TODAY'S NUGGET: Casino Royale (2006) - How to Introduce a New Bond

[Quick Summary: After getting his 00 license, Bond has to enter a high stakes poker game to stop a banker who is financing terrorists.]

As I read these Bond scripts and hear complaints about the films,  I begin to grasp how difficult it is to get the alchemy right.  Each film is truly a bespoke effort.

This script begins the Daniel Craig era, whose scripts are markedly more pleasurable to read on the page, compared to previous eras.* 

It tackles one of the greatest pressures, i.e., introducing a new actor to play Bond, with real flair.

In this scene:
- I really liked how this introduction included the usual (danger, proficiency on the job) but also an emotional layer (grappling with his first kills).

- I also like how easy they make it for a non-Bond fan to comprehend.  Everyone understands playing games and one-upmanship, which are strong themes here.

- Finally, Dryden and Bond are trading verbal punches.  Note how the flashback doesn't interrupt the flow. It adds weight behind Dryden's "made you feel it" line.

INT. MODERN OFFICE -- NIGHT

Dryden grabs the pistol, levels it -- Bond still hasn't moved.

DRYDEN: Shame, we barely got to know each other.

He pulls the trigger. Click. Bond holds up the magazine.

BOND (with humor): I knew where you hid your gun, I suppose that's something.

DRYDEN (has to smile): True. (lays gun down) How did he die?

BOND: Your contact?

INT. CRICKET GROUND - CLUB HOUSE -- DAY

Fisher backs up to a washbasin, turns on the tap, throws water on his sweating face - his eyes never leave the door. Suddenly, a burst of cheering from outside. Fisher instinctively brings the gun up. A second door, behind him, crashes open. Bond. He spins but James grabs him, knocks the gun out of his hand.

Fisher attacks. The two tumble into the stalls. The fight is chaotic, both men trying to hit each other in a confined space until the stall partitions fold like dominoes. They fall into the shower room. Fisher fights like a madman until finally Bond forces his head into the basin, now overflowing with water. James holds him under until the body stops writhing and kicking. Not a clean kill by any means. He lets the body slide to the floor, steps back, considering the dead man. Hating him for making this feel so much like...killing. 

INT. MODERN OFFICE -- NIGHT

BOND: Not well.

DRYDEN: Made you feel it, did he? (sees the truth in Bond's eyes) Well, no worries, the second is --

Bond raises his silenced Walther and fires, cutting off the words before they reach Dryden's lips.

BOND: Yes. Considerably.

Bond holsters his weapon and heads for the door.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was surprised by how much Bond was feeling the pathos (sadness, sympathy, compassion). It surprised me and made a deeper impact.

Casino Royale (2006)(2nd revisions by Haggis, 12/13/05)
by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis
Based on the novel by Ian Fleming

*I will not say that Craig era scripts are "better", just more readable.  The reason that these films have been great are their creativity, imaginativity, originality, and inventiveness, which do often look very messy on the page.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Two for the Road (1967) - Rare, Innovative Use of Flashback (Or, The Oscar Nominated Script Everyone Turned Down)

[Quick Summary: A troubled couple, married for ten years, go on a road trip in the south of France.]

TWO THOUGHTS:

1) REJECTION: When your script is the most forward thinking, seamless use of flashback that has been seen, everyone is going to turn you down.*

2) NEW USE OF FLASHBACK:Newer writers tend to use flashback to explain backstory (please avoid the lazy exposition dump).  

Wiser writers eventually realize that it can be used to show the character's past emotions are also the present ones (like here, here, here).

But the really rare writers, like Frederic Raphael (Far From the Maddening Crowd, Eyes Wide Shut) find another innovative way in. 

On the DVD commentary, director Stanley Donen stated:

I think this one of the [] major differences in the way we reorganized this movie....It wasn't simply a flash from one period back to another one and back to the present what we were trying to do was say that all sequences in this movie are the present. Everything you see in their life is carried with them from the beginning of their relationship until the end of their lives. So that every sequence would feel just as present as any other. There was no one time in the picture when we said, "This is the time period of the picture." The picture is the entire period, is the present. (bold mine)

The result is that the script slips from present to past WITHOUT any time stamp in the slugline, as if it is all present.  But how does one not confuse the reader?

 

I think it's because the clarity of writing is exceptional.  In particular, the writer understands how to transition emotions by the juxtaposition of images.

 

In the scene below:

- Notice how few words were used to indicate the shift in time.
- There are several time periods: a) When the couple when they met (past); b) When they went on a trip with Cathy and family (past); c) When they're older (present). 

- Can you spot the moment of the time shift and emotional shift?

INT. CITROEN (2 CV). DAY.  [Here, M & J begin debating.]

...JOANNA: No?

MARK: But no, but no. The nicely brought up American girl may play it cool and modern, but what she wants is what her grandmother wanted --

Joanna produces a banana and offers it to Mark.

 

EXT. ROADSIDE. DAY. [J confronts M.]

The banana skin flung into the ditch. 

MARK (over): Your head stuffed and mounted on the living-room wall!

Mark and Joanna are hitching along the roadside again.

MARK: And if you don't want it that way, take your loving self elsewhere - I'm speaking quite generally, of course.

JOANNA: Of course. Who was she?

MARK: Whaddaya mean?

He grins and hands her a peach.

INT. CAB. GIANT ARTICULATED LORRY. DAY. [M defends --> ends with transition visual]

Joanna bites the peach.

MARK: Her name was Cathy Seligman, if you must know.

Joanna offers the Driver some grapes off the bunch. He smiles at her agreeably and takes some. The lorry has eased away from us somewhat and the cab slides forward out of shot.

EXT. THE ROAD. DAY. [Completed transition to new visual, new emotional dynamic, new time period.]

The articulated lorry moves forward to clear the frame.

MARK (O.S.) Selfish, grasping, Philistine, materialistic, stubborn, opinionated - I was crazy about her.

The lorry clears the frame and we pick up the car which appears to follow it (without a cut). It is a Ford station wagon with four Adults and a Child in it. Tags hang from the luggage on the roof.

EXT. THE NAME HOWARD MAXWELL MANCHESTER IS ON THEM. [This image is an ironic contrast to his words.]

Cathy is looking out of the window.

MARK (as we hold on Cathy): Mrs. Howard Maxwell Manchester, no less, Luckily for you, you'll never be called up to spend too much time in her company.

Cathy is very pretty and doesn't look quite as vampirish as Mark's young tongue suggested. It is some three years later and the Manchesters and the Wallaces are making a joint expedition, as we shall shortly see.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To me, the transitions are seamless, so that the flashbacks - visually, emotionally, story wise.- feel like they're all a whole.

 

This is one of those structures that's hard to explain verbally.   Even Donen's pitch to Audrey Hepburn was met with skepticism, until she read the script.

Two for the Road (1967)

by Frederic Raphael

* On the DVD commentary, famed director Stanley Donen said that studios couldn't envision how the flashback structure would work:

 

"I suppose that is why the readers of the script couldn't grasp what was going to come over on film...

...‎...[E]very other company in town [except 20th Century Fox] turned down the script. They all felt the picture was far too complicated for anyone to possibly understand. And there was no way that people could follow what was going on the way Frederic Raphael and I had planned this scheme of time throughout the film. I wrote a little letter at the head of the script saying to everyone,"Please, when you read this script, pay particular attention to everything that is said, every word of time, and so on. But please, take my word for it, when you see it, there will be no problem at all. You'll just sit back and relax. The picture will unfold before you, and you will not have any problem not knowing which stage the events are happening." However, in spite of my plea, no one believed in the picture, except Dick Zanack and David Brown, who I am happy to say, gave me the money to make the film."

 

TODAY'S NUGGET: A Simple Favor (2018) - How Mood Can Extend from Character

[Quick Summary: After cool mom Emily asks blogger mom Stephanie to pick up her son after school, Emily goes missing and Stephanie is drawn into a nightmare.]

I wasn't wild about this story, but the script is well written and clearly conveys what the filmmakers set out to do.

One of the things that impressed me was how it conveyed a mood of suspense.

Critic Sheila O'Malley explained it much more eloquently:

It's insightful about the head games women can play with each other, but it doesn't burden itself with trying to be "meaningful." ....Mood-setting is one of the most important aspects of film-making, and so many films fail to establish the proper mood from the jump. "A Simple Favor,"... knows exactly what it needs to do to establish the mood for all that will follow.

The script does a good job of setting up that not-so-cool mom Stephanie is a people pleaser.  She is anxious and vulnerable, and so are we, the audience.

In the scene below:
- Parents are discussing Easter egg hunt duties.
- Stephanie is constantly on the defense, wanting approval.  This will be the perfect situation for cool mom Emily to take advantage of.
- Note how the mood extends from the character, i.e., Stephanie's internal anxieties influence her behavior with others.

INT. WARFIELD ELEMENTARY - KINDERGARTEN CLASSROOM - LATER

...Stephanie's in a quandry. She wonders whether to erase her name from DECORATIONS or SNACKS. Always the problem-solver, Stephanie tries to come up with an equitable solution:

STEPHANIE: What if I just erase myself from decorations and leave it for Emily? Then if she can't make it, I'll still bring my balloons and helium tank.

STACY: Please tell me you don't actually own  a helium tank.

It just slipped out of Stacy - and she regrets it. Stephanie is a bit hurt by the comment but tries to hide it.

STEPHANIE: I think lots of people own helium tanks, Stacy. If they don't, they should. Kids love balloons, especially floaty ones.

MRS. KERRY (trying to save Stephanie): It's a perfect plan, Stephanie. We'll leave decorations open for Emily.

Stephanie looks proud, then notices the other parents staring at her like she's an alien. She deflates a bit.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Well before the antagonist arrived, I was surprised at how anxious this character made me feel.  That's setting a good mood!

A Simple Favor (2018)(7/10/17 draft, rev. by Paul Feig)
by Jessica Sharzer
Based on the novel, A Simple Favor, by Darcey Bell

TODAY'S NUGGET: The World is Not Enough (1999) - If You're Going to Put "M" in a Cage...

[Quick Summary: Bond delves into threats against an oil heiress, and uncovers a plot involving nuclear warheads.]

In this script, I found the stakes somewhat confusing (not surprised), the plot very action-y (not surprised), but I was surprised that they put M in a cage.

Granted, it is dubious that the head of MI-6 would get so involved with a mission.* 

Also, it's rather convoluted how she gets to the remote location, i.e., request of the heiress, whom she's known since a child.

However, I give the writers props for  is something NEW and NEVER BEFORE SEEN in any of the previous 19 Bond films (out of 25 films).  

In the scene below:
- I really liked how efficiently the writers described M's cell (it was shot as written). 
- I like how close quarters were used to increase a sense of menace.
- I also liked that this scene doesn't just increase tension and stakes, but it's also Elektra's emotional blood-letting too.  She's been wanting this purge. 
- The film was also helped immensely by Judi Dench's performance as M, as her blistering delivery gave the scene a thrilling frisson.

INT. ROOM - MAIDEN'S TOWER - MOMENTS LATER

Elektra opens a heavy door, she and Renard pass through to...

A SMALL ROOM...a window set in the stone on one side. The other side is divided off by a WALL OF BARS, creating a cell which now contains: M.

The cell is bare, except for a camp bed in the corner. M betrays no fear. A quiet defiance burns in her.

ELEKTRA: Just as I promised.

Renard steps forward. Bars separate him from M.

RENARD: My executioner.

M: Over-praise, I'm afraid. But my people will finish the job.

ELEKTRA: Your people? Your people will leave you here to rot just like you left me. You and my father. He didn't think my life was worth the chump change he spent on a day at the stock market.

M: Your father...

ELEKTRA: Is nothing. His kingdom he stole from my mother. The kingdom I will rightly take back.

ELEKTRA leaves. Renard is left alone with M.

M: She's insane. Is that what you did to her?

RENARD: No. I'm afraid it is what you did.

He crosses close to the bars.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you're going to cage the head of MI-6 (and Judi Dench), it can't be a gimmick. Give her something meaningful to play against, like Elektra's rage.

The World is Not Enough (1999)(undated draft)
by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, & Bruce Feirstein

**I've heard that Bond fans grouse, "Why is M out in the field? Isn't she more valuable at headquarters?"

TODAY'S NUGGET: Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - The Writer's Job is To Find Ideas

[Quick Summary: Bond faces off with a media mogul who provokes a UK-China war for the benefit of his media empire.]

Q: You don't like reading first drafts, so what's the point here?
A: It's the only draft widely available.

Q: But the final script is so, so different. Isn't this a waste of time?
A: Not if you want to know WHY stories work (or not).

Q: I don't need to. I know the screenplay format.
A: The technical stuff is only part of the job. And in my opinion, the easiest.

Q: Fine, fine. What are you looking for?
A: The sifting of ideas.* 

Q: Huh? I have a bazillion ideas!
A: But how do you know if it's the right idea? And how to best execute it? 

This script is the beginning of that sifting process.  

It lays out a potential villain, a manipulating media mogul out to cause a shipwreck and steal 1/3 of the UK's gold reserves. Good idea, right?

But along the way, I simply stopped caring.  The execution in this early draft didn't deliver mogul vs. Bond thrills, despite a lot of action scenes. 

However, it did flesh out a villain and his wife (ex-lover of Bond's).  Here is one line which I thought made clear the villain** is the manipulative type:

HARMSWAY: I give this boat to mankind - selflessly - in pure charity - asking nothing for myself...But the cable TV rights.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This early draft got the tone and action pacing right.  However, it is searching for better situations, which is the endless job of the writer.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)(1st draft, 8/23/96)
by Bruce Feirstein

*Screenwriter Jean-Claude Carriere, who has thought a lot about screenwriting, said it much better in an interview:

The work of a screenwriter is not only to write a film and to know all about the technical side of things: the sound, the images, the editing. His work, his function, is to look for new ideas. That is very important. To be able to offer a bouquet of different ideas. Not only one.

** For Bond fans: He is re-named Elliott Carver in the films.