[Quick Summary: Karen Silkwood is contaminated for uncovering health hazards at her plutonium plant.]
"I don't like that character."
"He isn't likeable enough."
"Can't you make her more likeable?"
What the hell is "likeability"?
I've discovered over time that if you ask a few more questions, it boils down to this:
People use the word "likeable" when they actually mean "empathetic."
[Heads up writers, your job is to decipher what this shortcut means:
-"I don't like him [because I don't get why he made the decisions that he did]."
- "He isn't likeable enough [because he's always angry for no reason]."
- "Can't you make her more [conflicted/contradictory/complicated]"?]
Nora Ephron's scripts are pure gold for empathetic characters.
Karen Silkwood is a great example. She makes radical decisions in 1970s Oklahoma. She smokes weed. Her three kids live with their dad in Texas. Her boyfriend can't take the stress and leaves.
Yet we identify with her facing her dilemmas and struggles.
ex. "DENISE reaches out to hand her half-eaten hamburger to KAREN.
DENISE: I finished.
DONNY (to Drew): Do you still sleep with Mama?
DREW: Yes.
The hamburger drips ketchup all over KAREN'S dress.
KAREN: Oh shit.
DOLLY (without turning around): Don't say that, Mama.
DREW hands KAREN a napkin, sits down at the table.
DONNY: Do you hit Mama?
DREW: Not unless she hits me first."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Our job is to get the audience to empathize (understand) with the characters, not necessarily to approve.
Silkwood (1983)
by Nora Ephron & Alice Arlen
Monday, December 29, 2014
Monday, December 22, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) - Conflict = Eager to Engage
[Quick Summary: A professor and his wife trap entertain couple in a booze soaked, button pushing evening.]
The recent passing of brilliant director Mike Nichols prompted me to read the scripts that he directed.
This was his first produced film.
It was a ballsy choice and still burns up on the page.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the conflict is impressively strong.
I discovered that one of the reasons is because the opposing characters are eager to engage.
They may evade for a little while, but always circle back, swinging.
ex. "GEORGE: I'm tired, dear...it's late...and besides --
MARTHA: I don't know what you're so tired about...you haven't done anything all day; you didn't have any classes, or anything....
GEORGE: Well, I'm tired....If your father didn't set up these damn Saturday night orgies all the time....
MARTHA: Well, that's just too bad about you, George....
GEORGE (grumbling): Well, that's how it is, anyway.
MARTHA: You didn't do anything; you never do anything; you never mix. You just sit around and talk.
GEORGE: What do you want me to do? Do you want me to go around all night braying at everybody, the way you do?
MARTHA (braying): I DON'T BRAY!
GEORGE (softly): All right...you don't bray.
MARTHA (hurt): I do not bray.
GEORGE: All right. I said you didn't bray.
MARTHA (after a moment): Fix me a drink.
GEORGE: Haven't you had enought?
MARTHA: I said, fix me a drink."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think the "engaging" is why people are interesting to watch.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
by Ernest Lehman
Adapted from the play by Eward Albee
The recent passing of brilliant director Mike Nichols prompted me to read the scripts that he directed.
This was his first produced film.
It was a ballsy choice and still burns up on the page.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the conflict is impressively strong.
I discovered that one of the reasons is because the opposing characters are eager to engage.
They may evade for a little while, but always circle back, swinging.
ex. "GEORGE: I'm tired, dear...it's late...and besides --
MARTHA: I don't know what you're so tired about...you haven't done anything all day; you didn't have any classes, or anything....
GEORGE: Well, I'm tired....If your father didn't set up these damn Saturday night orgies all the time....
MARTHA: Well, that's just too bad about you, George....
GEORGE (grumbling): Well, that's how it is, anyway.
MARTHA: You didn't do anything; you never do anything; you never mix. You just sit around and talk.
GEORGE: What do you want me to do? Do you want me to go around all night braying at everybody, the way you do?
MARTHA (braying): I DON'T BRAY!
GEORGE (softly): All right...you don't bray.
MARTHA (hurt): I do not bray.
GEORGE: All right. I said you didn't bray.
MARTHA (after a moment): Fix me a drink.
GEORGE: Haven't you had enought?
MARTHA: I said, fix me a drink."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I think the "engaging" is why people are interesting to watch.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
by Ernest Lehman
Adapted from the play by Eward Albee
Monday, December 15, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: The Great Gatsby (2013) - More Than Non-Stop Energy
[Quick Summary: Writer Nick Carraway observes the privileged lives of his cousin Daisy, her husband, and mysterious neighbor Gatsby.]
I think this adaption is remarkable for two reasons:
1) It makes Nick part of the action (he was an observer in the book).
2) It pulses with a 1920s squeeze-every-drop energy.
Note in the scene below:
1) How Nick is an observer (staying true to the book) but also a participant.
2) The non-stop energy (i.e., non-stop action) captures the recklessness of the time, but also reflect Tom's privileged attitude.
ex. INT. BUCHANAN MANSION - HALL OF CHAMPIONS - LATE AFTERNOON
Tom leads Nick down a grand hall lined with the trophies that chonicle Tom's infinite sporting achievements.
TOM: First team, all-American!
Tom admires his own achievements.
TOM: You see? Made me who I am today.
Tom pulls his favorite trophy from the cabinet --
TOM: Here --Forest Hills...I played the Prince of Wales. What a sissy!
Tom exchanges the trophy for a football.
TOM: Life's something you dominate Nick.
He pelts Nick with the ball --
TOM: If you're any good.
Nick fumbles as Tom charges him --
TOM: Ha-ha-ha!
Tom tackles Nick, knocking him back, through a pair of vaulting doors, and into [the salon].
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: On the surface, the non-stop energy (i.e., non-stop action) captured the 1920s.
However, it was also tailored for each character. For Tom, it was recklessness. For Daisy, desperation.
The Great Gatsby (2013)
by Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce
Based on the novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
I think this adaption is remarkable for two reasons:
1) It makes Nick part of the action (he was an observer in the book).
2) It pulses with a 1920s squeeze-every-drop energy.
Note in the scene below:
1) How Nick is an observer (staying true to the book) but also a participant.
2) The non-stop energy (i.e., non-stop action) captures the recklessness of the time, but also reflect Tom's privileged attitude.
ex. INT. BUCHANAN MANSION - HALL OF CHAMPIONS - LATE AFTERNOON
Tom leads Nick down a grand hall lined with the trophies that chonicle Tom's infinite sporting achievements.
TOM: First team, all-American!
Tom admires his own achievements.
TOM: You see? Made me who I am today.
Tom pulls his favorite trophy from the cabinet --
TOM: Here --Forest Hills...I played the Prince of Wales. What a sissy!
Tom exchanges the trophy for a football.
TOM: Life's something you dominate Nick.
He pelts Nick with the ball --
TOM: If you're any good.
Nick fumbles as Tom charges him --
TOM: Ha-ha-ha!
Tom tackles Nick, knocking him back, through a pair of vaulting doors, and into [the salon].
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: On the surface, the non-stop energy (i.e., non-stop action) captured the 1920s.
However, it was also tailored for each character. For Tom, it was recklessness. For Daisy, desperation.
The Great Gatsby (2013)
by Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce
Based on the novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Monday, December 8, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Carnal Knowledge (1971) - What I Learned from an All Dialogue Script
[Quick Summary: In three life phases, two friends talk about sex.]
This script is the funniest, most thought provoking script I've seen about sex. (It's really not about the sex.)
Three Things Your Should Know:
1) The writer is Jules Feiffer, a prolific, renowned illustrator, novelist, playwright, screenwriter and all around sharp political observer.*
2) Feiffer stated in an interview where this film came from:
a - Know what you want to say. From #2 above, Feiffer was focused on men's contradictory "freedom to be miserable".
Feiffer channeled that point of view into the dialogue.
b - Keep conflict clear. I think Feiffer stuffs the dialogue with conflict so inherently clear that narrative is unnecessary. **
c - Subtext, NOT THE TEXT, does all the heavy lifting.
ex. JONATHAN: You don't know every mood of mine like you know every mood of his. [He wants to be her #1 guy.]
SUSAN: No.
JONATHAN: How come?
SUSAN: I don't know.
JONATHAN: You don't tell me thoughts I never knew I had. [He's free as a bird, so why is he jealous?]
SUSAN: Does he say I do that?
He nods.
SUSAN: Then I guess I must.
JONATHAN: You do it all right. So do it with me. [The bachelor is asking for more?!]
SUSAN: I can't.
JONATHAN: Why can't you?
SUSAN: I can't with you.
JONATHAN: This has gone far enough. [He's reached his limit.]
SUSAN: I can't stand any more ultimatums, Jonathan.
JOHNATHAN: This is my last one! Tonight you tell him about us or tomorrow I tell him! Look at me, Susan. [Does he want her because she's someone else's girl?]
She looks at him.
JONATHAN: Now, tell me my goddamn thoughts!
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script is all dialogue, but don't be fooled.
It only works because the foundation is solid (clear POV, clear conflict, clear subtext).
Carnal Knowledge (1971)
by Jules Feiffer
Adapted from his own play
*He was a Village Voice cartoonist for 40+ years, children's book illustrator, and writer of 35 plays, novels, and screenplays.
**I think Feiffer's illustration training lends itself to screenwriting, i.e., both use few words as possible to get a message across.
This script is the funniest, most thought provoking script I've seen about sex. (It's really not about the sex.)
Three Things Your Should Know:
1) The writer is Jules Feiffer, a prolific, renowned illustrator, novelist, playwright, screenwriter and all around sharp political observer.*
2) Feiffer stated in an interview where this film came from:
Your attitudes to sex and intimacy in Carnal Knowledge are similar to those that we see in your strip from the ’50s onwards. You seem to have a certain rage against the sexual revolution before it even got started.
Well, the point of the film, based on my life and my observation, was that -- and I still think is permanent -- is that heterosexual men didn’t like women. They liked sex. They liked pussy. But they didn’t like the conversation afterwards. They didn’t like the commitment. They didn’t like what women expected of them. They didn’t like the fetters. They wanted their freedom. While women wanted commitment. And by freedom they usually meant freedom to be miserable. I thought this had to be documented and nobody had ever done it. And that’s why the film struck such a chord, because as in the strips where I dealt with sex in the ’50s -- and also the politics too -- but particularly the sex, I was saying things that everyone knew but no one had ever recorded. Except for, about the same time as me, Mike Nichols and Elaine May, which is why we got along so well. What Nichols and May were doing in their sketches, in the clubs, and later television was essentially what I was trying to do in the comic strip.3) The script is 90% dialogue. Why does it work so well here?
a - Know what you want to say. From #2 above, Feiffer was focused on men's contradictory "freedom to be miserable".
Feiffer channeled that point of view into the dialogue.
b - Keep conflict clear. I think Feiffer stuffs the dialogue with conflict so inherently clear that narrative is unnecessary. **
c - Subtext, NOT THE TEXT, does all the heavy lifting.
ex. JONATHAN: You don't know every mood of mine like you know every mood of his. [He wants to be her #1 guy.]
SUSAN: No.
JONATHAN: How come?
SUSAN: I don't know.
JONATHAN: You don't tell me thoughts I never knew I had. [He's free as a bird, so why is he jealous?]
SUSAN: Does he say I do that?
He nods.
SUSAN: Then I guess I must.
JONATHAN: You do it all right. So do it with me. [The bachelor is asking for more?!]
SUSAN: I can't.
JONATHAN: Why can't you?
SUSAN: I can't with you.
JONATHAN: This has gone far enough. [He's reached his limit.]
SUSAN: I can't stand any more ultimatums, Jonathan.
JOHNATHAN: This is my last one! Tonight you tell him about us or tomorrow I tell him! Look at me, Susan. [Does he want her because she's someone else's girl?]
She looks at him.
JONATHAN: Now, tell me my goddamn thoughts!
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script is all dialogue, but don't be fooled.
It only works because the foundation is solid (clear POV, clear conflict, clear subtext).
Carnal Knowledge (1971)
by Jules Feiffer
Adapted from his own play
*He was a Village Voice cartoonist for 40+ years, children's book illustrator, and writer of 35 plays, novels, and screenplays.
**I think Feiffer's illustration training lends itself to screenwriting, i.e., both use few words as possible to get a message across.
Monday, December 1, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade (1989) - Sight Gags
[Quick Summary: Indiana Jones searches his father, who has gone looking for the Holy Grail.]
I like that this script doesn't take itself too seriously.
The tone is light with gaffs and gags.
I think this adds a dash of the unexpected to scenes with exposition, or routine actions.
One of my favorites is when Indy breaks into the library floor.
The scene itself is routine, but necessary, to get to the next clue.
The writer used a funny gag to make it memorable:
"Indy rushes past Brody to a cordon held in place by a brass stand underneath the stained-glass window.
Indy raises the brass stand and timing his actions, hits the tile precisely as the Librarian stams a book. The Librarian regards the stamper curiously.
Indy continues to pound at the tile as the Librarian resumes his stamping, still puzzled by the SOUND ECHOING through the library.
Finally Indy breaks the tile. As he bends to remove the pieces of broken tile, a TWO-FOOT SQUARE HOLE IS REVEALED."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A sight gag in the right place can add a new twist to an otherwise ordinary scene.
Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade (1989)
by Jeff Boam
Story by George Lucas & Menno Meyjes
I like that this script doesn't take itself too seriously.
The tone is light with gaffs and gags.
I think this adds a dash of the unexpected to scenes with exposition, or routine actions.
One of my favorites is when Indy breaks into the library floor.
The scene itself is routine, but necessary, to get to the next clue.
The writer used a funny gag to make it memorable:
"Indy rushes past Brody to a cordon held in place by a brass stand underneath the stained-glass window.
Indy raises the brass stand and timing his actions, hits the tile precisely as the Librarian stams a book. The Librarian regards the stamper curiously.
Indy continues to pound at the tile as the Librarian resumes his stamping, still puzzled by the SOUND ECHOING through the library.
Finally Indy breaks the tile. As he bends to remove the pieces of broken tile, a TWO-FOOT SQUARE HOLE IS REVEALED."
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: A sight gag in the right place can add a new twist to an otherwise ordinary scene.
Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade (1989)
by Jeff Boam
Story by George Lucas & Menno Meyjes
Monday, November 24, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Crimes of the Heart (1986) - Writing How Females Interact
[Quick Summary: Three sisters reunite in their hometown when tragedy strikes.]
After reading this comedy script, I believe there's no excuse for flat female characters.
Many scripts reduce women to one dimension - bitch, golddigger, etc.
They may get "what" her role is, and "why" she is in the story, but often miss HOW she interacts with people:
- They miss the double/triple meanings.
- They miss that female interactions are layered, nuanced, complex, with attitude, ALL AT ONCE.
[Thus, reducing women to one dimension always feels incomplete.]
This script excels at capturing the "how":
ex. "CHICK: Oh, speaking of which, remember that little polka dot dress you got Peekay for her fifth birthday last month?
LENNY: The red and white one?
CHICK: Yes; well, the first time I put it in the washing machine, I mean the very first time, it fell all to pieces. Those little polka dots just dropped right off into the water.
LENNY (crushed): Oh, no. Well, I'll get something else for her then...a little toy.
CHICK: Oh, no, no, no, no, no!....We wouldn't hear of it! I just wanted to let you know so you wouldn't go and waste any more of your hard-earned money on that make of dress. Those inexpensive brands just don't hold up."
Note in this scene:
- Chick wants to thank Lenny for a gift (goal).
- Chick also enjoys embarrassing Lenny.
- Chick is both polite (thanking) and rude (slyly pointing out Lenny is poor for no good reason other than to feel superior).
- Lenny wants to finish this conversation fast (goal).
- Lenny is humiliated.
- Lenny is under stress (from previous scene) which makes this scene even worse.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script only has three characters and a few settings, yet it's terribly memorable because of the women's interactions.
Crimes of the Heart (1986)(rev. dated 2/1/86)
Adapted by Beth Henley from her 1981 Pulitzer Prize winning play
After reading this comedy script, I believe there's no excuse for flat female characters.
Many scripts reduce women to one dimension - bitch, golddigger, etc.
They may get "what" her role is, and "why" she is in the story, but often miss HOW she interacts with people:
- They miss the double/triple meanings.
- They miss that female interactions are layered, nuanced, complex, with attitude, ALL AT ONCE.
[Thus, reducing women to one dimension always feels incomplete.]
This script excels at capturing the "how":
ex. "CHICK: Oh, speaking of which, remember that little polka dot dress you got Peekay for her fifth birthday last month?
LENNY: The red and white one?
CHICK: Yes; well, the first time I put it in the washing machine, I mean the very first time, it fell all to pieces. Those little polka dots just dropped right off into the water.
LENNY (crushed): Oh, no. Well, I'll get something else for her then...a little toy.
CHICK: Oh, no, no, no, no, no!....We wouldn't hear of it! I just wanted to let you know so you wouldn't go and waste any more of your hard-earned money on that make of dress. Those inexpensive brands just don't hold up."
Note in this scene:
- Chick wants to thank Lenny for a gift (goal).
- Chick also enjoys embarrassing Lenny.
- Chick is both polite (thanking) and rude (slyly pointing out Lenny is poor for no good reason other than to feel superior).
- Lenny wants to finish this conversation fast (goal).
- Lenny is humiliated.
- Lenny is under stress (from previous scene) which makes this scene even worse.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This script only has three characters and a few settings, yet it's terribly memorable because of the women's interactions.
Crimes of the Heart (1986)(rev. dated 2/1/86)
Adapted by Beth Henley from her 1981 Pulitzer Prize winning play
Monday, November 17, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGT: Catch-22 (1970) - Blurring Reality & a Dream State
[Quick Summary: While wounded airman tries to get out of flying again, he falls in and out of memories.]
No disrespect to anyone, but this story didn't appeal to me.
It all seemed pointless.
(Perhaps that was the point, since the script ridicules war (satire), and mocks black marketing (farce).)
I did like how this script excels in blurring reality and dream state:
ex. "Tappman opens the book, then closes it again and looks up. His eye focus on something in the distance. He blinks.
SHOT - TAPPMAN'S POV
In the distance, sitting high up on the branch of a tree, watching the ceremony, is Yossarian, naked.
SHOT - TAPPMAN
He shakes his head.
MAJOR MAJOR: Is there something wrong?
TAPPMAN: I - no - I thought I saw something.
MAJOR MAJOR: A naked man in a tree?
TAPPMAN: Yes, That's it.
DANBY (Looking down, slightly embarrassed): That's just Yossarian.
TAPPMAN: Oh. Well - in that case -
Tappman opens the book and begins reading the thirteenth Psalm."
Is this reality? A dream? I couldn't tell.
However, it works here because the story didn't rely on one or the other.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Most stories want the audience to distinguish between reality and dream state. This one deliberately wants them blurred.
Catch-22 (1970)(second draft)
by Buck Henry
Adapted from the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
No disrespect to anyone, but this story didn't appeal to me.
It all seemed pointless.
(Perhaps that was the point, since the script ridicules war (satire), and mocks black marketing (farce).)
I did like how this script excels in blurring reality and dream state:
ex. "Tappman opens the book, then closes it again and looks up. His eye focus on something in the distance. He blinks.
SHOT - TAPPMAN'S POV
In the distance, sitting high up on the branch of a tree, watching the ceremony, is Yossarian, naked.
SHOT - TAPPMAN
He shakes his head.
MAJOR MAJOR: Is there something wrong?
TAPPMAN: I - no - I thought I saw something.
MAJOR MAJOR: A naked man in a tree?
TAPPMAN: Yes, That's it.
DANBY (Looking down, slightly embarrassed): That's just Yossarian.
TAPPMAN: Oh. Well - in that case -
Tappman opens the book and begins reading the thirteenth Psalm."
Is this reality? A dream? I couldn't tell.
However, it works here because the story didn't rely on one or the other.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Most stories want the audience to distinguish between reality and dream state. This one deliberately wants them blurred.
Catch-22 (1970)(second draft)
by Buck Henry
Adapted from the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Monday, November 10, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Mission Impossible (1996) - Opening an Action Film
[Quick Summary: IMF agent Ethan Hawke goes after the elusive "Job" who killed his teammates.]
How do I convey, "This is an action film!" (without saying so)?
Let's examine this opening scene (p. 1-2):
- Jack is inside a hotel room closet in Kiev.
- On a small tv, he watches surveillance of two men in the next room.
- One man (Anatoly) interrogates a sobbing man (Kasminov).
- There's a dead woman on the bed.
Up until this point, this could be a thriller or a drama.
Then on p. 2:
"JACK, impatient, checks his watch.
JACK: Jesus, she's been under too long. Come on, come on!"
A-ha! Jack, and others, are in on the con.
Notice that this is p. 2, and we're moving fast, i.e., action-y pacing.
More clues:
- Jack's concern re: the woman = Urgency
- Anatoly's physicality hurries things up
- Genre words: "bare bulb", "blood", "shabby room"
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: An action opening has suspense, much like a thriller, but its pacing is often quicker (urgency, dire consequences).
Mission Impossible (1996)
by David Koepp & Robert Towne
How do I convey, "This is an action film!" (without saying so)?
Let's examine this opening scene (p. 1-2):
- Jack is inside a hotel room closet in Kiev.
- On a small tv, he watches surveillance of two men in the next room.
- One man (Anatoly) interrogates a sobbing man (Kasminov).
- There's a dead woman on the bed.
Up until this point, this could be a thriller or a drama.
Then on p. 2:
"JACK, impatient, checks his watch.
JACK: Jesus, she's been under too long. Come on, come on!"
A-ha! Jack, and others, are in on the con.
Notice that this is p. 2, and we're moving fast, i.e., action-y pacing.
More clues:
- Jack's concern re: the woman = Urgency
- Anatoly's physicality hurries things up
- Genre words: "bare bulb", "blood", "shabby room"
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: An action opening has suspense, much like a thriller, but its pacing is often quicker (urgency, dire consequences).
Mission Impossible (1996)
by David Koepp & Robert Towne
Monday, November 3, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Goonies (1985) - Real Stakes = Strong Motive
[Quick Summary: Kids from the wrong side of the tracks ("goonies") hunt for buried treasure.]
Bad news: This script is approximately 134 pgs.
Good news: This 134 pg. script is chock full of how to involve the reader in your adventure.
ex. "Data sees himself as Agent 007. Data STANDS on the window of his home. He has ATTACHED himself to a clothes line that CONNECTS Mikey's house to Data's. A LARGE PORTABLE CASSETTE player is STRAPPED to Data's chest. The Bond Theme BLARES from the cassette."
Bad news: I wanted to share an early draft of this script, but it isn't available online.
Good news: I read the early draft for you.
It was good, but I was impressed how the later draft deepened my investment in the characters.
ex. In the early draft, Mikey and friends went after buried treasure because they were bored, and it was summer.
This motive seemed weak.
However, in the later draft, Mikey went after the treasure because he was losing his home the next day.
These real stakes = strong motive. This make-believe world suddenly became much more three dimensional to me.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you find the right motive for your character, I will likely buy whatever you tell me about that character.
Goonies (1985)(4th draft)
by Christopher Columbus
Bad news: This script is approximately 134 pgs.
Good news: This 134 pg. script is chock full of how to involve the reader in your adventure.
ex. "Data sees himself as Agent 007. Data STANDS on the window of his home. He has ATTACHED himself to a clothes line that CONNECTS Mikey's house to Data's. A LARGE PORTABLE CASSETTE player is STRAPPED to Data's chest. The Bond Theme BLARES from the cassette."
Bad news: I wanted to share an early draft of this script, but it isn't available online.
Good news: I read the early draft for you.
It was good, but I was impressed how the later draft deepened my investment in the characters.
ex. In the early draft, Mikey and friends went after buried treasure because they were bored, and it was summer.
This motive seemed weak.
However, in the later draft, Mikey went after the treasure because he was losing his home the next day.
These real stakes = strong motive. This make-believe world suddenly became much more three dimensional to me.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If you find the right motive for your character, I will likely buy whatever you tell me about that character.
Goonies (1985)(4th draft)
by Christopher Columbus
Monday, October 27, 2014
TODAY'S NUGGET: Analyze That (2002) - Sequels; Conflict
[Quick Summary: After a failed assassination attempt, a mobster escapes from jail to find his assassins.]
I know I have unrealistic expectations for sequels.
So I wasn't surprised that I liked Analyze This much better than Analyze That.
It boils down to this:
In the first film, the mobster Vitti was terribly conflicted inside. He lost all confidence and couldn't function at work or at home.
He desperately needed the shrink to work through the conflict.
In the sequel, Vitti wasn't conflicted. He needed the shrink once, i.e., to break out of jail.
In the first film, I rooted for Vitti. I needed to know how it would end.
In the sequel, I had little reason to root or care.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Conflict = Keeps the reader caring.
Analyze That (2002)
by Peter Steinfeld, Harold Ramis, & Peter Tolan
I know I have unrealistic expectations for sequels.
So I wasn't surprised that I liked Analyze This much better than Analyze That.
It boils down to this:
In the first film, the mobster Vitti was terribly conflicted inside. He lost all confidence and couldn't function at work or at home.
He desperately needed the shrink to work through the conflict.
In the sequel, Vitti wasn't conflicted. He needed the shrink once, i.e., to break out of jail.
In the first film, I rooted for Vitti. I needed to know how it would end.
In the sequel, I had little reason to root or care.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Conflict = Keeps the reader caring.
Analyze That (2002)
by Peter Steinfeld, Harold Ramis, & Peter Tolan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)