TODAY'S NUGGET: Radio Days (1987) - How Politically Incorrect Slapstick is Done Well

[Quick Summary: A series of stories showing radio's big influence on 1930s and 40s America.]

TWO THOUGHTS: 

1) A DIFFERENT ALLEN FILM. Today's script is about the broader idea of radio's impact, and a departure from Allen's smaller, more character driven stories.

2) SLAPSTICK WITH PURPOSE. I find unmotivated slapstick uninteresting.

However, today's script combines slapstick with a purpose, i.e., political incorrectness, to make a point. I chuckled at this added clever commentary.

For example, in the scene below:
- Joe is the son, grade school age. 
- Joe listens to the Avengers on the radio all the time. He wants an Avengers' ring more than anything.
- Joe and his friends are collecting money in cans for the Jewish National Fund.
- The kids break open the cans to count the pennies.  
- Rabbi Baumel catches them and is ashamed they want it for Avengers' rings.
- Rabbi Baumel calls in Joe and his parents.
- The comedy comes from the characters saying that they take offense at something...then doing exactly that ("don't slap the kid", then he slaps the kid himself).
- The rabbi and father's hypocrisy is seen in the slapping.

 INT. RABBI BAUMEL'S OFFICE. DAY.

...RABBI BAUMEL: This is not good. He must be disciplined. Radio has its place but once in awhile. Otherwise it tends to induce bad values, false dreams, lazy habits. To spend time listening to stories of foolishness and violence is no way for a boy to grow up.

JOE: You speak the truth, my faithful Indian companion. 

The rabbi, taken aback, slaps him.

RABBI BAUMEL: To a rabbi you say, my faithful Indian companion?

FATHER: Hey -- don't hit my son!

RABBI BAUMEL: What kind of upbringing is this!?

FATHER (slapping kid): I'll hit him -- but you don't hit him!

RABBI BAUMEL (slaps kid): I know better how to teach fresh children.

FATHER (slaps kid): I said I'd hit him! Leave my son alone.

MOTHER (slaps kid): No, I'll hit him! Because you're too lenient with him!

FATHER (slaps kid): This is lenient!?

RABBI BAUMEL: I'm a faithful Indian? Such impertinence.

MOTHER (slaps kid): See, I'll teach him manners, Rabbi! You and that radio! 

                                                                             CUT TO: 

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The combination of two unrelated elements that make it funny.  

I expect political correctness to be serious. I expect slapstick to be amusing. I don't expect political incorrectness to be combined with slapstick and create an unexpected new category.  

Radio Days (1987)(undated draft)
by Woody Allen 

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Front (1976) - Using the Physical Space Well to Setup-Payoff a Joke

 [Quick Summary: After agreeing to act as a front for a blacklisted writer, Howard becomes famous and falls in love with a script editor who thinks he's a real writer.]

Have you heard of this black comedy? I hadn't, but was curious because it stars Woody Allen in a film he neither wrote nor directed.

Writer Walter Bernstein, who was blacklisted himself, satirizes the system that ruined lives (and is questionable if it had any anti-communism effect). 

Bernstein, a funny writer, really shines when getting the physicality of the joke right for the audience, i.e., using the physical space to setup and payoff a joke.

One of the best examples of this kind of setup-payoff (below) is nearly invisible: 
- Sussman, the producer, has asked Howard for an immediate rewrite.
- Howard frantically calls Alfred, the writer that Howard is pretending to be.
- Howard is a prisoner in his office, under watchful eyes, until Alfred rushes him a draft.
- Note that this is all done in shots, without dialogue.
- Also, note that Bernstein is so clear about the scene that he leaves out verbs in the narrative (last full paragraph).

INT. THE CORRIDOR - DAY

Florence walking along. She pauses before the door to Howard's office, then hesitates and decides not to disturb him. She looks at her watch and walks on.

INT. THE OFFICE - DAY

Howard at the window.  He sees what he has been looking for.

EXT. THE STREET - DAY

A taxi parked at the curb, window open, Alfred inside. He hands an envelope out to Howard on the street.

INT. THE CORRIDOR - DAY

The fire door opens a crack and Howard's eye surveys the scene. The coast is clear and he comes out, having made the climb up again. Carrying the envelope, he staggers into Sussman's office. [The word "staggered" made me laugh because it conveys so much irony.]

INT. SUSSMAN'S OFFICE - DAY

Sussman behind his desk, holding the script in his hands. Florence there. Howard in a chair, panting. Sussman indicates his condition to Florence. [ The meaning is clear, so no verbs are necessary, except for the last sentence.]

SUSSMAN: That's how we treat talent. Sometimes I'm ashamed.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  What is so great about this joke is the setup is all physical and non-verbal, topped off by the last punch line (payoff). 

The Front (1976)(8/13/75 revised)
by Walter Bernstein

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vicky Cristina Barcelona - Unfulfilled Love as a Strong Theme

[Quick Summary: When college friends Vicky and Cristina spend two months in Barcelona, each falls in love with the same artist, whose volatile ex-wife returns.]

I was surprised that the theme was so strong in this Woody Allen script.

It made more sense when I considered that:
a) The theme is unfulfilled love, and
b) Every character WANTS the same thing (variations of longing for love), but NEEDS something else. *

One of the script's strength is how strong that WANT is, yet it remains unfulfilled.

For example, in the scene below:
- Vicky had a fiancee, and was unprepared for her connection with artist Juan. 
- They had a one night stand.  He moved on easier than she did.
- On a whim, Vicky's fiancee suggested getting married in Barcelona. 
- Vicky and Ben are in Spanish classes together.
- I thought this was a poignant conflict for Vicky who has attracted two guys, yet still feels unfulfilled because of a third guy.

INT. FRUIT STORE - CONTINUOUS

Ben reaches toward Vicky and clasps her hand.

NARRATOR (V.O.): ...he couldn't resist taking her hand.

VICKY: Uh...uh, no.

Vicky pulls her hand away from Ben.

VICKY (cont'd): Don't. I....

BEN: No?

VICKY: Ehhh, no. Yyyy-you-you-you do know...that I'm, I'm recently married.

BEN: Yeah, I...I guess I was under the impression that...maybe you jumped into it too quick, maybe you regret it...?

VICKY: Regret? Have, have I implied that?

BEN: Unless I read into it.

VICKY: No, I...I shouldn't tell you this. I, I, uh...you know what? I was always someone who thought I knew exactly what I wanted.

BEN: But you didn't.

Vicky shakes her head nervously.

VICKY: Well, no, I, I, I met somebody else and, uh...I'm not gonna get into that story.

BEN: So, this guy you met?

VICKY: The guy is, is living with my best friend. (sighs) You know? (chuckling) What am I talking about? When I...when I hear myself, it's just, it's just crazy. I just married the guy I wanted.

BEN: Did you?

VICKY: I thought so.

BEN: So? What happened?

Vicky shakes her head.

VICKY: One goddamned weekend in Oviedo.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked that each character wanted love, but a slightly different variation, which kept it interesting.

I also appreciate how Allen writes dialogue that stumbles around a bit, like people thinking aloud.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
by Woody Allen

*As a side note, I found that the comedy comes from characters choosing the wrong person to fulfill that want.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Love and Death (1975) - Conflict + Suspense + Upended Expectations = Funnier Screwball Comedy Scenes

[Quick Summary: In 1800s Russia, a neurotic soldier avoids death, pursues love, and plans to kill Napoleon with the help of a distant cousin.] 

Though the page count is long, this script reads fast due to slapstick gags and jokes.

However, I thought the funniest scenes were those in which there was:
a) conflict, known or unknown; AND
b) suspense, in which the audience knows things that the characters do not; AND
c) how the resolution upends expectations, which makes it funnier.

For example, in the scene below:

a) Take CONFLICT...
- Boris and his reluctant wife Sonja are impersonating Spanish envoys who are to arrange a treaty with Napoleon.
- Simone is a French assassin who thinks Boris is also an assassin.
- Neither knows who the other truly is.
- The conflict is on many levels (moral, political, ethical).
- Also, I was surprised how emotionally conflicted I felt for Boris. For the first time in his life, he experiences someone finding him attractive...and it's likely faked!

b) Add SUSPENSE..Crank it up with UPENDED EXPECTATIONS:
- We are waiting to see things unfold, but then our expectations are upended:
---> Which side will unveil the imposter first? Neither does, which is funny.
---> Will Simone discharges the gun? It fails...which is funny
---> Will Boris decide to bed Simone? His rejection likely saved his life...which is funny.

INT. GUEST ROOM (BORIS). NIGHT

Him in his room. Knock on door. He opens it. Pretty woman.

BORIS: Yes?

SIMONE: Don Francisco?

BORIS: I hope so for your sake.

SIMONE (enters, door shut): I am a welcoming present from General Leveque.

BORIS: Oh, nice present. Shall we get this wrapping off?

SIMON

E: You're even more handsome than I thought.

BORIS: Yes, I get that all the time.

SIMONE: More sensuous than I had imagined in my wildest dreams.

BORIS: Really? What are some of your wildest dreams? (hands her pencil and paper) Why don't you write them down and we'll act out the parts.

SIMONE: Your sister -- she will not hear us in here?

BORIS: My sister? Oh my sister...good point...no...right now she's bathing, maybe even taking a bath.

She goes to him, kisses him, puts pistol to back of his head, pulls trigger, it clicks, misfiring.

BORIS: Did you hear a click? Oh well...listen...I feel a little guilty about this...you know, I have a wife in Spain.

SIMONE: Spain is far away.

BORIS: I know, but --I feel too guilty to cheat on her.

SIMONE: Yes?

BORIS: I'm afraid so. Well -- now that that's out of the way, shall we go to bed?

He turns. She fires again, it clicks.

BORIS: You hear that? I keep hearing a clicking sound. Listen, I appreciate your interest but I am kinda close to her. (getting rid of her)

SIMONE: Monsieur?

BORIS: Really - I  - I gotta get dressed - no kidding. Dining with the Emperor tonight...We're like this-- (crossed fingers) Or that -- take your choice.

And she's out. He looks into mirror. 

BORIS: Sweet girl -- hated to disappoint her -- she'll never know --she came that close to heaven.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It would be a mistake to assume that the humor is only due to the dialogue. 

I really think the reason this kind of comedy stands out is the underlying structure (conflict + suspense + upended expectations), which requires a deft touch.

Love and Death (1975)(8/11/74 revised)
by Woody Allen

TODAY'S NUGGET: Purple Rose of Cairo (1985) - A Key to Romantic Chemistry

[Quick Summary: A movie fan falls in love with a fictional character (who walks off of the screen to be with her) and the real actor who plays him.]

Great romantic chemistry is hard to define.

Billy Mernit comes to the rescue with help:

That special kind of romantic "sympatico" doesn't come out of mere body heat and thin air. Your job as a writer is to forge such a bond by digging as deep as you can into your protagonists' characterizations. What you're looking for is the subtext hidden inside the old cliche, "opposites attract." Two people who seem to be opposites are not automatically magnetic. But they may well have interlocking needs (p. 80).

Note the last two sentences:

1) Putting together opposites does NOT AUTOMATICALLY make them magnetic.
2) But there's a better chance when characters have interlocking needs &/or are incomplete (p. 81).

In this story, these are the opposites:
- Tom is a courageous, privileged, and 100% fictional character. He needs help becoming "real."
- Cecilia is a dreamy, hard working, practical waitress.  She needs hope and whimsy.

ex.  Tom has just tried to pay for dinner with his play money. He and Cecilia walk around a carousel.

"TOM (O.S.): I'm sorry about the money. I had no idea.

CECILIA (O.S.): Oh, that's okay. (Chuckling) It's, it's not going to be so easy to get along without it in this world. [She gently reminds him to be realistic.]

TOM (O.S.): Oh, I guess I have to get a job (Sighs) [He changes because of her.]

The camera stops as it comes to the couple, who are sitting in a chariot. Tom's arm is around Cecilia's shoulders. They look at each other, illuminated by the moonlight.

CECILIA (Inhaling): But that's not going to be so easy, either. Right now, the whole country's out of work. [She's honest with him.]

TOM: Well, then we'll live on love. We'll have to make some concessions, but so what? We'll have each other. [He speaks of their future which gives her hope.]

CECILIA: That's movie talk. [She enjoys this real life fantasy.]

The camera moves closer and closer to their faces. Romantic piano music beings to play.

TOM (Looking softly at Cecilia): You look so beautiful in this light. [He admires.]

CECILIA (Looking into Tom's eyes): But you're not real. [She brings him to earth.]

Tom looks at Cecilia, then kisses her.

TOM (Breaking the kiss, sighing): Was that real enough for you?

CECILIA (Sighing): You, you kiss perfectly. It's what I dreamed kissing would be like. [For once, her reality is better than her dreams.]"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Romantic chemistry blooms when A meets B's needs (& vice versa).

Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
by Woody Allen
Published in Three Films by Woody Allen (1987)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Broadway Danny Rose (1984) - Winding Up for the Sucker Punch

[Quick Summary: Talent manager Danny Rose desperately tries to persuade his client's girlfriend to show up for the client's big night.]

Woody Allen wrote this script, so I knew a sucker punch would eventually come.

However, I was truly surprised how much it still stung.

I think one reasons is that the wind up to the punch really intensified the punch.

Here's why:

1)  I really invested in Danny Rose, who went to extremes for clients that no one else wanted. (EMPATHY)

ex. He clients include a blind xylophone player, a penguin act, a hypnotist.
ex. He is devoted to Lou, a has-been lounge singer, and picks out Lou's songs, clothes, and even eats with Lou's family.

2) The punch starts moving toward Danny Rose, but it takes awhile.  The hurt builds and coils like a spring, which is where all the power lies. (WIND UP; SUSPENSE)  

- Bigwigs are coming to see Lou sing. This might be his big break into tv.
- Lou is married but has a volatile girlfriend, Tina.
- Lou won't perform unless Tina comes. He asks Danny Rose to get her there.
- Tina is mad and has other plans. She takes off and Danny Rose pursues.
- Danny Rose has many crazy, fun mis-adventures with Tina.
- She starts to like him but is conflicted.  In flashback, we see her make a bad decision that will affect Danny Rose.

3) The punch lands.  It stings much more strongly than I thought. 

Danny Rose is betrayed. It hurts bad.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how flashback was used well in the wind up phase.

It is not used to explain Tina in the PAST (boring).

It is actually used to further complicate Tina in the PRESENT (interesting), as well as Danny Rose.

Broadway Danny Rose (1984)
by Woody Allen
Published in Three Films by Woody Allen (1987)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Zelig (1983) - How Voice Over Can Help a Satire

[Quick Summary: In the 1920s, a psychiatrist tries to help Zelig, an actual human chameleon who has lost his identity.]

I tip my hat to Woody Allen on this script.

It's not perfect, but it's one of the most unique ideas I've seen in ages.

Zelig unconsciously adopts to whomever is in his surroundings, including attitude, skin color, etc. If he's with Asians, he acts/speaks/looks Asian. 

He shows up at big historical events, becomes famous, and then disaster follows.  The public celebrates Zelig, then demonizes, then celebrates him.

I thought the choice to use of frequent narrated voice over was odd for this satire. However, it began to make sense in hindsight.

Satire uses ridicule and exaggeration to make a point. 

I think this script is satirizing how public opinion can turn on a dime.

The script uses voice over:
1) to lead us through the public's thought processes, and then
2) to exaggerate it to poke fun.

ex. "NARRATOR'S VOICE-OVER: That Zelig could be responsible for the behavior of each of the personalities he assumed means dozens of lawsuits. [He had no idea what he was doing, but let's still make him responsible!]

The film moves inside the courthouse, where the presiding judge is seen over the shoulders of the packed room. Lawyers walk back and forth in front of the seated spectators, exchanging documents, talking among themselves in clusters, going up to the judge. As the narrator continues, the film cuts to a somber-looking Zelig, sitting at a table with his lawyer. His hands are clasped in his lap.

NARRATOR'S VOICE-OVER: He is used for bigamy, adultery, automobile accidents, plagiarism, household damages, negligence, property damages, and performing unnecessary dental extractions. [He's liable for the kitchen sink!!]"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: In satire, voice over can be used to state the premise, then ridicule it.

Zelig (1983)
by Woody Allen
Published in Three Films by Woody Allen (1987)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Stardust Memories (1980) - Seeing What the Writer Saw

[Quick Summary: A comedy filmmaker unsuccessfully tries to break new ground.]

1 - I want script readers to "get" my scripts, i.e., they see what I'm seeing in my head.

So when I read a script that I don't get (like this one), I tend to take a closer look.

This story begins with a popular comedy filmmaker who now wants to make a serious drama. However, the public just wants more of his early stuff.

The filmmaker experiences/complains about the pressures of sycophants, women, family, etc....and then nothing happens.

So WHAT IS THE POINT? I couldn't see what the writer was aiming for.

2 - Here's one scene that was clear, and juggled pathos and comedy as well:

WALKING MAN (Overlapping Sandy's speech): Are you Sandy Bates?
SANDY (To the man, trying to get rid of him) Uh, no. (To Isobel) The kids will probably be starved.
WALKING MAN: Yes, you are.
SANDY (Shaking his head, trying to get rid of the man): Uh, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not.
WALKING MAN: My mother buys meat in the same butcher shop your mother does.
SANDY (Laughing): Oh, great.
WALKING MAN (Handing Sandy a piece of paper): Can I have your autograph?
SANDY (Reacting): Oh, Jesus.
WALKING MAN: Could you just write "To Phyllis Weinstein, you unfaithful, lying bitch"?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One tip is whatever characters do, they must experience consequences. 

If nothing happens, I'm 99% uninterested.

Stardust Memories (1980)
by Woody Allen
Four Films of Woody Allen (book published 1982)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Interiors (1978) - How to End a Fight When There Are No Easy Answers

[Quick Summary: When a father decides to divorce and remarry, his three daughters grapple how to cope.]

I admire this script because it's realistic, sometimes uncomfortably so, but not in a depressing way.

In this story:
- Mom is permanently unhinged.
- Dad is ready to move on with a new wife.
- Daughter Renata (poet) has a husband who feels threatened by her success.
- Daughter Joey (photographer) feels second banana to Renata.
- Daughter Flyn (actress) has go-nowhere career.

I liked that each character has a strong POV and issues that conflict with the others.

However, how do you resolve the conflict if both sides are sound?

How do you resolve a scene when there are no easy answers?

I learned from reading this script that:
1) You do not have to have a nice neat resolution at the end of a scene.
2) How the character comes to terms with the argument can happen off screen.
3) #2 above will work as long as all the issues are presented on screen (#1).

The scene below is the tail end of yet another argument about Mom.

Notice that:
- There is no tidy resolution at the end.
- The scene ends without an "a-ha!" moment.
- The scene lays out the issues, i.e., Joey's resentment. 
- If you read the full script, you'll see this conversation have an impact (albeit off screen). We know this because they act differently after this scene.

ex." RENATA: Look, Joey...I can't help it if you feel guilty about your feelings toward Mother. I mean, you-you-you can't seem to do enough to make up for it.

JOEY (looking at RENATA): Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

RENATA: You know what it means. You could never stand her.

JOEY (Upset): I-I don't believe this. My whole life I've only wanted to be her.

RENATA: Yeah...well, for a while there you were her, weren't you?

JOEY (Shaking her head): I don't know what you're talking about.

RENATA: Oh, Joey, you know what I'm talking about! All those headaches every time she'd come home from the hospital. You never wanted her to come home.

JOEY: This is incredible. I mean, you twist everything I say. I-I-I give up!"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Characters don't have to resolve every fight on screen.

Interiors (1978)
by Woody Allen
Four Films of Woody Allen (book published 1982)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) - Constructed for Maximum Emotion

[Quick Summary: A NYC couple are convinced their neighbor has killed his wife.]

What makes a Woody Allen film so special?

Most people, including me, would say, "It's the dialogue."

I still think that's true, but the springboard is that his scripts are first constructed for maximum emotion.

ex. In this story, Carol and Larry meet their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. House.

Soon, Mrs. House disappears.

Carol thinks Mr. House killed Mrs. House, but Larry doesn't believe her.
 
However, an attractive single friend, Ted, does, and she gravitates toward him.

Larry is unsure how to deal, so he connects with Marcia at work. She becomes interested in the mystery as well.

In the first half of the script, Larry is jealous of Carol and Ted

--> Larry resists helping Carol (& thus getting her to her goal).
---> This pushes Carol closer to Ted.
---> This is uncomfortable for Larry.

In the second half, Carol is jealous of Marcia's positive effect on Larry and Ted.

---> Larry and Marcia become more involved in the mystery
---> Larry solves things, Marcia looks smart.
---> This is bittersweet for Carol.

Once this framework is in place, it's no wonder the dialogue really sparkles:

CAROL: I told Ted.
LARRY: You told Ted before you told me?
CAROL: Yeah. He's more open-minded about these things.
LARRY: Yes, I know. I'm-I'm-I'm a bore. I'm-Because I-Because I-Because I don't break the law, you know?
CAROL: Yeah.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Do the heavy lifting first. Dialogue later.

Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)
by Woody Allen

TODAY'S NUGGET: #54 WGA Script of All Time - Manhattan (1979)

[Quick Summary: A unhappily divorced man falls for his best friend's mistress. Woody Allen type chaos ensues.]

This story is about a guy who falls for his friend's mistress against his better judgment, & is left with egg on his face when the mistress goes back to the friend.

The script is approx. 90% dialogue & it's ok there's very little narrative.

Why? The emotional conflict is so primal, so full of contradiction, so ripe for heart break again & again that it totally engrosses you.

MARY (chuckling): Oh well, how about Vincent Van Gogh (pronouncing it "Goch")...or Ingar Bergman?
IKE: (overlapping) Van Goch? (Aside, to Tracy) Did she say "Van GOch"?
MARY (to Yale): How about Ingmar Bergman?
IKE (overlapping, shaking his head): Van Goch.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Above all, keep the emotion raw.

Manhattan (1979)
by Woody Allen
Four Films of Woody Allen (book published 1982)

TODAY'S NUGGET: #57 WGA Script of All Time - Crimes & Misdemeanors (1989)

[Quick Summary: An opthamologist has his mistress killed, & a documentary filmmaker falls for another woman.]

I couldn't find this script available anywhere (boooooo!)

So I re-watched the movie instead (yayyyyyy!)

But it wasn't the same (boooo!)

I was particularly disappointed because this film has many, MANY flashbacks, and it's rare to see flashbacks done right.

(And by "right", I mean flashbacks are there for a specific reason, and not just information dumping.)

In this film, Woody Allen uses flashbacks to show a character's PRESENT EMOTIONAL STATE.  That's right - he uses the past to show motives, and/or what the character is feeling NOW.

ex.  The mistress waits for her married lover Judah.

The scene goes back to a happy moment when she and Judah walked on the beach.  Judah voices doubts: "I don't think we should do this here."  She distracts him and mixes up Schubert with Schuman.  Judah reassures her: "I'll teach you...some day we'll have a lot of time."

Why is the flashback there? It shows us why the mistress is holding on so tight to Judah NOW.

In the past, they had fun together. He was debonair, he cared about her.  He even seemed to promise a future together ("some day we'll have a lot of time").

When the scene returns to the present, it's clear why the mistress feels the way she does.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The flashback can show motive & PRESENT emotional stakes.

ex. If the mistress loses Judah, she loses the only joy her life seems to have.

Crimes & Misdemeanors (1989)
by Woody Allen

TODAY'S NUGGET: #95 WGA Script of All Time - Hannah & Her Sisters (1986)

[Quick Summary: Between two Thanksgivings, Hannah, her two sisters & their significant others face a myriad life experiences, told in a vignette style.]

After reading this script, I'm once again glad I've had no excuse to avoid it.

[WHINY ME: It sounds like a boring read.
MATURE ME: Too bad, it's on the list.
WHINY ME: Who made them the list king?
MATURE ME: Because they're the ones who READ the scripts.]

I'll admit that it's long (207 pgs).  It has several story lines that sometimes wander.  It's quintessential Woody Allen, & thus it's not everyone's cup of tea.

But what really impressed me is that Woody Allen wrote characters who are very, very clear what they want...even if they don't know what they want.

ex. Jewish Mickey (Woody Allen) might/probably doesn't have a fatal tumor/benign nothing.  But since he could be dying, his thoughts turn to God for the first time in years.  He wants to believe in something, & visits a Catholic priest to possibly convert, then a Hare Krishna leader for answers. 

Throughout the script, Mickey wonders what life is worth living for & doesn't have an  answer, BUT he's doggedly determined to find it...and in the end, he does.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Showing WHY a character wants something is as important as showing WHAT he wants.

Hannah & Her Sisters (1986)
by Woody Allen

TODAY'S NUGGET: #6 WGA Script of All Time - Annie Hall (1977)

[Quick Summary: Neurotic guy & ditzy girl break up. Guy remembers the relationship.]

As I get closer & closer to the #1 script, the characters become more & more well rounded. 

I can honestly say I know Annie Hall after reading about her.  I know how she reacts to stress, how ambitious she is, what she's afraid of, what she's look for in a partner.

How did the writers get me so close to Annie?  It was the small moments when she had to make decisions, i.e., her character arc of growth

ex.  Annie's afraid of being seen as dumb.  Alvy, the antagonist, likes being the know it all & lording it over Annie (though he would disclaim it if you pinned him about it). 

Growth Step 1 - Alvy encourages Annie to take adult education classes, which she balks at, at first. 

Growth Step 2 - But then she starts to enjoy learning - - & suddenly Alvy is threatened & tells her he thinks adult ed is "such junk". 

Growth Step 3 - She decides to be brave & breaks up with him.

Step Backwards - She makes a bad decision (but understandable) & gets back together again with Alvy later.

This is reality.  By Growth Step 3, Annie is stronger than at Step 1, but she is still emotionally attached. 

She takes a step backward & decides to go with what is fun & safe...but the next time an opportunity is presented, she is positioned to risk it, i.e., Growth Step 4 - Tony, the famous record personality, offers her a chance to work together.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The growth arc is seen by a few steps forward, one step back

Annie Hall (1977)
by Woody Allen & Marshall Brickman