[Quick Summary: After Don, a junk shop owner with a shady side business, agrees to steal a valuable buffalo nickel with Teach, his protegee Bob brings bad news.]
Some Mamet plays translate to film, but this one does not for me.
I think it is still worth a read. Here are a few thoughts why:
1) The distinctive Mamet voice
- Like many Mamet original scripts,* this one follows a winding path. It takes a little while before we know what the story is, but I like how it winds out and then back.
- The dialogue has a staccato tempo that meanders too, i.e., like real conversations.
- It is more interested in the space between two people than plot (sorry, plot junkies).
2) The unusual use of parentheses in dialogue
This is the first time that I've seen the frequent use of parentheses like this.
There's no further instruction or description on what the parentheses mean, so I assume the dialogue is meant to be spoken in a low or soft voice.
Also, I noticed that as I saw more parentheses, they became a visual cue = "low voice" = automatically caused me to read between the lines a little more.
In the scene below, Teach tries to persuade Don not to bring young Bob on board. Notice how much is unspoken yet understood between the two old comrades.
ex. "INT. JUNK SHOP - DAY
...Don crosses to his desk.
TEACH: It's hard to make up the rules about this stuff.
DON: (You'll be in there under lots of pressure.)
TEACH: (Not so much.)
DON: (Come on, a little, anyway.)
TEACH: (That's only natural.)
DON: (Yeah.)
TEACH: (It wouldn't be unnatural I wasn't tense. A guy who isn't tense, I don't want him on my side.)
DON: (No.)
TEACH: (You know why?)
DON: (Yeah.)
TEACH: (Okay, then.) It's good to talk this stuff out.
DON: Yeah."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm not sure that I'd recommend frequent use of parentheses, but it works here. It's nice to see something that I had not seen before.
American Buffalo (1996)(shooting script w/revisions, dated May-June, 1995)
by David Mamet
Adaptation from his play
*By "original," I mean scripts based on his original work or his plays. I do not mean adaptations that he has written for others.
Showing posts with label David Mamet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Mamet. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2018
Monday, May 30, 2016
TODAY'S NUGGET: Spartan (2004) - Shifting In, Shifting Out (from Scope to Wideshot)
[Quick Summary: Special Ops ranger hunts for the kidnapped daughter of a U.S. official.]
3 Things I Appreciate in a Script:
1) Clarity of why we are here. Here, it's laser focused on finding a missing college girl.
2) An intriguing opening.
ex. "Now, the two men look across the ravine at the young woman, seen disappearing over a ridge.
SCOTT (quietly): ...you better catch her..."
3) It's easy to follow when shifting in/out from a scope to wideshot.
I find it helpful to study how Mamet shifts our focus from inside a scope to a wideshot. He uses clear indicators to help the reader see when:
- We're in the scope (1st line, "in green, through a sniperscope), versus
- A specific location ("in the house"), versus
- On the character in a wider shot ("on Anton").
ex. "ANGLE EXT. THE BUILDING. Where we see the man, and Scott. We see the scene in green, through a sniperscope.
ANGLE, on Anton, looking through the scope.
ANGLE CU Anton, as he sees something in the scope.
ANGLE, in the house. Scott advancing toward the man.
SCOTT: ...I just wannit to know, I just came to ask you that question...
The man backs up, past a half-open glass French door.
ANGLE, on Scott, as he advances toward the man.
ANGLE, ANTON'S POV. Through the sniperscope. The faint traces of what might be the Picasso symbol.
ANGLE, on Anton, as we see him move the sniperscope and adjust its magnification toward the symbol...."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that there was story reason for the shifting in or out. In the example above, it increased the tension as Anton watched from afar, helpless.
Spartan (2004)(draft dated Aug. 2002)
by David Mamet
3 Things I Appreciate in a Script:
1) Clarity of why we are here. Here, it's laser focused on finding a missing college girl.
2) An intriguing opening.
ex. "Now, the two men look across the ravine at the young woman, seen disappearing over a ridge.
SCOTT (quietly): ...you better catch her..."
3) It's easy to follow when shifting in/out from a scope to wideshot.
I find it helpful to study how Mamet shifts our focus from inside a scope to a wideshot. He uses clear indicators to help the reader see when:
- We're in the scope (1st line, "in green, through a sniperscope), versus
- A specific location ("in the house"), versus
- On the character in a wider shot ("on Anton").
ex. "ANGLE EXT. THE BUILDING. Where we see the man, and Scott. We see the scene in green, through a sniperscope.
ANGLE, on Anton, looking through the scope.
ANGLE CU Anton, as he sees something in the scope.
ANGLE, in the house. Scott advancing toward the man.
SCOTT: ...I just wannit to know, I just came to ask you that question...
The man backs up, past a half-open glass French door.
ANGLE, on Scott, as he advances toward the man.
ANGLE, ANTON'S POV. Through the sniperscope. The faint traces of what might be the Picasso symbol.
ANGLE, on Anton, as we see him move the sniperscope and adjust its magnification toward the symbol...."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that there was story reason for the shifting in or out. In the example above, it increased the tension as Anton watched from afar, helpless.
Spartan (2004)(draft dated Aug. 2002)
by David Mamet
Monday, May 23, 2016
TODAY'S NUGGET: Heist (2001) - A Jaded Mood
[Quick Summary: A thief is blackmailed into one last heist, which is full of crosses and double-crosses.]
This script has all the Mamet razzle dazzle: cross/double crosses, magic, heists, and complex characters.
However, it left me feeling sad and worn.
Perhaps that's apt because although these characters are motivated, loyal, and smart, their mood is jaded and tinged with sadness.
It bleeds into their actions, as seen in the example below.
Watch how these characters are motivated, loyal, and smart (all pro-active traits), but the mood, i.e., "distinctive emotional quality or character," is wearied, seen-it-all.
ex. "On Blane, as a car runs into him.
Blane hits the hood of the car.
ANGLE
On his hand, as it comes down, with a thump, on the hood of the car.
He rolls off the hood, and onto the ground.
ANGLE
On the two policeman, turning to the sound of the accident.
In the b.g. we see Moore, turning the corner.
ANGLE
On Blane, on the ground, holding his leg.
BLANE:...oh god...oh god...
ANGLE on the crowd of onlookers, as the policemen kneel to Blane. Blane starts to his feet. In the back of the crowd we see Pincus, who looks on for a second, and then melts away.
ANGLE
Sidewalk, passerby. Moore walking in the street. Pincus comes up behind him.
PINCUS (sotto): ...he's okay.
MOORE: Yeah, well, you know, that was his road game.
PINCUS: He's too old for that.
MOORE (shrugs): It's his job. Let's get to work."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I saw how mood was like another layer on top of the story. It's similar to a sustained attitude.
Heist (2001)(draft dated Mar. 1999)
by David Mamet
This script has all the Mamet razzle dazzle: cross/double crosses, magic, heists, and complex characters.
However, it left me feeling sad and worn.
Perhaps that's apt because although these characters are motivated, loyal, and smart, their mood is jaded and tinged with sadness.
It bleeds into their actions, as seen in the example below.
Watch how these characters are motivated, loyal, and smart (all pro-active traits), but the mood, i.e., "distinctive emotional quality or character," is wearied, seen-it-all.
ex. "On Blane, as a car runs into him.
Blane hits the hood of the car.
ANGLE
On his hand, as it comes down, with a thump, on the hood of the car.
He rolls off the hood, and onto the ground.
ANGLE
On the two policeman, turning to the sound of the accident.
In the b.g. we see Moore, turning the corner.
ANGLE
On Blane, on the ground, holding his leg.
BLANE:...oh god...oh god...
ANGLE on the crowd of onlookers, as the policemen kneel to Blane. Blane starts to his feet. In the back of the crowd we see Pincus, who looks on for a second, and then melts away.
ANGLE
Sidewalk, passerby. Moore walking in the street. Pincus comes up behind him.
PINCUS (sotto): ...he's okay.
MOORE: Yeah, well, you know, that was his road game.
PINCUS: He's too old for that.
MOORE (shrugs): It's his job. Let's get to work."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I saw how mood was like another layer on top of the story. It's similar to a sustained attitude.
Heist (2001)(draft dated Mar. 1999)
by David Mamet
Monday, May 16, 2016
TODAY'S NUGGET: Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) - Transferring Emotion to the Audience
[Quick Summary: An ensemble of real estate "closers" compete for the top spot.]
I liked what writer/director Jeff Nichols (Midnight Special, Mud, Take Shelter) said in this interview:
But what does it MEAN? What does it LOOK LIKE? How do you DO IT?
I carried those questions in my head as I read this famous David Mamet script.
What about this script transfers emotion to the audience?
Is it his well loved, often quoted dialogue? Well, yes, in part.
It's also the action that often contrasts with the pitter patter of dialogue.
In the scene below:
- Levene is an older co-worker, scraping by to pay for his daughter's care.
- Roma is younger co-worker on a winning streak.
- They are at their local watering hole.
ex. "Levene takes out his large appointment book, puts it up on the bar. Roma turns to the man on his other side (JAMES LINGK, a man in his thirties, nursing a drink) and begins talking to him.
ROMA (cont'd): They say...they say it was so cold downtown...grown men on the streetcorner were going up to cops begging the cops to shoot them. (to bartender) Thank you.
INSERT OF LEVENE'S APPOINTMENT BOOK
"MONDAY, FEBRUARY SIXTH.
2 p.m.: hospital
4-6 p.m.: Hendersons, Ralph and Marie V 2242 Logan, Lincolnwood
7:30 Sales promotion conference, H-Inn
9 p.m.: hospital
Call Doctor Lewenstein!!!"
ROMA (O.S.): And they say alcohol is the wrong thing to combat the cold.
LINGK (O.S.): Why says that?
ROMA (O.S.): Something I read, like the St. Bernards.
LINGK (O.S.): ...uh huh...
ROMA (O.S.): That they're not supposed to carry brandy, you know, because it's a depressant.
LINGK (O.S.): Uh huh.
ROMA (O.S.) But I subscribe to the Law of Contrary Public Opinion...
ANGLE - ROMA, LINGK, LEVENE AT THE BAR
Levene sighs, folds up his appointment book, starts to down his drink."
Why do we feel such empathy for Levene?
Because we SEE that he is burdened with work and an ill loved one, yet all the small talk also shows us that no one is paying attention.
Levene's action + unimportant small talk (dialogue) = No one sees him.
I know that feeling, don't you?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm thinking a lot more now about how to best use images + dialogue (contrasting or complementary) to convey specific emotions.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)(1st draft)
by David Mamet
Adapted from his play
I liked what writer/director Jeff Nichols (Midnight Special, Mud, Take Shelter) said in this interview:
My stated goal as a story teller is to transfer an emotion to the audience.Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard that many, many times.
But what does it MEAN? What does it LOOK LIKE? How do you DO IT?
I carried those questions in my head as I read this famous David Mamet script.
What about this script transfers emotion to the audience?
Is it his well loved, often quoted dialogue? Well, yes, in part.
It's also the action that often contrasts with the pitter patter of dialogue.
In the scene below:
- Levene is an older co-worker, scraping by to pay for his daughter's care.
- Roma is younger co-worker on a winning streak.
- They are at their local watering hole.
ex. "Levene takes out his large appointment book, puts it up on the bar. Roma turns to the man on his other side (JAMES LINGK, a man in his thirties, nursing a drink) and begins talking to him.
ROMA (cont'd): They say...they say it was so cold downtown...grown men on the streetcorner were going up to cops begging the cops to shoot them. (to bartender) Thank you.
INSERT OF LEVENE'S APPOINTMENT BOOK
"MONDAY, FEBRUARY SIXTH.
2 p.m.: hospital
4-6 p.m.: Hendersons, Ralph and Marie V 2242 Logan, Lincolnwood
7:30 Sales promotion conference, H-Inn
9 p.m.: hospital
Call Doctor Lewenstein!!!"
ROMA (O.S.): And they say alcohol is the wrong thing to combat the cold.
LINGK (O.S.): Why says that?
ROMA (O.S.): Something I read, like the St. Bernards.
LINGK (O.S.): ...uh huh...
ROMA (O.S.): That they're not supposed to carry brandy, you know, because it's a depressant.
LINGK (O.S.): Uh huh.
ROMA (O.S.) But I subscribe to the Law of Contrary Public Opinion...
ANGLE - ROMA, LINGK, LEVENE AT THE BAR
Levene sighs, folds up his appointment book, starts to down his drink."
Why do we feel such empathy for Levene?
Because we SEE that he is burdened with work and an ill loved one, yet all the small talk also shows us that no one is paying attention.
Levene's action + unimportant small talk (dialogue) = No one sees him.
I know that feeling, don't you?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm thinking a lot more now about how to best use images + dialogue (contrasting or complementary) to convey specific emotions.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)(1st draft)
by David Mamet
Adapted from his play
Monday, May 9, 2016
TODAY'S NUGGET: Homicide (1991) - The Invisible Cut
[Quick Summary: A NYC cop is stretched between two cases: a splashy one he wants, and a small robbery case that he does not.]
Things I Do Not Find Helpful in a Script*: Directing on the page
Things I Do Find Helpful in a Script*: Invisible cuts on the page
To me, the first is generally about the visual look, sometimes at expense of story.
The second is focused on the visuals that build the story toward something.
The writer's job is to make these cuts as invisible as possible. But how?
In this script, Mamet uses cuts to:
- gather various points of view (ex. FBI team prepares to detonate a suspect's door)
- show how a fight spirals out of control (ex. cops and murderer struggle for gun in a squad room)
- increase tension from location 1 to location 2 (see below)
Mamet does it by keeping the reader engaged and curious with what is happening.
[For what it's worth, I was distracted by Mamet's use of "ANGLE," but it's his style.]
ex. "ANGLE
Ross looking at the sheet on the clipboard. He looks back at it. [What is on the clipboard?]
ANGLE INS
The letterhead. "Society for Comparative Linguistics" and at the bottom of the page, embossed, the address 212 W. Huron. [1st cut answers the question and asks the next one: "What's so special about that address?"]
EXT. 212 W. HURON NIGHT
Ross standing on the steps. Looking in through the glass. [2nd cut changes our location AND pushes the story forward. We now want to see what Ross is seeing.]
ANGLE POV
The lobby, empty." [3rd cut shows Ross' POV. Will he scope it out?]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was surprised how many cuts I missed while reading (an excellent thing).
Homicide (1991)(4/15/89 draft)
by David Mamet
*I speak here of a spec/selling script. A shooting script, of course, will likely include more directing on the page out of necessity.
Things I Do Not Find Helpful in a Script*: Directing on the page
Things I Do Find Helpful in a Script*: Invisible cuts on the page
To me, the first is generally about the visual look, sometimes at expense of story.
The second is focused on the visuals that build the story toward something.
The writer's job is to make these cuts as invisible as possible. But how?
In this script, Mamet uses cuts to:
- gather various points of view (ex. FBI team prepares to detonate a suspect's door)
- show how a fight spirals out of control (ex. cops and murderer struggle for gun in a squad room)
- increase tension from location 1 to location 2 (see below)
Mamet does it by keeping the reader engaged and curious with what is happening.
[For what it's worth, I was distracted by Mamet's use of "ANGLE," but it's his style.]
ex. "ANGLE
Ross looking at the sheet on the clipboard. He looks back at it. [What is on the clipboard?]
ANGLE INS
The letterhead. "Society for Comparative Linguistics" and at the bottom of the page, embossed, the address 212 W. Huron. [1st cut answers the question and asks the next one: "What's so special about that address?"]
EXT. 212 W. HURON NIGHT
Ross standing on the steps. Looking in through the glass. [2nd cut changes our location AND pushes the story forward. We now want to see what Ross is seeing.]
ANGLE POV
The lobby, empty." [3rd cut shows Ross' POV. Will he scope it out?]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was surprised how many cuts I missed while reading (an excellent thing).
Homicide (1991)(4/15/89 draft)
by David Mamet
*I speak here of a spec/selling script. A shooting script, of course, will likely include more directing on the page out of necessity.
Monday, May 19, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Untouchables (1987) - When in Doubt, "Hope-Fear"
[Quick Summary: Elliot Ness and his Untouchables try to take down Al Capone.]
How do you make a reader FEEL?
I've forgotten how.
Then I read this script, and it reminded me about the classic "hope-fear" sequencing.
You know what? It really works.
ex. 1 - "Ness unwraps the part of his lunch wrapped in the calendar page. He laughs.
NESS: Ha! (he holds it up) Message from my wife.
ANGLE POV
The calendar sheet. Mrs. Ness has written on it: "I am very proud of you."
ex. 2 - [Then five pages later] Ness' hand comes out of the pocket with a book of matchees and a folded piece of paper. He unfolds is slowly. It is the note from his wife which reads, "I am very proud of you.""
Ex. 1 - Ness is cheered by his wife's note (hope).
Ex. 2 - After a big defeat, that same note makes him feel like a big disappointment (fear).
Very effective, no?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you're stuck, try out "hope-fear-hope-fear."
The Untouchables (1987)
by David Mamet
How do you make a reader FEEL?
I've forgotten how.
Then I read this script, and it reminded me about the classic "hope-fear" sequencing.
You know what? It really works.
ex. 1 - "Ness unwraps the part of his lunch wrapped in the calendar page. He laughs.
NESS: Ha! (he holds it up) Message from my wife.
ANGLE POV
The calendar sheet. Mrs. Ness has written on it: "I am very proud of you."
ex. 2 - [Then five pages later] Ness' hand comes out of the pocket with a book of matchees and a folded piece of paper. He unfolds is slowly. It is the note from his wife which reads, "I am very proud of you.""
Ex. 1 - Ness is cheered by his wife's note (hope).
Ex. 2 - After a big defeat, that same note makes him feel like a big disappointment (fear).
Very effective, no?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you're stuck, try out "hope-fear-hope-fear."
The Untouchables (1987)
by David Mamet
Saturday, September 29, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: Hoffa (1992) - Transitions & Emotional Impact
[Quick Summary: Jimmy Hoffa gives his life to and for the Teamsters.]
I once heard someone ask a famous screenwriter, "What separates a good writer from a great one?"
"Transitions," he said. It's always stuck with me.
As I read this script, I noticed that the transitions were not just a location change.
ex. "ANGLE
In a long shot, the armed strikebreakers thrashing their way into the line of the strikers.
ANGLE
A young woman screaming.
ANGLE
INT. THE R.E.A. BUILDING. The businessmen we saw in the previous sequence, pressed forward in the window of a paneled board room, looking down. [This smooth move from the freightyard to the boardroom is a reaction shot.]
I once heard someone ask a famous screenwriter, "What separates a good writer from a great one?"
"Transitions," he said. It's always stuck with me.
As I read this script, I noticed that the transitions were not just a location change.
ex. "ANGLE
In a long shot, the armed strikebreakers thrashing their way into the line of the strikers.
ANGLE
A young woman screaming.
ANGLE
INT. THE R.E.A. BUILDING. The businessmen we saw in the previous sequence, pressed forward in the window of a paneled board room, looking down. [This smooth move from the freightyard to the boardroom is a reaction shot.]
ANGLE
Their POV, the slaughter in the freightyard below.
ANGLE
In the freightyard. Ciaro, clubbing a man to the ground. Looks around. [We move back to the freightyard to see the action.]
ANGLE HIS POV
Hoffa. Being set upon by two strikebreakers....
ANGLE
INT. THE BOARDROOM. A man's hand closes the curtains on the fight below. [Back to the boardroom for another reaction shot.]
INT. UNION HALL. NIGHT.
A line of long drawn faces. Men and women dressed in their "best'. Nodding at the camera, moving on. There is a break in the line, to reveal, behind them, a huge floral [funeral] wreath...." [This scene is the consequences of the fighting.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can use transitions to drive an emotional point home.
In the example above:
- Action in freightyard --> Boardroom's REACTION is to panic
- Action in freightyard --> The funeral is the CONSEQUENCES
[By the way, this is something the reader is not even conscious of (but the writer should be!)]
Hoffa (1992)
by David Mamet
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can use transitions to drive an emotional point home.
In the example above:
- Action in freightyard --> Boardroom's REACTION is to panic
- Action in freightyard --> The funeral is the CONSEQUENCES
[By the way, this is something the reader is not even conscious of (but the writer should be!)]
Hoffa (1992)
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Spanish Prisoner (1997) - It's Like 3 Card Monty
[Quick Summary: After corporate employee designs a "process", he's conned into leaking it to a competitor...or so we think.]
Random thoughts about this script:
1. It is not about Spain nor is it a war movie.
2. Like another Mamet script, it's all about the con game.
3. I was all prepared to catch the surprise twist, honestly, I did...but Mamet conned me too.
More random thoughts:
1. This was good, but it wasn't my favorite Mamet script.
2. The reason the con is such a great framework is because the protagonist is a pro-active participant.
3. How do you not telegraph the twist? Everyone but the protagonist stays super-normal, so our eyes are drawn to him, not the wily antagonist.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Mamet is unusually adept at fooling my expectations.
Like three card monty, I always pick the wrong card.
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
by David Mamet
Random thoughts about this script:
1. It is not about Spain nor is it a war movie.
2. Like another Mamet script, it's all about the con game.
3. I was all prepared to catch the surprise twist, honestly, I did...but Mamet conned me too.
More random thoughts:
1. This was good, but it wasn't my favorite Mamet script.
2. The reason the con is such a great framework is because the protagonist is a pro-active participant.
3. How do you not telegraph the twist? Everyone but the protagonist stays super-normal, so our eyes are drawn to him, not the wily antagonist.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Mamet is unusually adept at fooling my expectations.
Like three card monty, I always pick the wrong card.
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
by David Mamet
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: House of Games (1987)
[Quick Summary: Margaret Ford, a female psychiatrist, falls for a Mike's con, and becomes entrapped in his elaborate crime web.]
Mike tells Margaret that the "confidence game" works because the mark doesn't give the confidence.
The con man gives his confidence to the mark, usually by bringing the mark in on the scheme.
Mike does it again and again to Margaret.
ex. At their first meeting, he asks her to help him, and she loses her bank account.
ex. Mark develops Margaret's trust by showing her how the game works on a young man at the Western Union office.
ex. His cronies show her how the Tap con works.
The script ups the ante with each demonstration. Margaret feels "in", accepted, and somewhat invulnerable.
The last thing on her mind is that these nice guys were setting her up...and BOOM! That's when it happens.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The stakes rise beautifully as Mike confides more and more in Margaret.
Also, the false sense of security is a great setup for a great third act payoff
House of Games (1989)
Written & directed by David Mamet
Mike tells Margaret that the "confidence game" works because the mark doesn't give the confidence.
The con man gives his confidence to the mark, usually by bringing the mark in on the scheme.
Mike does it again and again to Margaret.
ex. At their first meeting, he asks her to help him, and she loses her bank account.
ex. Mark develops Margaret's trust by showing her how the game works on a young man at the Western Union office.
ex. His cronies show her how the Tap con works.
The script ups the ante with each demonstration. Margaret feels "in", accepted, and somewhat invulnerable.
The last thing on her mind is that these nice guys were setting her up...and BOOM! That's when it happens.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The stakes rise beautifully as Mike confides more and more in Margaret.
Also, the false sense of security is a great setup for a great third act payoff
House of Games (1989)
Written & directed by David Mamet
Thursday, May 10, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: Things Change (1988) -
[Quick Summary: After an old Chicago Italian-American shoeshine man agrees to take the rap for a mob guy, he is assigned a keeper, who takes them on one last adventure in Lake Tahoe.]
Holy crap, this is unbelievably good writing.
Roger Ebert states it best: This film "confirms Mamet's gift for leading us through truly bewildering plots."
The plot seems simple.
In two days, the old shoeshine man Gino (Don Amache) will admit to a murder he didn't commit. In exchange, the mob boss will give him a boat when Gino gets out of jail.
Jerry (Joe Mantegna), a lower mob guy, babysits Gino for these two days.
Jerry feels sorry for the old man and decides to take Gino to Lake Tahoe for one last hurrah.
Now the plot really shines when impossible things happen. Gino's innocent curiosity and unbelievable timing keeps Jerry hopping.
Why do we believe it at all? Because it all stems from Gino's character.
ex. Jerry takes Gino to the roulette table. Jerry has rigged it with the house that Gino will continue to win, but not take any of the winnings.
Soon Gino turns a few bucks into $35k, and followers flock to the table.
Jerry pulls them away and makes up a reason that the money has to be given back.
Gino agrees, and we think that's the end of the situation.
But it's not.
When Jerry is busy, Gino wanders away to a Wheel of Fortune. He bets the entire $35k on a turn to see if his streak would continue.
That's what was great about the script.
We believe this unbelievable moment because this is something curious Gino would do.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If the character believes it, I'll believe it too.
Things Change (1988)
by David Mamet & Shel Silverstein
Holy crap, this is unbelievably good writing.
Roger Ebert states it best: This film "confirms Mamet's gift for leading us through truly bewildering plots."
The plot seems simple.
In two days, the old shoeshine man Gino (Don Amache) will admit to a murder he didn't commit. In exchange, the mob boss will give him a boat when Gino gets out of jail.
Jerry (Joe Mantegna), a lower mob guy, babysits Gino for these two days.
Jerry feels sorry for the old man and decides to take Gino to Lake Tahoe for one last hurrah.
Now the plot really shines when impossible things happen. Gino's innocent curiosity and unbelievable timing keeps Jerry hopping.
Why do we believe it at all? Because it all stems from Gino's character.
ex. Jerry takes Gino to the roulette table. Jerry has rigged it with the house that Gino will continue to win, but not take any of the winnings.
Soon Gino turns a few bucks into $35k, and followers flock to the table.
Jerry pulls them away and makes up a reason that the money has to be given back.
Gino agrees, and we think that's the end of the situation.
But it's not.
When Jerry is busy, Gino wanders away to a Wheel of Fortune. He bets the entire $35k on a turn to see if his streak would continue.
That's what was great about the script.
We believe this unbelievable moment because this is something curious Gino would do.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If the character believes it, I'll believe it too.
Things Change (1988)
by David Mamet & Shel Silverstein
Friday, March 18, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #91 WGA Script of All Time - The Verdict (1982)
[Quick Summary: When an alcoholic lawyer gets an "easy" personal injury case that is ready to be settled, he does the unthinkable & takes it to trial.]
Holy freaking cow. Why have I not read more David Mamet?
He's known for his dialogue, but this script's subtext blew my mind.
On the surface, this is about a washed up lawyer who has only one, rather weak case.
Below the surface, Roger Ebert writes:
"Sidney Lumet and Paul Newman, seem to be going for something more; "The Verdict" is more a character study than a thriller, and the buried suspense in this movie is more about Galvin's own life than about his latest case."
How does Mamet do it?
First, the trajectory of the case parallels Galvin's (the main character) personal recovery.
Second, when Galvin battles setbacks on the case, it's really about his own setbacks.
ex. Early on, we learn that Galvin was a big firm lawyer who was accused of jury tampering on a case. He lost everything - wife, job, respect, etc.
He gets now gets Deborah Ann's case. She is in a coma now because she received the wrong anesthetic during delivery.
Around p. 27, the doctors' lawyer offers Galvin a generous settlement of $210k...and Galvin refuses. He wants the world to know the truth of what happened.
But why? Wouldn't it be better just to settle?
We only discover Galvin's reasoning around p. 53: He was also an innocent victim in the jury tampering case. When he seeks justice for innocent Deborah Ann, he is also settling the score for his own innocent self.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've never seen subtext that is felt rather than seen. The craft was the sublime b/c everything was clear, but nothing was heavy handed or remotely on the nose.
The Verdict (1982)
by David Mamet
Holy freaking cow. Why have I not read more David Mamet?
He's known for his dialogue, but this script's subtext blew my mind.
On the surface, this is about a washed up lawyer who has only one, rather weak case.
Below the surface, Roger Ebert writes:
"Sidney Lumet and Paul Newman, seem to be going for something more; "The Verdict" is more a character study than a thriller, and the buried suspense in this movie is more about Galvin's own life than about his latest case."
How does Mamet do it?
First, the trajectory of the case parallels Galvin's (the main character) personal recovery.
Second, when Galvin battles setbacks on the case, it's really about his own setbacks.
ex. Early on, we learn that Galvin was a big firm lawyer who was accused of jury tampering on a case. He lost everything - wife, job, respect, etc.
He gets now gets Deborah Ann's case. She is in a coma now because she received the wrong anesthetic during delivery.
Around p. 27, the doctors' lawyer offers Galvin a generous settlement of $210k...and Galvin refuses. He wants the world to know the truth of what happened.
But why? Wouldn't it be better just to settle?
We only discover Galvin's reasoning around p. 53: He was also an innocent victim in the jury tampering case. When he seeks justice for innocent Deborah Ann, he is also settling the score for his own innocent self.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've never seen subtext that is felt rather than seen. The craft was the sublime b/c everything was clear, but nothing was heavy handed or remotely on the nose.
The Verdict (1982)
by David Mamet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)