TODAY'S NUGGET: The Cotton Club (1984) - Breaking Through Writer's Block with 4-5 Word Summaries

[Quick Summary: Several stories of a coronet player getting mixed with mobster, racial tensions, in the Roaring Twenties and early Depression.]

There were three things I really liked in this script:

1) THIS LINE OF DIALOGUE:  

DUTCH: ...You make a livin' with that horn?

DIXIE: I'm eatin' but I'm not getting fat.

2) THE FACT THAT THIS SCRIPT JUMPS AROUND A LOT BUT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT. Critic Roger Ebert explains what is in the mix:

Coppola has a way, in this film, of telling all the different stories without giving us the impression he's jumping around a lot. Maybe the music helps. It gives the movie a continuity and an underlying rhythm that makes all of the characters' lives into steps in a sad ballet. We like some of the characters, but we don't have much respect for them, and the movie doesn't bother with clear distinctions between good and evil. "The Cotton Club" is a somewhat cynical movie about a very cynical time, and along with the music and the romance there is racism, cruelty, betrayal, and stunning violence. Romance with a cutting edge.

3) MOST SLUG LINES INCLUDED 4-5 WORD SUMMARY OF "WHAT IS THIS SCENE ABOUT?" It's not a gimmick; it broke through my writer's block.

I was stuck recently and tried this trick to summarize the scene before I wrote it.  Behold!  It cut down on distractions and focused me immediately.

I will note that it was seeing all the various examples that helped.  So I encourage you to read it and page through it for inspiration when you're stuck.

Here are five examples (they're underlined as presented in the script):
- EXT. DWYER APARTMENT - DAY: VINCE SAYS HE'S MARRIED
- EXT. COTTON CLUB - DAY: EXIT AUDITION/SEE LILA ROSE
- INT. HOOFER'S CLUB - DAY: SUGAR REMINDS SANDMAN HE'S LATE
- INT. UBANGI CLUB - NIGHT: BAD JAM SESSION
- INT. DWYER APARTMENT - NIGHT: TEA & TOAST WITH PSYCHOPATH

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've been returning to this script again and again, just to look at the 4-5 word summaries for different ways to tackle scenes.

The Cotton Club (1984)(8/22/83 shooting script)
by William Kennedy and Francis Ford Coppol/a

TODAY'S NUGGET: Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988) - A Foil Role Worthy of a Best Supporting Actor Nomination

[Quick Summary: Against all odds, Preston Tucker, famed for building WWII combat turrets, decides to build the Tucker "car of tomorrow."]

Though this was an ok script, how did it end up netting Martin Landau an Oscar nominated performance for best supporting actor?

Well, first, he had direction by Francis Ford Coppola, which couldn't hurt.

Second, he played the character of Abe, a realistic NYC businessman and Tucker's biggest ally.  Abe is also is used as a foil, often exposing Tucker's blind spots. 

For example, in the scene below, he tries to reason with Tucker, who only wants to think big.

Notice how Abe's practicality is contrasted by Tucker's impracticality (or is it vision?)*, which is the point of the scene.

INT. DEN - DAY

Abe is talking. Tucker, Vera, and Eddie are in the room.

ABE: ...which leaves three war surplus plants we've got a shot at. A long shot, because everybody in the country's trying to get them, but it's worth a try. One's perfect. Nice and little. The other's too big. Cost twice as much to re-tool, but we could swing it if we had to.

TUCKER: What's the third one?

ABE: Impossible. The Dodge plant, where they built the B-29 engines in Chicago.

TUCKER: What's wrong with that?

ABE: It covers 475 acres for one thing, with sixteen buildings. One of them is seventy-three acres long. One building. The biggest building in the world under one roof.

Vera and Eddie look at each other, knowing exactly what Tucker will say.

CLOSE ON TUCKER.

TUCKER: It's perfect!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A good foil will push back against the protagonist, and thus reveal things in the protagonist we did not know before. 

A foil is often the main antagonist, but could even be an ally, like Abe here.

Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988)(revised shooting draft, 5/5/87)
by Arnold Schulman and David Seidler

*Just for fun: Only 50 Tucker automobiles were made, and I think Preston Tucker would be thrilled that they are now valued over $1+M.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) - When They Shot Your Script & It Was Awful; Unconscious Transitions

[Quick Summary: In London, Dracula pursues Mina, who is soon to be married to Jonathan, who is trapped by Dracula's 'wives' in Transylvania.]

I could follow this script but it meandered between 4-5 characters and did not drive to a climax. It felt... muddled (?)*

However, I did appreciate two things that I learned:

1) SOMETIMES NO ONE SEES THE FLAW. The writer recounts here about seeing a first cut that was faithful to his script...and it was awful.

Why couldn’t we have solved this in the script development stage before shooting to avoid ending up in the editing room with a film that does not work? How did I not realize this in the writing stages? How did Francis Ford Coppola, the Maestro living legend, not see this coming?

Answer: Sometimes no one sees it and you have to shoot it to get perspective.

2) UNCONSCIOUS TRANSITIONS. On the page, I find it difficult to move an audience from one location to another without them realizing it.

I thought the writer of this script did a nice job of expressing the unknown looming around Mina, while moving us into Dracula's introduction using a shadow image:

...A grotesque SHADOW moves across them and the room to:

INT. CONSERVATORY - EVENING

MED. CLOSE UP MINA
Mina fixes herself in the mirror before she joins them. The SHADOW moves across the mirror. 

MINA: If I were a man, I know what I would do to make a girl love me.

Slowly, her hands reach up pressing her own breasts. The SHADOW darkens her.

EXT. CASTLE DOORWAY - NIGHT

THE SAME SHADOW - VIEW PANS
revealing what created the shadow: DRACULA, a tall old man. Hands long and hairy. Face riveting, handsome like a Tartar --and horrible at the same time. His eyes a cold vivid blue. He puts down a bowl of fruit and Oriental lantern (that made shadow grotesque) for his guest. He stands there like a statue. We PULL BACK to include Harker.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that the shadow was used to foreshadow something scary is coming and also introduce us to Dracula.  Double duty!

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)(8/22/91 shooting script)
by Jim Hart

*I tend to agree with Roger Ebert's assessment: "The one thing the movie lacks is headlong narrative energy and coherence. There is no story we can follow well enough to care about."

TODAY'S NUGGET: Rainmaker (1997) - How to Show a Character Revealing Knowledge

[Quick Summary: While studying to take the bar exam, Rudy takes on a case of a dying leukemia patient whose insurance company refused to pay for treatment.]

What is the most interesting way to show a character revealing knowledge, especially when he/she knows something that the audience does not?

I found a few clues in this script:

1) The character does not need to explain everything. It leaves some mystery!

2) Allow for the audience to make the leap of logic (but don't require huge leaps of logic that no one can follow).

Notice below:

1) In the first scene, Rudy has an idea who is wiretapping his phone, but he does not tell us.  Instead, there is a cut to a conversation with Rudy and Deck.

2) This leap is easy to follow: Rudy thinks he knows who the wiretapper is --> Rudy and Deck lay a trap for the wiretapper.

ex. INT. CLUB AMBER - DAY

Rudy, Deck and Butch are seated in a corner booth, having drinks and looking at the performers.

BUTCH: The bugging device is manufactured in Czechoslovakia, medium grade in quality, and feeds a transmitter located somewhere close by.  It wasn't planted by cops or feds.

DECK: Someone else is listening.

Rudy is stunned.

BUTCH: Who else would it be?

RUDY: I've got an idea. Go to a pay phone...                              
                                                                                             DISSOLVE TO:

EXT. PAY PHONE - DAY

Deck is at an outdoor pay phone.

DECK (on phone): Just checking in. you need anything from downtown?

INT. RUDY'S OFFICE - DAY

Rudy is on the phone, talking to Deck. He's sewing a button on his jacket.

RUDY: Nah. Oh, guess who wants to settle now?

DECK (O.S.): Who?

RUDY: Dot Black.

DECK (O.S.)(incredulous and phony): Dot Black?

RUDY: Yeah, I stopped by this morning to check on her, took her a fruitcake. She said she just doesn't have the willpower to suffer through the trial, wants to settle right now.

DECK (O.S.): How much?

RUDY: Said she'd take a hundred and seventy five...

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a much more creative way of showing what Rudy knows ("I think I know who it is" ---> lay trap) rather than boring exposition.

Rainmaker (1997)(1st draft, dated 7/11/96)
by Francis Ford Coppola
Adapted from the novel by John Grisham

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Conversation (1974) - Repetition of a Conversation = A Haunting

[Quick Summary: Surveillance expert thinks his recording of a private conversation might predict a murder.]

Here's how the story opens:
- Harry Caul is a surveillance expert who likes the chase of getting a recording.
- His job is to record and deliver. He doesn't pay attention to the substance of the conversation. 
- He gets a job following and recording a man and woman as they talk in a park. 
- Unfortunately, he can only record bits and pieces of that conversation.
- It's rather mundane lovers' talk.

Before he can deliver the recording to the client, others try to steal it.

Why would others want such a mundane recording?

These bits and pieces of conversation surface again and again at odd times.  The longer Harry has to wait to deliver the recording, the more it haunts him.

I know that repetition of a single conversation isn't an unusual technique.

However, I was intrigued how it is used here, like a ghost.

Harry usually ignored the substance of his recordings, but this time, he paid attention, and heard a few disturbing clues.

Now he can't get it out of his mind (haunting).  It causes him to takes action to verify the clues, make conclusions and assumptions.

In short, it drives him forward. (Perhaps it's an antagonist too?)

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've never seen repetition of a conversation used like an impetus, i.e., something that drives the character forward.

The Conversation (1974)
by Francis Ford Coppola

TODAY'S NUGGET: #55 WGA Script of All Time - Apocalypse Now (1979)

[Quick Summary from IMDB: During the on-going Vietnam War, Captain Willard is sent on a dangerous mission into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has set himself up as a God among a local tribe.]

I know this is considered a classic, a movie of its time, among the first about Vietnam.

I know Rotten Tomatoes calls it a "masterpiece" & "brilliant", & gives it an extremely rare 99%.

But I don't get this script.  I barely understood it until p. 100 of 155 pages.  I even had to use the logline from IMDB because I was unable to make up my own. 

Coppola clearly had a vision, given the finished film.  But I couldn't see it on the page. 

I didn't know why Willard is really on this journey. Tell me again why I want him to succeed?

I don't know what is the purpose of locating crazy Kurtz. To show the fruitlessness of war? To criticize the decision to go to war?  I have no idea.

I exited the jungle very dissatisfied...but even worse than that, I learned squat.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I simply don't get this script, but wish I did. Anyone care to comment?

Apocalypse Now (1979)
by John Milius and Francis Ford Coppola
Based on the novel by Joseph Conrad

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Francis Ford Coppola & Hope

On days I find it hard to believe I'm just one script away from a career, I think about the story behind Patton.

Francis Ford Coppola was hired to write "Patton," but there was a disagreement about the now iconic opening. He was replaced by another writer.

Time passes. Just as Coppola is about to be fired again from "The Godfather," "Patton" is up for an Academy Award, & Coppola wins for best screenplay!

Coppola has said that if he hadn't won for "Patton", it's likely he would've been fired from "The Godfather."

This gives me great hope that things work out the way they should.

TODAY'S NUGGET: #94 WGA Script of All Time - Patton (1970)

[Quick Summary: This film depicts the war career of WWII General George S. Patton, a controversial, but wily leader of the US Army.]

I liked reading this script because it's a look at Coppola's writing before "The Godfather."

Patton was larger than life, & Coppola does not shy away from showing all of Patton, including the less admirable traits.

However, I admit that if he pitched it to me in 1969, I might've been one of his many doubters.

Why? In reading the script, I wasn't swept away. Yes, I was impressed at Patton's character traits, the sweep of what he accomplished, his faults.

But I didn't connect with Patton's story on the page and I'm one of those people who enjoy biopics. What went wrong?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm still flummoxed. I should've connected, but didn't.

Patton (1970)
by Francis Ford Coppola & Edmund North

TODAY'S NUGGET: #2 WGA Script of All Time - The Godfather (1972)

[Quick Summary: When the Godfather is wounded, will the succession of power go easily. (Answer: No.)]

This story is about the making of a new Godfather.

The brilliance of the script comes from how the characters change, i.e., the characters' arc. 

ex. Michael begins as a far removed player. 

But through the death of Sonny, the wounding of the Godfather, the death of his first bride, Michael must grapple with conflicts he would rather not.

He doesn't want to get involved with the family business.  But he has the right temperament for it.

He falls in love & marries a beautiful Italian girl, who is killed.  He returns home & marries Kay...but does he love her?

When the Don dies, Michael must step up.  But he has doubts that he's ready.

It's not easy to make Michael's changes very human.  It would've been easier to write him as a caricature. 

But in this script, he really struggles with making the right decisions for himself & family.  He earns each milestone. 

I also liked that even the minor characters had arcs. 

ex. Kay's reaction to the same situations take her from naive to hardened.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Once again, character traits rule.

The whole purpose of the plot is to push the character one step closer to something he doesn't want to face.  Here, Michael has to take the reins of an empire he didn't want. 

The Godfather (1972)
by Mario Puzo & Francis Ford Coppola

TODAY'S NUGGET: #10 WGA Script of All Time - Godfather Part 2 (1974)

[Quick Summary: With parallels to father Vito's early life, his son Michael must get rid of a traitor in the family.]

I've never seen the Godfather, so I entered in with an unbiased mind.

All I can say is wow.  Wow freakin' wow.

The genius of the film is its additional emotional depth through...uh....flashbacks.

Yes, I said flashbacks. 

ex. Michael argues with Pentangeli, the head of the NYC branch. Pentangeli storms out. Michael remembers the past.

And the script segues to how Vito first became a crime boss.  Vito tries to make an honest living, but Fanucci extorts everyone. Vito eventually kills Fanucci, & returns home to his son: "Papa loves you very much."

And the script segues to Michael telling his son the same.

Note the parallels:

- Michael won't be derailed. Vito eliminates the opponent.
- Michael prizes loyalty above all. Vito doesn't rat out his friends to Fanucci.
- Michael loves his son. Vito loves his son.

The flashback doesn't just add information (which is why I usually hate flashbacks). 

Here, it shows that the sins of the father are revisited by the son. We see Vito's problems  in hindsight, but also are being setup for what Michael will face.

Suddenly Michael's actions have more emotional weight.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The transitions to flashbacks were important.  There were no announcements, "Now we are going to flashback" that is so jarring to the reader.

Why was it seamless? I trusted the writer that if there was a change in time in the slugline, ex. "INT. NEW YORK THEATER - 1915 - NIGHT" there was a REASON for the flashback.

Godfather Part 2 (1974)
by Mario Puzo & Francis Ford Coppola