TODAY'S NUGGET: Twins (1988) - The Purpose of the Energy Flow is to Show Character

[Quick Summary: A tall, "perfect" man goes in search of his twin, who turns out to be a short, small time crook.]

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that this draft was very well polished. 

First, it was rewritten by last week's Harris & Weingrod, and second, the great William Goldman gave it a pass too.

I really liked that:
- the purpose of the energy flow in this script is to show character, and 
- there's a control to the chaos.

For example, in the scene below: 
- This is the scene that introduces the idea these are twins by using "twinning" behaviors.
- Julius is the taller, "good" twin.
- Vince is the shorter, "bad" twin.
- Notice the largest paragraph below is all one sentence, a controlled roller coaster of a ride, much like sheltered Julius' experience of encountering a big city.
 - Then note how the energy flow and momentum ramps up and lands on the moment Julius stands in the middle of the street, absorbing all of Hollywood.
- The writers are deliberately controlling the chaos with pacing and flow. 

EXT. GRAUMAN'S CHINESE THEATER - MAGIC HOUR

Vince brushes himself off, hesitates a moment, pulling on his left ear with his right hand.

Immediately behind him, facing the opposite direction, is another man, also pulling on his left ear with his right hand. It is Julius --

-- Their backs are to each other. Without ever catching sight of one another, they move off, going their separate ways. Now, from this -- 

                                                    CUT TO: 

EXT. DOWNTOWN HOLLYWOOD STREET - NIGHT

Downtown Hollywood in all it's sleeze. There's a museum and a scientology center and every fast food place imaginable and people shouting as they sell things, "flowers" and street food and there's a porno house showing Tight 'n Tender and there's young people dressed like punks and old people boozed out and pimps and druggies and guys slumped unconscious int he gutter and crowds of tourists walking this way, that way, and there's noise and little and one more thing --

--There's Julius, case in hand, staring around, taking it all in. We're a long way from his island now. He studies all the humanity swirling around him --

                                                   CUT TO:

CLOSEUP ON JULIUS

And you can see it on his face: He loves it.

JULIUS (almost a whisper): ...How wonderful...  

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked this script because it used cinematic language well.  It uses words to convey how we should feel about images, but was readable.  

I like to find Goldman scripts that are new-to-me, like this one. They are instructive since they are: a) easy to read and b) have great craftsmanship.

Twins (1988)(consolidated 4th draft, 4/27/88 with revisions)
by William Osborne & William Davies
Revisions by Timothy Harris & Hershel Weingrod and William Goldman

TODAY'S NUGGET: Chaplin (1992) - When a Script is a Springboard for Something Magnificent on Set

[Quick Summary: Charlie Chaplin rises from a UK vaudeville act to Hollywood film star, but is pursued by the FBI for decades over accusations of Communism.]

This is a really good script and the film stays fairly close to the structure.  

But its genius is that it provided a springboard for something absolutely luminous in the hands of director Richard Attenborough and actor Robert Downey Jr.

My favorite scene (below) is the moment when Chaplin has to hastily put together a new character, which becomes the famous Tramp:
- The scene is fairly straightforward: Charlie randomly grabs a hat, cane, and clothes in wardrobe, then hurries out the door to the set.
- The script lays out good building blocks: "PULL BACK to show the full figure. Before our eyes we see the incarnation of the TRAMP's ... shuffle."
- However, the director and actor improves on the script.  Instead of a short journey to the set, they chose a long, long walkway. 
- Chaplin exits wardrobe --> walks fast, faster, readjusts his gait, then shoulders, hat, cane --> so by the end of the walkway, he is transformed into the Tramp.
- I hope you seek out the film because it's a true masterpiece of transformation. 

EXT. WARDROBE HOUSE, SENNETT STUDIOS. DAY. (1914)

The door of the house. Opens. FRAMED: The TRAMP -- Almost.

He adjusts his jacket. Swings his cane. Touches his tie, the brim of his hat. His fingers run over his naked upper lip. He takes a step. Pauses. Turns and goes back inside.

HOLD ON: the door.

CHAPLIN -- The TRAMP -- reappears. With his familiar little moustache. He smiles - a typical Tramp smile. Sets off at a run.

EXT. SENNETT STUDIOS. DAY. (1914)

CHAPLIN running towards the stage. He stops, takes off the Derby, ruffles his hair replaces the Derby.

HOLD on his face as he sets off again. The moustache twitches. PULL BACK to show the full figure. Before our eyes we see the incarnation of the TRAMP'S distinctive, cocky, humble shuffle - a twirl of the cane, a hunch of the shoulders.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The writers figured out solid story mechanics so the director and actor had the freedom to riff and soar.

Chaplin (1992)(shooting script, Oct., 1991)
by William Boyd
Script consultant: William Goldman
Story by Diana Hawkins
Based on My Autobiography by Charles Chaplin, and Chaplin- His Life and Art by David Robinson

TODAY'S NUGGET: The General's Daughter (1999) - A Moment of Emotional Risk

[Quick Summary: A detective for the military CID investigates the obscene, very public death of a respected female captain, who is also the general's daughter.]

CON: I have a few issues with this script.

PRO: However, on the page, it is an excellent visceral read.

What makes this a compelling thriller to read, despite its flaws?

One thing that struck me was the protagonist (Brenner) was constantly putting himself in physical, emotional, and career jeopardy to find the truth. He took risks.

I liked the example below because it does several things:
- White takes a surprisingly fun, and emotional, risk.
- It's a great "meet cute" scene that slides in a lot of information about her.
- Because he met her in person, it explains White's personal motive to find her killer.

In the scene below:
- White is doing a horrible job at fixing his flat tire.
- Ann Campbell, the soon-to-be-victim, stops to help.  She is an army Captain.

ex. "EXT. FORT MACCULLUM - DAY

...it's a few minutes later  -- she's finishing up. Her movements fast and skilled.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: So how long have you taught at mechanic's school?

LT. WHITE: I work at the Armory -- just been there a few weeks. And you never let up, do you?

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL (head shake): This is just heaven -- y'see, in the Army, all the capital G Guys say we can't keep up, we're too weak.

LT. WHITE: Obviously, you don't believe that.

ANN CAMPBELL. CLOSE UP. She looks at White a moment. Then --

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Physically, there may be a point, but mentally, we're much tougher. For example, I would never betray you -- (looks at White now) -- but if I slept with you, if I told you how wonderful and strong you were, hell, you'd betray anyone.

WHITE, considering this.

LT. WHITE: I hope that's a proposition, Captain.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Just theory, Lieutenant.

LT. WHITE: LT. WHITE: Damn.

She stands, brushes herself off.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: That should do it. (starts off) Luck to you.

LT. WHITE: You probably run Mechanic's school.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Psyops.

He doesn't get it.

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL: Psychological Operations. I teach there.

LT. WHITE: What do you teach?

CAPTAIN CAMPBELL (getting into her car): Mostly, we fuck with people's minds.

And she flashes her wonderful smile, waves, drives off.

White stands looking after her.

LT. WHITE (softly): Thanks..."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This scene made a fictional world a little more real to me.

I'd rather see a moment of humor or emotional risk, i.e., relationship stuff, more than a constant stream of plot -- plot -- plot -- plot, which is boring and not real.

The General's Daughter (1999)(11/19/97 draft)
by Christopher Bertolini and William Goldman
Based on the novel by Nelson DeMille

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Ghost & the Darkness (1996) - Musing on a Change from an Earlier Draft

[Quick Summary: In 1898, Tsavo, Africa, two man-eating lions prey on an encampment of bridge workers.]

I usually do not read earlier drafts, but make the occasional exception, ex. whenever I can get my hands on early William Goldman scripts.

Here, I was curious about how much was changed from the earlier to the later draft. 

Answer? Not much.

I did wish they had kept a minor thing: the personal conflict between the protagonist (Patterson) and the experienced hunter (Redbeard).

In the final draft, the two men first meet in Tsavo. It was ok, but predictable.

In the earlier draft, they have prior history that is still unsettled. Conflict and tension!

I understand why they didn't keep it, but I thought it made the characters more 3-D.

Here's the scene from the earlier draft:

ex. "REDBEARD'S TENT. Night.  He is finished unpacking -- there's not a lot to do, the man travels light. He takes several thick books out of a sack, places them in a pile on the table by his cot. No sound. REDBEARD is facing away from the tent opening.

REDBEARD: I have no secrets, come in.

PATTERSON moves into the opening. He looks at the cot.

PATTERSON: You used to sleep on the floor.

REDBEARD: I used to have more hair.

PATTERSON: Don't you think you went a bit far, calling me "Patton"?

REDBEARD: I was giving you the lead -- Beaumont said you didn't want me here. I wasn't sure you wanted to acknowledge me.

PATTERSON: I don't much -- but you are, so now we have to deal with that reality.

REDBEARD: It shouldn't be so hard. We both want the same thing.

PATTERSON: And what is that?

REDBEARD: Why, the lions, of course.

PATTERSON: I want more, I want you to fail.

REDBEARD: After all these years nothing has changed -- was what I did that terrible? (PATTERSON simply stares at the other man. Finally, REDBEARD turns away) It was. I know it was. Of course it was."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Life is messy. The scene above reflects it well. I wonder if the powers-that-be preferred a neater, less messy version?

The Ghost & the Darkness (1996)(undated; possibly shooting draft)
The Ghost & the Darkness (1996)(3rd draft, Jan., 1994)
by William Goldman

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Chamber (1996) - Transitions = Preparing the Reader's Emotions

[Quick Summary: A new lawyer takes on a last minute death row appeal of a Klansman who killed two kids with a building bomb...and is also the attorney's estranged grandfather.]

Why do Goldman's scripts read like greased lightening?

One reason is that he takes the time (but not too much) to transition the reader's emotions for an upcoming curve ball, surprise, crisis, etc.*

I am always on the lookout for good transitions, as I find them particularly tricky.

In the example below, notice how we're being prepared for a pivotal moment:

- Scene A: We see Adam get upset over news. [Something is up.]
- Scene B: We see that he's nervous, agitated. [This news must mean a lot to him.]
- Scene C: He asks for a case that has upset him and is very personal. [Why?]

ex. "INT. ADAM'S OFFICE - CHICAGO - DAY

It's small, befitting an associate less than a year out of Law School. he breezes to the desk, flips on his computer, puts down the documents and coffee, places his briefcase on the credenza behind him, opens it, takes out some papers and file folders, places them on his desk. . . takes a look a the screen, clicks his mouse on something. . . then turns his back to the computer, takes off his jacket, hangs it on a hook, sits at his desk, opens the documents, takes a sip of coffee. . . takes another glance at the screen . . . and stops cold.

He gives the screen his full attention. There is something on it that drains the blood from his face. Finally he turns away with the look of one who knows the day he had dreaded has come.

He looks at the speaker button on his phone. Thinks. Hits it.

SECRETARY (O.S.): It wasn't de-caf, was it? I could get you some tea --

ADAM: I need to see Goodman. Now.

He clicks off.

INT. KRAVITZ & BANE - HALLWAY - DAY

A long hallway from Adam's office to the more senior offices. Adam emerges from his office and tries to control his nervousness as he walks the long walk.

INT. MR. GOODMAN'S OFFICE - DAY

E. GARNER GOODMAN has done one amazing thing in his life: he has been a practicing lawyer for forty years and has yet to do anything illegal. He is all tidy and neat. His office, on the other hand, is a zoo.  Bookcases sag from the strain, the floor is a minefield of piles of legal briefs.

GOODMAN: Have you lost your mind?

He is talking to Adam who is seated in a chair. Adam repeats:

ADAM: No. I am very serious. I want the Cayhall case...."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I had never really considered how important those on-ramps are before an emotional turn.  It makes a big difference in the reading experience.

The Chamber (1996)(shooting draft dated 4/16/96)
by William Goldman and Phil Alden Robinson and James Foley
Based on the novel by John Grisham

*FYI: Transitions are not just moving a character to a different location. 

In writer's lingo, "transitions" are a broad umbrella of things that help prepare the reader for a switch in emotional state.

For example:
- Setting up scene A so that scene B is a payoff (structure)
- Seeding a conflict in scene A so that it explodes in scene B (conflict)

TODAY'S NUGGET: A Bridge Too Far (1977) - The Kid Spy (With Thick Glasses)

[Quick Summary: To end the war, the Allied air and ground troops try to secure key bridges in the Netherlands to close off Germany from the north. (Sept. 1944)]

GOOD NEWS: This is a previously unseen William Goldman script.

BAD NEWS: This could very well be a great film, but...on the page, I disliked it.

Maybe because it covers so much ground? I found myself wishing that I cared more.

GOOD NEWS: There were still some great character moments.

My favorite was "The Kid With the Thick Glasses" who was his own spy:

ex. "EXT. ROAD NEAR HARTENSTEIN HOTEL - DAY

A GERMAN SENTRY. Armed. Well turned out, creased trousers, polished boots. He moves into the road, raises his hand.  THE KID WITH THICK GLASSES stops.
(This scene is IN DUTCH - SUBTITLED)

GERMAN SENTRY: Go back.

KID WITH THICK GLASSES: --but I want to --

GERMAN SENTRY: -- you will do as directed.

KID WITH THICK GLASSES (near tears --frightened and upset --he points on past the hotel): But my friend --she lives down the road and...It is my birthday -- she has a present --my present. (stares up at the sentry) Please?

GERMAN SENTRY (finally gestures for the kid to go through): Be quick.
                                                                                                                         CUT TO
EXT. ROAD BEYOND HARTENSTEIN HOTEL - DAY

THE KID WITH THICK GLASSES as he zooms on by the place. He doesn't seem to pay much attention, just glances at it once once as we
                                                                                                                        CUT TO

EXT. ROAD NEAR HARTENSTEIN HOTEL - DAY

THE SENTRY. Watching. Nothing arouses his suspicions.
                                                                                                                        CUT TO

EXT. ROAD NEAR HARTENSTEIN HOTEL - DAY

THE KID WITH THICK GLASSES, pumping on, rounding a bend, and the instant he's out of sight of the SENTRY -- he brakes, whips out a piece of paper and a pencil stub and starts to make a sketch.
                                                                                                                        CUT TO
EXT. SKETCH - FLAG - DAY

The sketch. It's a copy of the flag that we planted on the lead staff car. As THE KID continues to draw, licking his pencil stub, scratching away --
                                                                                                                        CUT TO
INT. UNDERGROUND LEADER'S HOUSE - KID'S ROOM - DAY

Another drawing of that pennant. Only this isn't a quick pencil sketch of it, this is much more carefully done. It's in color and the colors of the flag are pretty close to what the actual flag looked like."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that a "kid spy" was how the writer brought us into the underground spy network (vs. an adult spy acting all mysterious).

A Bridge Too Far (1977)(draft dated 3/29/76)
by William Goldman
From the book by Cornelius Ryan

TODAY'S NUGGET: How the Pros Give Each Other Story Notes (& More Good Stuff)

Why didn't I read William Goldman's Which Lie Did I Tell?: More Adventures in the Screen Trade  (2001) sooner?!

Don't be like me.

READ IT NOW.

It will answer questions such as:

- "What does a screenwriter do when he is asked to damage his own screenplay?" (p. 92)
- When is a story NOT a film? (p. 162, with in-depth explanation)
- What is the one thing doctoring a script is really about? (p. 328)

However, if you've stuck it out this far, I bet you just want to know about story notes.

Goldman does something in this book that I've never seen anywhere else.

He wrote an original screenplay for this book...then handed it for comments to these six screenwriting friends:

Peter & Bobby Farrelly
Scott Frank
Tony Gilroy
Callie Khouri
John Patrick Shanley

Then he INCLUDED their written comments. 

They are helpful, focused, and excellent. You'll see:

- What pros look for in a story
- How each dissects (and explains) the strengths and weaknesses
- What bothers them, what they like

It will take time to read the screenplay and all the comments.

But if you want to see how a working writer thinks, (or if you want to BE that writer someday), it's worth it.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I learned what I, as a writer, must "protect to the death." (p. 179-180)

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 NUGGET: Magic (1978) - Art of Blurring

[Quick Summary:  A timid ventriloquist just might be possessed by his bawdy dummy...or not.]

Bad news: Psychological horror/thrillers are hard to write.

Good news: There's a high demand.

Bad news: Most psychological horror/thriller spec scripts don't know how to blur the line between reality and the bizarre/fantasy.

Good news: Magic does blurring very well. 

So how did Goldman do it?

#1 - The script takes time to establish:

- Who Corky is (awkward ventriloquist, loyal, fears success)
- What he wants (to be with Peg, his childhood fantasy girl)

#2 - The script makes Fats (the dummy) a crutch in Corky's world.  

ex. Fats expresses Corky's deepest, unspoken feelings.
ex. Fats is the reason Corky gets jobs.

Weird becomes "normal" for Corky.

#3 - To be with Peg (goal), Corky must break up with Fats (face his demons).

The psychological horror/thrill comes from the fact that it's darned near impossible now to tell where the demons are coming from:

- Is Fats is real?
- Or has an evil dummy possessed Corky?
- Or is it all in Corky's mind?

The torment is that Corky has melded to his crutch/demon.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  To blur reality vs. non-reality, justify both sides.

ex. Reality = Peg
Non-reality = Fats
Corky wants both but can only have one, so he vacillates.

Magic (1978)
by William Goldman (from his novel)

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Great Waldo Pepper (1975) - Killing Off a Character

[Quick Summary: After a series of failures, a 1920s daredevil pilot tries to regain his confidence by flying for the movies.]

This script had everything going for it!

Airplane chases! Romance! Death! Envy! An underdog!

So why do I feel so ... lukewarm about it?

I suppose it's because I was so invested in Waldo and Mary Beth. 

Mary Beth is a challenging, spunky counterpoint to Waldo, and brings out the best in him. 

Unfortunately, she's killed off approximately 2/3 into the script. For the last 1/3, it seems as if she never even existed.

Without that relationship, Waldo seems less accessible.

Frankly, I just lost heart in his journey.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's a tricky balance to know when to kill off a character. 

Just make sure you have a really good reason.

(And repeating it again in the last 1/3 wouldn't hurt.)


The Great Waldo Pepper (1975)
Script by William Goldman
Story by George Roy Hill

TODAY'S NUGGET: Marathon Man (1976) - Trait & Conflict in Dialogue

[Quick Summary: A graduate student who is at the wrong place, wrong time, runs from a sadistic Nazi dentist.]

Why do I root for the protagonist Babe?

He's just so earnest.

ex. In his first conversation with Elsa, note how the dialogue expresses:

a) Babe's earnest trait, and
b) the struggle to say "I like you."

BABE: Sorry to bother you, Miss Opel, but one of your books must have fallen in your cubicle earlier and I happened to spot it - (hands it over) - just thought it might be important. [He's sincere.]

ELSA: That's very kind. (starting to go inside) Good night.

BABE: 'Night. Your name and address are on the inside - "Elsa Opel" and where you live - in case you were curious how I found you, Miss Opel. [He's desperate to keep it going.]

ELSA: I wasn't. Good night.

BABE: 'Night. [No manipulation.]

ELSA: You keep saying that but you also don't leave.

BABE: I twisted my ankle on the way over, I was giving it a rest. [Flimsy, but a brave stab.]

ELSA: You weren't limping jst now.

BABE: I'm the worst when it comes to lying. [Throws himself at her mercy.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Good dialogue tells us about the character's trait(s) AND inner conflict.


Marathon Man
Screenplay and novel by William Goldman

TODAY'S NUGGET: Harper (1966) - When Violence Has Meaning

[Quick Summary: "A private detective is hired by an unloving wife to find her rich drunk husband." *]

I saw this video interview with writer/director Terry George.  George recommended:

1) Reading William Goldman's Absolute Power script (which I did; it is faboo!)

2) Getting my grubby paws on anything Goldman's ever written, even unproduced scripts.

Hmmm.   I realized then how little I knew of Goldman's lesser known works (to be rectified in the coming weeks.) 

So I begin with Harper, Goldman's first produced film.

It's a noir, so I expected violence. 

What I didn't expect was it was "good" story violence, i.e., violence that I could justify.

ex. Harper is bound and tied in a shed.  A thug keeps watch.

Harper insults him, and gets backhanded.  ["Shut up, Harper," I thought.]

"You stink," Harper says. Another backhand.  [What are you doing?]

"You're afraid of me."  Gut punch. [Shut up NOW.]

The thug pummels Harper into mush. [Pleeease stay down.]

Then the stupid thug unties him and says, "Now try to trick me." [Don't take the bait!]

Harper manages to barely stand.... [Don't do it!]

...and proceeds to trick the thug. [Wow!]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Here, violence has a defined STORY purpose.

The fight built up the thug's confidence ---> increases the payoff when Harper reverses the situation.


Harper
by William Goldman
Adapted from the novel The Moving Target by Ross McDonald

*This is William Goldman's own logline. I couldn't improve on it any better.

TODAY'S NUGGET: #53 WGA Script of All Time - All the President's Men (1976)

[Quick Summary: In 1972, two rookie journalists piece together that a minor burglary at the Watergate building is a front for a much bigger political scheme.]

Dang, William Goldman can really write.

This script sucks you in & makes you care, the hallmarks of an exceptional storyteller.

One thing I picked up is his use of point of view.

The script focuses on the reporters Woodward and Bernstein. When they find out information, so does the audience, and thus the reveals are very natural.  The audience is truly along for the ride, and becomes invested in the outcome.

But what if Goldman chose to follow the campaign workers or the crooks as the main characters instead?

I think the story would not have been as good.

In the script, Woodward and Bernstein were on the offensive, and literally chased down clues.

A story about the campaign workers would've been more about damage control and defensive p.r....not as interesting.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The right point of view can really make the story flow.

The wrong one often lends itself to a clunky story.

All the President's Men (1976)
by William Goldman

TODAY'S NUGGET: #84 WGA Script of All Time - The Princess Bride (1987)

[Quick Summary: A mysterious Man in Black sets out with two unlikely sidekicks to rescue a kidnapped Princess from the dastardly Prince Humperdink.]

This week, I covered an adventure script. 

Unfortunately, something was missing.  But what was it?

When I read "The Princess Bride", I realized that the missing element in the previous script was tension/jeopardy that moves the story forward. 

ex. Inigo Montoya, the swordsman, stands at the edge of the high Cliffs.  He looks down below at the Man in Black who is climbing up. Boooorrring...

...except both parties are offended the other is taking so long.

INIGO: I don't suppose you could speed things up.

MAN IN BLACK (with some heat): If you're so anxious to hurry things, you could lower a rope or a tree branch or find some useful thing to do.

That's funny. And tense because:

#1 There's jeopardy - The Man In Black is literally hanging in the balance.
#2 There's tension - Are you friend or foe?
#3 The resolution of #1 & #2 adds more brick to the story road.

Here, Inigo & the Man in Black fight, then become allies, which advances the plot.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Scripts often miss #3. 

That was the problem with the adventure script.  The tension was about side characters or unimportant details. It didn't add to the main story.

Princess Bride (1987)
by William Goldman

STORY OF THE DAY: What Goldman Said To Sorkin

In Aaron Sorkin's own words:

"You're a very talented writer, but I don't think there's any way I can hire you."

Those words would have been disappointing coming from anyone.  Coming from William Goldman, they were heart stopping.  Castle Rock was developing an idea for a film called Malice and Goldman had been asked by the company to identify a young, new (read inexpensive) writer whom he could tutor on the screenplay. 

I was twenty-seven and I'd never written a screenplay before, in fact I'd never read a screenplay before, but my first stageplay, A Few Good Men, was about to go into rehearsal for Broadway, and the script fell into the hands of a Castle Rock executive who passed it on to Goldman.

And the phone rang. My agent.

"Would you be interested in having lunch tomorrow afternoon with William Goldman to discuss a possible movie project?"

I told him that since Goldman was a remarkable novelist and screenwriter, two-time Academy Award winner, and my personal hero, that, yeah, I could probably squeeze him in.

I showed up at the designated restaurant on the upper East side.  Goldman stood, extended his hand, and said it.

"You're a very talented writer, but I don't think there's any way I can hire you."  Didn't look like I'd be getting lunch that day.

"I loved reading your play, but you've never written a screenplay, not even a lousy television pilot, and I don't think you have the experience necessary for us to be able to work on this." No lunch. No nothin'.

I told him that while I couldn't convince him that I had more experience than I did, perhaps I could convince him that experience wasn't crucial.  I sat down.  (The waiter eventually came and there was food.)  We talked about the Mets and we talked about our mutual back problems, but mostly we talked about writing.  Two hours later, my hero extended his hand again and said, "I tell you what: We've got a deal."

In the eight years and three films that followed, William Goldman taught me most of what I know about screenwriting, and a small fraction of what he knows. I'm very grateful.

Thanks for lunch, Bill. Really.

From the book: "Screenwriters: America's Storytellers in Portrait", by Helena Lumme & Mika Manninen, 1999, p. 99.

TODAY’S NUGGET: #11 WGA Script of All Time – Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid (1969)

[Quick Summary: Butch & Sundance are old Western train robbers who flee to Bolivia.  FYI: They get in trouble there too.]

Act 2 is always deadly for me, particularly between the midpoint & Act 3.

How do you keep cranking up the stakes?

So I took a closer look at what William Goldman did in this classic.

At the midpoint, Butch, Sundance, & Etta have landed in Bolivia.  This is the "promised land", but it's turning out badly (which is great for the script).

First, they don't speak Spanish & so their 1st bank robbery goes south (obstacle).  They eventually get the hang of it & become known as the Bandidos Yanqui.

But then they spot the ruthless Man with the Straw Hat, who has tracked them down.  They escaped him in the US, & know he'll never quit (higher stakes).

Butch has a great idea - they'll go straight & become payroll guards! 

Unfortunately, six bandits try to steal the money from them (obstacle). Butch & Sundance kill them all (higher stakes). 

They're shocked by what they've done, but this is what they're good at.

Etta decides to go back home.  While waiting for her train, the three see an inaccurate film reel about how they "died." 

Butch & Sundance are offended by the portrayal, & must decide whether they want to go down that way (crisis & Act 3).

So from the midpoint to Act 3, every moment is about ratcheting it up to the moment the protagonists face their fear, i.e., getting caught. 

Here's the sequence:

- They can't go back to the US (midpoint) 
- They move forward in Bolivia, but still try to avoid the fear (rest of Act 2)
- They accept this is the moment of battle (ex. reacting to the film)
- They must decide "yes, I will fight" or "no, I won't" (crisis)
- Now we're set up the big shootout in Act 3 (the consequences of that crisis decision)

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Avoiding the fear has to have worse consequences in Act 2B than Act 2A (before the midpoint). 

Here, Butch & Sundance are in Bolivia. They have a language barrier, no amnesty, & an antagonist who has pursued them over two countries.  It's much worse than they thought.

Butch & the Sundance Kid (1969)
by William Goldman

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: William Goldman & a 2nd @#$)(*%!! Great Introduction

Goldman does it again.

Dang.

Here's the description of Coop, the lawman. Watch how Goldman:

1) describes Coop as the lawman every man wants to be;
2) inspires our trust in Coop.

" As Maverick turns --

JUST AN INCREDIBLE-LOOKING MAN

[THIS IS#1.  I want to be called "just incredible looking," don't you?!]

--we'll find out son enough his name is ZANE COOPER.

He is raw-boned, blue-eyed, muscle & sinew; rugged as they come.  There is also something about him we don't know yet but we will: Coop is so good, so fucking honorable, he seems like someone out of another era --

--which in point of fact, he is.  Coop is the western hero who dominated movies for the most of this century. In other words, we are looking at John Wayne or Gary Cooper.

Not only has he never done anything bad, the thought of doing anything bad has never crossed his mind."

[THIS IS #2.  We now believe anything Coop says. This continues until Act 3 when he shows himself to be a double-crosser. But by that time, we've been rooting for Coop so long that it really is a surprise.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  This intro is crafted very specifically so the audience has complete, utter confidence in Coop.

Why is this important?  Because too many scripts today try to be smarter than the audience.

Here, Goldman sets up our expectations & doesn't betray us.

No red herrings.

No "look how clever I am" hints.

Until the crucial moment.

Then WHAM!  The twist.

This is why he's William Goldman.  Story is first.