TODAY'S NUGGET: The Ice Harvest (2005) - When Wide/Close/Tight Camera Shots Works for an Action Montage

[Quick Summary: A shady lawyer tries to make off with $2M that was stolen from a Wichita, Kansas mob boss.]

Q: Why were you interested in this action-dark comedy?
A: Because it's from the great writer-director Robert Benton, who is mostly known for dramas.*

Q: What did you like about it?
A: I thought the action montage (below) was interesting because it reads so easily on the page.  I didn't notice the camera shots.

Q: GASP!! Camera shots?! Isn't there a "rule": Do not to include camera shots?
A: Yes.  (Though you know I believe in guidelines, not the so-called "rules.") 

Q: Why can they break this "rule"?
A: The purpose of the so-called "rule" is for new writers to avoid using &/or mishandling a device they don't know how to (or why to) use them.  

Experienced writers will knowingly use camera shots when they have a specific purpose for them, as shown in this scene below.

NOTE:
- Vic has been chasing Charlie and his co-conspirator Roy.
- Vic has just shot Roy.
- I like that the close ups are saved for big important, climatic scenes like this one.

EXT. LAKE BASCOMBE - NIGHT

...A QUICK SERIES OF SHOTS:

ON ROY: as he hits the deck like a ton of bricks. [Roy is the first sign of this dock falling like dominoes.]

INSERT OF SEVERAL PILINGS --as they give way. We HEAR the sound of rotting wood being torn apart.  [We see and hear the cause. Also, we're not in any single POV.]

TIGHT ON CHARLIE --who guesses first what's going to happen and grabs for one of the taller pilings.  [Close up of our protagonist = "important," in cinema language.]

RIGHT ON MORE OF THE DOCK'S CRUCIAL UNDERPINNINGS--as they start to collapse. [This builds on the previous insert of the pilings, building tension.]

CLOSE ON VIC--looking around, unable to grasp what is going on. [Close up to show another character is confused at an important moment.]

WIDE SHOT--We see the dock from some distance away and in slow motion the last section of it (where Charlie, Vic and Roy have been standing) begins to sag and give way. [Wide shot show the extent of what is befalling the three men.]

CLOSER IN--Roy's body begins to slide down toward the ice below. [Close shot of the beginning of Roy slipping away, both metaphorically and actually.  This extends Charlie's anguish because Roy was the only one who had the info about the hidden money.]

MED. SHOT VIC--as his feet go out from under him and he lands on the sloping dock. [The medium shot is useful to see where Vic slips and lands.]

ON ROY'S CORPSE--as it lands on the ice below, making a terrible sound and sending out cracks in every direction. An instant later the empty trunk hits, opening a hole in the ice.  [This shot completes the arc of where Roy ends up and dovetails next shot.]

TIGHT ON VIC--who beings to slide down the slippery incline; frantically grabbing at whatever with his free (he won't surrender the gun in the other). His slide is slow, but he can't stop it, and as he disappears into the gap in the dock (following Roy), he even tries to grab onto Charlie. Failing, he too disappears into the void. A split second later, WE HEAR A THUD, FOLLOWING BY A CRACKING SOUND from below. [Tight shot for Vic's big finale. Vic follows Roy, metaphorically and actually.]

ON CHARLIE, still hanging onto the piling for dear life, looking over his shoulder.  [Charlie is the lone survivor, and we want to see all of his reaction.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't notice the camera shots because they had a purpose. In this big moment, I expected (and wanted to see) close up reactions.

The Ice Harvest (2005)(undated draft)
by Robert Benton & Richard Russo
Based on the novel by Scott Phillips

*The films that he wrote (& may have also directed) include: Kramer v. Kramer; Places in the Heart; Superman; Bonnie & Clyde; What's Up Doc?  He has 7 Oscar nominations (1 win for direction and 3 wins for writing).

TODAY'S NUGGET: Love's Labour Lost (2000) - "[Love] Kills Sheep" Sight Gag in Shakespeare

[Quick Summary: This is a musical adaption of a Shakespeare play, set in the 1930s, in which four friends swear off love.]  

BAD NEWS:

I admire Kenneth Branagh's attempt to do something new by adding dance and musical numbers to a lesser known Shakespearean play, but I didn't believe it.

Roger Ebert writes about a few problems:

"Love's Labour's Lost" is hardly ever performed on the stage and has never been previous filmed, and there is a reason for that: It's not about anything. In its original form, instead of the songs and dances we have dialogue that's like an idle exercise in easy banter for Shakespeare. (my underline)

As a result: 

It's like a warm-up for the real thing. It makes not the slightest difference which boy gets which girl, or why, and by starting the action in 1939 and providing World War II as a backdrop, Branagh has not enriched either the play or the war, but fit them together with an awkward join....Like cotton candy, it's better as a concept than as an experience.

GOOD NEWS:

1) I did like the updated use for the homonym (1 word, 2 meanings) for "Ajax", then used to reference a tragic Trojan War figure, and now for a cleanser.

2) Branagh furthers the turn of phrase with an actual sight gag: the cleanser, i.e., love, has killed the sheep! This visual is a funny, clever way to show a metaphor.

INT. LIBRARY -- DAY

BEROWNE prowls the circular gallery.  He passes books which he ignores and cleaning materials, which he does not. Next to an abandoned servant's broom there is a well known brand of bleach. This inspires him.

BEROWNE: By the Lord, this love is as mad as Ajax,

He glances out the window. A sheep grazes in the park. After a moment it falls over unconscious.

BEROWNE: It kills sheep!

But in this state, any form of madness is understandable.

BEROWNE (CONT'D): It kills me, I a sheep! I will not love. If I do, hang me; I'faith, I will not.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I particularly like this sight gag because it works for those who understand the literal level (cleanser kills sheep), but also those who get the humor of the deeper level (those who know historical Ajax + the cleanser).

Love's Labour Lost (2000)
by Kenneth Branagh and William Shakespeare

TODAY'S NUGGET: Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988) - A Foil Role Worthy of a Best Supporting Actor Nomination

[Quick Summary: Against all odds, Preston Tucker, famed for building WWII combat turrets, decides to build the Tucker "car of tomorrow."]

Though this was an ok script, how did it end up netting Martin Landau an Oscar nominated performance for best supporting actor?

Well, first, he had direction by Francis Ford Coppola, which couldn't hurt.

Second, he played the character of Abe, a realistic NYC businessman and Tucker's biggest ally.  Abe is also is used as a foil, often exposing Tucker's blind spots. 

For example, in the scene below, he tries to reason with Tucker, who only wants to think big.

Notice how Abe's practicality is contrasted by Tucker's impracticality (or is it vision?)*, which is the point of the scene.

INT. DEN - DAY

Abe is talking. Tucker, Vera, and Eddie are in the room.

ABE: ...which leaves three war surplus plants we've got a shot at. A long shot, because everybody in the country's trying to get them, but it's worth a try. One's perfect. Nice and little. The other's too big. Cost twice as much to re-tool, but we could swing it if we had to.

TUCKER: What's the third one?

ABE: Impossible. The Dodge plant, where they built the B-29 engines in Chicago.

TUCKER: What's wrong with that?

ABE: It covers 475 acres for one thing, with sixteen buildings. One of them is seventy-three acres long. One building. The biggest building in the world under one roof.

Vera and Eddie look at each other, knowing exactly what Tucker will say.

CLOSE ON TUCKER.

TUCKER: It's perfect!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A good foil will push back against the protagonist, and thus reveal things in the protagonist we did not know before. 

A foil is often the main antagonist, but could even be an ally, like Abe here.

Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988)(revised shooting draft, 5/5/87)
by Arnold Schulman and David Seidler

*Just for fun: Only 50 Tucker automobiles were made, and I think Preston Tucker would be thrilled that they are now valued over $1+M.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Rachel, Rachel (1968) - Making the Unfamiliar Familiar

[Quick Summary: After a big city boy asks her out, a lonely grade school teacher, who lives with her mother, starts to daydream about where her life is going.]

Though he's read thousands of scripts, Black List founder Franklin Leonard recently said that he still looks for scripts that "transport" him somewhere.

But what does that look like on the page? 

This week's script is a good example of transporting us into a character's head because it made the unfamiliar very familiar in a few sentences.

FYI: I will note that this wonderfulness does come with some messiness.  We are in Rachel's POV, which is subjective, moody, and prone to tangents.

As a result, the story was sometimes jumbled and weird. (But perhaps that's the point?  After all this IS called "Rachel, Rachel.")

I liked the scene below, which instantly makes the unfamiliar familiar:
- This is the first time we see Rachel's mother in her own social setting.
- Within a few short sentences, we know the relationship between these women is long standing, competitive, and a relief from daily life (eating, smoking).
- We know Mother is concerned about appearances ("company eyeglasses," "elfin frames of delphinium blue" says a lot in a few words).
- Though I may not know these characters, I know this situation of playing games at someone else's house. It felt like I was sitting at this table.

INT. DINING ROOM - CLOSE SHOT - MOTHER - NIGHT

It is later now. Mother looks cute with her curly hair and "company eyeglasses", with their elfin frames of delphinium blue.

MOTHER: Oh, Verla! You're not going to no-trump!

CAMERA PULLS BACK to show Mother playing bridge at the dining-room table with her cronies, VERLA, FLORENCE, and HOLLY. They have consumed everything on the platter and are smoking up a storm.

VERLA: Now don't be a sore loser, May. When you come to my house, you can win!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I am impressed by the speed which I simply felt I dropped into this scene. It is a masterful economy of writing.

Rachel, Rachel (1968)
by Stewart Stern
Based on the novel "A Jest of God", by Margaret Laurence