TODAY'S NUGGET: State of Play (2009) - Multiple Causes of Urgency Within a Scene

[Quick Summary: A journalist (whose college friend is now a current Congressman) investigates the suspicious death of the Congressman's mistress.]

Continual threats to life and limb gets exhausting after awhile in thrillers. 

Thus, I was interested to see what else today's script would do differently. It's not a perfect script,* but I liked that there was creative use of urgency.

For example, the scene below has layers.  It's not just about Cal escaping the elevator, but that he's found the killer and needs to let someone know.

Just prior to this scene:
- Cal has a photo of the killer, Bingham, and traces it back to the latter's apartment.
- Cal recognizes Bingham at the door and they briefly exchange pleasantries. 
- Cal backs off and gets in the elevator.
- Also note: This is a turning point scene that occurs on p. 79 of 125, not earlier at the midpoint, nor later at the climax.

INT. COMPLEX ELEVATOR -- NIGHT

CAL with the phone. Doors closing and...Signal loss. 

CAL: Shit!

CAL descending. 5...4...3...  Chunk.

It has stopped. Everything suddenly black. then, a moment later, an emergency light powers on. But the car isn't moving.

CAL trapped. Coincidence? Can't be. Fuck...

Pulling his phone -- saving it around the car -- searching for a signal -- there, up by the ceiling, a flicker.

CAL (PHONE)(CONT'D): Jimmy. Cal McAffrey...just tell Bell I've found the killer. Five-sixty-six, Jasper Avenue. Five-six-six Jasper! I need cops. I need cops here immediately!

CAL perched on the railing -- wedged near the ceiling -- bent like a contortionist to hang with the signal and --

THE ELEVATOR jolts! -- power on -- CAL falling hard to the floor -- barely catching his breath as the elevator drops a few feet before stopping suddenly and -- 

THE DOORS OPEN TO

INT. COMPLEX LOBBY -- DAY

An empty lobby. CAL steps out cautiously. Did Bingham take the stairs? 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that this wasn't the run-of-the-mill "I must escape" type of urgency.  There's a different purpose and consequences if Cal fails. 

State of Play (2009)(11/1/07 draft with revisions)
by Matthew Michael Carnahan
Revisions by Tony Gilroy, Peter Morgan, Billy Ray
Based on the BBC miniseries created by Paul Abbott

* I was confused by the ending on the page. I think it was trying to connect a lot of dots in a short period of time.  I note that this film was an adaptation of a BBC tv mini-series that ran 6 episodes, so perhaps it was trying to condense too much into a 2 hr. film?

TODAY'S NUGGET: Duplicity (2009) - Why Do I Believe the Chemistry (& Fireworks) Between These Characters?

[Quick Summary: Two industrial spies, who are in a secret love affair, are on opposite sides of a case.]

Tony Gilroy writes scripts that actors want to play. 

Why? One reason is because the chemistry between characters has real conflict and interesting dynamics.  I want to see how these fireworks resolve.  

For example, in the scene below: 
- Ray is being followed.
- His work buddy, Dale, is watching his back. They're on the phone together, trying to figure out  who is following Ray.
- In Grand Central Station, Ray recognizes Claire. He follows her into a store.
- Notice how FAST the writer gets us into the action. Ray blows by the usual "hi how are you" --> straight into his beef with Claire. 
- The audience sees Ray's behavior and realizes (without being told) that Ray and Claire know each other. Only someone familiar would bypass the usual greetings.
- Also: the suspense draws me in (WHY is he so mad?).
- Also: the provocative, snappy dialogue keeps me reading ("You charm me. Seduce me. Screw me.")

INT. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE -- DAY

... CLAIRE blinks. But she's a big girl. It's a public place...

CLAIRE: Look, seriously, I don't know you think I am, but wh-

RAY: You charm me. Seduce me. Screw me. Then you dope me and ransack my hotel room. (he still can't believe it) And how sick is this? Last thing I remember before I passed out whs how much I liked you.

CLAIRE: I'm sorry...I just...you don't look crazy, which is the only reason I'm not screaming for a security guard, but --

RAY: I can't believe you're going this way. 

CLAIRE: Is this...(glancing around) ...it's a joke, right?

RAY: You have any idea how far my ass was hanging out because of you?

CLAIRE: Is this? Are you selling something? What are you selling?

RAY: I got up the next morning, went back to the consulate and practically crawled over glass to get a copy of the guest list. Then I spent the next twenty-four hours trying to figure out if you were working for MOSSAD, the Syrians, or the Russians.

CLAIRE: Really...(maybe he is crazy) And who was it?

RAY: Still working for the C.I.A.? (like he nailed her) We're supposed to be on the same side, Theresa. Which was a lousy cover name for you, by the way -- you're not a THeresa. 

CLAIRE: What the hell are you talking about?

RAY: American Consulate. Dubai. You and me. Fourth of July, 2003.

CLAIRE: You are crazy (Does this ever work?)

RAY: We were drinking red, white and blue Margaritas. I had a knee brace. You had a toe ring -- first toe ring I ever saw, by the way.

CLAIRE: If you follow me, I'll scream.

And she's walking -- fast -- back the way she came -- back into the Perfume Jungle, and he's right on her ass --

...RAY: Come on... you don't want security any more than I do.

CLAIRE: You're right, I want the cops.

RAY: They're gonna want your name.

CLAIRE: Leave me alone! (wheeling on him and --)

HER PURSE -- the strap catching his arm -- tearing -- THE BAG SPILLING OPEN TO THE FLOOR and --

CLAIRE: -- look -- look what you did! --

CLAIRE dropping -- grabbing at the stuff that's spilled --

CLAIRE: --get away -- just -- you hear me? --

RAY: Oh no...

And the way he said it -- the way he looks -- something fundamental has shifted here suddenly --

RAY: You?

There -- at his feet -- her keys -- a KEYCHAIN -- a little Rubik's cube (Eight ball? Troll?) keychain and --

RAY: You? You're the drop...(pulling an identical keychain from his pocket --) I'm ...

CLAIRE: You? You're the meet? (yup) No... 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I believed the chemistry because they're both continuing to engage in the fight, trying to get what they want, even though something isn't adding up. Ray wants answers and Claire wants to avoid him. 

Duplicity (2009)(undated)
by Tony Gilroy

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) - The Devil IS in the Details (Twist)

[Quick Summary: Bourne, a guy on the run with amnesia, goes back to his roots to find out how he became an assassin.]

Though the Bourne films varied for me,* all the scripts are good to excellent.  

I admire the writers for continuing to find ways to create new obstacles for Bourne.   It's tough to surprise today's audiences, who are often wise to genre tropes.  

Thrillers have a lot of fast paced action, but I'm always impressed when there's a twist that relies more on brains than brawn. 

For example, today's script had a small, clever detail that snuck by me. 

Yes, it's a small, but the devil IS in the details, isn't it?

EXT. UPPER EAST SIDE -- LATE AFTERNOON

Bourne exits from the subway. Bourne walks north.

INT. HUB

Wills pacing...Bourne's profile is up on Screen 2. It says "David Webb (AKA Jason Bourne)" on the profile.  A tech comes to Wills.

TECH: Sir, this may be nothing but, look at Bourne's birthday.

Wills looks at the profile. Bourne's birthdate is listed as 9/13/70.

WILLS: What about it?

TECH: Well, Landy told Bourne his birthday was 4/15/71 so...

Wills gets it instantly.

WILLS: Everything stops. (to the room now) EVERYTHING STOPS! LISTEN UP! (they're listening) New assignment. Numbers. Four.  Fifteen. Seventy-one. What do they mean?

Wills grabs his headset --

EXT. CRASH SITE -- DAY

A CRI agent approaches Vosen.

CRI AGENT: Landy gave Bourne a false birthday. Wills thinks it's a code. 

It sinks in for Vosen...oh...shit... 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I liked this twist because it relied on observation, not having superior gadgets. 

The Bourne Identity (2007)(final shooting script, 7/20/2007)
by Tony Gilroy and Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi
Story by Tony Gilroy
Based on the novels by Robert Ludlum and Universal's "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Ultimatum"

* How I ranked the Bourne films:
- Bourne Identity: It's the freshest and most original.
- Bourne Supremacy: I wanted to see what happened to Marie.  
- Bourne Utlimatum: I'd lost patience with the "guy on the run with amnesia."   

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Bourne Supremacy (2007) - How to Ratchet Up Tension? Don't Forget the EXIT

[Quick Summary: Bourne and Marie are on the run once again.]

There are a lot of articles on how to INCREASE tension, but fewer on how to EXIT. 

Is the exit important? Yes, because tension relies on emotions rising and falling.  If it stayed high at all times, it would be very exhausting and also boring.

In these Bourne films, I like the exits because they demonstrate the necessity of the emotional release before the next round of tension. 

For example, in the scene below:
- The CIA is chasing Bourne.  
- Bourne is starting to remember things and who he is.
- Bourne calls the CIA for a meeting because he "wants to come in." 
- Bourne demands the CIA send in Nicky, someone he trusts.
- Nicky is a psychologist who helped Bourne with his meds and psychology on his last mission. 
- When they meet, Bourne demands Nicky confirm things in his file. 
- The scene exits with a show of mercy and emotional self-control.
- The exit lets the tension out, but also leaves us with more questions.
- Because there's a reprieve, we're ready for the next round of tension.

INT. PARKING GARAGE -- DAY

...BOURNE: For Treadstone. In Berlin. You know my file. I did a job here. When?

NICKY: No. You never worked Berlin.

BOURNE: My first job.

NICKY: Your first assignment was Geneva.

BOURNE: That's a lie!

NICKY (emphatic): You never worked Berlin...

BOURNE raising the gun -- eyes gone dead -- oh, shit...

NICKY (CONT'D): No...Jason...please...

BOURNE: I was here!

NICKY: ...it's not in the file...I swear...I know your file...your first job was Geneva! ...I swear to God you never worked here!...

He's so ready to kill her. NICKY starting to cry -- hands over her face -- covering up -- bracing for the bullet she knows is coming --

BOURNE -- about to pull the trigger --

SUDDENLY

FLASHBACK! -- a moment -- a shard -- A WOMAN'S FACE -- backing away -- begging -- begging us -- begging the camera -- PLEADING FOR HER LIFE IN RUSSIAN -- this awful blur of desperation and panic -- fear -- too fast -- too panicked --

JAM BACK TO  

BOURNE swamped -- thrown -- hesitating --  [I particularly liked this line because it shows Bourne's growth, as well as emotional self-control.]

CLOSE ON NICKY 

Sobbing now -- when? -- finally looking out, and --

BOURNE IS GONE! 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think how you exit a scene is as important as how you enter because they (the exits) are transitions to the next round of emotions. 

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)(9/17/03 draft, revised)
by Tony Gilroy and Brian Helgeland
Based on the novel by Robert Ludlum and the 2002 Universal Film "The Bourne Identity"

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Bourne Identity (2002) - In the Suspense Genre, Danger = Possibility of Failure

[Quick Summary: A man waking up with amnesia realizes that he's an assassin.] 

What is the difference between:
a) the Suspense genre and 
b) regular suspense that is found in all stories?

According to one Hitchcock quote, the Suspense genre is marked by danger, and I always find interesting in HOW various writers include it.  

For instance, writer Tony Gilroy brought fresh life to the tired suspense genre in the Bourne adaptations by making the audience feel the danger to the protagonist.

The scene below is from a first draft:
- The "Professor" is chasing Bourne and Marie. 
- Notice how your eye keeps moving because the stakes are high and there's a real possibility of failure. 
- Also notice that the tension lies in the maybes: Maybe Bourne will get caught and we'll never get answers. Or Marie will die and he'll lose connection to the world.

THE METRO PLATFORM

The PROFESSOR lands on the other side -- both racing down the platform -- PROFESSOR tearing up the wall behind them and -- HERE COMES  A TRAIN -- on BOURNE and MARIE's side -- traveling the opposite way -- temporary refuge.  Not for long -- there's no way out on this end of the platform. They skid to a halt -- just as --

THE TRAIN DOORS OPEN -- STARTLED STRAPHANGERS  stare at BOURNE and MARIE as they stop onto the platform -- take off running.

THE PROFESSOR has to turn his bike around. He's quick -- but it gives BOURNE and MARIE a two second head start.

BOURNE and MARIE almost at the other end of the platform -- gunfire ripping up the windows behind them. Gonna go for the steps -- be here come --

THE ANGRY COPS -- remember them? -- the ones who took the ride down the steps -- they're firing now and --

BOURNE and MARIE turn back -- the PROFESSOR is firing and there is only one option -- 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  What undergirds danger is the possibility of failure, which requires the push-pull of tension. 

I also think this story's frame work lends itself to suspense because it's the ultimate life or death situation, survival of the fittest. 

The Bourne Identity (2002)(9/20/00 Paris draft)
by Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron
Based on the novel by Robert Ludlum 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Proof of Life (2000) - One Way to Express Jeopardy (Hope-Fear-Hope-Fear)

[Quick Summary: In South America, an American wife hires a negotiator to arrange for the release of her husband, an engineer who was kidnapped.]

Q: How do you make the audience feel for the protagonist in an action thriller?
A: Danger and personal stakes are well worn tropes.

Q: But I have a dangerous situation in my script and it doesn't work. Why?
A: Perhaps there isn't enough jeopardy, i.e., the possibility that the protagonist could lose.

Q: Could you give me a good example of this see-sawing feeling?
A: I think Tony Gilroy scripts do a great job of making the audience feel they're constantly on the back foot and never assured of success.

For example, today's script stacks the deck against us:
- It is set in a foreign location where language and culture are barriers.  
- A crime (kidnapping) has occurred to Alice's husband, a civil engineer.   
- Alice has no experience with terrorists.
- Her only hope is Terry is a hardened, experienced negotiator, who at one point, walks away from helping her.
- A more specific example is the scene below, which happens early in the script to start us realizing that  the margin of error is very thin in Terry's job.
- Here, Terry has just made the trade for the hostage, Lenoir.
- Notice how the hope-fear-hope-fear that doesn't let the reader off the hook easily.
- Also notice that how this scene establishes Terry's ability and credibility.

 

TERRY'S JEEP -- THE LOCAL DRIVER -- stuck in the mud -- panic making it worse - -just finding traction as TRACER ROUNDS tear into him and --

THE TWO CHECHEN TANKS searching for targets --

TERRY still coming -- waving a sidearm at THE CHOPPER PILOT -- "don't move!" -- dragging LENOIR in under the rotors -- [We are hoping Terry will succeed.]

A RUSSIAN JEEP EXPLODING behind them and --

INSIDE THE CHOPPER  -- total chaos -- LENOIR scrambling in -- THE PILOT SCREAMING IN SLAVIC -- he's freaking out -- pulling up already -- too soon because -- [Fear: Oh no! Don't go!]

TERRY hasn't cleared the threshold -- tossed back -- head slammed against the door as he falls -- rocked -- grabbing at the doorframe -- hanging there! -- nothing but instinct keeping him from falling and -- [Hope: He's hanging in there.]

THE GROUND pulling away and --

LENOIR reaching for TERRY -- trying -- but THE PILOT -- there's something wrong -- something new -- no time -- suddenly he's jerking the stick and --

THE CHOPPER spilling sharply to one side and --

TERRY falling -- falling into the cockpit and -- [Fear: Oh noooo!]

WHOOOOOSK! -- AN ANTI-TANK ROCKET -- a blur -- already on them -- already past -- they've been hit! -- creased -- A LANDING SKID torn away from the undercarriage! -- the helicopter tilting -- overreacting -- stalling -- for a moment it looks like they're beating it in and -- 

THE PILOT fighting to keep it up -- CURSING AND SPUTTERING IN SLOVAK -- LENOIR rolling on the floor in pain -- his bandaged hand crushed in the turbulence and --  [Lots more fear.  This will not end well.]

FINALLY TO

TERRY pulling himself into a window seat. He's dazed. Looking down as the earth begins to pull away. As the chopper starts to level off.   [Whew! Hope.  Leveling off is good.]

TERRY wiping at the blood from a deep cut above his eye. Wiping it away so he can see. Trying to get a grip. To focus. Something. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For that gut wrenching feeling, discomfort and the possibility of not succeeding must reign.

Proof of Life (2000)(7/6/99 draft)
by Tony Gilroy 

TODAY'S NUGGETS: Armaggedon (1998) - Why THIS Guy?

[Quick Summary: A team of drillers are recruited to help stop an asteroid that threatens the earth.]

This story is preposterous, i.e., that a driller would end up as an astronaut.

So why THIS guy?  Why does Harry, an oil driller, need to be the protagonist?

I liked that this script is clear why: Harry is the only guy who knows how to operate the equipment, which will be required to blow up the asteroid.

The writers did a nice job of explaining this through introducing some conflict (we are now learning NASA had stolen Harry's prototype):

INT. NASA/HALLWAY -- ONE MINUTE LATER

Harry and Grace -- both in shock -- walk downstairs behind Truman, Quincy and A SMALL MILITARY ESCORT.

TRUMAN: We want to land on the asteroid, drill a hole, drop in some nukes, take off and detonate, having the pieces slide past us. Except we have an equipment problem.

QUINCY: The drilling unit is part of a lunar project we've been working on for the past three years. The recent discovery of water on the moon wa--

A DOOR. TWO ARMED GUARDS open up and step aside --

INT. NASA R&D HANGAR -- SAME TIME       OMITTED

TECHNICIANS standing beside a huge gurney. Stretched across, A LARGE ROBOTIC DRILLING ARM -- complex machinery and gears and Teflon cables. Harry's jaw tightening as he circles the thing. Harry is in shock -- .

QUINCY (nervously): You may recognize the rig...

HARRY (utterly confused): It's tough not to recognize something you spent five years designing --

QUINCY: Yes, we were planning on sending this to the moon and--

HARRY: What, you got a key to the Patent Office?

TRUMAN: Basically. You see, that's why you're here.

HARRY: What I see, is that you ripped me off and now I'm pissed.

QUINCY: We prefer the term borrowed...But actually, ostensibly, the boundaries of patent laws only apply to Earth, not outer space.

TRUMAN: Shut up, Ron.

HARRY: Are you kidding me?! I got dragged into this because you "borrowed from me" and by the say did a shit job of putting it together?

TRUMAN: So what's wrong with it? You said we'd done a bad job putting it together.  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Introducing conflict is one way to sneak in exposition without it feeling like an information dump.

Armaggedon (1998)(8/14/97 draft)
by Jonathan Hensleigh, rev. by Tony Gilroy and JJ Abrams

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Devil's Advocate (1997) - A Great Writer is Inventive in Getting the Audience into the Character

[Quick Summary: A defense lawyer makes a deal with the devil to defend him.]

I think what sets a good writer apart from a great writer is inventiveness.  

I particularly look for unusual visual (which is often called "cinematic") ways into characters that we've not seen before. 

For example, this script presents who the Milton character is in one startling image: 

INT. CATHOLIC CHURCH - DAY

Milton down below. Lowering a single finger into the holy water. Instantly -- it's boiling and we --

                                         HARD CUT TO; 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think this image is quite inventive because it's arresting and also makes me more curious about what's the character will do next. 

The Devil's Advocate (1997)(1/18/97 shooting script)
by Jonathan Lemkin and Tony Gilroy
Based on the novel by Andrew Neiderman
 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Cutting Edge (1992) - A Strong Voice + Economy of Writing (Clarity, Pacing, What the Characters Want)

[Quick Summary: When a female skater loses her skating partner, she and a hockey player team up as a doubles pair for the next Olympics.]

Q: What is "voice"?
A: "Voice" can be defined as "how a writer tells a story that is unique to him/her." 

Q: Is voice truly evident on the page? That is, that a particular writer wrote a script?
A:  Sometimes.  It's not just a point of view, but HOW the writer leads you through the story.

Q: What is a good example of a strong voice?
A: One of the strongest voices I've seen is writer Tony Gilroy, whose scripts I'll be posting about in the upcoming weeks (both original and rewrite jobs).*

Q: What is it about Gilroy's voice that is so evident? 
A: I think one would hire Gilroy because you like the way he tells a story. I like the way he balances tone in the dramas and action thrillers that he's known for. 

He has distinct brisk pacing, a way of getting into the story fast, and sustaining suspense, all while being very clear about what the characters want.  

Today's script is an unusual one: 
- It's Gilroy's first produced film credit as a writer.
- It is also sort of a sports/romance/action story to boot.
- Though this is a younger Gilroy script, it has all his trademark pacing and clarity.

In the scene below: 
- It is the1988 Calgary Olympics.
- There is a simplicity of two athletes of very different temperaments on a collision course.
- We are clear what each wants: to win.
- Note the economy of writing.  In a very few words, we feel the urgency of the moment, yet the Doug and Kate's mutual annoyance of encountering an obstacle.  

INT. THE BOWELS OF THE SADDLEDOME

An empty passageway. DOUG is lost. Sweating. Cursing. Charging blindly ahead. From above, the MUFFLED ROAR of the crowd. If he could claw his way up to the ice he'd do it.

                                                                           CUT TO:

A DIFFERENT PASSAGEWAY

KATE striding ahead -- rounding a corner  and -- SMACK! -- right into DOUG -- a head-on collision and it's no contest -- KATE sent flying on her ass --.

DOUG (barely stopping): -- Does this go up to the ice?

KATE stares at him, incredulous. "THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER" begins to play in the distance.

DOUG: Is this the way to the ice?

KATE (still sitting there): Why you barbarian jerk -- is that all you have to say?

Screw this, DOUG is already several steps away and moving. 

KATE: Where were you raised, in a barnyard?

DOUG stops mid-stride. This kind of shit demands at least a moment of his time.

DOUG: Honey, where I'm from we stand for the National Anthem.

Now he's gone. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I was impressed by how much takes place in such little space on the page.  It takes a lot of drafts to hone a script to get it into this shape. 

The Cutting Edge (1992)(4/15/90 draft)
by Tony Gilroy 

*Interestingly enough, the only other writer who had this strong of a voice (i.e., I could spot his invisible fingerprints on the page) is the legendary writer,  William Goldman, who was one of Gilroy's mentors. 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Why "Vari-Speed" Tells Us About Character

[Quick Summary: Holmes and sidekick Dr. Watson are on the trail of an enemy that wants to destroy England.

I wasn't surprised that this script was tailored to its director Guy Ritchie, who favors cinematic techniques like swish pans, slow motion, etc.

I was surprised to see how the writers included these techniques on the page, ex. "vari-speed" in the scene below. 

I think it works because it shows the speed of Holmes' thoughts. In other words, "vari-speed" is about character, not just a cool technique. 

INT. CATHEDRAL CRYPTS - ENTRANCE - NIGHT 

 ...We see Holmes' eyes from the shadows, as he lowers his jacket and thinks through his plan of attack.

HOLMES (V.O.): Head cocked to the left, partial deafness in right ear. FIrst point of attack.

PRE-VISUALIZATION IN VARI-SPEED

FOCUS ON the spot behind the man's right ear, just at the top of the jaw -- the most vulnerable point. Holmes launches a hammer blow, and we ramp from 24 fps to 00 fps (ULTRA SLOW MOTIONS) as he makes contact. The man's head is thrown back as he spins round.

HOLMES (V.O.): Then throat, paralyze vocal chords, stop screaming.

BACK TO 24 fps. The man's mouth opens to cry out. we RAMP BACK UP TO 400 fps as his Adam's Apple is struck with a precision karate chop, strangling his scream.

HOLMES (V.O.): Stink of alcohol, heavy drinker -- knuckles to liver.

BACK TO 24 fps, RAMPING TO 400 fps as a devastating knuckle-punch to the liver doubles up the bowler-hatted thug and crumples him to his knees.

SECOND-TIME ACTION - SUPER FAST REPEAT OF ABOVE

Holmes flashes out of the shadows, moving so fast that we can barely see what he's doing.

THWACK! Hammer blow to ear.
CRACK! Karate chop to throat.
WHAP! Knuckle punch to liver.

BACK TO NORMAL MOTION as the man crumples to the ground, Holmes takes his bowler hat from his head and flips it onto his own in one super fast move.

Holmes drags the battered man into the shadows, lifts his lantern and proceeds down the spiral staircase. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Beware using a cool technique without linking it to character. One works. The other will come off flat.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)(9/29/08 draft)
by Michael Robert Johnson and Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg

Story by Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson

TODAY'S NUGGET: Spartacus (1960) - "What is Going on in Each Scene? What's the Most Interesting Way to Play It?"

[Quick Summary: In ancient Rome, Spartacus leads of revolt of gladiatorial slaves in a fight for freedom.]

THREE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THIS FILM: 

1) After Paths of Glory (1957), star Kirk Douglas teamed up again with director Stanley Kubrick on Spartacus (1960), one of the most expensive films of its time. 

2) Writer Dalton Trumbo did not like how the POV was rewritten because it shrunk his larger scale to a smaller scale (his"Two Conflicting POV" report here). 

3) Director Stanley Kubrick observed:

The making of any film, whatever the historical setting or the size of the sets, has to be approached in much the same way. You have to figure out what is going on in each scene and whats the most interesting way to play it. With Spartacus, whether a scene had hundreds of people in the background or whether it was against a wall, I thought of everything first as if there was nothing back there. Once it was rehearsed, we worked out the background.  (my bolding)

A good example of this is the death of a gladitorial slave, in the scene below:
- Marcus Crassus is a general and politician who is hungry for power.
- Crassus is with his friend Glabrus, who is getting married to Claudia.  
- They have come to the gladitorial school to purchase a private gladitorial fight, in honor of the upcoming wedding. 
- Batiatus is the owner of the gladiator school.
- Slaves were often paired off to fight each other, sometimes to the death.  
- Here, Spartacus and Draba are paired up. 
- Draba has a trident and net. He subdues Spartacus, then spares him.  
- Draba heads for the those that purchased him, as vengeance. 
- What is going on in this scene? It explains what is at stake for slaves if they do not resist and revolt. It also shows how unyielding Crassus is.
- What is the most interesting way to play it? Draba's death is very dramatic and involves the bad guy, Crassus.  In the background, the guards' actions emphasize the main action.

FULL SHOT - FIELD AND GALLERY

Draba has reached the fence. There a guard tries to intercept him. Draba skewers him and flings his body away as if scattering trash. He climbs the fence, lunges upward into the gallery and toward the box. Other guards are not closing in from all directions. As Draba leaps toward the box, the first guard gets within throwing distance. He hurls his heavy pilum at Draba. The eighteen inches of steel imbeds itself in the gladiator's ebony body, but still he plunges upward, his trident in position to throw, his eyes on his deadly enemies in the box. A second pilum finds its mark, but already Draba has groped his way almost to the box, the spears dragging from the body.

FLASH SHOT - ARENA - SPARTACUS

stupefied, staring, just extricating himself from the net.  

FLASH SHOT - THE BOX

Batiatus hides behind it. Glabrus leaps in alarm to his feet. Crassus moves not a muscle. Chill as steel, utterly fascinated by the possibilities, he watches the approach of Draba. Claudia, trying to get out o the box, stumbles, falls and SCREAMS.

ANOTHER ANGLE - INCLUDING BOX AND DRABA

Guards rushing UP on him in b.g. Draba, the two spears still sticking in his back, makes a final lunge. His hands grasp the edge of the box. His eyes glare up at the occupants, fierce and horrible and lost. Crassus, in the meanwhile, has slowly risen. Calmly, he slips a tiny bejeweled dagger from his belt. And then, as Draba's great arms reach out to seize him, he bends forward between those terrible arms (exactly as a bullfighter risks life by bending forward between the horns for the death thrust) and deftly inserts the knife into Draba's spinal cord just above the shoulder-line. Even before the knife is withdrawn, Draba is dead. The effect is instantaneous (again as in a bullfight when a member of the corrida severs the spinal counterpart of a wounded and dying bull.) The great African, like his counterpart the bull, curls convulsively into the birth position his head forward between his arms, his knees drawn upward -- but he was dead before the reflex action of death was made visible.  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I realized that I often skip the importance of nailing "What's going on in each scene?" because I'm more worried about "What's the most interesting way to play it?"

Spartacus (1960)(1/16/59 final draft, revised)
by Dalton Trumbo
Based on the novel by Howard Fast
 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Paths of Glory (1957) - A Villain's "I'm Not Sorry at All" Final Speech

[Quick Summary: During a court martial, a French colonel defends his regiment over refusing to shoot at fellow French officers in a suicide mission that was ordered by a General.]

Every villain doesn't think he's a villain.  He thinks he's justified for what he's done.

This script does a great job of exploring how a villain thinks, and ends in a great summation speech at the end (below).

In this scene:
- Gen. Rousseau called for the suicide mission.
- Col. Dax is a lawyer who was drafted into the war.
- The "guilty" regiment was ordered to choose a few soldiers to be punished for the whole regiment. They were to be shot with a firing squad.
- After the soldiers were absolved, Rousseau and Dax walk together.
- Note how Rousseau's musings show that he's thoughtful, but not particularly moral. He rationalizes away what he has done.  

EXT. VARIOUS ANGLES - PARADE GROUND

...They walk along in a friendly silence.

GEN. ROUSSEAU (expansively): Which one of us was on the side of the angels, I wonder.

COL. DAX: I'm not sure I follow you, sir.

GEN. ROUSSEAU: Well, take, for instance, the case of the early Christians. What was it, perhaps more than anything else, that strengthened and solidified them? -- persecution, wouldn't you say? The cruelest kind of injustice. Tyranny gave birth to the Manga Carta. Callousness and indifference to human welfare brought about the French Republic. And so on through History. It may be that progress comes really through a kind of challenge. And who is to say that if those men had been shot today, that it wouldn't have been a step towards the end of a certain kind of despotism in the army?

COL. DAX: General, you have a very strange theory there. I am not at all sure that I agree with you. 

GEN. ROUSSEAU: I'm not at all sure I agree with myself. You know, perhaps when they say man is a rational animal, what they really mean is that he has a limitless ability to rationalize, to make excuses for himself, to feel self-righteous no matter what he does. I don't know why I'm rambling on like this. Probably because there's nothing left for me to do but talk. You know, Colonel, I am undoubtedly a very wicked man - but I don't feel wicked inside. Though, I suppose that's  a prerequisite for being labeled truly wicked. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I thought these last two lines were particularly chilling because Rousseau is rational yet has lost a moral center. 

The Paths of Glory (1957)(undated draft)
by Stanley Kubrick and Jim Thompson 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Mindhunters (2004) - How to Make an Information Dump More Interesting to Watch (Clarity of Purpose)

[Quick Summary: After a group of FBI trainees are dropped off on a deserted island for a weekend training exercise, one of them starts killing them off, one by one.]

I thought this script did a great job of bringing the audience into the psychological game that's being played.  How did the writers do it?

They had to find a way to quickly get into the minds of the trainees, explain how they think (essentially an information dump), yet maintain a brisk pacing. 

The writers knew that the most traditional and efficient way to do this is through interviews of the trainees.  Their new addition here was using new technology.  

For example, in the scene below: 
- Harris, the FBI trainer, has brought the trainees to an isolated island for training.
- Someone has a beef with all of them. Weird things start to happen.
- Sara, one of the trainees, goes looking for information and finds a laptop with her fellow trainees' initial interviews.  
- Notice that this is an information dump, but a necessary and efficient one. 
- The interview is a tried-and-true technique, but the writers used a more modern tool here to do so (the laptop). 
- Also, Sara is seeking clues, so the interviews feel more like answers to her questions vs. telling the audience information. 

INT. THE DORM ROOMS -- MOMENTS LATER

...Sara's eyes SWING to the LAPTOP on J.D's bed.

THE SCREEN

is filled with STAR-BURSTS - a SCREEN-SAVER program.

She presses the command button. The computer comes to life.

ON THE SCREEN -- J.D. APPEARS ON VIDEO TAPE

In the middle of an INTERVIEW.

J.D. (on tape): ...If there's one thing I've learned working for the Bureau, there's always a cause and effect. Even in the sickest criminal mind.

HARRIS (V.O.)(on tape): But do you want to crawl into that kind of mind?

ANGLE THE GROUP

as they stare at the laptop - dumbfounded.

J.D. (on tape): Do I want to? No. But will I? Yes.

ANGLE THE LAPTOP -- AS THE SCREEN

turns to SNOW

and ANOTHER INTERVIEW blinks on.

BOBBY (on tape): I'd be walking, just minding my own business, and a squad car would pull over. I used to carry a photo ID just to prove I lived in the neighborhood.

HARRIS (V.O.): Why Behavioral Science?

BOBBY (on tape): You're the best...

TIGHT ON BOBBY

BOBBY: That's my psych-eval interview...

ANGLE THE LAPTOP --

SNOW again...

ANOTHER INTERVIEW blinks on.

NICOLE (on tape): I was 11 years-old. I came home from school and mom was unconscious . The police took him away. It's the first time I remember feeling safe. We never heard from dad again...

ANOTHER ANGLE - LUCAS

LUCAS (on tape): I left medical school to join the Bureau because I thought I could be more effective on the front lines. (beat) What can I say? I'm an adrenaline junkie.

ANGLE - RAMON 

RAMON (on tape): Once I got a taste of homicide, there was no turning back. There's not a helluva lot more satisfying than seeing a killer brought to justice.

ANGLE - VINCE

VINCE (on tape): I was that kid. The one who knew everything there is to know about serial killers. I've always wanted to be a mindhunter. The accident hasn't changed that.

ANGLE - SARA

SARA (on tape): Her killer sent me letters from different mailing services for a year after we found the body. Told me everything he did to her. (beat) Every single thing.

TIGHT ON SARA

flushing crimson...

AND THE SCREEN FREEZES. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't particularly notice the information dump about other characters here because the scene had real clarity of purpose.  

That is, Sara was seeking answers, so watching her register new information was more interesting to watch than if I was told it.

Also, the laptop was cool updated tech to use in a film, but it didn't replace knowing the fundamentals of drama (re: how to convey information through interviews).

Mindhunters (2004)(12/17/00 revised draft)
by Wayne Kramer, revisions by Kevin Brodbin, Kario Salem

2026 OSCARS: Train Dreams (2025) - When Someone Becomes Important to You (Combination of Voice Over + Action)

[Quick Summary: The life of beauty and heartache of Robert Grainier, a logger and railroad worker.]

Q: What's this film about?
A: It's a quiet story about beauty of the world and the passage of time.  It's got a mood and atmosphere to it that's reflective, like a tone poem. 

Q: That sounds boring. What makes it so special to be nominated?
A: The writing sneaks up on you, and fits perfectly with a protagonist who doesn't say a whole lot, but feels things deeply and simply. 

For example, in the scene below:
- Robert lost his family early in life and was raised by foster parents.
- He experienced a lot of things, but has remained uninvolved and unconnected emotionally.
- Things changed when he meets his wife, Gladys.
- Suddenly something makes connection worthwhile and it changes him.
- This scene below is the first time he notices her, a moment of seismic importance.
- He is someone who is unused to communicating.
- Notice how the writers honed the writing to bring out the truthfulness of the moment, yet its simplicity.  They chose to use voice over + drop of the gaze, in order to give the latter more meaning. 

INT. METHODIST CHURCH - YEARS LATER

Grainier is in his early 30's, looking like a stray animal. Singing along to the hymns. It's a small church. Not more than two dozen in the congregation.

NARRATOR (V.O.): He felt that nothing much attracted his interest, until, that is, he met Gladys Olding.

He watches GLADYS, singing in the choir. Her voice stands apart to him.

But when she looks at him, he's too shy to hold her gaze. He looks down to his choir book. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm not a huge fan of voice over, but here, it's used well.  

It gives context to the drop of the gaze, i.e., Robert is shy, yet really wants to connect, which is unusual for him.     

Train Dreams (2025)(undated)
by Clint Bentley & Greg Kwedar
Based on the book by Denis Johnson

2026 OSCARS: Hamnet (2025) - Telling, Not Showing" is Effective When the Pressure is Too Much (Emotional Life)

[Quick Summary: After William Shakespeare marries the forest-loving Agnes, they grieve the death of their son Hamnet.]

This script has a typical story arc about healing a rift when tragedy happens: 

Will and Agnes meet, marry, and have kids --> Their son Hamnet dies and they grieve --> They are reunited through Will writing the play "Hamlet." 

One thing I really liked about the script is how it expresses small emotional moments that eventually pile up into a barrier of communication. 

I thought it was interesting that the writers did this by breaking the "show, not tell rule"* with the reverse, i.e.,"telling and not showing."  

For example, in the scene below: 
- Will has been very unhappy at his father's glove making business.
- He and Agnes are married and living at his parents' house.
- Agnes wakes up in the night. Will is not there. He's trying to write at night.
- She tries to comfort him, but he yells at her.
- Notice how the "telling and not showing" is to clarify indescribable feelings, or a short cut language.  To explain it on screen is unnecessary.

INT. HENLEY HOUSE - ATTIC - NIGHT

...Once Susanna stops fussing, Agnes comes back to Will. She gently touches the back of his neck, trying to sooth him. But he turns his head away, wiping any tears he may shed. He will never let her see him weak.

WILL (CONT'D): I'm sorry. I've had too much to drink.  

She takes his hand. He flinches.

WILL (CONT'D)(controls himself): Please. Not now.

AGNES: What are you afraid I will see?

WILL: I'm a violent, dangerous man.

He is holding all the emotions in. They are threatening to burst out of his chest and kill him. [I particularly like this description of something he can't express.]

AGNES: You are none of that. You're a good man, a good man. 

He puts his arm around her waist. He lets her rub her fingers through his hair, soothing him.

AGNES (CONT'D): Is it...are you..do you wish we had not...wed? Is that it?

He looks up at her, his face pained, aghast.

WILL: No. Never. How could you say such a thing? You and Susanna are all I live for. Nothing else matters.

AGNES: What is it, then?

WILL: ...I don't know. I'm lost. I have lost my way, Agnes. The landscapes you saw... (changes his mind) It's nothing. It's nothing.

She knows what he means. Those landscapes she saw haven't been realized, and it's torturing him. But he says no more after that. [Note this "breaks a screenwriting rule" that you shouldn't include anything that can't be seen.  I think it's very effective here to explain emotions that the characters don't have to explain to each other.]

AGNES: ...What can I do for you?

WILL: Nothing, my love. Nothing.

She is now at a complete loss. 

WILL (CONT'D): Please go back to sleep. I need to work. All is well. I just need to work.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think "telling, not showing" can be effective.  Here, it connects a lot of dots for the reader quickly for things that are unnecessary to belabor.

Hamnet (2025)(undated)
by Chloe Zhao & Maggie O'Farrell
Based on the novel by Maggie O'Farrell

*You know how I feel about the so-called "screenwriting rules." They're guidelines when you need help. They're not absolute.  

2026 OSCARS: Frankenstein (2025) - Guillermo del Toro Explains the Elements of Horror (Plus an Example)

[Quick Summary: Victor Frankenstein creates a monster that becomes his undoing.]

PRO: This is the film that Guillermo del Toro has wanted to make for decades.

CON: This script is too long.

PRO: The film has garnered 9 Oscar nominations.  

CON: Its budget from Netflix was a whopping $120M, with only $144,496 gross (one territory). However, grosses don't seem important to this streamer. 

PRO: I tend to avoid horror, but was intrigued by Guiellermo del Toro's explanation of the genre:

"The essence of horror - the two, and only two, things that create horror: something that is there and should not [be], or something that should not be there and is there." 

An example of one of these elements is in the scene below:
- Dr. Frankenstein has created the Creature. 
- Frankenstein fell for brother's fiancee, Elizabeth, who was kind to Creature.
- Frankenstein is enraged that she'd choose Creature over him.
- The Creature fights with Frankenstein, then releases him. 
- Frankenstein hunts the Creature into the North Pole.
- Note that the Creature takes up the dynamite voluntarily.  We expect him to die, but when he does not, it's horrifying ("something that should not be there and is there").

EXT. INT ESPLANADE - NIGHT

... The Creature sinks the Knife into Victor's SHOULDER - THUNK!

The Creature fetches the dynamite. Victor pulls the knife out - bleeding.

CREATURE (CONT'D): You - put your faith in this? This?! (beat) But if it does not, I will come for you - again! And make you regret it. (Beat) Light it... Light it!!!

Victor obeys. Trembling and covered in blood.

The Creature embraces the dynamite as if it was a baby - a prize - a cherished possession: tight upon his chest. 

Victor crawls away and then gets up - limps away. Arm dislocated and bleeding, artificial limb almost entirely loose.

 The Creature is engulfed by the EXPLOSION. A CRATER forms.

But - when the smoke clears: The Creature rises again: ONE EYE SOCKET is empty - His chest, jagged with wounds- 

One of his hands with EXPOSED knuckles points at Victor: 

CREATURE (CONT'D): Now- run- 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Though I don't really like horror, I found del Toro's explanation helpful in writing suspense, i.e., when something isn't as we expect, it's frightening.

Frankenstein (2025)(Sept. 2024, final shooting script)
by Guillermo del Toro
Based on the novel by Mary Shelley 

2026 OSCARS: Bugonia (2025) - Why It's Not Really About the Dialogue, But the Subtext

[Quick Summary: Two cousins kidnap a biomedical corporate executive, whom they're convinced is an alien, to get her to stop destroying the earth.]

This script is a 2-3 hander and is a quick read.  

I really admired how it made us connect with the characters.  I think it stems from the characters really trying to communicate something, a very exposing thing.

The amazing thing was how it's all in the subtext, not the words. 

For example, in the scene below:
- Teddy convinced his cousin Don to kidnap Teddy's boss, Michelle.
- They have brought her to their home.
- Michelle tries to escape by admitting to "being an alien."
- Teddy makes a dinner of spaghetti for her, him, and Don.
- Michelle tries to talk to Don, but Teddy discourages discussion of any personal nature.
- Undeterred, she tries again to find a connection through a neutral topic, bees. 
- Notice that she takes the first step to finding common ground.  She is the one who exposes herself and gives her opinion on bees. 
- When Teddy responds with a similar opinion, they have a moment of connection.
- Their unspoken feelings of "I respect you, I like you because we like the same things" is in the subtext of their similar opinions and shared smiles.

 INT. KITCHEN. DAY

...Don is unsure if he should reply.

TEDDY: You'll have to excuse my colleague. He prefers not to converse.

They eat silently again. Michelle sees some BEEKEEPER GEAR.

MICHELLE: I see you're an apiarist.

TEDDY: Of sorts.

MICHELLE: I've taken an interest as well.

TEDDY: Mm. So I've heard.

MICHELLE: Magnificent creatures. Honeybees.

TEDDY: Yes, indeed. Very much so.

MICHELLE: Earth's most admirable creation.

Teddy looks up. A brief moment of unexpected connection.

TEDDY: Well, shit. I've literally said those exact words before.

They lock eyes for a moment. Michelle smiles with respect. Teddy almost reciprocates, then turns back to his plate. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: There's real craft in creating that subtext. It's not what is actually said, nor the meaning of the words (bees are magnificent), but the understanding of human nature that we tend to lower our walls with the people with whom we agree. 

Bugonia (2025)(undated)
by Will Tracy
Based on the film Save the Green Planet!

2026 OSCARS: Sinners (2025) - How to Explain Vampire Rules Without Explaining Them ("Show, Not Tell" in Reactions)

[Quick Summary: Troubled twins set up a juke joint in the South, but vampires stand in the way of its success.]

In this well written script, I particularly enjoyed how the writer built suspense with an uneasy feeling that something is wrong.

For example, in the scene below:
- Smoke and Stack are twins who have come back to the South, after fleeing Chicago. 
- They have decided to set up a juke joint and charge cover fees.
- They hire Annie to cook for the joint.
- Annie is a practitioner of the occult, and was once an item with Smoke.
- One of their employees, Cornbread, has been missing for awhile and returns. 
- Notice how the scene starts out with an argument and Cornbread's offer to help.
- Though viewers may not know the vampire rule (you have to be asked to enter a building), they sense that Annie is uneasy about something. 
- She does not say out loud what she suspects, but challenges Cornbread to act. 
- I thought it was clever how Cornbread avoids the question and throw the focus back on Annie.
- Also, it's unusual to create a reveal of this vampire rule without telling it, but showing in the reactions and other dialogue unrelated to what is being revealed.

 

INT. ENTRY HALLWAY - JUKE JOINT - LUMBER MILL - NIGHT - CONTINUOUS

 ...Cornbread finally notices Smoke is covered in blood.

CORNBREAD: Goddamn Smoke...what happened to you?

SMOKE: What happened to me? Stack is dead. What the fuck happened to you? You was supposed to be watching the place. Not taking a hour long piss.

CORNBREAD: I'm sorry. Well let me come in and help.

Annie clocks this. [Annie is the first to have suspicions.]

She extends her hands to Smoke to stop him.

Smoke looks back at Annie confused. Delta Slim as well.

They stare at Cornbread, who stares back at them with an almost comically confused expression. 

CORNBREAD: What ya'll doing?

The three continue to stare without budging.

CORNBREAD (CONT'D): Smoke. Just step aside and let me on in. [He needs an invitation.]

ANNIE: Why you need him to do that? You big and strong enough to push past us. [Annie confronts him with a question that requires him to act first. This is, in essence, "showing, not telling" about the vampire rules, which the audience may or may not know about. ]

CORNBREAD: Because that wouldn't be very polite of me now, would it? I don't know why I'm even talking to you. Probably your fish sandwich that made me so sick. Using that old stale grease. [Cornbread knows she is suspicious, so he tries to distract her.] 

ANNIE: I ain't never used stale grease and you know it.  [His accusation puts her on the defensive about her food.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One way to "show and not tell" the vampire rules is to require the vampire to violate the rule, i.e., to act.

"Show, not tell" usually means visuals and not dialogue.  The example above was a rare instance of using other dialogue and reactions, rather than what I expected, i.e., visuals alone.

Sinners (2025)(undated draft)
by Ryan Coogler /

2026 OSCARS: Sentimental Value (2025) - When a Location is Not Just a Metaphor, But a Participant/Witness

[Quick Summary: In the family home, a director and his two adult daughters try to bridge years of misunderstandings and absences.]

This is a film about family memories and how they get in the way of present relationships.   Here's a little background:

- The father, Gustav, is a film director, who hasn't made a film in 15 yrs.  
- Gustav left his wife when his daughters, Nora and Agnes, were young.
- The wife remained in the family home with the two daughters.  
- The wife was a psychologist and has recently died.  
- The daughters have returned to deal with her estate and the house. 
- Gustav also returns, with a role for his daughter Nora to act in.  
- He wants to shoot his film in the family house.

One of the things that impressed me in the script is how the writers indicated that this house will be important to this family's story.

It is used a metaphor, but also used literally as the structure in which the family has to wrestle with memories.  The house is a silent participant/witness to their lives.

In this early scene in the script (below), the writers use a montage of rapid images to establish how often the house is a participant in the family's daily life:

INT. FAMILY HOUSE (VARIOUS TIMES) - DAY

MONTAGE of rapid images of the house being used and abused as the voice continues:

NARRATOR: She remembered wondering if the house preferred to be light and empty or full and heavy...

High heels scrape the parquet of floor at a party (1965).

An eager dog's claws scratch the wooden floor in front of the door (1980).

NARRATOR (CONT'D): ...if it liked being trampled on, or that people crashed into its walls, that eager dog claws scratched the floorboards.

A chair scraping against the kitchen floor (1998).

Children's dirty fingers stick to the railing on the stairs (1994).

A wine glass falls to the floor and shatters (1965).

A milk glass topples over (1955).

A laptop falls corner-first, creating a deep gouge in the wooden floor (2000).

NARRATOR (CONT'D): ...and she thought yes, it liked being full, and that the marks were just scrapes like you get playing tag or soccer.

Gustav (35) is moving his hands behind the two small windows over the kitchen door. The shadowplay makes it seem to Nora (3) that they are two eyes looking toward her. (1990s). 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'd never seen a house used as participant/witness/location/framework of the story like this. The memories make a house a home.

Sentimental Value (2025)(8/18/24 draft) 
by Eskil Vogt & Joachim Trier

2026 OSCARS: Marty Supreme (2025) - One Key to a Hair Pin "Reversal of Fortune" Moment (Hope-Fear)

[Quick Summary A table tennis player is thwarted as he schemes, cons, and hustles friends and strangers to finance a trip to the World Championship.]

TWO THOUGHTS: 

1)  PROS:
- This is a well written, script and reads fast.
- The script attempts to capture a bold, foolhardy emotional roller coaster.   
- The protagonist is an audacious, confident, unpleasantly selfish young man. 

CONS: 
- I appreciate the criticism that the story seems to be a scatter shot of events that aren't cohesive and build to something (episodic?).   
- Though life is very episodic, trying to connect events that are not "one of a whole" is distracting.  Also, the start-stop-start-stop rhythm is distracting.
- You'll either love its truthfulness, or hate the jerkiness of the flow.  

2) ALWAYS EMOTIONALLY TRUTHFUL.  Like its protagonist, the script takes big swings that may/may not work. For the most part, it works.

Why? I think it's because the writers were careful to be truthful with emotions, especially in the big moments.

For example, in the scene below:
- This is a hair pin, "reversal of fortune" moment.
- Milton Rockwell, a rich guy, offered to sponsor Marty in Japan.
- Marty turned Rockwell down because he had principles.
- Marty has slept with Milton's actress wife. Milton doesn't know.
- Now Marty is begging for that job back because he has no other options.
- Why would we believe Marty would change his mind now? Earlier, it was setup that there isn't anything he won't do - steal, bargain, con, etc.
- Then in this scene, emotions flip flop quickly between hope and fear, desperation and bravado. 
- Note that the audience can stick to these hair pin emotional turns because they're always truthful. Marty is really that fast - a fast speaker, a fast hustler, a fast opportunist.

EXT. MOROSCO THEATER - CONTINUOUS 

...MILTON steps into the car. The Chauffeur heads around to the driver's side. MARTY raps his knuckles on the window.

MARTY: Mr. Rockwell...(knock knock) Please.... (knock knock) Mr. Rockwell... [Fear. Descending. Desperation. He's at rock bottom.]

MILTON (voice muffled through the glass): What!

MARTY: Look, let's be pragmatists for a second. Put your personal feelings about me aside. You and I both know the kind of value I'd bring to an event with Endo on his home turf. You said so yourself. I'm like a stick of dynamite over there. Whatever other plans you've made, they're going to pale in comparison... [Hope. Ascending. There's hope, a crack in the door.]

A pause.

MARTY (CONT'D): Can we just sit and talk about this reasonably for 2 minutes? There's more than enough common ground here. [Hope. Ascending. He's widening the door.]

Another pause. 

MILTON: Fine, get in the car.

MARTY: Thank you!

MARTY runs around to the passenger side. MILTON motions to the driver and the car takes off. MARTY runs alongside it, banging on the window, until he can't keep up.  [Fear. Descending. The door is slammed.]

MARTY (CONT'D): SON OF A BITCH! YOU WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE IDEA IF IT WASN'T FOR ME!! [Fear. Descending fast into the ground.]

The car continues down the street. [Fear. Hits rock bottom again.]

Hold a few beats on MARTY, stewing. He steps back on the curb and realizes that Kay's ASSISTANT has been standing there, uncomfortable, waiting to speak to him. [Hair pin turn into hope. Ascending.]

MARTY (CONT'D): What!

ASSISTANT: Um, Ms. Stone would like to have lunch with you. [Hope. Ascending fast.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One key to staying on the rails, even in a hair pin "reversal of fortune" moment, is staying emotionally true to the character. 

I would've been pulled out of the story if Marty, who is a self-absorbed, fast talking, opportunistic person, suddenly grew a conscience, or slowed down to think. 

Marty Supreme (2025)(dated 2/2/25)
by Ronald Bronstein & Josh Safdie

2026 OSCARS: It Was Just an Accident (2025) - One Example of Economically Dropping Thriller Clues (Show Not Tell)

[Quick Summary: When formerly tortured prisoners catch the guard who tortured them, the group is uncertain if it's the same man and fights within itself.]

How can this thriller be so full of suspense at only 63 pgs. in length!?

One key was how carefully the writer chose his clues.  They had to be clear, but result in questions that would make the reader want to turn the page. 

For example, in the scene below:
- A man's car breaks down with his pregnant wife and daughter Niloufar inside.
- They come to a random repair shop.
- Vahid is the mechanic.
- Note that the first clue is an AUDIBLE one.
- Also note that it is Vahid's reaction that makes the audience realize something is wrong. 
- Thus the audience begins to realize danger is afoot without being told (show not tell).

 I./E. CAR ON COUNTRY ROAD - NIGHT

...Vahid hangs up and lights a cigarette.
In the meantime, the woman comes out of the bathroom.
Vahid looks at her through the gap in the door. The woman sits down, apparently overcome by stomach pains. Niloufar helps her.
We hear the workshop door open. Vahid goes to the far end of the room but the sound of the man's artificial leg on the concrete floor makes him freeze, as if this unusual noise seemed familiar. He pricks up his ears. Vahid tries to spot the man, but he can't. He discreetly steps over to the door again.

He sees the man come into the workshop, then go over to his wife and daughter. Vahid looks devastated. He quickly steps back and presses against the cupboard so as not to be seen. he takes a deep breath and tries to pull himself together. All of a sudden, the man calls out to him. 

MAN: Vahid...Vahind...

Vahid doesn't reply. 

MAN: Mister Vahid...

Vahid is cornered. He coughs and then answers, but without showing himself. He alters his voice to reply.

VAHID: Yes?!

MAN: Mister Omid needs the old toolbox.

Vahid heaves a sign of relief.

VAHID: It's next to the big machine! 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The choice of an auditory clue here was brilliant because:
- It is suspenseful because it has meaning that the audience doesn't know yet (as we learn from Vahid's reactions).
- It made me wonder what the characters knew, thus I wanted to turn the page.
- It is showing, but not telling the story.

It Was Just an Accident (2025)
by  Jafar Panahi

2026 OSCARS: Blue Moon (2025) - This is NOT the Payoff Speech You Expect (Creating an Ironic, Emotionally Satisfying Ending)

[Quick Summary: Lorenz Hart, formerly of the famous Rodgers-Hart duo, struggles with alcoholism and regret on the opening night of the new Rodgers-Hammerstein musical, "Oklahoma!".]

THREE THOUGHTS: 

1) THE PROCESS. In several recent interviews, actor Ethan Hawke spoke about director Richard Linklater's process with the script.*  The most interesting tidbits:

1) "Linklater is very patient." It's taken 10 years to get the script right.
2) Hawke said he knew this was a very small target they were aiming for. 
3) Each time they'd get a draft, Linklater would call it "another layer of paint."

2) THE SCRIPT. I think this patience and persistence paid off.  It's a very tight script (only 85 pgs.), happens all in one night, and mostly in one location.  

It's also a wonderful character piece on how Hart often got in his own way. 

3) PAYOFF THAT PAYS OFF. I imagine getting Hart right was very hard: 

- He was short, overlooked, and full of contradictions (ex. self-destructive and smart; gay, but hopelessly in love with a woman).
- He was both the biggest and smallest person in the room.
- Hawke said that Hart kept talking, talking, talking because he wouldn't be noticed if he stopped. 

What does the writer do with a character who won't shut up? Here, it was fascinating to see the unexpected irony that the writer used in the structure.

To be more specific, the writer allowed Hart to talk, talk, talk for 3/4th of the script, then the woman he loves shuts him up in the last 1/4th with a brilliant monologue.

For example, in the scene below:
- Hart is in love with Elizabeth, who is 20 yrs. younger.
- Hart hasn't told her how he feels about her.
- She's still at Yale and stuck on Cooper, a friend's boyfriend and a junior at Yale.
- She thinks of Hart as a confidante, but doesn't ask much from him except to listen.
- He knows he's gay, but feels seen by her. It's the closest thing to love for him.
- At the party for "Oklahoma!," they go into a closet to have some privacy.
- She tells him about her humiliating 20th birthday with her crush, Cooper.
- On her birthday, they tried to have sex, but Cooper was too drunk and nervous. 
- A week later, Cooper asked her to dinner. They meet at his fraternity.
- This is one of Hart's most important scenes, and it's all in his reaction.
- Note that he's been talking all this time, self-absorbed -- until this moment when SHE becomes more important.
- Also, this is only part of Elizabeth's speech.  I'd highly recommend you read it in its entirety. It's a high wire act.  One of the best of deeply felt, exposing speeches for a female character.  

INT. SARDI'S BAR - ENTRANCE AREA - CONTINUOUS

...COAT ROOM AREA

ELIZABETH: In spades. I mean, it's suddenly pouring. We're practically tearing each other's clothes off. There is no conversation. And this time there is no difficulty. Not the first time. Not the second time.

HART: Stop.

ELIZABETH: He says to me, "Happy belated birthday, Elizabeth," and, you want to hear the unbelievable ending to this sordid little story That was the last time I saw him. That was November - over four months ago. I was absolutely sure he'd call. If only to have sex again, right? No. Never. I thought he'd write. No. So I call him, of course. He couldn't get off the phone fast enough.  So I wrote to him a four-page typed letter. Single-spaced. No response....

I tell myself it was like a fever dream, you know? And, maybe, the fever finally broke. And it all sounds sane and sensible, but, you know something, if he called me right now, right this very second, I'd drop everything in my life and drive three hours, drive thirty hours just to spend one more night with him. What is the matter with me, Larry? 

HART: Why would you drive thirty hours to see someone who treated you like that?

ELIZABETH: Because I'm in love with him?

HART: ...You are?

ELIZABETH: It's illogical. Obsessional. Pathetic. And this is not the first time this has happened to me. It keeps happening to me. I feel like I can't see people clearly. 

She struggles to take a deep breath. He takes out his pocket handkerchief and hands it to her. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This payoff ending was emotionally satisfying because:
- The first 3/4 of the script (Hart talking) builds up to this last 1/4 (Hart silenced).
- This speech delivers a comeuppance to Hart in an unusual way.
-  I expected him to talk over her. Hart's silence thwarted my expectations.
- Hart shows us how he was his own worst enemy, and the structure mimics it.

Blue Moon (2025)(1/9/25 conformed script)
by Robert Kaplow
Inspired by the letters of Lorenz Hart and Elizabeth Weiland 

* For example: here, here, and here.  

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972) - One Key to Writing an Exaggerated Tone in a Tall Tale

[Quick Summary: After outlaw Roy Bean appoints himself judge and jury of Vinegaroon, TX, he encounters wild adventures and famous visitors.]

How do you get across the exaggeration of a tall tale?  One key is that repetition can help the tone.

For example, this is the introduction of Bad Bob in today's script:
- Roy Bean has appointed himself the judge of the county.
- Nick the Grub has left the dangerous life of being one of Bean's deputies and has become an onion farmer. 
- Bad Bob is an antagonist. He arrives at Nick's farm.
- Notice the number of actions that say "Bob is tough," piled on one after another. 
- Notice also how quickly the actions happen in such a short period of time.

EXT. PRAIRIE - FULL SHOT - RIDER

...Bob looked around and dismounted. Nick the Grub had just come out of his hut and was feeding his horse and watering onions. He had a pot of water boiling for coffee. Bob strode over to him, looked the horse up and down and SHOT it between the eyes. It made a hideous SOUND and settled into the dust. [Action 1: Bob shoots a horse without thought or remorse.]

BOB (continuing): Cook it for me. [Action 2: Bob orders Nick to cook a horse, which is a meat that most westerners will not eat.] 

Bob sat down and pulled out a huge onion from the ground. He dusted it off, then took a big bite out of it like it was an apple. He took another and washed them down with the scalding water. That's how mean he was.  [Action 3 & 4: Bob eats an eye watering onion raw, then drinks scalding water.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Exaggeration is helped in a tall tale by the repetition of the outrageous actions, in both number and speed of delivery.

Audiences unconsciously compare this to real life, and know that repetition of this sort does not really occur. 

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972) (10/18/71 final draft)
by John Milius  

TODAY'S NUGGET: Fat City (1972) - Strong Introduction to a Character

[Quick Summary: At the same gym, life is repeating itself in the lives of two boxers (one older, one younger).]

THREE THOUGHTS: 

1) HUSTON ON EXPRESSING IDEAS. I agree with what John Huston wrote in his autobiography about the difficulty of expressing the writer's ideas:

The most important element to me is always the idea that I'm trying to express, and everything technical is only a method to make the idea into clear form. I'm always working on the idea: whether I am writing, directing, choosing music or cutting. Everything must revert back to the idea; when it gets away from the idea it becomes a labyrinth of rococo.  

2) FILM VS. SCRIPT. I watched this film first and thought, "What's the point?" I couldn't figure out what Huston's central idea was. 

When I read the script, it also meandered and seemed pointless...until the last 2 pages coaleses into a full circle moment that explains the pointlessness.  

3)  STRONG INTRODUCTION. I did like the strong introduction to the protagonist, Billy Tully (below) because it sets the tone and our expectations.

In this scene:
-  Tully was a good boxer, but has gone to seed.  
- His wife left him, which was a turning point for when things went sour, and from which he hasn't recovered.
- Here, we see that he's the kind of guy always trying to escape responsibility.  
- I also liked that it didn't try to do overload the audience with too much information. This sets the mood of a guy who's sloppy with his work.

INT. STOCKTON BOX FACTORY - TULLY, SAW OPERATOR, FOREMAN, OTHER WORKERS - NIGHT

Tully goes to a saw that is not in use. The SAW OPERATOR, an aging, discouraged-looking man, rises as Tully approaches.

SAW OPERATOR (carefully extinguishing cigarette; yelling over noise of saws): Foreman's been by.

TULLY (voice raised): What he say?

SAW OPERATOR (same pitch): Wanted to know if you were here yet. Said I thought you were in the can.

Tully takes up his position on opposite side of table from the Saw Operator, who now switches on saw and begins feeding small boards into it. Tully stacks the sawed pieces according to size.

THE FOREMAN, a large, muscular, fairly young man, comes up to Tully.

FOREMAN (loud): Well, Tully, I see you finally made it.

TULLY: I got here on time. I been in the lavatory.

FOREMAN: I was just in there. I didn't see you. 

TULLY: When you came in I went out. You walked right by without seeing me.

FOREMAN: I don't have to see you, Tully. If you'd walked past me I'd of smelled you. I 'd know that wine breath anywhere. I could close my eyes and walk right to you. (reaches out, takes an incorrectly sorted piece of wood from Tully's stack, moves it to proper place) Look what you're doing here! Are you drunk? Lucky for you you're not running a saw.

TULLY: Now you got a lot of nerve. In the first place I'm not drunk and, in the second place, I wouldn't have one of your damn saws. I'm not leaving any of my fingers behind for these wages.

FOREMAN (turning away; disgustedly): I never seen such a bunch of deadbeats as on this night crew!

As he walks away, Tully begins to sweat and swallow. He grimaces, closes his eyes. Nausea overcomes him. He gestures to the Saw Operator to stop the saw, hurries away. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked this introduction because it leaves us with more questions than answers. What will he do next?

Fat City (1972)(11/4/70 draft)
by Leonard Gardner and John Huston
Adapted from the novel by Leonard Gardner

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Man Who Would Be King (1975) - One Element in World Building To Deliver "Adventure in All Its Glory!"

[Quick Summary: In 1880s India, two Englishmen decide to become kings in Kafiristan, a place where no white man had been since Alexander the Great.]

Recently, I read Kipling's famous short story, The Man Who Would Be King (1888),  and marveled at how it takes you so effortlessly on a grand adventure. 

Would the script deliver the promise from the film's posters ("Adventure in all its glory!")?  It did.

I was surprised at:
1) how faithful this script is to the short story 
2) the fact that the script's ending is more hopeful than the short story.
3) the fact that what sells a great adventure film is how it brings the audience into an untraveled world.  (After all, international travel was uncommon at the time.)

An example of the last point can be found in the scene below: 
- Kipling, the author, put himself into the story as a young newspaper publisher.
- Carnehan (Michael Caine) is one of the English con men.
- I really liked how the writers took the time to set the scene with vivid details, both familiar (our protagonist buying a ticket) and unfamiliar (swarming travelers). 
- I also really liked how they didn't rush the timing of the reveal. Carnehan doesn't look at his loot until he's certain Kipling isn't looking for it. 

 

INT. LAHORE RAILWAY STATION - FULL SHOT - DAY

A swarm of travellers: Sedate Brahmins, shrill Vishnamites, Shivites with caste marks on their palms, Sikhs with daggers in their hair. Crouching Moslem women, in purdah, are like a cluster of little tents.

Two Laden Orderlies shout to clear a passage for a brace of young English Subalterns in the brilliant turbans, sashes and coats of a Horse Regiment. An English family, women and children, wait beside an enormous bastion of trunks and hatboxes. CAMERA PANS to the MOVING CUE before a ticket window, MOVES to:

CLOSE SHOT - KIPLING

KIPLING (to Clerk): Jodhpore... 

As he unbuttons his coat and reaches into a trouser pocket, a HAND comes into SCENE and deftly removes a watch and chain from his waistcoat. Kipling pays for his ticket, picks up his telescope traveling case and turns away from the window. His place is taken by the thief, a sharp-faced man in soiled whites: Carenhan. He pushes a small coin forward onto the counter.

CARNEHAN: Platform ticket.

The roar of a train entering the station SOUNDS over scene as he, in turn, leaves the window. He watches Kipling climb the ramp to the station platform and continue out of sight - then takes the stolen watch out of his pocket and examines it. He frowns and starts slightly.

 INSERT - WATCH-CHAIN AND EMBLEM

The Enblem resting int he palm of his hand: it is the insignia of a Grand Master Freemason - the rayed, all-seeing Eye of God above a pendant square, within the spread arms of a compass.

CARNEHAN'S VOICE (O.S.): Blast!

MEDIUM SHOT - CARNEHAN

Pocketing the watch, he begins to push his way through the crowd toward the ramp. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When building an unfamiliar world, it's helpful to include things that ARE familiar in order to give the audience some context.

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)(11/15/74 draft)
by John Huston and Gladys Hill
Adapted from a short story by Rudyard Kipling/