[Quick Summary: Based on a true 1972 story, two robbers hold up a Brooklyn bank (one robber is financing his lover's sex change operation), and become the first inadvertent media darlings.]
Though the 1st half of the script was struggle to read, I was impressed by the opening lines:
"EXT. ELECTRIC SIGN
It FILLS THE SCREEN....It says:
2:51
This message will be a little cryptic to the movie audience on an essentially BLACK SCREEN. HOLD for a beat, then it changes: the lights flash this sign, which should explain it to everyone:
94 degrees F."
I know everything in a few sentences:
- It's summer & hot & in the afternoon.
- We're at a bank.
- Something is about to go down at the bank.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's extremely smart to orient your reader to the location.
It says, "I'm not trying to outsmart you, reader. I trust you. We're in this together."
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
by Frank Pierson
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #70 WGA Script of All Time -The African Queen (1951)
[Quick Summary: After the Germans burn down her jungle village, the only survivor, a missionary's sister, convinces a riverman to hunt down enemy's warship.]
*Sigh.*
I know I'm supposed to like this script, but I did not. I wish I did.
It's well crafted. There are stakes. The dialogue flows.
Yet, it didn't move me.
Well, except for the spark between Allnutt (Bogart) & Rose (Hepburn). Allnutt changes dramatically because of Rose. She's a strong female who doesn't fall into overused female stereotypes.
Guess what is her strongest tool? Her opinion of Allnutt. It's more effective than a sword.
ex. Rose has just dumped all Allnutt's precious gin into the jungle river. He is aghast.
ROSE: So you think it was your nasty drunkenness I mind.
A foolish, helpless gesture from Allnutt.
ALLNUTT (bewildered): Well --wot else?
ROSE: You lied to me.....You promised.
ALLNUTT (shouting): Well, I'm takin' my promise back!
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To write a strong female character, make her a woman to be reckoned with.
The African Queen (1951)
by James Agee, John Huston & Peter Viertel
*Sigh.*
I know I'm supposed to like this script, but I did not. I wish I did.
It's well crafted. There are stakes. The dialogue flows.
Yet, it didn't move me.
Well, except for the spark between Allnutt (Bogart) & Rose (Hepburn). Allnutt changes dramatically because of Rose. She's a strong female who doesn't fall into overused female stereotypes.
Guess what is her strongest tool? Her opinion of Allnutt. It's more effective than a sword.
ex. Rose has just dumped all Allnutt's precious gin into the jungle river. He is aghast.
ROSE: So you think it was your nasty drunkenness I mind.
A foolish, helpless gesture from Allnutt.
ALLNUTT (bewildered): Well --wot else?
ROSE: You lied to me.....You promised.
ALLNUTT (shouting): Well, I'm takin' my promise back!
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To write a strong female character, make her a woman to be reckoned with.
The African Queen (1951)
by James Agee, John Huston & Peter Viertel
Monday, July 18, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #71 WGA Script of All Time - Lion in Winter (1968)
[Quick Summary: King Henry II & his estranged wife Eleanor of Acquitaine battle over which son will succeed to the throne: his pick (weak teenager John), her pick (military Richard), or no one's pick (Geoffrey).]
Eleanor of Acquitaine has some @_#$)(*%&!! balls.
She's been imprisoned for 10 yrs., her husband has replaced her with a mistress, she has weak sons, & her heart still aches for Henry.
Yet she is conniving & EXTREME in getting her son Richard on the throne.
The best two moments in the script are when the stakes rise to unbelievably tense heights:
- After 10 yrs. in prison, Henry promises her freedom - if he gets the Acquitaine in exchange. Unfortunately, the transfer would 100% ensure that Richard will not be king. Will she give up her freedom for her son's throne (her goal)?
- Henry knocks her for a loop when he demands an annulment so he can marry his mistress, French princess Alais (who is actually intended as a wife for Richard).
This shatters her. Above all else, she prizes being important to Henry. If he truly wants to cut ties with her, how will Eleanor deal with being unimportant to him?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Stakes rise because the character is about to lose something of great importance.
Knowing your character's trigger points is extremely helpful.
Lion in Winter (1968)
by James Goldman (older brother of William Goldman)
Eleanor of Acquitaine has some @_#$)(*%&!! balls.
She's been imprisoned for 10 yrs., her husband has replaced her with a mistress, she has weak sons, & her heart still aches for Henry.
Yet she is conniving & EXTREME in getting her son Richard on the throne.
The best two moments in the script are when the stakes rise to unbelievably tense heights:
- After 10 yrs. in prison, Henry promises her freedom - if he gets the Acquitaine in exchange. Unfortunately, the transfer would 100% ensure that Richard will not be king. Will she give up her freedom for her son's throne (her goal)?
- Henry knocks her for a loop when he demands an annulment so he can marry his mistress, French princess Alais (who is actually intended as a wife for Richard).
This shatters her. Above all else, she prizes being important to Henry. If he truly wants to cut ties with her, how will Eleanor deal with being unimportant to him?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Stakes rise because the character is about to lose something of great importance.
Knowing your character's trigger points is extremely helpful.
Lion in Winter (1968)
by James Goldman (older brother of William Goldman)
Friday, July 15, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #72 WGA Script of All Time - Thelma & Louise (1991)
[Quick Summary: When two female best friends go on a road trip, Thelma is almost raped by a stranger, & Louise shoots him, causing them to flee toward Mexico, with a trail of police on their tail.]
Louise has a cloud that hangs over her.
The audience doesn't know where it comes from until late into the film, but we SEE it underneath her actions.
The writer shows her mastery of subtext by showing, not telling, that Louise is a control freak & has trouble trusting any man.
ex. Harlan laughs. Thelma laughs, too, but doesn't really get the joke. Louise does not laugh.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is trusting your reader.
Giving just enough info, but not treating them like they can''t put two and two together.
Thelma & Louise (1991)
by Callie Khouri
Louise has a cloud that hangs over her.
The audience doesn't know where it comes from until late into the film, but we SEE it underneath her actions.
The writer shows her mastery of subtext by showing, not telling, that Louise is a control freak & has trouble trusting any man.
ex. Harlan laughs. Thelma laughs, too, but doesn't really get the joke. Louise does not laugh.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is trusting your reader.
Giving just enough info, but not treating them like they can''t put two and two together.
Thelma & Louise (1991)
by Callie Khouri
Friday, July 8, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #73 WGA Script of All Time - Amadeus (1984)
[Quick Summary: In an insane asylum, Antonio Salieri recalls how he manipulated everything in his power so that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart cannot succeed - but fails.]
Salieri is a damned man.
He's a vindictive guy, consumed by jealousy, powerful, rich, & ...oh yeah, he's the protagonist.
How did the writer, Peter Shaffer, make the bad guy someone the audience actually sympathizes with?
One reason is that it is easy to relate to Salieri:
- He shows (NOT TELLS) his jealousy.
- He wants to be the best composer (his goal), but Mozart is better.
- He is prideful (a universal flaw) which he struggles with.
Another reason is that Mozart is a tough antagonist.
Watch how the script uses music as an extension of Mozart...Mozart is pushing Salieri even though Mozart isn't in the room.
ex. "[Salieri] walks around and around his salon, reading the pages [Mozart's work] and dropping them on the floor when he is done with them. [This is the action we see on screen.]
We see his agonized and wondering face: he shudders as if in a rough and tumbling sea; he experiences the point where beauty and great pain coalesce.... [This is the reaction shot to the music, i.e., his enemy Mozart.]
Finally we hear the tremendous Qui Tollis from the Mass in C Minor. It seems to break over him like a wave and, unable to bear any more of it, he slams the portfolio shut. [Salieri & Mozart have battled.]
Instantly the music breaks off, reverberating in his head. [The stakes have risen. Salieri knows he's lost to Mozart & is shaken.]
He stands shaking, staring wildly. Constanze [Mozart's wife] gets up, perplexed.
CONSTANZE: Is it no good?
A pause.
SALIERI: It is miraculous."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A bad guy is sympathetic if he's flawed & human.
Amadeus (1984)
by Peter Shaffer
Salieri is a damned man.
He's a vindictive guy, consumed by jealousy, powerful, rich, & ...oh yeah, he's the protagonist.
How did the writer, Peter Shaffer, make the bad guy someone the audience actually sympathizes with?
One reason is that it is easy to relate to Salieri:
- He shows (NOT TELLS) his jealousy.
- He wants to be the best composer (his goal), but Mozart is better.
- He is prideful (a universal flaw) which he struggles with.
Another reason is that Mozart is a tough antagonist.
Watch how the script uses music as an extension of Mozart...Mozart is pushing Salieri even though Mozart isn't in the room.
ex. "[Salieri] walks around and around his salon, reading the pages [Mozart's work] and dropping them on the floor when he is done with them. [This is the action we see on screen.]
We see his agonized and wondering face: he shudders as if in a rough and tumbling sea; he experiences the point where beauty and great pain coalesce.... [This is the reaction shot to the music, i.e., his enemy Mozart.]
Finally we hear the tremendous Qui Tollis from the Mass in C Minor. It seems to break over him like a wave and, unable to bear any more of it, he slams the portfolio shut. [Salieri & Mozart have battled.]
Instantly the music breaks off, reverberating in his head. [The stakes have risen. Salieri knows he's lost to Mozart & is shaken.]
He stands shaking, staring wildly. Constanze [Mozart's wife] gets up, perplexed.
CONSTANZE: Is it no good?
A pause.
SALIERI: It is miraculous."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A bad guy is sympathetic if he's flawed & human.
Amadeus (1984)
by Peter Shaffer
Friday, July 1, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #74 WGA Script of All Time - Being John Malkovich (1999)
[Quick Summary: A puppeteer begins work at a short, rather hum-drum office, and discovers a portal directly into actor John Malkovich's head.]
The reason why Charlie Kaufman is on this danged list three times is because he writes stuff like this:
INT. CAR - NIGHT
Lotte drives. Craig looks out the window. Both are silent.
LOTTE (finally): Is the trial date set?
CRAIG: May 11th.
More silence.
LOTTE: Why'd you do it, Craig?
CRAIG: I'm a puppeteer.
In that small scene, the audience knows who Craig is.
He's a guy who takes risks, lives on the edge, & connects with others through a weird passion for puppeteering.
He's got a wife who isn't on the same wavelength.
He's kind of crazy, but not insane.
He's going to get in a lot of trouble (& drive the action) because he has this pent up need to express himself, & makes unwise decisions.
So why do we root for Craig? And, more importantly, how did Charlie Kaufman do that?
Kaufman wrote Craig as a man doggedly pursuing a hope & a longing to connect.
Craig may make unwise decisions, & fail, & encounter unbelievable things, but he never has a false moment. And that is why Craig is universally understood.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I don't have to like the character, or his decisions or actions, but I DO have to understand him.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
by Charlie Kaufman
The reason why Charlie Kaufman is on this danged list three times is because he writes stuff like this:
INT. CAR - NIGHT
Lotte drives. Craig looks out the window. Both are silent.
LOTTE (finally): Is the trial date set?
CRAIG: May 11th.
More silence.
LOTTE: Why'd you do it, Craig?
CRAIG: I'm a puppeteer.
In that small scene, the audience knows who Craig is.
He's a guy who takes risks, lives on the edge, & connects with others through a weird passion for puppeteering.
He's got a wife who isn't on the same wavelength.
He's kind of crazy, but not insane.
He's going to get in a lot of trouble (& drive the action) because he has this pent up need to express himself, & makes unwise decisions.
So why do we root for Craig? And, more importantly, how did Charlie Kaufman do that?
Kaufman wrote Craig as a man doggedly pursuing a hope & a longing to connect.
Craig may make unwise decisions, & fail, & encounter unbelievable things, but he never has a false moment. And that is why Craig is universally understood.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I don't have to like the character, or his decisions or actions, but I DO have to understand him.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
by Charlie Kaufman
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #75 WGA Script of All Time - High Noon (1952)
[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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)