[Quick Summary: A timid ventriloquist just might be possessed by his bawdy dummy...or not.]
Bad news: Psychological horror/thrillers are hard to write.
Good news: There's a high demand.
Bad news: Most psychological horror/thriller spec scripts don't know how to blur the line between reality and the bizarre/fantasy.
Good news: Magic does blurring very well.
So how did Goldman do it?
#1 - The script takes time to establish:
- Who Corky is (awkward ventriloquist, loyal, fears success)
- What he wants (to be with Peg, his childhood fantasy girl)
#2 - The script makes Fats (the dummy) a crutch in Corky's world.
ex. Fats expresses Corky's deepest, unspoken feelings.
ex. Fats is the reason Corky gets jobs.
Weird becomes "normal" for Corky.
#3 - To be with Peg (goal), Corky must break up with Fats (face his demons).
The psychological horror/thrill comes from the fact that it's darned near impossible now to tell where the demons are coming from:
- Is Fats is real?
- Or has an evil dummy possessed Corky?
- Or is it all in Corky's mind?
The torment is that Corky has melded to his crutch/demon.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To blur reality vs. non-reality, justify both sides.
ex. Reality = Peg
Non-reality = Fats
Corky wants both but can only have one, so he vacillates.
Magic (1978)
by William Goldman (from his novel)
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Great Waldo Pepper (1975) - Killing Off a Character
[Quick Summary: After a series of failures, a 1920s daredevil pilot tries to regain his confidence by flying for the movies.]
This script had everything going for it!
Airplane chases! Romance! Death! Envy! An underdog!
So why do I feel so ... lukewarm about it?
I suppose it's because I was so invested in Waldo and Mary Beth.
Mary Beth is a challenging, spunky counterpoint to Waldo, and brings out the best in him.
Unfortunately, she's killed off approximately 2/3 into the script. For the last 1/3, it seems as if she never even existed.
Without that relationship, Waldo seems less accessible.
Frankly, I just lost heart in his journey.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's a tricky balance to know when to kill off a character.
Just make sure you have a really good reason.
(And repeating it again in the last 1/3 wouldn't hurt.)
The Great Waldo Pepper (1975)
Script by William Goldman
Story by George Roy Hill
This script had everything going for it!
Airplane chases! Romance! Death! Envy! An underdog!
So why do I feel so ... lukewarm about it?
I suppose it's because I was so invested in Waldo and Mary Beth.
Mary Beth is a challenging, spunky counterpoint to Waldo, and brings out the best in him.
Unfortunately, she's killed off approximately 2/3 into the script. For the last 1/3, it seems as if she never even existed.
Without that relationship, Waldo seems less accessible.
Frankly, I just lost heart in his journey.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's a tricky balance to know when to kill off a character.
Just make sure you have a really good reason.
(And repeating it again in the last 1/3 wouldn't hurt.)
The Great Waldo Pepper (1975)
Script by William Goldman
Story by George Roy Hill
Thursday, August 9, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: Marathon Man (1976) - Trait & Conflict in Dialogue
[Quick Summary: A graduate student who is at the wrong place, wrong time, runs from a sadistic Nazi dentist.]
Why do I root for the protagonist Babe?
He's just so earnest.
ex. In his first conversation with Elsa, note how the dialogue expresses:
a) Babe's earnest trait, and
b) the struggle to say "I like you."
BABE: Sorry to bother you, Miss Opel, but one of your books must have fallen in your cubicle earlier and I happened to spot it - (hands it over) - just thought it might be important. [He's sincere.]
ELSA: That's very kind. (starting to go inside) Good night.
BABE: 'Night. Your name and address are on the inside - "Elsa Opel" and where you live - in case you were curious how I found you, Miss Opel. [He's desperate to keep it going.]
ELSA: I wasn't. Good night.
BABE: 'Night. [No manipulation.]
ELSA: You keep saying that but you also don't leave.
BABE: I twisted my ankle on the way over, I was giving it a rest. [Flimsy, but a brave stab.]
ELSA: You weren't limping jst now.
BABE: I'm the worst when it comes to lying. [Throws himself at her mercy.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Good dialogue tells us about the character's trait(s) AND inner conflict.
Marathon Man
Screenplay and novel by William Goldman
Why do I root for the protagonist Babe?
He's just so earnest.
ex. In his first conversation with Elsa, note how the dialogue expresses:
a) Babe's earnest trait, and
b) the struggle to say "I like you."
BABE: Sorry to bother you, Miss Opel, but one of your books must have fallen in your cubicle earlier and I happened to spot it - (hands it over) - just thought it might be important. [He's sincere.]
ELSA: That's very kind. (starting to go inside) Good night.
BABE: 'Night. Your name and address are on the inside - "Elsa Opel" and where you live - in case you were curious how I found you, Miss Opel. [He's desperate to keep it going.]
ELSA: I wasn't. Good night.
BABE: 'Night. [No manipulation.]
ELSA: You keep saying that but you also don't leave.
BABE: I twisted my ankle on the way over, I was giving it a rest. [Flimsy, but a brave stab.]
ELSA: You weren't limping jst now.
BABE: I'm the worst when it comes to lying. [Throws himself at her mercy.]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Good dialogue tells us about the character's trait(s) AND inner conflict.
Marathon Man
Screenplay and novel by William Goldman
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: Harper (1966) - When Violence Has Meaning
[Quick Summary: "A private detective is hired by an unloving wife to find her rich drunk husband." *]
I saw this video interview with writer/director Terry George. George recommended:
1) Reading William Goldman's Absolute Power script (which I did; it is faboo!)
2) Getting my grubby paws on anything Goldman's ever written, even unproduced scripts.
Hmmm. I realized then how little I knew of Goldman's lesser known works (to be rectified in the coming weeks.)
So I begin with Harper, Goldman's first produced film.
It's a noir, so I expected violence.
What I didn't expect was it was "good" story violence, i.e., violence that I could justify.
ex. Harper is bound and tied in a shed. A thug keeps watch.
Harper insults him, and gets backhanded. ["Shut up, Harper," I thought.]
"You stink," Harper says. Another backhand. [What are you doing?]
"You're afraid of me." Gut punch. [Shut up NOW.]
The thug pummels Harper into mush. [Pleeease stay down.]
Then the stupid thug unties him and says, "Now try to trick me." [Don't take the bait!]
Harper manages to barely stand.... [Don't do it!]
...and proceeds to trick the thug. [Wow!]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Here, violence has a defined STORY purpose.
The fight built up the thug's confidence ---> increases the payoff when Harper reverses the situation.
Harper
by William Goldman
Adapted from the novel The Moving Target by Ross McDonald
*This is William Goldman's own logline. I couldn't improve on it any better.
I saw this video interview with writer/director Terry George. George recommended:
1) Reading William Goldman's Absolute Power script (which I did; it is faboo!)
2) Getting my grubby paws on anything Goldman's ever written, even unproduced scripts.
Hmmm. I realized then how little I knew of Goldman's lesser known works (to be rectified in the coming weeks.)
So I begin with Harper, Goldman's first produced film.
It's a noir, so I expected violence.
What I didn't expect was it was "good" story violence, i.e., violence that I could justify.
ex. Harper is bound and tied in a shed. A thug keeps watch.
Harper insults him, and gets backhanded. ["Shut up, Harper," I thought.]
"You stink," Harper says. Another backhand. [What are you doing?]
"You're afraid of me." Gut punch. [Shut up NOW.]
The thug pummels Harper into mush. [Pleeease stay down.]
Then the stupid thug unties him and says, "Now try to trick me." [Don't take the bait!]
Harper manages to barely stand.... [Don't do it!]
...and proceeds to trick the thug. [Wow!]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Here, violence has a defined STORY purpose.
The fight built up the thug's confidence ---> increases the payoff when Harper reverses the situation.
Harper
by William Goldman
Adapted from the novel The Moving Target by Ross McDonald
*This is William Goldman's own logline. I couldn't improve on it any better.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Spanish Prisoner (1997) - It's Like 3 Card Monty
[Quick Summary: After corporate employee designs a "process", he's conned into leaking it to a competitor...or so we think.]
Random thoughts about this script:
1. It is not about Spain nor is it a war movie.
2. Like another Mamet script, it's all about the con game.
3. I was all prepared to catch the surprise twist, honestly, I did...but Mamet conned me too.
More random thoughts:
1. This was good, but it wasn't my favorite Mamet script.
2. The reason the con is such a great framework is because the protagonist is a pro-active participant.
3. How do you not telegraph the twist? Everyone but the protagonist stays super-normal, so our eyes are drawn to him, not the wily antagonist.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Mamet is unusually adept at fooling my expectations.
Like three card monty, I always pick the wrong card.
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
by David Mamet
Random thoughts about this script:
1. It is not about Spain nor is it a war movie.
2. Like another Mamet script, it's all about the con game.
3. I was all prepared to catch the surprise twist, honestly, I did...but Mamet conned me too.
More random thoughts:
1. This was good, but it wasn't my favorite Mamet script.
2. The reason the con is such a great framework is because the protagonist is a pro-active participant.
3. How do you not telegraph the twist? Everyone but the protagonist stays super-normal, so our eyes are drawn to him, not the wily antagonist.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Mamet is unusually adept at fooling my expectations.
Like three card monty, I always pick the wrong card.
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
by David Mamet
Monday, May 28, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: Altered States (1980) - When Emotional Change Takes a Back Seat
[Quick Summary: A Harvard physician experiments with an isolation tank and a little known drug that regresses him into a primitive state.]
If The Hospital was a crazy script in a good way, Altered States was crazy in a bad way for me.
Dr. Jessup has a deep need to ferret out the science behind altered states of consciousness. [Fair enough.]
He seeks out a Mexican drug that regresses him into an ape, and even into goo. [Ok, I can buy that.]
I could stomach the extreme, far out psychological visions.
I managed the bizarre physical transformations
However, no amount of flash, sparkle, SFX, & violence in the script could make up for the fact that Jessup has little emotional change until the end.
I soon got tired of the spectacle because I felt very far from Jessup.
He does not regret eliminating everything in his life - wife, daughters, friendships.
He is so focused on his experiments that there is less and less story.
As the experiments got wilder and weirder, I cared less and less. Yikes.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The difference between The Hospital (great) vs. Altered States (so-so) was emotional change vs. less emotional change.
Altered States (1980)
by Paddy Chayefsky
If The Hospital was a crazy script in a good way, Altered States was crazy in a bad way for me.
Dr. Jessup has a deep need to ferret out the science behind altered states of consciousness. [Fair enough.]
He seeks out a Mexican drug that regresses him into an ape, and even into goo. [Ok, I can buy that.]
I could stomach the extreme, far out psychological visions.
I managed the bizarre physical transformations
However, no amount of flash, sparkle, SFX, & violence in the script could make up for the fact that Jessup has little emotional change until the end.
I soon got tired of the spectacle because I felt very far from Jessup.
He does not regret eliminating everything in his life - wife, daughters, friendships.
He is so focused on his experiments that there is less and less story.
As the experiments got wilder and weirder, I cared less and less. Yikes.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The difference between The Hospital (great) vs. Altered States (so-so) was emotional change vs. less emotional change.
Altered States (1980)
by Paddy Chayefsky
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Hospital (1971) - Order Only in Hindsight
[Quick Summary: One night at the hospital, a chief of staff on his last straw faces several crises, including intertwining staff deaths, and an odd young woman.]
This is a crazy-assed script.
I honestly had no idea where the story was going.
First, I worried about Dr. Herbert Bock, the crotchety doctor with every reason to be suicidal.
Then I got upset when the deaths of various hospital staffers interrupted Dr. Bock's story.
(It was like commercials interrupting your favorite soap opera.)
I didn't care as much that the hospital had run amok.
I just wanted to know if Dr. Bock was going to make it.
Here's kicker #1: I didn't even like Dr. Bock. But I still worried.
Here's kicker #2: The various staff deaths are important in the end to Dr. Bock's final decision.
Chayefsky did it again:
1) He made me care about a character I did not like.
2) He brought order out of what looked like chaos on the page.
3) It was a surprising journey.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a technically difficult script.
To keep the chaos going while leaving clues and also not lose the audience? Very thin line.
The Hospital (1971)
by Paddy Chayefsky
This is a crazy-assed script.
I honestly had no idea where the story was going.
First, I worried about Dr. Herbert Bock, the crotchety doctor with every reason to be suicidal.
Then I got upset when the deaths of various hospital staffers interrupted Dr. Bock's story.
(It was like commercials interrupting your favorite soap opera.)
I didn't care as much that the hospital had run amok.
I just wanted to know if Dr. Bock was going to make it.
Here's kicker #1: I didn't even like Dr. Bock. But I still worried.
Here's kicker #2: The various staff deaths are important in the end to Dr. Bock's final decision.
Chayefsky did it again:
1) He made me care about a character I did not like.
2) He brought order out of what looked like chaos on the page.
3) It was a surprising journey.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This is a technically difficult script.
To keep the chaos going while leaving clues and also not lose the audience? Very thin line.
The Hospital (1971)
by Paddy Chayefsky
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: House of Games (1987)
[Quick Summary: Margaret Ford, a female psychiatrist, falls for a Mike's con, and becomes entrapped in his elaborate crime web.]
Mike tells Margaret that the "confidence game" works because the mark doesn't give the confidence.
The con man gives his confidence to the mark, usually by bringing the mark in on the scheme.
Mike does it again and again to Margaret.
ex. At their first meeting, he asks her to help him, and she loses her bank account.
ex. Mark develops Margaret's trust by showing her how the game works on a young man at the Western Union office.
ex. His cronies show her how the Tap con works.
The script ups the ante with each demonstration. Margaret feels "in", accepted, and somewhat invulnerable.
The last thing on her mind is that these nice guys were setting her up...and BOOM! That's when it happens.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The stakes rise beautifully as Mike confides more and more in Margaret.
Also, the false sense of security is a great setup for a great third act payoff
House of Games (1989)
Written & directed by David Mamet
Mike tells Margaret that the "confidence game" works because the mark doesn't give the confidence.
The con man gives his confidence to the mark, usually by bringing the mark in on the scheme.
Mike does it again and again to Margaret.
ex. At their first meeting, he asks her to help him, and she loses her bank account.
ex. Mark develops Margaret's trust by showing her how the game works on a young man at the Western Union office.
ex. His cronies show her how the Tap con works.
The script ups the ante with each demonstration. Margaret feels "in", accepted, and somewhat invulnerable.
The last thing on her mind is that these nice guys were setting her up...and BOOM! That's when it happens.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The stakes rise beautifully as Mike confides more and more in Margaret.
Also, the false sense of security is a great setup for a great third act payoff
House of Games (1989)
Written & directed by David Mamet
Thursday, May 10, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: Things Change (1988) -
[Quick Summary: After an old Chicago Italian-American shoeshine man agrees to take the rap for a mob guy, he is assigned a keeper, who takes them on one last adventure in Lake Tahoe.]
Holy crap, this is unbelievably good writing.
Roger Ebert states it best: This film "confirms Mamet's gift for leading us through truly bewildering plots."
The plot seems simple.
In two days, the old shoeshine man Gino (Don Amache) will admit to a murder he didn't commit. In exchange, the mob boss will give him a boat when Gino gets out of jail.
Jerry (Joe Mantegna), a lower mob guy, babysits Gino for these two days.
Jerry feels sorry for the old man and decides to take Gino to Lake Tahoe for one last hurrah.
Now the plot really shines when impossible things happen. Gino's innocent curiosity and unbelievable timing keeps Jerry hopping.
Why do we believe it at all? Because it all stems from Gino's character.
ex. Jerry takes Gino to the roulette table. Jerry has rigged it with the house that Gino will continue to win, but not take any of the winnings.
Soon Gino turns a few bucks into $35k, and followers flock to the table.
Jerry pulls them away and makes up a reason that the money has to be given back.
Gino agrees, and we think that's the end of the situation.
But it's not.
When Jerry is busy, Gino wanders away to a Wheel of Fortune. He bets the entire $35k on a turn to see if his streak would continue.
That's what was great about the script.
We believe this unbelievable moment because this is something curious Gino would do.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If the character believes it, I'll believe it too.
Things Change (1988)
by David Mamet & Shel Silverstein
Holy crap, this is unbelievably good writing.
Roger Ebert states it best: This film "confirms Mamet's gift for leading us through truly bewildering plots."
The plot seems simple.
In two days, the old shoeshine man Gino (Don Amache) will admit to a murder he didn't commit. In exchange, the mob boss will give him a boat when Gino gets out of jail.
Jerry (Joe Mantegna), a lower mob guy, babysits Gino for these two days.
Jerry feels sorry for the old man and decides to take Gino to Lake Tahoe for one last hurrah.
Now the plot really shines when impossible things happen. Gino's innocent curiosity and unbelievable timing keeps Jerry hopping.
Why do we believe it at all? Because it all stems from Gino's character.
ex. Jerry takes Gino to the roulette table. Jerry has rigged it with the house that Gino will continue to win, but not take any of the winnings.
Soon Gino turns a few bucks into $35k, and followers flock to the table.
Jerry pulls them away and makes up a reason that the money has to be given back.
Gino agrees, and we think that's the end of the situation.
But it's not.
When Jerry is busy, Gino wanders away to a Wheel of Fortune. He bets the entire $35k on a turn to see if his streak would continue.
That's what was great about the script.
We believe this unbelievable moment because this is something curious Gino would do.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If the character believes it, I'll believe it too.
Things Change (1988)
by David Mamet & Shel Silverstein
Thursday, May 3, 2012
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Americanization of Emily (1964) - Blow & Pop of Satire
[Quick Summary: A cowardly American Naval officer & "dog robber" falls for a patriotic, female British chauffeur but their opposing views on the war is problematic.]
Paddy Chayefsky came up with the idea of writing this as a black satirical comedy on a plane to NYC.
What is satire? Glad you asked.
Satire (n.): A literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.
Easy enough, but how do you actually write satire?
Chayefsky did it by juxtaposing ridiculousness with reality.
Let's see how he ridicules the hype of war:
ex. EMILY'S HOME, LIVING ROOM
MRS. BARHAM: Emily, well, I must warn you. Charlie's picture is in all the papers, and they're going to build a monument on his grave.
[Reality: Charlie, the coward, is being celebrated as a hero.]
EMILY (studying the Globe): What on earth for? All he did was die. Dear me, we shall be celebrating cancer and automobile smash-ups next.
[Ridiculousness: This is stupid.]
CUMMINGS: He didn't just die, Emily! He sacrificed his life!
[Reality: Charlie is the war's next poster boy.]
MRS. BARHAM: Well, that was very pagan of him.
[Ridiculousness: Who does that help? Warmongers?]
CUMMINGS: He was the first American to die on Omaha Beach.
[Reality: This is a PR dream!]
EMILY: Was there a contest?
[Ridiculousness: What kind of contest are you running?]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One recipe for satire is to blow up a balloon with human vices, then pop it with ridicule.
The Americanization of Emily (1964)
by Paddy Chayefsky
Adapted from the novel by William Bradford Huie
Paddy Chayefsky came up with the idea of writing this as a black satirical comedy on a plane to NYC.
What is satire? Glad you asked.
Satire (n.): A literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.
Chayefsky did it by juxtaposing ridiculousness with reality.
Let's see how he ridicules the hype of war:
ex. EMILY'S HOME, LIVING ROOM
MRS. BARHAM: Emily, well, I must warn you. Charlie's picture is in all the papers, and they're going to build a monument on his grave.
[Reality: Charlie, the coward, is being celebrated as a hero.]
EMILY (studying the Globe): What on earth for? All he did was die. Dear me, we shall be celebrating cancer and automobile smash-ups next.
[Ridiculousness: This is stupid.]
CUMMINGS: He didn't just die, Emily! He sacrificed his life!
[Reality: Charlie is the war's next poster boy.]
MRS. BARHAM: Well, that was very pagan of him.
[Ridiculousness: Who does that help? Warmongers?]
CUMMINGS: He was the first American to die on Omaha Beach.
[Reality: This is a PR dream!]
EMILY: Was there a contest?
[Ridiculousness: What kind of contest are you running?]
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One recipe for satire is to blow up a balloon with human vices, then pop it with ridicule.
The Americanization of Emily (1964)
by Paddy Chayefsky
Adapted from the novel by William Bradford Huie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)