2024 OSCARS: Poor Things (2023) - Showing His Disconnect with Her

[Quick Summary: Bella, a child's brain transplanted into the body of her mother, learns at a rapid pace as she leaves home to explore the world.]

This is definitely Bella's story (Emma Stone).  She has tremendous arc.

However, I found the Duncan character (Mark Ruffalo) more interesting.  He is a man used to getting his way, and cannot cope with this woman outgrowing him.

One of the first scenes to show this disconnect is the scene below.  I really liked how Duncan is trying to undermine Bella's growing confidence in the subtext.  

What makes it funnier is that she has no idea he is jabbing at her and does not respond in a way we'd expect:

INT. DINING ROOM - DAY

A flambe crepe suzette, a women's hair on fire. Duncan stares at Bella who ignores it, she is drawing a postcard to Baxter. Her floating at sea, a bird sitting on her chest pushing her under. [A woman on fire in a communal dining area is unexpected and funny.]

DUNCAN: There is a woman on fire. Look. [He makes a bid for her attention.]

She continues drawing. [She ignores the woman on fire, which is amusing. She ignores him, which is our first non-verbal sign. Maybe she didn't hear him?]

DUNCAN (CONT'D): I know you are mad, forgive me my kidnapping you, but it was for love. A romantic jape. Don't be such a cunt about it.

She looks at him. [Ok, she did hear him. She may not understand the meaning of "cunt," but she does seem to understand kidnapping is not love, nor for her benefit. They're not on the same page, and the disconnect is widening.]

BELLA: I want a drink.

DUNCAN: Of course darling. The ship is fun, a world to explore. I love you. Do you love me? [He's not listening to her. She doesn't know how to address what's going on yet. They are operating on two different levels. Even if they cannot can see the misunderstanding, we can, and it's humorous too.]

BELLA: Describe the elements I should be looking for within myself to be sure.

DUNCAN: You just feel it or not! [He's getting impatient, but has no idea why. He doesn't know there's an infant brain inside of her, literally. In subtext, he assumes she's being dense, and expects her to behave like an adult, but she cannot. I like the irony here.]

BELLA: So it is no evidence base as God would say. And so how judge it empirically?

DUNCAN: What the fuck are you talking about? Who are you? You don't know what bananas are, you've never heard of chess, and yet you know what empirically means! [He's getting more upset that she makes no sense, though he is not either.]

BELLA: Bella needs a drink. Said twice now. [She may not know what he's talking about, but she does know he's not listening.] 

DUNCAN: I have never felt anything like this. Is this true for you? [He continues to press, even though she can't give him the response he wants.]

BELLA: ...I suppose empirically it is. Oh I am out of ink. [She is literally out of ink, and of words. This was really smart. I also liked that it is a line puts a button on the scene. She has no subtext, and is speaking of ink.]

DUNCAN: Then you shall have ink my love. [Duncan seems to think their agreement re:ink also means they're on the same page about the two of them.]

He gets up and heads across the room.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that we see the disconnect in the non-verbals, and also subtext (what characters believe, but not being said). 

We also think it's amusing because the audience can see what the characters can't.  

Ex. Duncan is insisting Bella behave a certain way without understanding where she is coming from, nor her lack of psychological development.

Poor Things (2023)(final, Dec., 2023)
by Tony McNamara
Based on the novel by Alasdair Gray

2024 OSCARS: Oppenheimer (2023) - Simple Symbol of Shouldering Responsibility

[Quick Summary: After Dr. Oppenheimer develops the atomic bomb at Los Alamos, NM, he suffers a politically motivated investigation.]

I liked, but didn't love, this script.  On the plus side, it did show me something I'd not seen before, i.e, being written in Oppenheimer's first person POV.   

On the negative side, it is mostly dialogue, so there are fewer visuals on the page. 

My favorite one (below) is a wonderful economy of writing. 
- Oppenheimer has come to consult Einstein on whether to go forward with atomic energy research that could destroy the world.  He shows him his research (papers).
- You can almost see the action IN the dialogue (but not "telling").
- I love how Einstein handing back that piece of paper has a deeper meaning in the very last line.  It symbolizes responsibility.

EXT. LAKE, INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY - MOMENTS LATER

EINSTEIN: And here we are, lost in your quantum world of probabilities, but needing certainty.

OPPENHEIMER: Can you run the calculations yourself?

EINSTEIN: About the only thing you and I share is a distain for mathematics. Who's working on it at Berkeley?

OPPENHEIMER: Hans Bethe.

EINSTEIN: He'll get to the truth.

OPPENHEIMER: And if the truth is catastrophic?

EINSTEIN: Then you stop. And share your findings with the Nazis, so neither side destroys the world.

I turn to leave.

EINSTEIN (CONT'D): Robert? (holding out paper) This is yours. Not mine.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: In this dialogue heavy script about big ideas (there's a lot of telling), I really appreciated a simple visual symbol (showing).

Oppenheimer (2023)(revised, 1/3/22)
by Christopher Nolan
Based on the book, "American Prometheus The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer", by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin

2024 OSCARS: Barbie (2023) - Things Lost in Execution; Capturing the Tone of Child's Play

[Quick Summary: Barbie leaves Barbie Land to find out why she is starting to feel real feelings, and finds out things are not as perfect as she thought.]

THE FILM: I saw the film first, and liked act 1, but not 2 and 3. I got confused, and I'm afraid, slightly bored.  Was it the script's fault?

THE SCRIPT: The script surprised me. It is clearer than the film, well-written, inventive, and reads at a zippy, carefree pace (even acts 2 and 3).

So if the script is pretty much the same as the film, why do I think the film does not quite deliver the promise of the script?  What got lost in the execution?

I don't know exactly, but here are my two cents:

1) PATRIARCHY DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO SNAPPY REPARTEE.  I admire the writers' ambitions to tackle a BIG topic which read well on the page.

However, the arguments require time and explanation...which bogs down the speed that satire needs for laughs.*  As a result, the film was more telling than showing.

2) TOO EARNEST? Satire also requires a good dose of ridicule. In Acts 2 and 3, I found the tone...too earnest?  Trying to make a point? I wish there were more irony.

I do think this script is worth reading, especially for Act 1's breezy, ridiculous fun.  

I particularly like the first description of Barbie Land (below), which captures the mindset of how little girls play with Barbies, with exuberance and female-centric:

EXT. BARBIE LAND. DAY

Barbie Margot waves happily, sometimes with both hands, to other Barbies as her car silently drives itself through a bustling town. It's like Richard Scarry's Busy Town for Barbie. It's a wonder of color and shape. The houses are all see-through, like the toys, it's a Noah's Ark of doll-tastic magic.

It's also completely run by women. They hold every kind of job. Barbie Margot waves to a Barbie mail carrier, and an all Barbie construction crew. There is the occasional Ken, but mostly it's Barbie.

Barbie Margot drives past the Barbie White House which is, of course, pink.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was most moved when this script captured the fun, weird spirit of a child playing with Barbies. The movement of the characters even feel like play.

Barbie (2023)
by Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach

*Margot Robbie recounts (here) that Gerwig wanted her actors to speak at a certain pace and referenced His Girl Friday, one of my all time favorite screwball comedies. 

One of the things that I love about His Girl Friday is that it seemed to speed up as it went along.  It also had a small cast, and a personal, simpler story.   

I don't know if speeding up would even be possible with Barbie.  Barbie had a much bigger cast, and tackled a larger societal problem. The pace would inevitably slow down with that many moving parts.

2024 OSCARS: American Fiction (2023) - What Happens After the Satire's Punchline?

[Quick Summary: While he faces family issues, a frustrated black writer writes a book that's meant to be insulting, but it becomes a best-seller, much to his dismay.]

I think one of the hardest parts of satires is not losing that edgy irony.

I hate it when a script has a great scene with a zinger punchline, but then it dies.  Why couldn't the writer couldn't sustain the momentum? What happened?  

Many times, the script will simply plateau, instead of continuing to build. 

ex. Perhaps the writers were so happy with a joke that they keep going back to that same well, trying to keep cashing in on that one great scene. 

I liked this script because it never resting too long on a punchline. It also never allowed the protagonist to get too comfortable, so the tension continues to build.

For example, in the scene below:

- Carl is the head of the Literary Award committee.
- He is oblivious to the veiled insult Monk delivers ("I'm honored you'd choose me...") If it ended there, that would just be a great punch line.
- However, the writer turns the tables on Monk and plays to his weakness: "you can judge other writers like they judged you."
- This last bit of conflict is what makes the scene fresh and unpredictable.  We want to know what will happen next.

INT. CARL BRUNT'S OFFICE - SAME TIME

...MONK: Every writer knows the Literary Award, Carl. Especially those of us who haven't won it.

Carl laughs a little.

CARL: Well, that's related to why I'm calling. Like many American institutions, mine was recently rattled by the notion that our lack of diversity has led to a blindspot in our work. So we're kind of trying to remedy that and, to that end, I was wondering how you might feel about being a judge for this year's award.

Monk pauses his browsing for a moment.

MONK: Um, let me say first say, Carl, that I'm honored you'd choose me out of all the black writers you could go to for fear of being called racist.

CARL (oblivious): Yeah, you're very welcome.

MONK: But I think this sounds like a lot of work.

CARL: Yeah, I can't deny that. I mean, you're going to have to read dozens of books. We could offer you a modest stipend.

MONK: Even so, I'm not sure.

CARL: OK. One other crass perk I reference when people are on the fence is that this will allow you the opportunity to literally judge other writers for once, rather than just figuratively.

Monk considers this for a moment.

MONK: Alright. I'm in.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Beware of resting on a punchline too long. Satires particularly do well with a conflict after the punchline. 

Perhaps one reason for this is that an audience feels good after a punchline, and will want another jolt. They'll feel let down unless there's another upswing of emotion, and conflict can deliver that.

American Fiction (2023)
by Cord Jefferson
Based on the novel "Erasure," by Percival Everett