TODAY'S NUGGET: Dolores Claiborne (1995) - Switching Time Without Sluglines

[Quick Summary: A reporter has not been home to Maine in 15 yrs. but returns to deal with her mother Dolores who is accused of murdering her rich, ill employer.]

Tony Gilroy is famous for writing without sluglines.

How does he keep time straight for the reader?  When there are flashbacks too?

I think it starts with keeping the character's current emotional state very clear.

For example, in the scene below, note:
- The structure is to start in the present --> flash back to the past --> return to present.
- The emotional state is confusion in the present --> confusion also in the past --> neither the characters or the audience has all the facts --> we get the confusion.
- Dolores is the mother. Selena is her 30 y.o. daughter who is a reporter now.

ex. "DOLORES at the bottom of the stairs. Crushed. Moving heavily back through the living room and --

     INTO
  
     THE KITCHEN.  DOLORES just about to start putting things away, when she hears SELENA coming back down the stairs.  [PRESENT TIME]

     DOLORES (turning back): Selena?

     SELENA (12) standing at the bottom of the stairs.  Dressed to go out. A backpack. [PAST STARTS HERE]

     SELENA: Don't try and stop me.

WE ARE IN FLASHBACK
    
     We're still in the living room, but it's a bright, Spring afternoon in 1975.

      DOLORES (36) Standing near the kitchen. Bare feet.

      SELENA (backing for the door): Mrs. Devereaux called, she need extra help with the hotel because of the people coming for the eclipse. I'm going to stay over a few days.

      DOLORES: Selena, we talked about this --

      SELENA: I don't care what we talked about! (rushing out the door --) I don't want to be here when you talk to dad about your crazy ideas!

      DOLORES rushing to follow. Not as fast in bare feet. Through the front door and --

      OUT INTO

      The yard. DOLORES running off the porch -- heading across the field -- trying to cut SELENA off --

       DOLORES (yelling as she goes --: Selena! Selenaaaa...!

       SELENA already way ahead -- almost beyond earshot -- SILHOUETTED AGAINST THE SKY as she runs along the road to town and --

       DOLORES running -- trying to chase -- tough without shoes --

       DOLORES: Selena!!! (stopping as --)

       Suddenly -- DOLORES stumbles -- A CRACKING SOUND -- something giving way -- boards breaking -- DOLORES falling -- catching herself -- GASPING -- grabbing at the ground as her legs disappear beneath her -- and then scrambling back up -- standing slowly and staring down at --

      A DRY WELL - covered with rotting boards -- grown over with weeds and scrub -- a black hole there in the middle of nothing and --

MATCH CUT -- OUT OF FLASHBACK TO  [BACK TO PRESENT]

THE ROUND KITCHEN TABLE. Cluttered with Selena's laptop, tape recorder, notebooks, etc...

 DOLORES picks up her glass. Finishes the last of the Scotch."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is an excellent example of a flashback that gives us information, but is not an info dump.  It's more about the emotional state of affairs.

Dolores Claiborne (1995)(3rd draft, 1/31/94)
by Tony Gilroy
Based on the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S 3rd NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part IIIC - My (Embarrassing) Confession

[Quick Summary: During their annual hunting trip, four childhood friends encounter an eerie being.]

3 - My (Embarrassing) Confession

I confess I didn't read this book in its entirety.

This novel flummoxed me, which is no doubt my fault.  I just couldn't follow it. 

However, I did skim nearly every page in preparation for reading the script.

It paid off tenfold:

- I'd never have understood just how much of the novel is in the script.

- I'd never have grasped how EVERY line in the script is truthful to the book (even though every line may not be IN the book).

- I'd never have seen how sprawling, difficult raw source material can be distilled into a screenplay.

So if you want to skip straight to the script, let me state something controversial:

READ (or skim) THE BOOK FIRST. 

 WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I didn't regret the time I spent on the book.

William Goldman said in his forward to this shooting script that he spends SIX months on an adaption - the FIRST FOUR months reading and re-reading the book!

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman & Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part IIIB - Make 'em Laugh & Scream at the Same Time

[Quick Summary: During their annual hunting trip, four childhood friends encounter an eerie being.]

2 - TONAL CHANGES (Make 'em Laugh and Scream at the Same Time)

Tone is hard to explain.

How to change a tone is even harder.

However, a light bulb went on when I read "make 'em laugh and scream" at the same time in Stephen King's forward.

The book has several chapters to get the reader to that place.

However, a script must get there in few scenes.

I thought the writers did a nice job of capturing funny with scary:

ex. In this scene, Pete and Henry nearly run over a woman at the side of the road: 

"HENRY: Hello.

Nothing.

PETE: Forget it, H., she's gone.

Pete pulls his gloves off and leans down close to her face, where he CLAPS his hands loudly in front of her nose.

PETE: Hello!

Suddenly the woman's hand shoots up and grabs Pete's leg! Henry jumps, but Pete SCREAMS, pulling away in terror and falling on his ass in the snow. Henry drops down in front of the woman.

HENRY: Ma'am, can you hear me? Are you okay? Hello!

In reply, she FARTS deafeningly. Henry has to back off.

HENRY: I wonder if that's how they say 'hello' in these parts?

PETE: Phew! Listen, Miss Roadkill, you almost got us dead...say something.

The woman, BECKY, turns, registers them as if for the first time.

BECKY: I have to find Rick."

[FYI: The farts aren't just funny here; they're an important indicator.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I could sense the tonal change, even if I couldn't explain it at first.

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman & Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) Part IIIA - Characterization

[Quick Summary: During their annual hunting trip, four childhood friends encounter an eerie being.]

In the forward to this shooting script, Stephen King writes:

[F]ilmmakers get blinded by the visual possibilities of sequences the want to adapt, and then they get their heads in a box: They believe they are making genre films.... The complexity of the story tends to get lost. So do the characterization and the tonal changes.

I tried (but failed) to write a single post about my reactions to the script.

So I divided them up in a terribly unoriginal manner:

1 - Characterization
2 - Tonal Changes (Make 'em Laugh and Scream)
3 - My (Embarrassing) Confession 

FYI: There are a few mild spoilers ahead. 

----------------------------------
1 - CHARACTERIZATION

Everyone talks about character, but what IS it?

So far, I gather that it's a combination of a person's motives, decisions, and reactions.

This script helped me by showing me fine character work in dialogue.

Note the subtext going on here:

ex. "HELICOPTER GUY (amplified): HOW MANY ARE YOU? HOW ME ON YOUR FINGERS. THIS AREA IS UNDER TEMPORARY QUARANTINE. YOU MUST STAY WHERE YOU ARE!

BEAVER: What do you mean, quarantine? We got a sick guy down here?

BEAVER and JONESY (overlapping): -- We need help here! -- Real sick guy here! --

JONESY: Take him with you now!

HELICOPTER GUY (booming on): GREAT YOU MUST NOT LEAVE. THIS AREA IS UNDER QUARANTINE.

BEAVER (screaming): What's so damn great? We got a guy here could be dying! We need some help!

GUY IN HELICOPTER (makes an A-OK sign): GLAD YOU'RE OKAY. THIS SITUATION WILL BE RESOLVED IN 24 TO 48 HOURS.

Stunned, Beaver and Jonesy watch the big copter fly away."

This is great because the audience must put 2 + 2 together: 

- The helicopter guy speaks in a helpful manner, but his (unspoken) message is "You're on your own."
- The men are reassured everything is under control, but see the lie and know there's a huge problem.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: "...Without character there is no horror, no laughter, no empathy, no nothing." - S.King

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman & Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S NUGGET: Dreamcatcher (2003) - "...This is One of the Very, Very Good Adaptions of My Work..."

A NOTE TO MY READERS: I hope you'll grant me some leeway, as I'll be posting my usual Monday script-of-the-week much later this week.

I blame it on Stephen King.

He writes this in the forward to the print version of the shooting script:

And speaking of tonal changes...sure, I like to make people scream, but I also like to make 'em laugh. Best of all, I like to get the readers of a story to a place where they want to do both at the same time. So far as I can tell, only the version of Dreamcatcher scripted by Bill Goldman (who also wrote the screenplays for Misery and Hearts in Atlantis) and Lawrence Kasdan has succeeded in transferring this emotional paradox to the screen....

Wow! That's a serious compliment.

He goes on:

It's not my job to tell you why this particular adaption works so well.  You have the screenplay in front of you, and if you haven't read the novel, you can buy an inexpensive paperback copy at your local bookstore (or take it out of the library, if you're a tightwad).  I'll just say that a close and thoughtful comparison of the two will teach you a great deal about the delicate and difficult art of turning a complex 600-page novel into a film that runs two hours and ten minutes.

In other words, read the book first.

I admit this seems like a lot of unnecessary work...and the resulting film wasn't even reviewed all that positively.

However, King convinced me:

At the risk of repeating myself, this is one of the very, very good adaptions of my work, and the book that follows is a valuable artifact showing how successful adaption is accomplished.

Ah, now I see.

I should be more concerned about grasping the messy process of adaption, not just the end product.

Also, I should pay attention if King approves of someone else's writing.

After all, he's not been so keen on others:

Others - I'm thinking chiefly of Christine and Stanley Kubrick's take on The Shining - should have been good but just...well, they just aren't. They're actually sort of boring. Speaking just for myself, I'd rather have bad than boring.

So I'm off to read the book first, and will post later this week.

Thanks in advance for understanding! 

Dreamcatcher (2003)
by William Goldman and Lawrence Kasdan
Adapted from the novel by Stephen King

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Horror Requires Psychology

Longtime readers know that I read lots of horror scripts b/c they translate overseas.

Horror isn't my favorite genre, but after reading bunches of horror scripts, I have a real appreciation for the Stephen King level of mastery.

Today I read a Misery wannabe, but it failed to explain the psychology of the characters, which King does so well. (Mind you, I don't have to approve of the psychology...I just need to understand it.)

In this script, the male & female leads are trapped in a house with a terrifying version of Annie Wilkes. This script begins with promise of a bloody battle, which it delivers. But it fails to be emotionally satisfying.

I peered inside with my script laryngoscope, and found that this one lacks an antagonist that is layered with Annie's desire to be needed and wanted. (This is what Paul Sheldon uses to get to Annie and eventually triumph over her. )

Here, the antagonist does not engage in psychological cat and mouse that raises fears, releases, raises more fears, releases. Thus, the only thing the leads can do is use brute force to fight the woman. Frankly, it's as boring as watching a jackhammer pummel concrete.

Where's the challenge to my mind? Where's the anticipation and the drawn out suspense? Pass.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Stephen King doesn't just make your skin crawl with mind's eye visuals, but he has a free-for-all inside your head. Copy that.