TODAY'S NUGGET: The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981) - One Way to Adapt the Unadaptable

[Quick Summary: An actor and actress pretend affair for a film shoot parallels their affair in real life.]

Last week's read was disappointing.

The next three Pinter scripts in the queue* only got a brief skim.

(I didn't get them. Anyone care to chime in?)

This brings me to the only script I wanted to read: the Oscar nominated The French Lieutenant's Woman.

The story is about Charles, an engaged English gent.  He gets involved with Sarah, a shunned woman who walks the undercliffs.

Here are a few challenges that Pinter faced:**

- It is a 445 pg. unfilmable novel.
- It has three alternate endings and a narrator.
- It switches between Victorian and modern periods.
- It had been unsuccessfully developed for 8-9 years.

So what did Pinter do? He inserted a construction that is NOT in the book.

How did he do it?  The story of Charles and Sarah would now be a movie being filmed.   "Mike" is an actor who would play Charles. "Anna" would play Sarah.

Mike and Anna are having an affair, just like the roles they are playing.

This construction enables the audience to see the Victorian story, but also the modern comment on it. (Easy in a novel. Not so easy in a film.)

When Charles and Sarah have problems, it emphasizes the same ones between Mike and Anna.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED:  I agree with Fowles about Pinter:

"[H]is genius ...seems to me to be his truly remarkable gift for reducing the long and complex without distortion." ***

*The Quiller Memorandum (1966) - cold war spy
Accident (1967) - tragedy in flashback
The Go-Between (1970) - forbidden love affair
-
** For more, read author John Fowles' foreword to the script.

***Also, Fowles praised Pinter's approach to this adaption as "the only way."

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Pumpkin Eater (1964) - Not for Me

[Quick Summary: A thrice married mother breaks down in public, and the story explores of her difficult attitudes and marriage.]

I did not like this script.

In a series of flashbacks, we learn that:

- This is a story of Jo, who melts down in Harrods department store.
- She has a passel of kids from previous marriages, and wants more.  
- Jake, her third husband, is fed up and is at a loss.
- Jo is recovering from the breakdown.   

I did not like these characters, but I could deal with it.

I did not like the plot, but I could deal with it too.

However, the story was going nowhere, and that I could not stomach. 

Jo fits so well in this nursery rhyme:

"Peter, Peter pumpkin eater,
Had a wife but couldn't keep her;
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her very well."

But in a film? Not for me.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The more I read, the more that I sense my limits.

If someone asked me to pitch a take on this novel, I'd have to pass.

The Pumpkin Eater (1964)
by Harold Pinter
Adapted from the novel by Penelope Mortimer

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Servant (1963) - Creepy Invasion of Personal Space

[Quick Summary: A new servant takes over his employer's life, and becomes a menace.]

I'm very keen on writer's "must read" recommendations.

However, when the playwright Harold Pinter (1930-2008) was suggested, I procrastinated.

I knew very little about him, and his obituary was intimidating:
- "provocative"
- "vigorous political polemicist,"
- "[H]e spawned the adjective "Pinteresque" suggesting a cryptically mysterious situation imbued with hidden menace."

I finally ran out of excuses.

The Servant starts off innocently, and then it really spooked me.

Barrett, a manservant, comes to work for his employer Tony.  Barrett is ideal, until he stealthily isolates Tony.

It's little things at first.

ex. Barrett interrupts Tony and girlfriend Susan during an intimate moment.

Then it becomes more devious.

ex. Barrett brings his girlfriend Vera into the house as a maid. Vera seduces Tony.  Did Barrett orchestrated it or not?

Then it becomes horrible.

ex. Barrett keeps Tony drugged and dependent. Tony has no idea how much he has lost.

Barrett is a psychological menace.  He moves into Tony's personal space one step at a time, until there is none.

Tony is oblivious to how Barrett is destroying him...and that makes it ten times more creepy.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A psychological drama/thriller can be as simple as playing with personal space. 

The Servant (1963)
Adapted by Harold Pinter
Based on the novel by Robin Maugham

TODAY'S NUGGET: Diner (1982) - Talking About Nothing

[Quick Summary: A tight group of male friends struggle with adulthood in 1959 Baltimore.]

Before Seinfeld, there was Diner, where a group of guys talked about nothing in their favorite diner.

How can nothing be interesting? Because it's really about something.

1) Some of it is building the anticipation.

ex. Boogie, Fenwick and Billy bet on Eddie's 140 question football test for his fiancee. Eddie will call off the wedding if she does not get 70%. Will she pass?

2) The guys love to tell often told stories, which is a window into their lives.

ex. Billy beats up a total stranger.  Shrevie explains to his wife that:
- Billy was jumped by a whole baseball team in high school
- Billy has beat up 7 of the 9 members
- This is number 8 of 9.
- Even though it's seven years later, Billy will not rest until he has found all nine.

In other words, Billy is stuck in time.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If done right, talking about nothing reveals more than something.

Diner (1982)
Written & directed by Barry Levinson

TODAY'S NUGGET: Clueless (1995) - Contradictions

[Quick Summary: A high school girl tries to improve her friends, but has no idea that the person most in need of improvement is herself.]

My hat is off to Clueless.

It has withstood the test of time, and is still fresh and smart.

For my money, it is Cher (the lead) whose contradictions make the story so funny.

She is so well-intentioned, but has no idea that she is the clueless one:

- She has no idea what people are talking about, but pretends that she does.

ex. "They get in and he starts the car.

CHRISTIAN: You like Billie Holliday?
CHER: I love him."

- She thinks she knows what is best for others, and manipulates accordingly.

ex. "CHER: OK. It'll get easier, as long as we do it every day, not just sporadically.
TAI: How do you know if you're doing it sporadically?

Josh looks bewildered. What is Cher up to?

CHER (patiently): That's another thing Tai. We've got to work on your accent and vocabulary.  Like "sporadic" means once in a while. Try to use it in a sentence today, and find some other adjectives besides the "F" word."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Contradictions are interesting and timeless.

Clueless (1995)
Written and directed by Amy Heckerling

TODAY'S NUGGET: Last Man Standing (1996) - Crosses & Double Crosses; My LAST Walter Hill script

[Quick Summary: A drifter arrives in a small Texas town, and pits two competing gangs against each other.]

Last Man Standing is a fitting read for my last Walter Hill script.

The story gets my grudging respect, mainly because of the smart crosses and double crosses.

"John Smith" is a conniving, quick draw drifter in the Old West.

He arrives during a truce between two whiskey smuggling gangs.

When the Doyle gang causes trouble for him, Smith aligns himself with the Rossi gang -- and then plays them off each other.

Smith is willing to cross and double cross two very bad gangs, which makes him interesting to watch.
 
Is he is a good guy? 

ex. He rescues enslaved Felina.
ex. He protects Joe the barkeeper.

Or is he bad?

ex. He shoots the Doyle gang who keeps Felina hostage, then shifts the blame to Rossi.
ex. He joins Rossi's gang, quits, then sells info to Doyle's gang - all to destroy both gangs.

Smith had the right motives (to get rid of bad guys), but his means did not have many boundaries.

I was rather surprised how far he took "the end justifies the means."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Does crossing and double-crossing bad guys make you a bad guy too? Still thinking about that one.

Last Man Standing (1996)
Written & directed by Walter Hill
From a story by Ryuzo Kikushima & Akira Kurosawa

TODAY'S NUGGET: Wild Bill (1995) - What is a Good Motive?

[Quick Summary: The rough and tumble life of Wild Bill Hickok, from Nebraska to Deadwood.]

Wild Bill is pretty memorable, but I kept thinking about the antagonist, Jack McCall.

McCall is a cowardly gunman with a grudge, who follows Wild Bill.

I thought he had a "good" grudge, since his motive convinced me.

What makes a motive convincing anyway?

I remembered author Patricia Highsmith who wrote:

"It's much easier to create from positive, affection emotions than from negative and hateful ones. Jealousy, while powerful, I find of no use at all, and it most resembles the disease cancer, eating away and giving nothing."*

Here, McCall's mother and Wild Bill had a relationship long ago.

The mother languished and died, and McCall always blamed Wild Bill.

Out of love for his mother (positive emotion), McCall swore he'd kill Wild Bill (grudge).
 
Love would easily energize McCall through the whole story.

But vengeance or jealousy (negative emotions)? Perhaps a few scenes, but they don't have nearly the same kind of sustaining energy.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: For motives, think in terms of positive emotions.

Wild Bill (1995)
Written & directed by Walter Hill

* Plotting& Writing Suspense Fiction, by Patricia Highsmith, (1983, p. 24).

TODAY'S NUGGET: Alien 3 (1992) - Some Things You Can't Mess With

[Quick Summary: After Ripley's spaceship crash lands (with an alien hitchhiker) on a prison planet, she must rally the prisoners to fight the alien.]

Fortunately, Alien and Aliens set up a franchise.

Unfortunately, Alien 3 had a hellish production.

Fortunately, there is a cohesive script.

Unfortunately, it's missing something...

Here's the best I can explain:

- Ripley is alone on a prison planet. [Fish-out-of-water. Good.]

- The prisoners are suspicious of her story. [New environment. Good.]

- Ripley must convince the prisoners to fight. [Aaaaand here's my problem.]

Ripley is a leader who is pushed to the limit, but in previous films, her team has always had her back.

Half the fun of Alien and Aliens is the team spirit.

I liked watching them solve the puzzle together.

But in Alien 3, the prisoners seem hopeless and resigned to their fate.  They're scared, but not amped up to fight.

In short, most are not on the same page as Ripley.

She must constantly refocus them on the alien...and it gets less and less fun to watch.

I miss the team spirit, you know?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes fundamentals shouldn't change.

Alien 3
by Walter Hill and David Giler

TODAY'S NUGGET: Red Heat (1988) - A Moment When the Woman Was Essential

[Quick Summary: A Russian cop must team up with an American cop to capture a fugitive Russian cocaine lord who is loose in Chicago.]

As I read everything in my Walter Hill library, I've grown cynical when it comes to the females.

I've noticed the roles tend to be one note and disposable.*

Generally, there's only one job for women.  I wonder why they are marginalized to the edges so often.

Are they a distraction? Is a triangular conflict less intense?

I'll probably never know.

However, one section of Red Heat did surprised me because a female played a rare key role.

Danko, the unemotional Russian cop, is ambushed in his hotel room.

He survives because of unexpected gun power, i.e., the hooker down the hall has had his back.

"DANKO: Wait!

She turns, startled.

DANKO: You saved my life.
HOOKER (suspicious): Yeah?
DANKO: I just wanted to thank you.

And he lifts her, hugs her and kisses her. It is a moment of pure exultation. for the first time since Jusso's [his cop partner] death, he feels glad to be alive.

The Hooker is caught up by his infectious mood and she responds with a great peal of laughter. They have both come through a life and death situation. They have both made it."

The female is essential to the action, for once.

It might not seem like a big deal, but in a Hill script, it's huge.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's great to see a writer step out of the comfort zone.

Red Heat (1988)
Written by Troy Kennedy Martin & Walter Hill
Directed by Walter Hill

*Here, I exclude Alien's Riley, and refer to the other 8 Hill scripts I've read.

TODAY'S NUGGET: What if There's No Character Arc (a la Jack Reacher)?

I'm extremely curious about the upcoming film, Jack Reacher, based on the book One Shot by Lee Child.

Child writes here about 3 problems why the character of Jack Reacher is troublesome for film:

1 - Reacher's physicality (6'5", 250 lbs.)

2 - "Reacher has no character arc"

3 - "Much of Reacher's appeal is inside his head"

Immediately, #2 made my hair stand on end.

Awhile ago, a writer argued endlessly with me that a character arc is unnecessary in a script.

I countered that it's near impossible to make an interesting story without it. 

I even blogged about its importance here.

I bought the belief in Hollywood that it could not be done.  (Secretly, I'd hoped it was possible, but I have never seen it.)

So how did Christopher McQuarrie (Oscar winner, writer of The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie) adapt this book?

I am dying to know, & will report back as soon as I can read the script.

Anyone have thoughts?