TODAY'S NUGGET: The Manchurian Candidate (1962) - Suspense is Fuel for Thrillers

[Quick Summary: After the Korean War, an intelligence officer is plagued by nightmares that involve a fellow soldier, a Medal of Honor winner.]

So what makes a thriller a THRILLER?

All definitions agree that it must have suspense:

Suspense (n.): 1) a state or condition of mental uncertainty or excitement, as in awaiting a decision or outcome, usually accompanied by a degree of apprehension or anxiety; 2) a state of mental indecision.

But what does it look like in practice?

I think the original Manchurian Candidate (1962) is still the gold standard.*

Maj. Marco has nightmares about the war and fellow officer Raymond Shaw.  It is quite a roller coaster ride to find out why.

I was surprised, however, that the best suspense was between Shaw and his mother.

The uncertainty and apprehension is palpable:

ex. "The limo starts up and pulls away from the crowd.

RAYMOND: Who's kidding who, Mother? Johnny's up for re-election in November. You've got it all figured out, haven't you? Johnny Iselin's boy, Medal of Honor winner. That should get you another fifty thousand votes. [He stands up to her.]

MRS. ISELIN: Raymond, I'm your mother. How can you talk to me this way? You know I want nothing for myself, you know that my entire life is devoted to helping you... [Guilt.]

RAYMOND: Mother. [He protests. Is he weakening?]

MRS. ISELIN: ...and to helping Johnny...

RAYMOND: Mother. Mother. [Uh-oh. Indecision. He's weakening.]

Raymond lowers his head and puts his hands over his ears.

MRS. ISELIN: ...My boys. My two little boys... [Duty, loyalty, guilt.]

RAYMOND: Stop it. Stop it. [He feels selfish.]

MRS. ISELIN: ...That is all I have... [She's both manipulative & vulnerable.]

Raymond seems to melt under his mother's barrage of bullshit. [Is he doomed?!!]"

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Thrills come from the anxiety/apprehension/indecision that convinces us the story could go either way.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
by George Axelrod
Based on the novel by Richard Condon

* It is 50+ years old and is STILL on every top 10 list.  And has Angela Lansbury. And Frank Sinatra.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Once Upon a Time in America (1984) - Making the Past Relevant

[Quick Summary: In 1968, Noodles recalls daring crimes with his gangster buddies during Prohibition (1920-1930s).]

Sergio Leone said this was his best film.

It is based on a novel by Harry Grey (pseudonym), who wrote a fictionalized account about his childhood friends and Prohibition gangster days.

In 1968, Leone actually met Grey in person.  Leone biographer C. Frayling writes:

[After Leone and Grey met, Leone was] "convinced that the best approach to filming The Hoods would be to have the elderly Noodles revisiting his childhood and youth as a small-time gangster....The passage of time would be the central theme. The film would centre on the pivotal moment in 1933 when Noodles betrays his friends in order to save them, then retreats from the implications of his action.... (underline mine)

I will warn you that this script isn't very pretty on the page and it is very, very long.*

However, if you're really serious, it is worth studying for those time cues alone.

ex.  In the scene below, notice how the writers:

1)  Get in exposition about the past
2)  Raise the past to show it still lies between Noodles and Fat Moe today

The result is that the past becomes relevant to the present.

ex. "SCENE 23 FAT MOE'S : LIVING QUARTERS ADJOINING TEE LUNCH ROOM (1968) Interior. Night.

ANTEROOM

NOODLES notices the faded upholstery, the sense of neglect and poverty as he follows FAT MOE into the room off the deli.

NOODLES: I often wondered if you 'd taken that million dollars. Now I know. You're on your ass worse than ever. [He knows Moe & has been here before.]

FAT MOE has opened a door and turned on a light. He quickly swivels around to face NOODLES.

FAT MOE: But I thought you - [He thought Noodles was guilty.]

NOODLES: You thought wrong. The suitcase was empty.

Fat Moe steps back to let Noodles into his sanctum sanctorum, then follows him in. [They still trust each other.]

FAT MOE: Then who did?

NOODLES: That's what I been asking myself for thirty years." [Past questions are still unresolved in the present day.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The past is relevant if you can show how it fuels conflict in the present day.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
by Leonardo Benvenuti, Piero De Bernardi, Enrico Medioli, Franco Arcalli, Franco Ferrini, Sergio Leone
Based on the novel, "The Hoods," by Harry Grey

*Yes, 322 pgs. is too long. However, I think it works here, perhaps because of how the present and past are juxtaposed to play off each other.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Primary Colors (1998) - Showing Motive (By Absenting the Antagonist)

[Quick Summary: A young campaign worker helps a charismatic Southern governor run during the Presidential primary.]

In 1998, I didn't see this film in the theater.

Bill Clinton had just begun a second term, and who needed a story with a parallel "Clinton-like" character?

I wish I would've known then that this story is really about MOTIVES.

The writer, Elaine May, did two smart things in this script:

1) She created an ensemble to show the range of motives.

2) She does not put the candidate, Gov. Stanton, in every scene (as Roger Ebert points out here).

Because of #2, the ensemble must talk about their views on Stanton ---> We see what really drives them.
 
ex. Skeptical Henry is now working on Stanton's campaign.
March is a reporter and his ex-girlfriend.

"MARCH: And that's the kind of man you want to work for? A man who just wants to get elected?

HENRY: No. I want to work for a man who fights the good fight and then watch a Republican get elected. [Sarcasm reveals a new position.]

MARCH: What's the difference? Can you tell?

HENRY: Yes. I can tell the difference between a man who believes what I believe and lies about it to get elected, and a man who just doesn't give a fuck. And I'll take the liar. [He's gone 180.]

MARCH (staring at him): How did he do this to you?

HENRY: Do what? What are you talking about? Why are you making this guy into the devil? Why don't you, at least, get to know him. Take some time, maybe spend a few days with us here. I miss you, honey, and we could be together...

MARCH: God, I think you'd fuck me to get some good press for Stanton.  [She tells him the truth.]

He stares at her for a moment...then turns and walks away."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Deliberately remove the antagonist from time to time.

It will make the other characters talk and reveal themselves.

Primary Colors (1998)
by Elaine May
Based on the novel by Joe Klein

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Birdcage (1996) - Hold Off Releasing the Tension

[Quick Summary: Flamboyant, gay nightclub owners meet their son's financee's straightlaced parents for the first time.]

This script is a smooth read.

In fact, it's so smooth that I didn't realize how fast I was turning pages.

For example, I thought the conflict below happened over 1-2 pages.  It actually happens over five pages. 

One thing that kept me turning was that the tension was not released too soon.

Notice how the tension hovers for four pages * (p. 35-39):

SETUP: (p. 34-35)
 - Val gets engaged to Barbara Keeley. Her father is a super-conservative politician.
 - Val comes home to ask dad, Armand, to pretend he's not so flamboyant for the first meeting with Barbara's parents. This requires a change in clothes, furnishings, etc.

DECISION IS MADE: Armand turns Val down. (p. 35)

*TENSION RISES: (p. 35-38)
- Meanwhile, tabloid reporters surround the Keeley house
- Keeleys escape the media circus.

*EFFECT OF TENSION: (p. 38-39)
- Armand moody at work.
- Val sits in his room, hopeless.

*TENSION RELEASED: (p. 39)
- Val hears Armand in the next room: "Agador....We're redoing the apartment for tomorrow night. Goddamn it!"
- "Val sits up, slowly, his eyes brightening." [I like that we SEE (not told of) his dad's love.]

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Don't be afraid to hold off on releasing the tension.

The Birdcage (1996)(shooting script)
by Elaine May

TODAY'S NUGGET: Time Bandits (1981) - How Gilliam Turned Script into Storyboard Sketches

[Quick Summary: A young boy travels time with six thieving time bandits.]

I confess this is all I knew about Terry Gilliam:

- He was part of Monty Python.
- He has been working on a Don Quixote film since 1998.
- I heard that he could really draw.

I finally saw those drawing skills when I read this script in book form.*

Gilliam's sketches pepper the script. 

They're worth studying to see how to translate words into pictures.

ex. In one scene, Napoleon is the only audience member at a Punch and Judy show.

Backstage, the puppeteer is wounded, but carries on.

These are the 3 sketches that follow:

First, the nervous manager and the puppeteer:

 Move in closer on the dying puppeteer:

 Punch and Judy from Napoleon's POV:

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: The script was focused, clear (distillation #1).

This allowed Gilliam to reduce whole scenes into sketches (distillation #2).

Time Bandits (1981)
by Terry Gilliam & Michael Palin of Monty Python

* It is now out-of-print, but used copies are available.

2015 OSCARS: Whiplash (2014) - The First Ten (um, First THREE) Pages

[Quick Summary: A college jazz drummer's best & worst enemy is his teacher Fletcher.]

Wow.
Wow.
Wow.

I guzzled this script like ice water in the desert.

It is EX-HIL-ER-A-TING.

It's got RHYTHM, PASSION, ENERGY!

It's my favorite Oscar nominated script this year.

I recommend reading the first ten pages...actually, the first THREE.

The first three pages told me everything:
- I knew exactly what this story is about (student vs. teacher).
- I got a sense these characters are carrying baggage.
- I felt the inner and outer conflict.
- I saw where Andrew's journey was going.
- Most importantly, the tempo starts at a simmer, so I knew it would start boiling fairly soon.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This story relies on rhythm and tempo to convey feelings.

The writer was so smart to establish it early and keep focused on it.

Whiplash (2014)
by Damien Chazelle

2015 OSCARS: The Theory of Everything (2014) - I Fell For Romance & Subtlety

[Quick Summary: The unconventional love story of Stephen and Jane Hawking.]

This is one of the most romantic scripts I've read in ages.

I think the key is subtlety, which "is an old-fashioned concept," said writer Anthony McCarten.

It was used so well here.

It makes small moments so much sweeter than any grand gesture.

ex. "The BARMAN takes STEPHEN's POUND and glances at the NAPKIN.

BARMAN: I'd commit that number to memory if I were you.

STEPHEN smiles - then glances at the mirror-backed bar. Reflected - a WOMAN who looks like JANE. Is he imagining this?

TIGHT ON: STEPHEN's face: we see JANE's reflection appear and disappear in the glass of his glasses as she crosses the room.

The BARMAN's voice is distant...

BARMAN: Here you go...

STEPHEN snaps out of it - stares at the BARMAN holding out CHANGE - a smile DAWNING.

BARMAN: Sir? Are you okay?

STEPHEN: Uh, my napkin just walked in."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Romance is seen best in those small, subtle connections.

The Theory of Everything (2014)
by Anthony McCarten
Based on the book, "Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen", by Jane Hawking

2015 OSCARS: Inherent Vice (2014) - In Order to Have A "Stoned and Surreal" Tone...

[Quick Summary: A 1970s p.i. investigates the disappearance of an ex-girlfriend's married lover.]

THREE THOUGHTS:

1) The best piece of advice for reading this script:

The less you try to figure out Anderson's rambling, mesmerising mystery, the better.

I found this helpful, as I agree that:

Pynchon works to the principle that the less a reader is able to grasp, the better.

--------------------------------------------------------------
2) BEST THING ABOUT THIS SCRIPT: Its "stoned and surreal" tone.

The story sometimes did and did not make sense, all at once.

ex.  "DOC: You're emotionally involved? With a boat?

SAUNCHO: Not just a boat, Doc. Something much more...."

WORST THING ABOUT THIS SCRIPT: Its "stoned and surreal" tone."

It was often hard to follow, i.e., tangents, multiple characters, plots, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3)  This tone walks such a fine line between ludicrous and operatic.

Why does it work? 

I think it's because the anchor story is grounded and simple.

Every scene goes back to GUY LOOKS FOR GIRL.

ex. Even when the situations are outlandish, far fetched, or psychedelic:
- When Doc is disguised as a reporter...
- When he takes the odd dentist back to his Bel Air mansion...
- When he enters a hippie enclave...
- When he confronts squirrely FBI agents...

Doc is always trying to track down Shasta, the ex-girlfriend he loves.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: You can go as far or high or broad as you want, as long as there's a solid anchor for the story.

Inherent Vice (2014)
by Paul Thomas Anderson
Based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon

2015 OSCARS: The Imitation Game (2014) - A Revealing Abruptness

[Quick Summary: Alan Turing during WWII.]

Abruptness* for no reason is a useless gimmick.

The reader will feel manipulated (and, in my case, angry at the page).

However, if the trait reveals subtext, it is pure gold.

Here, notice how it shows Turing's inability to read others:

ex. "INT. BLETCHLEY PARK - COMMANDER DENNISTON'S OFFICE - LATER

A few minutes later, Alan sits alone in a cluttered office. He stares ahead blankly at the empty chair behind the desk. Waits.

COMMANDER DENNISTON (O.S.): -What are you doing here?

Alan turns with a start.

ALAN TURING: The girl told me to wait -

COMMANDER DENNISTON: In my office? She tell you to help yourself to a cup of tea while you were here?

ALAN TURING: No. She didn't.

COMMANDER DENNISTON: She didn't tell you what a joke is then either, I gather.

ALAN TURING: Was she supposed to?

COMMANDER DENNISTON: For Christ's sake - who are you?

ALAN TURING: Alan Turing....

COMMANDER DENNISTON: ...King's College, Cambridge. Says here you were a bit of a prodigy in the maths department.

ALAN TURING: I'm not sure I can evaluate that, Mr...?

COMMANDER DENNISTON: How old are you, Mr. Turing?

ALAN TURING: 27.

COMMANDER DENNISTON: How old were you when you became a fellow at Cambridge?

ALAN TURING: 24.

COMMANDER DENNISTON: And how old were you when you published this paper here, that has a title I can barely understand, which apparently got you this fellowship?

ALAN TURING: 23.

COMMANDER DENNISTON: And you don't think that qualifies you as a certified prodigy?

ANA TURING: Rather depends on how old my peers were when they did comparable work, doesn't it?

COMMANDER DENNISTON: And how old were they?

ALAN TURING: Newton discovered the binomial theorem at 22. Einstein published four papers that changed the world at 26. As far as I can tell I've barely made par.

COMMANDER DENNISTON: You're serious, aren't you?

ALAN TURING: Would you prefer I make a joke?

COMMANDER DENNISTON: Not sure you know what those are."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Use socially unacceptable traits to show subtext.

(Don't just use it to manufacture a surface conflict.) 

The Imitation Game (2014)
by Graham Moore
Based on "Alan Turing: The Enigma", by Andrew Hodges

* Or any character trait, for that matter.

2015 OSCARS: American Sniper (2014) - Clarity is So Important

[Quick Summary: The journey of US sniper Chris Kyle to Iraq and back home.]

I...I..I have no words for this script.

It's not your typical war story.  (I was surprised. It's a character study).

It is emotionally costly. (I was unprepared).

It takes you to the front lines of responsibility. (I was floored).

I was interested to hear that both Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood worked on this project.

They gave the writer one overarching note: Clarity.*

I saw it everywhere, even in the small scene below.

Notice the clear intent to convey what the brotherhood feels like:

ex. "INT. HUMVEE #2 - TWO DAYS LATER

Chris looks to Marc Lee, eyes closed in prayer. When he opens them he sees Chris looking. The rig sways.

MARC LEE: I went to seminary school before I joined the Navy. Came close to being a preacher.

CHRIS: Why didn't you?

MARC LEE: I love to gamble, man. Love those dice.

Their laughter is liberating. It bonds them.

CHRIS: My kind of preacher.

MORE LAUGHTER. A PHONE RINGS. Chris digs out a SAT PHONE.

MARC LEE: It's like that now, huh?

CHRIS: You haven't heard? I'm The Legend. (laughs at self; into phone) Hey babe --

TAYA (O.S.) You were right, doctor says it's a boy.

CHRIS: It's a boy!

MARC LEE: Hell yeah. Congratu--

WHAAP! Windshield spiders."

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Even with complicated shooting scenes, I could always follow what was at stake.

That's good clear writing.

American Sniper (2014)
by Jason Hall
Based on the book by Christ Kyle with Scott McEwen & Jim DeFelice

*The writer further explains:"[C]larity of purpose, clarity of intention, clarity of emotion. What are they saying? What's the feeling? What are you trying to get out? What are you trying to say?"