Genre: Drama
Premise: A low level blackjack card counter with a dark past makes a risky decision to get staked by a big investor in an attempt to make a lot of money.
About: This is the latest script from Paul Schrader, writer of Taxi Driver. The movie stars Oscar Isaac and has made a lot of fans on the ‘serious critic’ circuit, currently standing at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Writer: Paul Schrader
Details: 94 pages
Readability: Fairly fast (very dialogue driven)
Paul Schrader is a hard writer to figure out. The reason everyone knows his name is because he wrote one of the biggest films of the 70s, Taxi Driver. And, yet, if you asked anyone why they liked the movie, they would inevitably tell you it was because of the directing or the acting. I don’t think a lot of people look at Taxi Driver and think, “Wow, the writing was awesome.”
Contrast that with another famous 70s film, Chinatown, where the writing is very much at the forefront of why people loved it. In these instances where you’re not sure if the writer deserves the recognition that’s given him a career, you look at their body of work. And Paul Schrader’s body of work seems to stir up more questions than answers. He wrote Raging Bull four years later in 1980. But, after that, he has a bunch of movies that fell short of expectation. The Last Temptation of Christ. The Mosquito Coast. Affliction. Even 1999’s Bringing Out the Dead, which got some buzz, ultimately fell short of the mark.
If there’s a lesson to be learned from Schrader’s career, it would be how important a great character is. He found that captivating haunted conflicted man in Travis Bickle and that carried the movie. Cause Taxi Driver is – I hate to say it – not a very well-plotted script. But we don’t care because we’re so interested in the character. And as we learned with White Lotus, a character can become the plot as long as their internal conflict is strong enough that the audience wants to stick around to see if he can resolve it.
While all of you are angrily constructing your “White Lotus isn’t in the same stratosphere as Taxi Driver” comments, I’m going to summarize The Card Counter’s plot. I’ll meet you on the other side…
42 year old William Tell is a card-counter who travels across the country using his special skill of counting blackjack cards to always beat the house. The trick to Tell’s longevity is that he bets small and wins small, trying to keep his winnings under a thousand dollars at every casino. That way, he won’t draw attention to himself.
That changes when a 40 year old woman named La Linda watches him clean up one night and asks him if he wants to be staked by an investor so he can win a lot more money. Tell says no thanks and, a few days later, visits a military-themed exhibition where a speaker recalls his experiences in Iraq.
A 20 year old kid named Cirk pops up and tells Tell he recognizes him. It’s at this point that we learn Tell’s history. He was once an interrogation officer at Abu Ghraib. Tell got screwed because he was caught in several of the infamous pictures that surfaced from the torture camp even though he did not, himself, participate. Cirk tells Tell that he wants to kill the real man responsible for the torture who never had to face any consequences.
The next day, even though Tell has no interest in helping Cirk harm this man, he invites him to come with him to gamble across the country. He also calls La Linda up and tells her he wants to get staked. He’s got a new plan. Make a ton of money really fast and then ditch gambling for good.
You may be thinking that Tell then goes off and plays a lot of blackjack, right? Because the script is called The Card Counter? Well you would be stupid then because, instead, Tell decides to play poker! Where is this script going? What’s going to happen next? I wish someone could tell me because I certainly don’t know.
When I started reading this script, my first thought was, “Whoa, this is really good.” When La Linda sits down with Tell and says, “I want to back you for a lot more money so we can both win a lot more money,” and Tell lays out why that’s a bad idea but decides to do it anyway? Everything looked great. I was all in for that movie.
And then the torture backstory started. At first I thought, “Okay, this is kind of interesting. It certainly makes Tell a more complex character.” But then the torture storyline kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Until the gambling plot was relegated to second fiddle.
Clearly, Schrader had two movie ideas and decided to combine them into one script. I see this happen every once in a while and it always feels like a good idea to the writer at the time. The idea is that you never would’ve written either script individually because you were afraid there wasn’t a big enough story. So combining the two scripts immediately feels like it solves the problem. But I’m telling you, two-idea scripts rarely work. There’s this constant cage match going on between the ideas as they fight for script superiority and the reader is never entirely sure what the script is about. So I highly advise against it.
It’s so sad when screenwriters make a bad choice in a good script. I know everybody here looks at screenwriting from the writer’s side. But to give you some perspective from the reader’s side, it’s so rare that you actually read something that pulls you in. However, even when this rare exciting feat happens, there’s always a voice in the back of our head saying, “Please don’t screw it up please don’t screw it up.” Because, unfortunately, that’s what usually happens. A bad choice is made and the whole script falls apart.
When the producer of The Shawshank Redemption, Niki Marvin, read the script for the first time, she had to put it down after the end of the second act because, in her words, it was so good that she couldn’t keep reading in case it fell apart. I didn’t understand that at the time but I understand it now.
Look, at least some of this could’ve been avoided by using a different title. “The Torturer” (or some other title about torture). Readers get the most pissed off when you pull a bait and switch on them. You’ve promised one movie, which the reader is excited about, but then give them something else. At least you guys now know what you’re in for so you won’t be as upset as I was about The Card Counter. But either way, I’m confused by the odd choice.
Even beyond that, the script had issues. It makes little sense why Tell invites Cirk to come with him other than Schrader was determined to add a “mentor-mentee” relationship to the story. You’ve established Tell as this loner who doesn’t get close to anyone. But now he’s inviting a 20 year old kid to spend the next few months with him? Even Schaeder seems to acknowledge the ridiculousness of the contrivance, having Tell utter this line via voice over a mere five minutes into their first leg of the trip: “Who is this insolent little prick? How did I ever end up here? I should just pull to the side of the road now, toss him on the ground, and stomp on his fucking head until it cracks wide open.”
To summarize, I don’t think The Card Counter ever figures out what it wants to be. It’s about a blackjack player… who plays poker. It’s about a loner… who invites someone on the road with him. It’s about gambling… except it’s about torture. It’s thematically all over the place and I’m guessing that the main reason it’s got good reviews is because Oscar Isaac gives a strong performance. No way it’s because of the writing.
I don’t recommend this one.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Be aware of how influential a title can be on the reader. It’s the first thing they see so it creates a strong expectation. If your script then deviates from that title, expect disappointment from the reader. This script should’ve been titled The Poker Player or The Torturer long before it was titled The Card Counter.
Genre: Comedy
Premise: Based on a true story, we follow Dennis Rodman in 1998 on a 48 hour Vegas bender with a young reluctant Chicago Bulls assistant GM right before Game 6 of the NBA Finals.
About: This script just sold the other week. It’s got an interesting backstory. There were actually two competing “48 Hours in Vegas” Rodman projects being circulated around town. The other one was about to sell to Netflix but stalled. This one then sold at the end of August. The other one is now trying to use the buzz from this sale to sell to a competing company. Lord and Miller are producing. I found this quote from Miller about the project and Rodman: “That is what made him a target and it’s also what made him a star. His weekend in Las Vegas is full of fun and high jinks but it is also full of important questions about the way public figures, and workers are treated, especially when their individuality is expressed so vividly.” There is absolutely ZERO of that quote reflected in the script. Any attempt to say there is deeper thought put into this script is an outright falsehood. The writer, Jordan VanDina, wrote a movie called The Binge which was a comedic take on The Purge. One day a year, all drugs are legal.
Writer: Jordan VanDina
Details: 98 pages
Readability: Mostly fast
A little background here.
I grew up in Chicago. When I was a kid, the Chicago Bulls were everything. That group of athletes and the party they brought wherever they went was, I’d imagine, the closest thing to the Beatles there was at that time. And when Dennis Rodman joined the team, it somehow went up a level. I still remember him announcing one day that he was going to get married, then a couple of days later showing up to a press event in a wedding dress and claiming he was going to marry himself. I had no idea what was going on with this insane man but I absolutely loved it.
So I sort of understand this sale. Rodman is such a character that it was probably inevitable that someone would look at him and say, “Why don’t we make a movie about this guy?” But from a studio perspective (Lionsgate purchased 48 Hours), the sale is odd. I can’t think of any script sale in history quite like it – a real life sports comedy based around such a goofy scenario. I guess this is the new era of movie deals. Streaming has thrown such a curveball into the process that we’re seeing things we’ve never seen before. I’m curious to find out if the script is actually good.
Our story starts in 1998. The Chicago Bulls basketball team has won five championships and is one game away from winning a sixth in Utah against the Jazz. But the Bulls’ top rebounder, outsized personality Dennis Rodman, in addition to having a bad Game 5, broke his penis by trying an acrobatic move in his most recent sexual encounter. Rodman tells coach Phil Jackson he’ll be in Utah for Game 6 in 48 hours. But first he has to clear his head… by going to Vegas!
Jackson, a bit of a weirdo himself, understands this request and grants it on one condition. He must take 27 year old Chuck Reynolds, a sheepish nervous uptight weakling of a man who happens to be dating Phil’s daughter. Rodman says if that’s the only way he can go, then that’s the only way he can go!
When Chuck goes to pick Dennis up, he finds that Rodman is dead. He then sees a video that Rodman left him explaining that the police are coming and Chuck will be arrested for his murder. But then – ZOINKS! – a live Rodman appears, says he was just joking, and brings Chuck to his limo. It is at this point that THE MOVIE SHIFTS INTO ANIMATION. Guess we’ve got another Space Jam on our hands!
It doesn’t take long for Chuck and Rodman to get stopped by the cops and end up in jail. After Rodman gets them out, they hop on a plane to Reno, where Rodman adds another notch onto his mile high club membership. Why Reno and not Vegas? Because Rodman really likes a steak restaurant there. Rodman does everything in his power to loosen Chuck up in Reno, even forcing him onto a mechanical bull. But Chuck can’t seem to shake his uptight approach to life. He pleads for Rodman to end the adventure and get ready for Game 6.
Yeah, like that’s going to happen. Rodman, who seems to have no understanding of money whatsoever, rents a Ferrari for them to drive up to Vegas in. Along the way, they crash the thing over a cliff. Eventually, Rodman starts to doubt if he’s providing anything of value to the Bulls and decides not to play in the final game. It will be up to Chuck to convince him that he’s essential and get Rodman to the game on time!
I would love to say that today’s writer finally broke the spell of bad Hollywood comedy scripts that have been coming through the system in the past seven years. Is this FINALLY the hilarious comedy script we’ve all been waiting for that blows the town away? Let me think of how to answer that question. Uh…
No.
Hollywood comedies have become too standardized over the last 7-10 years: Force two opposites together and throw them on an adventure. It’s not a bad formula by any means. If you get the right combination of characters with the right amount of chemistry who riff off each other in just the right way, you’ve got gold.
But whenever Hollywood only allows one formula in a genre, it’s inevitable that that formula will grow stale. Which is exactly what’s happened to the ‘mismatched duo’ genre. It’s officially stale. I didn’t love the Vacation Friends script, as you know, but at least they gave you a slightly different set up. Instead of two opposite people, you had two opposite married couples.
I mean look. All comedies come down to one thing – did they make you laugh? This script made me giggle twice. In 100 pages. Two giggles. I don’t even remember what I giggled about. In retrospect, I may have inadvertently tickled myself.
Here’s what I think the problem is. It’s a very nuanced discussion because the line between what 48 Hours in Vegas does and what it’s trying to do is very thin. The problem is that the writer is trying so so so so so so so so so hard to make Dennis Rodman funny. He wants you so badly to laugh at everything Rodman says or does. We feel that “try-hard” attempt at humor in every scene and it just cuts away at the humor.
The reason Alan in The Hangover works is because he’s not trying to make an audience laugh. That’s who he really is! That’s so important for comedy writers to understand so let me repeat it. A comedic character should never be trying to say something outrageously funny that would make an audience laugh. Why? Because THEY DON’T KNOW THERE IS AN AUDIENCE. They don’t know they’re in a movie. The only reality they know is the one in front of them. And so the only laughs that should come from them are when they’re trying to make someone else in the scene laugh or when they’re being themselves, and “themselves” just happen to be funny.
A movie character is not a standup comedian who purposely goes on stage to try to make people laugh. They’re just living their lives. So any humor should stem from them being themselves as they navigate through life.
Here are a few Dennis Rodman lines so you know what I’m talking about:
“Probably is the cousin of definitely and the great uncle of absolutely. I’m taking that as a yes.”
“Chuck, if all your friends jumped off a bridge into a fountain of fudge would you follow?”
“There is so much other stuff going in Vegas. I’m telling you, going 200 in a Ferrari doesn’t even crack the top 1,000 terrible things happening right now. One time I watched a baby sell weed to a bail bondsman.”
These are “please laugh” lines. There isn’t any authenticity to them. Which is the bigger problem I had with the script. It chooses the path of outrageous humor, and whenever you leave planet earth to do your comedy, there’s no baseline for why we should be laughing. It’s just who can say or do the most outrageous thing.
Take that Ferrari line above. A minute later, the two of them launch off of a cliff and go diving to a certain explosive death. But, what do you know, Rodman has a parachute with him – because of course he does – and grabs Chuck, leaps out, and parachutes to the ground.
Is that funny? Cause I would argue it’s too outrageous to be funny. In fact, I would say that this joke works a thousand times better in Space Jam because, at least, in that movie, you’ve established that a world where people fall off cliffs to their death is organic. Here isn’t just random and desperate.
Some would say that National Lampoon’s Vacation does not exist in any sort of reality. The family takes a Disney World guard at gunpoint and forces him to take them on all the rides. Would that ever happen? Not a chance. But National Lampoon’s Vacation is realistic ENOUGH that we buy into the world and laugh when the characters encounter these situations. 48 Hours in Vegas never even attempts to find reality.
And look, some of you are probably arguing that this is an animated comedy and therefore it shouldn’t be graded on whether it’s “realistic” enough. That’s a fair argument. But all I care about is funny. And the fact that this story doesn’t exist in any reality you or I know leaves all of the jokes feeling try-hard and, therefore, falling flat.
You’re probably asking the obvious question. So why did it sell? With comedies, it typically comes down to somebody wanting to make that kind of movie. They see the comedy in the concept, not the execution. Most executives at studios believe they can cast the funny into a script. That as long as the bones are there for lots of comedic scenarios, that once they get Melissa McCarthy and Kevin Hart in there, they’ll do the rest.
However, that does not mean you, the unknown screenwriter, shouldn’t execute the hell out of your premise. Focus first on coming up with a concept that multiple people who aren’t your mother think is funny. Or, at the very least, do what 48 Hours in Vegas does, which is to use a tried-and-true marketable comedy formula (mismatched buddies on an adventure). If you do that, you’re starting off with a major advantage. If you can then, also, execute a really funny story, you’ll be ahead of 99% of the writers out there.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Today’s sale would seem to signify that real life *comedic* stories in the sports world are now open to potential script sales. And since that’s a fairly untapped market, there are likely thousands of stories out there for the taking.
It’s the LAST DAY of White Lotus Is Amazing Week. I know that some of you are going to go in a deep depression after this. Just know that there are outlets where you have support. White Lotus Discussion reddit threads. Youtube interviews with the cast and crew. I’ll be publicly recreating scenes from the show at Griffith Park this weekend for anyone who wants to stop by. Don’t worry, the Steve Zahn opeing shot will be censored. That was one of the first things the Los Angeles Public Parks Department demanded when I applied for the permit. But sadly, starting Tuesday, we’re going back to a White Lotus Free Zone. Feel free to pay your respects in the comments section.
Our final topic of discussion is going to be the intersection between plot and character.
One of the common criticisms I’ve been hearing from the WLHA (White Lotus Haterz Association) is that there’s nooooooo plooooootttttttt. Nothing happens! It’s just a bunch of characters walking around a beach doing nothing. What gives? How could anybody find that interesting?
It’s a good question. I agree that White Lotus doesn’t have a ton of plot. But I still think it’s exceptional. Why is that? And how can one write a show or a movie that’s light on plot and still good? I’ll answer that in a second. But first, let’s talk about what plot is because it’s often misunderstood.
Google defines plot as “the main events of a movie devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.” I’ve heard numerous variations of this definition, probably the most common being, “A series of connected events that happen one after another.”
But I don’t think that captures the full breadth of plot. When you’re talking about plot, there’s a creative component to the variables in the story that needs to be included. When George Lucas comes up with this idea that the Death Star is on its way to destroy the Rebel Base, there’s a lot of creativity that goes into that choice. The idea of a moon-sized base that can blow planets up may be more imagination than plotting. But the base has such an outsized influence on the story, dictating so many plot-threads, that it’s essentially part of the plotting.
I guess what I’m saying is, plot isn’t just the conveyor belt that moves the story along. It’s all the creative elements within the story that affect what’s happening.
I bring this up because, typically, if you’re writing something that’s character-based, it’s a good idea to throw in some creative plot elements to spike the story. Get Out is a good example. It’s a character piece but a lot of crazy things happen during the plot to spike it. Meanwhile, White Lotus doesn’t have many creative plot elements at all, which, I’m guessing, is why the WLHA are so underwhelmed.
They’re probably wondering why I like a show such as White Lotus when I’ve dinged so many screenplays before this for having little to no plot. A recent example is Dust, the script I reviewed last week about a woman stuck in her house during an extended dust storm. I hated that script mainly because NOTHING HAPPENED. So why does White Lotus get a pass and Dust doesn’t? Well, let’s find out.
When you write a character piece, you’re essentially wiping out the “EXTERNAL CONFLICT” portion of the plot (which I talked about yesterday). You’re taking out the killer tsunami. You’re eliminating the bank heist. Nobody’s asking you to jump into multi-verses to capture other versions of yourself. The big external conflict factor is eliminated in favor of internal and interpersonal conflict.
Our plot, then, is the unresolved conflicts *within* the characters as well as *between* the characters. Here’s how the formula works. The writer comes up with a group of characters. For each character, they make them either likable, sympathetic, or interesting. This is what “hooks” the reader. They either like, sympathize, or are intrigued by a character. They’re now invested in that character’s actions and want to see what happens to them.
From there, you figure out the internal conflict. Remember, the internal conflict in a character piece is going to become a plot thread. We don’t have Thanos threatening to kill anyone so the plot needs to come from the character. Mark (the father) learns from his uncle that *his* father, who died a long time ago, didn’t die from cancer like he was originally told, but rather from AIDS. Mark learns that his father was gay and used to sleep with men outside the marriage.
This becomes Mark’s internal struggle. Nothing about his childhood is real anymore. It’s all a lie. Which means Mark’s out of balance. He doesn’t know how to reconcile this new information. So this vacation is him trying to come to terms with this new information and figure out what it means for him as a father and as a husband.
Mark’s journey to find balance within himself is the PLOT of a character piece. As is Rachel’s (the young beautiful wife) journey to figure out if she wants to be a trophy wife for the rest of her life. As is Tanya’s (the older socialite) journey to move on from her mother’s death. As is Quinn’s (the 15 year old social anxiety-ridden son) journey to connect with the world for the first time, which is resolved when he joins the local rowing team.
Now, if you don’t like these characters, you’re not going to care whether they resolve these issues or not. You don’t have the flashy entertainment factor of a James Bond plot to fall back on. It’s just a bunch of unlikable people to you. That’s why you’re bored. But to those of us who like the characters, their journeys to either resolve or fail to resolve these issues is why we watch. We’re fascinated by these people so of course we want to know if they figure themselves out.
The second area where you create plot in a character piece is through unresolved relationships, which we talked about yesterday (interpersonal conflict). If you attempt to plot your movie solely through internal struggle, it’s not going to be enough. Even the most ardent cinephiles need something going on *outside* of the character to be interested. Which is why interpersonal conflicts become so important in a character piece. They’re your main plot engine.
Mike White knew this which is why he spent so much time on the relationships. Will Shane get the Pineapple Suite from Armond? Will Olivia and Paula get their drugs back from Armond? Will Rachel leave Shane? Will Mark and his son connect? Will Mark and Nicole fix their marriage? Will Belinda get the investment to start a new business from Tanya? What will Olivia do about Paula sneaking around behind her back?
To those of us who like these characters, we can’t wait to see how their conflicts are resolved. That’s what’s confusing to those who dislike the show. To them, they’re wondering, “Why do people like this? Nothing’s happening. There’s no plot.” Well, once we became hooked on these characters, their unresolved conflicts were enough of a plot for us. And that’s true for any story, which is why characters are so important. If you can create captivating characters, readers will follow them through weak plots, messy plots, plot-hole filled plots. Which is why I say characters are the most important element of any screenplay.
To summarize, if you create a character we’re interested in, give that character an internal unresolved struggle, then give them between 1-3 interpersonal unresolved conflicts with other characters, that can be enough to plot a story. You’re still on the hook to come up with twists and turns and interesting developments within the story – such as Shane’s mother showing up on the honeymoon – but if you get those three things right (character we like, compelling internal struggle, compelling interpersonal conflicts), you too can write a show as awesome as White Lotus.
And that concludes White Lotus Week. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Monday is Labor Day so I’ll catch you back here on Tuesday!
You gotta love it. Even MORE White Lotus talk!
Today, we’re going all in on CHARACTER RELATIONSHIPS. Let’s get into it!
When we think about characters, we tend to think about them as individuals. Which makes sense. Every person is an individual. But when it comes to dramatic writing, you should never think of your character in a vacuum. You should think of them in relation to the characters that that they’ll be interacting with over the course of your story. If a character is the yin, you need another character to fill the yang. And I don’t think many writers take that into consideration. They just sort of come up with each character individually then “see what happens” when they write the story.
Actually, let me back up for a second.
You explore character through three main avenues. Avenue 1 is internal. As human beings, we are in constant conflict with ourselves. We are being held back by doubt, by fear, by the things that have happened in our past. All of that equates to an internal struggle. Dramatic writing is about coming up with scenarios to challenge characters to see if they can overcome that struggle.
Avenue 2 is external. This includes anything that the external world throws at the character. The purest expression of this is an action movie. Characters are routinely beat up, shot at, chased. They must take on tsunamis, aliens, robots, and even giant starfish. External character conflict is considered the least interesting of the three avenues of character conflict because it doesn’t really make you feel anything. It’s more about hitting you on a visceral level.
Finally, we have Avenue 3, which is interpersonal conflict. This is where we get into the yin and the yang. Your character is the yin. But they cannot have an interpersonal conflict until you pair them up with the yang (another character). Interpersonal conflicts work best when you create a SPECIFIC PROBLEM between the characters. The more specific you get, the better the reader understands the conflict and what needs to be resolved. This is the avenue we’re going to talk about today because White Lotus does this as well as any show I’ve ever seen.
Before we get started, it’s important to note that some characters will have MULTIPLE interpersonal conflicts while others will have a single interpersonal conflict. If a character does have two or more interpersonal conflicts, one of those might be a lot bigger than the others. Which is okay. As long as each interpersonal conflict contains entertainment value, you’re good. That is the endgame here. These conflicts are not for your own personal curiosity. They’re for the audience to be entertained by. Never forget that.
Okay, let’s start with, hands down, the best interpersonal conflict in the show, which is Shane (the asshole husband) and Armond (the recovering addict hotel manager). This relationship shows us just how entertaining interpersonal conflicts can be. If you find the right combination, you get fireworks on the page.
The way White sets this is up is that Shane realizes that even though he paid for the best room in the hotel (the Pineapple Suite), he and his wife have been placed in a different suite. So he goes to Armond to complain. Armond tells Shane that they have the “best” room because it faces the ocean. The Pineapple Suite, while bigger, doesn’t have an ocean view. This isn’t what Shane wants to hear. But Armond tells him it wouldn’t matter even if Shane *had* booked the Pineapple Suite (which Armond insists he hasn’t) because a German couple is in the Pineapple Suite all week anyway. After a frustrated Shane leaves, Armond confides to a co-worker that he may have screwed up and double-booked the Pineapple Suite.
This conflict sets up about ten great scenes throughout the show. We know that Shane is a pit bull. He wants that Pineapple Suite. But, more than that, he believes that Armond is lying to him and possibly double-booked the suite, and wants to prove it. What White does so brilliantly is he lets the audience in on a secret – that Armond *did* double-book the Pineapple Suite, but he’s not going to admit that. This sets up a scenario by which we’re curious whether Shane is going to be able to prove what we know – which is that Armond screwed him over.
You’ll note that this conflict is testing each character’s INTERNAL CONFLICT. Shane’s flaw is his stubbornness, his determination to prove that he’s right above all else. He could let this go at any time and have a great honeymoon but his stubbornness won’t allow him to. Conversely, Armond’s flaw is his pride. Even when he knows he’s wrong, it’s more important that he not give in to an entitled rich guest than admit his mistake. So their conflict with one another is basically a test as to who is going to overcome their flaw and do the right thing. The fact that neither of them give in is why their storyline ends so tragically.
Remember, though, not every interpersonal conflict should revolve around hatred. In fact, some of the most interesting interpersonal conflicts occur beneath the surface and are more of a psychological chess match. That’s what we get in the relationship between Olivia (the bitchy rich 19 year old daughter) and the friend she’s brought on the trip, Paula (mixed-race, comes from more of a working-class family).
When we first meet these two, they seem like the closest characters on the show. They bond by making disparaging jokes about the other hotel guests. But the more we get to know about these two, the more we realize that their friendship is complicated. For example, when Paula meets a handsome guy who works at the hotel, instead of telling Olivia about him, she waits until Olivia is asleep every night then sneaks out to be with him.
The conflicts at play here are more complicated than the one between Shane and Armond because they’re beneath the surface. Basically, Olivia’s flaw is her need for control. She is not happy in this friendship unless she’s controlling it. That’s why she gets so upset when Paula sneaks out at night to visit someone else. Paula is now enjoying the company of someone besides Olivia, and Olivia doesn’t like that.
Paula’s flaw is her inability to stand up for herself. We learn that Olivia has not been the best friend to Paula. She slept with Paula’s last boyfriend while they were together. Any self-respecting person would’ve ended the friendship with Olivia once that happened. But Paula, probably because of what she gains by having a friend as rich and influential as Olivia, decided not to make a big stink out of it.
At any point in this story, Paula could stand up to Olivia and call her out for the way she’s treated her, as well as the way she treats everyone. But Paula is afraid of Olivia and therefore chooses to hurt her passive-aggressively, by helping her island boyfriend steal a bunch of money from Olivia’s family. Again, because neither character is able to overcome their flaw, the interpersonal conflict results in someone’s life being ruined forever.
There are 15-20 different ongoing interpersonal conflicts in this show and I wish I had time to cover them all but I don’t. So we’ll finish with another understated interpersonal conflict because I don’t think most writers understand that there *is* conflict in this next situation – that of Mark (the father) connecting with Quinn (his 15 year old son).
When you first look at this dynamic, you don’t see conflict because the intent is positive. Mark WANTS to connect with his son by scuba-diving with him – which requires them to take a 3-day course together. A quick note here. It’s always a good idea to create a structure around the conflict if possible. If you’re just trying to explore their conflict through random conversations back at the suite or during dinner, their storyline isn’t going to feel as clear. The scuba-diving angle is what gives this relationship journey FORM.
Getting back to Mark and Quinn. It’s not like Quinn hates his dad or anything. So there isn’t some deep-set unfixable issue between the two. So where does the conflict come from? Because, remember, if you’re not exploring SOME LEVEL OF CONFLICT in a relationship, the scenes are going to be boring.
The conflict on Quinn’s side is that he doesn’t know how to connect with anyone. His social anxiety is so severe (he may even be on the spectrum) that any sort of emotional interaction for him is a challenge. On Mark’s end, he just doesn’t know what buttons to push to connect with his son, which exacerbates the problem.
Even though the conflict is light, we know it’s there because we’re rooting for them to connect. If we didn’t feel that, there wouldn’t be any conflict. Remember, conflict is an IMBALANCE in the relationship. The absence of conflict is when BALANCE is achieved. So if there’s any relationship you’re writing where balance has already been achieved, chances are that relationship is conflict-free and, therefore, boring to watch.
Guys, if you can master the art of creating interpersonal conflict between characters, your writing is going to skyrocket. Character interaction is the heart of storytelling, especially when it comes to TV. So if you can figure out some point of contention in a relationship and then explore that contention in all of their scenes, you’re going to find that your scenes become a lot more compelling. Because the conflict is already baked into the relationship, as opposed to you having to generate it each and every time you write a scene. White Lotus is a masterclass in this. Go watch it for yourselves and focus on how every single relationship has a conflict it’s exploring.
Oh no! Tomorrow is our last, “White Lotus is The Greatest Show Ever” post! What are you guys going to do when it’s over?
How is it that one person can like a show this much? That he would dedicate an entire week of articles to it? It is a mystery that Scriptshadow readers will be trying to solve for years. However, for those of you who love White Lotus as much as I do, continue with me on this journey as we enjoy the many fruits that have been birthed from our beloved show’s bosom.
Today, we focus on theme and how it affects character. For those of you who have been with me for a while, you know I’m not a “theme” guy. I’ve heard from just as many writers who say theme emerges organically for them as I have those who say you have to commit to a theme up front. It’s ultimately up to the writer.
But Mike White has me reevaluating my stance. Because one of the reasons these characters are so good is because he constructs them through the lens of theme.
Now I don’t know what the exact theme of White Lotus is. I just know, from White’s interviews, that the primary focus for him was exploring the intersection between the rich and the poor during a week at an expensive island resort.
Some writers believe theme should be conveyed through a sort of “mission statement.” Something like, “Money defines humanity in one of two ways – either you are the hunter or the hunted.” The story, then, sets out to prove or disprove that premise.
I don’t think that’s how Mike White approached this. I think he just wanted to explore wealth (or lack of wealth) and how it defines people and creates the relationships between them. Feel free to offer a different opinion in the comments.
Just to be clear, the premise behind this week’s series of articles is the amazing characters Mike White created. I want to know how he achieved this, especially in such a short amount of time. And as I rewatch the series, I realize that approaching character through theme is a very powerful way to create characters.
Every time we put pencil to paper – when we’re about to write that character name for the first time – we’re making a choice about who we’re bringing into this world. This character is going to have some sort of affect on our story. If it’s a major character, they’ll have a large impact on the story. If they’re a secondary character, they’ll have a smaller imprint. Generally, we create these characters based on instinct. We go with what “feels” right.
So if we’re writing an action movie and we’re trying to figure out who our main character should be, we may think to ourselves, “I want somebody big and burly who’s had a rough life and only uses violence as a last resort.” That becomes the baseline for our character and we build him from there.
What theme does is it provides us a clearer framework from which to construct our character. In Mike White’s case, his theme is the intersection between the wealthy and the poor (or ‘working class’) via an expensive resort. So whenever White is creating a character in White Lotus, all he has to do is decide, ‘how can I create a character that best explores that theme?’
Take Paula, for example. If you remember, Paula is the mixed-ethnicity friend of Olivia, who invited her on the trip. Now let’s really get into this because you have to understand the breadth of options one has before they put a character on the page. White could’ve made Paula ANYBODY. He could’ve made her a drop-dead gorgeous stunner who Olivia is jealous of. He could’ve made her an Olivia clone who also comes from a wealthy family. He could’ve made her the comic relief. Hell, he could’ve made her transgender.
But none of those options would’ve helped explore his theme. Paula comes from a lower-income family, which helps make Olivia look good. Here she is with her little charity case friend who gives her the street cred of not choosing her friends through the lens of privilege, but rather through the content of their character (or so she wants others to believe).
It also leads to the storyline of Paula trying to help out a poor islander who works at the resort. Paula understands his struggle because she, likewise, grew up in a family that struggled. And so she creates this opportunity for him to steal 80 thousand dollars from Olivia’s family. All of this is happening because White is exploring his theme. And he’s able to explore that theme because he constructed the character of Paula through that thematic lens.
Probably the most interesting exploration of the theme occurs with the character of Belinda. Belinda is an African-American masseuse at the resort. Her storyline begins when oddball socialite, Tanya, comes by for a massage and Belinda gives her this spiritual massage that rocks Tanya’s world. She’s never felt more at peace and relaxed as she does after this massage. She’s so taken by the experience that she invites Belinda to dinner and wants to book her every day of the week.
At dinner, she says, dude, you need to leave this place and start your own practice. I would fund it. Belinda later talks to her son who says, “This has always been your dream, mom. You need to do everything in your power to make this happen.” So Belinda starts pursuing Tanya and talking about what the practice could be. But Tanya starts to cool on the idea and we can feel Belinda getting desperate as she realizes that Tanya may have changed her mind.
Once again, Mike White could’ve set Tanya up with anyone as her main relationship on the show. You could’ve had her befriend another rich socialite or one of the families there. She could’ve hung out at the bar every night looking for men. But none of those scenarios would’ve explored the theme. White wanted a relationship that specifically dealt with the theme of money. That’s how Belinda’s character was born. She was constructed to be poor and get this taste – just a little taste – of what wealth and success might look like in her life, only to have it ripped away from her by the end of the week. It’s heartbreaking. And, for the purposes of the show, it perfectly explores the theme.
Another example is Rachel. Rachel, if you remember, is the gorgeous wife of Shane, the guy who becomes obsessed with getting them the best suite in the hotel. When Mike White was constructing Rachel, he was obviously doing so with the idea of wealth in mind. Giving Shane a hot Instagram-obsessed ditz of a wife may have provided some funny situations. But where is the exploration of theme in that? Instead, Rachel comes from a very poor family. And so this world that she’s been invited into is totally alien to her.
It also becomes a huge point of contention in Shane’s pursuit of getting the best room in the hotel. To Rachel, this room is beautiful. There is zero reason to complicate their honeymoon just because it’s a little less nice than another room. But to someone like Shane who has grown up surrounded by wealth, getting the “best” room in a hotel is a source of pride, a scalp he can brag about to his rich friends. To him, only second tier citizens settle for lesser rooms. It’s probably the most aggressive look into how wealth shapes people than anything else in the story.
A couple of final thoughts here. I believe theme, as it relates to character, is more important for TV than movies. Because, as we can see in TV shows, scenes are much more character-based. It’s usually about two characters engaging in some sort of conflict-related issue, either on the surface or beneath it. So a strong theme can really help shape these scenes.
Finally, a theme that explores the difference between the rich and the poor is one of the easier themes to explore because of how easy it is to show. It’s easy to convey characters who are either rich or poor. I guess what I’m saying is, using theme as a way to construct character sounds easy in practice. But if you were exploring the theme of, say, “living a life of balance,” it’s not going to be as easy to pull off. So make sure if you’re adapting this approach to do so with a theme that you can actually show.
‘White Lotus is Brilliant Week’ continues tomorrow!
