TODAY'S NUGGET: Primary Colors (1998) - Showing Motive (By Absenting the Antagonist)

[Quick Summary: A young campaign worker helps a charismatic Southern governor run during the Presidential primary.]

In 1998, I didn't see this film in the theater.

Bill Clinton had just begun a second term, and who needed a story with a parallel "Clinton-like" character?

I wish I would've known then that this story is really about MOTIVES.

The writer, Elaine May, did two smart things in this script:

1) She created an ensemble to show the range of motives.

2) She does not put the candidate, Gov. Stanton, in every scene (as Roger Ebert points out here).

Because of #2, the ensemble must talk about their views on Stanton ---> We see what really drives them.
 
ex. Skeptical Henry is now working on Stanton's campaign.
March is a reporter and his ex-girlfriend.

"MARCH: And that's the kind of man you want to work for? A man who just wants to get elected?

HENRY: No. I want to work for a man who fights the good fight and then watch a Republican get elected. [Sarcasm reveals a new position.]

MARCH: What's the difference? Can you tell?

HENRY: Yes. I can tell the difference between a man who believes what I believe and lies about it to get elected, and a man who just doesn't give a fuck. And I'll take the liar. [He's gone 180.]

MARCH (staring at him): How did he do this to you?

HENRY: Do what? What are you talking about? Why are you making this guy into the devil? Why don't you, at least, get to know him. Take some time, maybe spend a few days with us here. I miss you, honey, and we could be together...

MARCH: God, I think you'd fuck me to get some good press for Stanton.  [She tells him the truth.]

He stares at her for a moment...then turns and walks away."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Deliberately remove the antagonist from time to time.

It will make the other characters talk and reveal themselves.

Primary Colors (1998)
by Elaine May
Based on the novel by Joe Klein

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Birdcage (1996) - Hold Off Releasing the Tension

[Quick Summary: Flamboyant, gay nightclub owners meet their son's financee's straightlaced parents for the first time.]

This script is a smooth read.

In fact, it's so smooth that I didn't realize how fast I was turning pages.

For example, I thought the conflict below happened over 1-2 pages.  It actually happens over five pages. 

One thing that kept me turning was that the tension was not released too soon.

Notice how the tension hovers for four pages * (p. 35-39):

SETUP: (p. 34-35)
 - Val gets engaged to Barbara Keeley. Her father is a super-conservative politician.
 - Val comes home to ask dad, Armand, to pretend he's not so flamboyant for the first meeting with Barbara's parents. This requires a change in clothes, furnishings, etc.

DECISION IS MADE: Armand turns Val down. (p. 35)

*TENSION RISES: (p. 35-38)
- Meanwhile, tabloid reporters surround the Keeley house
- Keeleys escape the media circus.

*EFFECT OF TENSION: (p. 38-39)
- Armand moody at work.
- Val sits in his room, hopeless.

*TENSION RELEASED: (p. 39)
- Val hears Armand in the next room: "Agador....We're redoing the apartment for tomorrow night. Goddamn it!"
- "Val sits up, slowly, his eyes brightening." [I like that we SEE (not told of) his dad's love.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be afraid to hold off on releasing the tension.

The Birdcage (1996)(shooting script)
by Elaine May

TODAY'S NUGGET: Regarding Henry (1991) - Juxtapose an Old Foe to Show Arc

[Quick Summary: A head injury changes Henry, his wife Sarah, and daughter completely.]

NEW NEWS, people, NEWS!

You ready?!

The writer of this script, Jeffrey Abrams, is THE J.J. Abrams! [Ok, ok, so this is just new-to-me news.]

Now, on to this script.  It reads fast and clean, and hit me hard. 

If you are dealing with an illness in the family (or ever have), you treasure time over stuff. You savor the small things. You re-prioritize.

People on the outside, however, think you've lost your touch.

Abrams captures that contradiction in the scene below.

Watch how Abrams juxtaposes Phyllis vs. Sarah. (Phyllis represents Sarah's old life.) The contrast shows how much Sarah has changed:

ex. "BRENDA: It's like she's got two kids now.
PHYLLIS: Worse. What does she possibly have to look forward to?
DANIEL: Christ, one minute you're an attorney, the next you're an imbecile.
BRENDA: Well, that's not a very long trip.

Phyllis and the others can't help but laugh.

At that moment, Sarah walks up to Phyllis, holding her glass of red wine --close to Phyllis' white dress.

Their eyes meet. A heavy, quiet moment.

SARAH: Phyllis. I'm afraid we can't stay for dinner. I just wanted to say goodnight and thank you.

Sarah carefully hands the glass of wine to Phyllis, who closes her eyes in humiliation.

Henry walks up behind Phyllis.

HENRY: Yes. Thank you.

Sarah takes Henry by the arm. They leave."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Contrasting an Old Foe with the New You = Shows you much you've changed.

Regarding Henry (1991)
by Jeffrey Abrams (a.k.a. J.J. Abrams)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Postcards from the Edge (1990) - Funny + Drama

[Quick Summary: A funny, addicted actress stays with her stage mother while filming a movie.]

I had stupid preconceived notions about this script. I was wrong.

Carrie Fisher really make the tough stuff look easy.

I especially liked how her comedy deepens the point of the drama:

- Funny and Uncomfortable:

ex. "Suzanne and Doris go into the kitchen. Jack stands awkwardly beside Sid, who continues watching TV.

JACK What're you watching there, Mr. Roth?

Sid points to the TV as he watches, in explanation of what he is watching."

- Funny and Romantic:

ex. SUZANNE: "Are you sure I didn't...sleep with you?
JACK: Sleep, yes.
SUZANNE: Kiss?
JACK: What? Here? Now?
SUZANNE: No. Then. That night.
JACK: See if this rings a bell.

Jack goes to kiss her. Suzanne starts to resist, but her need for affection and his charm overwhelm her. They kiss gently, shyly.

SUZANNE: It rings something, but I don't know if it's a memory bell, or --
JACK: --How about this?

He kisses her again, this time more passionately.

SUZANNE: It certainly reminds me of something I should've done before.
JACK: It reminds me of something I want to do later, so I can look back on it after that."

- Funny, with Ongoing Mother-Daughter Tension:

ex. [Suzanne goes into Doris' bathroom cabinet]

"DORIS (O.S.): Who's there?

Suzanne rolls her eyes. Great. Caught in the act and she didn't even do it. The light flips on and Doris stands there.

SUZANNE: Hi, Mama. I was just looking for some Aspirin.

Doris eyes her daughter suspiciously.

DORIS: Did you find it?
SUZANNE: Yes.
DORIS: Good.

They eye each other. Suzanne exits. Doris follows."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The funny bits make the drama better.

Postcards from the Edge (1990)
by Carrie Fisher
Adapted from her novel

TODAY'S NUGGET: Silkwood (1983) - "Likeable" vs. "Empathetic" (Choose the Latter)

[Quick Summary: Karen Silkwood is contaminated for uncovering health hazards at her plutonium plant.]

"I don't like that character."
"He isn't likeable enough."
"Can't you make her more likeable?"

What the hell is "likeability"?

I've discovered over time that if you ask a few more questions, it boils down to this:

People use the word "likeable" when they actually mean "empathetic."

[Heads up writers, your job is to decipher what this shortcut means:

-"I don't like him [because I don't get why he made the decisions that he did]."
- "He isn't likeable enough [because he's always angry for no reason]."
- "Can't you make her more [conflicted/contradictory/complicated]"?]

Nora Ephron's scripts are pure gold for empathetic characters. 

Karen Silkwood is a great example. She makes radical decisions in 1970s Oklahoma. She smokes weed. Her three kids live with their dad in Texas. Her boyfriend can't take the stress and leaves.

Yet we identify with her facing her dilemmas and struggles. 

ex. "DENISE reaches out to hand her half-eaten hamburger to KAREN.

DENISE: I finished.
DONNY (to Drew): Do you still sleep with Mama?
DREW: Yes.

The hamburger drips ketchup all over KAREN'S dress.

KAREN: Oh shit.
DOLLY (without turning around): Don't say that, Mama.

DREW hands KAREN a napkin, sits down at the table.

DONNY: Do you hit Mama?
DREW: Not unless she hits me first."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Our job is to get the audience to empathize (understand) with the characters, not necessarily to approve.

Silkwood (1983)
by Nora Ephron & Alice Arlen

TODAY'S NUGGET: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) - Conflict = Eager to Engage

[Quick Summary: A professor and his wife trap entertain couple in a booze soaked, button pushing evening.]

The recent passing of brilliant director Mike Nichols prompted me to read the scripts that he directed. 

This was his first produced film. 

It was a ballsy choice and still burns up on the page.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the conflict is impressively strong.

I discovered that one of the reasons is because the opposing characters are eager to engage.

They may evade for a little while, but always circle back, swinging.

ex. "GEORGE: I'm tired, dear...it's late...and besides --
MARTHA: I don't know what you're so tired about...you haven't done anything all day; you didn't have any classes, or anything....
GEORGE: Well, I'm tired....If your father didn't set up these damn Saturday night orgies all the time....
MARTHA: Well, that's just too bad about you, George....
GEORGE (grumbling): Well, that's how it is, anyway.
MARTHA: You didn't do anything; you never do anything; you never mix. You just sit around and talk.
GEORGE: What do you want me to do? Do you want me to go around all night braying at everybody, the way you do?
MARTHA (braying): I DON'T BRAY!
GEORGE (softly): All right...you don't bray.
MARTHA (hurt): I do not bray.
GEORGE: All right. I said you didn't bray.
MARTHA (after a moment): Fix me a drink.
GEORGE: Haven't you had enought?
MARTHA: I said, fix me a drink."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think the "engaging" is why people are interesting to watch.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
by Ernest Lehman
Adapted from the play by Eward Albee

TODAY'S NUGGET: Carnal Knowledge (1971) - What I Learned from an All Dialogue Script

[Quick Summary: In three life phases, two friends talk about sex.]

This script is the funniest, most thought provoking script I've seen about sex.  (It's really not about the sex.)

Three Things Your Should Know:

1) The writer is Jules Feiffer, a prolific, renowned illustrator, novelist, playwright, screenwriter and all around sharp political observer.*

2) Feiffer stated in an interview where this film came from:

Your attitudes to sex and intimacy in Carnal Knowledge are similar to those that we see in your strip from the ’50s onwards. You seem to have a certain rage against the sexual revolution before it even got started.

Well, the point of the film, based on my life and my observation, was that -- and I still think is permanent -- is that heterosexual men didn’t like women. They liked sex. They liked pussy. But they didn’t like the conversation afterwards. They didn’t like the commitment. They didn’t like what women expected of them. They didn’t like the fetters. They wanted their freedom. While women wanted commitment. And by freedom they usually meant freedom to be miserable. I thought this had to be documented and nobody had ever done it. And that’s why the film struck such a chord, because as in the strips where I dealt with sex in the ’50s -- and also the politics too -- but particularly the sex, I was saying things that everyone knew but no one had ever recorded. Except for, about the same time as me, Mike Nichols and Elaine May, which is why we got along so well. What Nichols and May were doing in their sketches, in the clubs, and later television was essentially what I was trying to do in the comic strip.

3)  The script is 90% dialogue. Why does it work so well here?

a - Know what you want to say. From #2 above, Feiffer was focused on men's contradictory "freedom to be miserable".

Feiffer channeled that point of view into the dialogue.

b -  Keep conflict clear. I think Feiffer stuffs the dialogue with conflict so inherently clear that narrative is unnecessary. **

c - Subtext, NOT THE TEXT, does all the heavy lifting. 

ex. JONATHAN: You don't know every mood of mine like you know every mood of his. [He wants to be her #1 guy.]

SUSAN: No.

JONATHAN: How come?

SUSAN: I don't know.

JONATHAN: You don't tell me thoughts I never knew I had. [He's free as a bird, so why is he jealous?]

SUSAN: Does he say I do that?

He nods.

SUSAN: Then I guess I must.

JONATHAN: You do it all right. So do it with me. [The bachelor is asking for more?!]

SUSAN: I can't.

JONATHAN: Why can't you?

SUSAN: I can't with you.

JONATHAN: This has gone far enough. [He's reached his limit.]

SUSAN: I can't stand any more ultimatums, Jonathan.

JOHNATHAN: This is my last one! Tonight you tell him about us or tomorrow I tell him! Look at me, Susan. [Does he want her because she's someone else's girl?]

She looks at him.

JONATHAN: Now, tell me my goddamn thoughts!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script is all dialogue, but don't be fooled.

It only works because the foundation is solid (clear POV, clear conflict, clear subtext).

Carnal Knowledge (1971)
by Jules Feiffer
Adapted from his own play

*He was a Village Voice cartoonist for 40+ years, children's book illustrator, and writer of 35 plays, novels, and screenplays.

**I think Feiffer's illustration training lends itself to screenwriting, i.e., both use few words as possible to get a message across. 

TODAY'S NUGGT: Catch-22 (1970) - Blurring Reality & a Dream State

[Quick Summary: While wounded airman tries to get out of flying again, he falls in and out of memories.]

No disrespect to anyone, but this story didn't appeal to me.

It all seemed pointless.

(Perhaps that was the point, since the script ridicules war (satire), and mocks black marketing (farce).) 

I did like how this script excels in blurring reality and dream state:

ex. "Tappman opens the book, then closes it again and looks up. His eye focus on something in the distance. He blinks.

SHOT - TAPPMAN'S POV

In the distance, sitting high up on the branch of a tree, watching the ceremony, is Yossarian, naked.

SHOT - TAPPMAN

He shakes his head.

MAJOR MAJOR: Is there something wrong?

TAPPMAN: I - no - I thought I saw something.

MAJOR MAJOR: A naked man in a tree?

TAPPMAN: Yes, That's it.

DANBY (Looking down, slightly embarrassed): That's just Yossarian.

TAPPMAN: Oh. Well - in that case -

Tappman opens the book and begins reading the thirteenth Psalm."

Is this reality? A dream? I couldn't tell.

However, it works here because the story didn't rely on one or the other.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Most stories want the audience to distinguish between reality and dream state.  This one deliberately wants them blurred.

Catch-22 (1970)(second draft)
by Buck Henry
Adapted from the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

TODAY'S NUGGET: I Am Afraid of Virginia Woolf

Furious Love was just released yesterday.  It's a book of love letters between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, written with the cooperation of Miss White Diamonds herself.

Why do we still care about the Taylor-Burton relationship?

1) They lived on a really grand scale when stars were STARS;
2) They were two very talented people from very different backgrounds; and
3) The love-hate, can't-live-with-you-can't-live-without-you, let's-get-married-divorced-married-divorced dynamic.  In other words, conflict.

Conflict kept them together, but drove them apart.

And their movie roles were similarly at odds.

I confess I could barely stand watching Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? because the conflict made me sweat bullets.  But I couldn't but help watch Taylor go off the deep end.  I really wanted Burton's facade to crack and slap her. 

I realize that a lot of scripts don't keep up that level of conflict & driving need to win.  Smart writers know that even the lulls aren't really lulls.  Conflict must be there all the time. 

It's exhausting.  Which is why movies aren't exactly real life.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: After the movie ended, I saw why this couple mesmerized the public both on screen and off.

CONFLICT.   (And that level of hostility is why Virginia Woolf was darn scary.)