TODAY'S NUGGET: Hoffa (1992) - Transitions & Emotional Impact

[Quick Summary: Jimmy Hoffa gives his life to and for the Teamsters.]

I once heard someone ask a famous screenwriter, "What separates a good writer from a great one?"

"Transitions," he said.   It's always stuck with me.

As I read this script, I noticed that the transitions were not just a location change.

ex. "ANGLE
In a long shot, the armed strikebreakers thrashing their way into the line of the strikers.

ANGLE
A young woman screaming.

ANGLE
INT. THE R.E.A. BUILDING. The businessmen we saw in the previous sequence, pressed forward in the window of a paneled board room, looking down. [This smooth move from the freightyard to the boardroom is a reaction shot.]

ANGLE

Their POV, the slaughter in the freightyard below.

ANGLE

In the freightyard. Ciaro, clubbing a man to the ground. Looks around. [We move back to the freightyard to see the action.]

ANGLE HIS POV

Hoffa. Being set upon by two strikebreakers....

ANGLE

INT. THE BOARDROOM.  A man's hand closes the curtains on the fight below. [Back to the boardroom for another reaction shot.]

INT. UNION HALL. NIGHT.

A line of long drawn faces. Men and women dressed in their "best'. Nodding at the camera, moving on. There is a break in the line, to reveal, behind them, a huge floral [funeral] wreath...." [This scene is the consequences of the fighting.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  You can use transitions to drive an emotional point home.

In the example above:

- Action in freightyard --> Boardroom's REACTION is to panic
- Action in freightyard --> The funeral is the CONSEQUENCES

[By the way, this is something the reader is not even conscious of (but the writer should be!)]

Hoffa (1992)

by David Mamet

TODAY'S NUGGET: Almost Famous (2000) - The "Do or Die" Moment

[Quick Summary: A precocious 15 y.o. teen struggles between being a Rolling Stones journalist and a friend when he hits the road with the 1970s band Stillwater.]

Hurrah! Your protagonist is one step from a turning point.

Now don't screw it up. [Yeah, I'm talking you, writers.]

Don't make that last step too big (ex. William suddenly gets superpowers.)

Or too small (ex. William fails to speak up, thus ending the story early.)

In this script, Cameron Crowe does a nice job of escalating the stakes, which sets up that last step and gives it extra punch.

ex.  William stands at the backstage door of his first assignment.

The bouncer won't let him in (attempt #1).

Super-groupie Penny Lane helps William, but still no success (attempt #2).

Finally the band arrives, and rejects his plea for an interview

William, now emboldened, blurts out his heartfelt understanding of the band's music (last step).

This last step is the right size because:

- William takes action
- It pushes the story forward (what will happen next?)
- It's realistic that he'd go for it, since he's tried twice

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  The last step before a turning point is the "do or die" moment.

Almost Famous (2000)
Written and directed by Cameron Crowe

TODAY'S NUGGET: Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) - Dialogue is 90% Setup

[Quick Summary: A slice of life from the point of view of a group of American teens.]

I liked this script, but it's not my favorite Cameron Crowe script.

Since I don't know why yet, I'll leave you with a favorite scene.

This one features Brad, the high school senior who works after school at a fast food chain, and his boss.

"INT. CARL JR.'S
Dennis heads back to his office when he sees something in the trash bin.

DENNIS: Did you throw away those fries, Hamilton?
BRAD: They were left over from the last shift.
DENNIS: Those were perfectly good fries, Hamilton. (glares at Brad) Perfectly good.
BRAD: But they weren't mine.

Brad laughs, goes back to work."

I liked this scene because it shows us so much about Brad's internal life:

- He takes pride in his work.
- He is not afraid to challenge authority.
- He has a sense of humor.

Most people will only see the clever dialogue.

But if you're smart, you'll notice how the scene was constructed for maximum effect.

There's a careful combination of conflict (battle of authority), topic (french fries), and setting (at the deep fryer) that makes the dialogue work.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Dialogue is 90% setup, 10% payoff.


Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)
Book and screenplay by Cameron Crowe

TODAY'S NUGGET: Say Anything (1989) - How To Have More Icing

[Quick Summary: A recent high school grad romances the valedictorian for one last carefree summer.]

Darn you, Cameron Crowe!

How do you make such a talky script like Say Anything work (because it really does)?!

Here are 4 things that I saw that worked:

1 - There's very little narrative (sometimes 1-2 lines per page).  The reader is allowed to imagine most of the details.

2 - The essentials are very specific.  Each character's motive, flaws, and purpose are unambiguous.

ex. Lloyd is optimistic and undeterred in pursuing Diane, despite the fact she's out of his league.

3 - The dialogue is realistic, conflicted, and funny, but mostly conflicted.

ex. LLOYD: "I wanna get hurt!"

4 - The conflict is familiar, and never false for the character. 

ex. Lloyd wants to date Diane (familiar).  Dating her never stops being important to him (never false).

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Scripts could probably handle a lot more dialogue (the icing) if the structure (the cake) is set up right to handle it.

Say Anything (1989)
Written & Directed by Cameron Crowe

TODAY'S NUGGET: Odd Couple 2 (1998) - D.O.A. of a Good Sequel

[Quick Summary: Thirty years later, Felix and Oscar reunite for a road trip to their children's wedding.]

Neil Simon had a huge hit with The Odd Couple play in 1965.

But then came:

- A huge movie (1968)
- A popular tv series (1970-75)
- A cartoon (1975)
- A sitcom (1982-83)
- A reunion tv movie (1993)

If you were Simon in 1998, would you write a sequel 30 years after the original?

I am glad he did because this is a good sequel script.

It keeps enough of what made the original special, and continues to develop the characters with new challenges

Unfortunately, the timing sucked.

Generations grew up with other Odd Couples.  Matthau/Lemon had moved on to the similar Grumpy Old Men (1993).

Neil Simon said it best:

"If this were 1967 instead of 1999, The Odd Couple [2] would have made a perfect sequel on the heels of the first one....[It] would have had the same energy as the first one." *

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes a good sequel can be dead on arrival.

* Preface of The Odd Couple 1 &2.


The Odd Couple 2 (1998)
by Neil Simon

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Odd Couple I (1968) - Show Me a Slob

[Quick Summary: When slobby Oscar and neat freak Felix become temporary roommates, chaos ensues.]

Here's how Neil Simon SHOWS (and not TELLS) us that Oscar is a slob:

"INT. REFRIGERATOR

It is an unholy mess. [Oscar's surroundings = Oscar himself.]

Most of the things are uncovered, a half-eaten lamb chop, bottles without caps, melting ice cream in a dish, etc. [Oscar is unorganized.]

Oscar's hand reaches in to get a bottle of Coke and he knocks over a jar of syrup that drips onto the next shelf, getting the lamb chop.  [Syrup + lamb = Messy.]

It's too horrible to describe. Oscar gets the Coke out." [Oscar is unaffected.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One prop can show so much about a character's inner state.

The Odd Couple (1968)
by Neil Simon (based on his play)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Magic (1978) - Art of Blurring

[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)

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

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

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.