• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: 3 page challenge

Scriptnotes, Ep 73: Raiders of the Lost Ark — Transcript

January 25, 2013 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2013/raiders-of-the-lost-ark).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

**Craig Mazin:** My name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters, such as a little 1981 movie called Raiders of the Lost Ark. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, Craig?

**Craig:** Raiders of the Lost…? No. Raiders of the Lost…what?

**John:** Ark. Ark with a “K,” not with a “C.”

**Craig:** Oh, I always thought it was Raiders of the Lost Art. I’ve never seen the film, but I hear it’s quite good.

**John:** Well, in later years it was remarketed as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

**Craig:** Oh, that movie! [laughs]

**John:** That’s the movie. And so it was directed by a guy named Steven Spielberg who went on to have a pretty successful career and is up for an Oscar this year, which is…good for him. He’s continuing to work. The writing credits on this film are by Lawrence Kasdan — pretty successful writer in his own right — George Lucas, and Philip Kaufman, who collaborated on story.

The actual collaboration that formed Raiders of the Lost Ark is also documented in these audio transcripts which are fascinating reading, which we’ll link to in the show notes. It’s basically these long, day-long sessions where Lawrence Kasdan, and Spielberg, and Lucas are all sitting around a table talking about how they’re going to make this movie, which is great reading material I’ll also link to.

**Craig:** They are fascinating to read. I mean, amazing to read those. So much fun seeing the genesis of something that you know is going to turn out to be incredible. And, well, I guess we’ll talk about it as you wish. I have so many things to say about one of my favorite movies ever.

**John:** So, I thought we’d do something a little different this week, and we’re not going to talk about anything other than Raiders of the Lost Ark. Because so often on the podcast we’re talking about little small things, or little bits and details, but it’s very hard for us to talk about the whole movie, or things like structure, or things like set pieces, or sort of how everything works together, because we can’t expect people to read a whole screenplay and be following along with us.

And it’s hard to talk about movies that are in theaters right now because people may or may not have seen them. Most people will have seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. But, I figured it would be best to start with a summary of what actually happens, because I watched it again this last week and I had this sort of memory of what happens, but actually the story unfolds in a different way than I’d remembered.

So, I thought I would talk through a quick summary of what’s going on. We can start and stop a little bit and talk about what’s happening structurally before we get into some of the detail work, okay?

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Great. So, here’s a plot summary of Raiders of the Lost Ark:

We first meet Indiana Jones and he’s making his way into this Peruvian temple, this lost temple that’s filled with booby traps. The classic moment where he takes the idol, puts the sandbag, and everything seems to be going great. And, of course, everything starts going very, very wrong.

There’s an associate named Satipo, who is played by Alfred Molina, who portrays him at a certain point, and like three seconds later gets killed by one of the booby traps.

We have the giant rolling boulder sequence — iconic moment. Indiana Jones gets out of this temple and is outside and he’s met up with by Belloq — who is going to be the villain of our story — and a whole bunch of native tribespeople who take the idol from him. He barely escapes with his life. He gets onto a seaplane and flies off into the sunset.

That is your opening sequence to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

**Craig:** Perhaps the best opening sequence of any movie. Ever.

**John:** Yes. And it’s quoted endlessly from The Simpsons to everything else. All the little small detail moments of, like, grabbing your hat, and the way everything keeps getting worse and worse and worse, and suddenly flying off at the very end.

**Craig:** And I know you’re doing a summary, but if I can just interject, that opening sequence with also the addendum of where we next meet Indiana Jones is a master class on how to start a movie. It is a master class.

Everything that the movie is about is going to happen in the first ten pages. The tone, the characters, their weaknesses, their strengths, their internal flaw, the promise of what the movie will be, the spirit of the adventure, the rules of the world — everything is not only packed in perfectly, but it’s packed in interestingly and dramatically. It is a master class on how to begin a movie.

**John:** Craig, how long do you think that opening sequence is? I have the answer.

**Craig:** From the logo turning into the mountain up until the point where he and Jocko, or Jock, fly away?

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** I would guess it is 4.5 minutes.

**John:** 13 minutes.

**Craig:** It’s 13 minutes? God, isn’t that incredible?

**John:** Isn’t that incredible? Really it’s amazing because you realize there’s actually quite a bit that happens here. So, as debates and things come up, I actually have it on my iPad so I will be able to tell you exactly how long things go.

**Craig:** Isn’t that amazing. Boy, that just… — Man, you know when you talk about page count, and how, you know, a lot of times you’ll get these notes, “Oh, it’s taking forever because it was 15 pages.” You know what? 15 pages goes by in the blink of an eye if they’re interesting. And two pages can be molasses forever if they’re not.

**John:** Yes. So, as we talk though this, and we’ll go back to the actual plot summary, but one of the reasons why I wanted to bring this up on the podcast today is I think this movie is fantastic. Everyone needs to watch it because it’s great and I love sort of every frame of it.

But, there is a lot of stuff that happens in this movie that if we were to do in a movie right now we would get criticized for. And that’s not saying that we’re right now and they were wrong then or vice versa. It’s just there’s a lot of stuff which actually doesn’t sort of fit the expectations of the kind of movie that we make now, which is ironic because is the template for all the kind of movies we make now.

When we talk about set pieces we’re really referring back to Raiders of the Lost Ark to a large degree. And so much of how it does its thing is different than how we would do it now.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And we would be called to the mat for some of the things that work great in Raiders.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, about 13 minutes in, the plane flies off into the sunset, and now we are back to visit Indiana Jones in his normal life as a university professor, to a really quick class, his archeology class. His students are in love with him. The girl has “I love you” on her eyelids. There is a weird little moment where the guy puts an apple on his desk, which I’ll talk about later on.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** There’s a scene with Brody, who is a museum curator who is essentially his boss. And Brody says the Army wants to meet with him. We then have quite a long scene where the two guys from the Army explain that the Nazis are looking for something. I’m actually giving the Wikipedia summary because it’s pretty complicated what actually happens in this scene.

So, the Army says that they’re looking for Abner Ravenwood, who is Indiana Jones’s old mentor. Ravenwood is the leading expert on the ancient Egyptian city of Tanis and possesses the headpiece of an artifact called the Staff of Ra. Indiana deduces that the Nazis are searching for Tanis because it is believed to be the location of the Ark of the Covenant, the biblical chest built by the Israelites to contain the fragments of the Ten Commandments; the Nazis believe that if they acquire it, their armies will become invincible. The Staff of Ra, meanwhile, is the key to finding the Well of Souls, a secret chamber in which the Ark is buried.

And that’s a huge mouthful and I think I want to circle back around to this later on to talk about how well Kasdan does this scene and how he keeps our hero driving the scene despite all the exposition that’s in there.

**Craig:** Again, a master class. I love that scene. Maybe it’s my favorite scene in the movie. And I’ll talk about why with you as well when we get to it.

**John:** So we’ll circle back and get to that. After that scene, which is a five-minute scene, there’s a quick moment back at Indiana Jones’s house where Brody says the Army has authorized his trip to go look for the Ark before the Nazis get there.

So, we’re at 22 minutes into the movie at this point. We’re in a seaplane to Nepal. We’ve got our first animated map. Also on that plane is the first time we see the Nazi dressed in black. There’s this Arnold Toht. “Tote” I think we’re supposed to pronounce it?

**Craig:** Toht (tote), which is essentially the German word for death.

**John:** Death, of course, perfect.

**Craig:** Although, his name is never mentioned in the movie.

**John:** Oh, how nice.

**Craig:** Yup, we only know that from afterwards from the credits. But no one ever says his name in the movie.

**John:** No. So, we are arriving into… — We know that Indy is going to Nepal, but interestingly here for the first time we break perspective and we have a scene with Marion Ravenwood, who is Abner’s daughter, and Indy’s former lover. And she’s in a drinking contest, another iconic moment that’s been quoted a lot of times, where it seems like she’s not going to be able to finish the shot, but then she finishes the shot and is able to drink the other.

I always just thought it was a man, but you watch it again, “Oh, it’s a woman.” She drinks the other person under the table. So, breaking perspective is an important thing that happens here because it establishes — well, we’ll say why it is important, but we do break perspective when we see things from only Marion’s point of view.

Indiana Jones arrives. He explains what he’s looking for. He says he’ll give her $3,000 for this headpiece, for the Staff. She says she’ll think about it. Indiana Jones leaves. Toht arrives. Toht wants the headpiece. He will torture her. Indiana Jones arrives and we have the second big set piece of the movie which is a big fight in this bar. Over the course of this fight the whole bar burns down. Toht get his hand burned on the blistering hot headpiece of the Staff.

Indiana Jones and Marion are safe and alive and Marion says, “I’m going to stick with you because I’m your goddamn partner.” So, they are going to be searching together for this next step of things. So, they still have the headpiece but they know the Nazis are onto it to.

This is 33 minutes into the movie. This is where we could argue is the end of the first act. You could also argue the end of the first act was flying off to Nepal, but this feels sort of more like that moment.

So, Indiana and Marion travel to Cairo where we meet Sallah, an old friend of Indy’s. He says that Belloq and the Nazis, led by Colonel Dietrich, they’re digging for the Well of Souls. And somehow they have a replica of the headpiece. And at this point it’s not established how they have a replica of the headpiece. But, we’re establishing this. We’re meeting Sallah’s family. We meet this charming little monkey who ends up being one of the most despicable creatures in cinema.

Next we have our third big set piece, which takes place in a bazaar. I’m not entirely sure quite what Indiana Jones and Marion are doing in the bazaar, maybe shopping for supplies for this trip I guess, sort of. But these Nazi operatives try to kidnap Marion. They want to get the Staff. They want to get the headpiece.

It ends up being a big giant fight and we have some other iconic moments that happen in here. We have a lot of comedy fighting; a lot of choreographed comedy fighting. We also have the classic Indiana-Jones-pulls-out-the-gun-and-shoots-the-sword-guy. A lot of moments that you really remember.

What I didn’t remember is that Marion dies in this sequence, or at least Indiana Jones thinks that Marion dies.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Following this there’s a short scene with Indiana Jones and Belloq where Belloq talks about their differences of philosophy. Indiana Jones starts to pull his gun. He’s just going to shoot him. All of Belloq’s men pull their guns on him. Indiana Jones is rescued by Sallah’s children who say, “Uncle Indy, Uncle Indy.” And for whatever reason these guys won’t kill the children, so the children escort Indiana Jones out. And he is safe at the moment.

With Sallah, Indiana Jones realizes that the Nazis have miscalculated the height of the Staff, the headpiece it’s supposed to be attached to, so therefore they’re digging in the wrong place, so they decide they need to go to the excavation site and find it for themselves.

They infiltrate that. They use the Staff of Ra to figure out the right place on this giant map of the building, of sort of the compound, whatever you call that place — the ruins. A nice little visual effects sequence there where they show the sun and the Staff and all of that working.

Along the way — and again, a moment I had forgotten — Indiana Jones actually finds Marion there tied up and realizes she’s still alive. And he leaves her there because he’s like, “Well, you’re going to get in the way, while the men folk need to go and find this place.”

While Sallah and Indiana Jones are excavating the real place and getting into the Well of Souls, we actually intercut. We intercut between them and Marion and Belloq who are having another drinking contest. And, again, I had forgotten sort of how all this worked. But there is actually quite a few scenes with Belloq and Marion during this time, sort of letting time pass as we’re cutting back and forth between them.

Down in the Well of Souls they find they Ark of the Covenant. And you’re like, “Wow, this is really kind of early in the movie to be finding the Ark of the Covenant,” but they do. They find it. They get it out of the Well of Souls, out of the hole, but Belloq is there, and the Nazis are there, and they are not going to let Indiana Jones out of there. He’s going to be trapped down there with a bunch of snakes. They throw Marion down there and they seem to be trapped down below.

Knocking over a statue, they’re able to escape the Well of Souls, and then we get into our fourth big set piece which is a fist fight on an air strip. We’ve got the giant Nazi mechanic. You have a plane flying around. You have Marion trapped inside. Classic sort of escalation of things and a lot of things blowing up.

That leads right into our fifth set piece which is Indiana Jones trying to chase down the truck that’s carrying the Ark of the Covenant and trying to stop it before it gets shipped to Berlin. He succeeds in doing that.

Indiana Jones and Marion leave Cairo on a pirate ship to take the Ark to England. It’s really vague about sort of whether they hook up and have sex or if he just falls asleep, but it’s a romantic moment.

The next morning their boat gets boarded by Belloq, Dietrich, and all the Nazis. They take the Ark back. They kidnap Marion. Indiana Jones stows away on their U-boat and follows them to this isolated island where Belloq’s plan is to test the Ark to make sure it works before taking it to Hitler. This is 96 minutes into the movie.

Indiana Jones disguises himself as one of the other Nazis. He has a rocket-propelled grenade; he’s going to blow up the Ark unless they release Marion. Belloq calls his bluff and says, “You won’t actually do it,” and he’s right. They take Indiana Jones, they tie him and Marion to a post. Belloq opens the chest, the Ark, a big visual effects sequence which was probably incredibly difficult at that time to do.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Indiana warns Marion not to look into the light, not to look into what’s actually happening. They survive. The Nazis all melt. And they survive.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Cut to back in DC. They say that the Ark is now someplace safe. Everything is okay and everything is going to be fine. Indiana Jones seems a little bit unsatisfied, but that’s the end of this part of the story. And the final sort of shot shows that the Ark has actually been loaded into a crate and is tucked into a warehouse never to sort of be opened again, at least for quite a long time.

And that’s our movie.

**Craig:** That is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Now, there is so much to discuss. So much beautiful writing in this. So much exciting writing. So much smart writing.

You and I should really have Larry on. One of the great blessings of my life is that I’ve come to know Larry Kasdan and he is an amazing guy. I love counting him as a friend because I do feel like Larry Kasdan is one of the giants of our craft. And I include all of it, from the beginning of making movies to now. The breadth of the films he’s written and directed are astonishing in their range.

This was one of his finest moments. Larry was kind enough to sign a poster for me because my son became obsessed with Raiders of the Lost Ark, as well he should have been. And I just want to talk through all of the wonderful things from a screenwriting point of view that Larry accomplished. And I want to also give George Lucas credit, because when you look at those transcripts of those early story sessions, there are moments that are breathtaking when you read it because — look, let me take step back on George Lucas:

Everybody gives this guy a hard time. You know, after Star Wars, you know, he made some movies, he was producing some movies, but the prequels came and everybody gives him crap. And the fourth Indiana Jones, everybody gives him crap. But you look at those story sessions and there are ideas coming out of him fully formed that are in the movie.

George Lucas says, “No, no, no, no. He should have a whip.” But Spielberg — and I’m sorry, I’m going to just ADD this for a little bit — Spielberg has a moment in those transcripts, if I’m remembering correctly, that is astonishing. He’s just sort of sitting along, going along with Larry and George. He’s tossing some ideas out; frankly, a bunch of them are bad.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** You’re thinking, “Gee, Steven Spielberg has some bad ideas.” Feet of clay, I’m heartbroken somehow. And then suddenly he goes, “Oh, I have a great idea,” which is always a weird thing to say to people because what if it’s not a great idea. He goes, “I have a great idea. When he’s in that temple he should set off a booby trap and there should be this enormous rolling boulder that comes after him. And he’s running and this thing is just right behind him.”

And you go, “Oh my god, he really did have a great idea, fully formed.” So much cool stuff went on in that story session. If you’re a screenwriter, you’ve got to read that stuff from start to finish. It’s amazing. But, anyway, do you want to go through the beginning? How do you want to do this?

**John:** Is there anything in the opening set piece that you want to talk through in more specific detail?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Because it’s really terrific.

**Craig:** Okay, so look. Putting aside the incredibly directorial flourishes that made that set piece what it is — you know, even the simplest thing, the very beginning of the Paramount mountain dissolving to an actual mountain, them moving through. The guy saying, “Poison. The Hovitos are nearby. It’s three days fresh.” There’s all this wonderful tension that’s growing and we don’t even see Indiana Jones’s face until someone turns on him. One of his own guys turns on him and tries to kill him. And Indiana whips the gun out of his hand.

And in that moment we learn so much already. We learn that, A) Indiana Jones is a badass guy. We learn that this is a movie where treachery is woven in already into the very fabric of it. Who do you trust?

And we also learn that he has this incredible skill of whipping things out of people’s hands. It’s such a wonderful way of doing it. You know, when we talk about stacking things, it’s a simple screenwriting error to say, “He’s really good with a whip; let’s show him whipping cans off a fence.” [laughs]

How about this? How about instead let’s show a moment of treachery and in that moment of treachery bake in this new information that this guy has this incredible ability to whip things out of your hands. But when they go in to that place, the people around him are running away. They literally don’t want to be near him anymore because he’s approaching someplace that is supernatural and evil to them. And Indiana Jones is completely unconcerned with that.

He is essentially a skeptic. He’s a scientist. He is there after an artifact because it belongs in a museum. And that right there, when those guys run away, is what this movie is about. Indiana Jones doesn’t believe. He instead — his passion for the items, the artifacts has eclipsed his faith in other things, in bigger things. So, that’s just baked right in there without anybody saying a word about it, which I loved. It’s all sub-textual.

There’s incredibly clever and exciting things that go on in that cavern, beautifully smart things like — and wonderfully when Indiana Jones is replacing the idol with the sand because he’s smart enough to know, smart enough to know, that you can’t just take it off that thing, which is also new information to us. He’s afraid.

So, we have now this other thing. He’s not afraid of whipping guns out of guys’ hands, but he is afraid of what the people who built this temple have designed, the way a scientist would be. He’s not afraid of the demons, he’s not afraid of the legends, he’s afraid that darts are going to shoot out or something is going to happen to kill him. Wonderful.

**John:** I would also clarify: He’s a skeptic but he’s a gambler. Because even at that moment where he’s using the sand to replace the idol, he’s guessing. I mean, he’s like a little bit more, a little bit less. I mean, he’s estimating, it’s like, “Yeah, this should probably do it.” and that’s a crucial thing for not only who this character is, but what this movie is around him.

This is a movie where he will sometimes get lucky, but he will sometimes get unlucky. And because you don’t know which way the coin is going to land in this movie, that keeps you engaged.

**Craig:** Yes. And he’s passionate. Because in this moment he knows enough to know this is very dangerous. He knows enough to know that he’s guessing. In fact, there’s that wonderful bit while he looks at the sand and decides, “No, I’m going to take some sand out,” which is a fatal error — he second guesses himself.

But his passion…

**John:** Well, Craig, we don’t necessarily know that. Maybe he actually needed to take more sand out. Maybe it was too heavy.

**Craig:** That’s true. It’s possible. He miscalculates one way or another, but his passion for the object overrules his sense of self-preservation. He has an obsession, which is very important when we start to talk about Belloq, because then wonderfully after he escapes that huge rolling ball, after we see that Satipo, his guide, played by Alfred Molina beautifully, is dead because of his stupidity. See, Indiana Jones is smarter than everybody. And other people are subject to greed where he is not.

After he escapes all of that, there’s Belloq. And Belloq is his shadow in the best possible way. Paul Freeman, I believe, is the actor, a wonderful actor. And he says, “Once again we see that there is nothing you can possess that I cannot take away.” And here, at last, we see the opposite of Indiana Jones; a guy that is ruthless and willing to kill because he has the same passion — he wants The Thing.

And what’s interesting is later we’re going to find out that these two men are very, very similar. In that wonderful scene in the bar after Indiana Jones is drinking himself to death because he thinks Marion is dead, here comes this guy who says, “These Nazis, that’s not me. I’m working with them because I have to. I don’t care about Nazis. I don’t care about any of this. I don’t even care about money. I want The Thing, just like you do. It’s just that I’m willing to go the extra step to get it.”

So, we have this wonderful villain setup, who is not a mustache-twirler, who isn’t motivated by anything different than Indiana is. He’s just more ruthless about it. And as Indiana Jones escapes, [laughs], we see that he’s definitely afraid of snakes. And what’s so smart about the way Larry did this is that it’s played as a joke. So, the joke is you just whipped a gun out of a guy’s hands, you just went through this death tunnel, you just escaped a rolling ball, you just ran away from a bunch of crazy Hovitos with their blow darts. But snakes are what gets you crazy. [laughs] That’s really cute.

And, of course, quietly setting up something big for later on. Wonderful sequence. Amazing.

**John:** Well, the snake moment, it’s the one last thing. So, you believe that you’re safe. You believe, like, we’re in the plane, the plane is taking off, and then you realize there are snakes. It’s that moment of like, “Okay, we’re actually here. It’s going to be okay.” And then the snake becomes the one more thing and that’s a terrific little moment.

**Craig:** Yeah. And a great little performance from Harrison Ford, as he’s running, and we’ve already established that hat, how important the hat is to him, which is a wonderful character touch. This is a man of specifics: His hat and his whip mean a lot to him. And he’s running and he’s got his hand on his hat so he doesn’t lose his hat. And there are all these people running behind him trying to kill him. And he’s, “Start the plane!” He’s screaming in total panic to start the plane.

And that humanity is why he’s funny. He is the opposite… — It’s funny. The inspiration for Raiders of the Lost Ark were all the wonderful serials of the ’50s, but those were the old school heroes, like Doc Savage. I don’t know if you’ve ever read any Doc Savage books when you were a kid?

**John:** No, I didn’t at all.

**Craig:** Doc Savage was this wonderful pulp fiction series. I think it was, I want to say ’30s and ’40s. I could be a little off there, but in that general zone. And a lot of what Indiana Jones is is inspired by Doc Savage who is this — Doc Savage, Man of Bronze. He was a brilliant guy. He was a doctor. He was a scientist. He was a surgeon. He was an inventor. He was strong. He wan tan. He was amazing. And he would go on these incredible adventures for artifacts and things and come back. But he was all hero. No fear, ever, the way that James Bond often had no fear.

And here’s this other side of it, of a very human person in the middle of all of it. So, you have in this entire sequence we’ve watched, what we’ve seen absorb on one level is excitement of booby traps, and scares, and thrills. But underneath it Larry has packed in this incredibly rich character that’s going to pay off huge.

**John:** Who is damaged, and afraid, and funny, and isn’t always right, which is so crucial.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, after this wonderful open set piece, which could be a movie in and of itself — if you could do that as a Pixar film, you could just make that its own movie, and like, “Oh, that’s a terrific little short.” That is all sort of packed up together. — we never see that idol again. We don’t care about that idol. It’s just a thing. It was just the topic of the first little movie.

Now we get onto our real A-plot of the film, which is back at the university. We have a very perfunctory kind of teaching of a class scene. And so he’s talking, you know, it’s just enough lines of dialogue to let us know that he actually does have undergraduate students. That he really is a professor. That he’s not just this wild adventurer and he actually can teach a class, and he can wear glasses. And it’s acknowledged that even in this world everyone does find him attractive, so that’s helpful.

**Craig:** And yet he’s incredibly modest and oblivious.

**John:** Yes. But then we get to our real showcase scene, which is the Army has come to talk to him about Hitler and everything else and sort of setting up; once you sort of bring Hitler into it you know, “Okay, well there’s the plot.” Once Hitler’s name gets mentioned we know that there’s actually some real serious stuff at stake.

So, what I found so interesting about — and I really do want to focus on story rather than staging — but this moment, this scene in which the Army comes and talk to him, it’s something that could take place in a little small office, but instead it’s staged in this very big lecture hall, really huge, like 15 times the size of the room you actually need to stage it in. I think largely so because Spielberg recognizes like, “Man, we’re in here for a very long time and I need to be able to move around this space and give some air to this.”

So, it’s very smartly done, directorial-wise, but just in its writing. You look at all the moments that Kasdan has found for Jones to really be leading the conversation, even though the other people are coming in with the challenge and the quest, he’s the one that actually has the information that can get us moving along. He’s the one that actually knows what the city of Tanis is. He is the one who knows this guy. He’s the one who knows what the Staff is and what it’s supposed to be doing, and that you put the Staff in and light goes through it.

He’s setting up so much stuff that seems so important for the back half of the movie, including what actually happens when you open up the Ark. He’s showing us the picture of what this is going to be so we know the stakes of what’s really involved here.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** It’s really an amazing sequence.

**Craig:** It really is. And leading up to it, as they’re walking into this auditorium, Denholm Elliott, who plays the curator of the museum and is sort of like Indy’s boss. And he’s saying, “I had it. I had it in my hands. God, I can get it back. I can get it back.” You see his singular obsession over this item. And Denholm Elliott is saying, “It’s okay. Don’t worry about that. And, yes, we’ll buy the other things, but just don’t worry.” This guy is saying, “I’m worried about you.” Without saying I’m worried about you he’s saying, “You’re obsessed over the wrong things.”

And then they enter this auditorium and I agree with you. At first you’re like, “Why do we need this huge room?” And I think part of it, not only aesthetically is it nice to be in this big room, but what is going to be discussed in here needs to be in a big room, because what is discussed in here is of enormous importance. It is metaphysical. It’s cosmological.

And we learn more in this scene than just the details. We also learn what ultimately is the hinge of the character piece of this movie. These CIA agents are saying, “We have a problem. We think that Hitler is looking for this thing. And we are concerned that if he gets it he could use it as a weapon.” Whether they know it or not, the CIA agents are believers. They’re believers because maybe they’re just paranoid and they need to believe everything just in case something turns out that way. They’re very sort of dispassionate and calculating.

Denholm Elliott, on the other hand, Indy’s boss, you can tell is more of a believer. Because like Indy, he’s an expert; he knows that this Ark is tremendously powerful and of great significance and in an evil man’s hands could be something terrible.

But not Indiana Jones. And this is why this scene is so amazing to me. He starts talking with great passion about the Staff of Ra. He starts explaining it. And we are into it because he’s into it. His passion sells us. And this is an important lesson for those of you who are looking to get through exposition — make somebody care. Because what we’ll latch onto is their passion. It’s less about the details; it’s their passion that we love. And he’s talking about the objects and the trick of it, and Tanis. I mean, he and Denholm, they found Tanis. They get so excited because this is the obsession of the object for him.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** But when the CIA agents look at this picture in the book that Indiana shows them of the Israelites carrying the Ark, the open Ark, and this wonderful image of power shooting out of it. They say, “What’s this?” And suddenly Indiana Jones loses interest entirely. And this, to me, it’s the best moment in the movie. He goes, I don’t, something like — I’m paraphrasing — something like, “Lightning, thunder, power of God,” or something. He doesn’t believe it at all. To him, that is hokey baloney.

That’s not what this is about. Hitler is after that. The CIA is worried about that. Denholm Elliott is worried about. But not Indiana Jones. All Indiana Jones wants is The Thing.

**John:** Yeah. He sees it as an opportunity rather than a crisis.

**Craig:** Yes. So great. It’s so great.

**John:** Going back to this moment of exposition, and it’s such a crucial lesson that the things that are said in this story, like the important story points, like my little Wikipedia summary, the CIA people could have known a lot of that ahead of time. They could have found out other stuff and they could be telling this to Jones’s character. It wouldn’t work at all.

And it’s because our hero knows this information, and our hero that we like and trust and believe can speak with authority on this topic that we’re listening to it. If another person came in and delivered this information, we wouldn’t care and you would cut most of it out, or you’d cut the whole scene out. You’d reshoot it somehow because it just wouldn’t work.

You certainly couldn’t sustain five minutes of it if it were someone else telling you all this information.

**Craig:** Quite right. And the other thing that that accomplishes is it makes us understand, without saying a word, why they want him to do it. Why this guy? Because he knows and we don’t.

**John:** I will say, just stepping out of this specific movie for a moment, I don’t think even Kasdan could get away with this scene right now. I think at its length it would be under such a microscope for how much stuff is put in this scene. They would ask you to break this into two moments, or just to not let it be this. Or, “Can we walk to a new place while we’re doing this?” Because it does — just looking at it on the page, not seeing it shot — you say like, “Well that’s just too much. That’s just too long. That’s too long of a scene.”

Which is unfortunate, because there are reasons why movies should have some scenes that are setup this way. It’s great.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s why they are wrong. And this is why we talk a lot about what is the ideal way to develop a screenplay and make a movie. And I’ve said “writer and director, writer and director, writer and director.” Because what a writer and director know is the proper relationship between what’s on the page and what will be on the film. And it’s very hard sometimes for other people to see that.

They know that this is going to be delivered passionately. They know that there is going to be drama inherent to this conversation. They know that the theme of the movie and the character’s — call it flaw — or his stasis that’s going to change is all gorgeously buried in this wonderful stuff. They know it. And a lot of times other people who don’t make movies, who literally sit and write them and then shoot them, don’t know.

And, so, how did you get away with this back then? Because you had Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Larry Kasdan. And they said, “We’re making it this way and that’s the way we’re making it.” And that’s it.

**John:** Yeah. Done.

**Craig:** And that’s the way it should be now. And, by the way, I’m not saying to our studio friends who are listening to this, “Therefore you should just trust every threesome of yokels in your office to do stuff.” No. But try and work with Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan as much as you can, [laughs], because when you have guys that know what they’re doing, and they’re excited about something, trust that — trust that passion. It will work out.

**John:** Yeah. A scene I’d forgotten until I rewatched it this week, there’s actually a quick scene after this at Indiana Jones’s house.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Which we never go back to in the whole rest of the movie. Brody says that the Army has authorized the trip. And so we have basically just Indy packing and wearing a robe. And it’s an odd little scene, and it’s a scene that you think you could cut out. What’s crucial about it is it establishes that Marion Ravenwood exists, and that’s Ravenwood’s daughter, and that they have a history.

And we also see Indiana Jones tosses in his gun into the suitcase. It’s not my favorite scene of the whole movie, but it’s a helpful scene to sort of establish that Marion Ravenwood exists and in a scene from now we’re going to be spending time with her and that’s who this woman is.

**Craig:** Yeah. And what I do like, I mean, granted, in terms of everything we’ve seen up to that point, it’s like, okay, that’s just a regular scene. But, again, smartly what it does is it creates an anticipation that they’re going to better, which I always like. Let the audience think they’re going to get the same old meat and potatoes and then give them great meat and potatoes. They’re really just setting up that there is — that this relationship, that he has to actually go talk to the one person he really didn’t want to talk to, and it’s a woman. And they had a romantic past. And you go, “Okay, that’s going to be whatever.”

But when we meet her we realize it’s actually so much tougher than that, which is wonderful. And that’s where we go next.

**John:** Yeah. The other reason why I think the scene may actually help the movie, even though it’s not a phenomenal scene by itself, is it is short. And we’ve come out of such a very long scene that if we went directly into the Marion sequence in Nepal, which is also a very long sequence, we’re like, “Ah!” like everything just seems very long.

It’s nice to break up the rhythms a little bit, to have a nice little small moment here.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, we’re going from here to the seaplane to Nepal, which is a completely new environment. And what I like about this movie is it doesn’t double back on itself. Once we sort of hit the road, we are on the road, and we’re going to get back to home at the very, very end, but once the road trip starts we’re on the road the whole time through.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** We get to Nepal. The first time we break perspective — and this is a really crucial thing. Up until this point in the movie every scene has been driven by Indiana Jones. We’ve not had a scene in which other people are leading it. We’ve had the cutaway to Jock at the plane like fishing, but that’s like five seconds before Indiana Jones is running to him.

This is a whole scene being driven by a character we’ve never seen before. And the first time you choose to do that in a movie is really important because it’s putting a lot of weight on this person. And she is the white, beautiful, English speaking person, and we clearly know that she is an important person because she’s getting to drive the scene all by herself.

And so that was an important choice to make. Because you could have just, like, had Indiana Jones walk into the bar and find her there. And by giving her her own moment ahead of time, it greatly elevates her position.

There’s a movie you and I both helped out on a little bit that exactly that discussion came up. It turns a movie from being a one-hander into a two-hander if you early on establish that someone else has the power to drive scenes by herself.

**Craig:** That’s right. And it’s so important here because Marion Ravenwood, what we come to understand without them ever spelling it out, and again Larry is so good at this, is that the problem between the two of them ultimately is that Indiana Jones had an issue seeing this person as a person but as that Thing — his obsession over things.

The deal with Indiana Jones is he becomes obsessed with these things and sees them as thing-ness but doesn’t see necessarily what’s so important about them. He has a problem putting his faith in things. And you can tell when they do — from the bits and pieces of the story you put together — that he just didn’t love her the way he should have.

And what’s so nice about this scene is that it presents her as somebody worthy of that kind of affection. So, she is beautiful and she’s special, and she’s also formidable.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** I mean, the way we meet her, screenwriters are constantly — constantly — trying to “how do I meet somebody in an interesting way, so not just buying groceries.” That first moment I see somebody should tell me something about them. Well, god, did they nail this one! She is a beautiful woman who is strong as an ox. She is going to be tough.

And he wants something from her. So, you know, we know he’s going to get something from her, and then the next thing Spielberg and Kasdan show us is, “Good luck, because she is tough.”

**John:** We also know that she’s damaged though. No undamaged woman owns a bar in Tibet. There’s backstory there. And even though we’re not going to get all the backstory, we get a sense that something has put her here in life, and that’s interesting, too.

Even though in the movie we don’t really explore all that much backstory on her, we feel like she existed before this scene started, which is crucial.

**Craig:** Great point. Because a lot of times what we run into is this problem, well, what’s going on in this person’s life that they can just pick up and go on and adventure with a guy? And here they use that to their advantage. She is hidden away from the world. She could leave this place any time she wants. The whole point is she’s hiding from things.

So, now her decision to go with him is an active choice that relates to her prior choices. It’s not simply an, “Oh my god, a handsome man came here. I think I’ll go with him somewhere.”

**John:** Yeah. Now, there’s a moment here I don’t love as much. Basically she says, “Well, I’ll think about it.” And he says basically, “I want the headpiece. I’ll give you $3,000.” She’s like, “I’ll think about it.” And then it reveals that she actually does have it and she’s thinking about it.

The evil Nazi arrives. Toht arrives with some thugs and is going to torture it out of her. And Jones returns. And it’s a little bit of a false exit. I do wonder whether in the development there was something more given to like where he was in this interim moment. It works fine, because we sort of know he’s going to come back at some point and probably save her, but it is a strange little moment for me that as I watched it again this last week I was like, “Huh, that was a little bit of a stutter step there.”

**Craig:** Well, maybe I’m just so deep into my hero worship of this movie that I excuse everything. But for me what I always liked about that moment was that this guy hurt her. And he’s offering her something, and he’s offering her something connected to her father, because it was her father’s medallion. And it’s something that means something to her and she doesn’t believe, or know, that she can really trust him because of what he’s done to her. So, it was rational.

Granted, his return is convenient.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** On the other hand, it is proof positive to her that perhaps Indiana Jones is trustworthy now.

**John:** Yeah. This fight in the bar, this set piece, is really terrifically done. And it has a lot of comedy and it has a lot of sort of those slap-sticky kinds of moments, but there’s also a lot of like people taking knives. And there’s a fair amount of blood in it, too. And the whole bar is burning down. It’s a great escalation. It’s really well-choreographed and establishes that this is the kind of movie where people are going to get into fisticuffs. They did a great job of it.

**Craig:** Fisticuffs and death. The stakes of this movie aren’t soft-shoed, you know, or soft-pedaled. And there’s that one wonderful bit where the guy dies and all the blood spills out of his mouth and he keels over in this bar. And you realize that the movie is not pulling punches. This stuff is for real. It just makes everything seem so much more exciting.

There was a time when studio movies weren’t so shy about real violence. And that really kind of blossomed in the ’70s as a reaction to the soft-pedaled, fake, cartoon violence of movies that had existed prior. And you can see that continuing here. That’s the thing, interestingly, when I watch the movie now where I think that’s what they would have the biggest problem with today.

I mean, look at Spielberg’s movies, or even the movies he produces like Transformers. There’s no blood in Transformers, you know? It’s a bloodless action because there’s this fear that somehow this will turn people off when, in fact, in the right context it’s incredibly dramatic and effective.

**John:** From here, the bar burns down. She says, “I’m your goddamn partner.” And so they’re going to be traveling together to Cairo which is our next big set piece.

It’s interesting when we get to Cairo, it’s sort of like a “let’s catch our breath and have a nice little happy moment.” And so it’s Sallah with his family and the charming little monkey. And there’s opportunity there that we could get into a lot of exposition and sort of talking about the A-plot, and we decide not to. And so instead it’s sort of a happy moment.

Then we go out into the street and we very quickly get into our next set piece which is the big fight in the streets of Cairo, the classic sword fighting. There’s just a lot of terrific detail work in here, but again, very much in a comedy perspective, like hiding in baskets.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And it’s much funnier than you remember it being.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. I mean, the idea of that whole sequence is fun, you know. The bar sequence was dangerous. Toht is a dangerous man who is threatening to torture here. And the death in there is very real and bloody. And then this suddenly is fun. And that’s okay because the importance of that sequence to me is we’ve left our old world behind. We’ve now entered this new world of mystery and we don’t want to just completely blow our wad by going crazy.

Again, that’s not what this movie is about. It’s about adventure and it’s about treachery. And this is really where we get that next wave of treachery. The monkey can’t be trusted. No one can be trusted.

**John:** Yes. The monkey will give a Heil Hitler salute which is just…

**Craig:** Genius.

**John:** …wonderful and bizarre. And it’s absurd and yet it largely makes sense within the context of the movie. And the tone of the movie is pushed enough towards comedy that you can accept that like, well, this happens in this kind of movie. And that’s okay. That little monkey; like to make me want a monkey to die, a charming little monkey to die. I mean, you write movies with monkeys.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** To actually make the movie where you hope that the monkey dies is a strange feat, but they do it for you.

**Craig:** Yeah. We made a character out of a monkey. I mean, the monkey in Hangover II is definitely a psychopath. I don’t even think it’s in the movie. I think we cut it out, but there was line — it was always one of my favorite lines — where after the monkey gets shot Alan says, “Oh, no! They shot the monkey!” And Phil turns around and goes, “Who cares? He’s a drug-dealing piece of shit.” [laughs]

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** Which is true. And I think we might have cut it out because people really did love the monkey anyway. But, I like bad monkeys. And this monkey is truly the king of all. He’s the Godfather of bad monkeys.

**John:** Yeah. He also seems to actually understand English. It’s not just that he can follow commands; he’s actually like listening and like sort of doing — he’s far, far, far too smart, and yet it actually kind of works in the context of the movie.

Again, a thing I’d forgotten until I watched it this week is that Indy does believe that Marion is killed because he sees the truck that had the basket he thinks has her blow up. And he believes that she’s dead for a moment. And then he gets a really great little quick scene with Belloq to talk about their differences in philosophy which is, again, a moment you love to be able to find because it’s so challenging to find moments of which your hero and your villain can talk in a meaningful way about something and yet still believe that they can have a rational conversation and wouldn’t just kill each other immediately.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, the notion — I often think about second acts as heroes starting to see glimpses of another way of living their lives. And those glimpses can be challenging and they challenge their central belief of how the world is on their way to eventually realizing, “No, this is how I should live. This is the way the world is.”

And here in this moment where Marion gets killed, we see Indiana Jones coming face to face with the fact that he might care about something more than just its objectness. That there maybe is more to life than a Thing. That perhaps he should even go home because there is something that is more important than finding this object of desire.

So, it’s a brilliant little thing to do to his character because he doesn’t abandon the quest, but he is knocked back on his heels and almost surprised by the depth of his own emotion about it.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s talk about the next two set pieces because one of the things I think that writers often get sort of perplexed about is like, “Well, how much do we need to focus on plot versus how much to focus on sort of big set pieces?”

As you look through the transcript they really were thinking about set pieces. And, yes, they were thinking about story and they were thinking about sort of what leads to what leads to what. But they were also talking about what are the big set pieces. What are the action pieces that sort of can build in here? And there are things that didn’t make it in here, like a coal mine chase that made it into the next movie.

You do think about those things sort of as packages. And the next two packages in this movie is the big fistfight on the airstrip, and the plane spinning around, and then the chase where he’s chasing down the truck on horseback, which is just beautifully done, and the whole truck sequence.

You really have to think about these things the same way if you were making a musical you would think about, “Where does the song go?” and “Where is the dancing?” because they are these big moments. And they need to — they’re going to be complete little packages in and of themselves. And you can take any one of these little set pieces and break out it out as its own little short film and it has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It has escalation over the course of it.

And think about these little moments. And sometimes they do slide around as you’re figuring out where the movie goes, but you can’t make this Indiana Jones without this set piece. It just doesn’t make sense.

**Craig:** Right. It’s true. And, again, what I appreciate about that stuff, because to me… — Look, there are a lot of movies that have amazing set pieces. For instance, The Island, the Michael Bay movie, has one of the best car chases I’ve ever seen in my life. It’s stunning. The problem ultimately is that we didn’t quite care enough about the characters and the situation before or after it to raise it to the level of Oh My God.

But here what happens before that stuff is, again, keying off of this notion that Indiana Jones’s life view is being rattles is he’s now forced to make choices. He comes into the tent and he finds Marion there. And he makes a choice to not just leave with her, but to go get the thing.

He’s struggling, [laughs], even when he finally — and then she gets thrown into the pit with him. When they escape, and that’s always a wonderful thing when characters are essentially sent to their death and die, and then escape. You know, so that’s the moment where he dies in the movie to me. And he is reborn when he comes out.

Something inexorably has changed in him. He still pursues the object, but that experience with Marion, you just know something has changed inside this guy. If he started this journey obsessed about an item, now there is this woman who is now on equal footing with the item. He is being torn between the two. And it becomes very important as you proceed through.

**John:** Yeah. Going back to his burial moment there, I think one of the crucial things that you have to remember as the writer is you want to make things as difficult for your characters as possible at all times. And so, you know, sealing him into that chamber, which there’s absolutely no way that he can escape from, is a good thing because you should make things absolutely impossible. If they had established earlier on that there was some other way out of there, it wouldn’t be meaningful at all, because it wouldn’t have resonance to us.

But the fact that we know it’s just that awful that he’s in there makes it exciting, makes it thrilling, makes it have real weight to it. And so, again, the way they figure out to break out of it is really, really clever and is believable in the course of the world, but it’s great that we didn’t have any inkling that it was possible beforehand.

**Craig:** Right. And in that moment, when they put them in there, first of all we have the wonderful deliciousness that it’s full of snakes, thousands and thousands of snakes. So, we’ve taken his tiny nightmare and blown it up to absurdity. So, our fear in watching this is not just the fear of the circumstances of fake skeletons and snakes. It’s our sympathetic fear with the character who’s afraid, which is wonderful.

The other thing that’s so smart is when it comes time to put Marion in there, Belloq doesn’t want to put her down there. The Nazis put her down there, if I’m remembering correctly.

**John:** You are remembering absolutely correctly.

**Craig:** And that tells us, too, again, that these two men have something in common. And what we start to feel when we see movies where heroes and villains share obsession is that the hero is not so much fighting a person to just get a thing; they’re fighting themselves. Belloq is Indiana Jones. The whole thing of fighting Belloq all the way though is just an externalization of what he’s fighting in himself.

**John:** I agree. And by finding those sort of small moments where a character who you despise — Belloq — you feel like this little glimmer of sympathy for him, for just a moment, as they throw Marion in. It’s like, oh, well I feel — I mean, obviously I feel much worse for her, but it’s like, “Oh, they’re even dicks to him,” is sort of a great change.

**Craig:** Yes. And his regret is the sort of diminished regret. It’s lacking the humanity of Indiana Jones’s regret when he thinks Marion dies. His regret is, “Ooh, that’s a shame. That’s a waste of a beautiful thing.”

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** You know, and I love that. Because Indiana was drinking himself to death because that was a waste of beautiful human that he loved. And that’s where these two guys are different. And that’s where Indiana Jones is separately himself from Belloq, which is wonderful.

**John:** Yes. So, I just looked through on my copy of it. And so the truck sequence is a nine-minute sequence. It’s a big, hefty chunk of your movie. And so, so often you think about like, “Well, it’s just one little note card on the board.” Like, “Oh, there’s the truck sequence.” That’s a tremendous amount of movie taking place there. And so there’s not a lot of A-plot story happening there. It starts at a place and it goes to a place, and in the course of the big movie there’s not a lot that actually happens there.

But, in terms of the experience of watching the movie, that’s one-twelfth of your movie is just that truck sequence. And it’s a beautifully done sequence. And, a lot of things which I guess we’ve seen excerpted so many other times since then about sort of how people get onto and off of vehicles and that stuff, but it’s so smartly done.

And evenly the climbing onto the front of the truck. And so you’ve seen Indiana Jones do it, and then you see the other guy try to do the same thing and have the different outcomes, when you jump in with both feet through the window, how that works. You see Indiana Jones get shot in it. Like he gets shot and actually really hurt. And he gets punched in the same arm where he got shot before.

There are very specific details and you really feel it because, wow, that would really hurt a lot. It’s just incredibly smartly done.

**Craig:** It’s an amazing sequence. And as a kid I think it was one of the most formative things for me. When I look back at what influenced me and how I write things now, when I write comedy, when I write action comedy, I’m always thinking back in a weird way to that sequence, not so much for the mechanics of the car chase itself, which is gorgeously done, but for the human rhythm that’s going on.

And the human rhythm of that scene is this: “I gotcha now. Oh no, you got me now. Oh no, I got you now.” So, there’s this wonderful ebb and flow of confidence, and it becomes most clear when it’s Indiana Jones versus the one guy who knocks him through the windshield. Indiana Jones goes over the hood, goes underneath the car. Manages with that kind of incredible homage to the great…Yakima…

**John:** Being dragged by the horse, yeah.

**Craig:** What’s his name, the great stuntman?

**John:** I don’t remember his name either. The being-dragged-guy, yeah.

**Craig:** Being dragged by horses and stuff. And so they’re doing this amazing homage to him going under the truck. He comes back around. He beats that guy — he knocks him through the thing and now we laugh because that guys is in the same spot. [laughs] It’s so great. And so that kind of, the kind of switching of control in those situations is why those sequences are so much fun for me because that, again, it just connects back to what’s human.

And I think sometimes in modern action they forget that because they become obsessed with the stuff, you know, the noise and the light.

**John:** One of the also great moments is about two-thirds of the way through the sequence they show the back of the truck and you realize that, “Oh that’s right, I forgot there’s other Nazis in the back of that truck.” And there’s a shot of them looking, “Wait, should we do something now?” And so they start to climb on the outside of the truck. And you realize that Jones doesn’t have a count of how many people are actually in the back of the truck, so he’s not expecting that they’re going to be jumping in on him, too. It’s a great sort of, you know, another escalation. Like, “Oh yeah, we forgot about that thing.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And it was great that you did not remind us about them until it was actually useful to remind us about them. And it’s very smartly done.

You love movies where the minor characters are doing smart things, and they’re actually doing reasonably smart things and getting hurt in the process.

Coming to the end of the sequence, I will confess that I got a little frustrated that Jones conveniently knew exactly where to drive the truck and have people hide him away. I’m glad he escaped. It felt a little wonderfully convenient that he could do that.

But, he got through the sequence and it was terrific and we all clapped. It was a big sort of flourish at the end. And it’s like a button. It’s a nice little “and now the sequence is done.” The curtain can come down now. The curtain will rise as we’re aboard this sort of pirate steamer tramp ship theoretically headed towards London.

**Craig:** And take note for those of you who decide to go back and watch this movie: The scene at the dock when he’s talking to Sallah, and the pirate captain, and arranging for transportation and then Marion kisses Sallah, there’s one very long take that Spielberg does there. And just about everybody else would have covered it traditionally. And he just does it in this wonderfully old-school wide shot with this great tracking bit that allows him to change the perspective of where the camera is from whose point of view to whose point of view.

It must have taken forever to block. It’s gorgeous. It’s like a…I’m giving Larry a ton of praise, and he deserves it. I also want to give Spielberg, who I think is incredible. I think Spielberg is just unreal. And what Spielberg does there directorially is, again, a master class on how to stage a scene in a way that you wouldn’t normally think about doing.

**John:** Yeah. It seems really weird to say that Spielberg is underrated, but watching this movie again I was like, “Oh yeah, he’s kind of underrated.” Like, if something terrible had happened and he weren’t alive for the last 15 years, you’d go back to these movies and like, “Oh my god, he was a genius,” and it’s absolutely true.

He’s done amazing things since then, too, but you just look at this early work and you’re like, “Wow, he really is fantastic. There’s a reason why he’s Steven Spielberg.”

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t know if he’s underrated as much as he’s taken for granted.

**John:** That’s a better way to say it.

**Craig:** It’s like, “Well, we’ve always had Spielberg and he’s always done that Spielberg thing. And thanks for those great Spielberg movies, Spielberg. But what am I supposed to do? Applaud for you? That’s what you do, you’re Spielberg.”

Yeah, you’re supposed to applaud for him because it’s really, really hard. And he’s incredible. He is singular. I just think… — I met him once, [laughs], and it was so surreal for me. You must have met Spielberg.

**John:** Well, I made three movies. I worked with him a lot of times.

**Craig:** Oh, you did, which one?

**John:** So, Steven Spielberg was attached to Big Fish originally. He was attached to Big Fish for a year, and so I did development with him. I did work on Minority Report with him. And then I did Jurassic Park III for him.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s right, I forgot, of course, Jurassic Park III. Well, look, you’ve had this wonderful experience. I’m super jealous. I just think he’s incredible. Just incredible.

**John:** He was one of my last sort of star-struck moments in the sense of I remember during the second Charlie’s Angels, or no, I’m sorry, during the first Charlie’s Angels it looked like Spielberg might sign onto Big Fish and so I said, “Hey, McG, is it okay if I use your office because I need to take a phone call.” And he’s like, “Oh, yeah, it’s fine.” And so I took it and he’s like, “Oh, who were you with?” I’m like, “Oh, Steven Spielberg.” And you can see — it was just so much fun to be able to say, “I have a phone call with Steven Spielberg.”

And just being so nervous on that phone call. And he was lovely. He’s great. He’s wonderful.

**Craig:** I just think the world of him. Anyway, so they get on the boat, and then, you know, this boat thing to me is — you know, sometimes studio executives or producers will say the following without understanding really what the point is. They’ll say, “Well, and then there’s this low point.”

The low point isn’t always, and this is to me the end of the second act, and the low point isn’t always, “Oh boo-hoo me.” For me, the low point is the character has lost his way. The character is separated from the confidence that they had in the beginning of the movie that this is the way the world is and this is who I should be. They have not yet, however, gotten to a place that they will eventually get to where they have a reformulation of, “This is the way the world is and this is how I think I should be.”

They are trapped between two things. Indiana Jones at this point is with Marion. She is kissing him. And he, in a sense, is — this is the point where he’s not sure. Am I supposed to be with her, or am I supposed to be with my thing?

**John:** Well, and very quickly he gets to pursue them both because the Nazis are going to come and they’re going to take both of them away from him. And that is very classically the worst of the worst moment that’s happening at 96 minutes into the movie, kind of exactly where you would hope for it to happen.

What I do find interesting is watching the movie again you realize how early he actually gets the Ark. Considering that the movie’s name for the quest to get this Ark, he actually has it in his possession quite early on in the movie. It just keeps getting taken away from him.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And it’s, again, a thing that I think development notes would say like, “Oh, he shouldn’t actually find the Ark until the very end of the movie because that’s the quest.” It’s like, well, that’s actually not going to be how it works. That’s not the point.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. And that’s my problem with treasure hunt movies is that what you get in the end is treasure. Whoop-Dee-Doo.

See, that’s why I love the way they did this. And they had to give him the Ark in the middle of the movie because you need this moment when it’s taken away from him with her. And you said it perfectly. The Nazis take both of the things he wants. And now he’s going to go through this super human U-boat riding experience, and we’re not sure who he’s after exactly. He’s not sure who he’s after. That’s what is so wonderful about it. That’s why it has to be this way.

In the end we don’t care about treasure. We care about people.

**John:** Yeah. So, ultimately he’s going to steal this rocket launcher. He has a moment where he has them pinned to this little rocky valley and he says, “Let go of the girl or I’ll blow up the treasure.” So basically it seems like he’s made his choice.

**Craig:** He’s made his choice.

**John:** Yes. But, of course, Belloq is able to — like, “I know you will not actually destroy this thing, this precious artifact.” And he hesitates and ultimately does not fire. And then he gets taken from behind by the other Nazis.

I will say, again, in watching this this last week, I wasn’t completely sold on his little moment there, but I think it was a very nice idea for like this is the choice he’s made. It seems, like, “Okay, well I’ve got you pinned here.” He had the upper hand and realizes when he actually has it in his sights that he can’t do it.

**Craig:** Well, he can’t do it for a couple of reasons. First, let’s remember something important that happens right before the sequence, before he gets on the U-boat, while he’s having his moment in his bunk with Marion on the boat, Spielberg cuts to a shot of the crate that the Ark is in — the crate the Nazis had used to package it. And there’s this wonderful base rumbling sound. A rat keels over and dies. And the Nazi symbol is obliterated by essentially a spreading burn.

And we realize, oh god, it’s real. It’s not just a chest. [laughs] The stuff in the beginning, remember that wonderful scene in the auditorium where he was like, “I don’t know, thunder, lightning, the power of god or something.” Yeah. Power of god. It’s real.

But Indiana Jones doesn’t know that which is important. You don’t want to have your character see evidence of something he must demonstrate faith in. Very important.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** When he gets out there on the cliff he’s going to blow it up, “Let her go or I’ll blow it up,” and Belloq is saying, “No. I’m not going to let her go. If you blow it up you’re going to kill her, too. You’re going to kill all of it.” And he says to him, “You and I are just passing through history. This — this is history.”

And in the moment when Indiana Jones lowers the thing, he’s not just saving Marion from being obliterated. You might think, “Well, oh, is he saving the Ark?” No, because Belloq has the Ark. What he is finally doing in that moment is giving himself over to the fact that this is not just an object. He is demonstrating faith that this is actually something bigger.

In a weird way, it’s a faith that Belloq has always had because, you know, minutes later when Belloq is preparing to open up the Ark, his Nazi cohort is saying, “I’m a little uncomfortable with this Jewish ritual.” But Belloq is completely into the Jewish ritual because Belloq is a believer. It’s just that Belloq is an immoral believer. He’s willing to do anything ruthlessly to get to the power inside. And now Indiana Jones is a believer, and that’s when he’s switched over. It’s pretty remarkable.

**John:** Yeah. Now, the actual opening of the Ark releases big gruesome visions of the angels of death. There’s wonderful melting. It’s terrific. One could criticize that our actual hero has very little to do in this sequence…

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** …other than to say, “Oh, just don’t look at it.” Oh, that’s a good choice. But you have to say that his hero’s quest, and his arc, has been to get him to that place, and to be the person who doesn’t get melted by god because he’s smart enough to know what not to do.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, they seem like they’re tied up like they’re sacrificial people there, but they’re actually not sacrificed and it’s all the evildoers are put away.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s the moment where he expresses the faith. When he tells Marion, “Shut your eyes,” he is saying, “I now believe that there is the power of god in this thing. That this is not an object. And if I believe in the power of god then I believe, in fact, that things like you and me are more important than a chest.”

And so that is the choice he makes. I know people will say, “Well he’s just, it’s a weird thing; your hero is tied up and he’s just passive.” He’s incredibly passive; he can’t even move his feet. He shuts his eyes, which is a huge deal in a way when you think back to where the movie started. And that’s what’s so wonderful about this, and frankly, is a lesson for those who are developing screenplays and writing screenplays who run into a kind of cookie-cutter objection to something like that. You need to articulate why it matters. And you need to articulate why in a subtle, interesting, different way the character actually is being active, and in fact is defying everything that’s led up to this point in his life.

It’s wonderful. It’s the best. Love it.

**John:** That said, I would recommend that if you have your own movie and you end at a place where your hero and the girl are tied up and a terrible event is happening right next to them, that’s been done. So, maybe don’t do exactly what Raiders of the Lost Ark did.

**Craig:** Oh, for sure, yeah.

**John:** I wouldn’t use, like, “Raiders does it” as a defense to do exactly that same kind of thing. Because, I did feel some frustration there, even though I loved and enjoyed the movie, this wasn’t my most favorite spot. And I don’t have a better solution for this moment, but it wasn’t my most favorite thing of all.

You would love to see him make a choice at that moment. And his choices were sort of taken away from him. He was able to make a choice in not destroying it a few beats earlier, but, yeah, that’s…

**Craig:** Yeah. He makes a choice not to destroy it, and he makes a choice to believe. And, granted, those are not action choices. On the other hand, the movie had so pumped action into that point that in a weird way it’s hard to imagine any action at that moment trumping what had come before. It’s almost like now we come to the place in Indiana Jones where daring do and hijinks and bravery are not what is required. What is required now is faith in something larger, the very thing you never had.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** But, I grant you it is an incredibly unorthodox choice. I think it works amazingly personally.

**John:** Yeah. Our last sequence sort of harkens back to the — it’s a joke but it’s also sort of the serial nature of what this is, and I think also very smartly feeds into the acknowledgment that this also the same time that they were building the nuclear bomb. Because the whole establishment of, like, this is the mission and Hitler is working on this thing, the parallels for this obviously are that Hitler is doing this thing, but that’s really talking about the A-bomb. It’s talking about the nuclear research.

So, it’s so fascinating that at the end of this story it’s like we’re going to take this incredibly powerful artifact and Jones is so worried that they’re going to study it, like what are they going to do? Do they know the kind of power they have. “Don’t worry, we have our best people working on it.” So, our assumption is like, “Okay, well we’re going to see the Manhattan Project.” They’re going to be doing this and then they just stick it in a warehouse someplace.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s a nice meta joke for it.

**Craig:** Well, it’s a great joke that the wonderful line is Indiana Jones says, “Well, what are you going to do with it?” And the CIA says, “We have top men working on it.” And Indiana Jones looks at him, like top men? Obviously he’s the top man. He goes, “Top men? What top men?” And the guy says, “Top men.” And then you see it being shoved away because they don’t know what to do with it.

But then the nice part is Marion says, “Hey, hey,” essentially, “look at me, I’m right here. Forget the object. It’s just an object. I’m real.” And he goes with her and it’s wonderful. And then we cut away to see what happens to objects, and the proper fate of objects which is to be stuck in warehouse and ignored. Wonderful.

Just wonderful. I mean, every choice…I just…and there’s so…the intelligence behind everything. The cleverness. It’s just unreal.

We’ve got to get Larry. I’m going to reach out to Larry.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We should talk, I mean, he’s the most wonderfully grumpy person in the world, so it will be a really funny podcast. [laughs] But I would love to talk to him about… — And he won’t, by the way. That’s his thing. “Eh, who wants to talk about that? What are you doing?” That’s his whole thing. Like, “Who cares what I’m doing!” Talk to me about Raiders of the Lost Ark.

**John:** Well, Craig, thank you so much for talking through Indiana Jones with me.

**Craig:** It was a pleasure. I could talk for 20 hours about it and annoy everybody. I hope everybody goes and watches it again and reads the wonderful transcripts online which I know you’ll post a link to. And I’m going to sing, “I am the Merchant…I’m Merchant of the Sea.” What is that song?

**John:** [laughs] Yea, what was it? I think it’s Merchant of the Sea.

**Craig:** [sings] “I am the merchant of the sea.”

I’m going to sing that now.

**John:** That sounds good. There are a couple more links that are going to be at johnaugust.com. So, we have the transcripts, a link. I also have a link because on Twitter this morning I asked, “What’s the deal with that guy who puts an apple on Indiana Jones’s desk?” There’s the scene that everybody remembers in the classroom is like the girl has “Love You” written on her eyelids. It’s such an amazing moment.

But there’s also this guy who puts this apple on his desk as he’s leaving. And it’s so weird. I think it was meant to place a prop so that somebody could pick it up later on, and he’s sort of a teacher’s pet, but it just came off kind of weird. And that does happen sometimes where it reads as something very different than what it was actually intended.

And so I posted on Twitter, like, “What’s the deal with that?” and a bunch of people wrote back, including Seth Grahame-Smith who sent me a link to a whole thread that dates back to 2002 on the Internet about what is the deal with the guy and the apple, so I’ll put that there as well.

**Craig:** That’s really funny. By the way, now that I’m thinking about it, it’s probably, “The Monarch of the Sea.” [sings] “I am the monarch of the sea.”

But, regardless, I always thought that that guy was just gay.

**John:** Oh, and that’s my first instinct, but then I scrubbed back and forth and looked through it and there’s no eye contact. There’s nothing sort of acknowledged. So, Indiana Jones gives like this half-second look but doesn’t sort of deal with it. It’s just odd.

So, it feels like because the scene right before that is the girl falling in love with him, and of course you’re going to fall in love with Indiana Jones because who does not want to sleep with Indiana Jones? Like he’s so incredibly sexy in this movie. So, it makes sense that this guy would have a crush on him. Yet, it just doesn’t play that way. And if you actually see the expression on the actor’s face as he puts it down there it’s sort of like weird disgust. [laughs] It’s such an odd moment when you actually freeze-frame it, so.

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh, then we should come up with some fan fic for that.

**John:** Maybe self-hatred. Oh, absolutely. We’ll do a whole backstory of who that guy was. We’ll spin him off as his own character.

**Craig:** We’ll write a 50 Shades of Grey based on that guy. I love it.

**John:** I like it. All right, Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. See you next time.

LINKS:

* Raiders of the Lost Ark [official website](http://www.indianajones.com/), and on [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/?ref_=sr_1), [Netflix](http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark/60011649?strkid=1024294360_0_0&strackid=28d787371bc40f39_0_srl&trkid=222336), [iTunes](https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie-collection/indiana-jones-complete-adventures/id561542568) and [Amazon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0014Z4OMU/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Larry Kasdan’s [Raiders story conference transcripts](http://moedred.livejournal.com/2009/03/04/)
* [“Apple for teacher? Why’d he do that?”](http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=6083) thread on theraider.net (via [@sethgs](https://twitter.com/sethgs/status/292779295905021952))
* OUTRO: [A British Tar](http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/britisht.htm) from the HMS Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan, performed by John Rhys-Davies

Scriptnotes, Ep 65: The Next 117 Pages — Transcript

November 29, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 65 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. This is our post-Thanksgiving episode. Craig, how was your Thanksgiving?

Craig: You know, it was great. I had Thanksgiving with my family over at Derek Haas’s house.

John: You were right up the street.

Craig: Yeah. I was very close to you. Thought about walking over to your house and handing you some turkey, but then I thought, “You know what? No. No. Give the man his privacy.”

John: Just this one day you’re not going to come by and harass me.

Craig: Just this one time.

John: So you had a good group of writers there because you had you and Derek. Any other screenwriters?

Craig: Nope. No, it was just us and the kids going crazy. How about over by you?

John: We had the Creaseys come over, also screenwriters, and Amy Higgins and Matt Watts, also writers. So, it was a good group. We had a total of 14. I made a turkey and all the trimmings. It was fun.

Craig: Excellent!

John: It was a good, fun time.

So, Craig, today I thought we would talk about, we’ve done a lot of work the last year on the First Three Pages and talking about sort of what should be in those first three pages, and people have been sending in those things and that’s been terrific. But I kind of want to talk about the next 117 pages, if we can do that, sort of all the stuff we might talk about if we were reading people’s full scripts and sort of the things we would be looking for if we were looking at everything beyond those first three pages, if you’re game for doing that.

Craig: Always.

John: Always. But first we have a bunch of little questions that have stacked up, so I thought we might burn through those and just do a bit of a sprint. Okay?

Craig: Sounds good.

John: All right. First, Mike in New Jersey asks, “I was wondering what the protocol for spacing in between sentences is. I’ve been told to use two spaces after each period, but I’ve also been told this doesn’t matter. I was just wondering what you guys would suggest.”

This has come up on Twitter also. It’s a simple answer.

Craig: It’s a thing. Well, you know, the whole two space thing came from old typewriters because it looked weird if things weren’t double spaced after the period. It looked like the sentence never ended. But I think, you know, you’re a font nerd. This problem went away with computers, didn’t it?

John: This problem went away with proportional-spaced fonts. So, the problem is that mono-spaced fonts, because every character is exactly the same width, the two spaces were helpful in readability when you were typing on a typewriter, it had like every character the exact same width. So, double spacing after the period was a standard thing you would do.

My belief is that if you’re still typing in a mono-spaced font for a screenplay, like Courier, it’s nice to do the two spaces. But I don’t think it’s a must in the mono-spaced font anymore. So, if you choose to use two spaces in a mono-spaced font, great, like Courier. But if you’re using any other font, any other sort of normal font, stop doing the two spaces.

Craig: Yeah, I grew up on two spaces because I learned to type on actual typewriters, which obviously don’t exist anymore. However, somewhere I would say about six years ago I made the jump to one space because I started reading a lot of scripts that were in one space, obviously still in Courier, and they just looked better to me. And I wasn’t having a problem following where the sentence breaks were.

It was a very difficult thing to break myself of because I had become so used to the double space after the period. But, I did it. And now I am a single space aficionado.

John: One thing which is interesting that’s happened with the advent of the web is HTML by default sort of sucks white space down to a single space, so if you double space on a web page it is going to break that down to a single space regardless. So, I think people are a little bit less mindful of it, because when you’re typing into some web forms and things like that it all just does kind of go away, and you don’t really notice the difference anymore.

If you are doing a script and like maybe you started writing with a period and two spaces, and like your writing partner does space/one period, it’s worth it to go through and fix all of those things because it’s going to be weird if you’re flipping back and forth. Your friend there is to do a find and replace. So, don’t just search for a space, search for a period-space and go through and swap all those out. Or search for a period-space-space, and substitute those in for a period-space. There are ways to do it so you can get back to sanity.

Craig: Yeah. I remember going though this. The issue with the period-space is that if you had something like Mr. Smith it would become Mr. space-space Smith.

John: Yeah. So what you can do in those situations, if you really want to geek out on it, is search for R-period-space, and change that to something different. Like change that to like four asterisks in a row or something. And then do all of your other things, and then remember at the end switch four asterisks back to R-period-space.

Craig: Oh, nice. Love it. You know, it seems like the sort of thing that you would write an app for. [laughs]

John: There is actually some talk of some script cleaning apps down in the future, because what we do in Fountain which is the plain text screenwriting language, it’s very easy to build those kind of utilities because you’re just dealing with plain text. And so it’s very simple for us to go through and clean up that kind of stuff.

Craig: I love it. Great.

John: Question number two. Joseph in LA asks, “With all the contests and sites that technology has made accessible, like the Black List, or tracking boards, do you see yourself shifting your views in whether living in LA and working in the industry is really that vital to an aspiring screenwriter’s career? There have been some tangible results with Kremer signing to CAA off the Black List, Ashleigh Powell who sold a script to Warner and recently gained reps off the TrackingB Contest,” a site I never heard of.

Joseph asks, “I live here in LA, I grew up here, went to college here, but I’m considering moving just to live somewhere else for awhile. But I’m fearful that doing so would mean giving up on Hollywood. What do you guys think?”

So, there’s some valid points to this in that there certainly are people who are getting attention from Hollywood not living here, so like through the Black List or through other places they’re getting noticed to some degree here and they’re getting stuff started.

I’d be curious if you followed up on these people and sort of how they’re going in their careers, are they ultimately moving here? I kind of think a lot of them probably are, for a couple reasons. You are going to be taking a zillion meetings starting off. And all those meetings with people are a lot easier to schedule and easier to manage if you’re living here in town.

I would also say you are looking at the results of these — the two people you’ve cited here — people who signed based on success on these boards or these sites, but most people who have success didn’t go through these sites. They went through sort of more conventional ways in which they were interning at places and they swapped scripts with other assistants and they did all the normal stuff.

You’re not hearing those things, you’re not noticing those breakout stories because they’re just so common. You’re hearing these stories because they’re so uncommon I would also say.

Craig: Yeah.

John: A third point that Joseph actually brings up in his question which I’m going to summarize out is: you don’t see this happening in TV. And I think the reason you don’t see it happening in TV is that TV is staffed by going into rooms, and meeting with people, and TV is written by people in rooms.

Many feature writers now have both TV lives as well. That’s very hard to start or run from any place other than Los Angeles. Rob Thomas, who is starting to do it now from Austin, which is great, but Rob Thomas has run a lot of TV shows. Starting out, you’re never going to be able to do that.

Craig: All good points, yes. Certainly if you do manage to succeed with one of these gateway services you’re going to end up here anyway no matter what.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So, the real question is: Do I have to move to LA if I haven’t yet made it? Because we, you and I, always say that part of making it, part of the process of making it, is being where it’s made. So, we’re suggesting to people, yeah, you should be in Los Angeles if you want to be a screenwriter, a professional screenwriter, but aren’t yet one.

And even in the case that he cited, I think the guy who got his script going off of the Black List I think was here anyway. He was working as an intern for the Black List at some point even. But, you know, these things have happened before without these services. Diablo Cody managed to get her start from afar and then came here. There have been people who have done it. Andrew Kevin Walker was in New York. But, yeah, I mean, they’re kind of few and far between. And, frankly, I don’t think the business is particularly interested in these kind of aggregators as their quality control.

I think they’re pretty happy with the quality control they have. Sometimes these things do pop through, but look at Amazon, frankly. If you want to talk about probability and odds and all the rest of it, god knows how many scripts have gone through Amazon. Well how many have come out? Any?

John: Zero.

Craig: One?

John: Not that we know of; not one has gotten made.

Craig: I think that what happens is people — people keep asking this question because they don’t like the answer we give. But that answer remains. We are humans. This is a human business like all businesses. If you want to work in technology you should be in Silicon Valley. It’s technology, the stuff that makes it possible to live anywhere and work from anywhere, and yet still they want you in Silicon Valley. What does that tell you?

Ultimately these things are managed face-to-face through human contact. Even having meetings on the telephone is deleterious to the quality of the meeting. So, yeah, sorry; move to LA.

John: Yeah. Sometimes, every once and awhile, like lightning will strike somebody sort of out of the clear blue sky, and that’s why it’s a phrase, “out of the clear blue sky.” Well, lightning struck that person and it’s just remarkable that lightning struck them because it wasn’t even like a big thunderstorm happening.

Craig: Right.

John: But most of the time people who are struck by lightning, it’s because they were out in a thunderstorm. And so if you want to get struck by lightning I would say go to where there are a lot of thunderstorms, and that tends to be Los Angeles. To a smaller degree, New York. And to a much smaller degree, Austin.

That’s just sort of how it’s working these days.

Craig: Yeah, if the phrase “the exception that proved the rule” meant what everybody thinks it meant, then this is where we would use it. [laughs] Because, you know, everyone thinks “the exception that proves the rule” means that…

John: No, the exception tests the rule.

Craig: Yes. Yes. You should put a link up to what “the exception that proves the rule” actually means.

John: Stuart, find a link.

All right, Mark Andre in Victoriaville, Canada writes, and he writes in sort of the kind of English that is clearly a person whose first language is not English, so I’m going to sort of translate it from English-to-English so it’s more clear. He writes, “You talk about writing out numbers on your website, but I didn’t find my answer. My question is, say there’s an address on a door. Can I just use the numerals, like 1, 2, 3, or do I need to write out One Hundred and Twenty Three?”

Craig: Oh, god, no. 123 is fine for addressees. Sure. Even if it’s 2 Elm Street I would put the number for an address.

John: Yeah. So, let’s talk about numbers in writing and the special case of numbers in dialogue. So, generally numbers in writing, most of the sort of journalistic guide for it and what you’ll often really find in books, too, is numbers less than ten you write out the word. Numbers greater than ten you’re more likely to use the numbers for it. And that also applies for scene description and action that you write in your screenplays.

I’ve often said though in dialogue in screenplays I strongly suggest you consider writing out the whole number, because you just don’t know how an actor is going to say some words. And sometimes you really want them to say something a certain way. You want them to say “one-twelve” rather than “one-hundred and twelve.” And there’s a real reason why you may want them to do that. So, write it all out if it’s in dialogue, most cases.

Craig: I totally agree. I remember — it’s a great rule of thumb — writing things out in dialogue the way you want them to be said. And I learned that lesson on my very first script. We did a table reading, and at table readings they will bring the actors they’ve cast, but usually they haven’t cast all the parts, typically the little ones. And so they just get actors to fill in that day.

John: The day players.

Craig: And there was a line in it and it was — the character I think was supposed to be the head of NASA. And he was saying something like, “You’re going to be through space at 900 miles per hour.” And what we had written in the script was “900 mph.” And the actor got to that line and said, “You’re going to be rocketing through space at 900 mmph.”

John: Ha ha.

Craig: And I sat back and I thought, “Oh god, he’s so stupid, and yet it’s kind of my fault.” [laughs] It’s kind of my fault. So, a good rule of thumb: When you are writing dialogue write out everything, unless it’s like some crazy long number. Write it out.

John: So, in your example, did you mean for him to say “M-P-H,” or did you mean for him to say “miles per hour?”

Craig: I meant for him to say “miles per hour.” Or, I mean, even if he had said, “MPH,” that would have been so weird because nobody ever says, like, “60 M-P-H.” So, I just assumed that it would say, when he would get to “60 mph” he would say, “60 miles per hour.” Totally wrong assumption, the kind of assumption that an idiot makes when he hasn’t written a screenplay before.

And it was a good — I never could have seen “mmph” coming. That’s just dumb. But then again, you know, it happens and the more specific you write things out the better. Because you’re right, “124,” “one hundred twenty four,” “one twenty four,” all different ways.

Plus, frankly, it’s cheating on length.

John: It’s going to take longer to say it.

Craig: You know, every extra word is length.

John: All right. Our next question comes from Adam who writes, “I’m an editor by day, cutting short interviews with stars, directors, and writers for new movies for a cable network. In the last two weeks I’ve done this for two very high profile studio movies which were based on novels. In both cases the author of the novel says in his interview that he was brought on to rewrite the screenplay before production, but was not given credit as a screenwriter because of the WGA.

“Also in both cases the author implied that he felt he deserved credit. This seems unfair for two reasons. One, the novelist did some amount of screenwriting and he’s not getting any credit for it. But more importantly, two, the credited screenwriter’s potential future employers are led to believe that he wrote this movie all by himself, which he did not.” Our thoughts?

This is one of those frustrating things where you don’t know what the specific circumstances were. You don’t know sort of how much this author really did. Whether this author had it in his contract that he or she got to go back and tweak things because of the nature of it. And I’m not trying to slam on Nicholas Sparks, but this feels sort of Nicholas Sparks-y.

You don’t know what the actual situation was. I can talk to you about, Craig can even talk more knowledgeably about it, is that the credits on a movie are determined by the WGA based on who really wrote the movie. And there’s a whole process for that. And so it’s not about excluding the author. It’s about who really wrote the movie and wrote the majority of the movie that we see up on screen.

Craig: Yeah. First thing to point out is authors always have their name on the movie. They get a “Based on the novel by.” So, that’s a source material credit and that’s something that the WGA has agreed to with the studios — that’s within the studio’s discretion. And I cannot think of any case where, I mean, even the worst deal that a novelist makes for the movie rights to his or her novel will include the right to be acknowledged for the source material.

So, their name is on the movie. Their book exists in the world. It’s no secret that the movie was based on a novel.

What is important to understand is that all “Screenplay by” or “Written by” in terms of the screenplay means is the screenplay was written by somebody. So, if I come along and I write a screenplay of say The Shining, “Written by Craig Mazin” just means the screenplay of The Shining was written by Craig Mazin. It’s not casting any aspersions on the author of The Shining who will, of course, get credit, “Based on the novel by Stephen King.”

If Stephen King should come on after me and rewrite me, the Guild asks the question, “Did the amount of work they did on the screenplay rise to the test of authorship?” We don’t always get it right. I have to tell you, I think that given the evolution of the rules that has occurred over the last few years we’re getting it right more often than we used to.

But, frankly, it is not at all unfair. Sometimes people come in and do some rewriting and frankly they simply don’t do the kind of substantial rewriting that would rise to the test of authorship. Our credits are unique; they are not employment credits.

Some people say, “Well every writer should have a credit on the movie because, you know, the craft service guy has his name on the movie.” Yes, that’s true, but the craft service guy’s credit just means that he was employed as a craft service guy. Our credits as “Written by,” it implies authorship and it’s different. It’s simply in a different category. That’s why our credit confers things like residuals and separated rights. And the credit for craft services does not.

So, that part, I think, I can see why maybe it would rub you wrong. I mean, the fact that the authors are complaining just means that they’re authors because everyone thinks that they deserve credit on everything, of course. That’s part of our birthright as writers.

Your second point is not valid…

John: No.

Craig: …and here’s why. You are concerned that the industry won’t know who did what. They always know. It’s the funniest thing. The studios and the agencies know who did work on the movie. They know who impacted the movie. And when the credits don’t reflect that, they don’t forget, in fact, they seem to know it even more in a weird way.

You will hear phrases like, “Well, they weren’t credited but they did a ton of work.” Nothing escapes anyone. I hear this all the time. I hear it from studio executives who will — sometimes studio executives will say the credits were just wrong. This person did it. And they all talk to each other. And every time a writer goes in for a job the studio will call other studios where they worked to hear how it went. There are lists of writers who have recently succeeded and writers who have recently failed. And success and failure in the studio context has nothing to do with who actually got credit.

It has everything to do with who made them happy.

John: Yup. Definitely. One last point about the original authors and determining credit is if these situations did go to an arbitration, those arbitrations are done anonymously. They’re anonymously in two different ways. That is, the people who are the arbiters who are figuring out who deserves credits, none of them know each other’s names. None of the people who are submitted material know who those arbiters are.

And, likewise, we don’t get the names of who the writers were on the project.

Craig: Well, that is true, however, the writer does submit a statement, and in that statement they can identify themselves as… — Well, I don’t know. It’s an interesting question. Can you identify yourself as the author of the source material? They’ll probably disallow that because it would make you not anonymous.

John: The only reason why I know why it can happen, the author can identify himself, is that I went through a really strange arbitration where I was an arbiter. And so I’m going to talk about this in such a general way that no one will ever know which one I’m talking about. This isn’t a movie I worked on; this was where I was just volunteering to serve as an arbiter. And the original person who wrote the book was Writer B and was able to explain that he was Writer B.

Craig: Mm, there you go.

John: And the only reason it came up was there were notes — in addition to the actual book that he or she had written, there were additional notes that became material; it became a whole issue about sort of when he was actually employed as a writer in the movie. It was a mess like these things often can be.

But, being the original novelist doesn’t give you extra bonus super powers in this thing. It’s about who wrote the screenplay and who wrote the bulk of the screenplay that we’re seeing. And Craig’s original point of like, you wrote the book, that book has your name on it. And because you wrote the book you have a credit saying, “Based on this book,” and that’s a large part of it.

So, those are some quick questions. I thought we would spend the rest of the time talking about sort of what we’ve learned from the Three Page Challenge up to this point. So, we’ve gotten more than 500 entries to the Three Page Challenge which is just crazy. And those are like actual real ones that people put in the right boilerplate and they submitted stuff properly. And Stuart has read all of those which is nuts.

Craig and I, we’ve done maybe 30 on the show, but Stuart has read about 500 of them. So, Stuart did a great post on the blog this week. I don’t know if you saw it, Craig, but where he sort of went though and talked about the things he’s learned from reading these 500 scripts.

Craig: I didn’t see that. I’m going to read it.

John: You can read it right now. I’m going to give a little summary here, but you can take a look at it if you want to.

Craig: Calling it up.

John: So, some common trends he noticed was floweriness, which is — what we often talk about when we read the samples — the sort of more novel writing than screenwriting, where people will use poetic language to describe things which makes you think — it’s ambiguous sometimes. And ambiguity is wonderful for poems; it’s not a good choice for screenplays.

He talked about clumping, and clumping is the word he was using to describe when you’re reading down the page and suddenly you can see like, “Oh my god, that’s a really big block of text there and I don’t know if I want to read it.” And so, you know, make the page feel like you want the movie to feel and don’t give us those giant chunks of text that we’re going to be scared to read, because you know what? We might skip them.

He found most of the formatting was actually pretty good, and actually I would agree; most of the ones we’ve read have been properly formatted in a general sense. One thing he notices that I hadn’t noticed is that a lot of people are uppercasing names every time that character appears rather than just the first time they appear in the script. So, that’s no good.

The reason why in feature screenplays you use uppercase on the first time you mention a character’s name is that it makes it really simple to flip through the script and figure out which scene a character first appears in. If you do it every time, or every scene the character appears it just becomes soup; we can’t tell when a character started appearing. So, that’s a useful thing. It lets us know that this is the moment where the character is first appearing in the script.

Craig: Right.

John: The other things which should get uppercased — sounds, like important sounds; really important elements that you really need to draw the reader’s attention to them. And, so, you use uppercase judiciously when you really need to attract the reader’s attention to something.

People have different personal styles. Some people use a lot more uppercase than I like to use. Some people will also use bold, and italics, and five asterisks, and a lot of explanation points. That’s not my style, but this doesn’t mean — there are some very successful writers who do that kind of thing. But uppercasing is pretty consistent, so do that.

One thing Stuart pointed out which I hadn’t noticed but I think is a good thing to notice, the first time you mention a character on the first character introduction, give us their age. Do those little parentheses and give us their age, because sometimes it can be ambiguous when you say someone has salt-and-pepper hair. It’s like, “Well, does that mean he’s like a prematurely gray twenty-something or is he a 60-year-old who is looking really good?”

An age is helpful. And you don’t have to give us an exact age. It’s fine to give us, like, “50s.” But it just gives us a sense of who this person is.

Vary your character names. And this I did notice in one of the scripts that we went through on the Three Page Challenge.

Craig: I remember that one, yeah.

John: And there were two characters with almost exactly the same name. So, every time you saw a dialogue header, a character dialogue header for them, like, “Which one is this? Which one is this?” Don’t do that to us.

You know, you have 26 letters in the alphabet. You’re not going to have 26 major characters in your script, so why don’t you just pick one letter for each character and try not to duplicate if you can possibly help it?

Use descriptive names for minor characters rather than Guard #1. Guard #1 doesn’t help you at all. It doesn’t help you as a reader. It doesn’t help you as a director who’s thinking about how to cast this role. So, if you say like, Lanky Guard or Chubby Guard or pretty much any adjective Guard is going to be more helpful than Guard #1. So, those were things Stuart pointed out.

Craig: Really good observations. Yeah.

John: The rest of the post we’ll put a link to it. He also, along with our friend Nima, did sort of a meta analysis of all the pages. So, they put it through a little processor and they’re going to have more results on some other stuff they discovered.

One of his first hypotheses was that people weren’t using enough white space on the page. That’s probably not actually true. His metric for it was he was comparing the first three pages of what got sent through to us versus the first three pages of the Black List winners of the last couple years. And the white space is actually more on our samples than it was on the Black List.

Craig: Interesting.

John: So, his hypothesis is flawed.

Craig: Yeah, I mean, you don’t want to hammer people with big chunks, but it’s funny — good writing solves almost everything.

John: It does, yeah.

Craig: Good writing will solve all of your formatting issues and mislabeled uppercase things. But, these were all really good tips. Really simple things. You know me, I’m not big on rules and things, but there are some simple rules that we all follow, like capitalizing a character the first time we see them and stuff like this. I think these are all very good simple, practical things to consider as we go through, makes it easier for you guys to get past Stuart.

Although, I have to say, he spelled “legalese” like “beagle.” It’s L-E-A…hmm.

John: Oh, did he do that? Oh, Stuart.

Craig: Yeah. It’s actually kind of adorable. [laughs]

John: Aw.

Craig: Well, because it does remind me of a beagle. I’m sorry, I’m so ADD.

John: You’re picturing a beagle with a law degree and briefcase, aren’t you?

Craig: I really liked it. This is a very well-written article that he did here. This is a very well-written sort of discussion. This should be sort of almost required reading.

God, it’s amazing. Honestly, John, I feel like… — I’m going to tell you something. I went and I lectured at UNLV when I was in Las Vegas shooting on The Hangover. And the professor asked me upfront, “Where did you go to film school?” And I said I didn’t. And he was like, “Oh.” [laughs]

And, you know, I just feel like if we do this right, and by “we” I mean just in general, people in the business who give back through these kinds of things — podcasts, and blogs, and essays. I just feel like eventually these film schools are going to be in real trouble.

Because I look at a thing like this and I think this is a free lecture that people currently pay a lot of money for except now they don’t have to because it’s right here. I mean, Stuart kind of just did a little master class on very simple presentational guidelines.

John: I think we could be a very good substitute for seminar, or for sort of one of those little three-week intensives. What we can’t do that a film school can do is give you a class full of other people aspiring to do exactly what you’re aspiring to do.

Craig: True. That we cannot.

John: And that’s what I got out of film school more than anything. Like, you know, I’ve talked about it before. The Stark Program that I went through, there’s only 25 people a year. And those people, like, I fought with them and saw movies with them and shot their movies. It was crazy, and horrible, and wonderful, but I owe them my career. And so that’s the thing you get out of a film program or being in NASA or wherever else, you’re surrounded by a bunch of people who are trying to do what you’re trying to do.

And that’s the best of film school.

Craig: Hmm. We’ve got to figure out how to do that.

John: Yeah. That’s tough though.

Moving on with sort of what we learned from the Three Page Challenge, we had a question from Matt Price who wrote, “I’ve noticed one more than one occasion you guys have said, in regards to Three Page Challenge script, ‘I know where this script is going,’ as if this was a compliment. Other times you’ve criticized a script with, ‘I don’t know what this script is about.’ But, three pages in, isn’t it a good thing that we don’t know where this script is going? Shouldn’t the story be surprising? I’m sure I’ve misunderstood what you guys mean when you say these things. Can you clarify that critique?”

Craig: Huh. Well, I’m trying to remember my frame of mind when I said it. I think there are times where you know where a story is going and it’s not a compliment at all because it just seems like a very predictable road story we’ve seen before, and that’s no good.

Sometimes I know where a story is going but I’m okay with it because I can tell that it’s the kind of story where the plot is less important than the characters and their journey, and the theme, and the details. Some wonderful movies are centered around incredibly cliché plots. But that’s okay because it’s not about the plot, you know?

I mean, look, let’s take As Good as It Gets. Guy meets girl; guy loses girl; guy gets girl. I mean, it ends with the two of them together and he is the most improbable character for that. It’s kind of a cliché romantic comedy in that regard plot-wise. They go on a road trip in the middle for god’s sakes.

But, it’s how they got there and the details along the way that were wonderful, so frankly the answer is sometimes it’s an insult, and sometimes it’s not a compliment, it’s just an okay thing.

John: I think when I say that phrase — and I’m sure I have said it on multiple occasions — I generally mean I don’t know what kind of movie this is. Like, I’m not clear quite what the genre of this movie is. I’m not clear of who the characters are or how I’m supposed to feel about this movie. I’m not clear if this is a comedy or a drama. I’m not sure what your world of this movie is.

Think back to my movies. Like Go is a movie that goes in a thousand different places. It should be very surprising sort of what happens, but I think in those first three pages you sort of know where the world of this movie is and that grocery store, which is not where we’re going to center most of the action, you realize like, “Okay, it’s about these kinds of characters, these young people who say these kinds of things, who are ambitious in this sort of narrow and weird kind of way.” So, it’s like you get what kind of movie this is and how it’s going to feel.

And when I’ve said that about three page scripts, that I don’t know where this movie is going, it’s because I’m not sure what to expect when I flip the page again. And that’s not the right kind of feeling.

Craig: I agree with you on that. And it’s funny — I was watching Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels last night. It was on and I really like that movie. And that movie is designed in such a way specifically to prevent you from seeing what comes next. It’s a puzzle box of a movie that plays tricks constantly because it’s part of its charm, it’s part of its intention is to continually confuse the plot and send it weird ways.

But there’s no question about what kind of movie it is. And if you were to read the first three pages you would get it. It’s a stylized kind of criminal/heisty movie in the general Tarantino vein. And you’d say, “Okay, I’d like to see where this is going. It seems like it’s going to turn into kind of a criminal farce,” which is what it is.

Sometimes we read pages and we think not so much “we don’t know where this is going” but rather “it can’t go anywhere that’s interesting.” Because we’re looking at the seed and we’re saying, “Based on this seed the plant is going to be a weird looking plant that isn’t a plant.”

John: Yeah. If we read those first three pages and they’re just really flat, and it’s generic, and there’s nothing that sparks us about those first three pages, when we say, like, “I don’t know where this is going,” it’s like it’s really a nice shorthand for like “I don’t really kind of care where this goes next because I’m not interested in it, or I’m not intrigued by anything I’ve seen so far.”

Craig: Right.

John: So, let’s talk about the “what happens next” and let’s talk about the next 117 pages frankly of these scripts. I think we picked the Three Page Challenges because you had actually done something like that on Done Deal Pro before, hadn’t you?

Craig: Yeah. I started doing, I think I called them Four Pages or Five Pages. I can’t remember how many. But I just had people start to post these things. And they didn’t have to be the first. They could be anywhere; I was allowing them to even take them from the middle of the movie if they felt like it. And then I would just sort of go through.

And I did it in part because I wanted people to believe that much could be gleaned from that. I think that there is a natural writerly narcissism that says, “Well you can’t know if I can write or not based on two or three pages.” Yeah I can. For sure I can. I think anyone can, frankly; any reader really can.

And I wanted to be able to encourage people that deserved encouragement. And also sort of just reality-check people that deserve reality checking. And, in fact, there was one guy — only one — who put up three pages that I thought were so good that I wanted to read the rest of the script. And I read it and it was really good and I got him a manager. And I think he’s actually working now.

John: That’s really nice.

Craig: Look what I did! His name is Adam Barker. Really, really good…

John: His name is David Benioff.

Craig: …it was a really interesting few pages and it was just evident from those pages that he knew how to write. And when I read the script I talked with him at length about it because the script wasn’t — it needed work, it needed help, it needed love, but it was also — it needed the kind of work, help, and love that I see from anybody. When Scott Frank gives me a script and says, “What’s wrong with this scene?” It’s the same thing.

The difference between a writer giving you something and saying, “Why isn’t this working?” and a not writer giving you something and saying, “Why isn’t this working?” Well, one of these is a cake that you baked a little bit too long and one of these is just a bowl full of ingredients that are poorly mixed together.

John: I want to talk about why we do the Three Page Challenge rather than reading like 120 pages. There’s a couple reasons. First off, you and I just theoretically wouldn’t have the time to read 120 pages. And it’s just a giant commitment. And it really is a commitment in the way that like dating someone is a commitment versus having a little, you know, kiss in the hallway. And these three pages are just like that kiss in the hallway. And so it’s like, “Ah, yeah, there’s something promising there,” but you’re not sort of going out and doing the full romance.

If we were to somehow do those full things I want to talk about sort of the kinds of things we would be looking for and some of the things we would notice, sort of the way that Stuart noticed in his post about all the 500 pages. What are some common themes we probably would be talking about if this podcast were to be about reading the whole script for these things?

And so I’ll start with just some things I thought of, but you chime in with things you often say when you read scripts.

Craig: Go for it.

John: First, it always comes to: Are the right characters in charge of the plot? And this is something I see time and time again when reading newer writer’s screenplays is that they have this hero who is perfectly nice and likable, but the rest of the characters completely run away with the script. And so everything that is important that needs to be done gets done by one of the other characters. Anything really funny that needs to be said gets said by one of the other characters.

And the other characters tend to become much more interesting and much more important than your actual hero because they can be. So often the hero just becomes this little pawn that sort of gets pushed or pulled through the screenplay, and sort of this hapless victim of the screenplay rather than a person being in charge of the screenplay.

And so I feel like if I was reading a whole 120-page script in one of these cases I would be finding those problems again and again where your hero is just the guy who happens to be in this story rather than the person who is in charge of this story.

Craig: That’s a good one. One of the first things I will look for and notice missing is philosophical meat. What is this movie about beyond the motions of the characters and the circumstances? Let’s say you’re writing a movie about two cops — is it just about that? Is it just about them solving the case? Who cares? That’s an episode of a TV show. Who cares? What is this movie really about?

And it’s amazing how many scripts I read where it’s frankly about nothing at all, and that’s always a bummer.

The other thing I look for is layered writing. I find that sometimes I read scripts where the scenes are just about action. Then there’s a scene that’s just about character. Then there’s a scene that’s just about relationship. Then there’s a scene just about theme. Well, really, the plot should serve the character which should serve the theme, which should serve the plot, which should serve the relationship.

It should all be layered and harmonic.

John: Another question I would probably ask with these scripts is: Why is this story happening now? Why are we choosing to make a movie about this character and this situation right here and right now versus six months earlier or six months later? What is unique about this situation?

And I think it’s one of the things that distinguishes a movie idea from a TV show idea is that is this a story that wants to be told in two hours? And this is this character’s main story in their life. Like this is a great use of this person and our time to focus on this story, versus a TV series which is like, “Well, here’s a whole bunch of promising things, and here’s a good universe and a good world, and we can spin a thousand stories out of it.”

This should be like, “Well this unique set of circumstances created this one story that we’re going to follow.” And so often I’ll read scripts where it’s like, “This is all lovely, and I believe these characters basically,” but when I say this doesn’t feel like a movie I’m saying it doesn’t feel like it has to be a movie. It feels like it can be almost anything else and therefore it really isn’t a movie.

Craig: Right. That’s a good one, for sure.

The other thing I notice probably more in comedy scripts is an unsupported premise. And if you can’t get the audience completely onboard with the premise tightly and logically then the whole thing just feels like an exercise in wankery.

I was working on something a couple months ago where just the premise wasn’t there. The whole movie was sitting on nothing. It was just a short little two week thing. And, by the way, everybody acknowledged it. The other writers, they were like, “Yeah, we tried to do that but there was an issue.” And the studio — everybody sort of said, “Yeah, this thing is kind of leaning on air.”

Well, you can’t build a house on air. And it was a nice house. [laughs] But there was no foundation. And I’m pretty adamant about these things. I get very serious about it and I just say, “Look, you’re going to spend all of this money to make a movie and the problem is you will lose them on minute ten. And never get them back. They will never stop thinking about it.”

John: Yeah. What you’re describing is really the logic that you approach the movie with. It’s like, “Wait, does this even make sense for why this is a movie?” And a related concern that I always comes up with is the internal logic. Is there consistent internal logic in your story? Are the characters behaving in a way that’s both emotionally believable, like the characters are acting consistently? The way they would behave on page 20, that same kind of character would act the same kind of way on page 80? Do I believe that the same characters are still in the same story? Or are they just saying that thing, or doing that thing because you need them to move the plot along?

They’re not acting in a way that’s consistent. Have you established rules in your story and then are you following those rules? Or you’re just breaking those rules whenever you feel like breaking those rules because it’s more expeditious?

Craig: And usually when you see characters behaving inconsistently, violating rules, violating the basic tenets of their character, it’s because the characters are not distinct enough. And the characters aren’t real. And so that’s the other thing you see a lot are characters that all sound a lot like each other, or characters that feel pre-fab, borrowed from other movies, retooled and dropped in. And that’s a sign that you’re in for a bad ride.

Really in the end people go to movies for characters more than anything else.

John: Another question I would tend to ask about the full script is: Have you actually served me a meal? And by a meal I’m saying did you start at a certain place? Did you start at appetizers, move to the salad course, move through the entrée, and then gotten us to cheese plate and dessert? Have you gotten through the whole thing?

Or, did you just serve me a bunch of appetizers? Because some of these scripts, they just sort of like throw things at you, like, “Oh here, you can try this, you can try this, you can try this.” And it’s a whole bunch of different appetizers served back, to back, to back, but it never actually gets into the meat of what it’s trying to be. What we describe as second act problems are really kind of entrée problems. It’s like there’s just not enough there as your main — there’s not meat there. And you’ve never really gotten into it. You just kept throwing appetizers at us.

And that’s especially noticeable in action movies where it’s just like there are a bunch of action sequences that happen, and it’s like, “Well, a bunch of stuff happened but I’m not sure we really got any place.” The most recent Bourne movie to me felt like tapas, where it was just like a bunch of really good small plates, but they didn’t actually relate to each other in any useful way.

Craig: Yeah. You do see a lot of endings that seem far away from the beginnings in terms of space and stuff, but not far away from them enough in terms of character and emotion. I want the character to be almost the opposite of who they were in the beginning, in a big way, in some real way. I want something big to have happened so that they would be disgusted or not recognize who they were in the start.

And a lot of times these movies make these — scripts rather that I read — make banal movements. You know, “I will start dating again.” Well who cares? You know? [laughs]

John: Yeah.

Craig: The tricky thing about these scripts is that you want to find ways to pull audiences into universal truths set in very not universal situations, because I don’t want to see somebody go through my day. It’s boring. I want to see them jump off a building, and go through explosions, and deal with whatever they’re going to deal with, but ultimately I want them to be doing it because of something that I do recognize as important in me, and we all recognize is important in us.

And I feel like sometimes people forget that part. The motivations become rather specific to that character, not universal, and therefore sort of tawdry.

John: Yeah. What you’re talking about, like, “I will start dating again,” like if that’s the realization at the end of this two-hour movie, “I guess I’ll start dating again.” What?! That’s a realization for like the end of a half-hour sitcom. That’s not a movie. That’s not a movie journey.

And I think what you’re talking about is really: Was the character tested hard enough so they can actually prove and get to someplace in the end? And so often I read these scripts, and I understand the sympathies — you love your main character, so you don’t want to hurt your main character, but you need to hurt your main character. You need to make things as difficult as possible for your main character.

Too often I’ll see these situations where, “Wow, that seems impossible — you have to break into that building, and do this, and that,” and like, “Oh, and now these people come and help me do that.” It’s like, why are you adding these people in to helping you do that? The character should have to do it themselves. And they should get caught. And it should get like much, much worse for the character. And you don’t ever make things bad for the character.

I mean, I think you should, you know, I’ve never read a script where I said like, “Oh, I thought they were too hard on their hero.” I want characters to lose their hands. You want bad things to happen to them. And if it’s not that kind of movie then in a comedy you want them to be as humiliated as possible. If it’s a love story you want them to be ripped apart from the person they love for as long as possible to make their reunion meaningful.

And too often I read scripts that aren’t anywhere in the ballpark of how difficult they should make things for the characters.

Craig: I feel like comedies should be the most tortuous for the main characters because that’s where so much of the comedy comes from anyway. But, yeah, I mean, that’s the point. You’re God and the character is Job. Trial by fire. This is the worst thing that could happen to them but it’s the thing that must happen to them. And it must happen today. It can’t happen yesterday, it won’t happen tomorrow. It has to happen right now.

And if they fail, we hear this from executives plenty, “Make sure the stakes are high.” It doesn’t have to be the world exploding, but I have to care if they fail.

John: Yeah. And here is the danger: So when we say like we have to make it as difficult as possible for them, that sounds like an externality applied to them. It’s true, like something else is probably making things difficult for them, but they also have to choose to run into that burning building. You have to make sure that your character is still in charge of making the choices that are making things more difficult for themselves.

And so sometimes they’ll make a bad choice and they’ll suffer the consequences from it. Sometimes they’ll make the right heroic bold choice, but that is going to make things more difficult for them. And so it’s not just about planes falling from the sky or some sort of external calamity. It has to be something that they’re doing that’s making the situation more difficult for themselves.

Craig: Yeah. And sometimes it’s the smallest thing. But whether you’re writing a drama or a comedy you must be writing drama. Always. You have to find drama and you have to understand what drama is. Sophie’s Choice is the smallest thing. It will not change the world.

John: No.

Craig: She has to pick one kid or another in a moment and then live with that decision her whole life. And the world didn’t change. Nothing changed. But it was dramatic. It was so dramatic because as humans — and this is why it’s a great story — we connect with it immediately and emotionally and we’re there. And we’re in it and we can feel it inside of us. It feels awful. And if you can’t find drama, whether it’s big or small, in a goofy comedy or in a weepy movie, you’re dead.

John: And because Sophie’s Choice has become sort of a cliché of a Sophie’s Choice, but it’s an irrevocable choice. And that’s the other thing that you see so often in scripts that aren’t working is that characters make a choice but they can easily just undo that choice and there’s no consequence for them to sort of go back to their previous behavior, their previous lives.

That’s why I always like “burn down the house.” Make sure they can’t go back to that safe place they were at in the start of the movie. They have to keep pushing forward and they have to keep pushing on. And every time they make a choice, never let them unmake that choice.

Craig: Right.

John: That’s sometimes, yes, that is you as the writer creating a situation and building a choice that is irrevocable — that’s good. That’s your job as the writer.

Craig: It’s dramatic. All of this is drama. All of it.

John: Yeah. So, these are some of the things I would have said of this hypothetical script if we had read it. Anything more you want to add?

Craig: Oh, just that the writer of this hypothetical script is the worst.

John: Just the worst. Brave, first off, so brave for sending in his script and letting us read the script.

Craig: [laughs] So brave and so delusional.

John: [laughs] And thank you, Stuart, for reading 500 screenplays so we could pick this one to talk to.

Craig: Seriously. I owe this guy a beer.

John: Yeah. But, that was fun.

Now, Craig, this week I did actually email you to say, like, hey don’t forget your One Cool Thing. “Did you remember your One Cool Thing?”

Craig: I did. I totally did.

John: Hooray.

Craig: Should I go first?

John: You can go first or I can go first. Your choice? Mine is a little Christmassy.

Craig: Oh, so is mine.

John: Great. You go first.

Craig: Okay, well mine is sort of inspired by Thanksgiving but then I realized it applies for Christmas as well. And my Cool Thing is brining. Now, did you make your turkey?

John: I did make my turkey.

Craig: Did you brine your turkey?

John: I did not brine my turkey. But I’m fascinated to hear this discussion because I want to know.

Craig: Brining is the key to turkey. So, here’s the issue with turkey: There are multiple problems cooking a turkey and you can see that when you eat it and it’s dry and gross.

So, one problem with turkey is that it’s huge, so it takes a long time to cook. The longer you cook meat, the drier it gets. The second problem is that the breast meat cooks much faster than the dark meat, so in order to get the dark meat at a temperature that won’t kill you, you end up desecrating the breast meat, and so you end up with the syndrome of like, “Oh, this is pretty good dark meat, although I’m not really a big fan of dark meat. I really like white meat and this white meat is just saw dust. What happened?”

Enter brining. Brining is brilliant. So, here’s what you do: You take a turkey — and you can do this with chicken, or pretty much anything — take a turkey and you put it in a solution that is roughly 5% salt water. And you can use Kosher salt — most people use Kosher salt because it doesn’t have a lot of the anti-caking agents and things that they put in regular table salt. And it comes in big boxes and it’s easy to dump in water.

And you can put some other things in there. You can put some sugar or spices in if you want. And you take your turkey and you put it in this solution. And imagine you’ve got one of those five gallon coolers. So, you put enough water in to submerge the turkey completely. You put in enough salt to hit about 5%. And there are guides online to show you how many cups of salt per how many liters of water. And then you put in a bunch of ice to keep the whole thing refrigerated.

You seal it up and you leave it in there for anywhere from they say 12 to 24 hours. Here’s the magic of science. What happens? The salt water penetrates into the muscle tissue and saline does two things. The first thing, the most important thing, is that it begins to slowly denature the proteins. Proteins are complicated molecules. Have you ever seen pictures of proteins, like the molecule structures online?

John: I have.

Craig: Yeah. So they’re like really big and they’re like all clumpy and turned around and that’s why protein is really good at making muscles and hair that’s curly and stuff like that. So, the saline gets inside and starts to slowly unravel them and loosen them up. And by loosening them up, and even partially dissolving them, they begin to create more space between the proteins. They essentially — it’s like taking a tightly knotted rope and slowly working it so it gets nice and loose.

So, now, what do loose fibers taste like as opposed to dense fibers? They taste tender. We translate that in our mouths as tender. So, that’s the first thing it’s doing: it’s tenderizing the meat. The second thing it does is by creating all this space, and because the turkey is at a lower saline level than the salt water, it allows all this moisture to go into the turkey, so the turkey starts to act like a sponge and increase in moisture.

Now you think, “Oh, I don’t want to eat a sponge.” You won’t. Because what happens is the turkey will gain maybe 20% water volume through the brining process. But the cooking process, which is so drying, will cause it to lose about that much. So, what you end up getting is the moisture that you should have had from the turkey in the first place, plus this nice, tender meat that has a little bit of saltiness to it, just a little bit, which you like — people like a little bit of saltiness to their food anyway.

Brining is the key. I’m telling you, it’s the most amazing thing. So, you leave it in there for 24 hours, take it out, rinse it off, get all that salt off the outside, pat it dry. Good to go.

John: So, I do not brine my turkeys, but I’m familiar with some of your techniques and I think they’re fascinating. A few footnotes and observations. What kind of turkey were you using? Were you using a normal store-bought turkey? Were you using an organic turkey? Which turkey were you using for this?

Craig: I didn’t make the turkey for this Thanksgiving because I was over at Derek’s, but in the past I have used — I try and use a Kosher turkey because they tend to not have a bunch of — you know, sometimes when you get the store-bought turkeys they’ve already kind of put weird stuff in there.

John: Because what I was going to say is some of the store-bought turkeys, I don’t want to say Butterball is a bad brand, but part of the reason — they kind of already do the brining for it because they can sell it as a more expensive turkey because they’ve increased the water weight of it.

Craig: They’ve kind of done it, but they haven’t done it well.

John: They haven’t done it well, which is true. But I think if you were to try to brine again a Butterball, a kind of crappy Butterball turkey, you might have mixed results. The second point is that you bring up like all that time in the oven is what dries out the breast meat, and that brings me to sort of how I have cooked turkey these past few years and it worked well last night, was you don’t do it low and slow in an oven. You do it in an incredibly hot oven.

And we cooked a 21-pound bird in about two hours and fifteen minutes. So, it’s a 500-degree oven, which sounds ridiculously hot, and it is really, really hot; you have to be careful you don’t burn yourself. But you put the bird in, incredibly hot. The bird is at room temperature, you put it in, incredibly hot, keep the oven door sealed so no heat gets out. 45 minutes, you need to tent it over or else it’s going to get too dark. It’s a really nice pretty golden color.

And then it’s out of the oven so soon, the breast meat doesn’t have a chance to dry out the way it otherwise would. And it worked and it got nice and hot. You need to let it rest so that all the juices can sort of get back to where they need to be anyway.

That’s one of the classic problems of turkey anyway is people are waiting so long for the bird that the minute they pull it out of the oven they try to carve it and all the juices have been sort of circulating, they just fall out on the board. And that’s why it dries out, too.

Craig: That is absolutely true. And I’ve read about the high heat cooking method, and that is a good method. And a lot of people will sort of interrupt that sort of three-quarters of the way through and tent the breast with foil so that the legs and the thighs can cook while the breast sort of doesn’t get pelted as much.

The other thing I’ve done is the whole deep friend turkey thing, which is dangerous, and crazy, and awesome. [laughs] But, because you’re a man of science, and because I know how left brain you are, I strongly recommend to you and to all of our listeners, Cook’s Illustrated…

John: Fantastic.

Craig: …and their associated cookbook, The Best Recipe, in which they approach everything from a scientific way and sort of say, “We have decided after cooking 4,000 turkeys this is the best way.”

John: So, what’s great about Cook’s Illustrated is every article about, like, how to cook everything is all about the technique. It’s like, “So, I went through this thing, I had these frustrations.” I went back though these recipe books and I kind of think it’s all made up. I think that they sort of create a narrative after the fact for like, “Here’s a really good recipe, let’s make up a story about how we got to this recipe.” But it is fun. And like, you know, “Confused, I went to our science editor who talked me through sort of how this protein reaction was working, or why adding sugar at this stage did stuff.”

Still, it’s great fun. It’s really well-illustrated. It’s called Cook’s Illustrated. There are no pictures; it’s all drawings. You should check it out if you get a chance.

Craig: Yeah. It’s awesome.

John: So, my thing is also a cool illustrated thing. It’s called Ticket to Ride. Craig, have you played Ticket to Ride?

Craig: I have not, but it sounds like another game that I should try.

John: You will love…

Craig: I’ve had mixed results. I did great on Ski Safari. You repeatedly kicked my ass in Letterpress, so I guess maybe this one. Maybe this will be the trick.

John: Ticket to Ride began its life as a board game. It came out in 2004. And it’s a German-style game, which doesn’t mean it’s in German. It means that it’s one of those games where it’s more about strategy than open conflict. So, it’s not like Risk where it’s a zero sum game, or Monopoly. It’s sometimes you’re actually kind of cooperating with the other players in order to get what you want out of it. And there’s some resource management involved.

It’s not as difficult or sort of strategically challenging as Settlers of Catan, but it’s sort of in that universe. If you like Settlers of Catan you’ll love this game.

Craig: Yeah, that one frustrated me a little bit.

John: So, the idea behind this is, in the basic game you have a map of America and it’s like 1910 or so. And you have all the cities. And there are these rail lines connecting these. And basically you’re trying to build rail lines between the different cities. And so these cards show which two cities you’re trying to connect, and then you have to — you’re drawing these other cards in order to build the trains from place to place.

And so you’re trying to get these routes before other people get these routes. But you don’t know what they’re actually trying to connect and you get different points for different things you do. It’s really ingeniously set up and incredibly well-designed.

And so I’d seen it in a bunch of game blogs and everybody would talk about how amazing it was. And so I bought it on Amazon just on a whim and I stuck it on a high shelf figuring whenever my daughter was old enough we could play as a family.

And she’s seven and she’s really good at games so we broke it out last month. And we’ve been playing it a lot. It’s really, really well done. And so if you have a kid who’s seven and into games they can play it.

It takes about 45 minutes. It’s not too involved. And, there is an iPad version which is not surprisingly addictive in that you can play by yourself, against computer opponents, or you can play it one on one against people on the internet or in the same room. You can just play it off of Bluetooth or WiFi. And so, you know, at bed time Mike and I will be each on our iPad playing a game of this. And it goes super fast because all the physical stuff gets taken out of it and you can just go — pure strategy.

So, I highly recommend it. The reason why I say Christmas, it’s a really good gift for Christmas, like if you know somebody who likes board games who hasn’t played this yet, they will probably love it. And so I feel like it would be a really good thing to get for Christmas with your family if they like board games and haven’t played this — they’d probably dig it a lot and it’s a good fun time.

It’s for two to five players for the physical game, and the iPad version is either solo or you can pass and play and do other stuff, too.

Craig: So, because Settlers of Catan, I wouldn’t play with say my seven-year-old, or almost eight-year-old daughter, or my 11-year-old son. It seems a little…

John: I wouldn’t be surprised. I think your 11-year-old might be able to handle it at this point. Like Settlers of Catan is overwhelming when you first try to do it, but then you actually realize, “Okay, it’s strategy.” So, the rules are really simple; figuring out how to actually get through it, how to optimize can be tough.

Craig: And is that the case with this as well?

John: It is. Similar kind of game. And what I like about the German-style board games is that if you’re really good at it you’re more likely to win. But if you’re not actually all that good at it you’re not likely to get squashed. They’re sort of set up in a way that being ahead actually has a bit of a penalty to it. When everyone can see that you’re ahead they’re going to try to block you or stop you from doing things.

And so no one sort of clears the board. No one takes over everything. And it doesn’t have that punishing aspect of Risk or Monopoly where one person is completely dominant and the other person is worse. Here, the person who wins might get 120 points and the second place person might get like 105. It doesn’t feel like you got killed.

Craig: I like that. Risk or Monopoly are sort of drain-circling games where once you start losing it’s just a slow spiral to death.

You know, my kids play Mario Party on the Nintendo and it’s kind of brilliant how you truly cannot predict who is going to win that game until maybe the last two minutes of it. Because they’ll give you points for being in last place. [laughs] They’re so good about it. They’re so smart. So, I like that idea of sort of not knowing… — Sorry, by the way, which I play with my kids, you know, a classic board game. Sorry is so good at that.

You think you’re winning and then you’re not.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That’s cool.

John: Sorry though is ultimately up to chance. Like, did you get a bunch of good rolls?

Craig: Yeah, there’s no strategy whatsoever.

John: There’s no strategy.

Craig: Frankly, it sounds like this game would be a good use of the Simplex Algorithm.

John: I’m sure the Simplex Algorithm could be used to maximum effect.

Craig: Yes.

John: Yeah. So, Craig, thank you so much.

Craig: Thank you.

John: A fun podcast and we’ll be back at this next week.

Craig: Woo! And remember, folks, brine those turkeys.

John: Brine those turkeys. Take care.

Craig: Bye.

The Next 117 Pages

Episode - 65

Go to Archive

November 27, 2012 Adaptation, Follow Up, Formatting, QandA, Scriptnotes, Three Page Challenge, Transcribed, Words on the page

John and Craig talk about everything that comes after the oft-discussed First Three Pages, speculating on the kinds of issues they’d spot if they were looking at full scripts.

They also answer listener questions on topics ranging from proper spacing protocol to novelists rewriting their screenplay adaptations.

LINKS:

* [“The exception that proves the rule”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule) on Wikipedia
* Stuart’s post, [Learning from the Three Page Challenge](http://johnaugust.com/2012/learning-from-the-three-page-challenge)
* [Brining](http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/70/Brining) on Cooking for Engineers
* [Cook’s Illustrated](http://www.cooksillustrated.com/)
* [Ticket to Ride](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ticket-to-ride/id432504470?mt=8) for iOS
* [German-style board games](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-style_board_game) on Wikipedia
* INTRO: [Folger’s “Peter Comes Home for Christmas”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4kNl7cQdcU)
* OUTRO: [Train Song](https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/train-song/id303463575?i=303463582) by Feist and Ben Gibbard on iTunes

You can download the episode here: [AAC](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_65.m4a).

**UPDATE** 11-29-12: The transcript of this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2012/scriptnotes-ep-65-the-next-117-pages-transcript).

Learning from the Three Page Challenge

November 21, 2012 Stuart, Three Page Challenge

Every few weeks, Craig and I look at three or four entries to the [Three Page Challenge](http://johnaugust.com/threepage) for the podcast. But my assistant, Stuart Friedel, has read more than 500.

I asked him to write up a post discussing the patterns, problems and common themes among what he’s read. ((One of Stuart’s early observations was The Mystery of the Js; there seemed to be a disproportionate number of entries from writers whose names begin with J. I think it’s less mysterious than it appears. Once you account for our demographics — a lot of men born in the 80s and 90s — it’s within the range of coincidence.))

—-

by_stuartFirst I want to say thank you to everyone who entered the [Three Page Challenge](http://johnaugust.com/threepage). I’ve genuinely enjoyed reading your work, and the bite-sized, three-pages-at-a-time format is perfect for someone with my generation’s attention span.

With more than 500 submissions, it’s difficult to comment on the content in any general group sense. There were no oft-repeated themes, no heavily skewed genre distributions, nothing to be gleaned about the zeitgeist as perceived by aspiring screenwriters. Vampire and zombie submissions numbers were exactly where you’d expect.

But there’s plenty to talk about regarding presentation.

Aside from the Three Page Challenge, I don’t read submissions for John. But I have been a reader in the past, mostly reading newly represented writers looking to get hired for assignments, often their first.

So that’s the basis of comparison here: not established writers’ screenplays, but other young writers’.

In general, these all looked fine. But there were a few issues common enough that they are worth pointing out.

Content
——-

**Floweriness.** It’s good when your writing is interesting, but it’s too much when flowery description obscures the intent of the sentence.

JIM, 23, floats along the sidewalk, effortless.

Wait — is he *literally* floating? Better might be:

JIM, 23, jogs along the sidewalk effortlessly, as if floating.

Remember: your goal is not to write pretty words; it’s to write words that clearly express a pretty scene. Colorfulness should clarify your intent, not confuse the reader.

**Clumping.** Pages need room to breathe. Break up long description into multiple paragraphs. Break up long runs of dialogue with short description. Use sluglines.

Write your screenplay in a way that encourages it to be read at the same pace as the movie that’s playing in your head. If the words on the page are shoved together, or if paragraphs run on too long, that’s how the reader will read the scene.

Formatting
——-

**Characters’ names should be written in UPPERCASE the first time we meet them, and only the first time we meet them.** ((You’ll find exceptions to this rule, particularly in some TV formats that use uppercase every time. But for screenplays, the first-time-rule is almost gospel.)) Most of you got the first-time-we-meet-them part of this correct, but a lot of the samples continued to put characters’ names in all caps, sometimes inconsistently.

**Important sounds should also be in UPPERCASE.** When sneakers crunch gravel, “CRUNCH” should be in caps, not “sneakers.” ((Although, to be fair, there are instances where “SNEAKERS” should be in caps, too. Like if those specific sneakers later turn out to be the detail that gets the bad guy caught.)) Uppercase should be used whenever something deserves [special attention](http://screenwriting.io/what-does-it-mean-when-something-in-a-screenplay-is-written-in-all-caps/), from the reader and/or from a specific department ((It’s almost always both. If something’s important enough that you want to call the reader’s attention to it, it’s important enough that it will be someone’s job to make sure it makes it into the film.)): an important sound, detail, or effect, a vital prop, a newly introduced character that will need to be cast, a noteworthy piece of wardrobe, etc.

Presenting characters and content
——–

**When we meet a named character, his or her age should be mentioned.** This can be done naturally in the character description, or can simply be put in parentheses after the character’s name. It’s fine to say (late-20s) rather than (28).

Even a seemingly-detailed description can create an ambiguous picture if there is no mention of age. When your salt-and-pepper haired businessman flirts with the girl at the bar as he’s done at a million other bars with a million other girls, is the reader seeing a prematurely graying recent college grad who is no stranger to a night out? Or a single fifty-something who is still going through the motions but is wishing he had someone waiting for him at home?

**Vary character names.** As much as possible, don’t use the same first letter for multiple characters. Readers don’t sound out every word, especially words that repeat often, like character names. You can’t casually breeze past “Alvin” and “Arwyn;” every time either of them is mentioned you have to pause, interrupt your flow, and take special note of which one is speaking. Don’t make readers do this.

**Give minor characters descriptive names.** “Lanky Cop” and “Stuttering Cop” are more interesting, more visual and easier to differentiate than “Cop #1” and “Cop #2.” You want me to be imagining the scene as I’m reading; make it easy for me.

**If something is held back from the audience, hold it back from the reader.** Don’t spoil your big reveal by clueing us in early. And similarly, don’t falsely convince yourself you’ve given your audience information just because you’ve given it to the reader.

A note on the selection process
——–

We’re getting submissions at a rate of about 15 – 50 per week. I have an email filter set up with the leagalese — if you’ve got it, you get through; if not, it’s an instant delete.

Yes, it’s called the Three Page Challenge, but I do not delete submissions for having a title page, or a blank fourth page. I do delete it if you try to cheat the system by shrinking your font, majorly fudging your margins or spacing, or anything of that sort. If you send in a second, better/corrected/proofread/etc. draft and ask me to use that one, I use that one. But please don’t send the same submission a second time just to send it; if you’re in the folder, you’re in the folder.

Once there’s a healthy backlog, I drag the files one at a time to my desktop, and change the file name to whatever name you indicated you want to be called. ((Pro tip: It helps if you just name your file this in the first place.)) I appreciate the kind notes, but it doesn’t help you get picked; by the time I read the submission, it’s far removed from your email. Similarly, as stated on the [submission process page](http://johnaugust.com/threepage), I’m not reading loglines or synopses or explanations of where we are in the story. Ideally the pages can stand on their own.

John and Craig allow for you to submit any three pages of your screenplay for consideration, not just the first three. And while I don’t favor first-three-pages submissions, by their very nature they usually make more sense than out of context middle-of-the-script submissions. The first pages are written with the intent of introducing readers to the world.

I also don’t judge you negatively if your submission is fewer than three pages, but why give us less to work off of? I’m looking for competently written submissions with a clear intention, where something happens, and there’s something to talk about.

So keep ‘em coming.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.