TODAY'S NUGGET: Alien (1979) - One Secret of a Great Action Script

[Quick Summary: The crew of a commercial starship investigates an unknown planet, unaware that a terrifying creature has hijacked on to their ship.]

In the beginning, there was Alien.*

I read this script in its entirety for the first time, and I admit I was discombobulated.

This script is REALLY spare:

- The crew has little back story.
- There is no discussion home or personal life on Earth.
- There is no talk about future hopes and dreams.

The usual tricks to lure the reader are gone, i.e., no lush descriptions or painful character motivations.

So what is left for a compelling story? ONLY the present.

The script is stripped down to the NOW, i.e., getting rid of the monster on the ship ASAP.

The mood is survival. The tone is urgent. It's all-action-all-the-time (as all Hill scripts are).

A good action story is about characters making interesting decisions NOW.

ex. Do we let infected crew back on board?
ex. How to avoid the creature's acid?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't get bogged down in justifying or explaining.  Strip down to the present.

Alien (1979)
by Walter Hill & David Giler
Based on screenplay by Dan O'Bannon
Story by Dan O'Bannon & Ronald Shusett

*For those who don't know, there are 4-5 films built on this one:
- Aliens
- Aliens 3
- Alien Resurrection;
- Alien vs. Predator (arguably)

Go here for the development history and scripts.

TODAY'S NUGGET: 48 Hours (1982) - Humor in Action

[Quick Summary: A cop teams up with one criminal for 48 hours in order to track down another criminal on the run.]

I remember this film was huge in 1982.

People couldn't stop talking about it and laughing.

How do you insert humor into an action script?  It's not as easy as joke-joke-joke.

I'm no expert on comedy, but after reading this script, I do know high stakes help.

For example, in the scene below, Cates has just revealed Ganz (common antagonist for Cates and Hammond) is out of prison.

The stakes are high for Cates. Hammond is his last lead.

The stakes are also high for Hammond.  He wants something on the outside.

ex.  [Cates] turns, goes out [of Hammond's cell].
The door clangs behind him.
Hammond jumps up and bangs on the bars, shouts at Cates' back...

HAMMOND: Cates! Come back here!

Cates turns, saunters back, leans against the door.

CATES: Yeah?
HAMMOND: I can deliver Ganz. On a plate. But you gotta get me outta here first.
CATES: Bullshit.
HAMMOND: You heard me. Get me a furlough...a pass. There's ways...sick mother, national emergency...
CATES: You're crazy.
HAMMOND: It's the only way I'm gonna help. Get me out.
CATES: What's so important about you gettin' out?
HAMMOND: Who said it was important?

I like that the scene never stops for the comedy.

Both sides desperately need each other, and are pretending they do not.

Somehow that's ironic, funny and still moves us forward, all in one.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Keep the stakes high. It will help the comedy.

48 Hours
by Walter Hill & Larry Gross

TODAY'S NUGGET: Southern Comfort (1981) - The Feeling of Dread

[Quick Summary:  A group of lost National Guardsmen antagonize a couple of Cajun trappers, and become prey in the swampy Louisiana bayou.]

I'm struggling to like these past few Walter Hill scripts. 

It could just be my tastes, but I've liked scripts that were far from my comfort zone. 

One thing I did like in this script was how it conveyed feelings of dread.

ex. "EXT. NARROW TRAIL

Along the edge of the bayou. Masterson moving cautiously along, then stops....

HIS POV

Eight dead rabbits hanging from a tree limb alongside the trail. Thin cord around each of their throats. Each animal has been gutted."

Why does this work? It's not over-the-top-gory or excessively bloody (which is an unpleasant trend today).

1) Because it's personal. 

The 8 men know they are the 8 doomed rabbits.

They also know that the Cajun trappers have superior knowledge and skills in this bayou.

2) Because the image provokes a reaction in the characters.

I often see writers try to replicate dread with a hamster wheel of blood-gore-blood-gore scenes.

I do not see often the characters react to the blood/gore in a way, which move the story forward.

Here, the Guardmen do not react well to the rabbit threat.  As a result, cracks start to appear in the group and they break rank in the next scene.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Dread can stem from a character's personal reaction to a scary sight.

Southern Comfort (1981)
Written and directed by Walter Hill

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Warriors (1979) - Unity & 9 Protagonists

[Quick Summary: After the Warriors are falsely accused of killing a rival gang leader, they are the target of every gang in town, and struggle to get home.]

I like ensemble casts, don't you?

Usually I get mired in scripts with large casts, but I found this one an easy read, because it remembered a couple rules of ensembles:

1 - Pinpoint a leader, i.e., one character who puts the whole story in context. It helps the audience follow along.

In this script, The Fox is a member of a New York gang called the Warriors.

The Warriors are blamed for shooting a rival gang leader during a truce.  

The Fox saw the real shooter.  Thus, he becomes the reason for the story, and for the whole manhunt.

2 - If there are multiple protagonists, antagonists, &/or story lines, they should all be unified in action (cf. Aristotle's Poetics).

The nine Warriors (protagonists) are split up and face many antagonists.

The script moves between their various adventures (multiple story lines):

ex. Swan is captured by the Dingos. Swan must escape a straightjacket to get back to the team.

ex. The Fox regrets bringing Mercy, who was with the Orphan gang, on the journey.  Is Mercy a spy or an innocent?

ex. Cowboy and Rembrandt are lured into a gang chick's lair, and escape an ambush.

So why doesn't the script drag with so many characters and stories?

I think it's because the characters are unified by the same enemy (all gangs) and the same goal (make it home together).

There are several individual stories, but they all move in one direction ----> toward home.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's the unity of story that keep ensemble scripts clear.

The Warriors (1979)
Written and directed by Walter Hill
Based on the novel by Sol Yurick

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Driver (1978) - A Muscular Voice

[Quick Summary: With one last getaway job, the Driver helps out a dame (The Player), and teaches the Detective a lesson to boot.]

Walter Hill has one hell of a muscular voice. 

I hate talking about "voice" because:

1) It's like trying to define the wind.
2) Everyone tells writers they need one. No one tells you how to get it.

But I can't avoid it here.  The Driver has a big muscular voice.

So I'll bumble around trying to define it.

What is voice?  To me, it is how a writer puts the story together. 
- How does the writer focus the reader?
- What is the flow? What choices does he/she make?

What is muscular? It's a blunt, direct energy.
- It pairs off best with action films.
- It's not limited to a male point of view, but does work well.
 
Here are a few things Hill does to create a muscular voice:

- The easiest to identify is Hill's trademark fast, spare narrative.

ex. "The Connection steps out.
A tall young woman with slicked back hair."

-  The characters have no frills, no extraneous details.

ex. To keep the focus on the here and now, there is virtually no back story on the Driver, or anyone else.

-  Punches make real contact. There is no backing down from conflict.

ex. When the Driver and Detective clash, one wins the skirmish, and they move on.  No whining, no excuses.

-  Men act like men, and women act like women, without either being weak or wimpy.

ex.  There's no hemming or hawing.  If I like you, I let you know. If I don't, I also let you know.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  A muscular voice is very sure of itself.

The Driver (1978)
Written & directed by Walter Hill

TODAY'S NUGGET: Hard Times (1975) - I Can't Explain It

[Quick Summary: Chaney, an uncommon street fighter, temporarily partners up with Speed, a hustler hunted by loan sharks.]

**WARNING TO NEW WRITERS: Read about 50 scripts before you read this one.**

Once in very long while, I read a script that is a rare exception to a rule, and I can't explain why it works. 

This is one of them.

My general rule: The protagonist is the character whose arc changes the most.  

I've had writers ask, "Does the character HAVE to change? Why can't he/she remain the same from beginning to end?"

I usually reply, "Because it's boring.  Watching a character change and learn is interesting."

ex. Bertha (protagonist) begins as a self-absorbed lawyer.  Devious Debbi (antagonist) is the opposing counsel and pushes Bertha to grow.  At the end, Bertha lets someone else take the credit (transforms from selfish to generous).  

Here, however, the writer Walter Hill does not follow the rule.

Chaney does not really change from beginning to the end (in fact, everyone else changes more), AND HE IS STILL INTERESTING.

Why does it work here?

I don't know for sure.

All I know is that the protagonist is mysterious, sympathetic, and keeps us guessing what his next step will be. 

All without any big internal change or emotional arc.

That's really hard to do.

One in a million.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you can write a mysterious, sympathetic, what-will-he-do-next character without an emotional arc, you clearly don't need my blog.

For the remaining 99% of us writers, I highly recommend an emotional arc.

Hard Times (1975)
Written and directed by Walter Hill

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Thief Who Came to Dinner (1973) - Decisions, Decisions

[Quick Summary: Webster, a computer programmer-turned-thief, gets an unexpected partner in crime who helps him outwit a smart insurance claims man.]

Whoooooeeee! What a fun ride!

Unlike last week, I found this script engaging, especially because of Webster's unpredictable decisions in sticky situations.

- He is sneaky.

ex. As Webster steals from Mrs. Donner's jewelry box, Mrs. Donner and her escort return home. Webster sweats bullets, but dodges them both.

- He confronts.

ex. Webster lifts jewels from a mansion, but two necking teens in a car block his escape.  Exasperated, he shines a light on them.

WEBSTER (shouting): What the hell's going on here! This is private property.
BOY (still wide-eyed): I didn't know this place had a watchman.
WEBSTER: You know it now! Haul ass or I'll have the cops here in five minutes.
BOY: Yes, sir. Sorry, sir. Leaving right now.

- He is unafraid to backpedal.

ex.  Laura urges Webster to break into her house.  He does it to impress her, but he learns too late that it's someone else's house.

WEBSTER: Never mind that. Where are the Tylers?
LAURA: Upstairs, asleep, I suppose. They're certainly smart enough to recognize a dull party, they left long before we did.
WEBSTER: Thank you very much. It's been nice knowing you,  I wish you well. Good night.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A character can continue to surprise audiences with the decisions he/she makes.

The Thief Who Came to Dinner (1973)
by Walter Hill

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Getaway (1972 & 1994) - What to Do With the "Girl"

[Quick Summary: After a criminal and his wife are manipulated into robbing dirty money, they cross and double-cross their way to Mexico.]
 
Who's that action man? Walter Hill!

Who's dan-ger-ous? Walter Hill!

Who can you count on for guns ablazing? Walter Hill!

How many Hill scripts have I read? Um...one.

So for the next several weeks, I'll steep myself in his body of work.

My first script is The Getaway, both 1972 and 1994 versions.

I didn't like either script, as I often could not figure out what the story was trying to say.

However, the one good thing in these scripts is the way Carol is written.

Carol is the only real "girl" character in a sea of men, and most scripts would treat her as mere window dressing.

But here, she has real weight:

- She makes active decisions as Doc's full partner.
- She stirs up doubt in Doc, which makes him human.
- She makes mistakes that increases the stakes, ex. losing the suitcase of money.

Carol is important, even as a supporting character, because her behavior has a direct affect on Doc McCoy.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even if you have a small "girl" role, make her influence felt on the protagonist.

The Getaway (1972 & 1994)
by Walter Hill (based on the novel by Jim Thompson)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Elizabethtown (2005) - When an End Does Me Wrong

[Quick Summary: When a recently fired sneaker designer travels to Kentucky to oversee his father's funeral arrangements, he finds unexpected love.]

In Act 1, I loved the premise of this script, i.e., a guy is sent to retrieve his father's corpse.

In Act 2, I liked the characters, i.e., lost son, smart-ass flight attendant, relatives with grudges.

In Act 3, I became extremely irritated.  First, there is a 7 page speech...by Hollie, Drew's mother.

"Hollie?! Why Hollie?" you ask.

Exactly my point.  This is Drew's story.

Drew flies out to Elizabethtown, KY to deal with his father's family. He falls for the flight attendant, learns about his dad, gets over failures.

Hollie, on the other hand, breaks down and stays in Oregon.

She only appears in Kentucky around p. 105.  And for that she gets a big "this is what I've learned" speech?

No no no.

Second, Act 3 read as if there was no end in sight.

Roger Ebert writes about his first viewing of the first cut: "It seemed to end, and end, and end."*

Reading it also felt that way.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  Please - no new people, & wrap it up ASAP in Act 3.

Elizabethtown (2005)
Written & directed by Cameron Crowe

*Ebert saw the film twice. The first was longer and shown at the Toronto Film Festival.  The final cut was much tighter, and had 18 min. trimmed.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Vanilla Sky (2001) - An Unsatisfying Read

[Quick Summary: An heir to a NY fortune searches for answers after he wakes up again and again to what could be a surreal dream or a nightmare.]

I simply don't understand this script.  I wish I did.

In Act 1, David Aames, Jr. is pursuing the girl of his dreams (literally).

In Act 2, he's in dreams, he's out of dreams, he plunges into nightmares, he wakes up from nightmares.

In Act 3, he comes to a self-realization in the end, and wants to live a real life.

But what was the point of his journey?

The ending doesn't have any easy answers (fair enough), but I wish the script was clearer about why Aames needed self-realization.

I was at a loss, and ended up not liking this script very much.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  This Cameron Crowe script was unlike any other I've read.

It was a technically adept Crowe script, but it felt odd.

It was not just the genre, but the tempo, the mood, the narrative line.  Probably because it was an adaption?

Vanilla Sky (2001)
by Cameron Crowe
Based on a screenplay "Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)" by Alejandro Amenabar & Mateo Gil