Hello, screenwriters. These posts are my attempt to provide information that you wouldn’t normally hear in a typical screenwriting class, screenwriting course or screenwriting workshop.

The structure of a screenplay is the backbone of what makes your story work. Like the foundation of a house, if the story is not solid nothing else that comes afterwards will function correctly. It doesn’t matter how good your dialogue or your characters are, the screenplay (and thus the movie based on it) will not be successful if the story structure is not sound.

After many of screenwriting, teaching and studying what story structure is all about, reading Syd Fields, Joseph Campbell and Blake Snyder’s “Save the Cat,” along with others, it is clear to me that the fundamental problem most screenwriters make when constructing their screenplays is that they believe structure is plot. It is a formula that you can follow step-by- step and end up with a great story.

But that is far from the truth. Story structure is basically what the movie is about emotionally. Great screenplays of movies we love affect us and stay with us not because of their plots but because they grab us on an emotional level. The plot is simply there to service the characters, not the other way around.

So you construct your stories based on the emotional growth of your characters.  You don’t come up with a plot and then try to figure out what characters you’re going to stick into that plot. That’s not thinking emotionally or organically.

Join me for my three-part webinar taking place on January 13. 20, and 27 where I will take apart each act of a screenplay separately and give you an easy to understand roadmap of exactly what goes into each act, how you devise your outline, and how you know you have enough material for each section of that story.

We will discuss the inciting incident, plot points, the midpoint and other little understand structural devices that will keep your reader and your audiences hooked by the movement of the characters and the story.

We will take the best of what Fields, Campbell and Snyder have to offer as well as using many examples of great screenplays; so you can see in concrete form what works and what doesn’t. If you’ve ever been stuck in the middle of a screenplay or not understood screenwriting terms or fundamentals, this three-part webinar will give you the tools to make story structure something you will never agonize over again. I hope you can join us.  To learn more, go to:   http://bit.ly/ScreenplayStructure

 

As I’ve said many times, what I’m trying to accomplish in this blog is to provide information you wouldn’t normally hear in your typical screenwriting classes, screenwriting course or screenwriting workshop. This certainly fits that bill.

Many years ago – in the 80’s I believe – there was a script reader named Syd Fields who found an enticing clue in all the good scripts he read.

He realized they all contained what he called “plot points.” He described these structural devices as an action or event that hooked into the story and turned them around in a new direction.

 

Hello, screenwriters.  As I’ve stated many times, my sole purpose in doing this blog is to provide information you won’t normally receive in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting class or screenwriting workshop.  This is extremely relevant to what I want to talk about today.

I have been amazed by the amount of incredible information that is posted on this site literally every day. I have written previously about the benefits of spending many thousands of dollars enrolling in a master of fine arts program in screenwriting (and there are many) and what the real, tangible benefits you will receive by doing so.

Actually, it’s unnecessary.  The knowledge you gain by simply reading posts on this site, scouring through the articles and interviews will actually give you more practical information than anything you will receive in a university’s M.F.A. program.

Why do I say that?  Because I myself went to such a program and I learned more by just writing screenplays, then finding professional screenwriters or producers who could give me notes and mentor me. The typical teachers in universities on the most part know very little about getting a film made.

So, we come to the real question on my mind today – can everything be taught? Or is there some magical quality that professional writers have that give them a leg up on everyone else.

I don’t think talent is really what makes the difference. I’ve taught many incredibly talented writers who got nowhere – and I’ve taught writers with a modicum of talent who succeeded greatly – like Melissa Rosenberg who wrote the Twilight movies and was executive producer on “Dexter.”

What did she have that few other writers do – she had tremendous will power. What she didn’t know about structure she studied with great determination. Instead of going to the beach with her friends over the week-end, she wrote and studied.

I used to think there were certain areas of screenwriting that you couldn’t teach – like writing dialogue.  But I know now that isn’t true.  Dialogue was not my greatest strength when I was starting out as a screenwriter but I learned certain techniques that greatly helped that aspect of my craft.  Writing dialogue doesn’t solely depend on talent – it can be taught like anything else can.  It’s all about how badly do you want this?  What are you willing to sacrifice to be a professional screenwriter?

Unless you’ve been in the trenches and done the 20 rewrites that were required to make your screenplay ready to go out, you don’t really know the true ingredient to being successful. It’s all about that willingness to go the distance. And sadly, most people don’t have it – not just in screenwriting but in medicine or law or romantic relationships or any other worthy endeavor.

It’s all here on this site, ready for the taking – if you’re willing to make that commitment. I wrote last week about how I spent two years studying story structure, because I knew that was a weakness I had.

Everything I’ve learned from then until now – and that’s years of writing and teaching – I’m offering in January in a three part webinar. We’ll take apart Act One, Act Two and Act Three in a very specific way.  I’ll make it clear what goes in each Act, deconstructing how you put together an outline, using many examples from well known screenplays.

This goes way beyond formula but will delve into what a story is really about emotionally and how you can construct your story in such a way that you will never have problems with story structure again.

Join my three part webinar. You don’t have to listen to it live but all three webinars will be archived for a year so you can listen to them at any time.

Forget spending over $30,000 on an M.F.A. What I’m offering here is more insightful knowledge than you would learn in two years of listening to an academic who’s never really been in the trenches.  I look forward to your participation.

http://bit.ly/ScreenplayStructure

Until then as always – KEEP WRITING!

 

A PERSONAL STORY

Hello, Screenwriters.  As you know I attempt to provide information on this blog you wouldn’t normally hear in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting class or screenwriting workshop.  Most of the time, the best lessons come from personal experience. I have one I thought I’d share with you.  I went to UCLA to get my M.F.A. because I wanted to be a playwright.  I had read a lot of plays but didn’t know stage right from stage left.

I had a teacher there I’ll never forget. He was a tough bastard who kept after me for my woeful lack of story sense. I was pretty good with characters and dialogue but he was right, I had no idea how to construct a good story.

I almost didn’t get through that program and could have easily lost confidence in my ability to be a professional writer.  But upon graduation, I made it my mission to learn story structure.  I got screenplays of the movies I admired and studied them. Then I’d get videos of those movies and saw them countless times, trying to understand how they were constructed.

Why did one scene come after the other one?  Where was the first act break?  Why were there subplots?  What happened in the middle of the story?

I studied story structure like this for two years.  I read Syd Fields and other books about the same subject.  And after relentlessly breaking down stories and then putting them back together I started to get it.

I didn’t have an innate talent for creating good stories but I learned it.  Anyone can do that whether it comes naturally to you or not.  After awhile, my story sense got pretty damn good and it continues to grow better even to this day.

This is the biggest problem in most screenplays I read.  Or a screenwriter will start a screenplay without clearly figuring out the beginning, middle and end and get stuck around page 70. They somehow think the story will magically come to them as they go along but it never does.

Story structure is not a formula as Blake Snyder would have you believe.  It’s really about what your movie is about emotionally.  Where does the protagonist begin emotionally and where does he or she end up by the end.

I’m giving a 3-part webinar on each act of a screenplay and what exactly goes into Act One, Act Two and Act Three.  I’ll be deconstructing each act, using the best instructors who have ever tackled this subject including Syd Fields, Joseph Campbell and others.

By the end of these webinars you will never again have a problem with story structure. You’ll know exactly what is meant by the terms everyone uses: plot points, inciting incident, etc. You’ll learn exactly how to lay out your outline without thinking about each scene but looking at story structure in large brush strokes.

You’ll never again get stuck in the middle but always have a clear picture exactly what you’re trying to accomplish in each act.

The webinars will be held in January.  You can either watch them live or tune in anytime during the following year.  Forget reading any more books or for those even contemplating it, going to film school if you’re serious about being a professional screenwriter.  .  http://bit.ly/ScreenplayStructure

 

 

Hello, everyone. As you all know, I’m all about giving you tools that you wouldn’t normally get in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting workshop or screenwriting class.  This certainly fits that bill.  I hope this it’s not too far off the mark of what we’ve been discussing but I thought this was so important we should really communicate about it now.

In a lot of the consultations and also in some of my screenwriting workshops, I’ve noticed a black hole at times when it comes to writers not paying close to attention to who their audience is and what that audience expects from the movie you are writing for them.

What I mean by this is that if you writing a horror movie, the audience is there to be scared. So it would seem obvious that what you want to provide them with is lots of great scary moments. And yet I find many writers more interested in character development or long dialogue scenes that don’t deliver the goods.

Why this is strikes me as strange but understandable. Many writers are basically writing for themselves, or they get caught up in their plot or what they think is good story development and yet disregard the most important thing of all – that is delivering the goods to the audience.

If you are writing a very physical comedy, then obviously the audience is there to enjoy pratfalls and hilarious moments of physical humor. If your comedy is not delivering on that level, it doesn’t really matter how great your characters are – the audience come away disappointed.

You have to identify exactly the kind or genre of film you are writing and then make sure you are delivering that in spades. If your movie is “Salt,” which we will discuss soon, we know going in this is a political thriller in the vein of the Bourne Identity. So it has to deliver lots of great action and lots of great suspense – which Salt does by the way (its failings are in other areas which we will get to in the future).

Just as the Bourne movies had lots of fantastic action pieces with Matt Damon kicking the hell out of various opponents on a constant basis, getting himself in very sticky situations and almost being killed every 10 pages or so. If this doesn’t happen, the Bourne movies no matter how brilliantly written would have disappointed.

This is so obvious that it seems to go way past many writers’ heads. We are not writing for ourselves after all, we are writing for a large mass audience. They come into the movie with certain expectations and we must deliver on those expectations or our film will probably not do well at the box office and will certainly not attract a studio or financing entity — as this is a business they want to make money in. If we pay for a Ferrari, we expect a Ferrari performance, if we pay for a laugh-out-loud comedy, we want that as well.

So clearly you need to be very specific about the genre you are writing in, what are examples of movies in this genre and what did they do correctly to become successful at the box office?

Don’t get caught up in your characters and plot to such a degree that you’re totally forgetting the audience and what they’re paying their $10 or $12 for. DELIVER THE GOODS. If you’re not delivering the goods, then go back to your story and scenes and brainstorm until you find those moments that do deliver the goods.

And if you’ve been paying attention to posts, you’ll see that I’m giving a three part webinar in January on story structure.  I’m going to break down ACT 1, ACT 2 and ACT 3 and make it clear exactly what goes into each act, how to structure your story, what plot points are, what a midpoint is supposed to accomplish, etc.  If you’ve ever had trouble constructing a story or are confused about these terms I just used, you need to join me. You will receive an education that’s worth about a year of film school. Now how big of a boast is that?  http://bit.ly/ScreenplayStructure

 

Hello, everyone. As you know, my mission to provide information you wouldn’t ordinarily get in your typical screenwriting class, screenwriting workshop or screenwriting course.  This certainly fits that bill.

Here is the last part of the Inglourious Basterds scene. Colonel Landa has now discovered the Jews are indeed hiding under the floorboards. He’s broken the French farmers steely resolve and now the slaughter begins. As always, he is sophisticated and polite even under these circumstances…

 

Col. Landa stands up from the table and, switching to FRENCH, says,

SUBTITLED IN ENGLISH:

COL. LANDA

Monsieur LaPadite, I thank you for your milk and

your hospitality. I do believe our business here is done.

The Nazi officer opens the front door and silently motions for his men to approach the house.

COL. LANDA

Madame LaPadite, I thank you for your time. We

shan’t be bothering your family any longer.

The soldiers enter the doorway. Col. Landa silently points out the area of the floor the Jews are hiding under.

COL. LANDA

So, Monsieur and Madame LaPadite,

I bid you adieu.

He motions to the soldiers with his index finger.

They TEAR UP the wooden floor with MACHINE-GUN FIRE.

The little farmhouse is filled with SMOKE, DUST, SPLINTERS,

SCREAMS, BULLET CASINGS, and even a little BLOOD.

With a hand motion from the colonel, the soldiers cut off their gunfire. The colonel keeps his finger in the air to indicate silence.

UNDERNEATH THE FLOORBOARDS

The entire Dreyfus family lies dead. Except for sixteen-year-old SHOSANNA, who miraculously escaped being struck by the Nazis’ bullets. With her dead family surrounding her, the young girl goes for freedom (represented by a wire-mesh vent).

COL. LANDA

hears a movement underneath the floor, looks down, and sees a SHAPE moving forward between the planks in the floor.

COL. LANDA

It’s the girl. Nobody move!

VENT

is KICKED open, the girl SPRINGS out.

COL. LANDA

as he crosses the floor, sees the young girl RUNNING toward the cover of the woods. He unlatches the window and opens it. Shosanna is perfectly FRAMED in the windowsill.

SHOSANNA

RUNNING toward the woods. Farmhouse and Colonel in the window in B.G.

FILTHY BARE FEET

SLAPPING against wet grass.

CU SHOSANNA’S FACE

same as an animal being chased by a predator: FLIGHT—PANIC—FEAR.

SHOSANNA’S POV

the safety of trees, getting closer.

COL. LANDA

framed by the window, takes his WALTER, and straight-arm aims at the fleeing Jew, cocking back the hammer with his thumb.

CU COL. LANDA

SLOW ZOOM into his eyes as he aims.

PROFILE CU SHOSANNA

mad dash for life.

COL. LANDA

changes his mind. He yells to the rat fleeing the trap, heading for the safety of the woodpile, in FRENCH SUBTITLED IN ENGLISH:

COL. LANDA

Au revoir, Shosanna!

SHOSANNA

makes it to the woods and is gone.

The S.S. colonel closes the window.

EXT—DAIRY FARM—DAY

The Nazi town car DRIVES away.

EXT—NAZI TOWN CAR (MOVING)—DAY

Col. Hans Landa sits in the backseat of the convertible that’s

speeding away from the French farmhouse.

Landa speaks to his driver in GERMAN, SUBTITLE IN ENGLISH:

COL. LANDA

Herrman, I sense a question on your lips?

Out with it?

DRIVER

Why did you allow an enemy of the state to escape?

COL. LANDA

Oh, I don’t think the state is in too much

danger, do you?

DRIVER

I suppose not.

COL. LANDA

I’m glad you see it my way. Besides,

not putting a bullet in the back of a fifteen-year-

old girl and allowing her to escape are not necessarily

the same thing. She’s a young girl, no food, no

shelter, no shoes, who’s just witnessed the

massacre of her entire family. She may not survive the

night. And after word spreads about what happened today, it’s

highly unlikely she will find any willing farmers to extend her aid. If I had to guess her fate, I’d say she’ll

probably be turned in by some neighbor.

Or she’ll be spotted by some German soldier. Or

we’ll find her body in the woods, dead from

starvation or exposure. Or, perhaps . . . she’ll

survive. She will elude capture. She will escape

to America. She will move to New York City,

where she will be elected President of

the United States.

The S.S. colonel chuckles at his little funny.

 

Little does the Colonel know the real role Shoshana will play. For those of you who haven’t seen this film yet, I don’t want to give away too much of the plot – but Shoshana will be instrumental in bringing justice to the Jews and her own family.

Now let’s think about what we’ve learned from reading this scene. It’s incredibly long but it’s not boring. It has a wonderful, sophistical and even droll antagonist, who is cold blooded but charming and literally a character we can’t take our eyes off. This should teach us, make our villains as interesting as the protagonist.

It takes one central idea and milks it for all it’s worth – will Landa discover the Jews or not? Will the farmer be able to keep up his stoic courage and not betray the Jews under the floorboards? And finally, what will happen to Shoshana? Will she end up like Landa thinks – or does she have another fate?

When you have a great situation like this, don’t throw it away. Play it out for every possible piece of drama and suspense.

Notice how in a particular action – Shoshana fleeing and Landa about to kill her – Tarantino also milks this moment dramatically and visually. Is he going to pull the trigger? Will the girl get away? This decision on Landa’s part will change the entire history of the German cause.

For those of you who have seen this movie, I’d love to hear what you thought about the end of this film? For me, it ruined the movie as it totally changed history. In all fictional films about an historical time, I’ve never seen a film take these kind of liberties with what actually happened in the past. Let me know what you thought. Do you think Tarantino was way out of line or perfectly at liberty to create the ending he devised? What were your responses to the climax of the film I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

 

 

Okay, everyone. Here is another example of very precise instruction you wouldn’t normally get in your typical screenwriting course, screenwriting class or screenwriting workshop — the second part of our scene from Inglourious Basterds. Colonel Landa has been toying with the French farmer, looking for the Dreyfus family, Jews hiding from the Nazis. We know that they’re hiding underneath the floorboards. Up until now, Perrier, the French farmer, seems cool and collected. Let’s see how this scene plays out:

 

COL. LANDA

Well, I guess that should do it.

 

He begins gathering up his papers and putting them back into his attaché case.

The farmer, cool as a cucumber, puffs on his pipe.

 

COL. LANDA

However, before I go, could I have another glass

of your delicious milk?

PERRIER

But of course.

 

The farmer stands up, goes over to the icebox, and takes out the carafe of milk. As he walks over and fills the Nazi colonel’s glass, the German officer talks.

COL. LANDA

Monsieur LaPadite, are you aware of the

nickname the people of France have given me?

PERRIER

I have no interest in such things.

COL. LANDA

But you are aware of what they call me?

PERRIER

I’m aware.

OL. LANDA

What are you aware of?

PERRIER

That they call you “the Jew Hunter.”

COL. LANDA

The feature that makes me such an effective

hunter of the Jews is, as opposed to most German

soldiers, I can think like a Jew, where they can

only think like a German or, more precisely, a

German soldier.

Now if one were to determine what attribute the

German people share with a beast, it would be the

cunning and predatory instinct of a hawk.

COL. LANDA

Consider for a moment the

world a rat lives in. It’s a hostile world

indeed. If a rat were to scamper through your

front door right now, would you greet it with

hostility?

PERRIER

I suppose I would.

COL. LANDA

Has a rat ever done anything to you to create

this animosity you feel toward them?

PERRIER

Rats spread disease, they bite people—

COL. LANDA

Unless some fool is stupid enough to

try and handle a live one, rats don’t make it a

practice of biting human beings.

In all your born days, has a rat ever

caused you to be sick a day in your life? I

propose to you, any disease a rat could spread

a squirrel would equally carry.

Yet I assume you don’t share the same animosity

with squirrels that you do with rats, do you?

PERRIER

No.

COL. LANDA

Yet they are both rodents, are they

not? And except for the fact that one has a big

bushy tail, while the other has a long

repugnant tail of rodent skin, they even rather

look alike, don’t they?

PERRIER

It is an interesting thought, Herr Colonel.

COL. LANDA

However, if a rat were to scamper through your

door this very minute, would you offer it a

saucer of your delicious milk?

PERRIER

Probably not.

COL. LANDA

I didn’t think so. You don’t like them. You

don’t really know why you don’t like them. All

you know is, you find them repulsive.

(lets the metaphor sink in)

What a tremendously hostile world a rat must

endure. Yet not only does he survive, he

thrives.

Consequently, a German soldier conducts

a search of a house suspected of hiding Jews.

Where does the hawk look? He looks in the barn,

he looks in the attic, he looks in the cellar—

he looks everywhere he would hide.

But there are many places it would

never occur to a hawk to hide. However, the

reason the Führer brought me off my Alps in

Austria and placed me in French cow country

today is because it does occur to me.

(changing tone)

May I smoke my pipe as well?

 

The farmer’s cool facade is little by little eroding.

PERRIER

Please, colonel, make yourself at home.

 

The Jew Hunter removes both a pipe and a bag of tobacco fixings. The pipe, strangely enough, is a calabash, made from an S-shaped gourd with a yellow skin and made famous by Sherlock Holmes. As the Nazi colonel busies himself with his smoking, he continues to hold court at the Frenchman’s table.

COL. LANDA

The other mistake the German soldiers

make is their severe handling of the

citizens who give shelter and aid to

the Jews. These citizens are not enemies

of the state. They are simply confused

people, trying to make some sense out of

the madness war creates. These citizens do not

need punishing. So, Monsieur LaPadite, let me propose

a question. In this time of war, what is

your number-one duty? Is it to fight

the Germans in the name of France to your

last breath? Or is it to harass the

occupying army to the best of your ability?

Or is it to protect the poor, unfortunate

victims of warfare who can not protect themselves?

Or is your number-one duty in this time

of bloodshed to protect those very

beautiful women who constitute your family?

 

The Colonel lets the last statement stand.

COL. LANDA

That was a question, Monsieur LaPadite. In this

time of war, what do you consider your number one duty?

PERRIER

To protect my family.

 

The farmer, pipe in mouth, stares across the table at his German opponent.

COL. LANDA

You are sheltering enemies of the state, are you not?

PERRIER

Yes.

COL. LANDA

You’re sheltering them underneath your

floorboards, aren’t you?

PERRIER

Yes.

COL. LANDA

Point out to me the areas where they’re hiding.

 

The farmer points out the areas on the floor where the Dreyfuses are underneath.

COL. LANDA

Since I haven’t heard any disturbance,

I assume that while they’re listening,

they don’t speak English?

PERRIER

Yes.

COL. LANDA

I’m going to switch back to French now, and I

want you to follow my masquerade—is that clear?

PERRIER

Yes.

Here we have a scene reversal. The French farmer who was so cool and collected now becomes mesmerized by the Nazi officer. He literally seems to twist him around to the point of complete surrender by his use of logic (although logic that is suffused with hatred and prejudice) and a sophisticated charm. Before he knows it, the French farmer is admitting to his crime.

We as an audience are also being mesmerized somewhat by Landa, hoping upon hope that he will not discover the Jews and yet feeling the inevitability of him doing so.

The use of his words – a number of monologues utilized here – (some of which I had to cut because Facebook won’t let me send too much text in my posts) his metaphors of the Nazis being like hawks and the Jews the rodents – how Landa can think like the rodents so he instinctively knows where they will hide – it’s all very hypnotic and before long there’s a sinking in our stomach as the audience that he’s going to discover the Jews we know are hiding under the floorboards and kill them all.

Take advantage of the great situations you discover in your films. Don’t rush through them.

Our job is #1) Tell a story with pictures #2) Create emotional moments with our characters to move an audience.

Our use of craft is simply enabling us to do this. Nothing more. Craft is not there for or in of itself. It’s there to help us achieve the above.

We’ll look at the last part of this scene next week.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

 

Hello, everyone. We’re now launching into a new subject, scene construction and what makes a great scene.  As you know I try and provide information that you wouldn’t normally hear in a normal screenwriting class, screenwriting workshop or screenwriting course.  There just isn’t enough time.

What immediately came to mind when I thought of this topic was ‘Inglourious Basterds,’ written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. There are a bunch of scenes in this movie that are just amazing, and I thought we could analyze one of them in particular to see just why it works so well.

This is the opening scene of the movie, a scene that no one can ever forget once experienced. It breaks many rules that the pundits are always laying in concrete – one, that a scene should rarely be more than 2-3 pages, the other that you want to avoid monologues at all costs. This particular scene is 12 pages long! Well, we’ve already spoken a great deal about monologues, but let’s now think about scene length and what merits a scene that is longer than 2-3 pages.

As the movie opens, Colonel Hans Landa (played by Chiristopher Waltz) the incredible villain of our piece, is in Nazi occupied France. He visits a milk farmer to make sure he’s not harboring any Jews. Here’s the first part of the scene:

 

The farmer offers the S.S. colonel a seat at the family’s wooden dinner table. The Nazi officer accepts the French farmer’s offer and lowers himself into the chair, placing his gray S.S. cap on the table and keeping his black attaché case on the floor by his feet.

The farmer (perfect host) turns to his wife and says:

PERRIER

Charlotte, would you be so good as to get the

Colonel some wine?

COL. LANDA

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur LaPadite, but no wine.

This being a dairy farm, one would be safe in

assuming you have milk?

CHARLOTTE

Oui.

COL. LANDA

Then milk is what I prefer.

CHARLOTTE

Very well.

The mother of three takes a carafe of milk out of the icebox

and pours a tall glass of the fresh white liquid for the colonel.

The S.S. colonel takes a long drink from the glass, then puts it down LOUDLY on the wooden table.

COL. LANDA

Monsieur, to both your family and your cows I

say: Bravo.

PERRIER

Merci.

COL. LANDA

Please, join me at your table.

PERRIER

Very well.

The French farmer sits at his wooden dinner table across from

the Nazi.

The women remain standing.

Col. Landa leans forward and says to the farmer in a low tone of confidentiality:

COL. LANDA

Monsieur LaPadite, what we have to discuss

would be better discussed in private. You’ll

notice, I left my men outdoors. If it wouldn’t

offend them, could you ask your lovely ladies

to step outside?

PERRIER

You are right.

PERRIER

(to his women)

Charlotte, would you take the girls outside.

The Colonel and I need to have a few words.

The farmer’s wife follows her husband’s orders and gathers her

daughters, taking them outside, closing the door behind them.

The two men are alone at the farmer’s dinner table, in the farmer’s humble home.

COL. LANDA

Monsieur LaPadite, I regret to inform you I’ve

exhausted the extent of my French. To continue

to speak it so inadequately would only serve to

embarrass me. However, I’ve been led

to believe you speak English quite well?

PERRIER

Oui.

COL. LANDA

Well, it just so happens, I do as well. This

being your house, I ask your permission to

switch to English for the remainder of the

conversation.

PERRIER

By all means.

They now speak ENGLISH:

COL. LANDA

Monsieur LaPadite, while I’m very familiar with

you and your family, I have no way of knowing

if you are familiar with who I am. Are you aware

of my existence?

The farmer answers:

PERRIER

Yes.

COL. LANDA

This is good. Are you aware of the job I’ve

been ordered to carry out in France?

PERRIER

Yes.

The colonel drinks more milk.

COL. LANDA

Please tell me what you’ve heard?

PERRIER

I’ve heard the Führer has put you in charge of

rounding up the Jews left in France who are

either hiding or passing for gentile.

The S.S. colonel smiles.

COL. LANDA

The Führer couldn’t have said it better

himself.

PERRIER

But the meaning of your visit, pleasant though

it is, is mysterious to me. The Germans looked through my house nine months ago for hiding Jews and found nothing.

COL. LANDA

I’m aware of that. I read the report on this

area. But like any enterprise,

when under new management, there’s always a

slight duplication of efforts. Most of it being

a complete waste of time, but it needs to be

done nevertheless.

I just have a few questions, Monsieur LaPadite.

If you can assist me with answers, my

department can close the file on your family.

Taking his black leather attaché case and placing it on the table, he takes out a folder from inside. He also extracts an expensive black fountain pen from his uniform’s front pocket. Opening the folder and referring to it:

COL. LANDA

Now, before the occupation there were four

Jewish families in this area, all dairy farmers

like yourself: the Loveitts, the Doleracs, the Rollins,

and the Dreyfuses, is that correct?

PERRIER

To my knowledge those were the Jewish families

among the dairy farmers.

Herr Colonel, would it disturb you if

I smoked my pipe?

Looking up from his papers:

COL. LANDA

Please, Monsieur LaPadite, it is your house.

Make yourself comfortable.

The farmer gets up from the table, goes to a shelf over the

fireplace, and removes from it a WOODEN BOX that contains all the fixings to his pipe. He sits back down at the table with his Nazi guest.

As the farmer loads the bowl of his pipe with tobacco, sets a match to it, and begins slowly puffing, making it red hot, the S.S. colonel studies the papers in front of him.

COL. LANDA

Now, according to these papers, all

the Jewish families in this area have been

accounted for—except the Dreyfuses. Somewhere in

the last year it would appear they have

vanished. Which leads me to the conclusion

that they’ve either made good their escape

or someone is very successful hiding them.

(looking up fro his papers, across

the table at the farmer)

What have you heard about the Dreyfuses,

Monsieur LaPadite?

PERRIER

Only rumors—

COL. LANDA

—I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, where

rumors, true or false, are often revealing. So,

Monsieur LaPadite, what rumors have you heard

Regarding the Dreyfuses?

The farmer looks at Landa.

COL. LANDA

Speak freely, Monsieur LaPadite, I want to hear

what the rumors are, not who told them to you.

The farmer puffs thoroughly on his pipe.

PERRIER

Again, this is just a rumor—but we

heard the Dreyfuses had made their way into Spain.

COL. LANDA

So the rumors you’ve heard have been of escape?

PERRIER

Yes.

COL. LANDA

Were the LaPadites and the Dreyfuses friendly?

As the farmer answers this question, the CAMERA LOWERS behind his chair, to the floor, past the floor, to a small area underneath the floorboards, revealing:

 

FIVE HUMAN BEINGS

lying horizontally underneath the farmer’s floorboards. These human beings are the DREYFUSES, who have lived lying down underneath the dairy farmer’s house for the past year. But one couldn’t call what the Dreyfuses have done for the last year living. This family has done the only thing they could—hide from an occupying army that wishes to exterminate them.

 

PERRIER

We were families in the same community, in the

same business. I wouldn’t say

we were friends, but members of the same

community. We had common interests.

The S.S. colonel takes in this answer, seems to accept it, then moves to the next question.

We’ll stop at this point. Let’s see what we can learn from this scene so far. The first thing you’ll notice is that it has tension. The vile Jew Hunter is there to find and kill Jews. And yet Colonel Landa is played with great sophistication, humor and even warmth. He’s a contradiction of sorts and every great character has contradictory aspects to his personality. His manners are excellent, he is extremely polite and thoroughly enjoys his job. He takes great joy in hearing about rumors. It’s almost childlike. He likes to drink milk, which is a symbol of innocence. So we have a very unusual Jew Hunter. (Waltz won many awards for his portrayal, including an Academy award, I believe).

The next thing you’ll notice is that the scene is not rushed through by any means. Both characters take their time, ask for milk, ask if they can smoke a pipe, which only builds the tension. Once you have set up a scene with great potential tension, you should definitely milk it (excuse the pun here). Squeeze out the emotion and suspense for all it’s worth.

Now, we discover in the middle of the scene that the Farmer is indeed hiding something. The Dreyfuss family is in fact hiding right under the floorboards. So now everything takes on a new meaning. How can the Farmer remain so calm? When will Landa – or will he – discover this? We amp up the stakes tremendously. We the audience know something that the villain does not (but clearly suspects). We are then at the edge of our seats, asking ourselves that question. This is a wonderful way to build suspense. We know something the protagonist or villain does not and we are then in tremendous suspense wondering if it will be found out. Hitchcock uses this device in many of his movies.

So, always have conflict in your scenes – then the dialogue will come easily. Milk scenes that have great conflict and suspense. Get as much suspense as you can out of the scene. Don’t rush through it. And of course, play against the stereotype – i.e. Landa.

We’ll continue with the rest of the scene next week. That’s some suspense, too, is it not? Now, you have to wait as well.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

 

Okay, everyone. The time is finally here. We are moving on to a brand new subject, which has endless potential to make your writing rise to a whole new level of professionalism.

We are going to look at scene construction – and most notably – what makes a scene great. This is in comparison to – what makes a scene flat or mediocre. So we will be looking at a variety of great scenes, from many different genres – comedy, action, horror, drama – to see exactly why a scene works or in our parlance – seems to come off the page at us when we’re reading it.

I found the perfect scene to begin with as it segues perfectly from looking at great monologues to this unique subject. The screenplay is “Duplicity,” by Tony Gilroy. As you are all very aware at this point, I am a big admirer of the work of Tony Gilroy. As yet, I don’t think we’ve looked at any scenes from this particular film.

Of all his movies that have been produced, this one did the worst commercially. My guess is that it’s a little too clever by half for the general population out there. It had to do with big business espionage, a topic I don’t think a lot of people are all that fascinated by. But the characters are very rich, as in all his screenplays, and the dialogue absolutely crackles with wit and substance.

The set up is this: the company spies need to break into their competitor’s building to steal information. Ray (played by Clive Owens) pretends to be a doctor traveling to Ethiopia to set up a children’s clinic. He bumps into Barbara (the mark – played by Carrie Preston) and buys her a drink – says he needs to change his plane ticket and she (already tipsy and attracted to him) agrees to let him into her office so she can help him out. During that time, he steals the company secrets.

When the sting is discovered – the security agent at Barbara’s firm – Claire (played by Julie Roberts) tries to find out what happened and interrogates Barbara. Here’s the scene…

INT. B&R INTERROGATION ROOM — DAY 54

BARBARA BOFFERD just sobbing her eyes out —

BARBARA

…it was the way…when he talked about

the children…helping the little

children…mending their broken hearts…

 

It’s a small, sterile room. No windows. Desk. Two chairs.

CLAIRE sitting there like a wall, just sucking it up as —

 

BARBARA

…I know…I do…how I should know

better…and I’m not…really not a

gullible person…but the children and

their little hearts…who could do

that?…what kind of person?…

(focusing now)

Who could do something like that?

 

CLAIRE like a robot. Pushing a box of tissues forward.

 

BARBARA

And yes, I felt special…

(igniting a new wave of sobs)

…that I could help him…and help the

children…and yes…yes, he was cute…

…I admit it…everything falling out of

his pockets…and charming…I mean

special…special like there was nobody

in the world but me…

(finding Claire again)

Hasn’t anyone ever made you feel special?

(sensing the chill across

the table–)

Maybe for you it happens all the time.

You’ve probably got someone making you

feel that way all the time.

(weepy defiance now)

You know what? I don’t even care. Do

whatever you’re gonna do. Because, you

know what? I loved it! It was worth it!

It was so very worth it! It was

incredibly worth it!

 

Great scene, isn’t it? See how it changes suddenly and takes a totally new direction. It takes us by surprise, not only structurally but emotionally. Barbara doesn’t care, this was a defining moment in her life and she won’t feel apologetic about it. It was all worth it.

This is a also a great scene because Claire is discovering that her lover (Ray) is the one who seduced Barbara to get the information she needed. She doesn’t say anything but we can feel her rage as Barbara spills her guts about how great it was – even though she’ll probably lose her job over this.

So reversals in scenes are great to find. Unexpected changes of directions we aren’t prepared for but that ring true emotionally.

Also notice that the scene doesn’t start at the beginning. The scene has already been going for awhile and we just pop into the most interesting part of it. So many scripts I read begin exactly when the scene starts, which makes for dull reading and filmmaking. Why not start when things are really juicy? Audiences are incredibly smart. They don’t need to be told what happened before – they’ll instantly get it.

As Waldo Salt said: films are different than theatre because we can start a scene whenever we want – in theatre, we have to bring the characters onstage in an interesting way, in film we don’t. What’s really hard in screenwriting is how to end the scene – finding a great button, or line of dialogue to end the scene with a ba-bang, a punctuation, I call it – a button. We’ll definitely discuss that a lot more later.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!

 

 

“Work like you don’t need the money,

Love like you’ve never been hurt.

Dance like nobody’s watching.”

— Satchel Paige

Okay, everyone. Here is our last monologue. It’s a fitting end to this cycle of wonderful wordplay by gifted screenwriters.

It’s from “Apocalypse Now,” written by John Milius and Francis Ford Coppola.

It was sent to us by one of our members, J’hon Williams. Thanks J’hon, for being a contributing member of the group!

As tied in as this is to the 1960’s and early ‘70’s, if you see this film again, it still holds up remarkably well. Some criticized Brando’s performance for being slightly over-the-top, but I don’t think anyone can argue very convingly that this monologue isn’t tremendously powerful.

Let’s listen in:

KURTZ

“I’ve seen horrors… horrors that you’ve seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that… but you have no right to judge me. It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face… and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember… I… I… I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn’t know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God… the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men… trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength… to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral… and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling… without passion… without judgment… without judgment. Because it’s judgment that defeats us.”

 

What do you guys think? Does this yank on a few deep and powerful emotions? Notice how long it is. Most pundits would tell us you should never write a speech this long and expect it wouldn’t completely bring your film to a grinding halt. I don’t think this does. And imagine the joy Brando had in tackling a great monologue like this. And how that might have inspired him to take this part in the middle of the jungle.

Starting next week – we will begin a series of talks on a completely different subject.

Until then – KEEP WRITING!