[Quick Summary: Upstanding George Bailey considers suicide when $8k goes missing from his business' coffers. Clarence the angel is sent to intervene.]
I'd like to have Clarence's job.
He gets to enter early, & then doesn't have to reappear until approx. p. 129 (of 167 pgs.)
But seriously, why do I forgive Clarence for his long absence in this script?
Answer: Because there's a REASON for the late re-introduction.
All the scenes between p. 6-129 are setups that are paid of quickly after p. 129.
ex. Why do we need to see George save Mr. Gower the pharmacist (setup; p. 16)? Because George needs to see Mr. Gower the panhandler in the "no George" world (payoff; p. 142).
ex. Why do we need to see brother Harry become a war hero (setup; p. 100)? So that George would react violently to Harry's death in the "no George" world (payoff; p. 153).
Clarence's return demarcates the third act. He is also the catalyst that accelerates George to the climax.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If Clarence were present throughout, the audience would expect a resolution far too soon.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
by Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, & Frank Capra
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
TODAY’S 2nd NUGGET: #21 WGA Script of All Time – North by Northwest (1959)
[Quick Summary: Roger Thornhill is an advertising man who is mistaken for the notorious George Kaplan. As Roger chases down the truth, he finds that Kaplan never existed.]
This script had fantastic pacing for the first 80-90 pages.
(I don't know why, but it seemed to slow down when until Thornhill goes to Eve's train compartment.)
The script m-o-v-e-s because:
1) Thornhill's life is absolutely disrupted by this Kaplan guy (good conflict)
2) Thornhill hates being blamed for Kaplan's mistakes & wants his life back (good motive)
3) Both protagonist & antagonist think they're right. And they are. But they think the other side is wrong. But they're not. Who will win? (good raising of stakes)
The audience can't wait for the shoes to start falling.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think Acts 1 & 2 flew because as puzzle pieces were added, other pieces were subtracted.
This isn't one of my favorite scripts. I guess once I knew Thornhill wasn't really in trouble, I lost some momentum.
North by Northwest (1959)
by Ernest Lehman
This script had fantastic pacing for the first 80-90 pages.
(I don't know why, but it seemed to slow down when until Thornhill goes to Eve's train compartment.)
The script m-o-v-e-s because:
1) Thornhill's life is absolutely disrupted by this Kaplan guy (good conflict)
2) Thornhill hates being blamed for Kaplan's mistakes & wants his life back (good motive)
3) Both protagonist & antagonist think they're right. And they are. But they think the other side is wrong. But they're not. Who will win? (good raising of stakes)
The audience can't wait for the shoes to start falling.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think Acts 1 & 2 flew because as puzzle pieces were added, other pieces were subtracted.
This isn't one of my favorite scripts. I guess once I knew Thornhill wasn't really in trouble, I lost some momentum.
North by Northwest (1959)
by Ernest Lehman
QUOTE OF THE DAY: LA Double Speak
I love this quote from Tom Hooper, the British director of "King's Speech", "Elizabeth I", & "John Adams":
"I've discovered that the film culture in Los Angeles is very indirect -- it's almost Japanese in that way," he said. "No one says what they actually mean. It must be why you need an agent, because you need someone to interpret the indirectness for you. It's really quite odd. You'll hear that the person from the studio doesn't want to meet with you because they're afraid that they'll have to say no to you and you'll be upset. So rather than risk saying no, they would rather not see you at all."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: He's absolutely right.
There are very few people who will give you an honest answer. If you find them, keep them!
For a bigger list of the people you need on your team, read Sir Michael Caine's new book, "The Elephant to Hollywood." He gives an honest summary of what each person should do for you.
"I've discovered that the film culture in Los Angeles is very indirect -- it's almost Japanese in that way," he said. "No one says what they actually mean. It must be why you need an agent, because you need someone to interpret the indirectness for you. It's really quite odd. You'll hear that the person from the studio doesn't want to meet with you because they're afraid that they'll have to say no to you and you'll be upset. So rather than risk saying no, they would rather not see you at all."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: He's absolutely right.
There are very few people who will give you an honest answer. If you find them, keep them!
For a bigger list of the people you need on your team, read Sir Michael Caine's new book, "The Elephant to Hollywood." He gives an honest summary of what each person should do for you.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Truncated Action Descriptions
A fellow writer sent me this blog article, "Cliches to Avoid Like the Plague" by Dan Reilly, a Hollywood story analyst, & asked me what I thought.
It's excellent.
I'd never really realized that "Just looks" & "They laugh" are unnecessary stage (as in theater) directions.
He also writes about my biggest pet peeve: the truncated action descriptions.
ex. “Two legs. Running fast. Night sky. No stars. The legs. Run faster. A bomb. No time. EXPLOSION.”
The idea is to keep the sentences short b/c readers have no attention spans. That is good.
However, a whole script of truncations will cause me to see red. (And yes, I have.) I'll probably go Hulk on you.
Why?
These aren't sentences. They're fragments. For NO REASON. That's NOT COOL.
My eyes get tired from stop-start-stop-start. I'm not paying attention to your story.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Unless you've got a @#$()*% good reason, don't use truncated action descriptions.
What are @#$()% good reasons?
To point out the murder weapon: "He shot her with an Uzi. Her Uzi."
To slow the reader on purpose: "Scarlett. In red. Leaping from the cliff. THE END."
It's excellent.
I'd never really realized that "Just looks" & "They laugh" are unnecessary stage (as in theater) directions.
He also writes about my biggest pet peeve: the truncated action descriptions.
ex. “Two legs. Running fast. Night sky. No stars. The legs. Run faster. A bomb. No time. EXPLOSION.”
The idea is to keep the sentences short b/c readers have no attention spans. That is good.
However, a whole script of truncations will cause me to see red. (And yes, I have.) I'll probably go Hulk on you.
Why?
These aren't sentences. They're fragments. For NO REASON. That's NOT COOL.
My eyes get tired from stop-start-stop-start. I'm not paying attention to your story.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Unless you've got a @#$()*% good reason, don't use truncated action descriptions.
What are @#$()% good reasons?
To point out the murder weapon: "He shot her with an Uzi. Her Uzi."
To slow the reader on purpose: "Scarlett. In red. Leaping from the cliff. THE END."
TODAY'S NUGGET: #22 WGA Script of All Time - Shawshank Redemption (1994)
[Quick Summary: Andy, a former banker, is incarcerated for killing his wife & her lover. During his time in prison, he transforms his fellow prisoners... & then escapes.]
This is another dark script I didn't want to read.
The bleakness of the movie still haunts me, and even though I saw it over 15 years ago.
But as I read the script, I realized that it was only Andy's hope & motive that made it palatable.
Writer Frank Darabont is so skillful at laying out the character's wants/desires, then taking it away.
The character's motive is crystal clear, b/c we SEE why the character is acting the way he does.
ex. Young Tommy comes to prison. Andy helps him get his GED & is so proud. (Hope)
Tommy tells Andy that he heard another con brag about killing Andy's wife & her lover. Andy is innocent! (Hope. Andy wants to be free.)
Andy tells the Warden, who selfishly wants to keep his free accountant. The Warden has Tommy killed. (Fear. Andy has lost someone he cares about again.)
Andy refuses to doctor the Warden's books any more. The Warden threatens to everything Andy holds dear: his precious library, protection from physical assaults, etc. (Fear. Andy has nothing to lose now.)
Andy snaps...and we all know why now.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script is a great example of showing motive that both explains & propels us into the next act.
Andy's reaction shots (not necessarily his dialogue) were key.
Shawshank Redemption (1994)
by Frank Darabont
This is another dark script I didn't want to read.
The bleakness of the movie still haunts me, and even though I saw it over 15 years ago.
But as I read the script, I realized that it was only Andy's hope & motive that made it palatable.
Writer Frank Darabont is so skillful at laying out the character's wants/desires, then taking it away.
The character's motive is crystal clear, b/c we SEE why the character is acting the way he does.
ex. Young Tommy comes to prison. Andy helps him get his GED & is so proud. (Hope)
Tommy tells Andy that he heard another con brag about killing Andy's wife & her lover. Andy is innocent! (Hope. Andy wants to be free.)
Andy tells the Warden, who selfishly wants to keep his free accountant. The Warden has Tommy killed. (Fear. Andy has lost someone he cares about again.)
Andy refuses to doctor the Warden's books any more. The Warden threatens to everything Andy holds dear: his precious library, protection from physical assaults, etc. (Fear. Andy has nothing to lose now.)
Andy snaps...and we all know why now.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script is a great example of showing motive that both explains & propels us into the next act.
Andy's reaction shots (not necessarily his dialogue) were key.
Shawshank Redemption (1994)
by Frank Darabont
Monday, November 8, 2010
TODAY'S NUGGET: #23 WGA Script of All Time - Gone With the Wind (1939)
[Quick Summary: Civil War Southern belle is in an uphill struggle for the wrong man, & to save her plantation home, Tara.]
I confess that I wasn't able to finish this 256 page tome in one day.
But the one thing I did notice was that Rhett Butler has got it in spades:
- He has a great introduction. Scarlett sees someone staring at her & she asks a friend, "Who's THAT nasty dark one?" The audience has not seen Rhett yet, but we're intrigued.
- There's very little physical description of Rhett, except we get a flavor for him just by how he stands: "[He] lounges at the foot of the stairs, a mint julep glass in his hand, smiling up at them." His physicality is less important than his attitude.
- He consistently has the best lines: "No...I don't think I will kiss you. Although you need kissing - badly."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Rhett Butler is written as a strong man who's not afraid to tell a woman he loves her. I don't see him as weak for that admission, but stronger.
I'm glad to see this tough-tender balance b/c characters often lean too much one way or the other.
Gone With the Wind (1939)
by Sidney Howard
I confess that I wasn't able to finish this 256 page tome in one day.
But the one thing I did notice was that Rhett Butler has got it in spades:
- He has a great introduction. Scarlett sees someone staring at her & she asks a friend, "Who's THAT nasty dark one?" The audience has not seen Rhett yet, but we're intrigued.
- There's very little physical description of Rhett, except we get a flavor for him just by how he stands: "[He] lounges at the foot of the stairs, a mint julep glass in his hand, smiling up at them." His physicality is less important than his attitude.
- He consistently has the best lines: "No...I don't think I will kiss you. Although you need kissing - badly."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Rhett Butler is written as a strong man who's not afraid to tell a woman he loves her. I don't see him as weak for that admission, but stronger.
I'm glad to see this tough-tender balance b/c characters often lean too much one way or the other.
Gone With the Wind (1939)
by Sidney Howard
Sunday, November 7, 2010
TODAY'S NUGGET: #24 WGA Script of All Time - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
[Quick Summary: After a nasty breakup with Clementine, Joel undergoes a procedure to erase her from his memory. But soon he becomes desperate to keep those memories.]
Charlie Kaufman certainly is not afraid of multiple jumps in time & location. In lesser hands, the reader would get lost.
Kaufman, however, uses simple sentences to:
- paint the picture
- transition to the jump
- keep the momentum going.
(Note that simple does not mean boring or plodding. ex. "Sally sat down. She sipped coffee. She cried." I beg of you - no more.)
Kaufman doesn't break up the flow with a slugline "INT. WE ARE GOING INTO A MEMORY NOW." Instead, he uses the narrative wisely.
ex. Joel is in the lab hooked up to a machine. The scene transitions from the lab into Joel's memory. Here are three consecutive sentences:
1) "The room, Stan, & Mierzwiak are now vague and wispy." Clearly we're fading from the present moment.
2) "Joel watches Stan. Stan is not speaking, yet his voice continues." Again, it's clear lips aren't moving, and Joel is sinking into the memory.
3) "Joel looks up. Stan's voice seems to be coming from above." It's very clear that we're transitioning to a jump in time or location.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The audience can follow jumps in time & location, but only if the writer is CLEAR what is happening.
The best way is simple sentences, & proper preparation in the narrative for the jumps.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
by Charlie Kaufman
Charlie Kaufman certainly is not afraid of multiple jumps in time & location. In lesser hands, the reader would get lost.
Kaufman, however, uses simple sentences to:
- paint the picture
- transition to the jump
- keep the momentum going.
(Note that simple does not mean boring or plodding. ex. "Sally sat down. She sipped coffee. She cried." I beg of you - no more.)
Kaufman doesn't break up the flow with a slugline "INT. WE ARE GOING INTO A MEMORY NOW." Instead, he uses the narrative wisely.
ex. Joel is in the lab hooked up to a machine. The scene transitions from the lab into Joel's memory. Here are three consecutive sentences:
1) "The room, Stan, & Mierzwiak are now vague and wispy." Clearly we're fading from the present moment.
2) "Joel watches Stan. Stan is not speaking, yet his voice continues." Again, it's clear lips aren't moving, and Joel is sinking into the memory.
3) "Joel looks up. Stan's voice seems to be coming from above." It's very clear that we're transitioning to a jump in time or location.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The audience can follow jumps in time & location, but only if the writer is CLEAR what is happening.
The best way is simple sentences, & proper preparation in the narrative for the jumps.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
by Charlie Kaufman
Saturday, November 6, 2010
TODAY'S NUGGET: #25 WGA Script of All Time - Wizard of Oz (1939)
[Quick Summary: A tornado sends Dorothy to Oz, where she befriends the Scarecrow, Tin Man & Lion. She must bring the Wicked Witch of the West's broomstick to the Great Oz in order to get home.]
Usually I see:
1) subplots that are disconnected from the main plot.
2) subplots w/ minor characters that try to stand out too much, i.e., They think this is their movie.
Wizard of Oz stands out b/c all the subplots support the main character's goal, i.e., Dorothy's journey home.
This is especially clear in Act 3 when Dorothy isn't around:
ex. The Scarecrow uses his brain to get into the castle to rescue Dorothy.
ex. The Tin Man cares so much that he breaks down her jail door.
ex. The Lion faces his fear and uses courage to rally the troops when he'd rather back down.
Why does this work?
Because the supporting cast are all invested in the main character.
Because they know this is Dorothy's movie, thus they are working toward Dorothy's goals. Yes, they get their goals met too, but only b/c they're in service to the main character's goals.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Subplots should echo the theme back to the main character.
Here's Dorothy realizes "there's no place like home" b/c each of the subplots remind her how much she took the Kansas farmhands for granted.
Wizard of Oz (1939)
by Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allen Woolf
Usually I see:
1) subplots that are disconnected from the main plot.
2) subplots w/ minor characters that try to stand out too much, i.e., They think this is their movie.
Wizard of Oz stands out b/c all the subplots support the main character's goal, i.e., Dorothy's journey home.
This is especially clear in Act 3 when Dorothy isn't around:
ex. The Scarecrow uses his brain to get into the castle to rescue Dorothy.
ex. The Tin Man cares so much that he breaks down her jail door.
ex. The Lion faces his fear and uses courage to rally the troops when he'd rather back down.
Why does this work?
Because the supporting cast are all invested in the main character.
Because they know this is Dorothy's movie, thus they are working toward Dorothy's goals. Yes, they get their goals met too, but only b/c they're in service to the main character's goals.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Subplots should echo the theme back to the main character.
Here's Dorothy realizes "there's no place like home" b/c each of the subplots remind her how much she took the Kansas farmhands for granted.
Wizard of Oz (1939)
by Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allen Woolf
Friday, November 5, 2010
TODAY'S NUGGET: #26 WGA Script of All Time - Double Indemnity (1944)
[Quick Summary: A wicked married woman cleverly persuades an insurance man to kill her husband on a train so she gets extra insurance money (double indemnity clause). The insurance man gets a conscience too late & he's her pawn.]
Double Indemnity is a serious humdinger of a script.
I started to write about suspense, but found myself wondering about character, in particular, Mrs. Phyllis Dietrichson's brass knuckles.
She is written as a smart, careful, lady-like antagonist. But she is really an evil seductress who hit men hard when they're down, & fillets them wide open.
Why do they always wake up too late?
I think it's because her character traits are: manipulator, strategist, & siren.
ex. Manipulator - The protagonist Neff is appalled at her "innocent" question about how to get her husband a policy w/o him knowing about it. She visits him the next day & plays up the frightened woman who only feels safe with him. He steps up to "protect" her.
ex. Strategist - She verbally says, "I don't want to kill him"...but all her innuendo encourages Neff to think she's denying how she really feels. She makes him think it's all his brilliant plan.
ex. Siren - She is underplayed, & more reactive than active...or so we're lead to believe. She is always two steps ahead, & thus doubly dangerous. The audience focuses on Neff, who is an active protagonist, but they should really be paying attention to her.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Phyllis' brass knuckles work b/c she never breaks character.
She flutters about with a sympathetic air that brings out Neff's protective side...& causes him to make some awful decisions (but help her).
Double Indemnity (1944)
by Billy Wilder & Raymond Chandler
*For more, check out "Conversations with Wilder", by Cameron Crowe. It's an invaluable look at Wilder's opinions on what makes writing great, what works, & what does not.
Double Indemnity is a serious humdinger of a script.
I started to write about suspense, but found myself wondering about character, in particular, Mrs. Phyllis Dietrichson's brass knuckles.
She is written as a smart, careful, lady-like antagonist. But she is really an evil seductress who hit men hard when they're down, & fillets them wide open.
Why do they always wake up too late?
I think it's because her character traits are: manipulator, strategist, & siren.
ex. Manipulator - The protagonist Neff is appalled at her "innocent" question about how to get her husband a policy w/o him knowing about it. She visits him the next day & plays up the frightened woman who only feels safe with him. He steps up to "protect" her.
ex. Strategist - She verbally says, "I don't want to kill him"...but all her innuendo encourages Neff to think she's denying how she really feels. She makes him think it's all his brilliant plan.
ex. Siren - She is underplayed, & more reactive than active...or so we're lead to believe. She is always two steps ahead, & thus doubly dangerous. The audience focuses on Neff, who is an active protagonist, but they should really be paying attention to her.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Phyllis' brass knuckles work b/c she never breaks character.
She flutters about with a sympathetic air that brings out Neff's protective side...& causes him to make some awful decisions (but help her).
Double Indemnity (1944)
by Billy Wilder & Raymond Chandler
*For more, check out "Conversations with Wilder", by Cameron Crowe. It's an invaluable look at Wilder's opinions on what makes writing great, what works, & what does not.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
TODAY'S NUGGET: #28 WGA Script of All Time - Shakespeare in Love (1998)
[Quick Summary: Will Shakespeare needs a muse. He finds it in Viola, but she is to marry another. Through their love affair, Shakespeare is able to write again.]
This script should be wrapped in brown paper w/ a stern warning that says "Not For Amateurs."
It is a historical (usually an automatic "no").
It is an ensemble with umpteen characters, including historical characters (tough to give everyone screen time).
It's dense. Very dense. (not just b/c it's 129 pages; It is black print dense w/exposition, a lot of detail.)
It's got multiple plot lines (not for the faint of heart).
The action parallels Shakespeare's play (are you really going to go there? REALLY?)
For those reasons, it could've gone very wrong...but the writer turned out a technically difficult, well structured script. It deserved all the accolades for completing such an extraordinary feat.
All that being said, I liked the script but didn't love it. I empathized with Will, but didn't ache for him.
(It's probably just a matter of taste.)
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When attempting to reinvent history, it's best to keep the main story strong & simple. Here, a man finds his muse, & love, thus, he's able to truly write from the heart again.
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard
This script should be wrapped in brown paper w/ a stern warning that says "Not For Amateurs."
It is a historical (usually an automatic "no").
It is an ensemble with umpteen characters, including historical characters (tough to give everyone screen time).
It's dense. Very dense. (not just b/c it's 129 pages; It is black print dense w/exposition, a lot of detail.)
It's got multiple plot lines (not for the faint of heart).
The action parallels Shakespeare's play (are you really going to go there? REALLY?)
For those reasons, it could've gone very wrong...but the writer turned out a technically difficult, well structured script. It deserved all the accolades for completing such an extraordinary feat.
All that being said, I liked the script but didn't love it. I empathized with Will, but didn't ache for him.
(It's probably just a matter of taste.)
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When attempting to reinvent history, it's best to keep the main story strong & simple. Here, a man finds his muse, & love, thus, he's able to truly write from the heart again.
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)