2024 OSCARS: Anatomy of a Fall (2023) - How a Supporting Character Shapes Our Opinions

[Quick Summary: After her husband falls to his death in France, his  wife is on trial, and their sight-impaired son is the main witness.]

Did Sandra hit her husband?  Or did her depressed husband commit suicide?

Though I did not know for sure, I found myself having decided opinions, and was impressed how this script played with those assumptions. 

One of the characters that shaped my view of Sandra was her defense attorney.  

I found him believable, and not flat, i.e., he didn't exist just to make a point about Sandra.  It was clear he had a life of his own outside this case.

Their conversations dropped hints about their previous relationship (more assumptions!). I had to re-think again when he started asking questions.

I changed my mind yet again after he argued her position in court. 

The last line below hit home because it was a subconscious belief that I had not realized I was carrying: 

VINCENT (on his way) Embarked on a headlong rush, he only postpones the moment of realizing that transcribing is not writing: Paul Nachez's silence has enlightened him all too cruelly on this truth. The energy we hear in the argument of November 23 is that of despair, a desire that insists before giving up. What marked the last months of this man's life was not a war in his relationship, it was the realization of a personal bankruptcy, one failure too many. If Sandra Voyter is guilty of anything, it is that she succeeded where her husband failed. (bolded emphasis mine)

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I liked that this supporting character brought out something (both literally in this dialogue, but also in their interactions) about the main character, which she alone could not do.  

Anatomy of a Fall (2023)
by Justine Triet & Arthur Harari

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Horseman on the Roof (1996) - One of THE Most Romantic Lines of Dialogue

[Quick Summary: During the chaos of a cholera epidemic, a heroic Italian officer hiding in France offers to help a young wife find her husband.]

Is romance dead?*  The scripts have been scarce.

However, this script restored my faith with one of the most romantic lines of dialogue I've ever read.  

First, I have to give credit to the story which leads up to that moment.  There are a few elements that really work well together:
- Angelo, the hero, is honest, brave, and trustworthy.
- He's attracted to mysterious Pauline, who barrels about, looking for information.
- There are real stakes and conflict that builds and builds the tension.
- The drama is heightened by the situation, i.e., in the middle of a cholera epidemic.

Second, this line of dialogue comes at the end of a great build up (last 1/3 of script):
- Pauline is jailed and Angelo gets inside the prison to rescue her. 
- For the entire script, he's been delaying getting back home to help her.
- He continued to help her, even after finding out she's been looking for information about her husband.
- Also, notice the transition out of this very romantic moment. It reminds us that despite this very important moment in their lives, life goes on.

INT./EXT./ TOWER WINDOW; VAUMEILH - DAY

PAULINE: I came over here a little while ago, before you arrived. I looked down...I thought that it would be so easy to die, so swift, just a second or two, you just let yourself go...

ANGELO: Stop that!

PAULINE: There's nothing we can do, you know it as well as I do. The illness is out there, everywhere. I'm not even afraid of it anymore. Maybe it's already in us.

ANGELO: That's not true!

She sits on the stone ledge inside the opening.

PAULINE: What I see, what I do, nothing makes me want to live...

ANGELO (sitting beside her): Go and rest some. Go sleep.

PAULINE (looking up at him): Aren't you ever hesitant, or flustered?...Are you always sure of what to do?

ANGELO: I think it over and do the best I can.

PAULINE: It's as though the illness were your battlefield.

ANGLEO: You could say that.

PAULINE: Why are you always following me?

A beat.

ANGELO: Because I don't feel lonely when I'm with you. [My emphasis. This is an elegant expression of what all of us seek: someone putting us above them, and wanting that connection, togetherness. Also: note what happens after this important line.]

PAULINE: I don't even know your name. [This is a reminder that they hardly know each other. It makes everything previous to it more romantic because he did this for her, not her status.]

ANGELO: Pardi. Angelo Pardi.

PAULINE: My name's Pauline.

Just then, the drape is pulled back REVEALING the HANDSOME MAN who looks like a horse dealer, his notebook in hand.  [Notice how the writers pull us back to the present. Romance does not happen in a vacuum. Life goes on.]

HANDSOME MAN: I beg your pardon, colonel, and I hate to disturb you thus...I'm Alexandre Petit, dealer in seed and feed! 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really liked how the peak of this romance happened in the middle of normal life, and not in a vacuum. It felt even more real. 

Also, I was swept away by the couple's aching and longing, which I think the writer Jean-Claude Carriere writes very well.

The Horseman on the Roof (1996)(10/20/93 draft)
by Jean-Paul Rappeneau and Nina Companeez & Jean-Claude Carriere
Based on the novel by Jean Giono

* Also, I wonder if the lack of good romantic stories is the reason Gen Z is valuing friendships over romance: "An inability to find quality romantic relationships could be one reason Gen Zers want more friendships, or commitment-free romantic relationships."

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) - Sex as a Metaphor

[Quick Summary: On the 1968 eve of the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, a serial bed-hopping surgeon meets a woman who wants monogamy.]

Q: Is there a lot of sex in this script?
A: Yes (and nudity too*).

Q: Is it gratuitous? 
A: No, because the main character, Tomas, focuses a lot on it.  But when it debuted for its sexuality and sensuality. 

Q: But if that was all, why does the film still resonate with audiences? 
A: I think Roger Ebert said it best: 

What is remarkable about "The Unbearable Lightness of Being," however, is not the sexual content itself, but the way [director Phillip] Kaufman has been able to use it as an avenue for a complex story, one of nostalgia, loss, idealism and romance.

Q: How? What's so great that this script got an Oscar nomination?
A:  I think it's the way the story unfolds and how Tomas arcs. Ebert made very astute observation about where Tomas begins:

For him [Tomas], sex seems like a form of physical meditation, rather than an activity with another person.

Tomas then learns that freedom from any commitment (that "lightness of being") becomes unbearable. 

Q: What surprised you about the script?
A: I'd heard a lot about the writer (the often cited Jean-Claude Carriere), but little about what makes his writing so special. I came to see:

1) He writes longing really well. I felt it build through the script.

2) This script surprised me at how deftly Carrier gets to the heart of the matter. There's a direct simplicity that is deceiving because it's really difficult to write well.

In the scene below:
- This is a very early scene (p. 2), in the hospital operating suite.
- Dr. Tomas has just gotten his latest fling (Nurse) to flash him in another room, while his colleagues have been eavesdropping on them.
- Notice how each of the characters voices the various opinions about sex (spoken), and how they think it will satisfy (ex. unspoken need for attention, status, etc.)

IN PREPARATION ROOM. Nurse's face is flushed as she buttons her robe and silently brushes past Tomas. Their cheeks touching. 

IN PREPARATION ROOM. Nurse's face is flushed as she buttons her robe and silently brushes past Tomas. Their cheeks touching. 

NURSE: Will I see you in three weeks?

TOMAS: Exactly three weeks.

ADJOINING ROOM. She exits. Tomas goes into adjoining room and sees JAN and JIRI have been eavesdropping on him.

JAN: Tomas, I caught him spying again.

JIRI: Not spying, just learning. I want to know how you do it, you bastard. She's incredible. How can you not see her for three weeks?

Tomas and Jan being to have some fun with Jiri.

TOMAS: Because it's the rule of threes, Jiri.

JIRI (he wants to know - a pupil): What rule of threes?

Tomas acts like he doesn't want to explain, so Jan volunteers.

JAN: It's simple, Jiri. But it must be very carefully worked out. Either you see a woman three times in quick succession and then never again, or you maintain a relationship over the years but make sure that the meetings are at least three weeks apart.

JIRI: And what else?

TOMAS: Nothing else. That's the basis of the erotic contract.

JIRI: A contract?

TOMAS: Yes. An unwritten contract that stipulates that sentimentality has no place in a relationship.

JIRI: But what about love?

JAN: The contract stipulates that you exclude all love...

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sex is a metaphor for Tomas' life: It's his way, all the time.  However, his shift from "I" to "we" did not happen as I expected it to.  

It's hard to explain, but it's truly moving how his imperfections become exposed upon meeting Tereza and facing war, and the longing becomes contentment.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)(revised draft, 9/4/86)
by Jean Claude Carriere and Philip Kaufman
Based on the novel by Milan Kundera

* In Roger Ebert's review, he wrote: 

There is a lot of nudity in the film but no pornographic documentary quality; the camera does not linger, or move for the best view, or relish the spectacle of nudity. The result is some of the most poignant, almost sad, sex scenes I have ever seen - sensuous, yes, but bittersweet.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Grifters (1990) - One of the Very Best Solutions to a Problematic Introduction

[Quick Summary: A small time con man is torn between his high-stakes con mother and con girlfriend, who have their own interests.]

I'm always interested in how writers solve story problems.  This novel was one of those problematic adaptations.

According to screenwriter and novelist Donald E. Westlake, he turned it down at first, and director Stephen Frears asked him why. 

"It's too gloomy," Westlake said. Frears said it wasn't if you looked at it from the mother's point of view, which was about "the price of survival." 

Still, Westlake saw other pressing problems:

The problem is the mother comes into the story third. The son has to come first and the girlfriend has to come second....[H]ow are you going to tell the audience that the third character on board is the one you're supposed to watch? And he [Frears] said the thing that they always say sooner or later: "Well, you're the writer."

So I said, "Alright, give me a week, and if I can find a way to let the audience know that they should watch the mother, then ok, I'll do it. But then otherwise, not."  He said, "Alright."

And then six days later, I called him and said how about we open with a triptych, where we see the three characters entering their lives through three different doors and three different locations. And that way, at least we're on a level playing field for who's our main character, and let the audience work it out. And that's what we did. (bold mine)

Wow! What a genius solution!

So when you read this scene (below), pay attention:
1) that it's not about the techniques (split screens, wipes), but how they're used to convey meaning (these three characters are equally important).  

2) that this kind of cinematic language is crucial for film, i.e. things seen but unspoken and understood, but may be less important in other art forms. 

EXT. RUIDOSO DOWNS - DAY

...WIDE SHOT, track in b.g., as Lilly parks the Chrysler, gets out, locks the car. As she walks toward the track, WIPE RIGHT, as SCENE TWO WIPES IN from the left. SCENE ONE CAMERA FOLLOWS Lilly as she walks across the large parking area. SPLIT SCREEN.

SCENE TWO:

EXT. SIDE STREET - DAY

Downtown Los Angeles, near the courts and the business section. ROY DILLION, 25, handsome and charming but self indulgent, parks his orange Honda convertible, gets out, picks up a large ledger book from the back seat, goes around to open the trunk.

AN ANGLE on the trunk, establishing the tools of the salesman's trade: catalogs, samples, ledgers full of manuals and product sheets. Roy adds the ledger from the back seat, shuts the trunk, walks away.

EXT. 6th STREET - DAY

Roy walks around the corner near a bar/restaurant. As he approaches it, WIPE LEFT, the two half-width scenes contracting to one-third each as SCENE THREE WIPES IN from the right.

SCENE ONE: Lilly approaches the track's entrance doors.

SCENE TWO: Roy approaches the bar.

SCENE THREE:

EXT. SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD - DAY

A baby blue Cadillac parks in front of a jeweler.

AN ANGLE on the driver's door as MYRA LANGTRY, 36, beautiful in an impersonal calculating way, gets out, carrying a small jewelry case, and locks the car. At first glance, Myra looks rather like Lilly. (Myra always wears large dangly earrings, and usually wears big-lensed dark sunglasses.)

SIMULTANEOUSLY:

SCENE ONE: Lilly enters the track.

SCENE TWO: Roy enters the bar.

SCENE THREE: Myra enters the jeweler's.

WIPE RIGHT AND LEFT, as SCENE TWO takes FULL SCREEN.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  So much of the writer's job is "if I can let the audience know..." without telling them.  

When I watched the film, I was truly impressed that I caught on so quickly, just with these visuals, and without being told.

The Grifters (1991)(2nd draft, March, 1989)
by Donald E. Westlake
Based on the novel by Jim Thompson

TODAY'S NUGGET: A Haunting in Venice (2023) - Unspoken Horror/Angst + Using a Swinging Door

[Quick Summary: A medium is murdered the night of an orphans' Halloween party. What did she know?]

I am going to tread lightly here, as I:
1) am an avid Agatha Christie fan (and admittedly a bit of snob),* and
2) have not been the biggest fan of the latest Kenneth Branagh remakes.**

This third film uses the book's setting of a Halloween party, but not the plot (the latter of which, in my opinion, is loosely adapted from another Christie novel). 

However, the script is well written and spooky. 

I particularly appreciated writer Michael Green's use of a swinging door that bodes ominous things (below). 

In this scene:
- Alicia and Maxine were engaged. He broke it off when her mother, Rowena, wouldn't approve.
- Maxine left. Alicia got sick and died.
- Years later, a medium now claims that she knows Alicia was murdered.
- After her Halloween party for orphans tonight, Rowena has agreed to hold a seance to contact Alicia.
- Maxine has returned to be a part of the seance.
- I felt the visual below captures the unspoken horror/angst between Rowena and Maxine, especially how she blames Maxine for Alicia's death, though he is innocent.
- The movement and rhythm of the door also increases the psychological horror, tension, and suspense between these two.  What's going to happen next?
- We are standing in Maxine's POV in the kitchen.

INT. KITCHEN/ PANTRY / DINING ROOM. PALAZZO. NIGHT.

A PANTRY DOOR SWINGS, OPEN / SHUT / OPEN, giving SWIPED views of ROWENA AND LEOPOLD. Inside eating cake at A SERVANTS' TABLE (by a PHONE). Rowena's gaze lasers up on the last swing, hate in her eyes. The door closes.

ON MAXINE. Feeling it. She was looking at him.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I thought the swinging door was an apt metaphor for this strained relationship, and wonderful way to amplify that strain.

A Haunting in Venice (2023)(undated)
by Michael Green
Adapted from the novel, Hallowe'en Party, by Agatha Christie

*For those who are curious: my favorite Poirot actor is David Suchet, and my favorite Miss Marple actor is Joan Hickson.

**This is the best of the three remakes.  My main issue with two prior remakes is that they spend a lot of Act 1 dwelling on Poirot as a person, establishing him with an ego, as the "most celebrated detective." I feel this: a) completely undercuts the joke, i.e., he's not as famous as he thinks he is; b) is distracting and unnecessary.  Mysteries are not really about the detective, per se.