TODAY'S NUGGET: Flightplan (2005) - When the Antagonist's Identity is Delayed

[Quick Summary: When a widow flies back to the U.S. with her husband's casket, her fragile mind is strained when her 4 y.o. daughter goes missing on the plane.]

What I liked about this script:
- Strong female lead
- It's a real page turner
- Interesting mystery: Is the mother delusional with grief or not?
- Several nice twists & turns, red herrings

What I didn't like about this script: The antagonist takes too long to show up.

I do understand why structurally there is a delay in the reveal.

First, there is plenty of pipe to lay down (ex. the search of the plane; why the female protagonist, Kyle, is distraught; etc.)

Second, the antagonist is continually manipulating Kyle's situation from off screen.  So he is "there," although we do not see him.

Third, part of the mystery is who the antagonist could be.

Fourth, it's a matter of taste and preference how to tell this story.

But for my two cents, the script didn't zip as much until the antagonist shows up (well into Act 2), as in the scene below (SPOILERS AHEAD):

ex.  "INT. AIRJEST - UPPER DECK - ROW 35 -WINDOW - CONTINUING

She rushes toward the window. Through it she sees the apron of the tarmac:

A Plain FBI SEDAN approaches. CARGO-GUYS off-load suitcases and golf-clubs. There's that pallet bearing the Mercedes and its smashing window

...And David's casket, rolling off a conveyor belt.

But now Kyle has to picture Julia inside it. God no... 

Her legs fail her; she literally folds toward the floor. Breathing feels impossible. We stay on her, tight on her face, as:

CARSON (cont'd): She'll wake up in about an hour, give or take, and find herself face to face with your husband. You fuck with me, even a little, and she'll die in there - there's about five hours worth of oxygen inside.

A four year-old girl, in a coffin with a corpse. It's unimaginable, enough to drive a mother mad.

And that's just what it's doing - we can see it Kyle's eyes.

She backs away from the window, into the aisle. Carson takes out his phone, casually.

CARSON (cont'd): Now. Let's talk about your exit strategy.

She's about to explode. It's coming...

CARSON (cont'd): After the money is wired  you're going to --

Bang. She goes off.

In a blur, she has bolted down the aisle, catching Carson completely off-guard.

CARSON: Goddamit...

He takes off after her."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even when it doesn't work for me, I admire when writers attempt a bold structure (here, concealing the antagonist's identity as late as possible).

Flightplan (2005)(current revisions by Billy Ray, dated 6/8/04)
by Peter Dowling, rev. by Larry Cohen, Terry Hayes, and Billy Ray

TODAY'S NUGGET: Shattered Glass (2003) - A Contradictory Character

[Quick Summary: Based on a true story. A well-liked young staff writer from the esteemed The New Republic reports on the most fascinating stories,* until a journalist fact-checks one and finds it is fictional.]

I find contradictory characters both fascinating and frustrating, i.e., good reading.

Here, for example, I like AND dislike the Stephen Glass character.

a) I LIKE HIM BECAUSE: He's doesn't brag, is entertaining, thoughtful, and loyal.  He's the friend that enters when all others exit.

ex. "INT. NEAR-EMPTY BALLROOM - TNR TABLE - RESUMING

Lane looks over theother reporters at this table - recalling that painful time:

LANE: No one on the staff would speak to me. No one... (they nod, remembering) Except for Stephen.

The Staffers react, surprised. Very.

                                                                                                     CUT TO:

INT. TNR SUITE - HALLWAY - NIGHT (FLASHBACK)

It's late; the suite is still. Glass walks down the hallway in his socks, checking to see thatnoone's around to spot him... Then he ducks into:

INT. LANE'S OFFICE - CONTINUING (FLASHBACK)

Lane looks up from his desk, drained - and thrown... because Glass is standing in his doorway.

GLASS (softly, with compassion): How's it goin', Chuck?

Lane sighs with relief. He's got an ally."

b) I DISLIKE HIM BECAUSE: He lives in denial, even when the reputation of others is on the line.

The scene below is a conference call between Glass and Lane (his boss), and Penenberg, a Forbes Digital Tool reporter, who has questions about a Glass article.

ex.  "PENENBERG: Um, a few other people we can't seem to locate. Julie Farthwork, Frank Juliet, and Restil's agent - Joe Hiert...We called the numbers you gave us and got voice-mails for all three. And all the e-mails we sent came back saying "no address" or "account closed."

GLASS: Really? 'Cause I've e-mailed them about a million times each. Hiert's on-line all day long.

PENENBERG: Did you ever call these people and get them directly?

GLASS: No. I always left messages and spoke to them when they called back.

PENENBERG: I see.

That hangs there...as we SPLIT SCREEN INTO FOUR SEPARATE IMAGES, each a little slice of tension: Lane's eyes, his notepad, Glass' fidgeting hands, the mini-cassette.

INTERCUT with Penenberg, who is as calm as can be...

PENENBERG: And the references in the article to Nevada law enforcement officials. Was Jim Ghort the only one you spoke to?

GLASS: Yes.

PENENBERG: Do you have a phone number for him?

GLASS: Yeah. Definitely. Somewhere around here.

Glass looks through his notes as if inconvenienced. Then:

GLASS (cont'd): Ready?

PENENBERG: Mmm-hmmm.

GLASS: 605-43--

PENENBERG: Wait.

GLASS: Huh?

PENENBERG: 605. That's not Nevada.

GLASS: Oh.

He pauses. Lane tightens.

GLASS: I guess I got him mixed up with another source. I just have to -- (shuffling pages) Ghort is actually the guy who told me about the Law Enforcement Officials. (more shuffling) I might have to --

LANE (sharply): Give him the number, Stephen.

END SPLIT-SCREEN...as a deafening silence fills both offices. Glass looks wounded.

...and Penenberg and Foroohar look stunned. They know that a lined just got crossed...

PENENBERG (for Foroohar only): This guy is toast.

Foroohar nods."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The contradictory nature of the Glass character (both loyal and untruthful) gives a familiar story a new angle.

Shattered Glass (2003)(revised draft, dated 5/20/02)
by Billy Ray
From an article by Buzz Bissinger

*He bamboozled The New Republic into printing at least 41 invented or partially invented articles.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Hart's War (2002) - Up the Stakes: A Good Twist & Moral Quandry

[Quick Summary: In a "trial" to amuse the senior German officer, an American POW must defend a black POW who is accused of murdering a third POW.]

Two thoughts:

1) I imagine this was a tough novel to adapt:
- It's a war film with political and racial issues.
- There's a very large ensemble cast.
- There is a lot of material to cover, so it takes a while (40+ pgs) to set up.*
- It's a mystery and a courtroom drama.

2) A good twist in the story and/or moral quandry really up the stakes and conflict.

This script has both.

In the scene below, Tommy Hart is summoned to the office of Commander Visser.

NOTE:
- Visser is the enemy, but....he's offering help? (Good twist!)
- The writer set up a tough decision for Tommy: either betray his beliefs for the benefit of his client, or stick by his beliefs and doom his client. (Good moral quandry!)

ex. "INT. VISSER'S OFFICE - KOMMANDANTUR - MOMENTS LATER

Well-appointed...but those appointments are all starting to show their age. Visser sits, reading Huckleberry Finn (in English, of course) as Tommy is escorted in.

VISSER: Ah, Lieutenant! How are you?

Cell Guard #2 clicks his heels at Visser and exits. Visser lowers his book. Tommy looks around, wary.

VISSER: Not too well, I imagine. That was quite a beating you took today. Sit.

Tommy sits, eyeing the copy of Huckleberry Finn.

VISSER: You know this book? It's wonderful....And after watching that trial all day, I found myself longing for the tales of "Nigger Jim!"

TOMMY: Major, I have witnesses to prepare for...

VISSER: Yes. This has been very much on mind. In fact it's why I wanted to see you.

He crosses to a bookcase, grabs a MILITARY MANUAL, and hands it to Tommy: "The U.S. Army Officers' Handbook of Military Law and Court-Martial Procedure." Tommy eyes it, surprised.

TOMMY: How did you --

VISSER: We keep a library of all American military manuals. I thought this one might be of particular use to you. (pleased) As I'd said, my sense of fair play...

Tommy pauses. Something's feeling a little Faustian here...

TOMMY: I don't think I can accept this, Major. We have a policy about fraternizing with the --

VISSER: You walk back in there unarmed and your client is going to face a firing squad. Would that be better?

Tommy's wavering now. They both know it.

VISSER: Read it. You might learn something.

On Tommy, we...
                                                                                                   CUT TO:"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think war films tend to blend together unless something sets it apart.  Here, the unusual structural elements make it memorable.

Hart's War (2002)(2nd draft revised, dated 8/16/00)
by Billy Ray
Based on the novel by John Katzenbach - and drafts by Jeb Stuart and Terry George

*Yes, it was necessary. No, I don't know if it could be sped up faster than it was. No, this does not make me happy, but it is the reality of screenplay form vs. novel.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Volcano (1997) - Rhthym/Tempo in an Action Film

[Quick Summary: When molten lava breaks through the earth's crust, the no-nonsense O.E.M chief struggles to corral the lava amid multiple emergencies.]

Disaster films are a tough sell to today's audiences.

However, I think that today's script is still worth a read because it is a good example of rhythm/tempo in an action film.

For me, rhythm/tempo is one of the more difficult things to describe to new writers.

If done right, it is generally invisible to the audience.  If done wrong, the audience senses something is off, but often can't tell you why.

A few rhythm/tempo clues from this script:

1) It will take more space on the page than you think.
2) Rhythm/tempo conveys feeling: fast (urgency); building (pushing to a climax); pause (off guard or thinking); etc.
3) In scripts, it consists of the sequence of scenes STRUNG TOGETHER.

Note in the scene below:
- There's a lot of writing on the page (sorry it's so long).
- The sequence is: Show us other rescuers --> show protagonist Roark --> show other rescuers --> show Roark. It is the drumbeat of battle.
- When Dr. Jaye disagrees with Roark, he pauses before answering (see notes below).

ex. "MORE LAVA TARGETS THE DOWNED FIRETRUCK

A BRAVE FIREMAN climbs up to the passenger door of the prone truck, and dives into the cab.

THE LAVA REACHES THE ROOF OF THE FIRETRUCK'S CAB

We hear the BRAVE FIREMAN scream from the heat. He tries to pull the Wounded Driver straight up...A SECOND BRAVE FIREMAN reaches in...trying to pull both of the men out.

THE CAB OF THE DOWNED FIRETRUCK MELTS IN FLAME

The BRAVE FIREMAN and WOUNDED DRIVER are burned alive. We hear their screams.

REED RUNS FOR THAT DOWNED FIRETRUCK

He grabs the SECOND BRAVE FIREMAN before the guy can get himself killed. Pulls him out. AMBULANCE SIRENS wail.

ROAK LOOKS OVER THE STREET

He sees JAYE TRYING TO DRAG THE HEAD-WOUND FIREMAN out of the path of the flow. She's not fast enough.

ROARK HESITATES

Kelly's in his arms, burned, choking from all the ash. Ten feet away, two more firemen are sitting ducks...

HE LAYS KELLY DOWN ON A BUS-BENCH

She should be safe there.

ROARK RUNS BACK ON TO THE STREET

He grabs the legs of the Head-Wound Fireman. Jaye has the guy's arms. Together, they move him.

ROARK AND JAYE LEAVE THE GUY BESIDE KELLY

Lava's still coming...And the BROKEN-LEG FIREMEN is right in its path.

With the help of a THIRD FIREMAN, they hoist the guy up and haul him back to that bush-bench. Broken-leg Fireman screams in agony.

THE LAVA PASSES BY THEM

IT'S SLOW, BUT MENACING, CARRYING DEBRIS.  GRAVITY SLOPES IT WEST, DOWN WILSHIRE. ROARK AND JAYE LOOK OVER THEIR THREE CASUALTIES.

JAYE (has to shout): We have to get these people to Cedars.

ROARK: This is my daughter. I'll get her there myself.

JAYE: You're O.E.M. right? (Roark nods) You're needed here. I'll take her.

ROARK: I don't...

JAYE: You bring her in, she waits in line. I bring her in, this burn gets treated. (that scored) It's not major. She's gonna be okay...But I don't want it infected.

ON ROARK [Notice that Roark doesn't answer immediately.]

He eyes, Jaye, sizing her up. She's all-business.

AROUND HIM - CHAOS [Instead, we see what he's seeing, i.e., what he's thinking.]

More accidents, more fires, and it's just beginning.

THE LAVA HITS A ROW OF PALM TREES

They line the entrance to LACMA. One by one, the palms ignite. From within the Museum, fire alarms WAIL.

ROARK LOOKS TO HIS DAUGHTER

Then back to Jaye again. He nods.

ROARK: Take her."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Give yourself room on the page. Rhythm/tempo needs space.

Volcano (1997)(draft dated 5/3/96)
by Billy Ray and Jerome Armstrong
Story by Jerome Armstrong

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Ice Storm (1997) - To Increase Tension Before the Reveal

[Quick Summary: During a 1970s Thanksgiving, a family of four have different plans how to cope.]

This is a well-written drama/tragedy (maybe satire too?)

It is about lives in quiet desperation in the 1970s.

CON: I'm glad this script exists, but it's simply not my cup of tea. 

It's an observational film, and I couldn't figure out what the characters wanted (relief? oblivion? Maybe that was the point?)

PRO: I did like the last 7 pages, where the characters are confronted with a death.

**WARNING: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD**

I especially liked how the writer included two moments of quiet normalcy before the reveal. It increased the tension: "Oh no! These are the lives that will be shattered!"

In more detail:
- Ben finds the body.
- His wife Elena finds their teen daughter Wendy asleep with Sandy Carver (at the Carver's house. Sandy's dad is Jim Carver.)
- Elena and daughter Wendy have a quiet moment of connection.
- Jim Carver and his son Sandy have a quiet moment of connection.
- Ben brings the body to Carver's house.

Here are the two moments of quiet before the reveal:

ex. "INT. CARVER KITCHEN. DAWN.

Elena pours Wendy a cup of coffee. They're both in their coats.

WENDY: I don't like coffee.

ELENA: It'll warm you up.

Elena sits next to her. They both cross their legs, then raise their cups and sip the coffee, not noticing the simultaneity of their movements.

INT. GUEST ROOM. DAWN.

Jim watches the sleeping Sandy, picks up the half-empty bottle of vodka, pours himself a drink. The noise wakes Sandy up. Jim sits down on the bed at his feet.

SANDY: Dad?

JIM: Sandy.

Jim raises a quiet toast to his son and takes a gulp of vodka."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be afraid to take a pause before the big punch.

It can actually increase the strength of the punch. 

The Ice Storm (1997)
by James Schamus
Based on the book by Rick Moody

TODAY'S NUGGET: In Good Company (2004) - "Well-Defined, Three Dimensional Character"

[Quick Summary: A 51 y.o. magazine ad exec is demoted and to make it worse, his daughter starts dating his new 26 y.o. boss.]

What is a "well-defined, three dimensional character"?!
 
Over the years, I've grown frustrated with this term for 2 reasons:

1) Everyone wants one, but what is it? No one had a good definition.

So here are my own working definitions:

- "Well-defined" = Clear traits, flaws, distinguishing characteristics, etc.
- "Three dimensional" = We can tell the characters have larger lives outside the scene.  This story is only a snapshot or a small part of that life.

2) How much do you show of a character's life to make him/her "three dimensional"? A little bit? A lot?

This is trickier.  The short answer is "Just Enough," i.e., personal taste.

The long answer is: It depends on what the writer is trying to accomplish.

Some scripts have more. Some scripts have very little (mostly procedurals or plot driven).*

This script is one of those that show more of the personal life. 

Why?  One reason is that his professional life (demotion) leaks into his personal life (daughter in college, and a baby on the way).

In the scene below, note how:
- The parallel format makes us contrast how Dan and Carter handle stress.
- Showing a peek of their lives away from the office (away from Dan vs. Carter) gives the audience a little more about each of their motivations.
- These motives will pay off later.  They're not just here to take up space.

ex. "EXT. BANK - DAY

Ann and Dan walk into a bank MORTGAGE LOAN office.

INT. BANK - DAY

Dan and Ann are in the BANK LOAN OFFICE, filling out forms for a second mortgage.

LOAN OFFICER: Sign here, here, and here and you've got your second mortgage.

Dan looks at Ann. She smiles at him, a bit ruefully.

Dan SIGNS.

INT. DIVORCE LAWYER'S OFFICE - DAY

Carter SIGNS papers.

Carter is sitting in a LAWYER'S OFFICE, filling out forms for his divorce.

DIVORCE LAWYER: Sign there, there... and there. And it's official...

Carter FINISHES SIGNING.

DIVORCE LAWYER: You're divorced."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I always afraid that if I take the reader away from the main conflict, they'll lose interest.

Here, I see that it's actually encouraged, as long as there's a reason for those scenes.

In Good Company (2004)(final shooting script)
by Paul Weitz

*To get a better feel, it helps to read a wide range of scripts.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Constant Gardener (2005) - Adaption: Intent or Content?

[Quick Summary: After his activist wife is killed mysteriously in Nairobi, a mid-level British official finds answers in governmental and corporate treachery.]

It's rare that an author loves his book's adaption. Here, Le Carre does:

Why was this one so good? Why do I keep watching it and feel none of the usual alienation? p. v.

Ah, isn't that the million dollar question? We all know films that are absolutely true to the book...and deadly boring. So what makes a good adaption?

Screenwriter @HIGHzurrer has offered these wise words on adaptions:

For me it boils down to how a story makes me feel. Recapturing that feeling goes a long way to honoring the source material. Literature can give you the EXACT motivations, clear as day, without the character acting or speaking. Impossible visually. I feel like you either have to capture the intent or the content. But not both. (emphasis mine)

Let's look at today's script and the choices that were made.

In the novel, Tessa dies on p. 1.  In the script, she dies around p. 40.

Then from p. 1-40, we're shown:
- Tessa and Justin's marriage dynamics (she's outgoing, he's reserved)
- how they interact with their peers, people in need
- how Tessa charmed others to help her help others in need
- who is powerful, who isn't, etc.

As a result:
- I believed in Tessa and Justin's love story. 
- I believed Justin, this mild mannered, reserved fellow, would pursue her killer to the ends of the earth.

As an audience member, I did not have access to Justin's internal thoughts (as in a novel). I needed to see the couple interacting for their connection to be "real" to me.

The scene below takes place early in the script.  At first, I thought he was suspicious.  On a second read, I saw that he is trying to protect her by deleting the email.

An interesting insight into their relationship, no?

ex."INT. THE QUAYLES' HOUSE - BEDROOM/BATHROOM. NIGHT.

...Justin clicks on the message. The sender isn't identified, but the message originates from the High Commission's communal e-ail address.

It reads: "What were you and Arnold Bluhm doing in the Nairobi Hilton Sunday night? Does Justin know?"

Justin stares at it a moment, then deletes the message as Tessa enters from the bathroom, still in her underwear.

TESSA (cont'd): What was it?

JUSTIN: Hm?

TESSA: The e-mail.

JUSTIN: Oh...junk. Some ad.

TESSA: For?

JUSTIN: The Nairobi Hilton.

He waits for a response. There isn't one.

JUSTIN (cont'd): Weekend package deal. Two nights for the price of one.

She indicates her pregnant abdomen.

TESSA: Two guests for the price of one.

...and exits to the landing.

Justin closes his screen, no longer in the mood to write. On Tessa's Desktop we now see a variety of folders, among them: "HOUSEHOLD"; "KIBERA"; "AFRICAN WOMEN'S FOUNDATION"; "HAM"; "ARNOLD'S LINKS"; "GRACE MAKANGA".

A moment, then Justin clicks on "ARNOLD'S LINKS". Receives the prompt: "ENTER PASSWORD". He tries to access "KIBERA". Same result. He stands and leaves the room."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes the best that a film can do is capture the "feel" of a book.*

The Constant Gardener (2005)(dated 3/8/04)
by Jeffrey Caine
Based on the novel by John Le Carre

*I used to believe that deviating from the book was a bad thing.  I had no idea what "film is a different medium" meant.

Now I understand that it's often necessary. Books can do things that film cannot. Books can explain thoughts and motivations, but films cannot explain, only show.

TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Strange Days (1995) - From Scriptment to Draft

[Quick Summary: Lenny, a shady dealer in VR "experiences," is trying to find a psycho-sexual killer who killed his friend Iris and may be after his ex-girlfriend.]

Director Ridley Scott said in a round table interview recently: 

The studio head's job, I think, is read the fucking material. You can't delegate material. I can tell within a paragraph whether I'm going to be in good hands or not. By the time I get to page 10, I'm beginning to perspire because I'm thinking, "Please don't drop the ball; please don't drop the ball." Page 30, I'm now beads of perspiration. "Holy shit, we're really getting there." And so writing is everything. Everything else is dressing. Sorry, actors. (Laughter.) (my emphasis)

Is that really true? Yes.  One gets a "feel" after reading many scripts.*

What about material that is admittedly messy and too long? Yes, even then, there's a focus, a feel that "I'm in good hands." 

Today's scriptment is a good example.  It's a messy and flawed early draft, but there's a solid story spine, the setups and payoffs, etc.** 

The script drops and adds things, but keeps the essentials from the scriptment.

One thing that I liked in both drafts was that they kept the odd, futuristic mood.

The scene below is nearly the same in both drafts:

ex. "A stairwell. Lane sprinting up, two steps at a time. Trying the door at the second floor landing. Locked. Shit.

Running up. Dizzying whirl as we run, up and up.

The POV is finally broken by a ...
                                                                                          CUT TO:

INT. UNDERGROUND GARAGE

But we don't know where we are yet. We see a man in extreme close-up: just his eyes and mouth. The eyes are closed, the eyeballs tracking under the lids like he is watching a movie in there. This is LENNY.

LENNY: This is great...the doors are all locked. Who are these losers, friends of yours?
                                                                                          CUT TO:

BACK TO POV as we reach the fifth floor landing. Lane is coming unglued as he finds this door locked. We look down, see cops coming two floors below. One cranks off a couple rounds at us and we snap back from the railing. Pounding up the last flight. Finally! The door is unlocked."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The writer's most important job is to convey the ideas from the head to the page.

It doesn't have to look great, but it does have to be on the page.  This is very helpful in case someone else has to take over the writing duties (as happened here).

Strange Days (1995)(Cameron's published scriptment)
by James Cameron

Strange Days (1995)(script draft dated 8/11/93)
by James Cameron and Jay Cocks

*How do I define "many"? When I was at a small production company, I estimated:
-About 30-40 new scripts came in the door every week.
-The development execs read between 10-20 on weekends, maybe another 10 during the week.

**The scriptment is worth reading to see how Cameron thinks.  In his words:

So what you have in your hands is at once a kind of pathetic document; it is as long as a script, but messy and undisciplined, full of cheats and glossed-over sections. But it is also an interesting snapshot of formatting a moment in the creative process. It contains notes and references and textures that do not exist in the finished script. It takes the time to gaze around at a grim future world and paint it in neon colors...it gets in the mood first, then tells the story. p. ix.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1993) - Learning From a Passive Protagonist

[Quick Summary: In 1973, Sissy, who has enormous thumbs, is a hitchhiker, a hygiene model, and a witness to a feud involving a cowgirl ranch and drugged whooping cranes.]

When I read scripts for a production company, I went in cold.

I liked that I knew nothing, and could judge the scripts solely on their merits.

This is still my preferred approach, and I apply it to all the scripts that I read here.

One of the side effects is that I occasionally read produced scripts that I Do Not Like.

I know you're wondering, "Are these scripts worth reading?"

Yes, though I admit that people (including me) don't like the fact that this takes a little more energy.*

However, I've found that these scripts can teach me unexpected things.

For example, this is a script that I Do Not Like.  Here are a few thoughts:

PROS
- This script reads fast.
- Sissy travels a lot and has several significant life experiences (emotional, sexual).

CONS
- Sissy is an acute observer of all the colorful characters, which is fine in a novel, but boring in film.
- She is often the bystander, i.e., passive.
- She lacks purpose or goals, so the other characters take over.

NOTES:
- I found this structure (of the scene below) repeated often in this script.
- Jelly is the head of the ranch.
- Sissy SEEMS active because she's interacting with Jelly.  However, Sissy is the passive one and Jelly is actively running the scene.

ex. "INT. RANCH COTTAGE MORNING

A FIST pounds on Sissy's door.

IN SAILS Jelly, a cowgirl so cute she makes Sissy blush just to look at her. She wears a tan Stetson with an aster pinned to it, a green satin shirt embroidered with rearing stallions snorting orange fire from their nostrils....

Jelly grasps Sissy's elbow and sits on the side of the bed.

JELLY: Welcome podner. By God, it's great to have you here. It's an honor. Sorry I took so long getting to you, but we've had a mess of hard work these past few days - and a heap of planning to do.

SISSY: Er, you seem to know who I am, and maybe even what I am. Thanks for breakfast.

JELLY: Oh, I know about Sissy Hankshaw, all right. I've done a little hitchhiking myself. Ah shucks, that's like telling Annie Oakley you're a sharpshooter because you once knocked a tomato can off a stump with a fieldstone. I'd heard tales about you from people I'd meet in jail cells and truckstops. I heard about your, uh, your, ah, your wonderful thumbs, and I hear how you were Jack Kerouac's girl friend...

Sissy sets her tray on the bedside table.

SISSY: No, I'm afraid that part isn't true. Jack was in awe of me and tracked me down. We spent a night talking and hugging in a corn field, but he was hardly my lover. Besides, I always travel alone.

JELLY: Well, that doesn't matter; that part never interested me anyway. The beatnicks were before my time and I never got anything outta the hippies but bad dope, cliches and the clap. But the example of your life helped me in my struggle to be a cowgirl....

SISSY: Tell me about it.

JELLY: About...

SISSY: About being a cowgirl. What's it all about? When you say the word you make it sound like it was painted in radium on the side of a pearl.

JELLY: Cowgirls exist as an image image. A fairly common image...."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Protagonists do not have to physically move in every scene, but they do need to be moving toward a goal or with purpose in every scene.

Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1993)(5th draft, dated 7/6/92)
by Gus Van Sant
Adapted from the novel by Tom Robbins

* It's another reason why I don't want to know anything. Otherwise, I'd avoid them like the plague.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Red Dragon (2002) - Action, Tension; Creepiness

[Quick Summary: To stop a serial killer, FBI agent Graham, who was injured while bringing in Hannibal Lecter, must once again ask Lecter for help.]

How does this thriller/horror/adaption stay on track with SO MUCH going on, i.e., multiple story lines, twists and turns, a ticking clock, etc.?

I thought Roger Ebert had two great thoughts on this:

1) "Lecter is a character who commands contemplation and unease, and too much action just releases the tension." (emphasis mine)

ex. I noticed that both Graham and Lecter themselves are often very still, despite the constant movement around them.  Less is more here.

2) "But this movie, based on Harris' first novel, has studied "Silence of the Lambs" and knows that the action comes second to general creepiness. There are stabbings, shootings, fires, explosions, tortures, mutilations, and a flaming corpse in a wheelchair, but within reason." (emphasis mine)

In other words, "story before spectacle." Action serves story, not the other way.

In the scene below, note:
- A little bit of action, a lot of tension
- Creepiness comes first, then action

ex. "INT. LECTER'S STUDY. NIGHT.

...Graham drops into a chair. Lecter, who's been waiting politely, sits behind his desk. Graham leans forward urgently. Despite his weariness, his face is alive with fierce excitement.

GRAHAM: We've been on the wrong track this whole time, Doctor. you and I. Our whole profile is wrong.

Lecter is very still; there is not a flicker of emotion; he just watches Graham, like someone studying an insect.

GRAHAM (cont'd): We've been looking for somebody with a cray grudge. Some kind of anatomical knowledge, decertified doctors, med school dropouts, laid-off mortuary workers -

LECTER: From the precision of the cuts, yes. And his choice of - souvenirs.

GRAHAM: But that's where we're off target. He's not collecting body parts.

LECTER: Then why keep them?

GRAHAM: He's not keeping them. He's eating them.

Lecter just watches and listens."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I need to set my characters up better with flaws and clashing desires from the start. 

Tension flows a lot more easily from character this way.

Red Dragon (2002)
by Ted Tally
Based on the novel by Thomas Harris