[Quick Summary: When news breaks that a feared felon is returning to town, the recently married Marshal Doane puts his future on hold to scrounge up a volunteer posse, but no one will step up.]
What are my biggest pet peeves?
1) Chase/fight/action scenes that are emotional wastelands. (AUUGH!)
2) On the nose dialogue. (AUUUUUUUGH!)
Luckily, "High Noon" has:
1) Chase/fight/action scenes loaded with emotion.
2) Dialogue that is real. (Not caricatured with gunslinger sayings.)
ex. "Doane watches the Judge make his saddlebags and books secure. Mettrick gives the straps a final tug, hesitates, then turns to face Doan.
[Mettrick isn't just leaving physically. He's abandoning his friend who is in desperate need.]
METTRICK: Goodbye, Will...
DOANE (flatly): Goodbye.
[Subtexted. What else do you say to someone who is about to send you to the dogs?]
Mettrick is horribly ashamed. Doane tries to hid his own sick, still somewhat dazed shock and disappointment.
[These reaction shots to the other character give the reader a sense of uneasy, roiling emotions.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Emotion should show through the action.
And the Western flavored dialogue was based more in attitude in than because of any particular words.
High Noon (1952)
by Carl Foreman, based on a story by John M. Cunningham
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #76 WGA Script of All Time - Raging Bull (1980)
[Quick Summary: An insecure, jealous boxer battles his way to success in the ring, but his personal life crumbles.]
The first real screenwriting advice I received was, "Never use flashbacks. It's cheating."
After covering many, many scripts, I want to amend it: “Never use flashbacks UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING. OTHERWISE, it’s cheating.”
If you’re using flashbacks to insert needless back story, it’s cheating.
If you’re using flashbacks to make a very specific point, it could be very effective.
In “Raging Bull”, the writer jumps between 1964 (an overweight, out-of-shape Jake LaMotta), and 1956-1958 (Jake in his prime) for a specific reason.
The script is about regret and the inability to trust.
What’s the best way to show this? Juxtapose the present with all his past mistakes.
Ex. In 1964, Jake is full of remorse that he hit and blamed his only trusted ally, his brother Joey in 1951.
The script flashes back to 1951. Jake is lost without Joey, and has lost the will to fight. He practically hands over the middleweight crown to nemesis Sugar Ray Leonard.
In 1964, Jake admits he was wrong. The flashback emphasizes that he really didn't know why he overreacted then. The juxtaposition shows Jake still does not why now.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Flashbacks are useful if use sparingly and with a defined purpose.
Raging Bull (1980)
by Paul Schrader
The first real screenwriting advice I received was, "Never use flashbacks. It's cheating."
After covering many, many scripts, I want to amend it: “Never use flashbacks UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING. OTHERWISE, it’s cheating.”
If you’re using flashbacks to insert needless back story, it’s cheating.
If you’re using flashbacks to make a very specific point, it could be very effective.
In “Raging Bull”, the writer jumps between 1964 (an overweight, out-of-shape Jake LaMotta), and 1956-1958 (Jake in his prime) for a specific reason.
The script is about regret and the inability to trust.
What’s the best way to show this? Juxtapose the present with all his past mistakes.
Ex. In 1964, Jake is full of remorse that he hit and blamed his only trusted ally, his brother Joey in 1951.
The script flashes back to 1951. Jake is lost without Joey, and has lost the will to fight. He practically hands over the middleweight crown to nemesis Sugar Ray Leonard.
In 1964, Jake admits he was wrong. The flashback emphasizes that he really didn't know why he overreacted then. The juxtaposition shows Jake still does not why now.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Flashbacks are useful if use sparingly and with a defined purpose.
Raging Bull (1980)
by Paul Schrader
Friday, June 10, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #77 WGA Script of All Time - Adaption (2002)
[Quick Summary: A neurotic screenwriter puts himself into his adaption of the book, The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean, but when he meets the author in real life, it's nothing like he expects.]
Ok, we know Charlie Kaufman can write.
Ok, not just write, he's got a unique tone & voice, & point of view.
Ok, not just write with a unique tone, voice, & point of view, he's bloody imaginative.
This script is on the list because it does something only found in a Kaufman script.
First, there are several stories:
A - Charlie is a depressed, woman obsessed screenwriter. His twin brother Donald wants to be a screenwriter, takes a McKee weekend course, & sells a million dollar screenplay.
B- The script shows scenes from the book "The Orchid Thief". Charlie falls for Susan Orlean in the book.
C - Charlie meets Susan Orlean in real life. She's not exactly like she is in the book... & she kidnaps him.
Second, the script flows from one story to the next, into fantasies & the past & back to reality, AND I AM NEVER LOST.
I need to emphasize how extraordinarily RARE RARE RARE this feat is.
Yes, he uses subtitles. Yes, he has clear sluglines.
But what's really the secret? The flow is uncomplicated & clear.
ex. Scene 1 - In the past, a teenage Charlie reads a book in his room. Out the window, he sees Donald talking to two girls. Donald walks away, happy. The girls make fun of Donald behind his back.
Scene 2 - In the present, "Kaufman stares at a blank sheet of paper in a typewriter."
Scene 3 - The script jumps to a swamp scene in the book.
Scene 1 to 2: There's no other narrative, but it's clear to the reader that Charlie is staring at the paper & is reliving that moment of embarrassment for his brother.
Scene 2 to 3: Then the script moves to what Charlie is reading...as if he moved away from the embarrassing memory. It's clear he's moved on, but there's no unnecessary "Charlie picks up The Orchid Thief..."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can take the reader anywhere, just as long as they can follow your sequence with some sort of logic.
Adaption (2002)
by Charlie Kaufman
Ok, we know Charlie Kaufman can write.
Ok, not just write, he's got a unique tone & voice, & point of view.
Ok, not just write with a unique tone, voice, & point of view, he's bloody imaginative.
This script is on the list because it does something only found in a Kaufman script.
First, there are several stories:
A - Charlie is a depressed, woman obsessed screenwriter. His twin brother Donald wants to be a screenwriter, takes a McKee weekend course, & sells a million dollar screenplay.
B- The script shows scenes from the book "The Orchid Thief". Charlie falls for Susan Orlean in the book.
C - Charlie meets Susan Orlean in real life. She's not exactly like she is in the book... & she kidnaps him.
Second, the script flows from one story to the next, into fantasies & the past & back to reality, AND I AM NEVER LOST.
I need to emphasize how extraordinarily RARE RARE RARE this feat is.
Yes, he uses subtitles. Yes, he has clear sluglines.
But what's really the secret? The flow is uncomplicated & clear.
ex. Scene 1 - In the past, a teenage Charlie reads a book in his room. Out the window, he sees Donald talking to two girls. Donald walks away, happy. The girls make fun of Donald behind his back.
Scene 2 - In the present, "Kaufman stares at a blank sheet of paper in a typewriter."
Scene 3 - The script jumps to a swamp scene in the book.
Scene 1 to 2: There's no other narrative, but it's clear to the reader that Charlie is staring at the paper & is reliving that moment of embarrassment for his brother.
Scene 2 to 3: Then the script moves to what Charlie is reading...as if he moved away from the embarrassing memory. It's clear he's moved on, but there's no unnecessary "Charlie picks up The Orchid Thief..."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can take the reader anywhere, just as long as they can follow your sequence with some sort of logic.
Adaption (2002)
by Charlie Kaufman
Friday, June 3, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #78 WGA Script of All Time - Rocky (1976)
[Quick Summary: A small time boxer gets the chance of a lifetime to fight the reigning Champ.]
"Rocky" surprised me. It's a simple, clean script.
Rocky has a clear goal. He's got flaws to overcome. He's got a strong antagonist that pushes him to arc. There are subplots that support Rocky's journey.
How hard is it to write a simple, clean script with a character that sticks to his goal and overcomes his flaw?
Very.
Most of the specs I see are overwritten (ex. overlapping description in both the dialogue and narrative) or underwritten (ex. jumps of logic that make it hard to follow).
It's tough to get the balance just right such as "Rocky".
So what's a solution? Writing lots of scripts. Reading lots of scripts.
How many is "lots of scripts"? One more than you have written or read.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: "Rocky" works because it's simple, and clean. Very hard to do.
Rocky (1976)
By Sylvester Stallone
"Rocky" surprised me. It's a simple, clean script.
Rocky has a clear goal. He's got flaws to overcome. He's got a strong antagonist that pushes him to arc. There are subplots that support Rocky's journey.
How hard is it to write a simple, clean script with a character that sticks to his goal and overcomes his flaw?
Very.
Most of the specs I see are overwritten (ex. overlapping description in both the dialogue and narrative) or underwritten (ex. jumps of logic that make it hard to follow).
It's tough to get the balance just right such as "Rocky".
So what's a solution? Writing lots of scripts. Reading lots of scripts.
How many is "lots of scripts"? One more than you have written or read.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: "Rocky" works because it's simple, and clean. Very hard to do.
Rocky (1976)
By Sylvester Stallone
Friday, May 27, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #79 WGA Script of All Time - The Producers (1968)
[Quick Summary: Con-man producer Max Bialystock convinces timid accountant Leo Bloom to put on a sure-fire flop on Broadway and thus profit from the loss.]
What I love about this script is how the audience literally sees Leo Bloom bloom.
(You think his last name is accidental? Think again.)
Leo is a nervous, fearful, blanket-carrying accountant. But because bold Max pushes him, Leo learns to face his fears.
The brilliance of the script is that we SEE the small changes in Leo, i.e., we SEE his character arc.
Here's a good example of one of these small changes:
ex. Max persuades Leo to ditch work & have lunch at Coney Island. Leo hasn't been there since he was a kid.
Leo is loosening up. He chooses a daring pistachio as his fourth ice cream cone.
MAX: Well, Leo, are you having a good time?
LEO: I don't know. I think so. I feel very strange.
MAX: Maybe you're happy.
LEO: Yes. That's it. Happy. Well, whatta ya think of that. Happy.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Change happens in increments, not leaps.
So your character needs to SHOW change in increments, not leaps.
The Producers (1968)
by Mel Brooks
What I love about this script is how the audience literally sees Leo Bloom bloom.
(You think his last name is accidental? Think again.)
Leo is a nervous, fearful, blanket-carrying accountant. But because bold Max pushes him, Leo learns to face his fears.
The brilliance of the script is that we SEE the small changes in Leo, i.e., we SEE his character arc.
Here's a good example of one of these small changes:
ex. Max persuades Leo to ditch work & have lunch at Coney Island. Leo hasn't been there since he was a kid.
Leo is loosening up. He chooses a daring pistachio as his fourth ice cream cone.
MAX: Well, Leo, are you having a good time?
LEO: I don't know. I think so. I feel very strange.
MAX: Maybe you're happy.
LEO: Yes. That's it. Happy. Well, whatta ya think of that. Happy.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Change happens in increments, not leaps.
So your character needs to SHOW change in increments, not leaps.
The Producers (1968)
by Mel Brooks
Sunday, May 22, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #80 WGA Script of All Time - Witness (1985)
[Quick Summary: After a young Amish boy witnesses a cop being murdered in the big city, an Internal Affairs cop takes the boy and his mother back to the Amish to protect them from a killer.]
When I read spec scripts, I see many writers (including myself) fall into the trap of a lousy protagonist introduction.
Here's a typical example:
JOHN DOE, 22, a hip hop wannabe, wears run down sneakers and a ripped t-shirt. He's 6'2", handsome with brown hair and blue eyes.
"But wait!" you say. "What's so bad about that?"
Let me list the ways:
1) I know very little about John's mental state. Yeah, you heard me. Is he worried? Happy?
2) I expect every word to be important. Is his height going to pay off later? Does his eye color change later? If not, then realize right now: I WILL FORGET YOU WROTE THIS.
3) This is a static description. There is no movement.
Here's the intro of John Book in "Witness". Pay attention.
"The diffused shape of faces behind the frosted glass of the mens' [sic] room door, which is pushed open to reveal, JOHN BOOK, who comes striding through to be momentarily lost in the crowd of police, reporters and others. He is about 40, with a rangy, athletic body."
OK, this is a long intro, but it got me interested.
1) I know that John Book is a no-nonsense guy just by his walk. He's focused, on a mission.
2) Brevity & conciseness here. He's 40, i.e., he's not a rookie. He's rangy & athletic, i.e., he's got some ability to protect & defend.
3) He's in motion. My mind's eye tracks John as he travels out of the men's room, which was the crime scene. What was he doing in there? Is he a good guy? Bad guy? I want to know more.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: An introduction should keep the reader's eye moving, & only relay what is absolutely necessary (if in doubt, leave it out).
Witness (1985)
by Earl W. Wallace & William Kelley
When I read spec scripts, I see many writers (including myself) fall into the trap of a lousy protagonist introduction.
Here's a typical example:
JOHN DOE, 22, a hip hop wannabe, wears run down sneakers and a ripped t-shirt. He's 6'2", handsome with brown hair and blue eyes.
"But wait!" you say. "What's so bad about that?"
Let me list the ways:
1) I know very little about John's mental state. Yeah, you heard me. Is he worried? Happy?
2) I expect every word to be important. Is his height going to pay off later? Does his eye color change later? If not, then realize right now: I WILL FORGET YOU WROTE THIS.
3) This is a static description. There is no movement.
Here's the intro of John Book in "Witness". Pay attention.
"The diffused shape of faces behind the frosted glass of the mens' [sic] room door, which is pushed open to reveal, JOHN BOOK, who comes striding through to be momentarily lost in the crowd of police, reporters and others. He is about 40, with a rangy, athletic body."
OK, this is a long intro, but it got me interested.
1) I know that John Book is a no-nonsense guy just by his walk. He's focused, on a mission.
2) Brevity & conciseness here. He's 40, i.e., he's not a rookie. He's rangy & athletic, i.e., he's got some ability to protect & defend.
3) He's in motion. My mind's eye tracks John as he travels out of the men's room, which was the crime scene. What was he doing in there? Is he a good guy? Bad guy? I want to know more.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: An introduction should keep the reader's eye moving, & only relay what is absolutely necessary (if in doubt, leave it out).
Witness (1985)
by Earl W. Wallace & William Kelley
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #81 WGA Script of All Time - Being There (1979)
[Quick Summary: A simple gardener is oblivious when his simple words about gardening are misinterpreted as financial advice, and he becomes overnight sensation in Washington, D.C.]
I was going to wax eloquent about the use of misinterpretation in this script (it's at a genius level).
But if you're a serious comedy writer, you'll study the script yourself.
I want to talk about economy of the writing. It's also stellar.
Watch closely:
INT. PRESIDENT'S BEDROOM - NIGHT
The President & First Lady are very attentive.....
BURNS (on TV): Do you feel that we have a 'very good gardener' in office at this time, Mr. Gardiner?
PRESIDENT: ....That bastard...
What did the writers leave out?
- They didn't need to explain the couple is watching tv.
- They didn't need to include direction like INTERCUT BETWEEN TV AND ROOM (it's self-explanatory).
- They didn't need a reaction shot.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can always tell when writers know what they're doing. It's always "less is more".
Being There (1979)
by Jerzy Kosinski & Robert C. Jones
(From the novel by Jerzy Kosinski)
http://www.mypdfscripts.com/screenplays/being-there
I was going to wax eloquent about the use of misinterpretation in this script (it's at a genius level).
But if you're a serious comedy writer, you'll study the script yourself.
I want to talk about economy of the writing. It's also stellar.
Watch closely:
INT. PRESIDENT'S BEDROOM - NIGHT
The President & First Lady are very attentive.....
BURNS (on TV): Do you feel that we have a 'very good gardener' in office at this time, Mr. Gardiner?
PRESIDENT: ....That bastard...
What did the writers leave out?
- They didn't need to explain the couple is watching tv.
- They didn't need to include direction like INTERCUT BETWEEN TV AND ROOM (it's self-explanatory).
- They didn't need a reaction shot.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can always tell when writers know what they're doing. It's always "less is more".
Being There (1979)
by Jerzy Kosinski & Robert C. Jones
(From the novel by Jerzy Kosinski)
http://www.mypdfscripts.com/screenplays/being-there
Friday, May 13, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #82 WGA Script of All Time - Cool Hand Luke (1967)
[Quick Summary: A too-smart-for-his-own-good prisoner doesn't fit into a rural prison.]
Certain spec scripts (ex. torture porn, child abuse, rape) are painful to read.
Yet I have read them, & managed not to be scarred for life.
So why was the excellent Cool Hand Luke nearly too painful for me to read?
Because Luke keeps getting caught escaping prison. With each attempt, the guards crushes, demoralizes, pulverizes our hero...
...& we see a man losing hope.
A man without hope is scarier & uglier than blood & guts could ever be.
Don't believe me? Read p. 131 when Luke grovels for mercy.
The writers definitely deserve their Oscar nomination for crafting emotion on the page. The key is that they never went easy on their protagonist (something I see in too many spec scripts today).
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Luke's escapes were physical manifestations of his emotional state.
The more desperate he felt, the bolder his actions.
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
by Frank Pierson & Hal Dresner
Certain spec scripts (ex. torture porn, child abuse, rape) are painful to read.
Yet I have read them, & managed not to be scarred for life.
So why was the excellent Cool Hand Luke nearly too painful for me to read?
Because Luke keeps getting caught escaping prison. With each attempt, the guards crushes, demoralizes, pulverizes our hero...
...& we see a man losing hope.
A man without hope is scarier & uglier than blood & guts could ever be.
Don't believe me? Read p. 131 when Luke grovels for mercy.
The writers definitely deserve their Oscar nomination for crafting emotion on the page. The key is that they never went easy on their protagonist (something I see in too many spec scripts today).
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Luke's escapes were physical manifestations of his emotional state.
The more desperate he felt, the bolder his actions.
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
by Frank Pierson & Hal Dresner
Monday, May 9, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #85 WGA Script of All Time - La Grande Illusion (1937)
[Crap I skipped this script by mistake. My apologies.]
[Quick Summary: At the end of WWI, a group of French officers try to escape a German POW camp.]
I know this is a classic, but I had a hard time getting into the story.
This really isn't a war film. It's more about the relationships between men despite their nationalities, & the aristocratic soldier vs. modern warfare.
Why didn't I like it?
I guess because I found it hard to connect, except for a few small moments.
ex. When Marechal the mechanic escapes, he knocks on the home of single mother Elsa & asks for shelter. It's realistic how touch-&-go that situation could be, but he earns her trust.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes films go over my head. And that's ok.
La Grande Illusion
by Jean Renoir & Charles Spaak
Masterworks of the French Cinema, edited by John Weightman (1974)
[Quick Summary: At the end of WWI, a group of French officers try to escape a German POW camp.]
I know this is a classic, but I had a hard time getting into the story.
This really isn't a war film. It's more about the relationships between men despite their nationalities, & the aristocratic soldier vs. modern warfare.
Why didn't I like it?
I guess because I found it hard to connect, except for a few small moments.
ex. When Marechal the mechanic escapes, he knocks on the home of single mother Elsa & asks for shelter. It's realistic how touch-&-go that situation could be, but he earns her trust.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes films go over my head. And that's ok.
La Grande Illusion
by Jean Renoir & Charles Spaak
Masterworks of the French Cinema, edited by John Weightman (1974)
Friday, May 6, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #83 WGA Script of All Time - Rear Window (1954)
[Quick Summary: A recuperating photographer is suspicious of a neighbor whose wife has conveniently "gone on vacation."]
Bad news: This is a loooong, dense 160 pg. script. (Yeah, yeah, I know this is typical of Hitchcock scripts.)
Good news: It does transitions well.
(This is something that only serious writers study. Everyone else thinks transitions "just happen.")
ex. Jeff & Lisa argue. Jeff can't convince her that the salesman/neighbor in the far building is sinister.
Finally Jeff begins to concede maybe he's imagining things & makes a joke to Lisa. He waits for her response.
HERE'S THE TRANSITION: The script gives a VISUAL response instead of a verbal one. We see:
- Lisa in shock
- Lisa looking at the far building where the salesman is packing a big trunk to leave
- Lisa changed by what she sees (We know she believes Jeff now)
Then she turns to Jeff & asks: "Tell me everything..."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a great transition because it does several things at once:
1) It shows us how Lisa changed her mind AND
2) It shows us the salesman is moving fast to leave (ticking clock) AND
3) It shows us via visuals (instead of dialogue) that Lisa is committed to the cause
Not bad, eh?
Rear Window (1954)
by John Michael Hayes
Bad news: This is a loooong, dense 160 pg. script. (Yeah, yeah, I know this is typical of Hitchcock scripts.)
Good news: It does transitions well.
(This is something that only serious writers study. Everyone else thinks transitions "just happen.")
ex. Jeff & Lisa argue. Jeff can't convince her that the salesman/neighbor in the far building is sinister.
Finally Jeff begins to concede maybe he's imagining things & makes a joke to Lisa. He waits for her response.
HERE'S THE TRANSITION: The script gives a VISUAL response instead of a verbal one. We see:
- Lisa in shock
- Lisa looking at the far building where the salesman is packing a big trunk to leave
- Lisa changed by what she sees (We know she believes Jeff now)
Then she turns to Jeff & asks: "Tell me everything..."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a great transition because it does several things at once:
1) It shows us how Lisa changed her mind AND
2) It shows us the salesman is moving fast to leave (ticking clock) AND
3) It shows us via visuals (instead of dialogue) that Lisa is committed to the cause
Not bad, eh?
Rear Window (1954)
by John Michael Hayes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)