Genre: Drama
Premise: A fading moving star and his trusty stuntman navigate the perils of Hollywood in 1969.
About: Psychologically, it was imperative that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood cross the 40 million dollar mark this weekend. So thank goodness it was BARREELLLLY able to do so, grabbing 40.2 million dollars. The film has been working up a big lather of discussion and I hope to add to that today.
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Details: 2 hours and 45 minutes
[MAJOR SPOIIIIILLLLLLERRRSSS]
Quentin.
Vs.
Marvel!
Don’t ignore the reality. This is what this really is. This is original auteurs versus the giant moviemaking machines. I remember people complaining when Star Wars and Jaws came out. “Oh no! Now it’s going to be all about the blockbuster!” And, yes, it eventually became about the blockbuster. But that’s nothing compared to today. Today it’s about the superstar IP franchise-starting make-stockholders-happy mega movie. And nobody embodies that better than Marvel.
Which means that whether you like Quentin Tarantino or not, you should support him. Because the fewer of him there are around, the closer we are to an all-Marvel Hollywood. And don’t get me wrong. I like most Marvel movies. I’d just like to have the occasional choice, you know.
Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is set in 1969 and Rick Dalton, the star of a popular Western TV show called “Bounty Law,” has since tried his luck at becoming a movie star. However, it’s not going well. With each passing part, he’s getting cast more and more as the bad guy, which means he’s just there to get killed. This has driven Rick to lots of drinking.
Rick’s best friend is his stunt double, Cliff Booth. Cliff stopped getting work when rumors began swirling that he murdered his wife. Therefore, the only time Cliff gets to be a stunt double is when Rick demands that they hire him. Meanwhile, Cliff drives Rick around and takes care of his house.
Sharon Tate, who was infamously murdered by the Manson family, is an aspiring actress here who just happens to have moved into the house next to Rick’s with her husband, Roman Polanski. Rick often ponders the randomness of the world and how if he could just bump into them, he would go from Rick Dalton, TV extra, to Rick Dalton, starring in a Roman Polanski movie. But alas, that will never happen. Will it?
If there’s a plot to be had here, it would be Rick’s journey to do good work. He’s trying, despite all odds, to become a movie star. So we follow him to movie sets and watch him try, with all his might, to give the best performances possible, in the hopes that somebody important will notice that he can still be the next Steve McQueen.
Wow.
I mean, is there a writer who’s more confusing to new screenwriters than Quentin Tarantino? On the one hand, you can use his scripts to convey some of the most useful tips in screenwriting. On the other, he does tons of things you should never allow a screenwriter to do. And I think this script highlights that better than most.
Take Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and Cliff Booth (Pitt). What’s one of the first things they teach you in screenwriting class? That the main two characters who are teamed up in your story should have conflict with one another. That doesn’t mean Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker over-the-top conflict. It could mean Miles and Jack conflict from the movie, Sideways, where they don’t see the world the same way and are always banging up against each other about what to do.
Rick and Cliff have zero conflict with one another. They’re like two peas in a pod, the best of pals. And it stays that way THE WHOLE MOVIE. Now, ultimately, the only question that matters is, does it work? If we enjoy watching these characters together, it shouldn’t matter that there’s no conflict. And I enjoyed watching these two. But there’s another question we have to consider, which is, if Tarantino HAD created conflict between them, would we have enjoyed the movie MORE? And I think the answer to that question is yes.
There’s a moment in the script that hints at the idea that Rick isn’t trying hard enough to get Cliff stunt work. That maybe he only sees him as a 24/7 caddy. If that thread would’ve been explored more, and had Cliff grown some resentment towards Rick, I think their relationship might’ve been more interesting to watch. Instead they’re the bromance to end all bromances.
The individual character journeys were also interesting from a screenwriting perspective. The most obvious conflict in the movie comes from Rick Dalton, who’s battling his falling star. And, once again, Tarantino stays away from conventional structuring. In a conventional movie, you would have an upcoming role that if Rick Dalton nailed, the studio was going to sign him to a new 5 picture deal. This gives the story a goal and stakes. Instead, we just sort of travel around with Rick as he goes to set and acts. We’re not all that sure what the stakes are other then, if he does a good job, he’ll feel like he’s still “got it.” When people complain about the rambling nature of this story, this is what they’re talking about. If your main character isn’t trying to accomplish anything, the narrative focus is going to suffer.
Then there’s Cliff. Cliff isn’t trying to accomplish anything. Nor does he have any sort of internal conflict. He appears to be dependent on Rick for work. And yet he doesn’t seem scared about what would happen if Rick stopped getting work. If a character’s journey doesn’t have any stakes attached to it, then that journey will feel pointless. What’s crazy is that Cliff’s character has the tools to be compelling. Everybody believes that he killed his wife. Maybe he even did kill his wife. So if he’s out there trying to gain everyone’s respect back, if he’s trying to become a stunt performer who doesn’t need Rick Dalton to get work, then at least he’s moving towards something. But in the Bruce Lee scene (he fights Bruce Lee, which gets him kicked off the set), he’s completely unconcerned with losing that job. He’s even smirking about it. So if he doesn’t care about losing his job, why would I worry about him? Or what happens to him?
Finally, there’s Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie), whose character is another Tarantino Screenwriting Paradox. If you got rid of all of Sharon Tate’s scenes, nothing about the movie would change. And that’s another Screenwriting 101 lesson. If it’s not necessary for the story, get rid of it. BUT there’s a counter argument to this. Most people who go into this movie know Sharon Tate was brutally murdered in the Manson murders. Therefore, by keeping her in the movie, you’re building up an association between her and the audience, who knows her fate is coming. Therefore, when she lives instead of dies, all of that earlier time spent with her pays off. Cause we actually care that she lived. Had we not seen her at all, we wouldn’t have cared. Now could Tarantino have better connected her storyline to the plot? Probably. Could he have given her more to do than watch a movie in Westwood? I’m guessing yeah. So I do understand why people have a problem with her.
The truth is this script probably needed two more drafts. And I’m going to tell you how I know that. What is everyone’s biggest complaint about the film? It’s that there’s no plot. That we sort of drift around Hollywood without purpose. Now, what are the two sequences in the film everyone is talking about? They are when Cliff Booth goes to the Manson Farm and the ending scene where the Manson followers break into Rick’s house.
So what do those two things tell you? You need a plot and the thing that’s working best in your story is the Manson stuff. With a couple more drafts, Tarantino could’ve shaped this more around the Mansons. And here’s where screenwriting gets hard. I think Tarantino went into this script not wanting to center the story on the Mansons. To him, this was always about an actor and his stunt man. So even if the Manson stuff becomes the best thing in the script? He’s already created a bias by which he won’t center the story around it. All screenwriters do this. I’ve done it a dozen times myself. We write with a certain type of movie in mind, forgetting that the only rule in storytelling is to entertain. So if another, more exciting, story starts to present itself over the course of a screenplay, you have to follow that. Well, you don’t have to. But you probably should.
The ending of this script is its biggest talking point. Some people aren’t sure what to make of keeping Sharon Tate alive. What’s the message there? I actually think the ending is the most powerful moment in the film because here’s the thing about the Manson family. Everybody was obsessed with how nonsensical and random the murders were. And what I think Tarantino was trying to say was that they could’ve just as easily walked into a different house and the result would’ve been totally different. That a certain set of circumstances had to go right for them to be able to do what they did. Because these weren’t trained killers. They were clueless acid-tripping hippies. And had they walked into a house with a couple of big strong dudes, they might’ve gotten their a**es handed to them. Tarantino is showing just how random Hollywood and life is. That one little decision here or there changes EVERYTHING. In that ending, Rick Dalton does end up meeting Roman Polanski. And maybe he does become a movie star.
So where does this leave me on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood? Believe it or not, I loved it. Even with all my criticisms, Tarantino brings a knowledge and a love to filmmaking that you can’t quantify in sluglines and parentheticals. As much as the lack of plot hurt the script, it helped the movie. The less we thought about plot, the more realistic everything seemed. When characters aren’t saying things like, “We need to get the tesseract before Loki,” we’re less likely to remember that we’re watching a movie. And that’s what Tarantino does here. He brings us back to 1969 and presents a narrative that’s so easy-going, it doesn’t feel like a movie at all. It feels like we’re really there. And for me, it felt like like I was REALLY REALLY there, because I was. I watched this at the Arclight on Sunset, and 70% of Once Upon A Time was shot right in that area.
So it was just a very immersive experience. There are always screenwriting lesson to be learned from Tarantino. But I wouldn’t look too deep into what he’s doing here and say, “I’m going to do that, too.” This guy is operating on another level. But if there is a lesson to take away from this, I’d say that it’s, write about something you love more than anything. Cause it really comes through on the page when you do.
[ ] What the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the price of admission
[x] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: There’s a line of dialogue in the last scene of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood that exemplifies why Tarantino is so far ahead of everyone else. Major spoiler by the way. In the scene, ambulances and police cars have just left after cleaning up the Manson attack. Sharon Tate’s friend, Jay, standing behind the gate, spots Rick and asks what happened. Rick introduces himself. “Hi, I’m Rick Dalton. I live next door.” I don’t remember the exact response, so I’ll paraphrase it. Jay says, “Are you kidding? I know. Sharon Tate always says to me that if we ever need to take someone out, Jake Cahill from Bounty Law lives right next to us.” The fact that Tarantino went so far as to create a conversation off-screen that a character would then reference later in order to create a bond between two characters who have never met each other shows just how extensively he digs into his characters. It’s very likely Tarantino wrote some “off-screen” scenes, which are scenes between characters that won’t make the movie, but you do it as a writer to get to know the characters better. Does Jay have that line ready without that off-screen scene written? Probably not. Writers these days don’t take the time anymore, which is why we have so many empty surface-level films. Which is why we’re lucky to still have people like Tarantino working in the business.
Genre: Spy/True Story/Thriller
Premise: In 1985, when CIA Officer Aldrich Ames sells what he believes to be useless intelligence to the Soviets to pay for his divorce, he inadvertently sets off an international Cold War crisis that finds him heading up a special CIA unit — a unit created to find out who sold secrets to the Soviets.
Why You Should Read: Being true, it’s a spy story that’s more grounded than most, but also barely believable in how it plays out. There are absurdities that could only come from real life. It’s based on research drawn from the Senate Committee report published after Ames’s arrest, as well as testimony from the Soviet Intelligence Officer who ran Ames as an agent. Personally, I could use some writerly interaction with my work as I’ve been more-or-less blocked for the better part of a year, and need to get back into the flow. I’d be very grateful for any and all response to the script. Thanks.
Writer: Will Alexander
Details: 133 pages
Man, I had one heck of a long day today. I had to do 10,000 things around town. I then had to do a ton of reading. Some analysis. And then, when I was dying for some sleep, I still had to get this post up. I bring this up as a reminder that sometimes – in fact, probably most times – these are the conditions your script is being read under. If you’re not turning in a draft of the latest Marvel movie to Disney, your priority level is, unfortunately, pretty low. All the more reason to grab the reader right away and make them forget about all of that. That’s what writing is. It’s creating a story so compelling that whatever the reader has going on in their life, in their head, all of that disappears because they’re sucked into your world. So let’s see if Will can pull that off. I’m opening the script now…
It’s 1985. Washington D.C. Aldrich “Rick” Ames, is 42 years old and one of the better CIA agents. He’s in the midst of a divorce and fighting with his wife over the settlement. It’s looking more and more like he’s going to have to pay her a lot of money. Meanwhile, he’s fallen in love with a Columbian woman named Rosario. Rosario likes to tally up $1500 monthly phone bills to Columbia.
Ames’ main contact in the Soviet Union – who, by the way, we’re in a nuclear arms race with – is a man named Sergey. It’s not entirely clear to me why he meets with Sergey, but as best I can tell, he makes his superiors believe that Sergey is a good contact who he can convert into a spy. This allows him a lot of face time with Sergey, and, at a certain point, Sergey starts asking for info. A light bulb goes off for Ames. He can demand 50 grand, give Sergey a couple of names, and not have to worry about money anymore. Which he does.
What he doesn’t know is that Sergey has already figured him out. Rosario is a money succubus. This 50 grand won’t do anything. Which means Ames will have to come back for more. And when he comes back for more, Sergey will ask for more names. And that’s exactly what happens. The CIA is baffled when all of their spies start getting caught. They figure there’s a mole but nobody suspects Ames at all for some reason. Ames continues to trade contacts for cash to the tune of 4 million dollars. A decade later, after he’s settled into the high life, they catch him. Ames is said to be responsible for 10 CIA agents’ deaths.
Okay, I’m about to go on a rant here. You’ve been warned.
133 pages?
If there’s a top 5 rules in screenwriting, “Don’t write a script that’s over 120 pages if you’re an amateur screenwriter,” is in it. It might even be number 1 on the list. Because what happens is what happened today. I’m overworked. I’m tired. But I have to read this script. I open it up. And then I see that number. And once I see that number, I’m enraged. My night has just gotten a lot longer.
It’s not just that. It’s that when you have a long script and a reader with not a lot of time, they’re not going to be able to give your script the focus it requires. When they encounter something they don’t understand in your story, they’re not going to go back and reread it. They’re going to keep going. And in a script like this? With unfamiliar Russian names and the need to keep track of agents and double-agents and who’s lying and who’s not. You’re digging your own grave.
So, look. You can be the person who ignores this stuff and does it your own way. It’s not like no one’s ever succeeded by breaking the rules. But I’m just trying to help you guys avoid basic pitfalls that infuriate people in the business. I want you to succeed. So I’m going to keep reminding you about this stuff.
And by the way, this occurs in contests as well. I know some people will say, well this is more of contest script anyway. Okay, tell that to the guy who has to read 4-5 contest scripts a day.
Moving onto the script, here’s what I liked. There’s a sophistication to this script. There’s a love of the genre. There’s a crazy amount of attention to detail. The writer swung for the fences. He wasn’t trying to write Zombie Vampire Date Night From Hell. This is an Oscar aspiring script. On top of that, this is actor and director bait of the highest order. Steven Spielberg signed onto a similar project, Bridge of Spies. So the counter-argument to everything I just said is THAT. This project has tremendous upside.
If it’s well-executed.
Was it well-executed?
Well, I’ll put it like this. This is a great character-study. And Ames is a perfect metaphor for America. We’re often assumed to be a nation of greed. And that’s what we see play out here. So when I look at the movie as a whole, I like that component of it.
However, when I look at its individual parts, it wasn’t an easy read. You’d get a lot of long scenes with men sitting down talking. And in those scenes, the chunks of dialogue would not be 2-3 lines long. They would be 10-15 lines long (not all of the time, but enough to say it happened frequently). This verbosity took its toll on the pacing and overall enjoyment of the script. In fact, I think you could eliminate 10 pages here just by cutting down how much everyone says every time they open their mouth.
Also, the story didn’t evolve enough. I got the same feeling in a scene on page 80 as I had on page 40. The boiling pot of Ames getting closer and closer to being discovered kept the story moving. But there was a lack of differentiation to the scenes. It felt like I read 20 scenes between Ames and Rosario that were exactly the same. And Ames always seemed to be sitting at a table talking to someone. I don’t know. I wanted more variety in what I was seeing.
One of the skills that’s important for a screenwriter to remember is the skill of condensing. Anybody can write some rambling 160 page story. But one of the reasons they need screenwriters is because non-screenwriters don’t know how to condense story. They don’t know what parts can be thrown out, what parts can be combined, what characters can be jettisoned. This is what great screenwriters are masters at. If a director comes to them and says, “Look, I don’t have the money to shoot all three of these scenes. Can you write a scene that combines all of them?” they can do it in a heartbeat!
And I get that there’s no rules. But, at the same time, you can’t be too precious. You have to think of the reader and the pacing and make tough choices so that the script is not just an accurate telling of your story, but an entertaining telling of it.
This is a strong topic. I can totally see a studio wanting to tell this guy’s story. In fact, I can imagine the trades write up of it and I wouldn’t blink an eye if I saw it. But for me it was too big, too repetitive at times, and probably needed a couple of “HOLY SH*T” scenes in the middle that were unforgettable. I wish Will all the luck in the world because he’s an awesome contributor to the site. However, next time, I want that easy read from him! :)
Script link: Year of the Spy
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: I wouldn’t intricately weave well-known music into a montage. By that I mean, you give us a few montage images, then a lyric from the song, then more montage images, then another lyric. Here’s why. While this stuff works GREAT on screen, it’s actually really hard to follow on the page. Often times, we don’t know the song as well as you do. So when you give us a lyric, we have to stop, sing the song in our head, get to that lyric to know what we’re listening to, and then get back to the montage, which is already a disjointed experience, considering we’re jumping to different moments in time. And, on top of that, they never get the song you want anyway. They always have to pay for something cheaper. So I would leave that part up to the filmmakers and just make your script as easy to read as possible.
So far in our Dialogue Series, we’ve talked about how to set up a scene for good dialogue. We’ve talked about the importance of adding personality to your characters, as that’s a driving force behind good dialogue. Today I want to talk about the kind of dialogue that makes me want to kill myself. Because I read it all the time. And if I can just steer screenwriters away from these two things, I can ensure that all the screenplays I read from now on will have 50% better dialogue. So what are these script-killers?
ON-THE-NOSE DIALOGUE
and
GENERAL DIALOGUE
On-the-nose dialogue is dialogue where the characters are speaking only to service the plot and the scene. It’s as if they have a direct line into the writer’s head and are making sure that they’re saying exactly what the writer needs them to say for the reader to understand what they’re thinking and what’s going on. On-the-nose dialogue is obvious and straightforward. “I am so tired this morning.” “You should sleep in.” “But I have the big meeting today.” “Oh yeah. I’ll cook you breakfast.”
On-the-nose characters speak like cave men. Whatever they’re thinking, they share it. This gives the entire conversation a false reality. The audience isn’t even sure why they’re so bored. Characters are speaking on the screen. Usually they like this. But nothing the characters are saying is interesting. And that’s because there’s no human element to the conversation.
What’s the human element? Well, for starters, humans rarely say what they’re thinking. If Jane shows up at work with a disastrous new haircut and asks her friend, Sally, what she thinks, is Sally going to say what she thinks? Probably not. Conversation is a dance where you’re balancing what you’re thinking against what you’re saying. And I think that’s what a lot of newbies get wrong. They have the character say what they think as opposed to considering how that character might present that thought once it goes through their filter.
Here, in The Breakfast Club, Andrew (the Jock) is mad at Bender (the Burnout) and lets him know it….
You can see that John Hughes even wrote it into the script. Bender wants to say something nasty. He’s angry. But instead of being a robot who conveys exactly what he thinks, he pretends that he’s unaffected and comes back with a jab. This is the human element. We think about what we’re going to say so that when we do say something, it frames us in the light that we want to be perceived in.
I can tell a writer is thinking “off-the-nose” (which is what you want!) when obvious questions are asked and non-obvious responses are given. Here’s a quick exchange in Erin Brokovich, where Erin is going to a woman’s house to get some information on the water scandal that’s hit the county.
I’ve read a hundred scripts where a character asks a question just like this. “Are you a lawyer?” And the on-the-nose response from the lawyer is, “Yes, do you have a moment?”
It should be noted that on-the-nose dialogue becomes harder to avoid the more heavily plotted your script is. If you have a ton of plot, then your characters will become mouthpieces for the plot instead of real people having real discussions. This was a problem with yesterday’s script, Escher, which had a lot of plot going on, so all the characters needed to say exactly what needed to be said.
I bring this up because on-the-nose dialogue is often a result of circumstance. You’ve created stories or situations whereby the characters have to say exactly what they’re thinking. This is why you want to leave enough freedom in your story to let your characters talk without the constraints of needing to convey a plot point every three lines.
To avoid on-the-nose dialogue, avoid logic. Logic is your enemy in dialogue. Try to be playful. You want to have fun with your characters as opposed to just asking and answering questions. And try to incorporate scenes where one character isn’t being completely honest with the other. Or is holding back on some truth or their feelings. Once you have characters who aren’t being 100% honest, it’s hard to write on-the-nose dialogue.
Let’s move on to GENERAL DIALOGUE. General dialogue is dialogue that is the bare bones generic version of what a character can say. For example, if a character is at Thanksgiving dinner and wants more mashed potatoes, he might say, “Can someone please pass me the mashed potatoes?” This is a perfectly acceptable thing to say in real life. But in a movie, the line is so generic, it’s invisible.
The way you battle general dialogue is through specificity and playfullness. You add words and phrases and angles that add flavor to the line. Your hungry character might nudge his sister and whisper, “Hey, snag me the mashed potatoes before Uncle Rick engulfs them.” It’s not a crazy better line. But it’s more specific. The word “snag” is a little different. “Uncle Rick” makes the line unique to the story. “Engulfs” is a slightly dressed up way of saying “eats.” How specific you get will depend on the character, the story, the situation, and the genre. This line wouldn’t work in, say, Schindler’s List. Let’s take a look at an exchange from Deadpool.
Notice how specific this dialogue gets, particularly towards the end with those last few lines. The two get into some pretty graphic experiences. Of course they’re not real, which makes the dialogue “off-the-nose,” and a solid example of everything I’m trying to teach in this post.
For the next exchange, we’re going to Fast and Furious 4. In the scene, Han is paying Dom for the job they just did…
Look at the specificity in the words and phases. “Skippin’ out?” “Simple economics. Profit’s drying up here.” “Getting a little tired of rice and beans.” “I hear they’re doing some crazy shit in Tokyo.” “This nickel and dime stuff.”
All that’s really happening here is that the writer is willing to play with words. That’s the attitude you want to have whenever you’re writing dialogue. Obviously, the extent with which you’ll play will depend on the scenario and characters. But even if it’s two stiff accountants sharing plot information, you should still find ways to play with the words so it doesn’t come out like two robots talking.
That’s the worst thing that can happen to dialogue. On-the-nose generic “just the facts ma’am” conversation. Throw in some off the nose specific dialogue – be willing to play with words and phrasing – and your dialogue’s going to get a lot better.
Yo, do you have a logline that isn’t working? Are those queries going out unanswered? Try out my logline service. It’s 25 bucks for a 1-10 rating, 150 word analysis, and a logline rewrite. I also have a deluxe service for 40 dollars that allows for unlimited e-mails back and forth where we tweak the logline until you’re satisfied. I consult on everything screenwriting related (first page, first ten pages, first act, outlines, and of course, full scripts). So if you’re interested in getting some quality feedback, e-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com and I’ll send you a quote!
Genre: True Story – World War 2
Premise: (from Black List) Famed artist M.C. Escher reluctantly uses his unique view of the world to help the Dutch Resistance fight Nazi occupation during WWII. Inspired by true events.
About: This script made last year’s Black List! Jason Kessler worked as a writer’s assistant on the show, Madam Secretary.
Writer: Jason Kessler
Details: 98 pages
In honor of the unveiling of the trailer for World War 2 movie, JoJo Rabbit (script review here), I present you with…. ESCHER! Actually, I chose “Escher” because it had the potential to be a unique look at the war. We’re talking about one of the most famous illusionists ever. So surely we were going to get something different, right?
It’s the Netherlands in 1944 and many Dutch Jews are being forced into hiding. The German war machine is at its apex, leaving Amsterdam heavily occupied. 46 year old artist, M.C. Escher, has somehow managed to make a living off his trippy drawings, which are popular with the Germans. As a side job, he drives out to local farms and stocks up on vegetables, which he gives out to those in need.
One day, Escher’s brother, Berend, takes him to his son, Rudolf’s, place. Rudolf fights for the resistance. He asks Escher if he can start coming along to the farms. They need to hide more Jews and they’ve run out of places to hide. Escher reluctantly agrees, only because his good friend’s daughter, Elizabeth, will be in need of the service.
Escher wants as little contact with the resistance as possible. However, once he starts helping them, they want more. Escher has access to one of the biggest German doctors in town, and they desperately need penicillin. Escher helps them get some, but they aren’t satisfied. So they go to the office one night and kill the doctor, taking the rest of the penicillin.
This leads the Germans to kill 10 innocent men, making Escher furious. Rudolf tries to explain that the penicillin they stole will end up saving more lives than they lost, but Escher isn’t buying it. Eventually, the Germans catch wind of the farm network and, in 72 hours, plan to raid all the hiding spots. This forces Escher and the resistance to create an intricate network of relocation, which will be tracked by an elaborate drawing he creates which only the resistance will understand. Will they succeed in time to save Elizabeth? Or will all this end up crashing down on Escher?
Naturally, when you read a script about Escher and World War 2, you’re expecting weird illusions to play a big part in the story. But there wasn’t as much of that as I had hoped. You had the coded Escher farm map that was keeping the Jews hidden. You had a dream sequence where German soldiers chased Jews inside Escher’s most famous work, “Relativity.” And there are a few sequences where characters become 2-dimensional drawings, not unlike what Escher would draw.
But it wasn’t like Escher’s talents were inexorably linked to the story. What surprised me about the script is that I actually got invested in the story itself. Early on, we meet this child, Elizabeth, who’s thin and malnourished, like a lot of Jews at the time. And yet when Escher brings her an apple, she insists on sharing it with her grandfather. So we immediately love this little girl.
Then, when the farm-hiding plotline revs up, it’s not a faceless endeavor. We know one of the characters who’s being hidden – Elizabeth. So every time it’s mentioned that those people are in danger, we think of her. And therefore, we care about what happens.
The script also gets surprisingly dark, with the people who Escher is helping going behind his back and taking advantage of him (by killing the doctor he knows for penicillin). This creates a morally complicated story where simply doing the right thing isn’t always an easy proposition. He has to think, if I help these guys, they might do something bad, and then more Jews might get killed. In so many of these scripts, it’s black and white. Save Jewish Character – good. Kill Nazi Officer – bad. There’s a lot more going on here.
This should stand as a great lesson for screenwriters. Saving people is more interesting when it’s complicated. When there are consequences involved. At one point Rudolf is literally doing the math for Escher to explain that, yeah, they just got a bunch of their people killed, but in the end, they’ll come out on top.
If the script has a flaw, it’s its main character. Escher rarely does anything of his own volition. Someone tells him, “You should do this,” and then Escher either decides yes or no. On top of that, you’re wondering if any of this is true. They tell us at the beginning “This film is an illusion. Some of it is real. Some of it is surreal. Escher would’ve liked it that way.” Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. But when you’re talking something as dark and intense as World War 2, and you throw a known historical figure in there, you’d like to think that what you’re watching is more truthful than it is less truthful. I don’t want to go on some morality rant here. But it feels so much better when you see a movie like this and then you find out all those great scenes that you watched really happened.
The good news is, this is one of the few World War 2 scripts that I think deserves to be made. And I say that because a visual director could do wonders with this material. If you could somehow integrate Escher’s work into the visual aesthetic of the film? It would not only look amazing, but it would add an element that we’ve never seen before in a World War 2 movie. And how often do you get to say that? It’s a great reminder that, in the end, you’re not trying to write a script. You’re trying to make a movie. So you want to ask yourself, is this a movie the Hollywood machine would want to make? And I think this is. We’ll see what happens.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Reluctant heroes are harder to make work because they rarely take action on their own. They’re yanked around and asked to do things, like Escher is here. It’s not as if they’re uninteresting. The dilemma that comes with their choices – especially if those choices have life and death consequences – can be compelling to watch. But it’s always harder to get on board with a character who isn’t driving the story through their own actions. I just think at some point, even if your character IS reactionary, he needs to take the reins away from the other characters and make the horses go himself.
Genre: Contained Thriller
Premise: (from Hit List) A happily married couple’s anniversary celebration goes awry when they find themselves victims of a sinister home invasion.
About: Platinum Dunes has been one of the only companies paying the bills over at Paramount. Last year they bought this project from Holly Brix. Brix has been fighting her way up the ladder all decade. Coming off of writing on The Vampire Diaries, she’s worked on a number of assignments of projects in development.
Writer: Holly Brix
Details: 98 pages
Talk about your blast from the past. I first reviewed a script from Brix (titled “The Ark”) eight years ago! It’s good to see she’s still spec’ing it up. Most writers who get through the golden Hollywood arches chase them assignment dollars. So to see some writers still betting on themselves is inspiring. But this latest script from Brix wasn’t entirely uncalculated. She knew that if she was going to sell something, it needed to be a genre that studios actually buy. And thus she went with one of the most dependable sub-genres out there: the home invasion thriller.
Once a staple of Hollywood cinema, these thrillers are making a comeback thanks to Netflix’s algorithm anointing them profit-worthy. I mean, if they approved that abomination of a movie, Secret Obsession, they’re probably chomping at the bit to produce a script that actually makes sense. Does Happy Anniversary make sense? Let’s find out!
[IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCUSS THIS SCRIPT WITHOUT DISCUSSING ALL ITS SPOILERS. I RECOMMEND YOU READ IT YOURSELF FIRST TO GET THE INTENDED EXPERIENCE]
42 year old Brett Hardwick, the producer of a Bachelor-like show called “The Groom,” is celebrating his 11th anniversary with his mildly successful actress wife, Michelle. The two seem smitten with each other. And after they eat at one of the nicest restaurants in Los Angeles, they head back to their mansion in Malibu.
However, after they fall asleep, a man in a mask appears above their bed. He wakes Michelle up and tells her to zip-tie her husband’s hands together. Uh-oh. He tells both of them that he’s going to rob them. However, when he goes into the house to do the job, Brett is able to escape and confront the man.
Michelle barely overhears their conversation, where she learns that Brett and the man, Esperanza, are actually working together. Brett wants to kill his wife for the insurance money as he’s having money problems. Originally, Esperanza wasn’t supposed to know this. He was only here so Brett could prove that a man broke in. Now that murder’s involved, Esperanza is having second thoughts.
He ties up Brett then goes back to Michelle and sees if he can make a side deal with her. Esperanza is an actor and would love to be the new “Groom.” Michelle tells him she can make it happen. But then Brett comes back in the picture and Esperanza shoves them in a locked closet as he tries to figure out his next move. Michelle, who now knows her husband plans to kill her, must pretend that they’re on the same team in order to get out of here asap.
Eventually, the two get out and Michelle gets her hands on a gun. A big confrontation occurs between the three as everyone demands that they all come clean, which ends (MAJOR SPOILER) in Michelle shooting and killing Esperanza, after which, she high-fives Brett, and we learn this was all just a big anniversery gift. That Michelle got to kill someone. Or was it? We then flash back to Esperanza’s side of the story, where we learn there’s still one last problem the couple will need to take care of.
Whenever I finish a script I’m going to review, the first question I ask is, “Is there anything unique to talk about here?”
Usually, the answer is no because everybody keeps writing the same stuff. And, honestly, when I saw this premise, I was sure it was going to be more of the same.
But Happy Anniversary is different. I’m not going to say it’s entirely original. But it’s got enough uniqueness that we actually have something to talk about today.
The script is quite layered in that every 20 pages, we get some new information that makes us see the story through new eyes. At first it’s Brett plans to kill his wife. Then it’s Michelle plans to work with Esperanza. Then it’s Brett and his wife working together under possible false pretenses (neither can 100% trust the other). The conversations the characters have become complex, to the point where after you hear what everyone says in a scene, you stop and try to figure out what they really meant. Were they lying? Were they telling the truth? Who’s allies with who now? It was fun.
The script also nailed its “But what it’s really about” component. A “But what it’s really about” can turn a standard premise into something riveting. This movie doesn’t work if it’s just a married couple unlucky enough to have a home invasion on the night of their anniversary. It works because what it’s really about is their marriage and is it as strong as they’ve presented it to be? There’s a ton of irony in that question.
Just a reminder, “But what it’s really about” is the character story you’re telling within your movie. “Titanic” is about being on the most infamous doomed ship in history. But what it’s really about is the influential people we meet throughout our lives that help us see the world in ways that change our lives for the better. It’s that universal human experience component that everyone can understand and relate to. But it’s even better when it’s tied to your concept, which it is in Happy Anniversary.
Another thing I noticed was that Esperanza felt more complex than your average bad guy. He wasn’t just bad to be bad. He had issues with killing. He had fame aspirations. He had morals about what he would and wouldn’t do. Then money enters the equation and that line of morality starts shifting. I wasn’t sure what was coming next from this guy. And that impressed me.
Then, late in the script, there’s this surprise chapter where we flash back and meet Esperanza before all this goes down. We get to know him better and what his perspective was going into the night. Whenever you’re forced to see the world through a character’s eyes, that character takes on a whole new life. They’re going to have more going on because you don’t see them as a secondary object that’s written to react to your hero. You see them as their own hero. In their own story.
And so all of a sudden, his complexity made sense. Once Brix had to get into this character’s head to write this late “get to know Esperanza” chapter, he became more complex, a primary character as opposed to a secondary one. So the lesson here is, you won’t always write a script like this where we’ll see the story through the “villain’s” eyes. But you can still write out a big backstory separate from the script that will help you find that same complexity that Brix found here.
As much fun as this script is to discuss, it’s not perfect. When you create this many layers, this many characters deceiving each other, it’s almost impossible to write from a place of truth. For example, early on, we’re with Michelle as she’s secretly listening to Brett and Esperanza talk about murdering her. Now, eventually, we’ll learn that Brett and Michelle were working together the whole time. Which means that when we were watching Michelle in that moment, we weren’t watching her fear that conversation like we thought, we were watching her listen to a script they had already drawn up with one another. So there’s a lot of cheating that goes on with these scripts and it makes for a lot of, “Well wait a minute, then what about…” questions when the credits roll.
Alfred Hitchcock used to say that you only needed to trick the audience for as long as it took to leave the theater. It didn’t matter if things didn’t make sense after that. But you can’t do that these days. Movies are dissected incessantly and become retroactive failures if enough people point out their inconsistencies. Not everything adds up here. But it’s entertaining enough to recommend. And I can see why Platinum Dunes grabbed it. It’s a fun script.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Chapters. Brix uses chapters here, of which there are four (or maybe five). The nice thing about chapters is you can create your own structure with them. You can move away from the classic three-act structure and create your own checkpoints. There’s something about knowing we’re inside of a chapter that makes us feel like the writer has a plan. So we’re not freaking out when the script doesn’t follow the traditional movie formula.
What I learned 2: Get your thrillers and horror scripts to Platinum Dunes. They love original specs in these genres!
