[Quick Summary: When a rebel is shipped to a super-oppressive psychiatric ward, he incites fellow patients to buck the establishment & take back some autonomy.]
My latest pet peeve in spec scripts are protagonists without goals.
"What if it's hard to describe the goal?" you might ask. "Like Jack Nicholson in 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'? What's his goal?"
Let's take a look.
This is a hard script to explain, much less summarize.
Murphy, the main character, arrives and quickly learns he can't do squat. Everything is pre-measured. Every response is critiqued.
It's like a cult. The routine is dull and designed to strip all creative thought.
So what does Murphy want? His goal is to be able to make his own decisions. (That is so theoretical. Ugh.)
But what does Murphy do to get to his goal?
- He takes patients for a joy ride to go fishing.
- He includes an unlikely patient in a basketball game, and it becomes competitive for once.
- He challenges a nurse re: showing the World Series on the tv.
Hmmm...these are very concrete actions. Murphy pushes boundaries so he can have more freedom.
How do we measure if Murphy is moving toward his goal? This is a comedy-tragedy, so Murphy actually loses ground.
But his effect on the other patients is amazing. They begin to act differently, respond differently than pre-Murphy.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: When a goal is hard to explain, at least create step-by-step scenes so we see the protagonist making progress toward it.
Here, decision-making is the goal. Murphy creates situations that allow him to exercise and expand his decision making abilities.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
by Lawrence Hauben & Bo Goldman
Based on the novel by Ken Kesey
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: #46 WGA Script of All Time - The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
[Quick Summary: When two greenhorns and an old timer find gold in the Mexican Sierra Madre mountains, greed pits them against each other.]
I liked reading back-to-back two Humphrey Bogart scripts.
Both are strong, character driven scripts, which are as rare as bird's teeth today.
These suckers are darn hard to write. Not everyone knows how to write the characters' issues first, then the action second.
ex. This is one of the juiciest scenes (p. 55-58):
- The three men have just split up their hard earned gold dust. Each one hides his share somewhere near the campsite. [No one trusts anyone.]
- Dobbs gets paranoid the other two might find his stash. He starts talking to himself, then vents suspicions at the other two. [Dobbs (Bogart) has got VISIBLE trust issues.]
- One of the other men sees a gila monster scurry under a rock, and gets ready to kill it. Dobbs pulls out a gun on them. [Dobbs' mistrust causes him to jump to conclusions.]
- Dobbs accuses them of faking a gila monster, and the men realize this is Dobbs' hiding spot.
[What do you do with a raving maniac? Challenge his issue.]
- They dare Dobbs to retrieve his stash...but warn him that his hand might get bit by the gila. Does Dobbs believe their story, or protect his gold? [Dobbs must decide to trust or not.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Clear character issues make actions much easier to justify.
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
by Robert Rossen
I liked reading back-to-back two Humphrey Bogart scripts.
Both are strong, character driven scripts, which are as rare as bird's teeth today.
These suckers are darn hard to write. Not everyone knows how to write the characters' issues first, then the action second.
ex. This is one of the juiciest scenes (p. 55-58):
- The three men have just split up their hard earned gold dust. Each one hides his share somewhere near the campsite. [No one trusts anyone.]
- Dobbs gets paranoid the other two might find his stash. He starts talking to himself, then vents suspicions at the other two. [Dobbs (Bogart) has got VISIBLE trust issues.]
- One of the other men sees a gila monster scurry under a rock, and gets ready to kill it. Dobbs pulls out a gun on them. [Dobbs' mistrust causes him to jump to conclusions.]
- Dobbs accuses them of faking a gila monster, and the men realize this is Dobbs' hiding spot.
[What do you do with a raving maniac? Challenge his issue.]
- They dare Dobbs to retrieve his stash...but warn him that his hand might get bit by the gila. Does Dobbs believe their story, or protect his gold? [Dobbs must decide to trust or not.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Clear character issues make actions much easier to justify.
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
by Robert Rossen
Sunday, January 1, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: #47 WGA Script of All Time - The Maltese Falcon (1941)
[Quick Summary: When a private investigator takes a case from a gorgeous client, he faces three thugs, two dead bodies, and a boatload of lies that surround a missing Maltese falcon.]
I've struggled for years to write suspense.
But how to craft an artful punch-in-the-gut reveal? I read several great ones in this script.
For example:
A) Sam Spade gets an early morning call to come to a crime scene. [He's a p.i. This is part of the job, you know?]
B) He looks down a hill at a dead body, but doesn't move closer. [Wow, wonder what happened to the deceased.]
C) Police tells Spade it was a single shot. Spade reconstructs what happened: "Miles goes back, taking the top of the fence..." [Wait a minute - Miles? Oh no! Not Miles, Spade's partner! How can Spade be so controlled?]
You see, the suspense here is built around Spade:
A) His non-reaction in here does not alert the audience. We think it's just part of the job.
B) He does not approach the body. This is also normal. Only later do we see why that's odd.
C) This is the first time we realize the likeable Miles has died. It's a shock for us, but Spade is just pragmatic, which is very consistent with his character. We're just not prepared for HOW pragmatic he is.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For a good reveal, don't announce the reveal.
However, an unexpected (but in character) response works well.
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
by John Huston
I've struggled for years to write suspense.
But how to craft an artful punch-in-the-gut reveal? I read several great ones in this script.
For example:
A) Sam Spade gets an early morning call to come to a crime scene. [He's a p.i. This is part of the job, you know?]
B) He looks down a hill at a dead body, but doesn't move closer. [Wow, wonder what happened to the deceased.]
C) Police tells Spade it was a single shot. Spade reconstructs what happened: "Miles goes back, taking the top of the fence..." [Wait a minute - Miles? Oh no! Not Miles, Spade's partner! How can Spade be so controlled?]
You see, the suspense here is built around Spade:
A) His non-reaction in here does not alert the audience. We think it's just part of the job.
B) He does not approach the body. This is also normal. Only later do we see why that's odd.
C) This is the first time we realize the likeable Miles has died. It's a shock for us, but Spade is just pragmatic, which is very consistent with his character. We're just not prepared for HOW pragmatic he is.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For a good reveal, don't announce the reveal.
However, an unexpected (but in character) response works well.
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
by John Huston
Thursday, December 22, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #48 WGA Script of All Time - Bridge On the River Kwai (1957)
[Quick Summary: At first, a British colonel POW defies the Japanese war camp commander over building a bridge, but eventually adopts the enemy's task with enthusiasm.]
Alas, I had a hard time reading this script. Just not my cup of tea.
However, I did find it interesting how the writer used the image of a pin up calendar girl in the Japanese commander's office.
This image was seen several times, always in the background or the commander looking directly at it.
As the story moves along, the commander looks crazier & crazier in contrast to the girl who remains the same...and that's a great way to tell a story without "telling" a story.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The right props can keep engaging the audience - all without dialogue.
Bridge On the River Kwai (1957)
by Pierre Boulle
Alas, I had a hard time reading this script. Just not my cup of tea.
However, I did find it interesting how the writer used the image of a pin up calendar girl in the Japanese commander's office.
This image was seen several times, always in the background or the commander looking directly at it.
As the story moves along, the commander looks crazier & crazier in contrast to the girl who remains the same...and that's a great way to tell a story without "telling" a story.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The right props can keep engaging the audience - all without dialogue.
Bridge On the River Kwai (1957)
by Pierre Boulle
Thursday, December 15, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #49 WGA Script of All Time - Schindler's List (1993)
[Quick Summary: Businessman Oscar Schindler easily bargains/bribes/bullies to keep his factory open, but he is unprepared by the effect his Jewish workers have on him.]
I've seen lots of ensemble spec scripts. They usually aren't very pretty for one of 3 reasons:
1) Too sprawling
2) Too many characters to juggle in my head
3) Too many subplots fighting to be the main plot
So I was glad to read Schindler's List & see an ensemble script done right. Here's why:
1) Though the enormity of the Holocaust is the backdrop, it's really an intimate story about ONE man.
2) All characters are there to support the ONE man, Schindler.
Even if Schindler is not in the scene, the characters' actions will somehow affect or tie into Schindler.
3) All the subplots are there to support Schindler.
ex. The Nazis have their own agendas, but their purpose in this story is to provide obstacles for SCHINDLER. A woman may want to get her parents moved to the factory, but her purpose in this story is to provoke SCHINDLER into action.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Frankly, ensemble scripts are easier to follow if there's ONE main character to form the spine around.
Schindler's List (1993)
by Steve Zaillian
I've seen lots of ensemble spec scripts. They usually aren't very pretty for one of 3 reasons:
1) Too sprawling
2) Too many characters to juggle in my head
3) Too many subplots fighting to be the main plot
So I was glad to read Schindler's List & see an ensemble script done right. Here's why:
1) Though the enormity of the Holocaust is the backdrop, it's really an intimate story about ONE man.
2) All characters are there to support the ONE man, Schindler.
Even if Schindler is not in the scene, the characters' actions will somehow affect or tie into Schindler.
3) All the subplots are there to support Schindler.
ex. The Nazis have their own agendas, but their purpose in this story is to provide obstacles for SCHINDLER. A woman may want to get her parents moved to the factory, but her purpose in this story is to provoke SCHINDLER into action.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Frankly, ensemble scripts are easier to follow if there's ONE main character to form the spine around.
Schindler's List (1993)
by Steve Zaillian
Monday, December 5, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #50 WGA Script of All Time - The Sixth Sense (1999)
[Quick Summary: A child psychologist tries to help a child who sees dead people (but doesn't know they're dead).]
When The Sixth Sense came out, I avoided it like the plague.
I don't like scary stuff, or reading scary stuff, or watching scary stuff.
But this script is on the official WGA list, so I read it.
Now I can confidently say that if you haven't read this script, you should for 2 reasons:
1) The reading is wonderfully vertical (thus the reading speed is very fast).
2) Everyone thinks the big reveal at the end makes this script special. But I've broken down and rebuilt enough stories to know that Shyamalan's skill is really shown in how he constructs the setup.
ex. Throughout the script, Anna avoids speaking to Malcolm in realistic ways:
- He thinks she's speaking to him, but she's actually speaking on the phone.
- She laughs with someone, and he turns away, hurt that she's not laughing with him.
We think she's mad at him (setup), only to find out later she isn't (reveal).
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I like that this script is devoid of "Look at me! See how clever I am!" tricks and gimmicks.
Instead, there are solid story building blocks put together in a clever way.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
by M. Night Shyamalan
When The Sixth Sense came out, I avoided it like the plague.
I don't like scary stuff, or reading scary stuff, or watching scary stuff.
But this script is on the official WGA list, so I read it.
Now I can confidently say that if you haven't read this script, you should for 2 reasons:
1) The reading is wonderfully vertical (thus the reading speed is very fast).
2) Everyone thinks the big reveal at the end makes this script special. But I've broken down and rebuilt enough stories to know that Shyamalan's skill is really shown in how he constructs the setup.
ex. Throughout the script, Anna avoids speaking to Malcolm in realistic ways:
- He thinks she's speaking to him, but she's actually speaking on the phone.
- She laughs with someone, and he turns away, hurt that she's not laughing with him.
We think she's mad at him (setup), only to find out later she isn't (reveal).
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I like that this script is devoid of "Look at me! See how clever I am!" tricks and gimmicks.
Instead, there are solid story building blocks put together in a clever way.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
by M. Night Shyamalan
Saturday, December 3, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #51 WGA Script of All Time - Broadcast News (1987)
[Quick Summary: A driven female news producer is torn between two men: the new, handsome, not-so-talented news anchor, and the older, talented news anchor-on-the-way-out who is her friend.]
The more I read scripts, the more I see that scripts operate on two levels: spectacle & heart. You need both parts.
The better the two blend, the better the movie.
Broadcast News is a perfect example.
It's got the spectacle and rush of the big news room.
But it's also got the heart of a woman, torn between a guy who's probably the devil but exciting, and a schlub who's like a pair of old sneakers but brilliant.
The love story is enhanced by the spectacle of the news room. If Jane doesn't pick the right guy, the level of journalism could disintegrate.
The spectacle is enhanced by the romance. If Jane demands the journalistic integrity she's worked so hard for, she could be alone for the rest of her life.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The right amount of spectacle + heart = Fantastic story.
Too much spectacle = There's no heart.
Too much heart = It's maudlin & boring.
Broadcast News (1987)
by James L. Brooks
The more I read scripts, the more I see that scripts operate on two levels: spectacle & heart. You need both parts.
The better the two blend, the better the movie.
Broadcast News is a perfect example.
It's got the spectacle and rush of the big news room.
But it's also got the heart of a woman, torn between a guy who's probably the devil but exciting, and a schlub who's like a pair of old sneakers but brilliant.
The love story is enhanced by the spectacle of the news room. If Jane doesn't pick the right guy, the level of journalism could disintegrate.
The spectacle is enhanced by the romance. If Jane demands the journalistic integrity she's worked so hard for, she could be alone for the rest of her life.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The right amount of spectacle + heart = Fantastic story.
Too much spectacle = There's no heart.
Too much heart = It's maudlin & boring.
Broadcast News (1987)
by James L. Brooks
Monday, November 28, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #52 WGA Script of All Time - Lady Eve (1941)
[Quick Summary: After a con woman and a rich, gullible ophiologist (a snake scientist) fall in love and split up, she disguises herself as English aristocracy to dupe him once more.]
Farce is a tough genre. It's just too easy to go too far with the satirical comedy or improbable plots.
So why does it work here?
According to Roger Ebert, this story avoids the mistake of many films and gives a "baseline of sanity to measure the characters against....Henry Fonda is the rock."
Fonda is the gullible (but not stupid) snake scientist. He doesn't want to use Barbara Stanwyck for his career. He's sincere and earnest as he pursues her. He's puzzled by the "coincidences" but chalks it up to feeling more alive just by being with her. He's truly, madly, crazy in love.
So when he doesn't realize Barbara's dad is blatantly hustling him at cards, we believe him.
When he "happens" to get a photo showing Barbara is a con, we're crushed along with him.
When Barbara creates an English persona and Fonda does not recognize her AT ALL, it all makes sense.
We believe in Fonda, even if everything else is truly preposterous.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Farce can be way, way over the top - but only if there's at least one person who makes it feel real.
Lady Eve (1941)
by Preston Sturges
Farce is a tough genre. It's just too easy to go too far with the satirical comedy or improbable plots.
So why does it work here?
According to Roger Ebert, this story avoids the mistake of many films and gives a "baseline of sanity to measure the characters against....Henry Fonda is the rock."
Fonda is the gullible (but not stupid) snake scientist. He doesn't want to use Barbara Stanwyck for his career. He's sincere and earnest as he pursues her. He's puzzled by the "coincidences" but chalks it up to feeling more alive just by being with her. He's truly, madly, crazy in love.
So when he doesn't realize Barbara's dad is blatantly hustling him at cards, we believe him.
When he "happens" to get a photo showing Barbara is a con, we're crushed along with him.
When Barbara creates an English persona and Fonda does not recognize her AT ALL, it all makes sense.
We believe in Fonda, even if everything else is truly preposterous.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Farce can be way, way over the top - but only if there's at least one person who makes it feel real.
Lady Eve (1941)
by Preston Sturges
Thursday, November 17, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #53 WGA Script of All Time - All the President's Men (1976)
[Quick Summary: In 1972, two rookie journalists piece together that a minor burglary at the Watergate building is a front for a much bigger political scheme.]
Dang, William Goldman can really write.
This script sucks you in & makes you care, the hallmarks of an exceptional storyteller.
One thing I picked up is his use of point of view.
The script focuses on the reporters Woodward and Bernstein. When they find out information, so does the audience, and thus the reveals are very natural. The audience is truly along for the ride, and becomes invested in the outcome.
But what if Goldman chose to follow the campaign workers or the crooks as the main characters instead?
I think the story would not have been as good.
In the script, Woodward and Bernstein were on the offensive, and literally chased down clues.
A story about the campaign workers would've been more about damage control and defensive p.r....not as interesting.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The right point of view can really make the story flow.
The wrong one often lends itself to a clunky story.
All the President's Men (1976)
by William Goldman
Dang, William Goldman can really write.
This script sucks you in & makes you care, the hallmarks of an exceptional storyteller.
One thing I picked up is his use of point of view.
The script focuses on the reporters Woodward and Bernstein. When they find out information, so does the audience, and thus the reveals are very natural. The audience is truly along for the ride, and becomes invested in the outcome.
But what if Goldman chose to follow the campaign workers or the crooks as the main characters instead?
I think the story would not have been as good.
In the script, Woodward and Bernstein were on the offensive, and literally chased down clues.
A story about the campaign workers would've been more about damage control and defensive p.r....not as interesting.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The right point of view can really make the story flow.
The wrong one often lends itself to a clunky story.
All the President's Men (1976)
by William Goldman
Friday, November 11, 2011
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)