,  directed, and co-starred with Walter Matthau.

Then someone hired actor-writer Carrie Fisher to update it (the 1995 draft below).

2) WHAT GENRE IS IT? At first, I wondered if it was a comedy with romance or a romantic comedy. It is the former, but how can the reader tell?

COMEDY WITH ROMANCE = The story is about the protagonist on a funny journey or situation to solve a problem.  He/she may falls in love on the side.

ROMANTIC COMEDY = The story is about two protagonists' relationship, i.e., a two hander.  Both arc and change through learning to love the other person.

This script is very much focused on Henry, his goal (becoming rich again), and overcoming selfishness. Henrietta's arc is smaller, as she commits to Henry faster. 

3) A SMART MONTAGE OF FEARS. I was very impressed by how the following montage flowed on the page.  It shows Henry at home with fears playing across his mind:

...HOSTESS: We don't take reservations at Stauffers. You have about a twenty minute wait for a table. Stand in the back of the rope please.

Henry turns away from the mirror and faces INTO CAMERA. His expression is one of growing horror. Behind him the mirror goes blank, reflecting only his figure without background.

VOICE (O.S.): I'm sorry, Mr. Graham. The New York Athletic Club does not keep those members on its roster who are remiss in their dues.

The lobby of The New York Athletic Club suddenly MATERIALIZES in the mirror. Henry remains FACING CAMERA and speaking to off-camera clerk in tones of paranoid conviction.

HENRY: That's not it! It's my suit, isn't it?

Mr. Solomon suddenly appears in the mirror behind Henry and walks up to the desk. He lays a hand on Henry's shoulder. Both Henry's react.

SOLOMON: Don't waste your time, Mr. Graham. Come with me to the Y.

HENRY (shrugging his hand off): No, thank you. I will not, even in this time of crisis, identify myself with a minority group.

THE ANGLE TIGHTENS to an EXTREME CLOSE-UP of Henry. There is the SOUND of traffic and horns blowing O.S. THE CAMERA PULLS BACK slightly to reveal Henry at the wheel of a car. It is obviously a low budget car of American design. Through the side window of the car we see a Ferrari pull up. In it is Frank. He sees Henry, pulls down his window, and calls...

FRANK: Henry, you're not...you're not driving a Chevrolet!

Henry turns quickly away. The red light that bathes the screen turns green...and the Ferrari zooms off leaving Henry behind with the rest of the cars Henry closes his eyes. A tear trickles down his cheek.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how clear the fear montages all had the theme of rejection in them.

A New Leaf (unproduced)(8/4/95 cut & paste draft)
by Carrie Fisher
Based on a screenplay written and directed by Elaine May.
Based on a short story, "The Green Heart," by Jack Ritchie.

TODAY'S NUGGET: A History of Violence (2005) - Producers are Waiting for Your Take; Revealing Character

[Quick Summary: After small town diner owner Tom fights off thieves, he becomes the target of vengeful thugs who mistake him for another mob enforcer.]

It was interesting that film's producers were waiting for the right writer:

There wasn't a market-driven imperative to be faithful to the material, and it wasn't the enormous audience that compelled the studio to purchase the book. I found out when they hired me off my pitch that they'd had the same concerns with the book that I did, and had just been waiting for someone to come in and show them how to take it into a completely different direction.

So if producers weren't wedded to the material, how did the writer approach it?

In the book, there's never a moment's doubt that the main character is the man the mob guys think he is I felt like that was a missed opportunity. I thought it was a great chance to play with a classic "wrong man' scenario in which the wrong man is actually the right man. And that led me to start thinking about identity, and what it is that constitutes your "self." Is Tom the guy they all say he is? Or is he the guy he's made himself into? The freedom to stray from the material doesn't necessarily come from the material, but from your own response to it. (emphasis mine)

Also, I liked what Ebert wrote about this film: 

This is not a movie about plot, but about character. It is about how people turn out the way they do, and about whether the world sometimes functions like a fool's paradise.

In the scene below:
- Billy and Leland are random drifters making trouble in Tom's diner.
- We see Tom making a decision in a split second.
- His reactions are partly based on his previous life.
- It will make the news and bring him unwanted attention from the mob.
- Note how character is being revealed and it changes our expectations. Is Tom the nice guy of the last 20 years or this vicious killer guy?

INT. STALL'S DINER

...Billy pulls out his gun and points it at Charlotte. Lisa screams.

LELAND (cont'd): Shut up, bitch!

She stops, terrified. Jeff puts his arm around her, looking at the two men in fear.

LELAND (cont'd): Show this asshole we mean business, Billy.

BILLY (Nodding to Charlotte): What, her?

LELAND: Yeah, her. Fuck her. Do it.

TOM: No! Don't!

Billy shrugs and pulls the trigger.

Click.

Billy looks at the gun, puzzled. Leland looks to Billy - what the fuck?

Without even thinking, Tom lashes out with the coffee pot, smashing it into Leland's face, the glass shattering.  Leland cries out and drop his gun, falls to the floor.

Tom leaps over the counter and picks up Leland's gun. 

Billy quickly ratchets another bullet into the chamber of his gun and turns to Tom.

Tom fires, hitting Billy in the chest, sending him spinning.

Lisa screams.

Leland grabs a knife from the floor and slams it into Tom's foot.

Tom screams in pain and whirls, sees Leland on the floor, the knife in his hand, and fires down, through the top of Leland's head. Leland's face explodes in a shower of gore.

Billy staggers towards Tom, clutching his bloody chest, his gun in his other hand.

BILLY: MOTHERFUCKER!!!

He raises the gun to fire again. Tom whips the gun up and fires, hitting Billy in the stomach and sending him crashing through the diner window in a shower of glass.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that this thriller script did not shy from grappling with character - what Tom kept hidden and the consequences of his actions. 

A History of Violence (2005)(3/11/04 draft)
by Josh Olson
Based on the graphic novel by John Wagner & Vince Locke