TODAY'S NUGGET: Zelig (1983) - How Voice Over Can Help a Satire

[Quick Summary: In the 1920s, a psychiatrist tries to help Zelig, an actual human chameleon who has lost his identity.]

I tip my hat to Woody Allen on this script.

It's not perfect, but it's one of the most unique ideas I've seen in ages.

Zelig unconsciously adopts to whomever is in his surroundings, including attitude, skin color, etc. If he's with Asians, he acts/speaks/looks Asian. 

He shows up at big historical events, becomes famous, and then disaster follows.  The public celebrates Zelig, then demonizes, then celebrates him.

I thought the choice to use of frequent narrated voice over was odd for this satire. However, it began to make sense in hindsight.

Satire uses ridicule and exaggeration to make a point. 

I think this script is satirizing how public opinion can turn on a dime.

The script uses voice over:
1) to lead us through the public's thought processes, and then
2) to exaggerate it to poke fun.

ex. "NARRATOR'S VOICE-OVER: That Zelig could be responsible for the behavior of each of the personalities he assumed means dozens of lawsuits. [He had no idea what he was doing, but let's still make him responsible!]

The film moves inside the courthouse, where the presiding judge is seen over the shoulders of the packed room. Lawyers walk back and forth in front of the seated spectators, exchanging documents, talking among themselves in clusters, going up to the judge. As the narrator continues, the film cuts to a somber-looking Zelig, sitting at a table with his lawyer. His hands are clasped in his lap.

NARRATOR'S VOICE-OVER: He is used for bigamy, adultery, automobile accidents, plagiarism, household damages, negligence, property damages, and performing unnecessary dental extractions. [He's liable for the kitchen sink!!]"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: In satire, voice over can be used to state the premise, then ridicule it.

Zelig (1983)
by Woody Allen
Published in Three Films by Woody Allen (1987)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Stardust Memories (1980) - Seeing What the Writer Saw

[Quick Summary: A comedy filmmaker unsuccessfully tries to break new ground.]

1 - I want script readers to "get" my scripts, i.e., they see what I'm seeing in my head.

So when I read a script that I don't get (like this one), I tend to take a closer look.

This story begins with a popular comedy filmmaker who now wants to make a serious drama. However, the public just wants more of his early stuff.

The filmmaker experiences/complains about the pressures of sycophants, women, family, etc....and then nothing happens.

So WHAT IS THE POINT? I couldn't see what the writer was aiming for.

2 - Here's one scene that was clear, and juggled pathos and comedy as well:

WALKING MAN (Overlapping Sandy's speech): Are you Sandy Bates?
SANDY (To the man, trying to get rid of him) Uh, no. (To Isobel) The kids will probably be starved.
WALKING MAN: Yes, you are.
SANDY (Shaking his head, trying to get rid of the man): Uh, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not.
WALKING MAN: My mother buys meat in the same butcher shop your mother does.
SANDY (Laughing): Oh, great.
WALKING MAN (Handing Sandy a piece of paper): Can I have your autograph?
SANDY (Reacting): Oh, Jesus.
WALKING MAN: Could you just write "To Phyllis Weinstein, you unfaithful, lying bitch"?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One tip is whatever characters do, they must experience consequences. 

If nothing happens, I'm 99% uninterested.

Stardust Memories (1980)
by Woody Allen
Four Films of Woody Allen (book published 1982)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Interiors (1978) - How to End a Fight When There Are No Easy Answers

[Quick Summary: When a father decides to divorce and remarry, his three daughters grapple how to cope.]

I admire this script because it's realistic, sometimes uncomfortably so, but not in a depressing way.

In this story:
- Mom is permanently unhinged.
- Dad is ready to move on with a new wife.
- Daughter Renata (poet) has a husband who feels threatened by her success.
- Daughter Joey (photographer) feels second banana to Renata.
- Daughter Flyn (actress) has go-nowhere career.

I liked that each character has a strong POV and issues that conflict with the others.

However, how do you resolve the conflict if both sides are sound?

How do you resolve a scene when there are no easy answers?

I learned from reading this script that:
1) You do not have to have a nice neat resolution at the end of a scene.
2) How the character comes to terms with the argument can happen off screen.
3) #2 above will work as long as all the issues are presented on screen (#1).

The scene below is the tail end of yet another argument about Mom.

Notice that:
- There is no tidy resolution at the end.
- The scene ends without an "a-ha!" moment.
- The scene lays out the issues, i.e., Joey's resentment. 
- If you read the full script, you'll see this conversation have an impact (albeit off screen). We know this because they act differently after this scene.

ex." RENATA: Look, Joey...I can't help it if you feel guilty about your feelings toward Mother. I mean, you-you-you can't seem to do enough to make up for it.

JOEY (looking at RENATA): Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

RENATA: You know what it means. You could never stand her.

JOEY (Upset): I-I don't believe this. My whole life I've only wanted to be her.

RENATA: Yeah...well, for a while there you were her, weren't you?

JOEY (Shaking her head): I don't know what you're talking about.

RENATA: Oh, Joey, you know what I'm talking about! All those headaches every time she'd come home from the hospital. You never wanted her to come home.

JOEY: This is incredible. I mean, you twist everything I say. I-I-I give up!"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Characters don't have to resolve every fight on screen.

Interiors (1978)
by Woody Allen
Four Films of Woody Allen (book published 1982)

TODAY'S NUGGET: Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) - Constructed for Maximum Emotion

[Quick Summary: A NYC couple are convinced their neighbor has killed his wife.]

What makes a Woody Allen film so special?

Most people, including me, would say, "It's the dialogue."

I still think that's true, but the springboard is that his scripts are first constructed for maximum emotion.

ex. In this story, Carol and Larry meet their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. House.

Soon, Mrs. House disappears.

Carol thinks Mr. House killed Mrs. House, but Larry doesn't believe her.
 
However, an attractive single friend, Ted, does, and she gravitates toward him.

Larry is unsure how to deal, so he connects with Marcia at work. She becomes interested in the mystery as well.

In the first half of the script, Larry is jealous of Carol and Ted

--> Larry resists helping Carol (& thus getting her to her goal).
---> This pushes Carol closer to Ted.
---> This is uncomfortable for Larry.

In the second half, Carol is jealous of Marcia's positive effect on Larry and Ted.

---> Larry and Marcia become more involved in the mystery
---> Larry solves things, Marcia looks smart.
---> This is bittersweet for Carol.

Once this framework is in place, it's no wonder the dialogue really sparkles:

CAROL: I told Ted.
LARRY: You told Ted before you told me?
CAROL: Yeah. He's more open-minded about these things.
LARRY: Yes, I know. I'm-I'm-I'm a bore. I'm-Because I-Because I-Because I don't break the law, you know?
CAROL: Yeah.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Do the heavy lifting first. Dialogue later.

Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)
by Woody Allen

TODAY'S NUGGET: Clue (1985) - Mysterious Before Funny

[Quick Summary: Blackmailed dinner guests have 45 min. to figure out who among them killed the blackmailer. Based on the board game. ]

This script delivers what it promises.

It is FUNNY and MYSTERIOUS.

It seems like it's all FUNNY, but not if you actually look at the construction.

The writers did the heavy lifting: They constructed the MYSTERY first, then added the FUNNY.

In other words, the script was built first with the story, then the comedy added.

Note how much exposition is laid down in this funny scene:

ex. "MRS. WHITE: Yes, just the five. Husbands should be like Kleenex - strong, soft, and disposable.

COLONEL MUSTARD: So, you don't believe in marriage?

MRS. WHITE: I certainly do. Perhaps it's because I was educated in a convent, but I'm in the habit.

COLONEL MUSTARD: You lure men to their death like a spider with flies.

MRS. WHITE: You're right. Flies are where men are most vulnerable.

COLONEL MUSTARD (very uncomfortable): Well, if it wasn't you, who was it? Who had the dagger? It was you, wasn't it, Mrs. Peacock?"

We've learned:
- Mrs. White had 5 husbands.
- Mrs. White doesn't mind losing those husbands. (Makes us curious why.)
- Mrs. White is clever enough to absolve herself of any motive.

But it's also funny because:
- There's funny simile (husband like Kleenex).
- There's a play on imagery (convent - habit).
- There's play on words (flies).

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can be funny & mysterious, as long as the mystery comes before the funny.

Clue (1985)(shooting script) part 1 and part 2
by Jonathan Lynn
Story by John Landis & Jonathan Lynn

TODAY'S NUGGET: M (1931) - Establishing That Dark & Creepy Noir Tone

[Quick Summary: A child murderer is on the loose in 1930s Berlin.]

The Turner Classic Movie channel (TCM) is sponsoring "TCM Summer of Darkness," a film noir festival every Friday in June and July.

It is also sponsoring "Into the Darkness: Investigating Film Noir," a FREE e-course to go along with the programming.*  I plan to follow along (and hope you do too).

(FYI: I also hope to read a bunch of these scripts for the blog.)

---------------------------------------------------------
No film noir festival would be complete without M.

Why? Because M explores the dark and creepy, but with a specific idea/message, as good films should.  Here, I think it's about taking action when feeling helpless.

How? From page one, it establishes the dark and creepy tone.

Note that the visual is of innocence and exclusion together:

ex. "EXT. COURTYARD - CITY BLOCK - BERLIN, GERMANY - 1930 A.D. - DAY

FADE IN on a HIGH ANGLE - A group of children, standing in a circle, play a game. In the center of the circle, a LITTLE GIRL points her finger from one child to another in rhythm with the chant. [High angle peers down like an all seeing eye.]

LITTLE GIRL (chants): Just you wait a little while, The evil man in black will come. And with his little chopper, He will chop you up. [Innocent kids are playing a bloodthirsty game, as kids do.]

The LITTLE GIRL stops in front of one of her playmates and gestures for her to leave the circle.

LITTLE GIRL: You're out. [The kids aren't worried about the evil man out there (though we are).]

The child leaves the circle and the game continues." [This summarizes the whole film - kids leave and life continues.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: One way to establish a dark and creepy tone is to amplify unease, ex. juxtapose two contrasting emotions like innocence and exclusion.

M (1931)
by Thea von Harbou & Fritz Lang

* If you don't have cable, you can still take the class because each lesson comes with links to publicly available clips.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Angel Heart (1987) - Handling Exposition Two Ways

[Quick Summary: 1950s NYC detective digs into Louisiana voodoo culture in order to find whether a missing entertainer is alive or dead.]

I'd never heard of this film before.

It's shockingly creepy. 
And well written.
And gross here and there (if you read it, you'll understand).
And originally got an "X" rating from the MPAA.

Writer/director Alan Parker knew exposition is troublesome (here):

As with all traditional first-person detective tales, the fundamental problem is in the translation of literary exposition into filmic narrative. (Consequently, the over-use of voice-over in this genre.) This was something I wanted to avoid, although, unavoidably a line or two did sneak into my final cut for sheer economy of story telling.

A) Plain Exposition - Often, he handled the exposition simply:

ex. "CYPHRE: Do you by chance remember the name Johnny Favorite?

HARRY: Er yeah, wasn't he a crooner with one of them swing bands -- before the war.

CYPHRE: That's him. He sang with the Spider Simpson orchestra. An overnight sensation as the press agents like to put it. Personally, I loathed the music, the tunes he recorded escape me, there were several, but he created a near riot at the Paramount Theatre long before anyone had heard of Mr. Sinatra.do you recall him at all, Mr. Angel?"

B) Exposition + Character

But Parker doesn't just dole out exposition all the time (which is boring).  He knew when to add splashes of character, which oils the scene.

Notice how Harry's small talk wins over the nurse. She now is eager to help him.

ex. "HARRY: Liebling. Jonathan Liebling. Of course all information will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.

NURSE: One moment please.

CLOSE UP - WHITE SHOES

squeaking on the shiny clean floor.

Lysol. Harry sniffs and looks at the pretty legs.

HARRY: Were you working last weekend?

The nurse is looking through the files.

NURSE: No. I was at my sister's wedding.

HARRY: Catch the bouquet?

NURSE: No such luck.

HARRY: Nice guy?

NURSE: Huh?

HARRY: The husband.

NURSE: An old guy. Loaded.

Smile. Slight but real. She returns with an open manilla folder.

We did have a Mr. Liebling, but it says here he was transferred.

HARRY: When?

NURSE: Years ago. December '45.

She twists the file around and shows it to Harry."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Often, you'll have Plain Exposition.  However, if you can, add Exposition + Character.

Angel Heart (1987) 
by Alan Parker
Based upon the novel,"Falling Angel," by William Hjortsberg

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Lady from Shanghai (1947) - Good Motive = Good Misdirection

[Quick Summary: A man is sucked into a noir mystery with a woman, her jealous husband, and his business partner.]

3 Reasons That This Script is Worth Reading:*

1) I didn't see the end coming.
2) Rita Hayworth thought so much of the script that she wanted to be in the film, even though she and Welles were estranged at the time. (He directed and starred.)
3) It excels at characters with good motives.

I realize more and more that a good motive does not need to be complicated.

However, it does have to be solid enough to give the writer options.

In this mystery-thriller, I learned that one option is to misdirect the audience.

Misdirection is extremely helpful in keeping the suspense buoyant.

ex. In this story, Michael saves Elsa at the park.  He falls for her, but learns that she's married.

The next day, her jealous husband (Bannister) hires Michael as a chauffeur for Elsa. Bannister has also hired Broome as a butler to spy on Elsa and Michael.

Grisby, Bannister's law partner, offers Michael $5000 to shoot someone.

Note that everyone has a juicy motive:

Michael - In love with Elsa
Elsa - Wants out of marriage
Bannister - Jealous of Michael
Broome - Willing to double cross for $$
Grisby - Willing to pay Michael to commit a crime for unknown reasons

Welles then uses these motives to misdirect from the main mystery, i.e.,What do these people involve Michael? Why?

- Michael tries to quit his job...but he stays for Elsa.
- Bannister sends Michael off to drive Elsa...why would he do this?
- Grisby bribes Michael to help him...why is it so important?

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Because I was so caught up in the misdirects, the final reveal was truly surprising.

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
by Orson Welles

*I think the script is the closest thing to Welles' true vision, since the studio took out about 60 minutes from the film. 

TODAY'S NUGGET: Buried (2010) - Hope & Fear in a Low Budget, No Budget Thriller

[Quick Summary: American truck driver in Iraq is buried alive for ransom.]

Writer Chris Sparling said here:

I planned on directing [this script] myself. I was going to make it for like five thousand dollars. It was conceived as a low-budget, or no-budget, indie movie.

Unexpectedly, the script went out to producers and then into production all within SIX months!

It has the attractive elements for an indie project:

- Contained thriller story (guy in a coffin)
- One actor
- Clear urgency (he needs to get out)
- Excellent voice (I liked how the writer told the story with confidence)

But how do you keep it interesting for 90 pages without a big budget?

It's not obvious at first, but I think it's the writer's deft use of hope and fear.

Note how clear either hope or fear is in each line:

ex. "Paul is switched to an AUTOMATED MESSAGE.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: The number you requested, 269-948-1998 can automatically be dialed for a charge of twenty-five cents by pressing the number one. [Another number to call = Fear]

Paul writes Donna's number and name on the top of the coffin and then pressed the number one. He is connected. [Connected = Hope!]

Her phone rings and rings. Paul's frustration is evident. [Fear]

PAUL: Come on! Where the hell is everyone? [Fear]

The phone rings some more. Paul checks the battery life still at one and a half bars. [Ticking clock = Fear]

DONNA eventually answers. [Hope]

DONNA: Hello? [Relief someone answered = Hope]"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script stood out to me because:
1) The story is told well. Voice. Point of view. Clarity.
2) It delivered the thrills that it promised, i.e., hope or fear at every step.

Buried (2010)
by Chris Sparling

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Little Foxes (1941) - How to Call Someone A Liar, Southern Style

[Quick Summary: In the deep south, two brothers and a sister have claws out over an investment. ]

What happens after you call someone out for lying?

Escalation into a fight? Silence? Negotiation?

It depends on the culture.

For instance, this script is based in the American South, where politeness rules.

When someone lies, you may gently point it out, just not directly.

Note in the scene below:

1) How it's done indirectly
2) Regina's response to being calling out
3) Ben's response after she admits it

ex. "BEN (Too casually): You don't think maybe he never started from Baltimore and never intends to start?

REGINA (Irritated): Of course they've started. Didn't I have a letter from Alexandra? What is so strange about people arriving late? He has that cousin in Savannah he's so fond of. He may have stopped to see him. They'll be along today some time, very flattered that you and Oscar are so worried about them....

REGINA (Starts toward dining room): Then you haven't had your breakfast. Come along (Oscar and Leo follow her.)

BEN: Regina. (She turns at dining-room door) That cousin of Horace's has been dead for year and, in any case, the train does not go through Savannah. [He states facts w/o sneering or being rude.]

REGINA (Laughs, continues into dining room, seats herself): Did he die? You're always remembering about people dying. (Ben rises) Now I intend to eat my breakfast in peace, and read my newspaper. [She laughs, sidesteps, and changes the topic.]

BEN (Goes toward dining room as he talks): This is second breakfast for me. My first was bad. Celia ain't the cook she used to be. too old to have taste any more. If she hadn't belonged to Mama, I'd send her off to the country. (Oscar and Leo start to eat. Ben seats himself.)" [He knows she knows, so he goes with the new topic. No extended finger pointing.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Know the rules of the culture in your story, especially if unfamiliar.

Your first instinct might not be appropriate in that setting.

The Little Foxes (1941)*
by Lillian Hellman
Additional scenes & dialogue by Arthur Kober, Dorothy Parker, & Alan Campbell
Based on the stage play by Lillian Hellman

*This is a link to the play because the script is unavailable. The only one I could find in existence was Hellman's original (here).