TODAY'S NUGGET: The Best Man (1964) - Jabs in the Subtext of a Dialogue Heavy Satire

[Quick Summary: Two candidates - Russell, a ruthless one and Cantwell, a principled one - attempt to solidify the party's nomination for presidency.]

Today's script was written by playwright Gore Vidal, adapted from his own play. 

When the script was published, the editors wrote this interesting observation:

"But essentially the script consists of rather large master scenes only. There are fewer than 100 master scenes, a small number for a feature film, and all involve a considerable dependence, in the script, upon dialogue rather than action or cinematic effects. The result is a fairly long script built around a limited number of settings. For the most part, then, author Vidal leaves the handling of the master scenes in cinematic terms to the director and the crew."  (my own underlining)

Rather than focus on "cinema" and try to expand the world with multiple settings, I thought it was smart that Vidal:
1) kept to the spirit of the play and kept it intimate with limited setting;
2) kept the focus of the script on the duel between these two candidates;
3) avoided the trap of a dialogue heavy script (more "telling" than "showing") with great subtext beneath the surface of the words.

The scene below is a good example (particularly subtext). Prior to this scene:
- Cantwell and Russell are both running for the party's nomination.
- Cantwell is about to concede to Russell, who has released Cantwell's negative medical records to the voters.
- Alice is Russell's wife.
- Note that Russell, who has the upper hand in this scene, is playing games with Cantwell.  He's trying to rile Cantwell with jabs in the subtext.

INT. CONVENTION ROOM 2

Aide gives Cantwell a note; he glances at it perfunctorily.

RUSSELL (gaily): Hi, Joe! Long time no see!

CANTWELL: Yes . .  Mrs. Russell, I'm Joe Cantwell . . . I don't think we've met.

Cantwell shakes Alice's hand. 

ALICE: How do you do. 

RUSSELL: I thought you would be busy working on your acceptance speech. Or is it already written?

CANTWELL (begins): Now, Bill, as I see the picture. . .

RUSSELL: I've been working for months on my acceptance speech, trying to strike that delicate balance between humility and confidence.

CANTWELL: Yes. Now as I see this convention . . . 

RUSSELL: You of course have a gift for hitting the right note.

CANTWELL: Yes. . .

RUSSELL: I like the way you always manage to state the obvious with a sense of real discovery.

CANTWELL: Yes. Now, Bill . . .

RUSSELL: And that wonderful trick you have of . . .

CANTWELL (exploding): Bill, at least let me get one word in edgewise!

RUSSELL (laughs): I'm sorry, Joe. I couldn't resist it. (to the others) I was using Joe's technique: never let the other man get started. Talk right through him. Also, whenever Joe starts a sentence with "Now Bill" . . . you know he's up to no good.

CANTWELL (quickly): Now, Bill . . .

RUSSELL: See?

Cantwell controls himself with some difficulty. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Though the filmmakers could take care of the cinema part, they needed the writer Vidal to do what they could not, i.e., bring the inter-personal dynamics, set the stage, include the subtext in dialogue.

The Best Man (1964)(8/28/63 final shooting script)
by Gore Vidal
Based on his play 

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: 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 

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: 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!

TODAY'S NUGGET: Wait Until Dark (1967) - Four Excellent Elements of a Thriller + Good "NOTEs"

[Quick Summary: After her husband misplaces a drug-stuffed doll that he accepted from a fellow passenger, three cons attempt to get his blind wife to disclose where the doll is hidden.]

TWO THOUGHTS: 

1) FOUR EXCELLENT ELEMENTS OF THIS THRILLER ADAPTATION:

 - The TONE is fun. 
- The ATMOSPHERE is suspenseful, ex. we're worried about the 3 cons finding the neighbor kid who's helping the protagonist.
- The STRONG THROUGH LINE is easy to explain, i.e.,  a blind woman confronts three cons.
- The MOOD is uplifting, then turns dark, which is great for visual drama.

2) THE WRITERS INCLUDED HELPFUL "NOTEs".

A "NOTE:" to the reader is generally an aside or a helpful tip. They're generally frowned upon because they're distract from the narrative and/or are poorly written.

So when is a "NOTE" helpful? 

One good use is in the explanation of overall conventions in the script. This saves on the need to repeat explanations and avoid confusion. 

In this script, for example, the writers used "NOTEs" to explain: 

a) How phone conversations would be filmed. 

NOTE: The telephone convention used here is as follows: When someone is speaking on the phone in CLOSEUP, with the receiver big in SHOT, we can hear what he hears (i.e., the other voice ON FILTER); when anyone is speaking on the phone in the b.g. of a LONG SHOT, we can only hear what someone else as distant as the CAMERA could hear (i.e., a one-sided conversation). This convention is observed throughout the film. 

b) How the three cons would have multiple roles. They're pretending to be several people, in order to confuse the blind protagonist.

[NOTE: Mike and Carlino have played these parts, or parts very like them, before and they are superb at it. In fact, the one thing that holds all three men together - Rost, Carlino and Mike - is that all of them, to their own degree and in their own way, are most at their ease when playing  a part. In Rost's case, the characters he selects are much more dangerous, much harder to pull off. But Mike and Carlino (within the area they select) are perfect. And there is never one moment when any of the three fall out of character. All three derive some personal pleasure from their performances.)

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: My favorite element was the clarity of the through line. 

Also, one good purpose for a "NOTE" is to avoid confusion for the reader (vs. a bad purpose, such as for the writer to micro-manage the production).

Wait Until Dark (1967)(11/25/66 draft)
by  Robert and Jane-Howard Carrington
From the play by Frederick Knott

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Locked Room (unproduced) - Why This Creepy, Haunted, Twisty, Pull-of-the-Past Psychological Thriller is Smashingly Great

[Quick Summary: George, the executor of his childhood best friend Fanshawe's literary estate, gets Fanshawe's work published, but isn't prepare for the success or the haunting that follows.]

First, this adaptation* is a complex psychological thriller that's creepy, bewildering, and mesmerizing, but most of all, inventive.  I couldn't put it down. **

Second, I was impressed that this script feels like reading great literature, yet I never got lost or bogged down. ***

Here's the short version of the story:

- George and Fanshawe were childhood friends. 
- Fanshawe was cooler than everyone and George admired him. 
- They both wanted to be writers, but didn't, then lost touch after college.
- Twenty years later, George is working at a Big & Tall shop, writing in his free time.
- One day, George opens the door to a letter from Fanshawe's widow.
- Fanshawe wanted George to sort through his scribblings in a locked room and get them published if they were good. They were fantastic.
- Soon George is very busy handling offers, falling in love with his widow and child, appearing on tv promoting Fanshawe's writing. 
- This is a nightmare for a good guy and aspiring writer like George.
- George is simultaneously haunted by his past envies of Fanshawe, the present sticky situation, or his hope for a future with Fanshawe's widow.

It's complicated, right? So why didn't I get lost?? I think it's because the writer understood the key role that subtext plays in psychological thrillers. 

He structured the scenes so that we question George's mental judgment, i.e., whether he's reacting to the past/present/future, and returns to it regularly.

For example, in the scene below: 
- Stuart, an editor and acquaintance, is entranced by Fanshawe's work. 
- Stuart wants to publish. George agrees.
- Fanshawe died in fiery car accident. 
- Two of the great mysteries of the story is WHY did Fanshawe leave all the responsibility to George, and what about George's hopes?
- Note that writer uses Stuart's questions to poke into the past, present, and future.
- Note how we circle back to an unspoken fear (George will not get published) and ends with a "ouch!" to his ego. 
- Also note the SPEED of the emotional pacing. It's a roller coaster ride that circles back to the competition between George and Fanshawe.

INT. GEORGE'S APARTMENT - EVENING

 ...STUART: Pity.

GEORGE: Yeah.

STUART: I mean, that he isn't around. I'd love to be able to work with him. A few little nips and tucks -- you know.

GEORGE: That's just editor's pride. You can't look at a manuscript without wanting to take a red pencil to it. I'm sure he wouldn't change a word.

STUART: Hmm, you may be right. But don't take it to heart -- we can't all be prodigies

Suddenly, Stuart looks slyly at George.

STUART: Where is he?

GEORGE: Why d'you mean?

STUART: Is he shy, your boy? Is it some Pynchon thing we've got here? You're not just fronting for him, are ya?

GEORGE: Listen, if he was still around, believe me, I'd tell him to do his own dirty work.

Stuart just smiles. Does he really think George is toying with him? Or is he toying with George?

STUART: How's it feel?

George raises his eyebrows questioningly.

STUART: Discovering a new American master.

Stuart is needling him. George refuses to rise to the bait. 

GEORGE: When do you think you'll have an answer.

STUART: Oh, I already have: we're publishing it. (at the door) Chin up. Might not be as bad as you think. 

GEORGE: What?

STUART: Reflected glory.

Stuart leaves. George pondering. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Those two words ("reflected glory") made me realize the power of subtext in this script.  

It's so much more layered and powerful than "you're not good enough" and speaks to how beautifully constructed this psychological trap is.

The Locked Room (unproduced 3/9/01 draft)
Based on the novel by Paul Auster
by Lem Dobbs 

* It's adapted from The New York Trilogy (1987), by Paul Auster, which is three interconnected detective stories ("City of Glass," "Ghosts," and "The Locked Room").  

**I have not read the book.  Several book reviewers on Goodreads either loved it or hated it.  I can understand why.  I also felt frustrated that answers weren't readily available at times reading the script.

***Purely as a side note, I did get creeped out by the psychological suspense and was glad I read it in the day time.  

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Scarlet Letter (1926) - How a Series of Images Conveys Meaning Without Words ("Cinematic Language")

[Quick Summary: After having a baby out of wedlock in the 1600s, Puritan Hester refuses to name her lover and suffers the consequences.]

Q: Someone said I need to know "cinematic language." What is that? 
A: I like to think of it as the way images can convey meaning, often without words.

Q: How do I learn how to write in a cinematic language?
A: One good way is to study silent films since they rely on images over dialogue.

Q: No dialogue?! Aren't they boring to read?! What could I learn?
A: Yes, they're a bit technical.  But they remind writers that our job is to find creative ways to STRING TOGETHER images to create deeper meaning without heavy reliance on dialogue.

For example, in this script:
- Hester and her daughter are inside the house.
- It's essentially technical shot list and there are no slug lines (unlike modern scripts). 
- However, notice that there's still structured drama through images:  The writer strings together individual images of Child (happy) + Her Mother (sad) = create a third meaning (bittersweet).
- This use of images to tell a story is called "cinematic language."

Fade in. Ins[ert] of hand. Makes Letter A in sand.

CU girl

CU Hester seated in chair

CU little girl

CU Hester looking at insert

of letter A in sand

CU Hester

CU little girl looks up at Hester and laughs

CU Hester looks down at hands and turns to right

CU little girl laughing, then looks serious, rises to feet

MS Hester seated in chair. Little girl enters to her and embraces her.

[TITLE CARD READS] Outcasts shamed
and despised' But 
Hester's happy child 
reflected the hope that 
still lay in her mother's 
heart.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I struggle with trusting audiences with my series of images.  Will they understand?  Thus, I find I tend to overwrite with dialogue.

The Scarlet Letter (1926) 
by Frances Marion*
Adapted from the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne 

*Frances Marion won two Oscars and was nominated three times.  She was one of the earliest and most prolific screenwriters (with at least 189 projects credited to her).  She also is the author of How to Write and Sell Film Stories (1937).  

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000) - An Example of How a Comeback Stinger Works (Dialogue Setup-Payoff)

[Quick Summary: A master steward must ensure a royal visit goes smoothly in order to gain his cash-strapped boss a commission from King Louis XIV.]

Q: I want to write a comeback stinger, so focus on the punch line, right?
A: It's important, but not the MOST important part.

Q: Huh?! What's more important than the punch line?
A: A punch line is the payoff. Without a proper set up, it languishes.

Q: Give me an example of a good set up.
A: Let's use today's script, which is a farce that exposes the excesses and debauchery of 1600s France. Everyone obsesses about status...except our protagonist Vatel.

In the scene below, the antagonist (de Lauzun) gets the final zinger, but note that it works because it was set up properly:
- Vatel is a steward who rose up the ranks by his own merit.
- The Marquis de Lauzun is the king's courtier, i.e., an intermediary.
- Vatel and the Marquis have the same level of authority, on opposite sides. 
- The Duchesse de Longueville is after a political promotion for her husband, and is not afraid to seduce the Marquis to get it. 
- The set up is about who can top the other in status:
--> First, de Lauzun tries to belittle Vatel. 
--> Then, Vatel uses his wits against de Lauzun. It's a draw.
--> Then, the Duchesse butts in and says she's the first to have de Lauzun's secret. It looks like she's on top. 
--> Finally, de Lauzun saying she's the last to know. He outsmarted her with the last word.

EXT. CASCADES. LATER. 

,,,Lazun notices Vatel and laughs.

LAUZUN (CONTINUED): I was just telling the Duchesse about your boyhood days in the brothels of the Ile Saint Louis.

VATEL (bows to the Duchesse): It's quite true. No one know more about the brothels of the Ils Saint Louis than the Marquis de Lauzun.

DUCHESSE (to Lauzun): I think he's just insulted you but it's hard to tell. That's a rare gift; if you punish him for it I'll tell everyone your favorite perversion.

LAUZUN (smiling to the Duchesse): But, Duchesse, you were the last to know. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The cleverness of this stinger lies in its set up.  

Here, the Marquis de Lauzun fails to ridicule Vatel with his own shortcomings.  Frustrated, he uses the Duchesse's love of gossip against her with added spite.

Vatel, Master of Pleasure (2000)(1/19/99 revised)
by Jeanne Labrune
Translated and adapted by Tom Stoppard

TODAY'S NUGGET: A Man Who Loved Women (1983) - Blake Edwards Creates Romantic Push-Pull Externalized into Action

[Quick Summary: David, a womanizing sculptor, seeks help from his female psychiatrist about his obsession with women and inability to make decisions.]

THREE THOUGHTS:

1) STARS GALORE! This film, adapted and directed by Blake Edwards, had plenty of star power: Burt Reynolds, Julie Andrews, and Kim Bassinger. 

2) ADAPTATION ISSUES. I thought this was an admirable attempt at adapting a French film. But this might be one of the comedies that doesn't translate well.*

2) ROMANTIC COMMITMENT. Romantic farce** is about ridiculing how humans mess up the basics of love with their vices and follies. 

This script plays with the protagonist's (David) indecisiveness to commit. He's unwilling to sacrifice one for the other.  Maybe he just loves the chase too much?***

This scene below demonstrates David's internal push-pull emotions: 
- David has just met Young Woman at the store during Christmas shopping.  
- David helps carry her packages to her apartment, while walking and talking.
- David has just asked the Young Woman out to dinner, but sees Legs walk by and is distracted.
- Note how David's internal push-pull is externalized into action.  He's half listening.  He's with Young Woman but his attention is on Legs.

EXT. STREET - MOVING SHOT - NIGHT

...YOUNG WOMAN: I've been going steady with someone for nearly a year now...

They reach her car.

YOUNG WOMAN (continuing): ...but if I had to be honest, it's not working out.

She takes out her keys, unlocks the door, while David struggles with the choice of staying or pursuing the legs. 

YOUNG WOMAN: ...so the prospect of having dinner with you...

 DAVID (frantically): Look... (dumps the packages on the hood of the car) Don't move. Stay right here... (steps into the street) I'll be right back. (starts to cross the street) Please don't leave...

YOUNG WOMAN: But I can't...

He stops, looks after the legs, then at the Young Woman. He is frozen like an animal, caught in the car's headlights.

YOUNG WOMAN (continuing; screams): Look out!

ONCOMING CAR

As the terrified driver slams on the brakes.

DAVID

The split second before the impact.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was impressed by how David's internal emotions we seen in actions.

I do admit, however, the overall script left me feeling unsatisfied, unresolved and shaggy (which could be the point?)  

The Man Who Loved Women (1983)(Oct., 1982 final draft)
by Blake Edwards & Geoffrey Edwards
Adapted from Francois Truffaut's L'homme qui aimait les femmes (1977)

*Critic Roger Ebert was not complimentary of this film:

"Here is a sad movie with a funny movie inside trying to get out...This movie is a remake, by the way, of a little-seen 1977 Francois Truffaut film. In the Truffaut, the man was seen as something of a victim, suffering from an incurable disease. The tip-off to the phoniness of the Reynolds version is that the movie seems to be recommending the disease."   

I think he's right that the problem might've been the change of focus, i.e., switching from "commitment is a virtue" to the polar opposite, "commitment-phobic is the virtue."

**As a refresher, farce relies on satire:

- Farce (n.) - a light dramatic composition marked by broadly satirical comedy and improbable plot

- Satire (n.) -  a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn

***I really loved Roger Ebert's extremely astute observation of this character:

"He [David] thinks he loves them, but he's not a love, he's a collector....The problem with a man who loves all women is that he can love a woman."

TODAY'S NUGGET: Ask the Dust (2006) - How Robert Towne Makes Two Lovers Dueling in a Room Work

[Quick Summary: In 1933 Los Angeles, a down-on-his-luck author is struggling to write his second novel, and meets a girl.]

I've not mastered how to write an entire script only with two characters in a room.

Frankly, I run out of things to write about, and then rely too much on distractions like guns, car chases, explosions, etc.  

However, writer Robert Towne* seems to thrive - even specialize - in the dynamic between characters.  He makes it look so easy that I forget we've hardly moved. 

What does he do that's so special?  I think it's the way he makes the interior life seen.  Motives and desires spit and crackle. I can't turn pages fast enough.

For example, in the scene below:
- The protagonist Bandini is a starving writer. He has one last nickel.
- He enters the coffee shop to buy one last coffee with cream.
- The waitress gives him curdled milk which ruins his coffee.
- He's insulted until he sees her shabby shoes, which don't match her uniform.
- He starts to laugh at her, silently. She sneers at him.
- What comes next? His surprising actions are shocking...then mocking.
- I was impressed at the creativity to express outwardly whatever was inside of Bandini. Towne likely had to make things up, since the novel is in the first person.
- Also, I was impressed at Towne's ability to capture the chemistry, the fine line of passion and hate between the characters. It's the uncertainty that's captivating. 

INT. COLUMBIA BUFFET

...BANDINI: Maybe you don't know any better. Maybe you're just naturally careless. But if I were you I wouldn't be seen in a Main Street alley in those huaraches.

Bandini spits this last word out himself.

THE WAITRESS

stands trembling under the starched stiffness of her smock, her fists writhing in her pockets.

WAITRESS: I hope you die of heart failure. Right there in that chair.

Bandini tries to laugh, but it's hollow The waitress' dark eyes are flashing once more. She waltzes away and stands in front of the bar again, looking insolently back at Bandini.

BANDINI

the smile still on his face, grows red and sweaty. He tugs at his tie, trying to loosen it, but it won't loosen He grows more frantic, desperately pulling at it like it's a noose strangling him Then, utterly without warning he clutches his chest, and collapses, his head smacking the tabletop. The thick sludge in the coffee cup shakes like jello.

THE WAITRESS

is appalled. The bartender looks accusingly at her. She mutters something in Spanish and hurries back over to the table, frantic.

WAITRESS: --it wasn't my fault, I didn't do nothing I swear to God, I just asked him if he wanted more coffee, young fellow, you there, say something, please!..

She's now trembling with terror and guilt. Bandini's not moving. Then slowly he rises to a sitting position. The sneer is back on his face.

BANDINI: You can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you?

He points to the nickel on the table top.

BANDINI: You want the nickel?

He overturns the coffee cup on it. The brown sludge spreads across the table and starts to trickle onto the floor.

BANDINI: Then mop it up.

He rises insolently out of the chair, and walks to the door. There he turns and gives the waitress a salute of farewell.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Here, Towne makes the characters' inner life visible.  Bandini and the waitress liked each other, but were covering up shame and embarrassment with cutting hostility. 

How did Towne craft the scene? He created a situation where they have to intersect. It helps that each character stands in the way of the other's goal.

ex.  Bandini interrupts her job. She ruins his enjoyment of his last morsel of sustenance.

Ask the Dust (2006)(3/30/93 draft)
Directed and written by Robert Towne
Adapted from the novel by John Fante

*Towne was known mostly as a writer, but also directed about four other films.  Towne wrote and directed this film, which was also his last film.

** EXTRA: I hope these words from Mr. Hackmuth, Bandini's editor, will encourage you, as they did to me: 

HACKMUTH'S V.O.: --p.s. As to your anxieties about your limited experience with life in general and women in particular, it is alas, a truism that author's generally have less experiences than other men, this owing to the incontestable fact that you simply can't be in two places at once, Mr. Bandini. Either you're in front of the typewriter writing or you're out in the world having experiences. Therefore since you need to write and you need to have experiences to write about - you have to learn to do more with less. And doing more with less is, in a word, Mr. Bandini what writing is all about -

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Firm (1993) - How Robert Towne Sneaks Something Extra Into A Montage

[Quick Summary: When a white shoe Memphis law firm seduces a new law school grad, he discovers that it is not the trustworthy firm that he had thought it to be.]

Q: What is the purpose of montages? 
A: Most writers use them as fast and quick information dumps, ex. back story, additional facts, minor characters, etc.

Q: You mean there are other uses?
A:  Experienced writers will make them do double duty, ex. add motives in subtext. 

But exceptional writers will sneak something unusual into them. For example, in today's script, writer Robert Towne shows the characters' emotional progression.

In the scene below:
- Mitch is beginning to work at The Firm. 
- Previously, he and his wife Abby were living in a small Boston apartment, but very happy.
- Yes, this is a standard information dump of their new lives in Memphis.
- But it also shows what motivates the couple (wealth, connection).
- And most impressively, it moves us through emotional changes through increased separation, physically (spending time apart) and emotionally (not a team).

MONTAGE - DAY

A. Mitch's office: An exquisite cherrywood desk is put in place.

B. School Classroom. Abby writing on the blackboard, "My name is Abigail McDeere."

C. Mitch's office. An Early American painting being carefully hung on the wall.

D. Mitch's face watching luxurious items put in place in the office.

E. Tailor shop. Through the window we see Mitch being fitted in new clothes. Avery, arms folded, watches.

F. The Firm. Mitch at the huge library table, pouring over various volumes.

G. McDeere House. Abby, propped up in ed alone, grading papers.

H. Mitch's fingers as he runs them along the leaded panes of an imposing breakfront.

I. Mitch's office -- transformed. Oliver beams at Mitch, behind his exquisite desk, in his perfect office.

K. McDeere house. Night. Mitch rushes in, looks for Abby. Hearsay comes bounding up, jumps on Mitch.

Mitch notices a note wrapped around his collar. He unrolls it. WE SEE it reads: GAVE UP WAITING. SHARE BOWL OF KIBBLE WITH BEARER OF NOT. YOUR FIRST WIFE  ABBY.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The level of difficulty in this montage reminds me why Robert Towne was so sought after for his craftsmanship.

First, it is simple to read. Second, I marveled at depth of the emotional arc, while still maintaining the speed of the narrative. It still felt like these are real people, in a real relationship. Third, it's cinematic. 

The Firm (1993)(12/2/92 draft)
by Robert Towne & David Rayfiel
Adapted from the novel by John Grisham

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Jazz Singer (1980) - Bad Film, Good Script; When A Nice Couple Listens, But Does Not Hear

[Quick Summary: Against his father's wishes, a young cantor leaves his synagogue to take the shot to be a pop singer.]

This film, starring Neil Diamond (yes, you read that right), is a remake of the first talking film from 1927 film with Al Jolson.

Apparently it wasn't a hit with critics. ex. Roger Ebert's one star review which cites serious miscasting and shifting the story to the present time.

Yes, the story is somewhat unbelievable, but I thought the script was an absorbing read and I couldn't wait to turn the page.

A few reasons were:
- The characters' points of view - especially what they wanted - were very clear.
- I could see arguments for both sides.
- Very important: I felt the consequences of the decisions.
- Neither Jess or his wife Rivka is the bad guy. Both sides are listening, but not hearing each other.
- They are beginning to discover how far apart their goals are, and that conflict can't be resolved by staying together.

For example, in the scene below between Jess and Rivka:
- Jess has gone to Los Angeles. A big time rock star wants to perform Jess' song.
- Jess disagrees with the star and gets fired.
- Molly is the record label's artist relations manager.
- Molly has single-handedly been helping Jess get noticed.
- Rivka is Jess' wife who has stayed back home.
- I really liked that Rivka empathizes with Jess' feelings ("you go all the way out there..."), but also makes her stance clear without nagging ("you can bring it home as a souvenir").
- Jess also expresses his wishes to sing for audiences ("Maybe something'll happen....it sounds like a real record").
- Neither party is hearing the other person's underlying needs.

INT. SYNAGOGUE SOCIAL HALL - DAY

...RIVKA: Hello?

INTERCUT WITH: 

JESS ON PHONE

JESS: Hello from Hollywood.
RIVKA: Well, hello, stranger.
JESS: I'm sorry I couldn't call. You won't believe what's going on. I got fired.
RIVKA (genuinely sorry): Oh, Jess. I'm sorry. I really am.
JESS: No, no, it'll be okay.
RIVKA:  Some okay. You go all the way out there to turn around and come home.
JESS: I'm not coming home.
RIVKA:What?
JESS (quickly): I mean not right away. I moved in with Bubba. I'm staying the two weeks. Maybe something'll happen.
RIVKA:  Something did. You got fired.
JESS (good-naturedly): Yeah...but at least I got a pretty good demo out of it.
RIVKA:What's a demo?
JESS: Well, I sang at the Lennox session and they made a cassette out of it. You play it for agents, producers...it sounds like a real record.
RIVKA: Good. You can bring it home for a souvenir.
JESS: How's papa?
RIVKA: Counting the days. You want me to get him?

Molly drives up and honks her horn for him.

JESS (sees Molly) No, uh, look - I got to go now. Molly has an appointment to play my Demo for one of the biggest booking agents in town. I'll call you over the weekend. Bye.

He hangs up. 

ANGLE ON RIVKA

looking at the dead receiver.

RIVKA: Who's Molly?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really liked how real the dialogue felt.

Both sides of the conversation are figuring out, "Oh, our real goals are actually far apart," in real time, so they assume things, forget to mention things, etc.

The Jazz Singer (1997)(3/13/80 revised)
by Stephen H. Foreman and Herbert Baker
Based on the play by Samson Raphaelson

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Fight For Life (1940) - Rare Glimpses at a Director's Intentions for the Music

[Quick Summary: After an intern witnesses death in the pregnancy ward, he goes to a clinic in the slums to learn more about preventing maternal morbidity.]

Why was this respected documentary* included as the last script in a book of feature films? I found the script rather dry, with a long, dry preface/memo.  

The latter was the writer/director's instructions to the composer regarding what music he needed written. 

The key was in re-reading the memo. The film is silent for about 2/3. The writer/director cut the remaining 1/3 to unwritten music, which was only in his head. 

Aha!  So this script and memo are rare glimpses into the working relationship between writer/director and composer!

Here is the director's comments about this memo:

This memorandum never was intended for publication, but I asked the authors [of this book] to include it because The Fight For Life was so much a musical picture the bare text seems meaningless without at least some mention of the score and how it was created, and because I felt it might help explain the technical construction of the picture. 

...reading it now I find it not only an awkward bit of writing, but is such a shorthand description of the intent of the whole story I can understand why, when he first read it, Louis [Gruenberg, the composer] went reeling home talking to himself.**

THIS IS WHAT THE DIRECTOR'S MEMO SAID:

LIFE: ...The minute the child is born, the baby's fluttering heart dominates the beat, so for this transition, except for any passage you may like: a trumpet cry; a crescendo- any device you may wish to use for the birth pain -- is merely a cue for a different beat.

Within half a minute the doctor discovers the woman is dying; -- again the film is directed and cut to a specific time -- the heart is pounding to hang on -- the dramatic change in the score is that suddenly the mother's heart again takes over -- the slower heart surges under the baby's heart beat, and instead of growing weaker, musically, the heart grows in volume, if slowing in tempo -- it goes -- Bang -- BANG -- BANG ----the baby's counterpoint sound to hold our intern until he walks into the corridor and starts for the street.

DEATH -- Approximate time -- three minutes.

THIS IS THE PART OF THE SCRIPT THE MEMO APPLIES TO:

- Dr. Leetons is the attending physician. Mr. O'Donnell is the intern.

In the DELIVERY ROOM...And lifting the edge of the drape covering the patient, [the intern Mr. O'Donnell] takes the fetal heart tones, the Writing Nurse timing him, looking up at the clock on the wall, as the second hand of the clock is seen revolving. 

Now the nurse taps O'Donnell on the back to stop him, and he straightens up.

WRITING NURSE (removing O'Donnell's ear pieces): Baby's heart beat a hundred and fifty.

Leetons is in a waiting position while the patient's face is again seen to be distorted with pain. He looks up, spreads his hands, and nods to the Anesthetist, who then puts a mask over the patient's face. The Scrub Nurse now hands him a clamp for the baby's cord, and Leetons puts the used instrument into a pan at his right. He is also given scissors and a belly band. (The baby's heart tones start up at 150, in counterpoint to the mother's at 100.)

And now the Floating Nurse is wheeling in the baby's table, and Leetons puts the baby in. The nurse covers it with a towel and wheels the table around. We see the baby being placed in the crib, a heat crib, and being straightened by the nurse's hands. 

Now the Anesthetist takes the mother's pulse. The Scrub Nurse and the Floating Nurse push the table extension in place, lift the patient's drapes, and straighten her out. While the Scrub Nurse walks to the sink with the instrument tray, the Floating Nurse carries a basin to the sink, and returns for a second pan, stepping around O'Donnell, who is looking toward the baby. Then Dr. Leetons walks to the patient's side and putting a hand under the sheet, feels her abdomen. (The baby's heart tones fade, while the heat beat of the mother starts to speed up.)

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the writer/director was very specific about his intentions for the tempo, thoughts on cues, time limits, etc. 

It sheds light on what is more, or less important to the director.

The Fight For Life (1940)
by Pare Lorentz
Adapted from the Maternal Welfare Chapters of The Fight For Life by Paul deKruif

*A bit of random trivia: Apparently, the author of the book refused to sell it to the studios, and offered it free to the U.S. Government. It was the last sponsored government film.

**This film gave composer Louis Gruenberg his first Oscar nomination for Best Original Score. 

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: The Life of Emile Zola (1937) - How to Use a Portrait To Elicit One's Past Courage --> Change One's Mind

[Quick Summary: Famous French muckraking journalist Emile Zola gets involved when an army soldier is sentenced for treason that it is really a political cover up.]

Q: Who is Emile Zola?
A: In the latter 1800s, he rose from poverty to become a celebrated French novelist and journalist. 

Q: Besides his novels, what is he best known for?
A: His involvement in the Dreyfus Affair (approx.1894-1906).  

Q: What was the Dreyfus Affair about?
A: Dreyfus was a Jewish army captain who was jailed for treason. Dreyfus's brother had proof of an army cover up, and asked Zola to help him get the case reopened.

Q: Why was the scene below your favorite one from the script?
A: Zola was older and didn't want to get involved.  I particularly liked the scene below because it captures the swing of emotions as he changed his mind.  

In the scene below:
- Dreyfus's brother has just pled his case and left, discouraged.
- The famous artist Paul Cezanne had given his old school friend Zola a portrait of his younger self, when they were both hungrier and more political.
- Note how the portrait is a touchstone.  It reminds Zola of his youthful ideals, which were shown earlier in the script.
- Notice the sequence in the change of emotions:  First we SEE Zola's upset first --> He sees the portrait and remembers --> Then we SEE him write the open letter that will turn the tide for Dreyfus.

And now ZOLA restlessly, angrily pacing, in dreadful turmoil, picks up the portfolio of evidence. He riffles it through as he walks up and down before the fire. Then the view drawing close, the curiously lifelike eyes of Cezanne's portrait on the mantel seem to follow his movements. With a sudden savage gesture he raises the portfolio to hurl it from him, but as he does his eyes suddenly catch the calm, gazing portrait eyes of Cezanne, and Zola's gesture abruptly is halted. He stares, fascinated, at the picture and slowly his arm drops before that mute but terrible accusation. He straightens suddenly, looks at the portfolio, then again at the portrait of Cezanne, and all indecision, all anger, are washed from his face. His hand reaches out --he touches the picture frame with a gesture at once tender and reassuring. 

ZOLA turns, with the portfolio in his hand, and walks purposefully across the room and into his study. He sits at his desk and swiftly empties the portfolio of evidence before him and examines it, a close view showing him now scanning the document with intent interest, then reaching for paper and pen. He dips his pen in the ink, and the view moves down to the SHEET OF PAPER as Zola's hand, with the pen, pauses for a moment, then -- with a bold, decisive movement -- begins to write: 

"M. Felix Faure, President of the Republic..."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One cannot jump from upset --> immediately into a change in behavior.  

One must first show his tussle of emotions --> The portrait that sparked his memories of his younger, fiery self --> Then show the change of decision.

Why? Audiences don't simply want to know what WHAT happened; they need to know WHY.  The portrait helps explain WHY he changed his mind.

The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
by Heinz Herald, Geza Herczeg, & Norman Reilly Raine
Story by Heinz Herald and Geza Herczeg
Based on the book Zola and His Time, by Matthew Josephson

*Interestingly, this script was Oscar nominated for both story and script, but only won in the latter category.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) - Show-Not-Tell: A Mother Sacrificing Her Own Comfort in an Uncomfortable Situation

[Quick Summary: After an elderly couple lose their home, they are separated between their five children, who aren't able to take both of them in.]

I think it says something that director Leo McCarey (An Affair to Remember, The Awful Truth) thought that this was one of his best films.* 

It is sad,** but don't be fooled by its simplicity. 

To write emotion this well requires a high level of craft. ***

What makes this story so powerful? Roger Ebert said it best: 

What's so powerful about the film is its level gaze. It calmly, almost dispassionately, regards the situation and how it plays out. No spin.

In the scene below:
- Father and Mother had to sell the house.  Father isn't in the best of health.
- None of their five children could support two additional mouths to feed, so they were split up between children's households.
- Mother is staying with her son George, his wife, and granddaughter Rhonda.
- Mother has already heard that a friend, who is at the Cadwallader Home, is very unhappy there.
- Notice how the writer shows Mother spying the letter (she KNOWS what is up) --> then later, she requests to be placed at Cadwallader Home --> we know she has taken the emotional hit and sacrificed her own comfort.
- Also note the tone that Ebert speaks about.  It is calm, real, without spin, i.e., TRUTHFUL.

RHONDA (without letting up in her dancing):  I'm sorry Grandma, did I wake you up?

MOTHER: That's all right...any mail?

Rhonda, still dancing, points tot he table on which there is some mail, and Mother goes to it. A close-up shows Mother at the table, looking over the mail, rather casually, until she comes to a certain letter. She looks at it for quite a long time. We see the LETTER, which is addressed to GEORGE COOPER, and in the left-hand upper corner is printed the place from which it came, in bold type: CADWALLADER HOME FOR THE AGED.

Mother shakes her head in sober thought. It is all she can do not to open the letter. She finally puts it back on the pile unopened but all too well she senses its contents. All the while out of sight, the radio has been "jazzing it up" and RHONDA can be heard chiming in with the music of the radio. Then Mother mechanically goes over to a chair, sits down, and starts to knit. Her mind is still on the letter...

[George tells Mother that her daughter Addie can't take her and Father, so he is going to live with Cora, another daughter in California, because of his declining health. Mother is ok, as long as she can see him to say goodbye.]

[George] turns to an ashtray to put out his cigarette, then lights another one immediately. He gets up and starts to pace the floor, puffing nervously at his cigarette.

Mother, seen alone, suddenly know that the hour of doom has struck. Everything has become painfully, blindingly clear to her. For a moment she looks frightened and heartsick - but while GEORGE smokes, she gets herself under control. Then they are seen together, Mother watching him closely. She is ready.

GEORGE (sitting beside her on the couch): Mother, I've something else to tell you, too.

MOTHER (after studying his unhappy face): There's something I'd like to tell you first.

GEORGE: Let me while I can, Ma. Tell me later.

MOTHER: It's simply this. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I haven't been too happy here. It's lonesome in this apartment all day with everyone gone. Would you mind terribly if I decided to leave you and go to the Cadwallader Home?

GEORGE (thunderstruck): Mother!

MOTHER: It's a fine place and I'd make friends my own age --

GEORGE: Mother, I--

MOTHER: Let me finish, dear. Once I thought your father and I would be able to get together again. I see that it's never going to turn out that way. And so I want to go to the home. (He looks at her with his heart in his eyes - as Mother smiles bravely.) I'm glad that's over. I hated to tell you as much as you would have hated to tel me anything like that. (After a pause) Oh, there's just one thing more, dear. I'd like to stay here till your father's on his way to California. He's funny about some things, you know. He'd never believe that the home's a grand place. He's a little old-fashioned, your father is. Those places seem terrible to him. (After pausing) Don't let him know I'm going. Tell Nellie and Cora and the others that he must never know. This is one thing that has to be handled my way.

GEORGE: Yes, Ma. Anything you say.

MOTHER: Let him think I'm staying on with you and Anita. You can always forward my letters to the home. It'll be the first secret I've ever had from him and it'll seem mighty funny. (She looks at George but he does not meet her gaze. He is too miserable. Mother is silent for a time, but when she speaks it is with the same lightness she has used throughout the scene.) I think I'll go to bed now if you don't mind, dear. I'm very tired. (She stands up and stoops to kiss him on the forehead.) Here's another secret just between us two. You were always my favorite child. Goodnight. George, weak and looking beaten, stares up at her.)

Mother stands, straight and strong, with courage in her eyes and on her smiling mouth. She turns and starts from the room. But she sways a little as she reaches the archway. George sees this - leaps to her side and puts an arm about her. Mother smiles a little apologetically.

MOTHER: Floor's a little slippery, I guess.

In the hallway, George leads her gently to her room, and she goes in without a word.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Because it was opposite of what I expected, Mother's calm, dispassionate reaction showed me more about her emotions than if she'd spoken them.

Make Way for Tomorrow (1937)
by Vina Delmar
Based on the novel, The Years Are So Long, by Josephine Lawrence, and a play by Helen and Nolan Leary

* When director Leo McCarey received his Oscar for The Awful Truth (1937), he reportedly said he had gotten it for the wrong film, i.e., it should've been for this film. 

**Orson Welles gave this film the highest compliments: "that [it] would make a stone cry," and “the saddest movie ever made."

*** I want to note that this story was battle tested and worked on by THREE sets of writers (play, novel, script) before it reached the screen.   

TODAY'S NUGGET: How Green Was My Valley (1941) - How to Show Theme in Story & Subtle Visuals

[Quick Summary: Told through the eyes of the youngest son, a Welsh mining family has split opinions over a mining strike.]

This is a famous film from director John Ford that has influenced many others.  For example, see the classic, powerful framing in these stills: here, here, and here. 

Though it's not one of my favorite stories, I was impressed how the writer brought out the theme of family in the story and subtle visuals.

For example:
- The scene below occurs after mother Beth has spoken up at a strikers' meeting,
- The strike has pitted her husband (anti-strike) against her adult sons (pro-strike).
- She spoke up in support of her husband, who was not present.
- She and her youngest son, Huw (protagonist) begin walking home in bad weather.
- Her other adult sons, Ianto and Davy, attended the meeting separately.
- She falls through the rotting bridge.
- The theme of family in the story: mother vs. sons at the meeting.
- The theme of family in the visuals: mother falls through the bridge; mother separated from sons; sons coming to aid of estranged parent.
- Note how theme is also in the conflict: Huw's brothers dismissed their mother's plea in the previous scene.  Now, through Huw's point of view, we see he's barely hanging on. Where will his brothers' loyalties lie when there's an emergency?
 

The scene dissolves to a MOUNTAINSIDE. It is still night. Huw and Beth, almost totally exhausted, are stumbling down a steep place. It is raining fiercely and the wind shrieks through the trees above them. Beth is failing visibly. Huw puts his arm around her, struggling to support her.

HUW'S VOICE: Hours it seemed and no feeling or sense was in me - but I was crying to God to help me save my mother and I was helped sure or I could not tell where I found the strength -

The scene dissolves to a BRIDGE, as Beth and Huw stagger toward it. They reach the bridge. Beth clutches at the rail for support. The wood is rotten and breaks under her weight. She pitches forward into the icy water a few feet below the bridge. Huw gives a frightened gasp and throws himself in after her.

In the water Beth, inert, is slung around by the swift current. Huw struggles closer to her, as the current brings her up against a rocky point. Gasping with the cold Huw brings her head and shoulders clear of the water. He cannot leave the water himself, but must push against her with all his might to hold her clear of the racing stream.

HUW'S VOICE: So strong was the cold that for minutes I couldn't breathe--

Huw, his face contorted, is struggling to hold his mother up as he stands shoulder deep in the icy black water.  A faint light appears upon Huw and the inert figure of Beth.

HUW'S VOICE: How long it was I cannot tell, but there was a weariness of time before I saw a light--

Huw is desperately holding on as the light grows stronger and dark figures appear in the rain. It is a group of men from the meeting, headed by Davy and Ianto. They have a lantern.

Huw turns, his eyes glistening in the light, and opens his mouth to shout.

HUW'S VOICE: I tried to shout but my voice was gone from my throat.

Davy, Ianto and the men, not seeing Huw and his mother, start to cross the bridge. Huw's mouth is open. He is trying to shout against the wind, but he cannot make himself heard. He begins to fail, to slip. Beth's head rolls and she almost goes under the water.

Ianto and Davy with the other men are on the bridge. They are about to leave the bridge and pass on when Ianto almost casually notices that the rail is broken. He stops for a second look, holding the lantern high. Huw is straining mightily to hold Beth above the water. Ianto starts to move away, then raises the lantern once more As he looks down the stream, his eyes widen in horror. He turns and shouts into the wind.

IANTO (shouting): Davy--

He puts down his lantern and plunges forward into the water where Huw is giving his last ounce of strength to hold up his mother until Ianto reaches them. As Ianto pulls them to the bank, Davy and the other men are there to help them to safety. The scene fades out.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You don't have to hit the audience over the head with theme. Here, it is subtly baked into conflicts and drama. 

In fact, it's so good that I didn't notice the subtle metaphor of the rotting bridge until much later. 

How Green Was My Valley (1941)
by Philip Dunne
Based on the novel by Richard Llewellyn