[Quick Summary: A good natured, but not so intelligent man participates in many important historical events of the 20th Century, but all he longs for is his childhood friend Jenny.]
What do you do when a string of writers before you can't crack an adaption?
If you were Eric Roth writing Forrest Gump, you figure out that the key was tone.
Tone is a dashed difficult thing to define. I'm not sure I can either, but in this script, it's the "wink & a nod".
Forrest is always in the middle of history making events & meeting famous people, but he never realizes it...but the AUDIENCE knows.
ex. Forrest runs along a river, & sees a civil rights march. Police let loose their dogs, who grew up with Forrest. The dogs are about to attack the marchers, but Forrest calls them to go home. Forrest apologizes to Martin Luther King, Jr. for the interruption.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The tone is light & hopeful, though the events are often heavy. This is Forrest Gump in a nutshell & makes you want to see him succeed.
(BTW, Robert Zemeckis, the director, said he kept turning the pages because he couldn't stop wondering what would happen next to Forrest.)
Forrest Gump (1994)
by Eric Roth
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #90 WGA Script of All Time - Sideways (2004)
[Quick Summary: Depressed school teacher-writer and his woman-obsessed best friend drive through California wine country for one last hurrah before the latter's wedding day.]
Holy crap, this script was a definite first.
It was the first script that I didn't see the words on the page, but as a series of moving images, like a picture book. When I finished and blinked, I wondered where the film went.
Then I blinked. I had been reading?
What this script does better than any I've seen is that it trusts the reader to fill in the details.
ex. "The boys turn to see Phyllis now dolled up in thick make-up and a PANTSUIT. Her eyebrows are painted & cock-eyed. Overall she looks much worse than before."
I love how the script gives you exactly what you need to know, & lets you imagine the rest.
You only need to know Phyllis has changed clothes, but not the actual color, shape, etc.
You need to know she's overdone her face, but only that it's "much worse than before."
The writers don't micro-manage, & actually draw the audience in as a co-conspirator.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: These writers are specific about the universal, & thus leaves the details alone.
No wonder I know Phyllis - I've met her type many times before.
Sideways (2004)
by Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor
Holy crap, this script was a definite first.
It was the first script that I didn't see the words on the page, but as a series of moving images, like a picture book. When I finished and blinked, I wondered where the film went.
Then I blinked. I had been reading?
What this script does better than any I've seen is that it trusts the reader to fill in the details.
ex. "The boys turn to see Phyllis now dolled up in thick make-up and a PANTSUIT. Her eyebrows are painted & cock-eyed. Overall she looks much worse than before."
I love how the script gives you exactly what you need to know, & lets you imagine the rest.
You only need to know Phyllis has changed clothes, but not the actual color, shape, etc.
You need to know she's overdone her face, but only that it's "much worse than before."
The writers don't micro-manage, & actually draw the audience in as a co-conspirator.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: These writers are specific about the universal, & thus leaves the details alone.
No wonder I know Phyllis - I've met her type many times before.
Sideways (2004)
by Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor
Friday, March 18, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #91 WGA Script of All Time - The Verdict (1982)
[Quick Summary: When an alcoholic lawyer gets an "easy" personal injury case that is ready to be settled, he does the unthinkable & takes it to trial.]
Holy freaking cow. Why have I not read more David Mamet?
He's known for his dialogue, but this script's subtext blew my mind.
On the surface, this is about a washed up lawyer who has only one, rather weak case.
Below the surface, Roger Ebert writes:
"Sidney Lumet and Paul Newman, seem to be going for something more; "The Verdict" is more a character study than a thriller, and the buried suspense in this movie is more about Galvin's own life than about his latest case."
How does Mamet do it?
First, the trajectory of the case parallels Galvin's (the main character) personal recovery.
Second, when Galvin battles setbacks on the case, it's really about his own setbacks.
ex. Early on, we learn that Galvin was a big firm lawyer who was accused of jury tampering on a case. He lost everything - wife, job, respect, etc.
He gets now gets Deborah Ann's case. She is in a coma now because she received the wrong anesthetic during delivery.
Around p. 27, the doctors' lawyer offers Galvin a generous settlement of $210k...and Galvin refuses. He wants the world to know the truth of what happened.
But why? Wouldn't it be better just to settle?
We only discover Galvin's reasoning around p. 53: He was also an innocent victim in the jury tampering case. When he seeks justice for innocent Deborah Ann, he is also settling the score for his own innocent self.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've never seen subtext that is felt rather than seen. The craft was the sublime b/c everything was clear, but nothing was heavy handed or remotely on the nose.
The Verdict (1982)
by David Mamet
Holy freaking cow. Why have I not read more David Mamet?
He's known for his dialogue, but this script's subtext blew my mind.
On the surface, this is about a washed up lawyer who has only one, rather weak case.
Below the surface, Roger Ebert writes:
"Sidney Lumet and Paul Newman, seem to be going for something more; "The Verdict" is more a character study than a thriller, and the buried suspense in this movie is more about Galvin's own life than about his latest case."
How does Mamet do it?
First, the trajectory of the case parallels Galvin's (the main character) personal recovery.
Second, when Galvin battles setbacks on the case, it's really about his own setbacks.
ex. Early on, we learn that Galvin was a big firm lawyer who was accused of jury tampering on a case. He lost everything - wife, job, respect, etc.
He gets now gets Deborah Ann's case. She is in a coma now because she received the wrong anesthetic during delivery.
Around p. 27, the doctors' lawyer offers Galvin a generous settlement of $210k...and Galvin refuses. He wants the world to know the truth of what happened.
But why? Wouldn't it be better just to settle?
We only discover Galvin's reasoning around p. 53: He was also an innocent victim in the jury tampering case. When he seeks justice for innocent Deborah Ann, he is also settling the score for his own innocent self.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I've never seen subtext that is felt rather than seen. The craft was the sublime b/c everything was clear, but nothing was heavy handed or remotely on the nose.
The Verdict (1982)
by David Mamet
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #93 WGA Script of All Time - Do the Right Thing (1989)
[Sorry - I read the last script out of order. The numbering has been corrected.]
[Quick Summary: During the hottest day in Brooklyn, tensions snap between a local Italian pizzeria owner & the surrounding black neighborhood.]
This isn't a perfect script because it takes awhile to get going.
However, Spike Lee conveys his distinct voice very well. He does not get up on a soapbox, but there's a definite message.
I was most keen on how he creates a crucible.
ex. Mookie (played by Spike Lee) works for Sal, who owns the only pizza joint in a mostly black neighborhood.
A customer, Radio Raheem gets upset at Sal for not posting any pictures of African-American heroes. Raheem starts a protest against Sal's & the neighbors take his side.
Mookie is torn between Sal, who has been good to him, & the neighbors, who act out of a long simmering injustice.
The key to the crucible is that Mookie has no way out. He must choose, & will be damned whichever way he chooses.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I find a crucible interesting because it forces a character to make a decision.
If there are too many ways out, it's not a crucible.
Do the Right Thing (1989)
by Spike Lee
[Quick Summary: During the hottest day in Brooklyn, tensions snap between a local Italian pizzeria owner & the surrounding black neighborhood.]
This isn't a perfect script because it takes awhile to get going.
However, Spike Lee conveys his distinct voice very well. He does not get up on a soapbox, but there's a definite message.
I was most keen on how he creates a crucible.
ex. Mookie (played by Spike Lee) works for Sal, who owns the only pizza joint in a mostly black neighborhood.
A customer, Radio Raheem gets upset at Sal for not posting any pictures of African-American heroes. Raheem starts a protest against Sal's & the neighbors take his side.
Mookie is torn between Sal, who has been good to him, & the neighbors, who act out of a long simmering injustice.
The key to the crucible is that Mookie has no way out. He must choose, & will be damned whichever way he chooses.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I find a crucible interesting because it forces a character to make a decision.
If there are too many ways out, it's not a crucible.
Do the Right Thing (1989)
by Spike Lee
Thursday, March 3, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #92 WGA Script of All Time - Psycho (1960)
[Quick Summary: When a young woman absconds with her boss' client's money, she ends up at the Bates' motel, where it's always the wrong place & wrong time.]
I do not like horror nor creepy, & have never read nor seen the whole Psycho.
So how surprised am I that this is the best horror script I've read to date? Very.
This is an extremely fast read (even at 133 pgs.) & breaks all kinds of rules. ex. The protagonist, dies about 1/3 into the story & is replaced by another one (Norman Bates).
But Psycho is heads & tails above all other horror scripts because it structures the fear so well.
Every level pushes the character off a ledge (cliffhangers = high vertical suspense), & can only be answered by the next level (this increases pace = fast horizontal speed).
ex. LEVEL 1 - The writer establishes empathy for Marion & sends her to the Bates motel. This sets up an unresolved question: Why did she have to die? We liked her & this is disturbing!
LEVEL 2 - Then the writer sends a private eye to the motel & he dies. The fear rises to a panic: Doesn't anyone notice? Who will stop these deaths?!
LEVEL 3 - So when Marion's sister & Marion's boyfriend come to investigate, the fear is at an all time high. Don't split up! Why are you two splitting up? You know there are crazy Bates who've killed twice!
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The genius of Psycho is that we expect Marion to live, but she doesn't...& the script doesn't die, but speeds up.
Psycho (1960)
by Joseph Stefano
I do not like horror nor creepy, & have never read nor seen the whole Psycho.
So how surprised am I that this is the best horror script I've read to date? Very.
This is an extremely fast read (even at 133 pgs.) & breaks all kinds of rules. ex. The protagonist, dies about 1/3 into the story & is replaced by another one (Norman Bates).
But Psycho is heads & tails above all other horror scripts because it structures the fear so well.
Every level pushes the character off a ledge (cliffhangers = high vertical suspense), & can only be answered by the next level (this increases pace = fast horizontal speed).
ex. LEVEL 1 - The writer establishes empathy for Marion & sends her to the Bates motel. This sets up an unresolved question: Why did she have to die? We liked her & this is disturbing!
LEVEL 2 - Then the writer sends a private eye to the motel & he dies. The fear rises to a panic: Doesn't anyone notice? Who will stop these deaths?!
LEVEL 3 - So when Marion's sister & Marion's boyfriend come to investigate, the fear is at an all time high. Don't split up! Why are you two splitting up? You know there are crazy Bates who've killed twice!
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The genius of Psycho is that we expect Marion to live, but she doesn't...& the script doesn't die, but speeds up.
Psycho (1960)
by Joseph Stefano
Friday, February 25, 2011
TODAY'S 2nd NUGGET: Francis Ford Coppola & Hope
On days I find it hard to believe I'm just one script away from a career, I think about the story behind Patton.
Francis Ford Coppola was hired to write "Patton," but there was a disagreement about the now iconic opening. He was replaced by another writer.
Time passes. Just as Coppola is about to be fired again from "The Godfather," "Patton" is up for an Academy Award, & Coppola wins for best screenplay!
Coppola has said that if he hadn't won for "Patton", it's likely he would've been fired from "The Godfather."
This gives me great hope that things work out the way they should.
Francis Ford Coppola was hired to write "Patton," but there was a disagreement about the now iconic opening. He was replaced by another writer.
Time passes. Just as Coppola is about to be fired again from "The Godfather," "Patton" is up for an Academy Award, & Coppola wins for best screenplay!
Coppola has said that if he hadn't won for "Patton", it's likely he would've been fired from "The Godfather."
This gives me great hope that things work out the way they should.
TODAY'S NUGGET: #94 WGA Script of All Time - Patton (1970)
[Quick Summary: This film depicts the war career of WWII General George S. Patton, a controversial, but wily leader of the US Army.]
I liked reading this script because it's a look at Coppola's writing before "The Godfather."
Patton was larger than life, & Coppola does not shy away from showing all of Patton, including the less admirable traits.
However, I admit that if he pitched it to me in 1969, I might've been one of his many doubters.
Why? In reading the script, I wasn't swept away. Yes, I was impressed at Patton's character traits, the sweep of what he accomplished, his faults.
But I didn't connect with Patton's story on the page and I'm one of those people who enjoy biopics. What went wrong?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm still flummoxed. I should've connected, but didn't.
Patton (1970)
by Francis Ford Coppola & Edmund North
I liked reading this script because it's a look at Coppola's writing before "The Godfather."
Patton was larger than life, & Coppola does not shy away from showing all of Patton, including the less admirable traits.
However, I admit that if he pitched it to me in 1969, I might've been one of his many doubters.
Why? In reading the script, I wasn't swept away. Yes, I was impressed at Patton's character traits, the sweep of what he accomplished, his faults.
But I didn't connect with Patton's story on the page and I'm one of those people who enjoy biopics. What went wrong?
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I'm still flummoxed. I should've connected, but didn't.
Patton (1970)
by Francis Ford Coppola & Edmund North
Friday, February 18, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #95 WGA Script of All Time - Hannah & Her Sisters (1986)
[Quick Summary: Between two Thanksgivings, Hannah, her two sisters & their significant others face a myriad life experiences, told in a vignette style.]
After reading this script, I'm once again glad I've had no excuse to avoid it.
[WHINY ME: It sounds like a boring read.
MATURE ME: Too bad, it's on the list.
WHINY ME: Who made them the list king?
MATURE ME: Because they're the ones who READ the scripts.]
I'll admit that it's long (207 pgs). It has several story lines that sometimes wander. It's quintessential Woody Allen, & thus it's not everyone's cup of tea.
But what really impressed me is that Woody Allen wrote characters who are very, very clear what they want...even if they don't know what they want.
ex. Jewish Mickey (Woody Allen) might/probably doesn't have a fatal tumor/benign nothing. But since he could be dying, his thoughts turn to God for the first time in years. He wants to believe in something, & visits a Catholic priest to possibly convert, then a Hare Krishna leader for answers.
Throughout the script, Mickey wonders what life is worth living for & doesn't have an answer, BUT he's doggedly determined to find it...and in the end, he does.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Showing WHY a character wants something is as important as showing WHAT he wants.
Hannah & Her Sisters (1986)
by Woody Allen
After reading this script, I'm once again glad I've had no excuse to avoid it.
[WHINY ME: It sounds like a boring read.
MATURE ME: Too bad, it's on the list.
WHINY ME: Who made them the list king?
MATURE ME: Because they're the ones who READ the scripts.]
I'll admit that it's long (207 pgs). It has several story lines that sometimes wander. It's quintessential Woody Allen, & thus it's not everyone's cup of tea.
But what really impressed me is that Woody Allen wrote characters who are very, very clear what they want...even if they don't know what they want.
ex. Jewish Mickey (Woody Allen) might/probably doesn't have a fatal tumor/benign nothing. But since he could be dying, his thoughts turn to God for the first time in years. He wants to believe in something, & visits a Catholic priest to possibly convert, then a Hare Krishna leader for answers.
Throughout the script, Mickey wonders what life is worth living for & doesn't have an answer, BUT he's doggedly determined to find it...and in the end, he does.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Showing WHY a character wants something is as important as showing WHAT he wants.
Hannah & Her Sisters (1986)
by Woody Allen
Friday, February 11, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #96 WGA Script of All Time - The Hustler (1961)
[Quick Summary: To win against the great Minnesota Fats, Eddie, a talented (but temper prone) pool shark, must learn what 'character' is.]
I inhaled at "FADE IN" & only exhaled at "THE END."
It seemed as if I'd read one continuous story, & I didn't notice any transitions, sluglines, or breaks.
My heart broke for these characters.
I suppose it's because:
1) they're so flawed & a bit raw, &
2) when they jumped an obstacle, there was a bigger one waiting.
ex. When Eddie takes care of Sarah, it's the first step beyond his self-centeredness. They bond, but soon he gets a chance to compete in another town & must leave her. She never asks him to stay...just that "I made you up, like everything else....I wanted you to be real."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Character arcs thrive on showing flaws, overcoming obstacles, then making even bigger decisions.
The Hustler (1961)
by Sidney Carroll & Robert Rossen
I inhaled at "FADE IN" & only exhaled at "THE END."
It seemed as if I'd read one continuous story, & I didn't notice any transitions, sluglines, or breaks.
My heart broke for these characters.
I suppose it's because:
1) they're so flawed & a bit raw, &
2) when they jumped an obstacle, there was a bigger one waiting.
ex. When Eddie takes care of Sarah, it's the first step beyond his self-centeredness. They bond, but soon he gets a chance to compete in another town & must leave her. She never asks him to stay...just that "I made you up, like everything else....I wanted you to be real."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Character arcs thrive on showing flaws, overcoming obstacles, then making even bigger decisions.
The Hustler (1961)
by Sidney Carroll & Robert Rossen
Friday, February 4, 2011
TODAY'S NUGGET: #97 WGA Script of All Time - The Searchers (1956)
[Quick Summary: A Civil War vet goes searching for his niece who was kidnapped by Indians.]
This is an uncomfortable script.
Why?
- John Wayne plays an unrepentant racist.
- This isn't my genre of choice.
- This story happens over several years.
- John Wayne doesn't come face to face with his antagonist Scar until the climax.
But despite my misgivings, I was determined to figure out why this film is at the top of many critics' lists.
And I discovered that the script drives to the end with an energy & focus because the main character Ethan (John Wayne) is single minded.
ex. He makes difficult, unpopular decisions, like abandoning Martin at the homestead. But each one gets him closer to his goal.
ex. He hangs on to his goal like a bulldog. He is never far from his pursuit.
ex. The antagonist is always present (even if not physically present) because the protagonist continually plots against the antagonist at all times.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The script is blunt, to the point, & decisive.
This film endures because the Ethan character is unforgettable.
Right or wrong, you're never in doubt who & what Ethan is, where he is going, what he is doing.
The Searchers (1956)
by Frank Nugent
This is an uncomfortable script.
Why?
- John Wayne plays an unrepentant racist.
- This isn't my genre of choice.
- This story happens over several years.
- John Wayne doesn't come face to face with his antagonist Scar until the climax.
But despite my misgivings, I was determined to figure out why this film is at the top of many critics' lists.
And I discovered that the script drives to the end with an energy & focus because the main character Ethan (John Wayne) is single minded.
ex. He makes difficult, unpopular decisions, like abandoning Martin at the homestead. But each one gets him closer to his goal.
ex. He hangs on to his goal like a bulldog. He is never far from his pursuit.
ex. The antagonist is always present (even if not physically present) because the protagonist continually plots against the antagonist at all times.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The script is blunt, to the point, & decisive.
This film endures because the Ethan character is unforgettable.
Right or wrong, you're never in doubt who & what Ethan is, where he is going, what he is doing.
The Searchers (1956)
by Frank Nugent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)