TODAY'S NUGGET: McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) - Knowing Your Director's Process; Tone Turns to Business

[Quick Summary: In 1897, McCabe opens a tavern and brothel (run by his partner Mrs. Miller), but becomes a target when he won't sell out to a mining corporation.]

TWO THOUGHTS:

1) KNOWING THE DIRECTOR'S PROCESS. Director/writer Robert Altman was an auteur, but also was known for making bitter enemies out of his writers. 

I think most writers could've handled: 
- His disregard for the script (very common in the industry)
- His organic, ever changing method of film making (very common)
- His concern for emotional rather than literal accuracy (very common)

However, I think the crux was that he would've done it all himself if he could have (something every writer should be aware of):

Brian McKay, who has worked with Altman more frequently than any other writer, says, “If you want me to get in line with the rest of the angry writers, I will, but it’s more complicated than that. I think what Bob really wants is the European credit: ‘A Film by Robert Altman.’ And, often, he deserves it.” Seven years ago Altman told McKay, “Remember this. I take all the credit and most of the money when you work with me.” Through several television series, “Brewster McCloud,” “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” and a number of never-made films, McKay remembered. “Now I don’t think I’ll ever work with Bob again,” McKay says, but he looks back on the association with affection. “I can’t think of one person who was hurt from his association with Bob Altman—except emotionally.”

2) TONE TURNS TO BUSINESS.  As Ebert points out here, this is a business relationship between McCabe and Mrs. Miller.  

I was surprised how fast the tone could turn, even after love making:

INT. MRS. MILLER'S BEDROOM

...McCABE: You don't never find no better man than me, Madame.

CONSTANCE: I never belonged to a m an before and I never will --You want to do something for me? Buy me out, you cheap son-of-a-bitch and let me go to San Francisco and build my boarding house.

McCABE: That's what you'd like, isn't it?

CONSTANCE: You're Goddamn right it is. What do you think? That you're some great lover or something? You don't even take off your long johns. Sleeping with you's like taking a bath with your socks on.

McCABE: Well, figure out what you got coming, 'cause I had an offer yesterday from the Bearpaw Territorial Mining Company.

All the foregoing words were shouted in anger and designed to hurt by both of them...but a real offer to sell is something else again. Mrs. Miller thinks on her reply before she answers, her tone changing.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Part of the tragedy was that the script kept everything transactional, even the romantic bits.  It kept the tone consistent and realistic.

McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
by Brian McKay and Robert Altman
Based on the novel, "McCabe," by Edmund Naughton

TODAY'S NUGGET: Only When I Laugh (1981) - Showing Disappointment with Non-Verbals

[Quick Summary: An actress, newly out of rehab, struggles to manage her sobriety, her daughter, and seeking a new job.]

I think the genius of Neil Simon scripts is that it looks simple on the surface.

However, the structure and conflict has great depth and complexity.

For example, the scene below is about:
- a long standing disappointment
- the external and internal conflicts that one feels
- use of non-verbals

First, note that each character has his or her own INTERNAL conflict:
- For Georgia, who has just fallen off the wagon: disappointment in herself.
- For her friend Jimmy: feeling let down by his faith in her temporary sobriety.

Then, note that there is also another layer of EXTERNAL conflict between them:
- For Georgia: guilt, needing reassurance from someone that she's offended.
- For Jimmy: irritation at her repeated offenses and love

Finally, the audience understands all of this through one character not looking at the other character, silence, a hand squeeze. 

ex. "INT. TAXI - NIGHT

Jimmy and Georgia sitting on opposite sides, looking out opposite windows, wordlessly.

GEORGIA: ...I think I fucked up, didn't I?

Jimmy doesn't say a word. She looks toward him.

GEORGIA: Give me your hand...Jimmy? Give me your hand... I'm cold.

He doesn't look at her but reaches over and puts his hand on top of hers and gently squeezes it."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was impressed that so much disappointment could be conveyed by Jimmy's non-verbals.

Only When I Laugh (1981)(3rd draft (July, 1980))
by Neil Simon
Based on his play, "The Gingerbread Lady"

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Ice Storm (1997) - To Increase Tension Before the Reveal

[Quick Summary: During a 1970s Thanksgiving, a family of four have different plans how to cope.]

This is a well-written drama/tragedy (maybe satire too?)

It is about lives in quiet desperation in the 1970s.

CON: I'm glad this script exists, but it's simply not my cup of tea. 

It's an observational film, and I couldn't figure out what the characters wanted (relief? oblivion? Maybe that was the point?)

PRO: I did like the last 7 pages, where the characters are confronted with a death.

**WARNING: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD**

I especially liked how the writer included two moments of quiet normalcy before the reveal. It increased the tension: "Oh no! These are the lives that will be shattered!"

In more detail:
- Ben finds the body.
- His wife Elena finds their teen daughter Wendy asleep with Sandy Carver (at the Carver's house. Sandy's dad is Jim Carver.)
- Elena and daughter Wendy have a quiet moment of connection.
- Jim Carver and his son Sandy have a quiet moment of connection.
- Ben brings the body to Carver's house.

Here are the two moments of quiet before the reveal:

ex. "INT. CARVER KITCHEN. DAWN.

Elena pours Wendy a cup of coffee. They're both in their coats.

WENDY: I don't like coffee.

ELENA: It'll warm you up.

Elena sits next to her. They both cross their legs, then raise their cups and sip the coffee, not noticing the simultaneity of their movements.

INT. GUEST ROOM. DAWN.

Jim watches the sleeping Sandy, picks up the half-empty bottle of vodka, pours himself a drink. The noise wakes Sandy up. Jim sits down on the bed at his feet.

SANDY: Dad?

JIM: Sandy.

Jim raises a quiet toast to his son and takes a gulp of vodka."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be afraid to take a pause before the big punch.

It can actually increase the strength of the punch. 

The Ice Storm (1997)
by James Schamus
Based on the book by Rick Moody

TODAY'S NUGGET: Ran (1985) - Setting Up/ Paying Off the Comeuppance

[Quick Summary: Based on King Lear. The Great Lord Hidetora turns over his empire to his eldest son, and it triggers in-fighting and great destruction.]

I feel bad for Hidetora, but I also don't. 

He obtained his land by violence, and now it's coming back to bite him. Ironic, yes?

My favorite "gotcha" moment is the scene below.

Notice:
1) How the writers innocently set up Hidetora for a big payoff.  I didn't see it coming.
2) How they get us to empathize with the occupant.  This is key to making the comeuppance more emotionally satisfying.

ex. "INT. - STRAW HUT - DUSK

...TANGO: Excuse us for coming in with our shoes on, but our lord was suddenly taken ill... [Setup: Hidetora and company barge into someone's house. So unclassy.]

He steps up on the wooden floor and, together with Kyoami, carries Hidetora over to the hearth and, laying him there, addresses the occupant of the house, seemingly a woman.

TANGO (looks at the occupant): He is wet. Do you have something to cover him with? [More setup: Then they demand help. No 'please'? No manners?]

The occupant stays seated and does not move.

TANGO: Answer me, woman!

OCCUPANT: Are you talking to me?

TANGO: Yes.

The occupant of the house silent rises and goes to a corner of the room. Tango and Kyoami watch the person suspiciously. The occupant, seen from behind in the dim light, appears to be looking for something. [We get why the occupant is reluctant to help these intruders.]

The occupant rises and comes over, silently handing something over. Tango receives it - it is folded clothing. He opens it, puts it on Hidetora, and stares in surprise. It is a beautiful robe with a colorful design, out of keeping with the humble hut. Tango and Kyoami are amazed and curious as they look at it.  [1st surprise/payoff: They are wrong about the robe.]

TANGO: Speak up...woman!

OCCUPANT: I am not a woman. [2nd surprise/payoff: They are wrong about the occupant.]

TANGO: What? It is so dark, I... Bring me a lamp.

Tango reaches for a stick of lighted firewood in order to take a good look at him, and notices a cane leaning by the side of the hearth.

TANGO: I am sorry. Is your eyesight poor?

He holds up the stick of firewood. The occupant of the house is illuminated in the light from the burning stick. It is the face of a blind but handsome youth. Kyoami pulls back with a start and looks at Tango. [3rd surprise/payoff: They're wrong about his disability.]

TANGO (shocked, gazes at the youth): Are you Lade Sue's younger brother...Master Tsurumaru?

TSURUMARU: Yes.

Hidetora sits up, turns his eyes, and stares at the youth. Then, his voice trembling, he mutters with a frightened voice.

HIDETORA: Tsu...Tsurumaru?

TSURUMARU: It has been a long time...Lord Hidetora.

HIDETORA: Do you remember me?

TSURUMARU: How could I forget you? I was just a child, but how could I forget the one who gouged out my eyes in exchange for sparing my life...the day you burned down my father's castle?" [4th surprise/payoff: They've dug themselves a deep well. We see why Hidetora should be ashamed and feel justified at his current comeuppance.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When there's a good setup and payoff, we see why the comeuppance is justified...and it feels so cathartic!

Ran (1985)
by Akira Kurosawa & Hideo Oguni & Masato Ide
Based on "King Lear" by William Shakespeare
Translated by Tadashi Shishido

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Candidate (1972) - Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts

[Quick Summary: A CA legal aid attorney attempts a senatorial campaign to talk about issues, knowing very well that he'll probably lose against the incumbent.]

Before tv was commonly used to shape public opinion in campaigns...

Before there was campaign finance (1972) and this film...

A journalist named Jeremy Larner was the speechwriter for McCarthy (1968).  He wrote a book,* and this prescient script.

In this film, Robert Redford plays an attorney who wants to talk about issues...except no one else does. His campaign staff wants photo ops (that tell half the story).  The media want sound bites (that sound better than his real responses).

He is worn down little by little, like a death by a thousand paper cuts.

I loved how we do not notice the candidate's gradual slide at first.

The writer creates situations where small compromises are required...and another...and another. Soon, the candidate is in a pit and doesn't know how.**

Here is one such innocent "paper cut":

ex."INT. McKAY HOUSE.

McKay comes in the front door and stops short. Photographer's lights are set up on a stand. Two men stand there.

McKAY: What you doing in my house?
WRITER: I'm having an affair with your wife.
McKAY: Huh?
WRITER: She said if you came in I should say I was a writer from Parade, but you don't believe that.

Nancy emerges from bedroom in riding pants, with crop and felt riding helmet.

NANCY: Oh Bill, this is Mr. Shearer, Bill, and this is Mr. Scott.
McKAY: (shaking hands) From Parade.
WRITER: I trust this is the beginning of a life-long affinity.
McKAY: It's the beginning of something, anyhow. Can you excuse us a minute, gentlemen?
WRITER: Certainly, certainly.

McKay and Nancy step to the side.

McKAY: What's going on?
NANCY: They want to photograph me riding.
McKAY: You haven't worn that stuff in years.
NANCY: You haven't worn that dark suit in years.

McKay starts to walk away, turns back to her.

McKAY: Just not in the house, Nancy. Get those guys out of the house.
NANCY: I was doing it for you.

Nancy starts to cry, turns away, walks back into the kitchen....

McKay follows her into the kitchen - takes her loosely in his arms, comforts her awkwardly. We can see by the way he touches her he is irritated and put off."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: These small compromises really do add up.

The beauty is that they seem so inconsequential at the time...until we pull back to see the big picture 

The Candidate (1972)
by Jeremy Larner

*Nobody Knows: Reflections on the McCarthy Campaign of 1968 (1970)

** It's like a frog in a pot.  It doesn't notice the water is getting warmer, nor when it boils to death.