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

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

I'd never heard of this film before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B) Exposition + Character

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

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

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

NURSE: One moment please.

CLOSE UP - WHITE SHOES

squeaking on the shiny clean floor.

Lysol. Harry sniffs and looks at the pretty legs.

HARRY: Were you working last weekend?

The nurse is looking through the files.

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

HARRY: Catch the bouquet?

NURSE: No such luck.

HARRY: Nice guy?

NURSE: Huh?

HARRY: The husband.

NURSE: An old guy. Loaded.

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

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

HARRY: When?

NURSE: Years ago. December '45.

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

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

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

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

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

3 Reasons That This Script is Worth Reading:*

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

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

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

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

Misdirection is extremely helpful in keeping the suspense buoyant.

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

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

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

Note that everyone has a juicy motive:

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

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

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

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

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
by Orson Welles

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

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

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

Writer Chris Sparling said here:

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

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

It has the attractive elements for an indie project:

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

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

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

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

ex. "Paul is switched to an AUTOMATED MESSAGE.

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

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

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

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

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

DONNA eventually answers. [Hope]

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

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

Buried (2010)
by Chris Sparling

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

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

What happens after you call someone out for lying?

Escalation into a fight? Silence? Negotiation?

It depends on the culture.

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

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

Note in the scene below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your first instinct might not be appropriate in that setting.

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

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

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