Is that how the line was supposed to go?
Something that’s always bothered me about Go. When Ronna is in Todd’s apartment she says “Todd, I would never fuck you like that.” And he says, “How would -you- fuck -me-?”
Like, how would a nothing like you ever screw over a big drug dealer like me? But he just explained how she could fuck him: twenty hits is intent to distribute. Did you mean for the line to be read like “How -would- you fuck me?” As in, why should I trust you? And if so, how did the director fuck that up so badly?
– Rebecca
Los Angeles
Actually, the intent behind the line is completely different — and this is an example of how acting choices and editing room decisions can impact a scene. If you download the original script, you’ll see that the scene in question actually reads:
- GAINES
- You come here out of the blue asking for twenty hits. Just so happens twenty is the magic number where intent to sell becomes trafficking.
- RONNA
- Todd, I would never fuck you like that.
- GAINES
- How would you fuck me? Would you strap it on?
- He climbs over the sofa to a dresser. In a drawer, he digs down through a pile of socks to find a wide-mouthed bottle. And an empty Tylenol bottle. Blows out the dust.
The “Would you strap it on?” line makes it clear that he’s sort-of-joking, in a very sexual way. Unfortunately, on the night we shot this scene, the energy was all wrong.
The producers and I still talk about that bad night, because Timothy Olyphant, who completely nailed the role of Gaines otherwise, was not finding the right rhythms. That’s incredibly frustrating as a writer on the set, because you can hear in your head just how the line should sound, but nothing you do can get it to come out that way. And this isn’t a criticism of Tim or director Doug Liman. Everyone has bad nights; they’re usually not captured on film for posterity.
In fact, the next night we ended up re-shooting Gaines’ side of the later Claire scene, when Tim suddenly had a breakthrough and really figured out how to play the moments. Those are some of my favorites moments in the movie, and it’s all credit to Tim’s acting.
That still left us with some challenges cutting together the Ronna scene. Ultimately, the version that worked best dropped the “Would you strap it on?” line. But you’re right: the inflections in the previous line don’t really make sense. I cringe a little when I watch it.
The other reason I miss the strap-it-on reference is that it played into Ronna having balls. In an earlier scene, Ronna said she’d go straight to Todd, because buying through a middle man would cut her profit: “That’s like, a hundred dollars I’d be pissing out my dick.” I love that Ronna sees herself as hard-boiled, even when she’s terrified.
Articles
July 14th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Actually, I got the joke–odd delivery and all. When I first watched it, it never struck me as anything but a blatant sexual comment–especially with the tension in the air between Gaines and Claire. When I read the script, I felt like the strap-on line was maybe even overkill and assumed it was cut because the inital line covered it. Hm. Interesting what comes through for some, and is obscured for others… maybe I just have too much sex on the brain and assume it’s all sexual…
July 14th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
I’ve also always viewed that line as being the sexual play on words of a smart-ass. That’s why this site is so cool. It’s nice to hear it from the mouth of the horse, if you’ll pardon the expression, John.
July 14th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Yeah, I saw it as a sexual/power dynamic kind of thing myself. Seems pretty obvious. You don’t need to mark everything out explicitly. This reminds me of how I shudder hearing crappy on the nose dialog about sex. I hardly ever just come out and say , “so, let’s have sex now!”, or “Remember when we had sex?”. Doesn’t anybody say “do it”, or “fool around” anymore? Not saying this as a moal judgement, but that kind of dialog just doesn’t sound real enough, even for a created world on film. I think the current most used word in daily life for sex is “to bang”. Nice vernacular sounding, but not as harsh as “fuck”, which 99% of the time it’s used does not refer to sex. As in, “What the fuck is this fucking idiot rambling on about now?”
July 14th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
I feel your pain John. No matter how much you plan and map out the route you want to take bad things happen to good people. Sometimes it just doesn’t gel. Go here and here to read some more tales from the bunker. The thing is, your sensitivity to everything is so heightened during production what you perceive as a cluster F might not even be noticed by 99% of your audience. That’s what I keep telling myself when I’m crawled up in a ball crying like a five year old under my bed after I just saw a first cut.
July 14th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
I like how a scene and a moment can be taken completely out of context simply out of phrasing. That’s odd, but another part of film in general. Makes you respect a scene when it works impeccably.
July 15th, 2005 at 5:59 am
Ofcourse it’s a matter of interpretation, but to me the sexual reference was pretty clear too, since Gaines doesn’t say “How would you fuck me?” but “How would you fuck me?” At least that’s how i heard the intonation.
July 15th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
It’s so interesting how everyone can interpret it in so many different ways. How I took it was “How can you (you little powerless girl who doesn’t know the first thing about anything) fuck me?” Just belittling her. The whole scene is just a huge power play w/ Ronna trying to keep up when she’s really over her head. What I LOVE LOVE LOVE about that scene is when he turns up the music and says something in her ear. I didn’t get what was happening right away and I got scared for Ronna. As a woman watching it you just know that feeling of terror when faced with an angry man, on his turf. And the degredation of forcing her to strip. Its amazing how powerful that is.
Funny enough I had JUST rented ‘Go’ again the night before I read this comment, so I could got back and watch it again immediately — I’m too poor to own a library of dvds
still a renter.
Thanks again, I love the site. Charlie opens tonight! But I’ve gotta wait until the crowds subside, sorry won’t be helping with the opening weekend numbers. I HATE crowds….
July 16th, 2005 at 3:52 am
John, the sexual innuendo seems obvious. Congratulations on Charlie’s great reviews. USA Today *** and a half stars. Nice.
My site is live now.
July 18th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Wow, it sure is nice to get a real explanation from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. I had imagined that there was a bit of innuendo in that seen, but I quickly wrote it off as “how would you fuck me?” being a reference to Gaines’ ego. Thanks for clearing that up.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
I agree with others, I saw the line exactly as it was intended. And I’m so happy that the “strap-on” line was cut. It would have seemed redundant.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Is anyone surprised that John hasn’t mentioned anything regarding Charlie’s huge box office this weekend? That isn’t a measure of a films real worth, but it doesn’t hurt to know that eight million people are obviously enjoying it.
He must be busy calculating his cut…. : )
The anti-spam precaution seems to be stuck on the 4th word….bank Hmmmm.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:45 am
Well, I was hoping Mr. August would post something about CatCF so I could post this in a relevant topic, but for now….
I cannot even begin to describe how much I am loving the makers of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, especially you, Mr. August. You have made my one wish come true: a DEFINITIVE film version of the awesome Roald Dahl book!
I’ve seen the movie 3 times now, and I still haven’t finished my review because I just cannot find the right words to express how deeply I loved this movie!
The writer of a film never gets enough credit. Sure, the director and actors do a lot, but they can’t do what they do without a script. And that’s where you come in.
You have created a perfect adaptation of Dahl’s book. Sure, there are diversions and additions that were not in the book, but what you wrote manages to strengthen the characters and story, not completely change it (like the ‘71 film did).
I love how Wonka’s backstory is partly a setup for allowing Charlie to really shine in the end as the pure and innocent being he was in the book. Brilliant!
I gotta admit… I shed a few tears during those final scenes. An absolutely breathtaking ending!
And all the great references and quotes. I busted a gut laughing at the quote from “Good Morning, Starshine”. Freaking brilliant!
So, yeah, I’m rambling… but that’s only because I can’t form complete thoughts about how grateful I am for such a beautiful rendition of such an awesome book.
Congrats on a job EXTREMELY well done!!!
Joy
PS: Just wondering… Did you guys happen to write/film scenes with the square candies that look ’round as well as the lickable wallpaper and the scenes were just left out of the final cut? I’d love to see those on the DVD or something. I had really been looking forward to hearing Depp’s Wonka say “The snozzberries taste like snozzberries” (snickers naughtily).
July 20th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
John,
Congrats on Charlie! The book was a childhood favorite and the movie was a great experience. The musical numbers are awesome. Also enjoyed the added backstory of Willy Wonka… think it is a highly intelligent bridge.
Huge fan of the site as well! Thanks for all your insight…
July 21st, 2005 at 9:50 am
John,
I seem to be having “inciting incident” blues…any suggestions? practice recommendations? or book references?
avid fan
July 27th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
I agree with comment #10 whole heartedly.
Todd puts the threat out there but is still confident she can’t fuck him over.
This is one of my favorite films, my girls and I watch it at least 1x a year together!