TODAY'S NUGGET: The Bank Job (2008) - Is It Ok to Open With Literary Quotes? (Openings)

[Quick Summary: In 1971 England, three average blokes are hired by old school friend Martine to tunnel into a bank, but her reasons are not what they expected.]

Q: Is a literary quote at the beginning of a script ok?
A: Generally, I don't like them because it slows me down getting into a script. 

Q: Is there any occasion when it is effective?
A: Today's script is one of those rare occasions because:
- The purpose is the irony, which produces a laugh.
- You don't have to understand the quote to get the irony, only the contrast of the two quotes.
- It is short.
 

Here is the first page:  

 ON a Black Screen we fade in:

                           'There is a tide in the affairs of men
                    which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.'

                                                       William Shakespeare

                           'Every dog has his day - even the underdog.'

                                             Some bloke in a pub in Battersea 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The use of the literary quotes is effective here because it's an unexpected use of them.  We are not supposed to be impressed by the quotes, but the contrast between them. This different point of view is part of the writers' comedic and ironic voice. 

The Bank Job (2008)(1/3/01 draft)
by Dick Clement & Ian La Frenais 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Cutting Edge (1992) - A Strong Voice + Economy of Writing (Clarity, Pacing, What the Characters Want)

[Quick Summary: When a female skater loses her skating partner, she and a hockey player team up as a doubles pair for the next Olympics.]

Q: What is "voice"?
A: "Voice" can be defined as "how a writer tells a story that is unique to him/her." 

Q: Is voice truly evident on the page? That is, that a particular writer wrote a script?
A:  Sometimes.  It's not just a point of view, but HOW the writer leads you through the story.

Q: What is a good example of a strong voice?
A: One of the strongest voices I've seen is writer Tony Gilroy, whose scripts I'll be posting about in the upcoming weeks (both original and rewrite jobs).*

Q: What is it about Gilroy's voice that is so evident? 
A: I think one would hire Gilroy because you like the way he tells a story. I like the way he balances tone in the dramas and action thrillers that he's known for. 

He has distinct brisk pacing, a way of getting into the story fast, and sustaining suspense, all while being very clear about what the characters want.  

Today's script is an unusual one: 
- It's Gilroy's first produced film credit as a writer.
- It is also sort of a sports/romance/action story to boot.
- Though this is a younger Gilroy script, it has all his trademark pacing and clarity.

In the scene below: 
- It is the1988 Calgary Olympics.
- There is a simplicity of two athletes of very different temperaments on a collision course.
- We are clear what each wants: to win.
- Note the economy of writing.  In a very few words, we feel the urgency of the moment, yet the Doug and Kate's mutual annoyance of encountering an obstacle.  

INT. THE BOWELS OF THE SADDLEDOME

An empty passageway. DOUG is lost. Sweating. Cursing. Charging blindly ahead. From above, the MUFFLED ROAR of the crowd. If he could claw his way up to the ice he'd do it.

                                                                           CUT TO:

A DIFFERENT PASSAGEWAY

KATE striding ahead -- rounding a corner  and -- SMACK! -- right into DOUG -- a head-on collision and it's no contest -- KATE sent flying on her ass --.

DOUG (barely stopping): -- Does this go up to the ice?

KATE stares at him, incredulous. "THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER" begins to play in the distance.

DOUG: Is this the way to the ice?

KATE (still sitting there): Why you barbarian jerk -- is that all you have to say?

Screw this, DOUG is already several steps away and moving. 

KATE: Where were you raised, in a barnyard?

DOUG stops mid-stride. This kind of shit demands at least a moment of his time.

DOUG: Honey, where I'm from we stand for the National Anthem.

Now he's gone. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I was impressed by how much takes place in such little space on the page.  It takes a lot of drafts to hone a script to get it into this shape. 

The Cutting Edge (1992)(4/15/90 draft)
by Tony Gilroy 

*Interestingly enough, the only other writer who had this strong of a voice (i.e., I could spot his invisible fingerprints on the page) is the legendary writer,  William Goldman, who was one of Gilroy's mentors. 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Locked Room (unproduced) - Why This Creepy, Haunted, Twisty, Pull-of-the-Past Psychological Thriller is Smashingly Great

[Quick Summary: George, the executor of his childhood best friend Fanshawe's literary estate, gets Fanshawe's work published, but isn't prepare for the success or the haunting that follows.]

First, this adaptation* is a complex psychological thriller that's creepy, bewildering, and mesmerizing, but most of all, inventive.  I couldn't put it down. **

Second, I was impressed that this script feels like reading great literature, yet I never got lost or bogged down. ***

Here's the short version of the story:

- George and Fanshawe were childhood friends. 
- Fanshawe was cooler than everyone and George admired him. 
- They both wanted to be writers, but didn't, then lost touch after college.
- Twenty years later, George is working at a Big & Tall shop, writing in his free time.
- One day, George opens the door to a letter from Fanshawe's widow.
- Fanshawe wanted George to sort through his scribblings in a locked room and get them published if they were good. They were fantastic.
- Soon George is very busy handling offers, falling in love with his widow and child, appearing on tv promoting Fanshawe's writing. 
- This is a nightmare for a good guy and aspiring writer like George.
- George is simultaneously haunted by his past envies of Fanshawe, the present sticky situation, or his hope for a future with Fanshawe's widow.

It's complicated, right? So why didn't I get lost?? I think it's because the writer understood the key role that subtext plays in psychological thrillers. 

He structured the scenes so that we question George's mental judgment, i.e., whether he's reacting to the past/present/future, and returns to it regularly.

For example, in the scene below: 
- Stuart, an editor and acquaintance, is entranced by Fanshawe's work. 
- Stuart wants to publish. George agrees.
- Fanshawe died in fiery car accident. 
- Two of the great mysteries of the story is WHY did Fanshawe leave all the responsibility to George, and what about George's hopes?
- Note that writer uses Stuart's questions to poke into the past, present, and future.
- Note how we circle back to an unspoken fear (George will not get published) and ends with a "ouch!" to his ego. 
- Also note the SPEED of the emotional pacing. It's a roller coaster ride that circles back to the competition between George and Fanshawe.

INT. GEORGE'S APARTMENT - EVENING

 ...STUART: Pity.

GEORGE: Yeah.

STUART: I mean, that he isn't around. I'd love to be able to work with him. A few little nips and tucks -- you know.

GEORGE: That's just editor's pride. You can't look at a manuscript without wanting to take a red pencil to it. I'm sure he wouldn't change a word.

STUART: Hmm, you may be right. But don't take it to heart -- we can't all be prodigies

Suddenly, Stuart looks slyly at George.

STUART: Where is he?

GEORGE: Why d'you mean?

STUART: Is he shy, your boy? Is it some Pynchon thing we've got here? You're not just fronting for him, are ya?

GEORGE: Listen, if he was still around, believe me, I'd tell him to do his own dirty work.

Stuart just smiles. Does he really think George is toying with him? Or is he toying with George?

STUART: How's it feel?

George raises his eyebrows questioningly.

STUART: Discovering a new American master.

Stuart is needling him. George refuses to rise to the bait. 

GEORGE: When do you think you'll have an answer.

STUART: Oh, I already have: we're publishing it. (at the door) Chin up. Might not be as bad as you think. 

GEORGE: What?

STUART: Reflected glory.

Stuart leaves. George pondering. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Those two words ("reflected glory") made me realize the power of subtext in this script.  

It's so much more layered and powerful than "you're not good enough" and speaks to how beautifully constructed this psychological trap is.

The Locked Room (unproduced 3/9/01 draft)
Based on the novel by Paul Auster
by Lem Dobbs 

* It's adapted from The New York Trilogy (1987), by Paul Auster, which is three interconnected detective stories ("City of Glass," "Ghosts," and "The Locked Room").  

**I have not read the book.  Several book reviewers on Goodreads either loved it or hated it.  I can understand why.  I also felt frustrated that answers weren't readily available at times reading the script.

***Purely as a side note, I did get creeped out by the psychological suspense and was glad I read it in the day time.  

TODAY'S NUGGET: This Man, This Woman (Unproduced) - One of The Best at "Can't Live With/Without You" Emotional Gridlock

[Quick Summary: After many years apart, a film director and a sculptor (who were once married)  unexpectedly meet again on a plane.]

Though unproduced, this script was written by Frederic Raphael, whom I consider one of the best at memory time jumps (see here) and showing emotional gridlock. 

Raphael is particularly good at the bittersweet of "I can't live with you, I can't live without you." This keeps us wanting to know what comes next.

For example, in the scene below:
- Matt and Martha got married, had a son, then had an acrimonious divorce for unknown reasons.
- Several years later, their paths crossed when they were seated together on a plane.
- They have just had a cautiously pleasant conversation.
- This scene shows they're defensive, so they're not connecting, yet they have a great dynamic together.
- This scene keeps us wondering what is keeping them apart.
- The banter is a trademark of this writer's voice. It's not just clever, but also pointed and humorous. 

INT. THE PLANE. DAY.

... They both "sleep", smiling faintly. This sparring is not without warmth. But it's dangerous.

MATT: Are you busy?

MARTHA: Yeah, I'm pretty busy. 

MATT: I meant, like now, are you? 

MARTHA: I meant now. What do you want me to do? Sew on a button?

MATT: Take a look at this script.

MARTHA: You know your trouble, Matthew?

MATT: Sure. I haven't done anything great. But I have made my father feel proud of me. And ashamed of himself. I set him up in business finally. I hope that was nice of me.

MARTHA: What's it all about?

MATT: My mother was right to throw him out, but I can't forgive her for marrying him.

MARTHA: That's very up-front of you, but I only meant: what's the script all about?

MATT gives her the look. What a bitch sometimes!

MATT: It's a re-make...

MARTHA: You always said they never worked.

She's hit a nerve. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really like that the gridlock comes from character, i.e., each side has something historically unresolved between them. Yet they do what everyone does in the meanwhile, and try to carry on.  

The intrigue/suspense for me is the fact that Martha is difficult and pushes Matt, but she's the only one who will tell him the truth (and vice versa). 

This Man, This Woman (unproduced)
by Frederic Raphael 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Where the Money Is (2000) - Woman as Aggressor

[Quick Summary: After discovering her patient has faked his symptoms in order to be transferred from prison, a nurse provokes him into robbing banks again to escape her boring life.]

Writer E. Max Frye's writing has a distinctive voice* that lends itself to suspense.  

His characters who are willing to go to extremes to get what they want.  If they do not know what they want, they're willing to cause chaos to find out.

The latter is the case with his scripts from last week and this week.  The emotionally starved women are searching for thrills and become the aggressor to find it.

For example, in the scene below:
- The protagonist, Carol, is a nurse in a nursing home.
- She's never traveled or done much in life.
- She married Wayne out of high school. They have a steady, but predictable, relationship.
- The highlight of their lives was winning high school prom.
- Her newest patient, Henry, is a bank robber who was recently transferred from prison.
- Henry has fooled everyone by pretending he's suffered a stroke. 
- Carol is the only one who suspects that Henry is faking it.  
- Henry is mute for the first 23 pgs., until the scene below.
- Carol thinks Henry has what she wants (notoriety, really LIVED, known for something) and is the key to getting it for herself.
- Notice how far she's willing to push to get a reaction. Though dysfunctional, she's so blinded by desperation to feel some excitement, she doesn't care. 

EXT. RIVER - LATE AFTERNOON 

Carol clenches her jaw, gets up and kneels beside Henry.

CAROL: Mr. Manning I know you hear me. I know you see me. I'm not gonna hurt you. You can trust me. I want to be your friend.

She reaches out, touches his cheek. He's blank.

WAYNE: Carol...

She pulls out her lighter, holds the flame under his hand. Nothing.

WAYNE: Carol! What the hell you think you're doinl!

He jumps up, grabs the lighter from her.

WAYNE: We're supposed to be havin' a picnic not a freakin' barbecue!

He pockets the lighter. Carol looks at Henry. 

CAROL: All right, damn you.

She grabs the wheelchair, begins pushing it toward the boat ramp.

WAYNE: Carol, don't do nothin' stupid!

But it's too late. She breaks into a run, pushes the wheelchair faster until they reach the sloping pavement of the boat ramp.

WAYNE: Oh, my God!

She lets it go. It races toward the river: SPLASH! Henry quickly disappears beneath the surface.

WAYNE: You'll drown him! We got to get him out of there!

CAROL: No!

She grabs him as he races past. They struggle...then stop as Henry suddenly rises up out of the water like Poseidon. 

They watch him drag himself ashore. He wipes the water from his face, spits.

HENRY: Gimme a cigarette. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's the refusal (or not knowing how) to deal with their emotional starvation that results in the lashing out and dysfunction.**

Where the Money Is (2000)(1/8/96 revised)
by E. Max Frye  

*I thought his quote on IMDB was very insightful:

I was lucky. I was thirty by the time Something Wild (1986) came along, so I pretty much already had my voice. I avoided the pitfalls of the rewrite business, and I moved back as soon as I could to New York and continued to write spec scripts. But I've taught film at NYU enough that I see promising screenwriters take the three-picture deal with Disney, and they just disappear after two years of intense grinding and studio manipulation, notes, and people kicking the shit out of them. Before they know what's going on, they have no voice left - if they ever had one to begin with. Or their nascent kind of voice that attracted the studios and producers in the first place gets stomped right out of them.

**Lest you think this type of character may seem unrealistic and too theatrical, I recently experienced the blowback of dealing with one in real life and the "I want what I want" stonewalling was very real.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Days of Thunder (1990) - What Readers are Looking for in a Writer's Voice (Confidence)

[Quick Summary: A rookie stock car driver gets his chance at the big leagues.]

Both last week (written by Walter Hill) and this week's (written by the late, great Robert Towne) scripts are ACTION films, but they're written very, very differently. 

So WHY do they work so well? What can we learn?

1) FIT THE STYLE TO THE STORY. As we saw, Hill's single line, haiku style is well suited to the kind of stories he wants to tell, i.e., to the point, muscular, blunt.

Towne is writing about the stretch-and-pull of relationships in an action packed NASCAR season.  He writes in paragraphs, though they are engrossing.

2) CONFIDENCE IS EVERYTHING. Though they have very different styles, why do I think Hill and Towne are confident writers? That I'm in "good hands"?

First, the scripts sets out early what they're trying to accomplish, and then delivers it. The writers clearly know what the brief is.

Second, the scripts are easy to follow with a light touch. It takes a lot of experience not to over explain or leave logic gaps.  

Third, there is a panache, a showmanship that is unique to the writer.

An example from Towne is the scene below:
- Harry retired from building race cars, after getting unfairly blamed for a crash.
- Harry gets a second chance and build a new car.
- Note the visuals that Towne uses to unconsciously remind us of the stakes involved for Harry, ex. scythe over his head, "dreaded template."
- Note the logic is easy to follow.  A busy shop = full of the energy and promise a new car brings.
- Note the last line. Instead of saying "MONTAGE," Towne gives us more literary flourishes: "impressionistic, like time-lapse photography," "birth of a living thing, opening of a flower."

INT. HARRY'S GARAGE (EARLY MORN)

Harry comes in and turns on the light. He looks up at the silver scythe hovering over his head and in a fuller view it can be seen as the dreaded template, the profile of the car he must now build.

Henry looks to the roll-cage and suspension bare bones, and the only thing on the floor beneath it.

Sunlight flashes through the window and hits the roll cage. It seems to set off the welding and pounding and grinding of shiny steel, the precision cutting and buffing and fitting of fiberglass moldings as Harry furiously works with at least half a dozen men. DISSOLVE through as CAMERA moves around the rollcage and it becomes progressively encased in its silver skin - the car becoming slowly recognizable. 

Periodically the template is lowered and men painstakingly check to see the car fits into the template silhouette and swear when it's off a few millimeters. A mock engine is mounted to provide clearance for the hood differentials and gear-boxes fill the air, the pictures of fine southern ladies on the calendars change as the weeks go by and the work progresses. DISSOLVE THROUGH. The car is being painted a day-glo green and yellow with City Chevrolet painted in the primary sponsor's spot across the hood. This entire process of the car's creation should be impressionistic, like time-lapse photography - as though we're looking at organic growth, the birth of a living thing, the opening of a flower. 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I particularly liked that last line.  I understood Towne was approximating the scene to the best of his ability, but also felt like he was giving other crew permission to dream too. 

That's confidence in the material, as a screenwriter.

Days of Thunder (1990)(11/20/89, 1st draft)
by Robert Towne

2024 OSCARS: Barbie (2023) - Things Lost in Execution; Capturing the Tone of Child's Play

[Quick Summary: Barbie leaves Barbie Land to find out why she is starting to feel real feelings, and finds out things are not as perfect as she thought.]

THE FILM: I saw the film first, and liked act 1, but not 2 and 3. I got confused, and I'm afraid, slightly bored.  Was it the script's fault?

THE SCRIPT: The script surprised me. It is clearer than the film, well-written, inventive, and reads at a zippy, carefree pace (even acts 2 and 3).

So if the script is pretty much the same as the film, why do I think the film does not quite deliver the promise of the script?  What got lost in the execution?

I don't know exactly, but here are my two cents:

1) PATRIARCHY DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO SNAPPY REPARTEE.  I admire the writers' ambitions to tackle a BIG topic which read well on the page.

However, the arguments require time and explanation...which bogs down the speed that satire needs for laughs.*  As a result, the film was more telling than showing.

2) TOO EARNEST? Satire also requires a good dose of ridicule. In Acts 2 and 3, I found the tone...too earnest?  Trying to make a point? I wish there were more irony.

I do think this script is worth reading, especially for Act 1's breezy, ridiculous fun.  

I particularly like the first description of Barbie Land (below), which captures the mindset of how little girls play with Barbies, with exuberance and female-centric:

EXT. BARBIE LAND. DAY

Barbie Margot waves happily, sometimes with both hands, to other Barbies as her car silently drives itself through a bustling town. It's like Richard Scarry's Busy Town for Barbie. It's a wonder of color and shape. The houses are all see-through, like the toys, it's a Noah's Ark of doll-tastic magic.

It's also completely run by women. They hold every kind of job. Barbie Margot waves to a Barbie mail carrier, and an all Barbie construction crew. There is the occasional Ken, but mostly it's Barbie.

Barbie Margot drives past the Barbie White House which is, of course, pink.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was most moved when this script captured the fun, weird spirit of a child playing with Barbies. The movement of the characters even feel like play.

Barbie (2023)
by Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach

*Margot Robbie recounts (here) that Gerwig wanted her actors to speak at a certain pace and referenced His Girl Friday, one of my all time favorite screwball comedies. 

One of the things that I love about His Girl Friday is that it seemed to speed up as it went along.  It also had a small cast, and a personal, simpler story.   

I don't know if speeding up would even be possible with Barbie.  Barbie had a much bigger cast, and tackled a larger societal problem. The pace would inevitably slow down with that many moving parts.

2023 OSCARS: Banshees of Inisherin (2022) - One Key to Writing Memorable Parts for Women

[Quick Summary: On a small Irish island of Inisherin in 1923, Padric is stunned when his fiddler friend Colm refuses to ever speak to him.]

I am impressed how well Martin McDonagh can write parts for women.  My first exposure was the two female leads in this early play, which blew my hair back.

How does he do it?  One key is that he is very observant of subtext.  He pays attention to the underlying dynamics women juggle, ex. societal expectations.

In the scene below:
- Padraic has been wrestling with why his friend Colm has suddenly changed.
- However, watch Siobhan, his sister, who is simultaneously having to juggle a sad Colm and neighbor Mrs. McCormick.
- Siobhan is required to host and attend to Mrs. McCormick in a way Padraic is not (societal norms).
- Also, the last lines of "hide behind walls" made me realize no one asked about Siobhan's dreams.  In taking care of everyone else, what's she suppressing?

INT. PADRAIC'S HOUSE - DUSK

PADRAIC, SIOBHAN & MRS. MCCORMICK, a spooky-looking, white faced, neighbor, 80, smoking a clay pipe through blackened teeth. SIOBHAN sews rose decorations on a black shawl, as PADRAIC refills the lamps around the room from a pail of Paraffin.

MRS. MCCORMICK: Is it six years since yere Mammy and Daddy died, Siobhan, or is it seven years since they died?

SIOBHAN: It's seven years, Mrs. McCormick, aye.

MRS. MCCORMICK: Is it seven years? Doesn't time be flying?

PADRAIC: Aye. When you're having fun.

SIOBHAN: Be off to the pub, now, Padraic, if you're going to be annoying us.

PADRAIC: I don't have to be down there every night, do I?

SIOBHAN almost double-takes, MRS. MCCORMICK just smirks.

MRS. MCCORMICK: ColmSonnyLarry's scared him off, I suppose.

PADRAIC: What did you hear of ColumSonnyLarry?

MRS. MCCORMICK: Didn't you and he used be the best of friends?

PADRAIC: We're still the best of friends.

MRS. MCCORMICK: No ye're not.

PADRAIC: Who says we're not?

MRS. MCCORMICK (pointing to SIOBHAN): She says!

PADRAIC: Ar for God's sake, Siobhan!

SIOBHAN: I said nothing of the like, Mrs. McCormick, I was just chatting! Now you go off to Jonjo's, Padraic, and don't be getting under our feet, sure Mrs. McCormick never gets a chance to come over for a chat...

SIOBHAN makes PADRAIC put on his coat.

PADRAIC: She never gets a chance cos you avoid her.

SIOBHAN: I do not avoid her!

PADRAIC: You hide behind walls if she's coming up the road!

SIOBHAN gives an embarrassed laugh as PADRAIC exits. She sits back down.

SIOBHAN: 'Hide behind walls'.

SIOBHAN tries to smile, but MRS. MCCORMICK just stares at her, smoking. they sit in awkward silence.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The Siohban part impressed me because there is a lot of emotional juggling for the actress to do, though it may not look like it on the page.

Banshees of Inisherin (2022)(June 29, 2021)
by Martin McDonagh

2022 OSCARS: The Lost Daughter (2021) - Voice; When the Environment Expresses a Character's Internal World

[Quick Summary: Leda (40), an Italian literature professor, vacations by the sea alone, and encounters a young mother whose life mirrors her own past.]

This script really impressed me because the writer's voice is very confident:

1) ECONOMY OF WRITING. The script includes just enough information (not too much or too little) to understand the character and his/her motives.

ex. Early in the script, Leda willingly moves her lounge chair and books because a cute guy offers to get her out of the sun. 

Later, she refuses to move her things when a family asks her to switch seats. In other words, she can be accommodating, but only when she wants to.

2) UNDERSTANDS CINEMATIC LANGUAGE. The writer really understands how an image can convey more than dialogue, and knows how to use it.

In the scene below:
- Leda has just arrived at the seaside and is shown to her room.
- Notice how the writer used the environment (beam of light, darkness, pillows).  One could say it's just laying out the facts.  However, visually/cinematically, it could be also foreshadowing things about Leda internal world.

INT. SEASIDE APARTMENT, BEDROOM - NIGHT

Leda turns off the AC, pushes back the curtains and opens the window. She takes a breath of fresh sea air.

She turns off the lights and lays on the bed in her clothes.

THE BEAM OF THE LIGHTHOUSE EXPLODES OUT OF THE DARKNESS. Filling the room with light.

INT. SEASIDE APARTMENT, BEDROOM - MORNING

Leda wakes slowly. She has covered her head with two pillows to avoid the beam from the lighthouse.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: In the scene above, Leda takes a fresh breath in --> then a beam of light crosses the screen. It's a metaphor: new air in --> the truth comes out.

That's confidence in one's visuals and that the audience will get it.

The Lost Daughter (2021)
by Maggie Gyllenhaal
Based on The Lost Daughter by Elena Ferrante

TODAY'S NUGGET: Fearless (1993) - A Broken Script; Flashbacks Used to Show Present Emotional State

[Quick Summary: After surviving a plane crash, Max no longer wants to live with fear, disrupting his entire life.]

Writer-director Peter Weir was unhappy with the A-list scripts he was getting.

"Give me things that are unusual or difficult," he asked, i.e., "broken scripts."

Q: What was "broken" about it? 

A: It was good writing, daring writing. But I thought it was two movies. The first 25 pages were a film about how you'd cope with the knowledge that you were going to die, taking the point of view of a man who knew about aircraft and knew that the hydraulics were gone and so there was no steering and no braking even if the plane got on the ground. Then there was the second film, which was about how you live once you survive. I couldn't see a way to do it as one film.

And how did he fix it?

A: I was just driving around listening to music, and I realized I could do anything I liked, as long as the story remained about life and death, or rather, love and fear, which was more to the point - you can't say anything about death because you don't know about death. You could certainly talk about fear. I used parts of the crash as flashbacks to show what the characters were still working out, the way one does after any kind of trauma. (my emphasis)

But what was Max working out?

A: ...[the crash] erases his fear of death. That may be an enviable state, but it’s also a state that separates you from other people because it can take you into the realm of having no feelings at all—and this too is something he has to deal with. Having no fear of death, he has to consciously choose to be in life, and we see him struggling with this choice.

I like this flashback is NOT used as an information dump, but is used to show us Max's present state of mind and what he is struggling with now:

INT. DAY - STAIRCASE

Max runs up a flight of institutional firestairs frantically.

EXT. DAY - ROOFTOP

Max appears out of a door from the stairs. He's breathless. We are forty-seven stories up. There's a sweeping, scary view of the East River.

C.U. MAX -- The strain goes away and his face relaxes...

FLASHBACK - INT. DAY - TRANSCON PLANE

MAX AND JEFF --

The plane is falling, out of control. The noise is deafening. They are rigid, heads pressed back into the seats. The plane is tilted to Max's left. 

MAX (angry): We're going down!

JEFF (pure terror): Oh God...

Max fights the gravity to look at his partner .When he manages to catch Jeff's horrified eye:

MAX: I told you so!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The flashbacks were the easiest element to spot, but this script also had a strong grip on theme, voice, and foreshadowing unease that Max is not as ok as he claims to be.

Fearless (1993)
by Rafael Yglesias
Based on the novel by Rafael Yglesias

TODAY'S NUGGET: Hard Eight (1996) - An Excellent Note; Best Way to Grasp "Writer's Voice"

[Quick Summary: In Reno, Sydney, an old timer, takes under his wing John, an aimless young drifter who falls in love with misfit Clementine.]

TWO THOUGHTS:

1)  EXCELLENT NOTE FROM WRITER TO WRITER.  

Q: Was there an experience or conversation at the [Sundance] Lab that ultimately shifted a direction of the film?

A: I had written a scene where two people talk about doing a scam. I had written one guy telling another guy about a scam that he could pull to get a. free hotel in Vegas. I sat down with Richard LaGravenese [also in the Lab], and he said, "Why am I reading about this? Why am I not seeing it?" And I thought, "Well, that's kind of incredible. Why don't I show it?" That's just a very basic thing, one really strong  thing I took. (underline mine)

2) WRITER'S VOICE.  

- What is it?  Over the years, I've learned that it's an intangible feel (pace, rhythm, word choice, etc.) imbued in your writing that sets it apart from others.

- How do I get it?  No surprises here: Reading widely (scripts, novels, etc.) 

You have to get really comfortable in the word saddle to see how others tell a story and lay it out, so that you can figure out how you like to lay out a story too.

In the example below, I think the writer of this script shows that he has an intimate voice that makes us curious about the dynamics between two strangers:

EXT. COFFEE SHOP/PARKING LOT - DAWN

CAMERA holds on a coffee shop off a stretch of highway.

The back of a FIGURE enters FRAME at waist level. CAMERA DOLLIES BEHIND THE FIGURE, HOLDING AT WAIST LEVEL, ACROSS THE PARKING LOT, APPROACHING THE COFFEE SHOP ENTRANCE.

Sitting on the ground, outside the door is an unshaven man, late twenties, JOHN.

The FIGURE passes by him, enters the coffee shop. 

CAMERA holds on John. BEAT. The Figure steps back out of the coffee shop.

FIGURE (OC): Hey...

John holds his head in his lap.

FIGURE (OC): Hey.

JOHN: What?

FIGURE (OC): You want a cup of coffee? (pause) You want a cigarette?

John looks up.

JOHN:...what...?

FIGURE (OC) I'm a guy who's offering to give you a cigarette and buy you a cup of coffee.

                                                                       CUT TO:

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Voice is the writer's footprint, the way they tell a story.  

That being said, it does require time to acquire boots to create a said memorable footprint.

Hard Eight (1996)(1/24/95 shooting script w/revisions)
by Paul Thomas Anderson

TODAY'S NUGGET: Young Sherlock Holmes (1985) - Structure is not Formatting or Style; Writing a Hallucination

[Quick Summary: After Young Sherlock Holmes meets Young Watson boarding school, they investigate the murders of several unconnected men.]

This scene below is a particularly good example of 2 craft points:

1) STRUCTURE vs. STYLE vs. FORMAT. I used to think that screenwriting structure was as simple as copying other writer's format and style.

I'm embarrassed to say how long it took me to realize that these are NOT structure. 

Structure is the skeleton underneath, ex. setups, payoffs, conflict, etc.  Here, Bentley has just been hit with a blow dart (setup) and we will see the effect (payoff).

Format is how the page looks and flows, ex. short or long paragraphs, etc.  Here, the script reads fast because of the short sentences that increase the pace.

Style is how the writer expresses his way of telling the story (voice), ex. bare bones sentences, phrases, etc. Here, Columbus makes every sentence/phrase a single shot.

2) HALLUCINATIONS. Columbus had to make the hallucinations visible to the audience.  Notice how he shows chaos first --> shows the calm reality second.

ex. INT. RESTAURANT

Bentley SITS at a table. AWAITING his dinner.

The waiter delivers a covered, STERLING SILVER TRAY to Bentley's table. Bentley stuffs a CLOTH NAPKIN into the top of his shirt collar.  The waiter REMOVES the tray's cover.

A LARGE BARBECUED PHEASANT sits on Bentley's plate.  Bentley LICKS his lips. HUNGRY.

Bentley lifts his KNIFE and FORK. Ready to CUT into his dinner.

He brings down his fork. STABBING the pheasant.

The bird COMES TO LIFE! SCREECHING! SNARLING!

Its eyes are VICIOUS. ANGRY. Its sharp beak SNAPS like a dragon. The deadly claws are LONG. the fingernails RAZOR SHARP.

Bentley JUMPS BACK.

The creature LEAPS from the plate! Onto Bentley's CHEST!

The wild bird CLAWS AND PECKS at Bentley's face!

Bentley CRIES OUT! In PAIN!

The bird continues to ATTACK!   Its sharp claws RIP APART Bentley's face.

Bentley raises his BLOODIED HANDS.  He TEARS the bird from his face. THROWING it onto the floor.

Bentley JUMPS UP.  RUNNING to the door.

The restaurant OWNER hurries over to Bentley.

OWNER: Mr. Bobster...What is it? Is something wrong?

Bentley TURNS back to his table.

The bird is no longer ALIVE.  It RESTS on the plate. In its original POSITION. CALM. As if it HADN'T MOVED.

Bentley looks at his HANDS.  They are CLEAN. No sign of BLOOD. He feels his FACE. UNBLEMISHED.  NOT A SCRATCH.

Bentley TURNS. LOOKING around the restaurant.

Everyone STARES at Bentley. CUSTOMERS. WAITERS. Even the COOKS have comes out of the kitchen. Everyone is PUZZLED by his strange outburst.

Bentley STARES. CONFUSED. Was it a HALLUCINATION?

Bentley GRABS his hat and coat. DASHING out of the restaurant. FRIGHTENED.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'd forgotten how boring it is to watch a character experiencing a hallucination.  The audience needs to SEE the hallucination too.

Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)(rev. draft, 5/25/84)
by Chris Columbus
Based on the characters of Arthur Conan Doyle

TODAY'S NUGGET: Little Monsters (1989) - A Distinctive Voice

[Quick Summary: After ten y.o. Brian saves the Monster Under the Bed, it allows Brian to follow him around as it causes havoc on other kids.]

TWO THOUGHTS:

1) STILL POPULAR.  I was surprised at the staying power of this film. Of the 10 copies available through the library, only ONE was available.

2)  VOICE.  Before they wrote Aladdin (and then Shrek, and Pirates of the Carribean), Rossio and Elliot wrote Little Monsters.

I'm sure the script sold because it's a fun kids' adventure.

However, it also is an example of why they get hired again and again: for their distinctive voice (fun, scary, adventure, action).

To me, voice is the WAY the writer writes. 

When I say, "I like his/her voice," I mean that I like the way that writer tells the story.  Clear as mud, right? 

Let's look at an example below.  Notice how the way they build to the scream:

 ex. "INT. STEVENSON HOME - ATTIC ROOM - NIGHT
...

In the kitchen, Brian whips up a baloney-mustard-onion sandwich. He glances at the clock, working under a deadline. [fun sneaking around!]

In the family room Brian -- silently -- pushes an armchair up very close to the television screen. He is careful to turn the volume knob all the way down, then pull on the power switch -- cautiously, lest the 'click' of the switch alert someone.  The screen comes to life slowly. Brian turns up the sound so it is barely audible -- just in time for the opening of 'Late Night With David Letterman.' [more shenanigans]

He settles back. Unseen by Brian a quick, subtle movement -- just a shadow, really -- heads for the stairs. [scary, action]

Brian takes a bite of the sandwich -- [payoff for building sandwich]

-- and then there is a SCREAM that could wake the dead." [scary, adventure begins]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Another way to look at voice: It's the way you write from point A to point B. 

No, you're probably not conscious of it. You are likely conscious of getting from A to B. Work on that.

Little Monsters (1989)(1st draft, 12/9/86)
by Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott

TODAY'S NUGGET: Forget Paris (1995) - What is Voice?

[Quick Summary: The up-and-down love story of how Mickey and Ellen met, fell in love and separated, as told from the POV of their friends.]

What is "voice"?  For me, it is when I read a script and I know it is ___ writer.  There's a tempo, a style, a way of telling the story.

How do you get a distinctive voice?  I have no clue still. 

I suspect it is one of those things that is partly unconscious and partly from having rewritten many scripts so that it sounds like YOU and YOUR RHYTHMS.

Ganz and Mandel have a definite voice. There is a certain tempo. They probably cram more jokes than you can into a few lines.  Scenes end with a flourish.  There is always a wry sense of the ridiculous in the face of disaster.

In the example below:
- The airline has lost Mickey's father's coffin.  Mickey does not speak French.
- His friend Andy (V.O.) is telling Mickey's story to Liz.
- Notice how the frustrating last scene ends on a funny note.

ex. "INT. STOREROOM

Mickey is being shown around.  An official is pointing hopefully to various items.

MICKEY: No! No!  He wasn't a bicycle! We didn't sit on him and go for a ride.  No! Not a birdcage!
                                                                                                                      CUT TO:
INT. STOREROOM

SHOTS of Mickey talking to one official after another. He can't communicate well with any of them and none of them seem very concerned about his problem.

ANDY (V.O.): Mickey's going out of his mind. But he's trying not to go off on anyone. You know, he doesn't want to be the ugly American.

INT. STOREROOM

Mickey is with another official, who speaks rapid French and coolly tosses Mickey's paperwork back to him and shrugs, unconcerned.  By this time, Mickey is disheveled and tired.

MICKEY: Please - look - I know you people are still angry over Euro Disney, but, please, don't take it out on me. I'm on your side. I even said, "the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, the Country Bea Jamboree, it's not a good mix."

The official is ignoring him.

MICKEY (CONT): Whatever you do, I'm not gonna lose my temper.

ANDY (V.O.): But finally...

INT. STOREROOM

Mickey with another insolent OFFICIAL.

MICKEY: If I was Hitler you'd give me my father. You'd give me everything in your whole goddam country. (screams) Where is my father?! Ou est mon pere?! If you don't find him, I'm gonna bury you instead!

ANDY (V.O.): Two days!

LIZ (V.O.): Two days?

ANDY (V.O.) He was in that airport two days! But the airline was nice. They gave him triple advantage miles and free almonds."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Your voice distinguishes you from everyone else. 

I finally begin to grasp that it's a combination of things, especially how you tell the story: tempo, POV, etc.

Forget Paris (1995)(1st draft, 6/24/94)
by Billy Crystal & Lowell Ganz & Babaloo Mandel

TODAY'S NUGGET: American Buffalo (1996) - The Mamet Voice; Unusual Dialogue Format

[Quick Summary:  After Don, a junk shop owner with a shady side business, agrees to steal a valuable buffalo nickel with Teach, his protegee Bob brings bad news.]

Some Mamet plays translate to film, but this one does not for me.

I think it is still worth a read. Here are a few thoughts why:

1) The distinctive Mamet voice

- Like many Mamet original scripts,* this one follows a winding path.  It takes a little while before we know what the story is, but I like how it winds out and then back.

- The dialogue has a staccato tempo that meanders too, i.e., like real conversations.   

- It is more interested in the space between two people than plot (sorry, plot junkies).

2) The unusual use of parentheses in dialogue

This is the first time that I've seen the frequent use of parentheses like this.

There's no further instruction or description on what the parentheses mean, so I assume the dialogue is meant to be spoken in a low or soft voice.

Also, I noticed that as I saw more parentheses, they became a visual cue = "low voice" = automatically caused me to read between the lines a little more. 

In the scene below, Teach tries to persuade Don not to bring young Bob on board.  Notice how much is unspoken yet understood between the two old comrades.

ex.  "INT. JUNK SHOP - DAY
...Don crosses to his desk.

TEACH: It's hard to make up the rules about this stuff.

DON: (You'll be in there under lots of pressure.)

TEACH: (Not so much.)

DON: (Come on, a little, anyway.)

TEACH: (That's only natural.)

DON: (Yeah.)

TEACH: (It wouldn't be unnatural I wasn't tense. A guy who isn't tense, I don't want him  on my side.)

DON: (No.)

TEACH: (You know why?)

DON: (Yeah.)

TEACH: (Okay, then.) It's good to talk this stuff out.

DON: Yeah."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm not sure that I'd recommend frequent use of parentheses, but it works here.  It's nice to see something that I had not seen before.

American Buffalo (1996)(shooting script w/revisions, dated May-June, 1995)
by David Mamet
Adaptation from his play

*By "original," I mean scripts based on his original work or his plays.  I do not mean adaptations that he has written for others.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Point Blank (1967) - THE Script That Inspired Walter Hill

[Quick Summary: A double crossed criminal gets revenge on those who left him for dead.]

For years, I'd read about how this script changed Walter Hill's life.

He had been writing for 2-3 years:

I was dissatisfied with the standard form scripts were written in - they just all seemed to be a kind of subliterary blueprint for shooting a picture and generally had no personal voice....

Alex's script knocked me out (not easy to do); it was both playable and literary....[w]ritten in a whole different way than the standard format (laconic, elliptical, suggestive rather than explicit, bold in the implied editorial style)...

This a-ha! moment led to Hill to his now famous haiku style.

I recommend reading this script for what the writer leaves in, as well as what he leaves out.

See how the writer "suggests" guilt, regret and a conscience with actions, but without using any of those words:

ex. "WALKER (shouting): Shut up - Lynne.

CHRIS (turning to him as she walks towards the bathroom): ...Chris?...Remember?...Chris!

Walker doesn't move but watches her disappear behind the glass partition.

He takes from his pocket the package of money that the messenger had delivered for Lynne.  He stares at it for a moment then leaves it for Chris on the bureau. He goes."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: "Suggesting" only works if the audience can follow the logic in the actions.

In the above example, Walker takes a moment to stare at the money.  Without this reflection, it is easy to assume he has no regrets.

Point Blank (1967)
by Alex Jacobs, Rafe and David Newhouse

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Driver (1978) - A Muscular Voice

[Quick Summary: With one last getaway job, the Driver helps out a dame (The Player), and teaches the Detective a lesson to boot.]

Walter Hill has one hell of a muscular voice. 

I hate talking about "voice" because:

1) It's like trying to define the wind.
2) Everyone tells writers they need one. No one tells you how to get it.

But I can't avoid it here.  The Driver has a big muscular voice.

So I'll bumble around trying to define it.

What is voice?  To me, it is how a writer puts the story together. 
- How does the writer focus the reader?
- What is the flow? What choices does he/she make?

What is muscular? It's a blunt, direct energy.
- It pairs off best with action films.
- It's not limited to a male point of view, but does work well.
 
Here are a few things Hill does to create a muscular voice:

- The easiest to identify is Hill's trademark fast, spare narrative.

ex. "The Connection steps out.
A tall young woman with slicked back hair."

-  The characters have no frills, no extraneous details.

ex. To keep the focus on the here and now, there is virtually no back story on the Driver, or anyone else.

-  Punches make real contact. There is no backing down from conflict.

ex. When the Driver and Detective clash, one wins the skirmish, and they move on.  No whining, no excuses.

-  Men act like men, and women act like women, without either being weak or wimpy.

ex.  There's no hemming or hawing.  If I like you, I let you know. If I don't, I also let you know.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  A muscular voice is very sure of itself.

The Driver (1978)
Written & directed by Walter Hill