TODAY'S NUGGET: Yellow Jack (1938) - Using the Environment to Inform the Audience About a Character

[Quick Summary: Since no one believes that mosquitos are carriers of yellow fever, Major Walter Reed asks five U.S. soldiers in Cuba to become human test subjects.]

Q: How do you possibly make a standard biopic interesting?
A: For me, it lies in the character of Dr. Finlay, a cranky, irascible physician with a huge chip on his shoulder.  He's of Scottish-French descent, but grew up in Cuba.

Q: Why is he so cranky?
A:   No one will publish his theory about the transmission of yellow fever for the last 20 years, and the medical community have openly mocked him.

Q: What makes his introduction memorable?
A: The writers do a great job of using the environment to convey something about a character. It's spooky, odd, makes us uneasy, just like Dr. Finlay.

In the scene below:
- Major Reed has just asked Dr. Finlay for some of his unhatched mosquito eggs, in order to conduct human experiments.
- Reed, Agramonte, Lazear, Carroll are all U.S. soldiers.
- Notice how the writers use the environment to inform us about Dr. Finlay's character: musty books, shuttered windows, creepy cages of mosquitos speak to a research who cares about his work, not looks.
- It tells also draws us in, makes us curious.  What is this mystifying, unknown we're about to step into?

The scene dissolves into a close-up fo a CAGE OF LARGE STRIPED STEGOMYIA MOSQUITOES, which flash as they move about and give forth a curious droning sound. Then the view, drawing back, discloses DOCTOR FINLAY'S STUDY, a dimly lit room with curious angles. It has many cabinets containing the complex paraphernalia of a doctor and scientist...cases of musty books...a long table strewn with evidence of intensive and lonely study. In a corner near a shuttered window is the cage, placed on a table. Also on this table are several porcelain dishes covered with gauze. These contain dry eggs of the Stegomyia. DR. FINLAY leads MAJOR REED and his doctors up to the "menagerie."

FINLAY (pointing to the mosquitoes as they cling against the inside of the screen): You see her there... (He speaks with the purring affection of a connoisseur, relating the admirable qualities of his specimens.) My silver beauty...my spoiled darling! Do not think that she is a wild creature of the jungle. Ah, no....She is highly civilized. She would die wi'out your society - and epicure...feeding on the softest and tenderest parts of the human flesh...under the wrists or along the ankles...never on the face or the top of the hands. (With a soft chuckle) Those places are the most easily...slapped!

REED (peering closer to the screen): These are all females?

FINLAY: Aye...a bevy of bonny lassies, each wi' a kiss of death. The male is decent. He is not a vampire.

CARROLL (sharply): How did you pick this one out of eight hundred different kinds?

FINLAY: By her habits! She alone cannot live in the swamps. She alone can live only with human beings. She alone deposits her eggs only in clear pure water, in artificial objects - glasses, pitchers, flower pots....Is she not Greek in her purity?

REED: Amazing! 

AGRAMONTE: Horrible!

LAZEAR: Fascinating!

CARROL (to Reed): Let's get out of here.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I learned a lot about Dr. Finlay simply seeing his carefully curated cages of flesh eating mosquitos.  

And the fact that he's so proud of the mosquitos?  It's another level of depth. 

Yellow Jack (1938)
by Edward Chodorov
Based on the play by Sidney Howard, in collaboration with Paul de Kruif

* What is yellow fever?

It is a epidemic prone, viral disease that is spread by mosquitos.  Its symptoms are fever, muscle pain, headache, nausea and vomiting. A small percentage of people infected with the virus develop a life-threatening form of the disease that involves high fevers, internal bleeding, vomiting of blood and jaundice—which is where the “yellow” in yellow fever comes from. It has been estimated that for every 1 case of severe infection, there are between 1 and 70 infections that are asymptomatic or mild.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941) - Seeing the Temptation Before Introducing the Tempter

[Quick Summary:  After a New Hampshire farmer exchanges his soul to the devil for money, his life spirals, and asks Daniel Webster to defend him in a trial.]

How do you introduce the Devil in an interesting way?

This script uses a great trick of psychology: show the temptation before introducing the tempter.

In the scene below:
- Jabez (protagonist) is a poor farmer, who is behind on payments to the landlord.
- He lives with his wife Mary and his mother.
- Mary has just taken ill.
- Jabez is now hurrying to pay the landlord.
- Jabez often pays with seed instead of cash. 
- Notice what showing the temptation first does to Jabez's psychology.  This "favor" puts him in a more receptive mind to listen to the Devil.
- This is also a good introduction for the Devil. We see why he's not to be trusted before we actually see him.

THE BARN: Jabez takes a sack of seed, throws it on his shoulder. At this moment the sack opens and all the seed runs out into a dirty pool of water.

JABEZ: That's enough to make a man sell his soul to the devil! And I would, too, for about two cents!

He stops abruptly, realizing what he has said and appalled by it. He looks around him, fearfully.

JABEZ: I guess nobody heard. I hope not.

Jabez jams his hands in his pockets and a horrified expression comes over his face. He slowly takes out his right hand. In the palm are two big copper pennies.

A VOICE (speaking smoothly): Good evening, Neighbor Stone.

Jabez turns around and sees a figure -- well-dressed, looking rather like a salesman. Jabez stares at him, speechless. 

THE VOICE: My name is Scratch -- I often go by that name in New England.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is another way to introduce a character that I'd not considered before, i.e., their actions first, the character second.

The Devil and Daniel Webster (a,k.a. All That Money Can Buy)(1941)
by Dan Totheroh and Stephen Vincent Benet
Based on the story, "The Devil and Daniel Webster" by Stephen Vincent Benet

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Good Earth (1937) - Cultural Details Give Context (& Maintain Relevancy)

[Quick Summary: After farmer Wang Lung marries O-Lan, a neighbor's servant, they face both famine and fortune during the birth of the Republic of China.] 

Q: What makes this 87 year old story* still relevant?
A: The cultural details.

Q: Big deal! Why can't you just look them up in an encyclopedia?
A: It's not just identifying them, but also explaining/interpreting/suggesting the thinking behind them and shed new light on the deeper meaning.

Q: Can you give an example from this script?
A: I've often heard Asian kids joke/not joke that one common trait of their Asian parents is that they're "not big on compliments." 

However, I'd never asked where do these cultural behaviors come from?

This script offered a possible answer: that a long-standing superstition had become ingrained into unconscious behaviors that we see today.

In the scene below:
-  This scene gave me a possible rationale for parents "checking" pride in their kids. 
- The rationale is that if a child boasts, he is likely to get "too big for his britches."  The parent seeks to appease the gods before they struck the kid. 
- Wang Lung and his family are celebrating Chinese New Year by bringing gifts to the gods at a shrine.
- They see hundreds of Northern travelers fleeing famine to the South.
- O-Lan's mother had previously sold her daughter to the neighbor for silver for food.
- Ching is Wang Lung's cousin.
- Notice what the Father is doing to protect his son.

 As they still stare with solemn faces, we see the ROAD BETWEEN THE HILLS where the procession winds wearily on, following which we again see the GROUP, with the FAMILY in the foreground:

O-LAN (in a low voice, to Wang): It was famine that made me a slave.

WANG: Oh, that's what happens when a man has only one field. (As he looks about him with pride) But I have five. (With unconscious, naive egotism) We must thank the gods for giving me such foresight.

But the villagers are obviously terrified.

VILLAGERS (muttering anxiously): We've had no rain-- The birds have gone --

WANG (cheerily): It'll rain, it'll rain! We've nothing to be afraid of. We're safe here -- there'll be harvest for all --

FATHER (terrified): What talk is this? (He looks up into the sky and shouts) Forgive my son! He's young and stupid and talks too much!

CHING: No, no - a man who can turn one field into five may speak for the gods!

VILLAGERS (relieved): Very true -- Wang knows -- We're safe here --

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script stands out because it did not just get the cultural behaviors right, but went deeper to give them context.

The Good Earth (1937)
by Talbot Jennings &Tess Slesinger, and Claudine West
Based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck

*FYI: The underlying novel is by author, Pearl S. Buck, whose parents were missionaries in China. Mrs. Buck's novels been widely praise, leading to her winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1938 for “for her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces”,

TODAY'S NUGGET: Juarez (1939) - The Best Way to Give Two Possible Endings

[Quick Summary: In 1863, Benito Juarez, the new president of Mexico who has taken land from the rich for the poor, is maneuvered out of office by unhappy Mexican politicians, and French Napoleon III, in order to install Austrian prince Maximilian von Habsburg as emperor.]

I admired, but did not like, this script, co-written by director John Huston.

It is essentially about historical political maneuverings, which is hard to make cinematic, unless it's about individuals (see my Reds review).

However, I found the ending interesting because:
1) It resolves how Juarez and  von Habsburg both had similar hopes for Mexico, but only one (literally) could survive.
2) The script include two possible, good options, for the ending, which is unusual.

In the ending below:
- Maximilian von Habsburg has just been shot.
- The first ending is more metaphorical, cinematic, and features children, i.e., the future of Mexico.
- The second ending is more conventional and simple (and probably cheaper).

A frightened DOVE is seen flying as the sound of a volley is heard This dissolves to a CHAPEL from the entrance a coffin is seen on a catafalque in the presbytery. A figure comes into view and goes slowly down the nave. It stands motionless over the coffin, and as the scene moves up to a close view BENITO JUAREZ is seen looking down into an open coffin in which rests all that is mortal of Maximilian von Habsburg. A look of pity softens his stone face, following which a wider view shows Juarez straightening up and starting from the coffin.  He continues up the aisle of pews. --He passes an Indian woman who is kneeling in prayer. On her back, int he folds of her serape, she carries her baby, a robust Indian boy of a few months. The baby sucks on his fingers as he gurgles to himself.

The moving scene stops with Juarez as, attracted by the sounds from the baby, he pauses to look at it, following, which a close view of the BABY shows its velvet black eyes fixed on Juarez, as its face crinkles into an ingratiating smile.  A close view of JUAREZ shows the stone mask of his face slowly softening and for the first time we see him smile. Then, the scene widening quickly and revealing both Juarez and the baby, Juarez squares himself and continues down the aisle as his short, squat figure disappears in the gloomy shadows of the church. The scene fades out. 

(ALTERNATE ENDING)

This dissolves to a CHAPEL and a coffin is seen on a catafalque in the presbytery. A figure comes into view and goes slowly down the nave. It stands motionless over the coffin, and as the scene moves up to a close view of BENITO JUAREZ is seen looking down into an open coffin in which rests all that is mortal of Maximilian von Habsburg, Emperor of Mexico and Archduke of Austria.

JUAREZ: Forgive me.

The scene fades out.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the writers had made a definitive decision about the meaning of the ending. The alternate was just another way to show it. 

I don't particularly enjoy it when the writers create "happy" and "sad" alternates in order to avoid taking a stance on their story.

Juarez (1939)
by John Huston & Aeneas MacKenzie, and Wolfgang Reinhardt
Based on a play by Franz Werfel, and the novel, The Phantom Crown, by Bertita Harding