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

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

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

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

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

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

THE METRO PLATFORM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY'S NUGGET: Rebecca (1940) - Foreshadowing with the Sly Inuendos

[Quick Summary: The second Mrs. de Winter struggles not to be intimidated by the shadow of the first Mrs. de Winter.]

TWO THOUGHTS:

1) PROTAGONIST W/O A NAME. This is the first script that I've seen in which the main character has no name and is never called by her name.* 

2) FORESHADOWING.  I think this is still one of Alfred Hitchcock's most famous films** because of its foreshadowing what "I" is about to face.

Why does it work? One element is the atmosphere of unresolved feelings. 
ex. Everyone else has opinions about Rebecca, the first Mrs. de Winter, except the protagonist and the audience.  It feels like we are lagging behind.  

How does it work? I think it's a snowballing of a string of hints and clues. 
ex. The protagonist only gets pieces of the story.  It keeps the audience engaged to try to put them together and see what comes next.

For example:
- The protagonist, "I", has been paid companion to Mrs. Van Hopper.
- She and Maxim de Winter have just announced their engagement to Mrs. Van Hopper in her hotel room.
- Maxim leaves the room to make wedding arrangements.
- Mrs. Van Hopper is the first to drop sly innuendos that can be taken two ways.
- She plays with "I's" fears of losing Maxim.
- The scene below is from the shooting script. The "official" script in the anthology is slightly different.

[NOTE: I have bolded several innuendos and hints below.]

Mrs. Van Hopper walks to "I", dropping all pretense.

MRS. VAN HOPPER: So this is what has been happening during my illness! (She smiles unpleasantly.) Tennis lessons my foot! (she goes close to "I") I suppose I've got to hand it to you for a fast worker. How did you manage it? Still waters certainly run deep! But it's a lucky thing for you that you haven't a family to ask embarrassing questions. When did you first meet him?

"I": The day after we arrived here.

MRS. VAN HOPPER: Really! And all this time you've been listening to me talk about him - and never a peep out of you. And I took you for an innocent, unsophisticated child!

She takes a few steps away from "I" CAMERA FOLLOWING HER, then turns quickly round.

MRS. VAN HOPPER (taking a cigarette out and lighting it): You realize that he's much older than you.

SEMI CLOSE UP

"I" slightly on the defensive.

"I": I'm old for my age.

Mrs. Van Hopper comes back into the picture and laughs.

MRS. VAN HOPPER: You certainly are.

She leans closer to "I" and speaks in a lower tone.

MRS. VAN HOPPER: Tell me, have you been doing anything you shouldn't?

She looks "I" up and down appraisingly like a judge at a cattle show. "I" backs away from her

"I" (with some indignation): I don't know what you mean.

Mrs. Van Hopper shrugs her shoulders. Her cigarette still in her mouth, she takes out a compact and starts to powder her nose.

MRS. VAN HOPPER: Oh well - never mind. I always did say Englishmen have strange tastes. But you'll certainly have your work cut out as mistress of Manderley. To be perfectly frank with you, my dear, I can't see you doing it. (she strolls out of picture)

SEMI CLOSE UP

She strolls into picture by the mirror as she continues:

MRS. VAN HOPPER: You haven't the experience, you haven't the faintest idea what it means to be a great lady. Personally, I think you're making a big mistake - one you will bitterly regret.

Through the mirror we see "I" watching her unhappily, and Mrs. Van Hopper starts to adjust a few stray hairs under her hat.

MRS. VAN HOPPER: Of course, you know why he's marrying you, don't you? You haven't flattered yourself that he's in love with you. The fact is, that empty house got on his nerves to such an extent he nearly went off his head. He just couldn't go on living alone.

SEMI CLOSE UP

During the last long speech we cut in a flash of "I" getting more and more unhappy and angry.

"I": You'd better leave, Mrs. Van Hopper. You'll miss your train.

CLOSE UP

Mrs. Van Hopper turns and faces "I". A queer, twisted smile crosses her face.

MRS. VAN HOPPER (with withering sarcasm): Mrs. de Winter. (With a sour laugh) Good-bye, my dear, and good luck. 

She turns and flounces out. The slam of the door is heard.

CLOSE UP

"I's" worried face as she looks after her.

                                                                                                  FADE OUT.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The hints and clues don't need to be obvious. Just enough to play with the character's weakness or fears.  It can then escalate from there.

Rebecca (1940)(shooting script, 3/26/40)
Rebecca (1940)(anthology)
by Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison
Based on the novel by Daphne du Maurier

*The editors of this anthology note: "This story is the dramatization of a first person narrative related by the second Mrs. De Winter. Except for her formal name, later in the story, she can be known to us only as "I" and is therefore so called throughout."

**This was Alfred Hitchcock's first American film, and garnered 11 Oscar nominations, including one for best screenplay.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Hitchcock's The Lost Night (Unproduced) - Clash of Writer vs. Director's Vision; Double Use of Prop for Suspense

[Quick Summary: After his brother's murderer escapes from prison, an insurance salesman goes undercover in Finland to find the man via his wife and kids, but ends up falling in love.]

Though I don't typically read unproduced scripts, this one (well, two) got me thinking about how a writer may/may not be able to work with a director's vision.

The 1978 draft.  I went in cold to this unsigned draft, not realizing it was likely written by Ernest Lehman (6 time Oscar nominee; North by Northwest). 

There are some holes, but it's got Lehman's elegance to it.

The 1980 rewrite draft. Then I read this still-in-progress draft by David Freeman and Hitchcock in the last six months of the latter's life.* 

I liked many of the Hitchcock touches, especially fleshing out of shots.  I did not like that it lost some of Lehman's elegance throughout. 

Working with a Director.  After reading these two scripts (and Freeman's experience coming into the process), I'm now seeing how visions did not gel.

Lehman wrote a good script, but Hitchcock did not like it. I wonder now - was Hitchcock after something else? Maybe pushing, fumbling for something new?**

Opening scene. Lehman's opening is elegant, but conventional: The protagonist looks out of an office window.  He sees a  news crawl about the escaped convict.

Freeman/Hitchcock's opening has a very different tone: more attention grabbing, both ridiculous and suspense filled.  

It starts at the prison with the accomplice, Brennan, who is trying to throw a rope ladder to the antagonist, Brand:

EXT. LONDON - ARTILLERY ROAD - 6:45 PM

A drizzly London evening in the fall.

Wormwood Scrubs Prison and Hammersmith Hospital sit side by side. Artillery Road, hardly more than a service lane runs between them.

...Brennan has the boot open, about to remove a rope ladder.

BRAND (V.O.): God damn it, what are you doing there? It's all going to be over...It's too late...

Headlights illuminate the boot as Brennan is removing the ladder. He drops it quickly and turns to see an old Morris approaching.

He closes the boot and reaches into the mums, turning off the walkie-talkie, silencing Brand's voice.

The Morris stops adjacent to Brennan. An Elderly Couple are in the car. The woman leans across her husband and speaks to Brennan.

ELDERLY WOMAN: Excuse me young man, we're looking for the hospital.
ELDERLY MAN: Hammersmith Hospital. It's on Du Cane --
BRENNAN: Yes...Yes. This is it. Straight on and turn  to the left. Visitors' entrance is to the left.
ELDERLY MAN (to his wife): What did he say?
ELDERLY WOMAN (loudly): He said it's to the left for the visitors' entrance.

OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL

BRAND: What's wrong? What is it? Answer me damn you, answer. What is it?

ARTILLERY ROAD

ELDERLY MAN: Where should we park?
ELDERLY WOMAN: My husband wants to know...
BRENNAN: On the street. Park on the street. You just go up and turn to the left. Hurry or you'll miss visiting hours. They're very strict.
ELDERLY WOMAN (re Brennan's flowers): Mums?
BRENNAN: Yes. Hurry along now.
ELDERLY WOMAN (holds up bouquet): Me too. For our daughter-in-law. Her liver's shot to hell.
BRENNAN: Lovely. Hurry along.
ELDERLY WOMAN: Thank you. (loudly to her husband) It's to the left. We park on the street.

The Morris pulls away, slowly.

Brennan opens the boot again, grabs the rope ladder and flips on the walkie-talkie. When it clicks on, a torrent of abuse comes out.

BRAND (V.O.)(midsentence; almost in tears): ...not going back. Where the bloody hell are you? I can see the first of them coming back. You've bollixed it. You bloody Irish ass. I'm not going back. I'm not. I'm not going back.
BRENNAN: We're there. We're there.

He drops the mums on the ground, and tries to find a spot to throw from. He steps back into the road, then moves forward again and climbs up onto the back of his car.

The mums are on the ground with Brand's pleas coming out.

BRAND (V.O.): You drunken ass. You bloody Irish fool. You've killed me. You've done it. It's on your head.

Brennan winds up and tosses the ladder, hard and high.

PRISON SIDE OF WALL

As the ladder comes floating over the wall.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I do wish the two drafts could've been married closer, as both have strengths missing in the other (elegance, creative play).

Also, I do admire the double use of the mums in Hitchcock's opening as 1) walkie-talkie camouflage, and 2) focal point to increase suspense.

The Short Night (11/9/78, revised)
by Ernest Lehman (I think)
Based on the novel, "The Short Night," by Ronald Kirkbride

The Short Night (1980, revised) - unproduced script published in 1984
by David Freeman

*I highly recommend reading Freeman's book, which has several fascinating chapters about his daily routine working with Hitchcock in these last six months.

At this point in time (1979-80), Hitchcock was not in the best of health, and would pass soon.  His last (and 53rd) film, Family Plot (1976), had come out three years earlier, and not to rave reviews. It was written by Lehman.

** In his review of Family Plot, Roger Ebert notes: "...it's a delight for two contradictory reasons: because it's pure Hitchcock, with its meticulous construction and attention to detail, and because it's something new for Hitchcock -- a macabre comedy, essentially." (my emphasis)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Mary Rose (unproduced Hitchcock) - Building Blocks of Creating & Layering Dread in Psychological Horror

[Quick Summary: Mary Rose has no memory of disappearing from an Island, then reappearing after 20 days.  As an adult, she re-visits and disappears for 18 yrs.]

After a run of 3 other psychological horrors,* I'm not sure why Hitchcock couldn't get this script green lit.**  It is very much in his wheelhouse of suspense.

This script is a great example of one keys to psychological horror: creeping dread.  

What are the building blocks of dread?  Often unease and uncertainty.

Let's look at a great example in the scene below:
- Kenneth (40), Mary Rose's son, returns to his childhood home, which is for sale.
- He's been away for 20+ yrs. and walks through the unlocked front door.
- Notice what the writer uses to build dread: the physical description of the wallpaper; the gloom in 'sacking,' 'peeling,' old woman, etc.
- Notice what the writer uses to layer dread: uneasiness of chair facing away from us; sound, shadow,  old woman is holding her breath, etc.
- I've underlined below the phrases that kept me uneasy or uncertain.

Slowly, he begins to mount the stairs. At the top, he discovers a door, open upon a dark and deeply silent room. Quietly, he enters. All of this room's past, which can be taken away, has gone.  Such light as there is...no more than enough to make shadows...comes from the only window, which is at the back and incompletely shrouded in sacking. Also toward the back of the room is another door.  It is closed. As his eyes adjust to the dark, they circle the room, taking in the peeling wallpaper, the desolated, deserted sadness of it all, until finally his eyes come to rest upon the only furnishings in the room...if two up-ended packing cases and a chair may be called furnishings.

On top of one of the cases is an unlighted candle in a holder, and beside it is a chair, the back of which is turned toward the man. These objects seem only to add to the impression of empty desertion. And then, in the dark, the man becomes slowly conscious of the faintest, almost indiscernible movement. It is in the chair. He freezes. There is a moment of utterly suspended animation. Then he speaks, his voice hardly a whisper.

KENNETH: Who's there?

THE CAMERA closes in tight on the chair, as from its depth the movement takes shape and turns to face the man. In the chair is a woman, old, gaunt, narrowed-eyed...as her old gimlet eyes observe the obviously corporeal nature of the intruder, does she let out her breath. Hostilely, she regards him.

MRS. OTERY: What do you think you're up to here now! This here's private property!

KENNETH (relaxes, almost smiles): And you must be the caretaker.  Your name is....?

MRS. OTERY (compelled against herself to answer his gentle, but utterly assured command): Mrs. Otery. (trying to regain her authority) Mrs. Harry Otery, that's who. And I'm in charge of this house. It's my job to show it to prospective purchasers with appointments.

KENNETH: Really? From the looks of things, I shouldn't think you'd find yourself very busy.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Creeping dread is built on an increasing rise and fall of unease and uncertainty.

Mary Rose (unproduced Hitchcock)(2nd draft, 2/15/64)
by Jay Presson Allen
Adapted from the play by J.M. Barrie

*Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963), Marnie (1964).

**Ostensibly, Hitchcock said: "They believe it isn't what the audiences expect of me. Not the kind of picture they expect of me."

TODAY'S NUGGET: Marnie (1964) - Conned by a Pretty Girl

[Quick Summary: Thief, liar, and embezzler Marnie is caught in a criminal act by wealthy Mark, who falls for her and tries to unravel her frozen emotional past.]

Two Thoughts:

1) PROTAGONIST-ANTAGONIST SWITCHEROO

I want to complain today.* I am irritated.

This is Marnie's story. It is about HER fear of men, desire, and intimacy.

So why does it feel like the protagonist (Marnie) switch to the antagonist in the second half? And antagonist (Mark) becomes the protagonist?

After a little cooling off, I did see that this is a tough adaption.

It is not easy making this character's internal life apparent in the external world.

Marnie is so self-protective, so self-absorbed in her own pain that she doesn't pay much attention to anyone, much less men.   

She has no real motivation to break out of that cocoon...so Mark has to do it.

Though I don't like it, I can see why the writer did it this way.

2) CONNED BY A PRETTY GIRL: Establishing her M.O.

Marnie is pretty, which is why she gets jobs that she is not qualified to have.

In the amusing scene below, we see how she used her looks to con one male owner:

ex. "MED. SHOT - STRUTT AND DETECTIVES

STRUTT (fairly screaming): No damn it! That's Miss Croft! I told you people over the phone! Marion Holland! She's the one! Marion Holland!

One DETECTIVE takes a notebook out as his partner crosses the foreground toward the safe.

DETECTIVE: Can you describe her, Mr. Strutt?

STRUTT: Certainly I can describe her! (his little eyes narrow in bittersweet memory) Five foot five. One hundred and ten pounds. Size eight dress. Blue eyes. Black hair...wavy. Even features. Good teeth...

As he writes the DETECTIVE begins to grin.

STRUTT: What's so damn funny? There's been a grand larceny committed on these premises!

DETECTIVE (straightens his face): Yes sir. You were saying... (reads from notes) 'Black hair, wavy...even features, good teeth...' She was in your employ four months? .... What were her references, Sir?

There is a pause during which the CAMERA MOVES gently forward to include a

CLOSE-UP OF STRUTT ONLY

STRUTT (this one really hurts): Well...as a matter of fact...her...uh...yes, I believe...(lamely)...she had references, I'm sure.

CLOSE-UP - MISS CROFT

MISS CROFT (blandly): Oh, Mr. Strutt, don't you remember? She didn't have any references at all!

CLOSE SHOT - STRUTT AND THE DETECTIVES

STRUTT stiffens with indignation at this betrayal. The DETECTIVES remain tactfully deadpan.

STRUTT (clears his throat): Well...uh...she worked the copying and adding machines...no confidential duties, you know.

He looks off suddenly."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes solutions are downright inelegant and clunky.

On the other hand, it was elegant to expose Strutt's embarrassing mishaps and showcase Marnie's clever con....

Marnie (1964)(shooting draft, 10/29/63)by Jay Presson Allen
From the novel by Winston Graham

*My first complaint: This script is LONG (201 pgs.)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Frenzy (1972) - How Hitchcock Hides Exposition

[Quick Summary: An innocent ex-R.A.F. officer is accused of two murders, while the real serial murderer is on the loose.]

Yes, yes, yes, Hitchcock scripts are filled with Stuff We Do Not Do Today:

- Lots of shots and directions
- Long length (148 pgs. here)
- Long paragraphs.

BUT they are excellent examples of how to tell a story.

For example, humor is an excellent means to distract and hide exposition:

ex. "INT. DINING AREA/LIVING ROOM - OXFORD'S APARTMENT - EVENING

Oxford, sitting at the table, watches apprehensively as his wife brings the tureen of soup from the kitchen, and puts it down on the table. His worry increases as she starts to ladle it out, and strangely shaped objects are seen to plop into his soup bowl along with the liquid.

MRS. OXFORD: It's a soupe de poisson, dear. I know you'll enjoy it.

OXFORD: I have no doubt of it.

If there is any irony in her husband's last statement, Mrs. Oxford appears to be unaware of it. She moves off towards the kitchen.

MRS. OXFORD: I've just got a couple of things to do in the kitchen. Won't be a minute.

Left by himself, Oxford stirs his soup thoughtfully.

MRS. OXFORD (V.O.): Well, what's new in the case? (mocking him) Any sensational breaks?

OXFORD: No. I'll be pleased when we get Mr. Richard Blaney inside, though.

MRS. OXFORD (V.O.): Any idea where he is?

Oxford lowers his head and sniffs the bowl of soup.

OXFORD: No. Our only lead to him left her job this morning, and what's more, I don't know where she is either.

MRS. OXFORD (V.O.): You're certain, he's the one?

OXFORD:  He's the one, all right. There's not even the complication of another suspect. It has to be him.

He lifts his spoon out of the soup and brings out the gaping-mouthed head of a small fish. Carefully he places it on a side plate. He then tries again --gets some liquid, and drinks it cautiously. He gives it a highly qualified nod.

OXFORD: We have him identified as leaving the matrimonial agency at the time his ex was killed. We have the suit which he found necessary to send to the cleaners in a hurry. And we have the evidence of the face powder and the Salvation Army Hostel."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Humor can hide a lot of exposition.

Frenzy (1972)
by Anthony Shaffer
Based on the novel by Arthur La Bern

TODAY'S NUGGET: Suspicion (1941) - Great Villain + Wrong Casting + Studio Interference = Wrong Ending

[Quick Summary: A young woman is entranced, wooed, and married to a wastrel , and soon finds that her new husband may be trying to kill her.]

*WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

Johnnie Aysgarth is an excellent villain in this story.

I believe he's shady, devious, underhanded, and unreliable.

I believe he's also in love with his new wife, Lina McLaidlaw. 

I believe he would indeed lie, mislead, and cheat for the funds to keep her.

However, I do not believe the ending in the script, i.e., that he is redeemed.  It is not consistent with Johnnie's character or his choices.

I think Hitchcock thought the same because he wanted a darker ending.

Unfortunately, he had wrongly cast Cary Grant as Johnnie.  The studio didn't think audiences would buy him as a killer, and thus insisted on the current, happier ending.

I would've believed Hitchcock's darker version over the present one.

I think it's because Johnnie has the charisma to sell it:

ex. "ALICE: And Johnnie insisted on meeting you.

LINA (looking at Johnnie): Why?

The girls giggle but before they have time to reply Johnnie says very simply:

JOHNNIE: Well, I understand from these charming ladies that a really bang-up, eligible young man is an unusual sight in this part of the country. My heard was touched.

SEMI-CLOSEUP - Lina and Johnnie. Johnnie remains calm and smiling and Lina is flushed and embarrassed. Behind this we hear others chattering simultaneously."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm comforted that even Hitchcock had to compromise, and sometimes it wasn't always for the best.

Suspicion (1941)
by Samson Raphaelson, Alma Reville, and Joan Harrison
Based on the novel,, "Before the Fact," by Francis Iles (pseudonym for A. B. Cox)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Spellbound (1945) - Connecting Scenes Help Flesh Out World

[Quick Summary: A female psychiatrist falls in love with an amnesiac who has seen a crime.] 

In my own writing, I have a bad habit of hitting only the big story points and rushing through connecting scenes.

It results in a horribly confusing, bumpy read.

Connecting scenes are vital to fleshing out an imaginary world for your reader.

For example, in the scene below from Spellbound,* Hitchcock uses them to show what is happening in the world while Constance is sleeping and unaware.

Note that the writer takes the time to include:

- What is written on the note.
- The note slipped under the door.
- The note appearing on the other side of the door and Constance sleeping.

ex. "INSERT J.B.'s hand writing a note.

We see the note:

"I cannot involve you in this for many reasons. One of them being that I love you. When the police step in, tell them I am at the Empire State Hotel in New York. I prefer to wait alone for the end. Goodbye. J.B."

His hands fold the note and put it into an envelope. He writes her name, "Dr. Petersen" on it in his bold, heavy script.

DISSOLVE:

INT. CORRIDOR - SEMI-CLOSEUP - NIGHT

We see a man's shadow and hand insert the envelope under the door to Constance's room.

INT. CONSTANCE PETERSEN'S OFFICE - CLOSEUP - NIGHT

The envelope appears on the other side of the door. CAMERA PANS UP from it and we see through into the moonlit bedroom. We can just discern the recumbent figure of Constance, sleeping."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I would've axed the last scene as unnecessary since the next scenes tell us Constance was sleeping.  However, there's more visual impact because it's included.

When in doubt, err on the side of more visual impact. 

Spellbound (1945)
by Ben Hecht
Suggested by the novel, "House of Dr. Edwards," by Francis Beeding

*Not one of my favorite Hitchcock films.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Lifeboat (1944) - To Attract a Star

[Quick Summary: Americans shipwrecked on a lifeboat are suspicious of the lone German in their midst.]

I feel that I should've liked this script more.

- The concept had real stakes (10 people stranded in a boat).

- The opening was bold and interesting (written for Tallulah Bankhead).

- Hitchcock's intent was controversial but understandable ("We wanted to show that at that moment there were two world forces confronting each other, the democracies and the Nazis, and while the democracies were completely disorganized, all of the Germans were clearly headed in the same direction.")

Yet I still lost interest along the way.  Why? I still don't know.

So as I continue to ponder, I will leave you this:

Hitchcock needed someone dramatic for the role of Mrs. Connie Porter, a famous, rich, female journalist who was lost at sea. 

Who better than the famous actress Tallulah Bankhead?

I love the juicy character descriptions that would entice Ms. Bankhead to sign on:

ex.  "Connie is crowding forty, but Helena Rubenstein and her own dauntless efforts have created a camouflage that makes her get away with thirty, when she's had a good night's sleep. Right now she might be thirty-two." [i.e., She is unconcerned that she now sits in a lifeboat.]

ex. "Her mink coat is Revillon Freres. Her suit is Hattie Carnegie. On the seat at her side is a de luxe model 16 mm movie camera."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Characters are terribly attractive when they're in unusual circumstances, with something they need to say, and something they need to do.

Lifeboat (1944)
by Jo Swerling
Original story and novella by John Steinbeck

TODAY'S NUGGET: Shadow of a Doubt (1943) - The Art of the Slow Burn

[Quick Summary: After her uncle arrives from out of town, a niece suspects he is a murderer.]

Uncle Charlie travels out west to visit his sister.

His niece and namesake, Young Charlie, is thrilled...until she suspects that Uncle Charlie may/may not be running from the law. 

Unfortunately, she only has a few circumstantial stories, i.e., no hard evidence.

What does she do next? Tell the cops? Set a trap for Uncle?

If I were the writer of this story, this would be my first instinct.  I would want to jump to proving Young Charlie is right.  

But any quick resolution would immediately kill the suspense. (Oops.)

Here, the writers were more clever and inserted a mix of:
- emotional obstacles (Young Charlie is terribly conflicted: She idolizes Uncle Charlie. Also she doesn't want to humiliate her mother with a public reveal.)
- genuine obstacles (Nosy plainclothes detectives.  Interruptions during the bar scene).

Nothing can be forced into a quick fix.

You must wait until the game is played out before reaching a resolution.

This is the good kind of suspense, i.e., a slow burn.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really admire how the obstacles are so truthful to the characters and not tacked on as plot devices.

ex. Young Charlie goes to the library to find out what newspaper article that Uncle Charlie cut out.  This causes her to face who Uncle Charlie is, and not what he says.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
by Thornton Wilder, Sally Benson, & Alma Reville
Story by Gordon McDonell

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Birds (1963) - The "Cute Meet" Feeling

[Quick Summary: After a San Francisco socialite follows a man to a seaside town, she is attacked by birds.]

The Birds is horror, right?

I ask because it has a GOOD "cute meet" rom-com scene at the beginning:

- Melanie, the spoiled socialite, is in a pet store buying a bird.

- Mitch, a stranger, asks for her help.

- Melanie is annoyed he thinks she is a clerk, but she plays along.

- He asks to see a bird. She pretends to know what she's doing. A bird gets loose. Chaos.

- Mitch pulls the rug from under Melanie.

- He walks off, and leaves her hanging.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: What sparks! What romance!  I longed for them to be together.

This is how a "cute meet" should leave us feeling. 

The Birds (1963)
by Evan Hunter
Based on the novel "Birds" by Daphne Du Maurier

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vertigo (1958) - How to Twist in (Late) Act 2

[Quick Summary: A detective-turned-p.i., is hired to follow a wife who is reliving a family curse.]

A few days ago, I watched a recent thriller with a late Act 2 twist.

The twist was a humdinger (fine) and unbelievably crazy (ok by me).

Unfortunately, it was barely based in character, and seemed to be tacked on as a shocker.  THAT was unacceptable.

So how did Hitchcock set up a late Act 2 twist?  Let's check out Vertigo:

Madeline (the wife) dies about 2/3 in the script.

(This is not a surprise.  She's obsessed over Carlotta's death, look, grave, etc.)

The twist has several steps:
- Madeline dies.
- Scottie (the p.i.) is brokenhearted, but one day he sees Judy in Madeline's old room. [This keeps Madeline alive.]
- Scottie confronts Judy, and learns she has been living there for 3 years. [The Madeline mystery deepens, though she's dead.]
- Scottie begins to date Judy. [Is Scottie moving on?]
- Judy isn't who we think she is. [Scottie is in for a stun in Act 3.]

Why this works:
-  Acts 1-2 established Madeline's mysterious behaviors.  Late Act 2-3 clarifies them through Judy.
- The twist reveals Madeline's CHARACTER. This is no time for a plot point just to include a cool CGI effect.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A good late twist reveals more character.

A bad late twist is often more about the twist than the character.

Vertigo (1958)
by Alec Coppel & Samuel Taylor
Based on the novel "d'Entre les Morts" by Pierre Boileau & Thomas Narcejac

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) - Location, Location, Location

[Quick Summary: An innocent mistake pulls a tourist into an international assassination plot.]

As far as Hitchcock scripts go, this wasn't my favorite.

But I would like to mention the ballsy choice of set pieces:

- French Morocco
- Savoy's Hotel
- taxidermist shop
- Royal Albert Hall
- Moroccan embassy

Hitchcock plays with the audience's expectations of these locations.

When unexpected things happen in dignified locations, it's quite a startling contrast.

ex. Jimmy Stewart tracks the kidnapper...to a taxidermy shop (?!)
ex. Jimmy then finds the head conspirator...preaching in a pulpit (?!!)
ex. Doris Day sings at the Moroccan embassy while her son is captive upstairs.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The locations impacted me more subconsciously than I'd realized.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
by John Michael Hayes

TODAY'S NUGGET: To Catch a Thief (1955) - When Sparks Fly

[Quick Summary: A retired cat thief is framed for burglaries he didn't commit.]

The One Thing I Liked the Least:
 - The script takes a long time to get going.

The One Thing I Liked the Most:
- Francie is a strong lead who pins Robie from the very beginning.

She knows what she wants + invites interaction with Robie = Romantic fireworks

ex. "I've been waiting all day for you to mention that kiss I gave you last night."
ex.  "The kind of man I want doesn't have a price."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Francie takes no prisoners, and Robie bobs and weaves like a champ. They're equally matched, i.e., sparks fly.

FYI: The Francie-Robie exchange on p. 51-52 is a good read.

To Catch a Thief (1955)

by John Michael Hayes

TODAY'S NUGGET: Strangers on a Train (1950) - One Reason to Drop a Plot Line from a Book

[Quick Summary: On a train, a man with a problematic wife meets a stranger who offers to kill the wife -- if the man will kill the stranger's father.]

In the book, Guy meets a stranger on a train called Bruno.

Bruno agrees to kill Guy's wife, and Guy will kill Bruno's father.

However, in the script, Guy refuses, but Bruno kills Guy's wife anyway.

For the rest of the story, Bruno insists that Guy hold up his end of the "agreement."

Why doesn't the script include the double murder?

I'm not sure, but only one murder does dial up the psychological pressure on Guy.

ex. Bruno feels justified about invading Guy's social circle to drop hints.

ex. Guy cannot tell the police, so Bruno has eternal leverage over Guy.

ex. Bruno needs Guy to act immediately, which increases the urgency.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Hitchcock seems to have favored more tension here over a second murder plot line.

Strangers on a Train (1950)
by Raymond Chandler & Czenzi Ormonde
Adapted from the novel by Patricia Highsmith

TODAY'S NUGGET: Saboteur (1942) - Hitchcock's Bombs & the Shift of Power

[Quick Summary: Barry, an aircraft laborer, is accused of sabotage, and uncovers a conspiracy.]

This is my two cents: The script starts out strong, then wanders

...and wanders...

...and wanders.

However, it was nice to see examples of Hitchcock's famous formula for suspense, i.e., "the audience knows there's a bomb under the table."

Ex. 1:  Barry confronts the shady lawyer, Mr. Tobin, at home.

When Tobin is away, his granddaughter toddles over to Barry.

She innocently hands him a dropped telegram.  It is from the real saboteur to Mr. Tobin. [This is the bomb.]

Tobin returns. [Will the bomb go off?] 

Tobin calls Barry out for reading the telegram, and his thugs corner Barry. [Bomb is released.]

Ex. 2: The cornered Barry picks up the granddaughter. [Another bomb.]

He uses her as a shield to escape. [Will the bomb go off?]

He puts her down and gets away. [Bomb goes off.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  A bomb is interesting to watch because it often benefits one side over the other (Ex. 1 above).

After it is released, the story is at a new level, usually because there's a mad scramble to  re-shift the power back (Ex. 2 above).

Saboteur (1942)
by Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison, & Dorothy Parker

TODAY'S NUGGET: #83 WGA Script of All Time - Rear Window (1954)

[Quick Summary: A recuperating photographer is suspicious of a neighbor whose wife has conveniently "gone on vacation."]

Bad news: This is a loooong, dense 160 pg. script.  (Yeah, yeah, I know this is typical of Hitchcock scripts.)

Good news: It does transitions well.

(This is something that only serious writers study. Everyone else thinks transitions "just happen.")

ex. Jeff & Lisa argue.  Jeff can't convince her that the salesman/neighbor in the far building is sinister. 
 
Finally Jeff begins to concede maybe he's imagining things & makes a joke to Lisa. He waits for her response.

HERE'S THE TRANSITION: The script gives a VISUAL response instead of a verbal one. We see:

-  Lisa in shock
-  Lisa looking at the far building where the salesman is packing a big trunk to leave
-  Lisa changed by what she sees (We know she believes Jeff now)

Then she turns to Jeff & asks: "Tell me everything..."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a great transition because it does several things at once:

1) It shows us how Lisa changed her mind AND
2) It shows us the salesman is moving fast to leave (ticking clock) AND
3) It shows us via visuals (instead of dialogue) that Lisa is committed to the cause

Not bad, eh?

Rear Window (1954)
by John Michael Hayes

TODAY'S NUGGET: #92 WGA Script of All Time - Psycho (1960)

[Quick Summary: When a young woman absconds with her boss' client's money, she ends up at the Bates' motel, where it's always the wrong place & wrong time.]

I do not like horror nor creepy, & have never read nor seen the whole Psycho.

So how surprised am I that this is the best horror script I've read to date? Very.

This is an extremely fast read (even at 133 pgs.) & breaks all kinds of rules.  ex. The protagonist, dies about 1/3 into the story & is replaced by another one (Norman Bates).

But Psycho is heads & tails above all other horror scripts because it structures the fear so well.

Every level pushes the character off a ledge (cliffhangers = high vertical suspense), & can only be answered by the next level (this increases pace = fast horizontal speed).

ex. LEVEL 1 - The writer establishes empathy for Marion & sends her to the Bates motel. This sets up an unresolved question: Why did she have to die?  We liked her & this is disturbing!

LEVEL 2 - Then the writer sends a private eye to the motel & he dies.  The fear rises to a panic: Doesn't anyone notice?  Who will stop these deaths?!

LEVEL 3 - So when Marion's sister & Marion's boyfriend come to investigate, the fear is at an all time high.  Don't split up! Why are you two splitting up? You know there are crazy Bates who've killed twice!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The genius of Psycho is that we expect Marion to live, but she doesn't...& the script doesn't die, but speeds up.

Psycho (1960)
by Joseph Stefano

TODAY’S NUGGET: #101 WGA Script of All Time – Notorious (1946)

[Quick Summary:  Daughter of a convicted traitor reluctantly goes to Rio to infiltrate a group of her father’s friends, & falls for the recruiter who doesn’t trust her.]

Someone (me) reads your story. 

Someone (me again) suspects the story doesn’t build suspense enough.

Someone (me, now grouchy) struggles to explain to you the building blocks of suspense.  

Enter “Notorious” and Hitchcock.  (Someone (me) is relieved.)

The key to suspense is that she must always be at a fork in the road. 

Ex. Alicia must seduce Sebastian (a bad guy & the man who wants her), but she’s in love with Agent Devlin (the man who has put her with Sebastian). 

How to keep her at a fork in the road:

1 – Increase stakes by increasing the consequences.

Alicia can only access the secret room if she marries Sebastian.  Will she marry him and doom herself to a life without Devlin?

2 –The love triangle keeps see-sawing back & forth, so we’re never sure who’s won.

Alicia & Devlin clearly have chemistry (Devlin wins). Alicia must placate Sebastian (Sebastian wins).  Alicia longs for Devlin (Devlin wins).

3- Every decision seems to extinguish conflict, but actually creates two more.

Alicia steals keys to the secret room & takes Devlin there.  When Sebastian spots them, Devlin kisses her deliberately to distract him. Now Sebastian is furious at Alicia, & her heart breaks even more over Devlin.

WHAT I’VE LEARNED:  If it’s done right, the suspense arc should  not end at a fork. Suspense forks and forks and forks again.

Notorious (1946)
by Ben Hecht

TODAY’S 2nd NUGGET: #21 WGA Script of All Time – North by Northwest (1959)

[Quick Summary: Roger Thornhill is an advertising man who is mistaken for the notorious George Kaplan.  As Roger chases down the truth, he finds that Kaplan never existed.]

This script had fantastic pacing for the first 80-90 pages. 

(I don't know why, but it seemed to slow down when until Thornhill goes to Eve's train compartment.)

The script m-o-v-e-s because:

1) Thornhill's life is absolutely disrupted by this Kaplan guy (good conflict)

2) Thornhill hates being blamed for Kaplan's mistakes & wants his life back (good motive)

3) Both protagonist & antagonist think they're right. And they are. But they think the other side is wrong. But they're not.  Who will win?  (good raising of stakes)

The audience can't wait for the shoes to start falling.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think Acts 1 & 2 flew because as puzzle pieces were added, other pieces were subtracted.

This isn't one of my favorite scripts.  I guess once I knew Thornhill wasn't really in trouble, I lost some momentum.

North by Northwest (1959)
by Ernest Lehman