TODAY'S NUGGET: Stalag 17 (1953) - How to Avoid "Stagey" Adaptation of a Single Location Play

[Quick Summary: When two American soldiers are killed in an escape from a German POW camp, the soldiers suspect a mole in their barracks.]

Though plays are often set in a single location, it can seem stagey on film, i.e., artificial, claustrophobic, or simply boring for lack of movement.

So how did writer-director Billy Wilder avoid staginess in this famous film? 

1) THE STORY LENDS ITSELF TO CLOSE QUARTERS.  He chose this story which IS all about the claustrophobia and boredom of barracks.

2) CLOSE QUARTERS = PRESSURE. The soldiers need each other to survive.

This becomes even more apparent when they wrongly identifies one of their own as the traitor/mole. Suddenly, the barracks become a pressure cooker.

3) EXPANDING WHEN NECESSARY.  Wilder wisely added several outdoor scenes to give the audience room to breathe from the cramped indoor shots.

4) FRAMING.  I was very impressed by Wilder's use of the screen and space. Nearly every inch of the frame is stuffed with faces or some action.* 

So why didn't it feel stale or too busy?  He made sure there was constant movement: friction and action, people coming and going in and out of doors.

A good example is the scene below.  Note:
- This is an early scene which introduces all the characters. 
- Examine how there's constant movement between and among the characters. It feels less like the limits of a stage, and more like good use of a cramped space.

THE FAR END OF THE BARRACK

This is the strategic spot of the story. In the five tiers of bunks live our major characters.

In the upper bunk lies HOFFY. Little fellow. Plenty of authority. The Barrack Chief. His eyes are wide open. He is studying his wristwatch, the phosphorescent numerals shining in the dark.

In the other bunks lie the others, wide awake, tense:

DUKE, big bellyacher.

TRIZ, six-foot-three, ninety-eight pounds.

PRICE, the barrack Security Chief. Quiet, touch of class.

MANFREDI, no cover, fully dressed.

HARRY, bug-eyed, cocky.

BLONDIE, fair-skinned, boyish.

JOHNSON, fully dressed like Manfredi. Scared.

SEFTON, casual. In his mouth a cold cigar butt.

Hoffy again. Still staring at the wristwatch. This is the moment. He lifts the metal dogtags off his chest and jiggles them. This is the signal.

Duke instantly slides out of the bunk, grabs up his blanket and moves toward the window. A searchlight beam sweeps across. Duke goes flush on the ground. The light passes on. Duke gets up again and starts hanging the blanket over the window.

Now the others go into action, silently, efficiently. Except for Manfredi and Johnson they are all in long winter underwear, some in slacks and socks.

As for Sefton, he is lying in his bunk just watching them.

Blondie hangs a blanket over the window. Triz swings one over the clothesline to shield off their end of the barrack.

Hoffy and Price light a couple of handmade lamps: margarine in tin cans with the wick stuck inside.

Manfredi and Johnson are putting on their leather jackets.

Harry tries to awaken STOSH in the bunk above him. The wooden boards around Stosh's bunk are plastered with Betty Grable cheesecake. Harry pokes him. Stosh does not respond. Harry interlocks his fingers, puts them close to Stosh's ears and cracks them in a SHARP SALVO. Stosh opens his eyes, dazed. Harry pats Stosh's cheek.

HARRY (in a whisper): Get up, Animal! Betty Grable's on the phone!

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: If the play-to-be-adapted is in a single location, why? Pressure? Can it benefit a film? Or is expansion necessary to get that same effect?

Stalag 17 (1953)(shooting draft)
by Billy Wilder and Edwin Blum
Based on a play by Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski

*My favorite scene is where there are guys planning at a table in the foreground, and "guilty" Sefton in the background.  There are bunks to the left and right, so the men's faces are essentially lined up in a column, filling the screen from top to bottom.

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Wicker Man (1973) - Why "Recognizably Strange" is Effective Horror Behavior

[Quick Summary: After receiving an anonymous letter about the disappearance of a missing child, a by-the-book policeman arrives on a remote island to investigate.]

Q: What makes this odd film stand out? Why is there a cult like fan following?
A: It's a proper horror film, i.e., properly unsettling and weird.

Q: Horror films explore what we fear.  What is the fear here?
A: Something is very wrong when no one (except for the protagonist) is concerned about a missing child on a remote island.

Q: How did the writer make such a weird story, well, weird?
A: One of the keys was what one critic called, "recognizably strange" things. 

The script starts off with the typical straight-laced policeman. I recognize this character and how he'd respond in situations.  I identify with his reasoning. 

Then odd "recognizably strange" things start to happen to him, yet no one (but him) is alarmed.  They're just 15% or so off of normal. Just enough to dismiss him....

For example, in the scene below:
- Mrs. Morrison has just denied to Sgt. Howie that her older daughter is missing.
- She exits, leaving Howie with the her younger daughter Myrtle.
- We are unsettled by Mrs. Morrison's matter of fact reaction --> now add Myrtle's.
- Note how no one is trying very hard to convince Howie.  In fact, the indifference is frightening and infuriating to a by-the-book cop.

INT. PARLOUR OF SWEET SHOP - DAY

...We now see that the child is doing a drawing of a hare with huge ears and whiskers which she is copying from a copper mould that has plainly been used to make the chocolate hares. She looks up and hands Howie a dropping paint brush.

MYRTLE: Here you are. You can fillin the ears in grey.

Neat, clean Sergeant Howie is horrified to find his hand suddenly sticky with paint, and quickly takes the paint rag to clean himself. Carefully he selects a clean brush and starts on the ears.

HOWIE: Myrtle, do you know Rowan?

MYRTLE: Of course.

Howie is startled by the answer.

HOWIE: You do?

MYRTLE: Course I do, silly.

HOWIE: Where is she now?

MYRTLE: In the fields. She runs and plays all day.

HOWIE: Will she be back for tea?

MYRTLE (laughing uproariously): Tea? She doesn't have tea.

HOWIE: Why not? Doesn't she like it?

She stops laughing abruptly and stares at him contemptuously.

MYRTLE: Hares don't have tea, silly.

HOWIE: Hares!

MYRTLE: She's a hare. Rowan's a hare. She has a lovely time.

Howie sits thunderstruck. The door to the shop opens and Mrs. Morrison re-appears....

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I liked how the script lulled me in with recognizable behavior --> becomes "recognizably strange" --> bizarre frightening behavior.  

This gradual slide was very believable!

The Wicker Man (1973)
by Anthony Shaffer

TODAY'S NUGGET: Blackboard Jungle (1955) - How to Involve the Audience (2 +2)

[Quick Summary: A new English teacher at an inner city school is faced with unruly students and jaded faculty.] 

Early in my writing journey, I heard a lot of things about writing that I did not understand.  Several came from Billy Wilder's 10 rules. For example:

- The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.

- A tip from Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They'll love you forever.

But how does one DO that? No one could tell me. I despaired.  (And by the way, the ONLY way I've learned is to read.*)

What does that LOOK LIKE?  Let's look at today's script, a deserving Oscar winner.

In the scene below:
- This is a 1950s, tough inner city school with students out for trouble.
- Lois Hammond, a fellow new teacher, is going to give Rick (protagonist) a lift home. 
- This scene sets up a connection between Lois and Rick, which someone will take advantage of later (plot point: team building hidden in a shared battle zone).
- Notice the shoes early + single shoe later = trouble (2 +2).
- Notice how you lean in when you spot 1st clue --> see 2nd clue --> what happened to Lois? This very fine writing is great suspense.

INT. STAIRCASE

...LOIS HAMMOND

She adjusts her second stocking. She starts down stairs. Her black-and-white pumps clack hollowly on stairway.

SECOND FLOOR CORRIDOR - RICK

He quickly approaches elevator. He pushes button. The elevator rises carrying half-a-dozen teachers. Among them are Josh Edwards and Jim Murdock. Their voices drift of of cage.

JOSH EDWARDS: Why -- they didn't even know their multiplication tables.

MURDOCK: 'Course not. All they can multiply is themselves. (general laughter)

JOSH EDWARDS: How are they ever graduated?

MURDOCK: Graduated? They got to be 18 and they're thrown out to make room for more of the same kind.

Rick watches elevator ascend. He decides to use stairway, starts down on the run.

STAIRWAY - SHOOTING DOWN

Rick descends. The stairway is deserted except for him.

FIRST FLOOR - FOOT OF STAIRS

Rick comes down. he stops. He looks down corridor for Lois Hammond.

CORRIDOR - RICK'S VIEWPOINT

It is empty, shadowy.

CLOSE - RICK

He looks in other direction toward exit. Lois Hammond is not waiting. He hesitates, shrugs, starts toward exit. MOVE with him. He passes the closed library doors. He stops, turns, looks down.

CLOSE - FLOOR 

Near library doors lies a black-and-white woman's pump. Rick leans in and picks it up.

CLOSE - RICK

He looks at shoe in puzzlement. He goes back several steps to the library doors. He looks thru glass portion of doors. 

Thru doors, at far side, between two walls of books, can dimly be seen two struggling figures.

Rick pushes at the doors. They are locked. He rattles doorknobs. They won't budge.

Holding the shoe by the sole, he smashes the glass with the high heel. He reaches in and opens door. He enters quickly.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: It's often trial and error to figure out exactly what info to give an audience.  In this case, the shoe was perfect, as it spiked our curiosity.

Blackboard Jungle (1955)(final draft, 8/10/54)
by Richard Brooks
Based on the novel by Evan Hunter

*Early in my journey, I heard "to write, you need to read."  

"Yeah, yeah, so what?" I thought, smugly to myself. "I already read a lot." 

What I did not realize is:

a) How MUCH I had to read.  It took me a few years for me to realize I wasn't reading enough scripts, then several more years to up my intake of a wider range of novels, plays, everything I could get my hands on.  

b) My job as a writer depends on reading. From the start, it was obvious to me that I needed to read to educate myself. 

However, it took me a long time to understand that a large part of my value as a writer is to have fresh, new IDEAS for the rest of the team.  I will only find those ideas by reading.

TODAY'S NUGGET: No Time to Die (2021) - Upending Expectations with a Character with a Different Energy

[Quick Summary: After Bond leaves MI5, he's drawn back in by the disappearance of a scientist who has stolen "Heracles" that leads to a very personal connection.]

BAD NEWS: I simply did not connect with this film, despite an abundance of top tier writers, beautiful cinematography, locations, action stunts, and actors.

If I had to boil it down, I'd say the story was not fun or as suspenseful as others. With reliance on tech, there was no need for Bond to figure his way out of a corner.

GOOD NEWS: However, there was one fun bit that I did enjoy: Paloma and the Cuba scenario.

First, she's a new agent who is not polished and does not make perfect decisions.  She's competent, yet she's still learning on the job and isn't afraid to admit it. 

Second, she brought a different energy that was very welcome. She is impatient, eager to get on with things, and we like her all the better for it.

Third, the Cuba scene became more entertaining because I didn't know what to expect from this character. She upends Bond's expectations.

In the scene below, we see the difference she makes: 

INT. WINE CELLAR - SANTIAGO BUILDING - NIGHT

Paloma stops at a wine cellar. She takes out a key, nerves still have her shaking as she unlocks the door.

BOND: This your room?

PALOMA (clearly it's not): It's a wine cellar. Okay, come here.

She starts undoing his shirt.

BOND: Don't you think we ought to get to know each other just a little before we...

PALOMA: Oh! No, no, no, no. I'm sorry.

She steps back, unrolls a suit bag she had stowed. It's a tuxedo. He smiles.

BOND: Alright.

PALOMA: You do it.

BOND: Do you min... (signals for her to turn around)

She turns her back. Bond starts to undress.

BOND (CONT'D): This is going to go brilliantly.

PALOMA: I know. (smiling) I've done three weeks training.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Paloma has a very different energy than most agents in this series.  She's not jaded or smooth or experienced, and that's fun to watch.

No Time to Die (2021)(undated)
by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge
Story by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Cary Joji Fukunaga

TODAY'S NUGGET: Spectre (2015) - When in Need of High Flying Action, Walk on a Wall

[Quick Summary: A message from the past sends Bond after an organization called SPECTRE, which has ties to his past.]

I've been reading Bond scripts because I want to figure out why some turn into good films and some do not.* 

For me, Spectre was very confusing, and somewhat boring.  

I think was because the story itself lacked ingenuity, despite a beautiful looking script. Going into Bond's past makes sense, but it wasn't enough.

(That must have been a terrible frustration to the creative team.  After all, what is still unexplored after 23 films of over-the-top adventures?)

I will cite my favorite scene below.  It combines the characteristic of the character (cleverly resourceful at getting to the rooftop) and high flying action that fans love.

INT. HOTEL ROOM - LATE DAY

...With her back to Bond, Estrella takes a sip of her drink, crawls onto the bed, and turns to see him opening the window:

ESTRELLA: But...where are you going?

BOND: To check out the view.

And we follow him OUT OF THE WINDOW.

EXT. HOTEL/ROOFTOP - LATE DAY

Dangerously high up, he jumps...

Lands on a rooftop.

He keeps low, walking coolly along the very edge of the roof, the street clearly visible below...In the distance we can see the crowded square. The drums more distant now...

He reaches his destination, and stops. Looks across the way at some apartments. Day of the Dead FLOATS and STILT-WALKERS passing between...Now he ducks behind a low wall on the rooftop.

Takes out his Walther PPK, and an additional piece of equipment. Clips the piece onto the hand grip of the gun with a satisfying clunk. Inserts the earpiece.

Bond now tests his gear - raises the gun, points it down into the crowd.

We wee a faint laser beam emanating from beneath the barrel.

A laser microphone.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I really liked how clever Bond was getting to the rooftop because it actively required him to utilize his skills, and was not merely coincidence.

Spectre (2015)(shooting script, 10/17/14)
by John Logan, Neal Purvis & Robert Wade

*So far, this is my running list of things I've learned about Bond scripts:

1) Though they may borrow something from the novels or short stories, there is no formula.  The writers essentially start from scratch, which is tough to replicate.

2) These films are intrinsically weird, outlandish, fanciful, and/or outrageous, but they have an internal logic that fans seem to like in varying degrees.

3) The films often follow (but not always) the scripts.  Even when they follow the script, it does not guarantee a good film.

4) Some scripts are horrible to read, but turn out good films. Other scripts are beautiful on the page, but turn out bad films.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Witness for the Prosecution (1957) - Adding New Humor & Character When Expanding a Short Story

[Quick Summary: A famous barrister agrees to defend the beneficiary of a murdered rich widow, but surprises await.] 

THE SHORT ANSWER

Q: What's the best way to expand a short story and make it interesting?
A: Interesting characters.

THE LONG ANSWER

Let's take this short story by Agatha Christie.

The main character is the solicitor Mr. Mayherne, who does all the investigation and footwork.  Sir Charles, the barrister, is only mentioned twice in passing.

However, in the script:

1) The writers brought forward the barrister (now called Sir Wilfrid) as the main character. He will do a lot of the investigation/interviewing in his office.

2) But how does the audience know he's any good at investigating?* 

The writers were smart and demonstrated his wily nature in a situation BEFORE the case begins (scene below):

- Sir Wilfrid has a heart attacks and has just returned from the hospital. 
- He doesn't like his new restrictions nor the nurse Miss Plimsoll.
- He is willing to bend the rules to his advantage.
- Note how the added shrewd, sneaky humor makes him interesting to follow.

THE ANTEROOM OF SIR WILFRID'S CHAMBERS (DAY)

...He proceeds toward his office, ignoring the reception line-up. In passing he whisks the flowers from Miss McHugh's hand.

SIR WILFRID: Thank you very much. Everybody back to work.

MISS McHUGH: Sir Wilfrid, please -- if you don't mind -- I would like to read a little poem which we have composed to welcome you --

She has whipped out a long sheet of legal-size paper, typewritten on both sides.

SIR WILFRID (interrupting): Very touching, Miss McHugh. You can recite it after office hours, on your own time. Now back to work.

He starts for his room, sees Miss O'Brien sobbing, her cheeks streaked with tears.

SIR WILFRID: What's the matter with you?

MISS O'BRIEN: Nothing ---- I'm just happy that you're your old self again.

SIR WILFRID (a sweeping gesture with his cane): One more manifestation of such sentimentality -- whether in poetry or prose -- and I shall instantly go back to the hospital.

MISS PLIMSOLL: Not very likely. They won't take you back. (to the staff) He wasn't really discharged, you know -- he was expelled. For conduct unbecoming a cardiac patient.

SIR WILFRID: Put these in water -- (shoving the flowers at her) Blabbermouth! (to his clerk) Come on in, Carter.

He goes on into his office, followed by Carter.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: Sometimes adaptations require going beyond the short story. Know what the film needs.

Here, audiences expect a defense attorney vs. witness showdown in this genre. Thus it made sense to make Sir Wilfrid the protagonist, though he is not in the short story.

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)(6/10/57 final script)
by Billy Wilder and Harry Kurnitz
Based on the novel by Agatha Christie

*After all, UK barristers generally work in the higher (appeals) courts. This is different work than that of solicitors who focus on the lower (trial) courts

TODAY'S NUGGET: The Body Snatcher (1945) - Why the Blackmailer's Chilling Speech Lands Well (Motive)

[Quick Summary: After a student suspects that his mentor (Dr. MacFarlane) is illegally obtaining cadavers, the supplier (Gray) begins to harass them.]

 Dr. MacFarlane has a nice, comfortable life.  

The only fly in his ointment is Mr. Gray, who supplies him with cadavers.

Since Gray has old dirt on MacFarlane, he relishes sponging off him.

When MacFarlane finally confronts Gray about 3/4 into the script, it is chilling.  

Why does it land so well?

Part of it is well-drawn characters.  But also, part of it is the structure.

The script spends the first 3/4 setting up the rocky relationships with student Fettes, Dr. MacFarlane, and Mr. Grey. (I was rooting for Fettes.)

Then it all pays off in the last quarter, when Gray finally explains his motive to MacFarlane in this explosive admission:

INT. GRAY'S LIVING QUARTERS - NIGHT

...Gray shrugs.

MACFARLANE: What I was going to say is this -- wouldn't you be more comfortable at Leith in a neat little house?

GRAY: Would you bribe me to leave you be?

MACFARLANE: I would make you rich.

GRAY: It wouldn't be half so much fun for me, Toddy, as to have you come here and beg --

MACFARLANE (cutting in): Beg -- beg of you! You crawling graveyard rat!

He chokes off the last speech and glares at Gray. He is almost trembling with the effort to control himself.

GRAY: Aye -- that is my pleasure.

As he speaks he is refilling MacFarlane's glass

MACFARLANE: Well then -- I beg you -- I beseech you --

GRAY (shaking, his head and grinning): But then I wouldn't have the fun of having you come here and beg again, Toddy.

They look at each other. MacFarlane bends over in his chair. Gray hitches himself forward a little on the table, ready, waiting, then relaxes as MacFarlane begins to speak.

MACFARLANE: But why, Gray? Why?

GRAY: Because it would be a hurt to me to see you no more, Toddy. You're a pleasure to me.

MACFARLANE: A pleasure to torment me?

GRAY: No -- a pride to know that I can force you to my will. I'm a small man -- a humble man -- and being poor, I've had to do much that I did not want to do. But so long as the great Dr. MacFarlane jumps at my whistle, that long am I a man -- and if I have not that, I have nothing. Then I am only a cabman and a grave-robber.

MacFarlane looks at him. As he looks, he realizes he has heard the truth and that Gray will never leave him in peace. Now he, in turn, attempts cunning....

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: This gut punch is doubly horrific because of the roller coaster ride in the previous 70+ pgs.  Without it, this moment loses steam.

The Body Snatcher (1945)
by Philip MacDonald and Carlos Keith
Based on the story by Robert Louis Stevenson

TODAY'S NUGGET: Skyfall (2012) - Rising Action & Tension in Service of a Theme (Betrayal)

[Quick Summary: When someone from M's past threatens all of MI6, Bond tracks down the threat, but it gets very personal.]

Q: What have you learned about Bond scripts you've read (16 so far)?
A: The scripts are sprawling beasts unto themselves, often hard to wrangle.

Q: What's one of the difficulties?
A: The writers are always trying to deliver new spectacles, but it's not easy to sustain. I often go numb reading yet another action-packed, high stakes scene.  

Q: In this script, what does work on the page AND on screen?
A: I have not seen it often in Bond scripts but I think they're at their best when the mounting tension (due to conflicting emotion) is in service of a theme. 

Here, it is betrayal.

For example, Bond is betrayed in the scene below:
- Bond is fighting a guy on top of a train.
- Eve has a sniper gun, but can't get a shot.
- Back in the London, M orders the shot, effectively putting Bond at risk. 
- Note how each character is shown with emotional conflict (see below).

ON THE TRAIN:

Bond and Patrice struggle. Below the train, a treacherous fall the waterfall and river far below --

Bond can hear Eve and M on his earpiece:

EVE (V.O.): There's a tunnel ahead...I'm going to lose them...

AT MI-6: 

M is isolated. [This shows M alone, likely feeling lonely, vulnerable.]

All the screens are down. Everyone watches M. [She's alone, shouldering responsibility.]

M (V.O.): Can you get into a better position?

ON THE OVERPASS: 

Eve's POV through the scope: Bond and Patrice locked together.

EVE: Negative. There's no time.

She blinks away sweat. Finger tensing on the trigger. [Eve's nervous, conflicted. She could kill 007.]

The train's about to disappear.

ON THE TRAIN: 

Bond and Patrice roll across the train roof --

Bond can hear M and Eve on his earpiece -- [He has no idea if M will sacrifice him.]

The train's starting to go into the tunnel!

ON THE OVERPASS:

Eve still has the gun trained on them.

Seconds left now.  [This increases tension. Audience wonders if she'll take the shot.]

AT MI-6:

It's now or never.

M: Take the shot...I said, take the shot.

EVE: I can't. I may hit Bond-- [She's conflicted.]

M: Take the bloody shot. [She makes a decision, for better or worse.]

SIMULTANEOUSLY:

Eve fires--

Bond and Patrice twist--

Eve's shot slams into Bond!

His whole body recoils violently -- shot in the side and ribs -- blood sprays -- the impact is huge -- sending him sailing from the car --

Bond flies through the air--

Off the train--

He falls, past the train, past the tracks--

Down toward the river and waterfall below--

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To improve meaningless action, consider if it's related to the theme.  If not, can it be reframed so it is? Or is it tangential?

Skyfall (2012)(undated)
by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, and John Logan

TODAY'S NUGGET: Casino Royale (2006) - How to Introduce a New Bond

[Quick Summary: After getting his 00 license, Bond has to enter a high stakes poker game to stop a banker who is financing terrorists.]

As I read these Bond scripts and hear complaints about the films,  I begin to grasp how difficult it is to get the alchemy right.  Each film is truly a bespoke effort.

This script begins the Daniel Craig era, whose scripts are markedly more pleasurable to read on the page, compared to previous eras.* 

It tackles one of the greatest pressures, i.e., introducing a new actor to play Bond, with real flair.

In this scene:
- I really liked how this introduction included the usual (danger, proficiency on the job) but also an emotional layer (grappling with his first kills).

- I also like how easy they make it for a non-Bond fan to comprehend.  Everyone understands playing games and one-upmanship, which are strong themes here.

- Finally, Dryden and Bond are trading verbal punches.  Note how the flashback doesn't interrupt the flow. It adds weight behind Dryden's "made you feel it" line.

INT. MODERN OFFICE -- NIGHT

Dryden grabs the pistol, levels it -- Bond still hasn't moved.

DRYDEN: Shame, we barely got to know each other.

He pulls the trigger. Click. Bond holds up the magazine.

BOND (with humor): I knew where you hid your gun, I suppose that's something.

DRYDEN (has to smile): True. (lays gun down) How did he die?

BOND: Your contact?

INT. CRICKET GROUND - CLUB HOUSE -- DAY

Fisher backs up to a washbasin, turns on the tap, throws water on his sweating face - his eyes never leave the door. Suddenly, a burst of cheering from outside. Fisher instinctively brings the gun up. A second door, behind him, crashes open. Bond. He spins but James grabs him, knocks the gun out of his hand.

Fisher attacks. The two tumble into the stalls. The fight is chaotic, both men trying to hit each other in a confined space until the stall partitions fold like dominoes. They fall into the shower room. Fisher fights like a madman until finally Bond forces his head into the basin, now overflowing with water. James holds him under until the body stops writhing and kicking. Not a clean kill by any means. He lets the body slide to the floor, steps back, considering the dead man. Hating him for making this feel so much like...killing. 

INT. MODERN OFFICE -- NIGHT

BOND: Not well.

DRYDEN: Made you feel it, did he? (sees the truth in Bond's eyes) Well, no worries, the second is --

Bond raises his silenced Walther and fires, cutting off the words before they reach Dryden's lips.

BOND: Yes. Considerably.

Bond holsters his weapon and heads for the door.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: I was surprised by how much Bond was feeling the pathos (sadness, sympathy, compassion). It surprised me and made a deeper impact.

Casino Royale (2006)(2nd revisions by Haggis, 12/13/05)
by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis
Based on the novel by Ian Fleming

*I will not say that Craig era scripts are "better", just more readable.  The reason that these films have been great are their creativity, imaginativity, originality, and inventiveness, which do often look very messy on the page.

TODAY'S NUGGET: Two for the Road (1967) - Rare, Innovative Use of Flashback (Or, The Oscar Nominated Script Everyone Turned Down)

[Quick Summary: A troubled couple, married for ten years, go on a road trip in the south of France.]

TWO THOUGHTS:

1) REJECTION: When your script is the most forward thinking, seamless use of flashback that has been seen, everyone is going to turn you down.*

2) NEW USE OF FLASHBACK:Newer writers tend to use flashback to explain backstory (please avoid the lazy exposition dump).  

Wiser writers eventually realize that it can be used to show the character's past emotions are also the present ones (like here, here, here).

But the really rare writers, like Frederic Raphael (Far From the Maddening Crowd, Eyes Wide Shut) find another innovative way in. 

On the DVD commentary, director Stanley Donen stated:

I think this one of the [] major differences in the way we reorganized this movie....It wasn't simply a flash from one period back to another one and back to the present what we were trying to do was say that all sequences in this movie are the present. Everything you see in their life is carried with them from the beginning of their relationship until the end of their lives. So that every sequence would feel just as present as any other. There was no one time in the picture when we said, "This is the time period of the picture." The picture is the entire period, is the present. (bold mine)

The result is that the script slips from present to past WITHOUT any time stamp in the slugline, as if it is all present.  But how does one not confuse the reader?

 

I think it's because the clarity of writing is exceptional.  In particular, the writer understands how to transition emotions by the juxtaposition of images.

 

In the scene below:

- Notice how few words were used to indicate the shift in time.
- There are several time periods: a) When the couple when they met (past); b) When they went on a trip with Cathy and family (past); c) When they're older (present). 

- Can you spot the moment of the time shift and emotional shift?

INT. CITROEN (2 CV). DAY.  [Here, M & J begin debating.]

...JOANNA: No?

MARK: But no, but no. The nicely brought up American girl may play it cool and modern, but what she wants is what her grandmother wanted --

Joanna produces a banana and offers it to Mark.

 

EXT. ROADSIDE. DAY. [J confronts M.]

The banana skin flung into the ditch. 

MARK (over): Your head stuffed and mounted on the living-room wall!

Mark and Joanna are hitching along the roadside again.

MARK: And if you don't want it that way, take your loving self elsewhere - I'm speaking quite generally, of course.

JOANNA: Of course. Who was she?

MARK: Whaddaya mean?

He grins and hands her a peach.

INT. CAB. GIANT ARTICULATED LORRY. DAY. [M defends --> ends with transition visual]

Joanna bites the peach.

MARK: Her name was Cathy Seligman, if you must know.

Joanna offers the Driver some grapes off the bunch. He smiles at her agreeably and takes some. The lorry has eased away from us somewhat and the cab slides forward out of shot.

EXT. THE ROAD. DAY. [Completed transition to new visual, new emotional dynamic, new time period.]

The articulated lorry moves forward to clear the frame.

MARK (O.S.) Selfish, grasping, Philistine, materialistic, stubborn, opinionated - I was crazy about her.

The lorry clears the frame and we pick up the car which appears to follow it (without a cut). It is a Ford station wagon with four Adults and a Child in it. Tags hang from the luggage on the roof.

EXT. THE NAME HOWARD MAXWELL MANCHESTER IS ON THEM. [This image is an ironic contrast to his words.]

Cathy is looking out of the window.

MARK (as we hold on Cathy): Mrs. Howard Maxwell Manchester, no less, Luckily for you, you'll never be called up to spend too much time in her company.

Cathy is very pretty and doesn't look quite as vampirish as Mark's young tongue suggested. It is some three years later and the Manchesters and the Wallaces are making a joint expedition, as we shall shortly see.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED: To me, the transitions are seamless, so that the flashbacks - visually, emotionally, story wise.- feel like they're all a whole.

 

This is one of those structures that's hard to explain verbally.   Even Donen's pitch to Audrey Hepburn was met with skepticism, until she read the script.

Two for the Road (1967)

by Frederic Raphael

* On the DVD commentary, famed director Stanley Donen said that studios couldn't envision how the flashback structure would work:

 

"I suppose that is why the readers of the script couldn't grasp what was going to come over on film...

...‎...[E]very other company in town [except 20th Century Fox] turned down the script. They all felt the picture was far too complicated for anyone to possibly understand. And there was no way that people could follow what was going on the way Frederic Raphael and I had planned this scheme of time throughout the film. I wrote a little letter at the head of the script saying to everyone,"Please, when you read this script, pay particular attention to everything that is said, every word of time, and so on. But please, take my word for it, when you see it, there will be no problem at all. You'll just sit back and relax. The picture will unfold before you, and you will not have any problem not knowing which stage the events are happening." However, in spite of my plea, no one believed in the picture, except Dick Zanack and David Brown, who I am happy to say, gave me the money to make the film."