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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: protagonist

Scriptnotes, Episode 587: Toldja! The Nikki Finke Movie, Transcript

March 16, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/toldja-the-nikki-finke-movie).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 587 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Often on this program, we’re answering questions, but today we’re going to be asking perhaps the most fundamental question of them all. How Would This Be a Movie? That’s right, we’ll be looking at stories in the news and trying to fit them into a three-act structure, or more likely, an eight-part limited series structure. We’ve got doppelgangers, Craig, family drama, romance, and more.

**Craig:** My goodness.

**John:** Craig, you sounded sad in your hello. Do you want to explain to listeners why you’re sad?

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m in a new office, and everything’s wrong. Nothing’s in the right place. All my wires are messed up. My seat feels weird. The room is weird. My monitor’s funny, and it’s not in the right spot. I don’t do well with change. I really do not do well with change. I struggle.

**John:** Therefore you’ve chosen an industry in which day by day, week by week, you’re going to be doing new things. Maybe fundamentally, 50 years ago, you made some choices that brought you here. The first thing is acknowledging that you’re uncomfortable and then being able to move past that, learning to live with some of the discomfort, and rather than raging against the dying of the light, just accept that this is where you’re at.

**Craig:** I want to throw a tantrum.

**John:** Tantrums are great.

**Craig:** I don’t throw tantrums like angry tantrums. In Hollywood when you hear about people throwing tantrums, you immediately think of Scott Rudin stapling his assistant’s forehead to a desk or something.

**John:** Throwing a phone.

**Craig:** Or throwing a phone at someone’s mouth. All I want to do is just cry. I just want to get on the floor and cry.

**John:** Craig’s over-tired.

**Craig:** I kind of am. Honestly, it’s been a lot. We do this podcast. Then I also do a podcast for the show. Then I’m on other people’s podcasts. I feel like every day I’m podcasting.

**John:** That’s what the 2020s are is podcasting.

**Craig:** You know what? That’s all right, because this is the OG podcast.

**John:** Indeed it is.

**Craig:** You guys are my happy place.

**Megana Rao:** Aw.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Thank you, Megana. See, John had no emotional response to that whatsoever, and you were immediately like, “Aw.” That’s why we love Megana.

**Megana:** Aw.

**John:** [inaudible 00:02:27]. We’ll talk through all these things on our podcast, but also, in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, I want to discuss the frustrations surrounding and solutions for overpowered characters, both the characters we write but also obviously the DND characters that we’re playing, because I now have a 15th level warlock who has an 8th level spell. It’s so powerful, and yet limited in a certain way. With that power doesn’t come just great responsibility, comes really great challenges. We’ll talk about overpowered characters.

**Craig:** Which Level 8 spell have you chosen?

**John:** I chose Feeblemind. I’m questioning my decision.

**Craig:** That’s a great one.

**John:** It’s a great one. It’s a great one for a DM to pick against players, but I’m not sure it’s such a good spell for a player to pick against a DM.

**Craig:** That’s an interesting-

**John:** I’m dependent on you.

**Craig:** You are. We have only seen Feeblemind in action once, and it was you guys that got Feebleminded, weirdly enough.

**John:** It is brutal.

**Craig:** One of you did. When it works, oof. That’s all I have to say about that. Oof.

**John:** Let’s do some follow-up. Back in Episode 579, we had Rian Johnson facing off against ChatGPT. Megana, Bobby wrote in with a question.

**Megana:** Bobby wrote, “At this current moment, can a studio use a bot like ChatGPT to create stories, a basic outline, and then hire a WGA writer to write the teleplay? That is, instead of hiring writers to pitch on a story, they do that internally, they figure out the story they want to tell, and then they hire a writer to write it. They’re not paying a human being for the story by credit, the outline phase, or the pitch. Not like they were paying for pitches anyway. Am I right, folks?”

**Craig:** First of all, you don’t want them paying for pitches.

**John:** You really don’t.

**Craig:** I’m just going to keep saying this over and over. They don’t pay for things the way that we think that they pay for things. What they’re doing is buying things. Never say pay for pitches. Always say buy pitches. If they buy your pitch, they own it. They don’t do anything if they don’t own it. Please, for the love of god, no paying for pitches.

**John:** That actually speaks to one of the issues surrounding this. They don’t want to pay for things that they don’t own. They want to own things. It’s really unclear at this point whether something they generated through ChatGPT, a work of literary material they’ve created through ChatGPT, whether that’s even copyrightable. That’s still unsettled law at this point. That’s going to be one of the first things.

Backing up a little bit, I would say, Bobby, you have to keep in mind that a studio executive producer, anybody could say, “Hey, I want to do a movie about a guy who loves paperclips.” They could write up a thing and then give you the thing. If they’re writing up something that’s big enough, long enough themselves, they are a writer. They are creating literary material, in theory. The ChatGPT is a new wrinkle in this, but studio executives always could make up some stuff themselves if they wanted to.

**Craig:** I think that there’s probably some copyright law that’s going to need to be written. Many people don’t know this, that it’s enshrined in our Constitution itself. The founders, I think it’s fair to say, did not foresee artificial intelligence or guns that could shoot rapidly, side note. I think we’re going to need to write some law to make it clear that copyright is something that is afforded to humans and not AI.

Here’s what I think. I think that if a studio does this, then a lot of writers may be less inclined to actually come in and work on it. Even if they were, they would still have to rewrite the story no matter what. A story would have to be assigned to them. No, I don’t think this would work this way.

**John:** A thing to also keep in mind is that the MBA, the basic agreement that the WGA has for all writing work being done for the studios, already does have language in there that says a writer is a person, that the writer shall not be deemed to be any corporate or impersonal purveyor of literary material or the rights therein. There’s a lot of stuff in it that already says we’re talking about human beings there.

Is there space for clarification about how and when these tools can be used? Absolutely. I think it’s an open question about how we best do that. I don’t think at this moment as we’re recording this in 2023 it’s an imminent crisis. I do know that there are some projects out there where there’s folks who are saying, “We’re having a computer write this script. It’s going to be written by a computer.” Okay, but I don’t think that is the crisis next coming down the pike.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Another bit of follow-up, Yusef was writing about other people’s voices, Megana.

**Megana:** Yusef writes, “This is mainly for Craig. I recently got Apple Plus, and I’ve been catching up with Mythic Quest. I noticed you wrote a couple episodes for the series.”

**Craig:** One episode.

**Megana:** “In Scriptnotes podcast 585, you said you can’t imagine writing in other people’s voices.”

**Craig:** Correct.

**Megana:** Since Mythic Quest isn’t a show that you’re running, in typical TV fashion, the writers would write in the showrunner’s voice or the showrunner would rewrite the episode themselves. I’m curious if Ganz, Day, and McElhenney allowed you to do all the writing yourself, or did they still give you an outline and you wrote it in your own voice? Did they ever rewrite your episodes themselves?”

**Craig:** Okay, episode. Just want to be really clear. One, Yusef. I wrote the episode called Backstory! I have been in some episodes as an actor, but I’ve only written one episode of Mythic Quest. It was the episode called Backstory. It was in Season 2. Mythic Quest each season does a standalone episode. That was that season’s standalone episode.

I still continued to not write in the showrunner’s voice, because Backstory! did not take place in the same timeline as Mythic Quest. It took place decades earlier, in the ‘70s. There was one character in it that was from the main cast of Mythic Quest. We are portraying that character at a much younger age. It was consistent with that character’s voice but in a much different way. It’s a difference between a man who’s 80 and a man who’s 25.

The way that worked is I was in a room. I’ve never done this before. There are a lot of writers at Mythic Quest. You can break off into a little smaller group of writers. I’m going to apologize if I forget anybody who was on Team Idiot. That’s what we called ourselves. Team Idiot was myself, Katie McElhenney, Ashly Burch, Humphrey Ker. I think that may have been it. I apologize again if I’m missing anyone.

We just talked through how the story could function. We had the basic idea of it. We talked through what it could be. We outlined it on the wipey board. Then we brought in everybody, Rob and Megan and David and everyone, and we just pitched it out, told the story. They were all happy. They made some suggestions. We incorporated some of those suggestions into the story on the board.

Then I went away and wrote it by myself, because that’s how I write, like a weirdo alone in a small, dark room with the windows closed. I wrote a draft, and I sent it in, and they shot it. That was it. That’s how that worked. It wasn’t the normal way of doing things, I must admit.

For instance, I think Katie McElhenney, who did Dark Quiet Death in Season 1, which was that standalone episode, and stand-above, I’m pretty sure she did that Mazin style, in a dark room by herself, with the windows closed.

**John:** Circling back to Yusef’s assumptions is that if you were writing a traditional episode that had a bunch of the standing characters, you were on the normal sets, it was a normal episode, the expectation might be that you would need to match a little bit more of the style of how the scripts are normally working, just because stuff could be changing around, and everywhere else is doing the same. If you, Craig, had a really strange style on the page, it would be weird for everyone to have to grapple with a script that felt so different. That was not the case here.

**Craig:** This one was designed to be different. I don’t think I would ever dare to write a standard episode of Mythic Quest, because I think I would blow it, for this very reason. I think I can do one that’s carved out and has its own thing, with an ending, by the way, a real, solid kachunk ending.

I am amazed by the things that those guys can do in that style and also their ability to work with each other so well. It’s pretty great. A ton of credit to the showrunners there and everybody, honestly. They do a great job.

**John:** Last bit of follow-up, I just want to point out that on our podcast, we’ve had four of the Celebrity Jeopardy contestants on. We’ve talked to Ike Barinholtz and Joel Kim Booster at our live show. We knew they were both on it. Also, B.J. Novak and Matt Rogers.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Out of 20-some people, 4 of them are Scriptnotes guests.

**Craig:** Maybe the rest of them should show the hell up.

**John:** I think so.

**Craig:** How have we not had Patton Oswalt on this show?

**John:** That I think is the greatest oversight of all.

**Craig:** Can I just say… Maybe this will help get Patton Oswalt on the show. Maybe he’s reluctant. Maybe he doesn’t like coming on podcasts. I don’t know. I will say this. He’s my favorite stand-up comedian. I think I’ve listened to everything he’s done, all of it. I think he’s brilliant, absolutely brilliant, just special. Maybe that’s why he hasn’t come on the show. Maybe he knows that and he doesn’t want to listen to me talk about it.

**John:** I think it would also be fascinating if the folks who were putting together the next round of Celebrity Jeopardy, if they are just going through our Scriptnotes guest list and figuring out-

**Craig:** Probably.

**John:** … “Who are we going to get on the show? They clearly will do very well and be incredibly popular on our program.”

**Craig:** I bet you that’s true.

**John:** The Venn diagram overlap is so exciting.

**Craig:** Venn.

**John:** How excited is Venn that, whoever Venn was or is, that their name is just always going to be there?

**Craig:** I think Venn is dead. I gotta be honest with you. There’s no way Venn’s alive. Megana, can you do a quick Google search for us to see if Senor Venn is still alive?

**Megana:** “Popularized by John Venn in the 1880s.”

**Craig:** There we go. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say we’ve heard enough.

**John:** I think Venn and Overton of Overtown window, they’re just up there in Heaven looking down at what they’ve created. It’s pretty great.

**Craig:** Yes, indeed.

**John:** Let’s get on to the question of the day. How Would This Be a Movie? We got a couple really good ones here from our listeners. I added one late to the podcast here, Craig, and I apologize. Just moments before you signed on, I added this here.

I want to talk you through this first one. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s simple but juicy and compelling. This is from NBC News, Andy Eckardt and Aina Khan writing this up. It happens in Germany. This 23-year-old woman, with the help of a friend, killed a stranger to stage her death and, quote, “start a new life due to family problems,” police and prosecutors in Germany said.

Basically, what happened in this story is you have this 23-year-old woman who starts setting up dummy accounts on Instagram, looking for another one who looks a lot like her, with the plan that she and her friend are going to track down this person, lure them under false pretenses, kill them, and make it seem that she’s the one who’s died, basically faking her own death by killing a stranger.

**Craig:** What a bummer. All you ever did was nothing. You just happened to look like an asshole. That asshole finds you and kills you. Oh, man.

**John:** Man. A couple of ranges of thoughts here. First off, I could picture the A-level movie version of this, like sort of Gone Girl, that kind of thing, where it’s actually more from the perspective of these people trying to commit this murder. It’s almost like Hitchcock’s Rope, where you’re there with the killers and you’re trying to do this thing or cover up this thing. That’s a total possibility for the A-list version of it. Also, this feels like this could be the A-plot of any given CBS procedural. It’s shocking, but it’s a way to do it, or a Law and Order.

**Craig:** In the old days there would be a movie, I think. These movies don’t get made as much anymore. There was a time where we were getting some really good neo noir films, Body Heat. I think you could make an interesting neo noir out of this. I’d love to see what Scott Frank would do with this. Do you want to know what my twist twist is?

**John:** Tell me, tell me.

**Craig:** Imagine this story. You’ve got a woman, and she’s murdered, and you’re trying to figure out why. Then you realize, oh, wait, the woman that we thought was murdered isn’t even the woman. It’s somebody else who looks like the woman, who’s gone missing. Somehow, if there could be triplets or twins… If there’s twins and they both are like, “One of you needs to die or seem to die. Let’s find somebody that looks like the two of us.” I don’t know, there’s gotta be some sort of twin thing that we could do.

**John:** Another thing that we’re discussing goes back to the actual, real people in Germany. Interestingly, the story that we are basing this off of, the names are all suppressed, because Germany has these very strict privacy laws. We don’t even know the names of the people who are involved here, which is just wild. For our purposes, I don’t think we’d need to know the names. I think we’re just taking this as a premise and applying it to something completely different.

**Craig:** I think so.

**John:** We’re saying this could be a movie. It can really scale. It can go all the way from A-plot of a given episode of a procedural to an actual, full movie.

**Craig:** I think it’s more likely that just by you bringing this onto the show, we will be seeing this on a procedural within a year.

**John:** I agree, because the ChatGPTs will have looked through the transcripts, found it, and therefore [inaudible 00:16:22]. That’s a possibility.

**Craig:** The ChatGPTs. I like that there’s an army of them now. I like it.

**John:** There’s a whole army.

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** Let’s get to our next story. The headline for this is The Godfather, Saudi-Style. It’s Anuj Chopra writing for The Guardian. Craig, you did have a chance to read through this. This is a long one. I’m sorry for the long read there. I thought it was really compelling. Do you want to talk us through what you remember of it/

**Craig:** Sure. This is the story of Mohammed bin Salman, who we tend to refer to as MBS, came to power. I did not know any of this.

**John:** Nor did I.

**Craig:** He was not supposed to be the guy. There’s this interesting thing going on in Saudi Arabia that I was also not aware of, where the same family, which I guess they’re the Sauds, the House of Saud, has been running Saudi Arabia as a monarchy for quite some time. The way they’ve done it is by alternating I think between cousins or uncles.

**John:** It says in the family, but never direct, same family line. It always goes laterally, which honestly, I have to say, feels really smart.

**Craig:** The point of it was to avoid what just happened. The point is, no one little family line is the only one. This way, the family as a large entity doesn’t fall prey to what a lot of palace intrigue ends up with. It’s just families breaking apart and then one person just dominating the others. Yet that is what’s happened here.

**John:** Yeah, it is. There was a plan in place for who would be the next in line. You can think of this as Succession to some degree. It’s who is the next person who’s supposed to be there, who’s Nayef, who’s the king’s nephew.

**Craig:** Nayef, the king’s nephew.

**John:** Basically, he gets tipped off that there’s potential problems. It’s clear that he’s going to be… Basically, him and his guards get pulled out [inaudible 00:18:22] sign these documents saying that they are not seeing a succession and that MBS should be the next real person that should be doing this. It’s a palace coup. It’s not violent. This isn’t guns and such. Basically, by locking somebody down and not letting them leave the country, you’re forcing them to sign over their succession.

**Craig:** It was as close to violent as you can get without being violent. In fact, it did turn violent. Initially, it was just we’re going to lock you in a room and tell you that you’re going to resign and you’re going to pledge allegiance to MBS. If you do not, as the article states, your female family members will be raped. That’s an interesting way to just immediately go to 100 as part of your patriarchal monarchy. Just fascinating.

It also mentions in the article, I’m sorry to laugh, but I find this darkly amusing that they said, “First, your female family members will be raped. Second, we are going to withhold your medication for hypertension.” I think I’m stuck on number one. I gotta be honest with you. I gotta be honest. Number one is worse than me not having my hypertension meds, but fine.

I think at some point he was in fact re-detained, so he was, “Okay, you can just live here for a while.” Then at some point, as is often the case with these situations, the paranoid dictator does what paranoid dictators do and decide, “You know what? Actually, I think you are still a huge problem. I think what I’m going to do is lock you in a room and beat you.” There’s an implication that that also occurred.

While this is all going on, we also note that they had killed Khashoggi, the Washington Post journalist. These guys are terrible. The extent that our country continues to do business with them, it’s just startling. Just startling.

**John:** The other main character involved here is a man named Saad Al Jabri, who is Nayef’s advisor and intelligence chief. He’s the man who was trying to give advice to him and help sort through the situation. He was out of the country as this all happened and was able to get most of his family out, except for two family members who were still there. Those two family members were not allowed to leave. MBS is basically saying, “No, no, come back, come back, and everything will be fine.” When Al Jabri doesn’t come back, MBS starts to trump up charges about corruption and other things, and so Al Jabri has to flee first to Canada and then to other places and ultimately is now in the process of filing a lawsuit against MBS.

**Craig:** Now that a lawsuit has been filed, I’m sure everything will be fine.

**John:** It’s a question of at what point do you speak up, because in keeping your silence, you might be trying to keep your imprisoned family members alive, but at a certain point, you have to speak up.

**Craig:** From the point of view of what we are doing, there are a lot of elements here that would suggest that this could be a movie. There are main characters. Al Jabri is a potentially great protagonist, because he’s very smart. He’s very capable. We love watching movies where protagonists are smart and capable and are attempting to out-maneuver very powerful people with entire states behind them. Al Jabri has done it. He could smell that trouble was coming and just went, “I think I’m going to go to Turkey real fast.” I think days later, it was clear that he had made a very smart decision. The challenge in bringing this story to film is that I don’t know if it’s over yet.

**John:** It’s not.

**Craig:** That’s the biggest issue for me.

**John:** You’re right in the middle of it. I feel like with some time, with some closure, you can really tell the whole story, but right now it just feels like a dot dot dot. There’s not a way out of this. I think there’s useful things you could take from this in terms of the dynamics and apply them to another story, but I don’t think you can directly take what’s happening in the House of Saud right now as the meat of either a movie or an eight-part limited series. There’s exciting moments that are happening, but it doesn’t feel like there’s a resolution here.

**Craig:** I do think this is also tricky territory given that access to information is difficult here. Also, to be fair to writers, the Saudis apparently have no problem committing violence against innocent people who do nothing other than report the truth. You have to be aware if you’re going to be digging deep into the situation that you’re going to be drawing some unwanted attention.

**John:** Scrutiny that’s not only applied to you but applied to the production, applied to anybody who’s involved with the production. That makes it much less likely that you’re going to see something, this exact story being told. That’s just the reality.

**Craig:** Until there is a resolution, yeah, I agree with you.

**John:** Let’s talk about Nikki Finke.

**Craig:** I swore I never would, but okay.

**John:** You never would, but here we are.

**Craig:** Here we are.

**John:** This is actual context for it.

**Craig:** It’s a great, great piece that was written here.

**John:** It really is a great piece. This is Jacob Bernstein writing for the New York Times. For folks who are outside the industry and don’t know who Nikki Finke was, Nikki Finke created Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Daily if you want to call it that. It was a website, a blog that rivaled Variety and Hollywood Reporter, ended up supplanting them and becoming more important in the daily workings of the town. It was always about breaking the news in a very bombastic way, a lot of opinion mixed with facts, a lot of bullying on behalf of Nikki Finke, who was this larger-than-life character. She was feared and loathed, but also sometimes admired.

What I like about this piece is that I think it was fair in the sense of talking about she was not a good journalist in any sort of good journalist sense, but she was just a smasher and destroyer of things in sometimes ways that needed to happen.

**Craig:** I don’t know if she was good enough to quality as a double-edged sword. She certainly broke stuff around her. It reminds me of, you’ve seen Glass Onion, the wonderful speech that Rian Johnson wrote about what disrupting is. It’s mostly just breaking shit. She broke a lot of shit.

She was journalistically irresponsible. I don’t think that that’s any kind of slanderous thing to anyone. This is a woman who would report things. They were wrong. People would tell her they were wrong. She would then edit the article to change them but would not indicate that any correction had been made, which is fundamental standard of journalism. She was a bully. She did scream at people. She was mean. She would threaten.

The only thing that was really fascinating about me to Nikki Finke was that she was not doing it for the reason everybody else does stuff for in Hollywood, which is money. She didn’t seem particularly concerned about money. She lived alone in an apartment. She was angry. You could just tell that she was really angry at Hollywood. She liked to put on the mantle on angry companies on behalf of the working people. I don’t think that’s true either, because she was super buddy-buddy with a lot of these people that ran Hollywood. I think she just liked breaking stuff. I really do.

**John:** I think you’re right. I think you could say inadvertently she had maybe shined a spotlight on some real problems in entertainment journalism in the sense that because of advertising and other things, they are so uniquely linked and tied. They’re never objectively reporting about the things that are happening in the town. Because she wasn’t beholden to those things, she could report on things that no one else would report on and say things other people weren’t saying in print, but they weren’t always accurate or truthful. That’s why she developed this terrifying reputation.

What was interesting about this stuff that was brand new that I’d never seen before was really her relationship with Jay Penske, who was the very rich person who bought out Deadline and Hollywood Daily and ultimately I think Variety as well, plus a lot of other magazines and journalism places. Her relationship with him was really fascinating, the ups and the downs and how she hated him and yet how he was the one who actually showed up in her last days in Florida.

**Craig:** You get the feeling that Nikki, for people who knew her, because we sure didn’t. I only had one brief exchange with Nikki Finke, and it was terrible. I think that was true for a lot of people. For the people who knew her, you can get this thread of care-taking, that they were worried about her a lot. The article talks about what appears to be, if not a suicide attempt, a legitimate threat to do self-harm. She was sick. She was physically sick. She had diabetes. This sums it up. I’ll read from the article.

“One year, Miss Finke lamented to Mr. Penske that she wasn’t looking forward to Thanksgiving. She didn’t cook and planned to spend the holiday alone in her apartment on a day when restaurants were closed.” That’s rather sad. “Mr. Penske stopped in at the Beverly Hills Hotel, ordered a three-course meal, and took it to her building,” himself, by the way. He’s a billionaire. “Soon after leaving it with the doorman, he heard from her by phone. The meal included a sweet dessert, which enraged the diabetic Miss Finke.” Quote, “’She said I was trying to kill her,’ Mr. Penske recalled.”

Now we can laugh about this, but I have to say, so much of what I read in this article implies that Nikki Finke was struggling with mental illness. Her mood swings, which apparently were quite extreme, her, what would you call it, shut-in-ness?

**John:** Reclusivity or agoraphobia.

**Craig:** Yeah, her life as a recluse. Also, you could tell from her work there was something compulsive about it. She would be there, sometimes reporting things within seconds of them happening. Then a lot of times, if her reporting was late or somebody else got the scoop, she would make these bizarre excuses, which I guess goes way back to when she was working for other people. She would just constantly be calling in with strange and bizarre excuses for why she was late. That’s why she got fired from everywhere. She just would not make her deadlines, amusingly enough, for a woman that created a site called Deadline.

It seems like there was a lot of mental illness going on here. To the extent that she was suffering, I feel bad for her. To the extent that her suffering led her to inflict that pain on other people, I am not sorry for her. She was a fascinating person. I think you could make a very interesting story about her. It would need to be rather small, because I think this is about as inside baseball as it gets.

**John:** I was looking for comps and thinking about what kind of movie this is. Can You Ever Forgive Me might be one, in that you have a character who is abrasive and really off-putting, and yet ultimately because the lens is on her, you can actually understand why she feels she needs to do the things she needs to do is an option.

**Craig:** It is, but that story I think is better because it’s not about Hollywood.

**John:** Agreed.

**Craig:** That’s the part about this that… Remember The Late Shift, the movie, the Betty Thomas film about the late-night wars?

**John:** The late-night wars.

**Craig:** That was well done, but it’s a confection, because ultimately, the stakes are as low as they can be. Who will get to host The Tonight Show? It’s not that important. It was well done. I think you could do something like that. It would need to be in its own way funny. I don’t think you can do a super heavy version of this. I just think it would be too much.

**John:** I do remember that too. I think it’s also a question of where you start and where you stop. Do you start the story when she’s dismissed by the trades or basically unable to get the job that she wants and creates this site for herself, which is inspiring rise, and then the crash and the sale and all that? Maybe. It’s a question of is that the course of a movie or are you doing that as a limited series. I don’t know that there’s probably enough stuff to make it more than two hours worth of entertainment.

**Craig:** I think that there is the potential for a camp classic. You’re talking about this emotionally wild human being who is a shut-in in her apartment and yelling at people on the phone. This could be Mommy Dearest. If it is, I’m there.

**John:** I think it’s a good point. I think to take this as a jumping off place to get to something bigger and funnier, great. Movies about Hollywood sometimes get awards, but they’re not generally huge hits is the other thing to be thinking about.

**Craig:** They are not generally huge hits. Generally speaking, I don’t like them. There is something inherently narcissistic about movies about movies, which is why I’m still so impressed by The Fabelmans, because I just loved it so much. It was about Hollywood. Generally speaking, I just don’t like movies about Hollywood.

**John:** We have two more here. The first one comes from a listener, Josie. She writes about the nun and the monk who fell in love and married. This tells the story of Sister Mary Elizabeth and Robert, who’s a Carmelite monk. They’re both in their 50s when they meet. What struck me so much as so interesting about this is they barely spoke. It was like he touched her elbow or something, and that was the spark that sat the whole thing up and going.

**Craig:** So hot.

**John:** Craig, you’re saying so hot. Do you think there’s a story here to be told?

**Craig:** No. It’s adorable. I think it’s very sweet. It shows you that love can flourish, even in the strangest ways. It was such a sweet thing to read the way that the two of them were like, “Wait, what did we just do?” and then all the things they have to go through, and then somehow yet on the other end of it, there they are in love with each other and it’s working is beautiful.

I think there’s been another article at some point before about arranged marriages. This isn’t an arranged marriage but it almost is, in the sense that if all you know of each other is that one time, my elbow hit your elbow, you arranged your own marriage. The fact that it lasted… There’s something fascinating about this. I wonder what’s going to happen.

We’ve gone so far down the road. Megana, you knew I was going to turn to you at this point. We’ve gone so far down the road of, everybody just pick who you want and it’s entirely up to you and choose what you want. Everyone’s just drowning in choice to the extent that people really are struggling to make choices.

Here’s my proposal. You do a Tinder, except instead of hookup culture or even just dating, it’s like, we’re going to give you a choice of 20 people. You can meet five of them and you’re going to marry one of them. Now you’re married. Do you think that app catches on in the future?

**Megana:** I think what’s so fascinating about this story is that it was an accident, and she only met him once after, what, 24 years in this convent?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**Megana:** How do we simulate that?

**Craig:** Basically, then what you’re saying is you can use this app, but when you register for it, you are sworn to celibacy for 24 years. At that point, I have to say everyone’s going to start looking real good. Great point. Not sure we have a way to monetize this. Concerned about the business plan. I don’t know. I thought there was something very inherently encouraging about this, but I don’t know how I would make it a movie. Can you figure this out?

**John:** We should say that the article we’re reading about is from Aleem Maqbool for the BBC, and there’s probably other versions of this that may go into more depth on certain things. I wouldn’t be surprised if they write their own book at some point.

Here’s the thing that sparked for me, is that we always think about this love at first sight happening to teenagers, because that’s when this should happen, but the fact that these two characters who should not have been looking for love at all, suddenly it happens, it’s just overwhelming when it happens, is nice and is inspiring.

I wondered if it was a play, and then I decided, no, it couldn’t be a play, because I think I need those close-ups. I need those moments. I need to see those elbows touching that make that happen. I don’t think it’s a play. I think it’s an Emma Thompson and some other British actor in it. Maybe it’s great and it wins a bunch of awards.

**Craig:** Isn’t that Howards End anyway?

**John:** It is Howards End to some degree.

**Craig:** I think when it comes to restrained romances, Age of Innocence comes to mind, with the little touch of the hand, or even in a very sick way, Silence of the Lambs, is the moment where their fingers touch, and it’s like that’s the extent of our weird romance. There is room for that. I just don’t know if this is the story that’s going to get you there.

**John:** I’ll say unlike Silence of the Lambs, I think there’s a gold circle movie to be made here. You know what I’m talking about, which is that classy British but also very cheery, or a working title.

**Craig:** A working title sounds like a better fit.

**John:** You can see how this whole package came together and why Universal is releasing this now. I think there’s something that can be charming about this. Also the fact that everyone else around them should be like, “You’re not supposed to be falling in love.” It’s just like, but why? They know it’s love. That could be inspiring.

**Craig:** Don’t you want to write this scene though? I’m quoting from the woman here, Lisa, who was Sister Mary Elizabeth, when she told her prioress how she was feeling. “The prioress was a little bit snappy with me, so I put my pants and a toothbrush in a bag and I walked out, and I never went back to Sister Mary Elizabeth.” I’m like, wait, okay, toothbrush I get, sure, but then also “my pants?” Socks, shirt, underwear?

**John:** Nope, don’t need none of those, just pants.

**Craig:** Deodorant, scissors, hairbrush? Just toothbrush and pants. I guess when you’re a nun, that’s what you got.

**John:** Got what you got.

**Craig:** You got what you got.

**John:** We also have a history of… Looking back to The Sound of Music, the decision to leave the nunnery is a big, momentous decision. Any movie that we make about this is going to echo back to that, just because that’s one of our favorite references, which is great too.

Our takeaway from the story of the nun and the monk, I think there’s maybe a movie here. This is a case where you might actually want to use their life rights, so you could say it’s based on a true story. You would have to get their official version.

**Craig:** My feeling is, as we often conclude with these stories, that this may be good fodder for side characters in a movie. If you’re doing a romantic comedy and your neighbors are a former nun and former monk who fell in love and married, that might be a very interesting side amusement. I don’t know if I would want to watch a whole story just about the two of them.

**John:** Let’s wrap up on a story that Rosario sent in. This is about 13 stranded strangers who go on a road trip. We’ll link to a version by Francesca Street for CNN. Essentially, it’s a bunch of folks. Their flight landed in Orlando, but they needed to get to Nashville. There was no way for them to get to Nashville because of plans getting canceled. A bunch of them had to get to Nashville by a certain time. They decided let’s just rent a van all together and drive from Orlando to Nashville, Tennessee. Craig, what do you think of this as a premise?

**Craig:** It’s a fine premise. There’s a wonderful musical called Come From Away, which is very similar in its own way. It’s about a plane that was diverted on 9/11. The only place it could land was I think in Newfoundland. It’s about this tiny, tiny little town with all these folks who are there stranded, because the airspace is shut down, and people coming together and meeting each other and all that. Yes. It’s just it’s very small is my concern.

**John:** It’s really small.

**Craig:** It’s just people in a van.

**John:** It’s people in a van. It’s a road trip story. You’ve made some road trip stories. They’re not easy, because you don’t have a place to come back to. It’s not quite clear. You have a destination, I guess, but you just have a physical destination. You don’t have an emotional destination for where you’re trying to get these characters to. The fact they start out strangers can help to a degree, but you’d probably want to build some relationships already within those characters so you can really see what it is that’s happening, so you can see progress and growth. Think Little Miss Sunshine. It’s not about the journey. It’s about the people in the van that are important.

**Craig:** I think part of the problem is there are too many people in the van. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles basically is this. That’s what happens. Their flight is canceled, and there’s only one car to share, and so these two strangers have to share a car and drive. It’s been done. I think if you can concentrate on two people or three, that’s fine too, but 13, eh.

**John:** That’s going to be too many people. I think Breakfast Club rules kick in at a certain point. You would have five. More than that, it’s too much.

**Craig:** Have you ever seen Spike Lee’s Get On the Bus?

**John:** Never have.

**Craig:** It’s fascinating. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a very simple plot. It was back when they did the Million Man March. Spike basically gets more than 13. It was probably 20 guys on this bus. The entire thing is the trip. It’s just the bus ride, with little breaks here and there. While there are a few moments of some small, what I would call plot action, mostly it’s these men talking and arguing and laughing and fighting. It’s really interesting as an experiment, because you are stuck on the bus with so many people.

What holds it together is the fact that it’s about a social issue, clearly. The point is they’re going to the Million Man March, and they are debating their own lives and their own history and their own future. There’s something to discuss. I don’t know what they talk about on this.

**John:** You’re not going to be obsessed with Nashville. Getting to Nashville is important to the individual characters, but it’s not important for the movie.

**Craig:** Exactly. There isn’t anything that connects them other than the fact that they were all supposed to be flying to the same place. It wasn’t like they were joined together by social issues or anything like that. I don’t think this is a movie.

**John:** I don’t think it’s a movie either. Let us talk through now our candidates here and see which ones are going to be movies and which ones are not going to be movies. Doppelganger murder?

**Craig:** Television show episode. Episode of a TV show.

**John:** The Godfather, Saudi-Style?

**Craig:** One day. Not today.

**John:** One day. Not today. Last days of Nikki Finke?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** The nun and the monk who fell in love and married?

**Craig:** Side characters.

**John:** Side characters. Thirteen strangers we think is probably not it. I’m going to say doppelganger murder is probably most likely to be the movie. I think it might be a Sundancey movie that could potentially break out.

**Craig:** That’s our best bet.

**John:** Thank you to everybody who sent in these suggestions. Sometimes they come in to ask@johnaugust.com. A lot of times, people are just tweeting them at me or stuff, and they’re good. We love it when you find those and send them in our direction. I propose we answer one listener question, seems timely, from Embarrassed. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana:** Embarrassed asks, “What do you do when the movie you wrote gets terrible reviews and you agree with them? I had a movie get made at a big level, and I’m so grateful that it got made, but I don’t love what the director did with the script. I don’t want to seem bitter or burn bridges with anyone or seem ungrateful. How would you recommend handling this in meetings and even just with your own family? How do you talk about a project that didn’t turn out like you dreamed it would?”

**John:** Craig and I, we’ve both been there.

**Craig:** I don’t know what you’re talking about.

**John:** First off, Embarrassed, it’s amazing that you had a movie get made at a big level. That’s fantastic. You’re better for having gone through the experience of it all. I’ve been there. What I will say in meetings is like, “Oh wow, yeah, thank you. It was a real challenge. It wasn’t quite the movie I wanted it to be, but I’m glad it worked. I’m glad it had success.” You can say things like, “It was weird to agree with the critics on it.” I would say you don’t need to volunteer about the bad experiences you had unless you think they’re relevant for the discussion you’re about to have, like why you never want to work for that director again.

**Craig:** There’s really no great advice here, Embarrassed. When it doesn’t come out the way you want, the only thing you can say is, if someone mentions it, you can say, “Ultimately, it was not the movie I wrote. The director took it in a different direction.” That’s I think fair to say. That’s all you need to say. I think everybody will get it.

**John:** There may also be a way to put it in a positive direction, say, “It’s a really interesting situation, because here’s a story that I actually wrote,” and basically talk about what the plan was. Then you don’t have to get into… They saw the movie. They know what the result was. They can see, oh, you’re that kind of writer. You’re the kind of writer who wrote that script that would’ve been a different movie. That can be useful.

**Craig:** There’s another thing, Embarrassed, that I think is worth mentioning. That is that these days, everybody is absorbing and soaking in review culture. When John and I were starting out, there weren’t even that many reviewers. Reviewers worked for newspapers. There are only so many newspapers. There’s four billion outlets right now online that write reviews. Everyone writes reviews. The old joke “everyone’s a critic” is now a fact. Everyone is a critic. There are so many reviews. They all get slurried into the Rotten Tomatoes score or a Metacritic score, and so now there’s metrics attached to reviews. Then on top of that, even people that aren’t writing reviews professionally are writing reviews on Twitter. Everyone’s reviewing everything constantly. It’s just what people do.

You may therefore feel a little worse about this than perhaps you should, because in the old days, you’d get your ass kicked in a bunch of newspapers. You’d feel bad. Very few people are even reading those things. Most people are just like, “Oh cool, you got a movie made. That’s awesome.” That’s it. Nobody would really dig any deeper. It just wouldn’t matter.

Just keep that perspective in mind that you may be feeling this intensely just because you’re swimming in the waters of reviews. It might be worth taking a break and turning some of that stuff off, because here’s what has happened. You got a movie made, and that this the beginning, my friend. Somewhere down the line, something great is going to happen for you. You will be happy. You will feel terrific. People will come up to you and tell you it’s wonderful. You don’t get there until you do the first thing.

The other thing is let time do its job, because 20 years from now, people are going to have a very different opinion of that movie. I don’t care what it is. They just do. That’s how it works.

**John:** I think we can also offer some very specific advice for Embarrassed, because we’re not going to say this on the air, but Megana has a note in the Workflowy about what the actual movie was that came out.

**Craig:** (singing) Megana has a note.

**John:** I’m looking at the title. I know that’s a movie. I know it’s a movie that came out. I have no idea what the critical reception was. I didn’t see it. I don’t know what people are saying about it. I would say that was a big movie. That’s what a lot of people are going to know about that movie. It’s a movie that came out, and that’s awesome. I honestly think that credit is not going to hurt you. Your feeling that it’s not a great movie is not important. It’s not going to weigh on anything.

**Craig:** You’re in the business. You’re writing movies that get made. In features, directors get all the credit. We know that. They also get all the blame. Your job is to write a movie that people agree to make. You didn’t cast it. You didn’t shoot it. You didn’t edit it. You probably weren’t on set. If you were, you were visiting, because that’s how features work, unfortunately. You did your job.

Of course you’re going to want it to turn out better. Of course you’re going to want the director to have done better and all of that. I completely get it. This is a great beginning for you. Don’t apologize for this. You can just say, “That really wasn’t the movie I wrote, but the movie I wrote got everybody to agree to make a movie,” and that’s of value.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is Nothing Forever on Twitch. Craig and Megana, if you’re not seeing it, Nothing Forever is an animated, pixelly animation of a Seinfeld episode.

**Craig:** I’ve seen it. It’s cool.

**John:** It’s the Larry stand-up bits, which are Jerry Seinfeld’s monologue things. Then you’re in this apartment. These characters are moving around in really awkward ways and sitting on couches and on their heads. It’s all crazy and goofy. It’s all generated basically by AI and algorithms and a bunch of prebuilt assets that are just doing this thing. Basically, it’s constantly creating a new episode of a Seinfeld-like show in real time. It’s really unusual and unnerving to watch. It’s not good, but it’s fascinating.

I think the degree to which we talk about AI coming for our jobs, I don’t think they’re going to be writing the kind of stuff that we’re writing. I think they’re going to be making stuff like this that’s actually compelling and strange, that no human would ever actually try to do. I think that’s in many ways the real danger, like what is it that I’m watching, and why can’t I stop watching it? I think it’s really interesting.

If you’re clicking through the links right now, you may find it’s not available, because just this morning as we’re recording this, the account was suspended for transphobic content because of things that the algorithms itself had generated. It had characters saying bad things that the creators had not intended, and so the creators are apologizing and trying to fix it, which is again another exciting challenge to this kind of thing. Nobody wrote it, but it created a thing that actually got itself banned.

**Craig:** It’s canceled. We have canceled AI. Listen, it’s important for artificial intelligence to learn. These are learning machines. Maybe it needs to learn from what it’s done and do better.

**John:** Indeed. It’s taking some time to listen and really reach out and reflect.

**Craig:** I’m looking at what it was suspended for. It’s very strange. In a weird way, it’s almost anti-bad. There’s actually a weirdly subtle thing of it’s making a comment on the thing that’s not good, but still. Let’s put it this way. There is a line in the thing where it’s suspended, where the AI comedian, the Seinfeld literally says, “No one is laughing, so I’m going to stop.” I think that’s incredible. Wow.

**John:** Craig, did you have something for us?

**Craig:** I do. I purchased an item called the Manta Sleep Mask. This is available wherever you shop online, I’m sure. It is not expensive, like the last thing that I thought was not expensive but turned out to be expensive. This one’s $35.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** You may say, “$35 for an eye mask?” Here’s why I love this one. I don’t wear eye masks normally at night, but if I’m on a plane and I need to sleep, I absolutely wear one. One of the things that we have been learning over time about light and sleep is how important it is to keep it out of your eyes. We talk a lot about some of the fancier, newfangled things, like not as much blue light. You probably have the night shift thing set on your tablets and so forth. I certainly do. That’s nice, but it seems like blue light, not blue light, the most important thing for sleeping is no light.

The thing with eye masks is they’re super annoying. I hate them. They come off my face. They squeeze my head. They pinch my eyes. I don’t like the way they feel. This thing is great, because they’ve designed it so that there are these eye cups. It floats away from your face, but it really does a good job of sealing out the light. It doesn’t mush around to the left or the right when you turn your head and sleep on your side. The eye cups themselves are Velcroed to the straps. You can move them to fit, because the distance between our eyes is different for everybody. For me, I’ve found this to be an excellent travel solution. Big recommend for the Manta. What a nice name for it too, the Manta Sleep Mask.

**John:** I think I’ve recommended sleep masks before, because I’ve slept with a mask for 10 years or so. I sleep every night with a mask on.

**Craig:** Really? In your own bed at home?

**John:** At my own house, absolutely.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** I want absolute darkness. I think they’re great. Yes, they take a little getting used to. So often, I think people’s only experience with masks are when they’re on a plane and they’re using those cheap ones that come in little kits.

**Craig:** Those are bad.

**John:** Those are really bad. That’s not what we’re talking about. These are going to need to be soft. Definitely they don’t touch your eyeballs, which is crucial. You should be able to open your eyes with a mask on, without your eyelashes touching. That’s what this will allow you to do.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** It’s great. I really recommend, if you’ve not tried sleeping with a mask, get one of these, because it really is just a better night of sleep, and you’re out.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** Cool. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Pachoo.

**John:** It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Chow.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Timothy Lenko. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. For short questions, I’m sometimes around on Twitter @johnaugust, but not consistently, so send it in to ask@johnaugust.com.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and they’re great. You can find those at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you can get all of the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on overpowered characters. Craig and Megana, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, so this past week at DnD, we leveled up. We went down a level in the dungeon. We went up a level of our characters. I got to pick a new spell for my warlock named Klaus. Here are the choices I had. I had Demiplane, which was not going to be situationally very useful, Dominate Monster.

**Craig:** In the Dungeon of the Mad Mage, no. Dominate Monster, excellent spell.

**John:** Excellent spell. It basically lets you not just charm but really control a creature.

**Craig:** Control a creature.

**John:** Feeblemind, which was done against us shortly before, which basically just knocks somebody down to a Level 1 intelligence. They can’t do anything meaningful.

**Craig:** And charisma.

**John:** And charisma, yes. It really keeps them from casting spells and things. Glibness, which is a skill I don’t have, which is the ability to speak extemporaneously and [inaudible 00:54:13] charisma checks. Maddening Darkness, which is a powerful darkness that does damage on the people who are inside it, and Power Word Stun, which stuns people.

I picked Feeblemind because there’s a recency bias. It had just been done against us, and it felt great. It also felt like a good way to knock out a spell-caster, except I’m also thinking a lot of spell-casters could counter-spell that, and then I’ve just burned an incredibly expensive spell on them.

**Craig:** Hard to counter-spell that one though. It is a higher level spell. As they go up, trickier to counter. I think Mind Blank probably-

**John:** Protects against that?

**Craig:** … protects against Feeblemind. Yeah, it does. Mind Blank is a pretty awesome spell. It’s is also an 8th level spell. That’s 8th level wizard spell, pretty sure. Oh, and bards apparently can do it as well. Feeblemind is a great spell against casters for sure. You don’t want to cast it against a dum-dum monster, because it’ll just still punch you. Really good spell against anybody that’s using charisma in particular, so warlocks. If you’re going up against another big warlock, Feeblemind would be a really good one.

**John:** This got me thinking about overpowered characters, because now Klaus is at a level where he can do some really impressive things. I can lock somebody in a force cage and basically take them out of a fight, which is great.

It got me thinking about overpowered characters in DnD but also overpowered characters as they relate to the stories we’re trying to tell. I think we talked about the challenge of Superman on previous episodes, where you have a character who can do so much, who’s so powerful, that you end up having to look for his small weakness. You have to find the kryptonite so you have some ability to stop him. It makes it very hard to fit him in with other groups of characters, because he’s just so overpowered.

**Craig:** Overpowering leads to power inflation. The more powerful a hero is, the more powerful the villain has to be, so that we care. What ends up happening is this blunting of ability, where you get very excited that somebody is such a badass. Then you’re like, oh no, a mega badass has appeared. At some point, isn’t it just all the same then? If Superman is trading punches with-

**John:** Darkseid?

**Craig:** Yeah, Darkseid. He’s going up against Darkseid. Now it’s just these gods punching each other in the face, which is fun, but it does turn into the whole Thor is fighting with Hela, and you’re like, they’re the same.

**John:** They’re gods.

**Craig:** Now it’s just fistfight again. You get that weird inflation of power, all the way to Thanos can wipe out half of the universe and that we can do these things. For me, as a DM, the challenge of running a campaign with… There are seven of you guys, who are all Level 16. You’re a Level 15 warlock, but you’re also a Level 1… What’d you dip into?

**John:** Artificer.

**Craig:** Artificer. Seven Level 16 characters are demigods. The danger now is that every encounter will either be trivial or you’ll all die. The ability to craft close battles is becoming much, much harder because you guys can beat almost anyone. It’s tricky.

**John:** What you’re describing in terms of the DM’s challenge is really the screenwriter’s challenge or the TV writer’s challenge in terms of figuring out ways, when you have characters who can do all these things, how do you create scenarios in which they are challenged, and yet it still feels like they are recognizably human, it still feels like they’re relating to things at a normal human level. That becomes just really, really tricky thinking about the Superman problem, like Doctor Strange and Wanda Maximoff, which again, super incredibly, incredibly powerful characters.

In the case of Wanda, you’re looking for what is she really trying to do, how do we set up the things that she’s actually focusing on, which is basically to get back to her sons. How can that be a driving factor? Yet we as an audience have very little ability to understand what are the limits to her power, what is it that she cannot do. You end up having to have other characters describe someone that’s putting other guardrails around where the edges of her power is. It’s really tough. I think we sometimes under-appreciate how tough it is to write incredibly powerful characters versus people with more normal levels of ability.

**Craig:** You begin to get stupid. I don’t know how else to put it. There was a video game I played years ago called Turok, the Dinosaur Hunter. It’s a cool game. You were running around. I think you were on another planet. You must’ve been on another planet where there were a lot of dinosaurs but also bad guys. As you go, no surprise, the monsters get tougher, bad guys get harder.

Like a lot of first-person shooters back then, it was about weapon fetishization. You start with a gun, but then you get a shotgun, but then you get a big shotgun, but then you get a rocket launcher. Where it ended up was you have a gun that fires small nukes. That’s where you ended up. You were literally firing nuclear weapons out of your gun, which of course should theoretically kill you as well. It just got stupid. That is stupid. It was fun. Oh my god was it fun, but it was stupid fun.

The one time in Predator, way way back when, in the end, spoiler for the movie from the ‘80s, the Predator explodes himself and it’s a nuclear explosion, which Arnold Schwarzenegger runs from, jumps, does the whole something behind me is exploding jump, lands and takes cover behind a log or something, and he’s fine.

**John:** He’s fine.

**Craig:** He was at Ground Zero of a nuclear blast. He’s all right. They don’t show his character going through intensive cancer treatments years later. That was hysterical but also stupid. I know I’m going to get angry fan mail about that. That’s part of the fun of overpower is like, oh my god, what a badass, but then what it costs you is…

Another case of overpower, Highlander. There can be only one. He’s the one. Now let’s make more Highlanders. They’re overpowered. They’re eternal. They can kill everybody with their swords. This guy killed all those people with his sword.

**John:** I want to point out though, going back to your Predator example, because the most recent Predator I thought was a really, really good version of Predator. I loved it.

**Craig:** Grounded.

**John:** Grounded. I think one of the reasons it was grounded is that the Predator character could seem overpowered and yet it has put limits on what it’s willing to do, in terms of it could fly off in its ship. It’s not going to fly off in its ship. It’s going to do some stuff. Therefore you can use the overpowered character’s abilities against itself. That’s ultimately how they are defeated, which is true to the Predator ethos. An overpowered villain is not nearly as much of a problem for the screenwriter as an overpowered hero is.

**Craig:** Yes, although the overpowered hero will lead to overpowered villains. I see in the notes here you reference The Matrix. That’s what happened in The Matrix. What a great movie.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** I love The Matrix. It is just gorgeous from beginning to end. It has a wonderful end. Then the demands of sequel made it so like, okay, he’s definitely God in The Matrix, so what do we do? Let’s bring back the bad guy, but let’s bring back a thousand of him.

There are so many interesting things that are happening in The Matrix sequels that I really enjoy, that are fascinating. That was the part that was the least interesting to me, because you could feel it getting silly. You were losing a sense of reality to anybody getting really hurt or really dying. It was getting so mythological as to disconnect me from a relationship with it. That’s one of the costs of overpower.

**John:** I’ve been thinking recently about why there are not more movies being made about the Greek gods. I think it really does come down to that. It’s very hard to have any sort of grounded things happening to them, because they are just literally gods. Their powers are so vast, it’s hard to find a challenge for them.

**Craig:** The great Greek dramas were about humans that were being toyed with by the gods or encouraged by the gods. The stories of the gods in their internecine warfare feels more like reading bible stories, where you’re like, “I don’t really think that that happened like that. I don’t believe that Jesus is fighting Satan in Hell.” I don’t really believe that, I don’t know, Chronos ate his children. I don’t know where any of this stuff comes from. It’s all rather silly. What is interesting is Persius.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** He’s interesting. That story is fun. Jonah and the Whale, Jonah is interesting. People are interesting. One of the problems with the proliferation of the superhero genre is that we’re just disconnecting with people. The more superheros are like people to me, the more interested I generally am in them. I love Spider-Man. I love Batman, because Batman’s a person. Spider-Man’s a kid. I love that.

**John:** Craig, Megana, thank you for a fun show.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you!

Links:

* [‘Doppelganger murder’: Woman accused of killing Instagram lookalike in plot to fake her own death](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/doppelganger-murder-woman-killed-instagram-lookalike-fake-death-rcna68318?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma) By Andy Eckardt and Aina J. Khan for NBC
* [The Godfather, Saudi-Style](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/mbs-v-mbn-the-bitter-power-struggle-between-rival-saudi-princes) by Anuj Chopra for the Guardian
* [The Last Days of Nikki Finke](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/style/nikki-finke-hollywood-journalist.html) by Jacob Bernstein for the NYT
* [The Nun and the Monk who fell in Love and Married](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64125531) by Aleem Maqbool for BBC
* [13 stranded strangers went on a road trip. Here’s what happened](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/chance-encounters-canceled-flight-van-road-trip-13-strangers/index.html) by Francesca Street for CNN
* [‘Nothing, Forever’ Is An Endless ‘Seinfeld’ Episode Generated by AI](https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkyxp/whats-the-deal-with-nothing-forever-a-21st-century-seinfeld-that-is-ai-generated) by Chloe Xiang for Vice
* [Manta Sleep Mask](https://mantasleep.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Timothy Lenko ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/587standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 573: Three Page Challenge Live in Austin, Transcript

February 24, 2023 News

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/three-page-challenge-live-in-austin).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s episode was recorded live last week at the Austin Film Festival. This was the day after our big, raucous live show. This is a more sedated affair, but still a pretty full house. We have a bunch of the writers who wrote their scenes for the Three Page Challenge in the audience. We’re going to talk to them about what they wrote, why they wrote it, and get some real feedback from them. If you’re a Premium Member, stick around after the credits, because we’ll do some Q and A with the audience. Some really good questions were asked and hopefully answered. Enjoy.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August. This is a sort of version of Scriptnotes, which is a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. We’re here live in Austin, Texas. How many people in this room have submitted a Three Page Challenge to Scriptnotes, either now or at some point? That’s a lot of hands here in the audience, a lot of brave screenwriters here.

For folks who are not aware, the Three Page Challenge is a thing we’ve been doing on the Scriptnotes podcast for 10 years, where we invite people to send in the first three pages of their screenplay, their teleplay, and we give them our honest feedback. It’s criticism, but hopefully really genuinely constructive criticism about what we’re seeing on the page, what’s working great, and what could maybe possibly work a little bit better. Craig Mazin, my cohost and I, we talk through this. We do it every couple of weeks. It’s been really fun and educational for everybody, because it’s great to have a podcast about screenwriting, but it’s really hard to talk about screenwriting without talking about the words on the page.

Today is all about the words on the page. We have some other brave writers here who submitted samples so we can talk through these things. If you’re listening to this at home, later on it’ll be attached to the podcast episode. You just click on those links. A good chance to see what these things look like on the page, what we’re talking about literally, like transitions and the language choices that you’re seeing.

When we ask people to send in these script pages, I don’t read them, Craig doesn’t read them. It’s Megana Rao who reads them. Let’s bring up Megana Rao, our producer. Megana Rao, when we call for Three Page Challenges, we’ll put it on Twitter or we’ll announce it on the podcast. How many submissions do we typically get?

**Megana Rao:** We usually get a couple hundred.

**John:** A couple hundred submissions. These are writers who are writing in, saying, “Please talk about my thing on air.” For Austin, how many people did you get? We had a special little tick box like, “I’m going to be here at Austin.” How many did you read through?

**Megana:** Oh god, I didn’t count this time. I’m sorry.

**John:** It was a lot. It was a good number. These are people who could actually join us up on stage, because that’s what’s fun about the Austin Film Festival is we can actually talk through with these people about what they did and what their intentions were and what we saw versus what they were attempting to do, because so often it’s just a vacuum.

**Megana:** Totally. We’re just assuming, and we don’t get that feedback.

**John:** Talk me through your general selection process, because this isn’t a competition. You’re not looking for the best scripts pages. What’s helpful for you in picking a Three Page Challenge?

**Megana:** I think first of all, I want to make sure that no one ever feels embarrassed and that these are pages that I would be comfortable if I had written being on our website and seen by people. I want to make sure there’s no formatting issues or too many typos or anything like that, that there’s a certain level of professionalism.

Then typically, they are pages where I am surprised or excited. I feel like there’s something new, there’s something I’m rooting for in those pages, but maybe it’s not quite landing on every point. I really feel like I want to champion those writers and those pages to be the best that they can be. I usually put those in a selection pile, and then you and I go through the top five or seven and narrow it down from there.

**John:** Absolutely. It’d be great to be like, “Here’s three perfect pages. Everyone do these three perfect pages.” Then we wouldn’t have a lot to talk about. We could just say, “Oh, these are great. I want to read the next 30 pages of the script.” It’s the ones who have some like, “Oh, there’s something really promising here, but there’s also something we can work on, that we can discuss.” As you’re looking through, why we picked these three samples is because we saw things that were really promising but also things that we could discuss.

**Megana:** Totally.

**John:** We don’t have Craig here with us today, but we do have, luckily, someone who has to read scripts for a living. Can we welcome up Marc Velez? Marc, you are a production executive. You are working at Universal?

**Marc Velez:** Yes. I oversee development for a division at Universal Studio Group. There’s many television studios within the studio, and so I work at one of them.

**John:** Great. What is your experience on a daily basis with scripts? Are you reading submissions from writers you’ve never hear of, or are you reading to help put together staffing for shows? What is your experience working with scripts on a daily basis?

**Marc:** I would say it’s a combination of all three. We have overall deals with a lot of different writers and directors and production companies. They will send us material that they want us to option and work with them and then take to platforms, so there’s that. Then agents will call us and say, “Hey, you should know this writer. They have a really great script,” so there’s that. Then there’s, third, I guess, submissions that are just being considered for pilots.

**John:** Great. What was your background before this? You were working with Lee Daniels’s company.

**Marc:** My first job was at Planet Hollywood.

**John:** Wow. That’s a whole origin story.

**Marc:** That’s a whole story.

**John:** You went from all the props in movies to actually working with the people who make those things.

**Marc:** I didn’t know anybody in Hollywood. I thought the way to get to Hollywood was work at Planet Hollywood.

**John:** Of course. It’s got Hollywood in the name, so you’d figure. You were that close.

**Marc:** Prior to working at UCP, I ran Lee Daniels’s company for the last six years as a producer. We did Empire. We did the new Wonder Years. We did a Sammy Davis limited series on Hulu.

**John:** For something like that, you are helping to staff up those shows. You’re helping to find writers who could be making these things possible. You must get a lot of submissions. You’re probably going through a lot. You may not be stopping at three pages, but what gets you excited to finish a script, and what makes you go like, “Oh, you know what? I think I can set that down and never pick it up again.”

**Marc:** That’s a really good question. I would say it’s just a gut thing that I connect with the material at the core of it, the character, the point of view, the emotion in the script.

**John:** Sometimes you’re reading specifically for staffing on a given show, and so does this fit this thing. Also, I bet you can recognize this is a writer with a voice, this is a writer who feels confident on the page.

**Marc:** Yeah. I would say it’s almost like three buckets. There’s, like you said, the staffing where if I’m staffing a specific show knowing that I need to mimic something in let’s say the spy genre or if it’s an agent who has just sent a script in just for a general meeting and I’m just writing it for their voice. Then there’s the third, which I always think is the hardest. I’m reading the script to see if we want to option it to actually make a show, which just has a different kind of structure to it.

**John:** Yeah, because within a third one, you’re really looking like, “Can I see Episode 2? Does it feel like there’s a thing here to keep going?”

**Marc:** Exactly.

**John:** Which is challenging. Let’s apply some of that structure and thinking to these three pages that we’re looking at from these three samples today.

**Megana:** We’re going to start with Michael Heiligenstein, who wrote The Encyclopedists. The summary, “King Lear the 15th smiles to himself as he seals an order and passes it to his attendant. As we watch the order travel from the palace to the police barracks through the streets of Paris, we hear Denny Diderot in VoiceOver describe the corruption of the monarchy and society. We see scenes of Denny writing in his apartment until the police show up to his home with the royal order and drag him out and throw him in a police carriage.”

**John:** The Encyclopedists. Marc, let’s say this landed on your desk, virtually or physically printed, The Encyclopedists, a pilot for a limited series. Just even on the cover page, we have Michael’s name, written by, copyright. Everything looks good to me. Anything trip you up at all?

**Marc:** No, it looks great.

**John:** Cool. Let’s get on to first instincts after reading these three pages. Did you see what this show was going to be? What was your feeling after the three pages?

**Marc:** I would say a couple things, Michael. I would say the first, actually I didn’t know this story, so then I did a real deep dive after, which was really cool.

**John:** Which is great when you get that.

**Marc:** It’s rare to have somebody educate me on something that I didn’t know. That was really cool. I would say overall, I got what the premise was of the show and this man being persecuted obviously for writing encyclopedia within this world. It was a pretty clean, clear premise within the first three pages.

**John:** I would agree. I had a sense that this is going to be this guy’s story, Diderot’s story. I could see there’s going to be a journey here. I was excited to see what happened. He gets thrown in jail by the end of the three pages. Things were moving quickly. We’re essentially intercutting between Denny Diderot writing this thing about the abuse of power and how kings work, while we see his arrest order come through. The intercutting was nice.

I did have some questions though. We’re in a time period, but I don’t really know the time period. I didn’t know the year. I wasn’t anchored into a moment or a year. I didn’t know King Louis the 15th’s age. I like that the writer was telling us to call him Denny, D-E-N-N-Y, so we would actually pronounce it right in our head, because the French name would be Denis Diderot. It didn’t have a great visual on him. I knew that his hair kept falling in front of his eyes, but I couldn’t quite see him. In these three pages introducing this central character, I need to have a clear visual on who he is and be able to cast him in my head.

**Marc:** If you had the timeframe on there, it would’ve just been more helpful to clarify. I know voiceover’s always really tricky. I felt like in those three pages specifically, what did you want to say in the VoiceOver, because the VoiceOver jumped around a little bit from explaining the king is beholden to the realm to then the king, if he is corrupt, makes bad decisions, and then there was something about the guards basically deciding what they want to do. I was looking for a little bit more consistency in tracking that VoiceOver, because I think that VoiceOver was really key in the first three pages.

**John:** It’s an interesting use of VoiceOver, because it’s not a VoiceOver that’s directed just to us as an audience. We’re supposed to believe that this is what he’s writing, because he’s going to get stopped mid-sentence as he’s writing this thing. Essentially, he has that compulsion to write. What he’s writing is what we’re hearing in our heads.

Other things I noticed as we went through on the page, we’re lacking ages on people. I was lacking some sort of physical details on some people that could’ve been helpful. I didn’t necessarily believe at the bottom of Page 1 that Rene Berryer was eating a steak at his desk. That just felt like a modern thing versus a whatever year this is supposed to be thing, a horse-drawn carriage kind of year thing.

Then on Page 2, midway through, “Over his left shoulder, a window; through it you may notice the police pull up outside.” I had trouble visualizing that, because for some reason I saw us on the second floor, and that was a challenge. The “you may notice,” it’s either we notice or we don’t notice. Are we supposed to notice or are we not supposed to notice? I needed a little bit stronger of a choice there.

**Marc:** Yeah. Then for me a little bit on Page 3, I was curious what happened to the blade and if he put that in his pocket for later and what that reveal was to come. I was curious where it went, because for me it dropped out a little bit. Then I just was curious in terms of his point of view. He seemed so nonchalant about getting whisked off by the police. It was just curious getting in his POV a little bit, as well as, if he knew that they were taking him because he was a writer, would he not hide the stuff he was currently writing in that first scene?

**John:** We approach things with an expectation based on… We see this person writing. We see the police coming. We’re setting this up. For his writing just to be out there felt a little bit of a risk.

**Marc:** Yeah. I will say I did not see the reveal coming at the end. That was great. I thought they were going to apprehend somebody else, and you were just cutting between the two when he was narrating the story. That was a really nice reveal that I didn’t see.

**John:** Great. One of the things we love about doing the live Three Page Challenge is we actually get to talk to the folks who wrote the script. Could we have you come up and talk to us about your pages here, Michael?

**Michael Heiligenstein:** I think I’ve gotten so good at taking feedback in the past couple years, I’m finally ready to do it live on stage.

**John:** Nothing at all nerve-wracking about this. Michael, did we misunderstand anything you were trying to do in these three pages?

**Michael:** No, I think that you pointed out a couple things that were unclear and could be clearer on the page. You get the premise. I’m glad that you understood where it was going, what was going on.

**John:** Great. Talk to us about what’s going to be happening on the next 10 pages. What goes next?

**Michael:** I love the next 10 pages. This is a script where the final 30 pages of this pilot I’m less sure about, but the first 15 are why I wrote it. When he gets thrown in that police carriage, Denny is about to find out he is not being arrested for what he wrote. He is being arrested for who he loves, because France is so restrictive at this time, the union of the clergy and the king are such that even though Denny is 33, he needs his father’s permission to get married, who he’s estranged from.

He writes his father to ask permission, and his father calls in a favor from the king to have Denny arrested. He is hauled 80 miles from Paris and imprisoned in this monastery where the monks hate him, because he scammed them at one point in the past. They beat him. They starve him. After a couple weeks, all he wants to do is get back to Annette, who is the woman he’s in love with.

After a couple of weeks, in the middle of a rainstorm, he jumps out the second floor window and hikes back to Paris 80 miles in the rain, shows up at her doorstep sopping wet and 20 pounds lighter than last she saw him. He says, “Annette, I don’t care what my father says. I don’t care what he does. Come what may, I want to be with you. Will you marry me?” She says no. That’s the next 10 pages.

After that, he gets involved in the Encyclopedia Project. His friend Rousseau pulls him out of his slump and is like, “Look, you need to work. You can’t stay in this apartment. You need to rent someplace else, so you need money. This project pays well.” He gets pulled into this Encyclopedia Project that’s already going on. By the end of the episode, he’ll become the co-editor of the encyclopedia.

**John:** Great. Talk to us about tone then, because what you say, having this romance, he feels like a romantic character who’s drawn to great extremes to get back to this woman he loves. Is that the tone? Is it serious romantic?

**Michael:** My overall impression of it is it’s about his life and it’s about both his relationships as well as this political philosophy bent where he’s somebody who wants to write about the world as it is. There’s two fronts, but you see so much of it is about his personal life and the relationships as well, his relationship with the woman who becomes his wife, as well as with eventually his mistress, this other affair. To me, it’s both sides.

**John:** Marc, let’s say this is a project that crosses your desk. There may be these people, things attached, or there’s nothing attached. What is helpful for you to think about this as a property that you could develop at Universal or with Lee Daniels’s company? What are the things that we’d say, oh, these are the comps, this is the framework in which you can see making this series? What else would he need to bring?

**Marc:** I would just ask you thematically your point of view and why you wanted to tell the story from a thematic principle, because I think that would help.

**Michael:** To me, Denny’s situation is not that different from the situation that any writer is in. Some writers are going to chafe at it more than others, but everybody works under some ruling system. For us, that is capitalism. Look, I’m cool with it on some level. I’m here to make stuff that sells and finds that audience. There are constraints. If you’ve got to pull together $30 million, $50 million to put something together, that’s the constraints that we work with, and that colors the storytelling, and not just the storytelling, but what we write about in the world.

I work in marketing currently. I worked at a website in content stuff. The topics that get covered online, working through that industry, I saw how the stuff that gets covered extensively and written about in detail is all stuff that makes money. There are subjects, for instance, like history, American history. I love history. You can’t find really great information about it online. There’s subjects that are just not covered well. To me, that’s because you don’t make money off of that, so it’s not important, I guess.

**John:** What is the pitch for somebody who doesn’t know anything about the Encyclopedia Project? Is that the Wikipedia of its day? How do you talk about that in a way that resonates with somebody who is just… It’s 2022. Tell me why this matters.

**Michael:** It’s a banned book. He’s not just a philosopher. He’s a fugitive philosopher. He’s a renegade philosopher. The book is not able to be published in France, so he has to go back channel through all this stuff. He’s arrested twice in the course of his life. This is the book that eventually is going to be considered foundational to the French Revolution. This is the precursor to the part that we all know about. There’s other fun stuff in there. You get the salon culture, the intellectual culture in France at the time. To me, the core of the pitch is this contrast. He’s a philosopher and he’s a fugitive.

**John:** Now, Marc, I asked about what else he needs for a series. Talk about a pitch book or a pitch deck. If you were taking this to buyers, what would you need?

**Marc:** I would say the first script, it’s a format. It’s between a bible and a format, and so it’s about 10 to 15 pages where you map out episodically where the show goes. Ideally, we would send the script around, buyers would be interested, then basically you would go and you would pitch how you see the show, and then you could leave behind that format for them to decide.

**John:** Since the pandemic, those going around towns have resulted in a lot of Zooms with slideshows, where Megana’s driving the slides. It’s complicated, but it works, and so it does feel possible to do. Michael, thank you so much for sharing this.

**Michael:** Thank you.

**John:** Thank you for coming up here.

**Marc:** It was really good.

**Michael:** Thanks.

**Marc:** It was really good.

**John:** What script should we talk about next?

**Megana:** Next we are going to talk to Liliana Liu. “Nicole, 22, sleeps in the control of a facility where she monitors conversations. She’s woken up, and we see her travel in a driverless pod through the Mojave Desert on her way to her mobile home. At home, Nicole makes instant ramen and exercises in front of a series of monitors. We cut to baby Sophie’s room and see her parents put her to sleep. In the living room, we see Sophie’s mom accept a call from Sophie dated April 22, 2032. They speak, and we cut to Sophie, age seven, in a pod with her dad. Her dad encourages her to talk on the phone to her mom normally. Sophie refuses until she hears her mom’s lullaby. We cut to the control room where Nicole watches the scene.”

**John:** Great. I’m so excited to talk about this because I love near-future. I love this space. The premise feels like a Black Mirror kind of premise, like there’s something, what if you could do this, and what are the consequences of being able to do this, which is really exciting.

There’s also some challenges on the page I think we could really talk through and clean up, because sometimes you don’t recognize what’s confusing in a bad way on a page. By clearing those up, you can actually really lock your reader in, because we always talk about there’s a difference between confusion and mystery. Mystery’s great, because that makes us want to keep going. Confusion’s like, I don’t know, and I lose some confidence. Let’s figure out ways to make us more confident about what’s happening on these three pages. Marc, what was your first read on this?

**Marc:** I would say I love the tone. I think you really created a beautiful minimalist tone that I thought was really cool. I definitely was leaning in. Then honestly, after the three pages were over, I did have some confusion, to John’s point, but I still was leaning in, curious to see what the show was about that I didn’t quite understand, but I think in a good way too.

**John:** I want to focus on something on Page 2 which I thought worked nicely and just the description of what’s inside Nicole’s home. I’ll just read a little bit here. “She closes the door. Boots off. Black backpack and a pair of red over ear headphones go on a hook next to the door. Small yet not cozy. Only the essentials: a table, one chair. Rustic. Retro. Wood and white dotted with red. No photos. Nothing personal. Nicole (22), maroon tunic over black tights, turns to the kitchenette. She is also unadorned, small, not cozy. She grabs a red kettle, fills it, taps it on. Psst – boils in an instant. Grrl – straight to a Nongshim spicy cup noodle.”

I can see it all. I can see what’s happening here. I can see the order of things, which is really nice. It’s giving me that near-future vibe. I get a sense of who she is and where that is. That moment works really well. I think I want to try to bring that clarity to the rest of this, because I got lost a few other places.

**Marc:** Yeah. I loved your description. I thought it was so beautifully crafted, but I was looking for a little bit more of a POV from Nicole at times, because her description was pretty thin, but maybe that was a choice you chose. You had a full page of the surroundings, and I was looking for a little bit more of her as a character within that page.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s go back to Page 1. We open with, “Over black. Silence. Flat green line. Steady. Then a small ripple.” Really what we’re seeing, we’re going to see the voice pattern go past. There were a lot of words to say that there’s a green line on a black screen. I think we can be a little more minimalist here, so, “Flat green line on a black screen. Steady. Then it ripples.”

“A distinctive voice, deep, smoky.” Then we go into the Older Woman and Younger Woman’s dialog here. It was mysterious. That’s mysterious, and then the next moment’s mysterious, and the next moment’s mysterious, and you’re not telling us people’s names. They’re just figures. I need to be a little more anchored in what I’m actually seeing and who these people are, because there’s apparently Nicole that we’re seeing in this control room. Great. Just tell us her name then and don’t keep the mystery until we finally reveal her at her little mobile home pod, to me.

**Marc:** I agree. I was searching, like I said earlier, just for a little bit more Nicole up top and getting in her POV, because I think you beautifully crafted the world really well and the tone. I was looking for a little bit more of the character up top.

**John:** Then on Page 2, we’re moving between Nicole’s home and Sophie’s home. There’s projections in both places. I got really confused. I didn’t know that we’d gone to a different place and that we were establishing a new location and a new time. Give us a transition line. Just make it clear that this really is a jump to a new place that we’ve not been to before. Also, it took me three times to read it to realize that by mobile you meant a phone. I thought it was actually a mobile, like he was running in with-

**Siri:** I’m not sure I understand.

**John:** Sorry, Siri. Sorry, Siri. I thought he was running in with some sort of mobile to hang over the baby’s crib or something. This is really confusing. It’s a phone. Again, it’s one of those American English versus British English things that I read it the wrong way.

The only other point I’ll make is that the premise of what you seem to be setting up, the Black Mirror of it all, is what if you could set up a call between someone who’s 7.14 years ahead or behind. Intriguing. It’s a little strange that we’re in Nicole’s POV for so much of this rather than Sophie’s POV, that we’re starting with this tech worker rather than the actual family at the heart of it.

**Marc:** Also similar, I think the transitions I had to read a couple times to make sure I was tracking timeline, in addition to then when Nicole was back at work watching Sophie, I was a little confused of the point of view that we were in.

**John:** Luckily, we don’t have to stay confused, because we have the writer herself here. Could you come up here? Liliana, thank you so much for being here with us.

**Liliana Liu:** Hi.

**John:** Hi. Talk to us about this script. What’s the status of it? Is the whole thing written or just these three pages?

**Liliana:** Completely out of my depths here, just to say that. My husband is the only one that has ever read any pages, were those pages.

**Marc:** Wow.

**John:** Wow. Brave choices here. Nicely done, Liliana.

**Liliana:** Just a little background, I’m a full-time mom and a part-time software developer. I literally started writing sometime last year. This is a kick in the ass for me to do something, just to embarrass myself and get it out there.

**John:** You did. You’ve done a great job. Black Mirror, is that right? Is that what you’re going for? Is that the feel?

**Liliana:** Yeah. I discovered that all my ideas were all sort of sci-fi-ish but sort of a little realism, grounded in real life, sci-fi. This is my first feature script. In fact, it’s still in the middle of writing this, as I’m trying to propel myself to actually finish writing it. I would say the genesis is very personal, even though the theory behind it is not. I’m a sensitive person. I think a lot of writers are. I grew up in a home where my mom was ultra-sensitive. A lot of times, there’s this thing about going back. You replay things. You talk to people or make decisions or you didn’t say certain things or even make certain decisions. It plays back in your mind. It haunts you. Then you wish you could go back. It could be something very small. You want really hard to say something or do the thing that you didn’t, stuff like that. That’s the genesis of where this whole thing comes from.

**John:** There’s this phrase, esprit d’escalier, that thing you realize you should’ve said as you left the place. This is with a seven-year time period, a bigger gap. It’s a great premise. You’re saying this is a feature. Who is our central character, and who protagonates over the course of your feature?

**Liliana:** Nicole is the central figure. This is a big company. I think the only other thing I found was some movie with Daniel Quaid about, I think, firefighters calling between dinner times. This is more like there’s a company now, like Amazon or something, that provides this service. She is working behind the scenes. There’s some complications around… People think this is an artificial intelligence provide the service, but in the background, because a lot of times this happens, I work in the background software, that that’s not real, there’s no AI yet. She’s one of the people behind it that’s actually making it happen. People don’t know that it’s her job. I guess another complexity layer is that originally I wanted to do something like Lives of Others where she is just almost in the background.

**John:** An observer, yeah.

**Liliana:** Nobody knows she exists. Then she makes an impact to a particular client. I don’t know if this is the right direction. I wanted to make it more personal for her, where she wasn’t just opaque character who just is an observer, like you say. I’ve found basically an angle where she has something very, very key in her own life.

What you see in the first page, that first conversation, now that I think about it, maybe it’s too mysterious. The Older Woman is her mother, and she is the younger woman. She left home when she was 15 and had basically a broken relationship with her mother. Even though she won’t admit it to herself, that’s what’s been haunting her all this time.

It’ll come to pass in the first 10 pages or so that her mother is going to become a client that comes in, but she works behind the scenes. It’s a voice thing. She overhears another worker there that talks to her mother. She’s been listening to these conversations with her mom day in, day out, but she hasn’t talked to her or seen her for seven years. That’s the inciting incident is that her mom is now a client.

**John:** A pitch, and not necessarily a thing you need to do, but the story you’re describing, it may make sense to have an opening vignette that sets up the premise of what this is and what the service does and if we can establish that she works at this company that’s doing this thing, just so we’re clearly anchored in like, oh, this is what normal life is like before things get upended. Right now, it feels like you’re trying to set up so many mysteries, and we get a little bit lost in that.

Marc, let’s say that the cleaned up version of this script crosses your desk. It’s a feature length thing. Is it something you would say, “Okay, this is great. Let’s think about it as a series.” How much does that happen, where you take something that shows up as a feature, you think, “We could do this as a series.”

**Marc:** I’ve actually done it a couple times. I’m doing it recently, where there was a feature script I read that I loved. You met with the writer. You could easily see how you could open up the world. We’re just breaking it up into episodic now. I’m super impressed that this is your first thing you’ve ever written, because it’s a really clear, concise, high-concept, grounded genre piece. There’s something really fresh and cool about it.

**John:** Absolutely. I’m also thinking the cleaned up version of this could be really good staffing, because it reads well for that. This writer can do near-future sci-fi, grounded sci-fi, which is not easy to do. We’re making a fair number of those shows right now. The Nolans would need to have people like you to do that stuff.

**Marc:** It reminded me of Arrival the movie or Severance, a little bit in that tone.

**John:** Cool. Now she’s excited that you did this. Liliana, thank you so much. Thank you very much for coming up here. Thank you so much for coming up here. We have a third and final Three Page Challenge here to talk through. Megana, I think we have a listener question that is relevant here. Why don’t you start with a listener question?

**Megana:** Carrie asked, “Are there legitimately good reasons for the protestant adherence to the unexpressive screenplay format we all use, as in more than, ‘Well, that’s because that’s the way we’ve always done it.’ Several episodes ago, you read a Three Page Challenge with a title page designed like a wake flier, and everyone was so delighted. As a career graphic designer, it seems obvious to me that typography, layout, color, imagery are evocative storytelling tools, but screenwriters are still debating whether bolding a slug line is showing too much ankle. What are some of the good reasons we’re using our great-grandfather’s typewriter constraints in 2022?”

**John:** Provocative question there. We talk a lot about the formatting on the page on normal episodes. I really want to focus on title pages. Marc, if you see a title page that is designed versus just the 12-point Courier, maybe underlined title, what do you think?

**Marc:** It doesn’t really register.

**John:** It doesn’t register for you?

**Marc:** As long as there’s the title, I’m good.

**John:** Great. It doesn’t help you? It doesn’t scare you?

**Marc:** Me, no.

**John:** Our third Three Page Challenge has a very well-designed or a very graphic cover page. I’m holding it up here. For our listeners at home who can’t see this, it’s The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman. The title is very big on the page. It’s single words in probably 72-point font, “Original teleplay by Rudi O’Meara.” The background is a photo that is a gradient from red to blue. It’s stylish. It’s big. It’s not anywhere like a normal title page would be. It’s a very strong, bold choice. Megana, could you give us a synopsis of what we see in these three pages?

**Megana:** Yes. This is The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman by Rudi O’Meara. “We open on a middle-aged man floating facedown in a pool, wearing a kimono and covered in blood. In VoiceOver, Clay, early 20s, aspiring screenwriter, tells us he can’t believe that David, the man facedown in the pool, is dead and that he’s one of the ones trying to figure out who did it. Clay warns us that David wasn’t usually this calm. We hard cut to production offices, where we see David Schwartzman, a famous indie producer, storm in and scream at Clay about work, looking for some guy named Phil, and picking him up food from Canter’s.”

**John:** Great. Marc, this producer did not remind you of anybody you’ve ever heard of, right?

**Marc:** Many a producer I worked for back in the day as an assistant.

**John:** Back in the days. This is a story about Hollywood. It’s focused on that. There’s a little bit of PTSD that comes up as I read these things, both from having experienced these people and also having read things about these people and the Swimming with Sharks and all this stuff. As I sit down at this, I’m like, oh, so it’s a Sunset Boulevard opening with someone floating in a pool and a screenwriter talking, the narration that’s going onto this. As you finished these three pages, what was your first thought? What was your first feeling?

**Marc:** I would say I love the title.

**John:** I think the title is fantastic.

**Marc:** Yeah, that definitely brought me in. I would say after that, if I was looking at it for development, it would be a harder point of view, just because Hollywood stories are just really hard to sell. I would then assess more of as a staffing sample.

**John:** The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman is a really strong title. We’ve talked on the show before. There’s been periods at which spec scripts with very provocative titles would get a lot of attention. Then they would always be released as something completely different than the actual movie. I’m going to remember that. Saying That Awful David Schwartzman is really great. This is apparently Episode 1: Who the F is Phil.

Some other things I’m noticing on the title page here, we’re given an address, we’re given a phone number, we’re given an email address. Once upon a time, we maybe wanted all those things. Email address is great. We don’t need anything more than that. WGA registration number, you don’t need it. We don’t care. It honestly looks to me a little unprofessional. I just don’t trust that people know what they’re doing if they’re putting that number on there.

**Marc:** I agree.

**John:** As everyone who listens to the podcast knows, I’m the one on the podcast who actually is pro-WGA. I think WGA is a fantastic organization. I don’t think WGA registration is meaningful for almost anything. If you decide to do it, great, if it makes you feel good. It’s not any more protective than copyright is in general. Do it if you feel like it, but you definitely don’t need to put that registration number on here. I haven’t registered anything with the WGA for 20 years. Don’t worry about doing it.

**Megana:** Also, it’s because you email drafts. That’s important.

**John:** Emailing a draft around is also a proof that it existed at a certain point of time. That’s all the WGA registration does is just prove that this thing actually did exist at a certain point in time. There’s other ways to prove that.

**Marc:** Also, if you have an agent manager or a lawyer, they’re going to protect you when you submit things to production companies and studios.

**John:** Our point of view is Clay. Clay is giving us the VoiceOver. He’s the one who’s working for That Awful David Schwartzman. He has a VoiceOver power in the story. Not only does he have VoiceOver power, he has ability to stop time and freeze-frame us and be live in scenes while he’s talking to camera. It’s a lot. Did it work for you?

**Marc:** I think at points it worked for me. I think the thing that was hard for me to track was Clay as a character, because in the VoiceOver he was really brash and confident, but then in the description he was fresh-eyed and young. I was trying to find a way to track him as a character when you’re introducing him in the first three pages.

**John:** Yeah. We have basically two characters we’re setting up here. Let’s talk about David Schwartzman. He’s described as “mid-50s, long, thinning gray hair, wire rim glasses.” Love it. “An infamous independent producer with a checkered past” in the description, no. That’s too much for me. I’m always a fan of being able to cheat a little bit on that first character introduction in terms of a thing that an actor can play but is not necessarily visual or something we’re going to see. “An infamous independent producer with a checkered past,” we don’t know that from just that description. If you can quickly get that out there, we’re going to feel it. That just felt like cheating to stick that in his parenthetical there.

**Marc:** Yeah. I don’t know if this is intended to be a comedic murder mystery, but I thought when Clay says, “We’d be the ones trying to figure out who did it,” it felt like it tipped your hat to the mystery a little bit. I wanted a little bit more intrigue and not laying out all your cards in the first page.

**John:** Yep. We have another character cheating thing here when we finally get to Clay’s actual introduction. He’s been voiceover-ing, but only on Page 2 do we actually meet him in person. “The camera wheels around to reveal our narrator – Clay Wilcox,” parentheses, “early 20s,” comma, “a fresh-faced former English major and aspiring screenwriter then unaccustomed to David’s fury.” That whole last sentence there, “then unaccustomed to David’s fury,” facts not in evidence. Show us that, but you can’t just tell us that in a scene description.

**Marc:** Yeah. Similar to the way he talked in VoiceOver, and then when he was freezing, it felt like he had been doing this for a while, so it was hard to track which kind of, I guess, Clay we were tracking and following.

**John:** Yeah. That’s where I had a hard time buying Clay as a character, which is important, because he’s our POV character. He’s the one we’re going to see going through this. All that said, I’m curious and intrigued about the tone, because like you, I thought it was maybe a comedic murder mystery, sort of Only Murders in the Building. There’s something fun about that and piecing that together, we have a dead body, and figuring out who could’ve done this thing, when it seems like everybody probably did want to kill this person, because I want to kill this person, and I don’t even know him. Luckily, we can ask the question of the writer himself. Can we bring up Rudi O’Meara? Rudi, thank you very much for being here.

**Rudi O’Meara:** Thanks for having me. Great feedback though. Thank you so much.

**John:** Great. Thank you for being here. Talk to us about your experience with David Schwartzman. Was he really that bad?

**Rudi:** Yes. Actually, the title, the “That Awful,” so the person… It’s kind of from my life experience in some ways. It’s the reason I left the industry when I was younger. Later in the script, it’s mentioned that he was actually part of The Factory with Andy Warhol. When I was told that I got the job, I was working at a bookstore. The Warhol Diaries had just come out. I went to the index, and his citations were long in his name. I went to the first one. It was like, “Went to so-and-so’s house, ran into that awful David.” His last name was not Schwartzman. Next citation was exactly the same. Twenty citations later was exactly the same. That’s where the title comes from.

**John:** That’s awesome. I didn’t know that it was based on… I think it’s a sad state of Hollywood that there’s a bunch of other people who I assumed it could’ve been based on.

**Marc:** Exactly.

**John:** A bunch of terrible, terrible people, some of whom we’ve discussed on the Scriptnotes podcast, who we could assume that it was inspired by. Was our guess that it’s a comedic murder mystery at all correct? What is the tone for you?

**Rudi:** Ding ding ding.

**John:** Great. Someone killed him, and it’s Clue, and we have to figure out who could’ve done it.

**Rudi:** Correct. Like you said earlier too, it really could be anyone. That’s part of the both episodic nature, but also… Every single person from the financier, basically every aspect of the production, everyone has a motive. They’re trying to figure out how to solve it.

**John:** Talk to us about the engine of the show though, if it’s an Only Murders in the Building, or it could be The Afterparty. Are we switching POVs episode to episode? How does it work, or do you know?

**Rudi:** Clay is the protagonist. There is a time-swapping element. It jumps forward, jumps back. It’s a little bit like Only Murders but then also like The Big Lebowski meets The Maltese Falcon in some ways, where it jumps around, but it’s also a little trippy. In some ways, the narration is maybe faulted for that a little bit, because it does feel like you’re hearing from him at a different stage of his own understanding. At the same time, when he’s speaking in the first person or interacting with characters live, sometimes it’s a little bit disconnected from his later wisdom. It jumps around in time a little bit, and that can be a problem.

**John:** Making it clear to the audience that there is that gap is really challenging, and on the page, feeling the difference between that too, because we’re just seeing Clay with dialog, and so we’re not necessarily always clocking if it’s a VoiceOver dialog versus what’s happening in the scene. It’s a challenging thing to have characters be able to VoiceOver in a scene and talk in a scene, and yet many great movies do it. Clueless does it, and it works flawlessly when it happens. Maybe we’re actually looking at how those things worked on the page and what you can see and feel and steal from how they’re balancing those two things. You mentioned before, Marc, that movies about Hollywood, shows about Hollywood are really tough. They’re tough to get made, and they don’t tend to work especially well. Why is that? Do you have a sense?

**Marc:** There’s always the Entourages of the world that work. I think it’s hard because for the most part, people don’t want to access behind-the-scenes movies, TV shows about Hollywood. I think that’s been always hard. Can I ask you a question about the script though?

**Rudi:** Yeah, sure.

**Marc:** In terms of Clay, and you might not have this figured out, is there a detective that comes in? If Clay is new to this guy’s world, why does he want to figure out who killed him?

**Rudi:** There is a detective later. I’ve only written the pilot, but I’ve mapped out the first season. That’s very presumptuous, first season. In Season 4… No. There is a detective, but also at the same time, they have the motivation in that just before the murder happens, the film that has been in production is failing, and out of desperation, the producer, David, taps Clay for an idea, like, “Give me a spec script of yours.” He’s like, “Oh here it is. I got one.” It starts moving. Things go into production. David gets murdered. They want to keep that moving. Also, at the same time, they’re under threat, because they’re seen by all these other people who are also suspects as possible suspects themselves. Everyone’s on the table in terms of who could’ve killed David.

**John:** Great. Rudi, thank you so much for these three pages.

**Marc:** Thank you.

**Rudi:** Thank you very much.

**John:** I want to thank everybody who sent through the three pages for us to talk about, especially our brave writers who came up here to talk about the things they wrote, because that’s so intimidating to have us talk about problems and then you come up here and do it. Thank you very much for that. Thank Megana Rao, our producer, for reading all of these pages. Thank you to the Austin Film Festival for having us again. Thank you for a great audience. Thank you. Have a great afternoon.

It’s John back with you kind of live again. I want to thank the Austin Film Festival for having us yet again. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Jeff Graham. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. A reminder that if you want to submit your own three pages for a Three Page Challenge, the place to do that is at johnaugust.com/threepage, all spelled out. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts, and they’re great. We saw so many of them at the Austin Film Festival. You can find them at Cotton Bureau, and actually only at Cotton Bureau. There’s now knockoff Scriptnotes T-shirts, which is wild. The real ones are at Cotton Bureau. You should get them there, because they’re the only ones that are soft enough to merit the Scriptnotes brand.

You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all of the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to put on the end of this episode, which has questions from the audience after our Three Page Challenge. Thanks.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** At this point in the podcast, I’d love to talk to you guys and get your questions you have in the audience about either the pages that we talked through today or the general thinking about what on the page works for a person who’s trying to get staffed on a show or get a show set up at a company like yours.

Do we have questions in the audience? Right there in the white. Just say your question. I may repeat it back so we have it on the air. The question is about the layout of each particular page and whether, especially in those early pages, are we trying to make sure there’s a cliffhanger at the bottom of the page and what those all are.

The first couple pages are incredibly crucial to make sure that you’re just drawing people down that page, and they want to keep flipping. The goal is just get them to the next page, get them to the next page. That’s not necessarily a cliffhanger. You don’t want to break the actual story to get you to the next thing. You are really thinking about how am I going to get this person to read. A very common cheat you’ll see in a lot of scripts is that putting a few extra blank lines at the top, so that the first page is just a little bit lighter and so that we’re starting about a quarter of a page down, just to get you flipping and just make it less intimidating to get through.

A thing we talk a lot about when we do Three Page Challenges is just the page feel and how dense it is on the page and how light it is. The samples we’ve gone through today are pretty good examples. The longest blocks of scene description are about three lines, four lines. There’s no 15-line things. If you look back at older scripts, sometimes they had really massive things. Those are intimidating. You might start skimming.

As a writer, you never want your reader to skim. You always want the reader to feel like every word, they got it in there and they took it. The only thing you want your reader to be able to skim is character names. At a certain point you can get into a flow where you don’t have to look at the character names anymore. You have a feeling of it’s ping-ponging back and forth between these characters. It’s great. You basically want to make sure that you’re keeping the reader glued to every word and flipping the next page.

Again, one of the things we always say at the end of each of these samples, would I want to read Page 4? Sometimes, yes. In the case of these scripts, yeah, I would keep reading a little bit longer, which is a great sign.

Right here in the first row. Julie, you’re asking a really good question, because classically, we talk about structure, especially for film structure, like, oh, the inciting incident needs to happen at a certain point, or there’s an act break and these changes. I think the thing we kept trying to stress is that even before then, by the end of three pages, we need to have a sense of what this world feels like, what this movie feels like, what ride am I going on. If you’ve done that in three pages, that’s important. If we’re hooked into who you are as a writer and feel confident, that’s greater. I asked you earlier what makes you stop a script. That’s one of the things you said is just that feeling of, “I want to keep going.”

**Marc:** I don’t think it needs to be somebody gets murdered in the first three pages. It could just be a really beautiful tone that’s intriguing, that you are excited to read more.

**John:** Another question. Right here. Great. The question is, how worried do we need to be in the first three pages of being either too irreverent or saying something, doing something on those first three pages that make someone feel like, “I don’t ever want to meet this writer.” Marc, has that ever happened to you?

**Marc:** No.

**John:** Have you ever been like, “Oh my god, this person seems like a jerk.”

**Marc:** No. Be as authentic as you want to be in your writing, I always say.

**John:** On the live show we did last night, we had two great guests, Chuck and Brenda, coming on. One of the things that they made most clear is that what was key to them getting staffed on shows finally was just writing what they uniquely themselves could write, that no one else could do this. When people read their sample, it’s like, “Oh yeah, I want that guy who did that thing.” It wasn’t a generic thing that someone else could’ve written. It was only a thing that Chuck could’ve written or that Brenda could’ve written. Using something that shows your own voice is crucial.

People also come to me and say, “Oh, I’m working through a couple different ideas. I’m not sure what I should be writing next that might be a good sample.” If there’s something you could write that the central character or premise feels like it matches you, that can be really useful, because then the person who’s reading it can have you in their mind, and so when they sit down and meet with you, they’re like, “Oh yeah, that character and her, yeah, I could see them jiving.” That can be really useful.

**Marc:** I will say there’s scripts that I’ve read in my career that are batshit crazy ideas, but I will always remember them. To John’s point, as I’m staffing a show, I might say, “I really loved that script two years ago,” and then I’ll flip it to the showrunners because it stuck with me as something that just felt noisy and different.

**John:** Noisy can be good. Right here. Marc, are you pro-splat?

**Marc:** I’m always open to a splat. Are you?

**John:** Yeah, I think so. On the podcast, we often call this a Stuart Special. Stuart Friedel, who’s one of our previous producers, as he picked Three Page Challenges, sometimes there would be this big dramatic thing happens, and it says then “two weeks earlier,” and then it goes back. We call that a Stuart Special, because it’s got that flashback thing. Those are often splats, where there’s a whole horrible death or a thing happens and then everything can go back to normal life beforehand. Those can totally work. They can be cliches, but if they’re cliches that are done really, really well or have a spin on them, they work and they can be really, really helpful. Don’t be afraid of them.

Right here. The question is about character introductions, character descriptions that have a lot of psychological insight or they really talk through the psychology of characters and how we feel about that. I want to contrast that with some of my criticisms of this last script, where they weren’t psychological insights, they weren’t things that an actor could play. They were just facts that we couldn’t see. I think that is really the distinction for me.

I haven’t read the Mare of Easttown scripts, but I suspect that if I were an actor reading through that script, I’d say, “Oh, that is really useful for me. That is a thing that I can figure out, how to embody what you’re describing there. That is great, whereas I can’t embody being a despised producer. That’s not a thing I can take into my body.” I’m great with it. You always have to recognize that if you’re throwing a lot of scene description at us, we’re going to be tempted to slow down or stop reading or we might skim it. It’s always that balance. If it works, it can be great. How do you feel when you see those things on the page?

**Marc:** I haven’t read Mare of Easttown. I’ll be actually curious to see how it maps out. I would say I agree. If you could be a little concise with your descriptions, I always think that works better just for the read and the flow.

**John:** Great. Another question. Let’s go all the way to the back. I see you, sir. Great. The question is about companion material, so if there’s a deck that comes with a script or there’s some sort of link, would you click that first or look at the deck first before you read the script?

**Marc:** I think it just depends, honestly. I would actually look at the sizzle first, just so I get the visual tone of what they want to do. Then I would read the script.

**John:** Just so we’re sure we’re defining terms, what is a sizzle to you, and how long is a sizzle reel?

**Marc:** A sizzle reel could be anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes. That’s almost like a proof of concept for the tone and the look and the feel of the series, or if it’s a deck, I’ve gotten decks anywhere between 5 and 20 pages of templates for who the characters are, the world. A lot of times with genre stuff in big world-building stuff, they tend to put a deck together so you understand the scope of the world.

**John:** I’m working on a project for the first time that has a deck that goes with it. It’s exciting. Also, it kind of feels like cheating, because I can show you what this all looks like. This is this giant movie star in this role. That’d be great. Of course you want to make that movie or that show. We didn’t used to do them, but they are helpful. Curious what you think about it. We now can embed links in scripts. We can embed links in things. Do you ever click links in a pdf?

**Marc:** The only thing I’ve seen, which I thought was super cool, was there was a Spotify playlist at the top of the title page, because it was a Southern show, and they wanted Southern music bands. It was actually just really nice at the end just to play that playlist, which I thought was cool.

**John:** That was on the title page or at the end?

**Marc:** It was on the title page, on the QR code.

**John:** Great.

**Marc:** It was pretty cool.

**John:** [inaudible 00:51:15]. A question right over here. The question is, beyond just a link, embedding images, putting other stuff in a script, and do we think that the screenplay format will evolve beyond where it is right now? Craig Mazin who’s not here, would say, “Yes, it’s going to. We’re going to break the whole script format.” Me, as the person who actually makes apps that do it, it’s like, eh. I’m maybe a little more conservative on some of it. How do you feel when you see an image in a script?

**Marc:** I would say at the end of the day, at the core, it’s about the actual script. You can jazz it up and put bells and whistles, but at the core, I think I just look at the script and assess the actual script.

**John:** Yeah, because to be the entire cliché here, the script is the plan for making a TV show. The photo is in the plan for making the TV show. The photo can be really helpful for other things. I think those decks and other stuff can be really helpful for showing what stuff is. The script is the plan for what the scenes are and how we’re going to get through this important storytelling moment. If an image is absolutely crucial for doing that or if you could not possibly understand this without that one image… Rian Johnson did it in Looper. If there’s one image that you have to see for it to make sense, great. If you can’t do it with your words, maybe there’s some reason why your words need to be improved.

**Marc:** I also thought for a deck over Zoom, for my writer friends who have to talk for 30 minutes, it’s a nice break to show visuals.

**John:** Yeah, it really is so great. Because of the pandemic, we first started having to do this. It was better, because suddenly, I can have my cheat sheet of what I’m pitching off of right close to the camera line, but the deck’s filling up some space. It does help, because I’m the person who always used to bring in boards. I would art-mount my boards and bring them in. Slides are just better.

Great. Right here. The question is, we talked about some scripts being really good for thinking about making this into production versus staffing and what the split is here. Can you define what is a useful thing to be thinking about, like, “Oh, this is a good sample for staffing,” versus, “This is something we would actually make.”

**Marc:** I would say the first step is I would talk to the creator/showrunner and say, “Ideally, what are you looking for? What are your needs?” because at the end of it, it’s the writer’s, creator’s decision on who he or she wants to hire. Then off of that conversation… Let’s say it’s a cop show. If they want somebody who has a cop procedural, then I’ll look for specific scripts that mimic that, or if it’s a genre piece, but it’s a real character piece, then look for something specific in line with what the showrunner wants. It really depends on what the show is.

**John:** Of course, back in the day, if you wanted to write on a half-hour sitcom, you would write a spec episode of Seinfeld or some existing show that was on the air. It’s like, “Oh, he can write that show.” You wouldn’t write the show that you were staffed on. It was just to show that you can actually do that thing. Mindy Kaling says she really misses those days, because she misses being able to staff off of like, “I know they understand how shows work and how to write in the voice of a given show.” We don’t do that anymore, because you probably read very few specs of existing shows anymore.

**Marc:** When I first started my career, it was a lot of CSIs, Law and Orders. I hadn’t watched CSI a lot, so it was hard for me to track if they were mimicking the show, because ideally when you’re staffing, you’re mimicking what the show and the creator is creating. Now it’s really refreshing, because it’s all about originals. There’s plenty of playwrights that I’ve staffed off just an amazing play sample that just has a really great character that tonally fits what the creator’s doing in the series too.

**John:** Marc, talk to us about reading things that are not scripts, because reading a play, do you feel like you are getting a good sense of whether they could do it?

**Marc:** Yeah, sometimes if there may be a lower-level writer, so a staff writer or story editor, where they’re not an upper-level writer, but they just have a really great, unique voice, and we just need a really unique perspective in the room, that will help. A couple years ago, I got pitched somebody who had a Twitter handle as a way to staff a show.

**John:** Great. Was it a very serious Twitter handle? It wasn’t funny at all.

**Marc:** No, it was funny. It was for a comedy room. They hadn’t written a script yet, but they had really funny tweets.

**John:** Diablo Cody, quite famously, she was funny on Twitter, and sure enough, she could actually write. Who knew? That is a way to show a very specific voice. Great.

Let’s take one more question here. Right there in the back, I see you. Great. Our question is, we were talking about specs, which is so confusing. In TV, a spec is writing an episode of an existing show that’s on the air, or are people just reading originals? For our writer there, would you recommend she spec an existing show or just do originals?

**Marc:** I’d say originals. I did read recently a Golden Girls spec. That was really fun and new. It was interesting how they told the story. I think it was noisy, the way they planned out the story. For the most part, originals. I would say have two, because you never know if there’s a great genre show that you want to get staffed on or a great drama. To have two samples is always really good.

**John:** Some things I took from this conversation today, I’m going to use the word noisy a lot as a describer, because really, a noisy thing you notice. You just notice people who are noisy, and you notice a script that is noisy. It just sticks with you. Things that are just quiet and subtle and disappear and they’re not objectionable but they’re not memorable, that’s not going to help these people.

**Marc:** I think it mimics… There are so many platforms right now. What buyers are saying, they need things that are noisy to break through the immense amount of content that’s on the air right now.

**John:** Great.

Links:

* [Marc Velez](https://deadline.com/2022/10/marc-velez-ucp-head-of-development-naketha-mattocks-universal-tv-svp-drama-1235136115/) on [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5677194/)
* [The Encyclopedists](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FThe-Encyclopedists-MXH-3p.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=95fb3359c1be84f6888812633600f586b8a38fef8118d40d897a43a07798da53) by Michael X. Heiligenstein
* [Call Me 7.14 Years Ago](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FCall_Me_7_14_Years_Ago_Three_Page.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=7cbf886b0e5c2ddb0343817294c00fccd7cfd708a397fbafda7e3c426a5b5e30) by Liliana Liu
* [The Untimely Demise of That Awful David Schwartzman](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2022%2F10%2FUntimely_Demise_v04_AFF_3_Page.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=398abcf7c2b4adb0526bc8542da5a43be1da1ed4ab3b13dbe0868ceec2d16cf2) by Rudi O’Meara
* Thank you to the [Austin Film Festival!]() and all our participants in the three page challenge.
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Jeff Graham ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/573standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 580: Finding a Way In, and Out, Transcript

February 13, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/telling-real-world-stories).

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

**Craig Mazin:** No, my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** This is Episode 580 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, it’s a How Would This Be a Movie case study. I’ll be talking with screenwriter William Nicholson about his script for Thirteen Lives, following the attempted rescue of a Thai soccer team trapped in a cave. We’ll get into issues of life rights, competing projects, narrative point of view, cultural sensitivity, and what happens when you and the director don’t agree about what kind of movie you’re trying to make. Craig, it’s a really good conversation. I was sorry to not have you there, but sometimes the one-on-one things are better when it’s just one on one.

**Craig:** What I’m hearing is that it was a really good conversation because I wasn’t there.

**John:** It was a good conversation. Also, I saw the movie. I think I was vaguely aware of the actual real-life rescue. You remember that one when it was happening, right?

**Craig:** Of course. I remember when it was happening. I remember Elon Musk doing what he seems to do on a daily basis now, which is say something incredibly stupid, so there was that.

**John:** There was that.

**Craig:** They got the kids out, which was great.

**John:** Yeah, which is great. I knew that the kids got out. We did talk a little bit about knowing the ending of the movie. Before we sit down and watch it, you know the kids get out. The specifics were actually a lot different than I realized or than I heard reported in the moment. It was really a question of point of view. Do you talk about it from the family’s point of view, from the kids inside the cave’s point of view? At what point do you reveal the kids inside the cave are alive? How do you reflect the balance of worldwide attention versus the actual very small, local story on the ground? It was a good conversation about the choices he made but the other choices that could’ve been made.

**Craig:** Nice.

**John:** Nice. Also, in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, I want to talk about our non-work goals and aspirations for 2023. We are canonically not a resolution show. We’re not going to promise to do a thing. I always like to think about stuff we’d like to do more of or less of.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** Let’s be thinking about that for a Bonus. We’re going to ask Megana too.

**Craig:** As long as we’re asking Megana, then we’ll be fine.

**Megana Rao:** I have to think of something.

**Craig:** Get going, Megana.

**John:** Some follow-up from last week. We had Rian Johnson on the show. We were answering a question about variable frame rates. I said that I was going to watch Avatar right after we record it, and I would be able to tell you what I thought of the variable frame rates. They mostly worked for me. The times that you go into really high frame rate stuff, it tends to be underwater. There’s a lot of underwater. The underwater stuff is amazing and beautiful in the movie. There are other moments where I did notice things were shifting, but it’s also hard to tell, because it’s a 3D movie, so everything’s a little bit weird anyway. I don’t know, if I was watching a 2D movie, I might not have had the same experience with the high frame rate stuff.

**Craig:** How are the glasses these days? Feeling good?

**John:** So much better.

**Craig:** Good.

**John:** The glasses are pretty lightweight. This is my first time wearing them with a mask as well. A little trick for people is that if your glasses start to fog up, just pull your glasses a little bit further away, further down the bridge of your nose, and they won’t fog up so much.

**Craig:** That’s a good tip, or get Lasik.

**John:** I’m talking about the 3D glasses.

**Craig:** Oh, the 3D glasses. You have to wear the 3D glasses. I guess that makes sense. It would fog up. Maybe in a movie like Avatar, the fog might add a little something.

**John:** No, the fog will not add. James Cameron does not want you to have fog on your glasses.

**Craig:** Interesting.

**John:** He will come by and he will wipe off the fog on your glasses.

**Craig:** He does seem like somebody that would more likely just smack the mask off your face.

**John:** Interestingly, he was supposed to come to the Q and A after this, and all the chairs were filled and-

**Craig:** He got COVID.

**John:** He got COVID. He got COVID 20 minutes before. [inaudible 00:03:33] positive test 20 minutes before.

**Craig:** That’s very convenient COVID to get, by the way. There have been times where I’m like, “Come on, COVID.”

**John:** Craig is scratching a little line with a little thin Sharpie there like, “Oh, sorry, can’t go.”

**Craig:** Yeah, “I don’t want to do this thing. Oh, dammit.”

**John:** I really enjoyed the story in Avatar 2. It didn’t feel like three hours. I think what impressed me most is it’d been a long time since I’d seen a 3D movie, because I just didn’t really care about 3D. This was the first 3D movie I’ve seen that didn’t make me go blind at a certain point. There’s something that happens to me in 3D movies where my brain just stops being able to process what I’m seeing. In this, it didn’t happen. I felt like I could see everything [inaudible 00:04:14].

**Craig:** That’s good. There is a diminishing return. Watching 2D stuff, you begin to forget pretty quickly that it’s just a flat thing on a screen. Your mind turns it into 3D basically. Similarly, your mind turns 3D into whatever the 2D version of 3D is. It all just in my mind turns into the same experience, unless they’re doing the tricks, like something flying at your face. Otherwise, meh.

**John:** I think Cameron obviously couldn’t do whatever he wants to do, because it’s all virtually filmed and stuff, so that he could build shots after the fact to work properly to brain in 3D, which is helpful, because so much of the 3D we see these days was really shot to be 2D and then they do it in post.

**Craig:** They do a conversion.

**John:** It’s not the same. Let’s talk to smaller screens. The big news this past couple weeks has been how many shows got chopped off of HBO Max, and things that were already shot, things that were already on the system.

**Craig:** Gulp.

**John:** Old things, they’re gone.

**Craig:** My show’s still there. Yes!

**John:** Craig, are you checking Chernobyl every moment to see whether-

**Craig:** I am not checking Chernobyl every moment, but listen, who knows? I don’t understand it. I legitimately don’t understand it. We’ve talked about this before. It seems like there was some sort of tax benefit to merging companies and then offloading some assets or something like that.

**John:** That one was an example of that, where you could take a big write-off on it and just bury it. It doesn’t seem like they’re necessarily going to bury all these things. Patrick Somerville, who came on to talk about Station Eleven, he said he doesn’t know what’s going to happen. He keeps checking to see if Station Eleven is there. He promises that he will project it on a rock in the Mojave Desert if he has to. These other shows, they’re off HBO Max for right now, but it looks like they’re going to try to put them on some sort of ad-supported system that’s maybe not HBO Max. That could be someplace else. I want to talk a little bit about that, because that’s something we haven’t really gotten into a lot on the show. Megana, I think there’s a question we could frame this with.

**Megana:** Andy from Seattle asked, “Once a show gets sold from HBO Max to a free, ad-supported streaming television service, will writers and actors start getting residuals as the property starts making active money?”

**Craig:** They sure will.

**John:** They will. They’ll get some residuals. It’ll just be a different system for it.

**Craig:** Yes, but it will be a better system. We will make more money this way.

**John:** We’ll make more money depending on how it’s set up, because I can imagine two scenarios, which we’ll just set up. First off, HBO could sell it to a place like Pluto or one of the other existing services, in which case there’d be a license fee. That might be good.

**Craig:** There’s always that. That’s the only way we make money off of residuals. HBO made Chernobyl. Let’s say they put Chernobyl on CBS. The only money HBO gets is the licensing money. The ad money goes to CBS. We don’t get any of that. We just get the licensing money that goes to HBO. That’s the gross. Then the producer’s gross is 20% of that, because we lost many, many years ago. Then we get a percentage of the 20%.

What’s interesting is right now if you make something for a streamer, there is no licensing fee ancillary market. The residuals we get are these weird, imputed things that are not necessarily connected to anything real. You and I are old enough where we wrote movies, and then those movies ended up on TBS with ads in them. We would get pretty decent residual checks from the licensing of those movies to TBS. For writers and directors and actors, this could revitalize the dwindling residuals stream. Creatively, as we’ve discussed, it’s a little disconcerting that you can make a show and it just disappears from something like that. I think it’s gotten everybody a little wigged out, and for good reason. I’m curious. Is Station Eleven available on DVD?

**John:** Station Eleven does not have DVDs right now.

**Craig:** How does he have it?

**John:** I think he’s talking about whatever cut he has off of the non-linear editor. His actual tweet was, “If Station Eleven ever disappears, I promise to purchase one acre of land somewhere in the Mojave Desert and just play it on a loop projected on a rock forever.”

**Craig:** We’re going to have to download some of these things.

**John:** I’ll check into it. It’s entirely possible that DVDs were cut for that show. So many of these HBO Max shows have no DVDs. There’s no other physical way to see it. That creative fear is huge. Circling back to the issue of residuals, Chernobyl that’s on HBO Max, you’re still getting residuals, but those residuals right now are based on a declining fee per every year that it’s on the service and based on a certain fixed price. It doesn’t have anything to do with the actual success of the show. It’s just basically from the time it was made it just declines in value after that time. Chernobyl could in theory make more money being licensed someplace else and therefore create more residuals for you.

**Craig:** It would. It would. I don’t want people to watch it with ads in it, but yeah, it would. It’s really interesting, because what’s happening, this is again financially not necessarily bad news for artists, creatively potentially bad news, is that streamers are suddenly asking the question that all of the rest of us have been asking for a long time, which is, so wait, how do you make money? I know you sell a subscription, but okay, if they’re subscribing, why do you need to make anything more, or do you need to make this much more, or how much stuff do you need to have there, because where does money come from, because in the old days, if you could convert stuff to ad-supported or home video of any format, there was your reason to make more stuff. There’d be additional revenue streams. If all it is is streaming, that’s it. You’ve basically curtailed your own revenue stream as far as I can tell.

**John:** Your revenue stream is based on the monthly subscribers and the idea that having these vast libraries was going to keep them returning as monthly subscribers.

**Craig:** Sure, but that is the only revenue stream you’ll ever have, whereas in the old days studios would have ticket sales, airplane rentals, home video, and then eventually pay TV, licensing it to HBO and Showtime, and then eventually ad-supported television on TBS. Let’s just presume everything goes to TBS if it still exists.

**John:** A thing I’m always confused about when these announcements are first coming out is… Free ad-supported streaming television, or FAST is the abbreviation you’re going to see for that, it’s the same thing as AVOD, so advertising-based video on demand. The difference is that we usually talk about AVOD for things like The Office. If The Office was showing on NBC, and so you’re watching it there, but then a few weeks later it was showing on nbc.com, that was AVOD, and so where studios would show their own things on their own websites.

What’s different now is of course there are streamers that are doing that [inaudible 00:11:18] TV. There’s existing things like Pluto. There’s probably going to be new things presumably coming out of Warner’s that are going to be a service like that. I think figuring out what the appropriate licensing fee is for HBO Max to be selling it to their own service will be an issue.

**Craig:** That kind of self-dealing has been litigated many, many times before and will continue to be litigated now that it seems to be coming back. Making sweetheart deals with yourself is tricky. You need to sell it for what would be a legally supportable market price. You can’t completely jam people. It will be interesting. I feel like the wheel is turning back in time. We’re heading backwards in time. It’s funny.

Silicon Valley was so behind the explosion of streaming, if you consider Netflix. I consider Netflix to be Silicon Valley-esque. I guess the idea of just the new way of doing things, new media we called it. Meanwhile, what were those companies in Silicon Valley doing? Selling ads on everything. Google is an advertising company. YouTube, which Google owns, is an advertising company. Facebook is an advertising company and so on and so forth. Currently, the aforementioned Elon Musk is flipping out, trying to get more people to advertise on Twitter, because it’s an advertising company. They’ve always been ad-supported, and then somehow we got hoodwinked over here into being like, “No ads. No, we don’t need that. That’s old-school stuff.” I guess if you want to make money, ads.

**John:** Ads.

**Craig:** Ads.

**John:** The answer to the question is, what’s going to happen, hopefully this will be more residuals for the writers involved, but of course, those things actually have to be distributed someplace. I think it’s potentially good news assuming that they actually are putting those things someplace and not just burying them in a hole, which is I think the worry we had originally.

**Craig:** I could be wrong, but it seems like the things that are getting buried in holes are things that had very low viewership numbers. They’re pulling Westworld off of HBO Max. That’s going to land somewhere. That is be on another platform.

**John:** That was the marquee property of HBO two or three years ago.

**Craig:** There’s no question about that. It will be figured out one way or another. I think some of the things that got completely removed were probably… They had said in some article some of the… They mentioned one show. I can’t remember what it was. I think it was animated. Something like only 400 people watched it in a year or something. It was like, okay, I guess-

**John:** There were back-episodes. They had the whole catalog of Sesame Street. There were some episodes of that show that just no one had watched in-

**Craig:** No one had watched.

**John:** Yeah, because who wants to watch a 20-year-old random episode?

**Craig:** It makes me feel good sometimes to watch Sesame Street.

**John:** Nice. Let’s get to our main centerpiece of this episode, which is the conversation I had with Bill Nicholson. This is part of a Writers Guild Foundation event. We’ve done a lot of events for the Writers Guild Foundation over the years. There’s going to be a link in the show notes to the video of this whole Zoom interview we did. William Nicholson, Bill Nicholson, is great. I’ve never had a chance to talk to him before. Credits include Everest, Unbroken, Mandela, Les Mis, Elizabeth, Gladiator, going back many, many, many years, starting out as a playwright. We really got to talk about the whole process of figuring out from someone coming to him with like, “Hey, would you want to do a movie about this cave rescue?” to all the changes and drama along the way, shooting this during the pandemic, and then shooting it for Amazon, which couldn’t release it the way they wanted to release it. A really good conversation and just a really great writer. Enjoy this. Craig and I will be back afterwards for our One Cool Things.

It is my absolute pleasure to be talking to you today, Bill, about Thirteen Lives but also I’d love to talk about screenwriting in general and your career and many other things. Where are we talking to you today from? I see it’s dark there.

**Bill Nicholson:** I’m in South England, in Sussex, in the converted garage where I do all my work in the lovely English countryside.

**John:** Fantastic. Let’s start with Thirteen Lives, because I just watched it last night. I’m really curious how you came into the project, because I remember the story as it was happening in real time. It felt like, okay, obviously there’s going to be a movie coming out of this, but what was your entrance into this as a movie?

**Bill:** Like you, I remember it from when it actually happened. I wouldn’t say I followed every deet, but obviously, I did follow it. It was very moving, and then I forgot about it. Sometime later, as is the way of these things, a producer got in touch with me and said would I be interested in writing the screenplay. I was initially a little reluctant, because I thought maybe it was an oversimple story. Guys go down in a cave, get stuck. It’s all terrible. Then they get out and it’s okay. Of course, they sent me some research. They’d had a lot of research done on it. That amazed me and I realized what a rich tale it was. It moved me in a whole different way actually. I really like writing very emotionally valid and powerful pieces, so I said yes. The simple answer is I got asked.

**John:** That’s great to be asked. I’m not surprised you were asked. If you look at your credits and look at the movies you’ve written and going back to Gladiator and Shadowlands and those things, but more recently, Everest, Unbroken, other true stories, and finding the ways to tell these historical true stories in ways that are compelling. You seem like a very great fit for it. I guess my question is, when they came to approach you to write this, how much did they have? Off and on Scriptnotes podcasts, we get these questions about like, “Oh, what rights do I need to do to tell a true story?” People will see producers jockeying for rights, locking up this person’s life rights or this person’s life rights. As they came to you, what were they coming to you with? They had some original research, but what else?

**Bill:** You’re completely right. It was a writer’s nightmare. Lots of other projects were in the mix. There was another team that had the rights to the Australian doctor, Harry Harris. We did not have the rights to the Thai kids at all. The Thai government controlled that. The key rights, which are the British divers, those were the ones that my producer had obtained. That was the core of the project. The rest we had to… You know the process. We had to use material that was in the public domain. It’s worrying when you’re [inaudible 00:18:06]. It’s worrying on all sorts of levels. It’s worrying also because I’m dealing with real people’s real lives who are still there, especially the Thai people. I think we had a superb level of research, which fed me absolutely as much as possible. I just did my best to give a fair crack to all of those individuals.

**John:** You say you had research. How much of that was coming to you in written form versus your ability to talk to these divers? What was your ability to reach out and ask specific questions, or did you have to go through levels to get there? What was your connection to these characters?

**Bill:** With the two main divers, I went and visited them and talked to them and subsequently made very good relations with them, was able to check a lot of things with them as I went along. All the rest was [inaudible 00:18:58]. This was in COVID times. A superb researcher had amassed an enormous amount of material, mostly remotely, particularly on all the Thai details. I was supplied with that when I began, because the producer had also produced the documentary, which is called The Rescue. They’d done all the research for that. I was given all of that, and I was able to ask the researcher to ask the researcher to follow up whenever I wanted. I was very well supported.

**John:** One of the fundamental decisions you have to make as a writer is how you’re going to tell the story and when you’re going to start the story and what details are going to be at what point. How early in the process of the conversations with the producers about coming on to do this did you have an approach? Did you have a take for how you were going to tell the story?

**Bill:** Not immediately, but you’re completely right. People think if you have a true story, because you take down what happened. Of course, you sort of do, because you have an obligation to the truth. My job is finding the emotional through line and also the mini emotional stories within the overall one, because nobody is going to watch just to hear another fact. They watch because of what you make them feel about the characters, what the characters want, what the characters fear, and what then happens to them. It really is a kind of crafting of real events to create emotional drama. Of course, there is emotional drama once you’ve got kids threatening with death.

You’ve really got to do a lot more than that. I looked to the material. I drew up a timeline of my own, the peaks and the troughs. I looked at that very early on, because obviously, the producers, when they asked me to do it, they didn’t just say, “Go ahead and do it.” They say, “Tell us what you will do before any contract gets signed.” That’s fair enough.

I give them I suppose my pitch really. I said very early on the obvious thing which anybody tackling this story would say, which is, “We cannot afford to make this be a white savior story, so how are we going to deal with that? We’re going to look at all of the Thai stories. We’re going to look at what they did and the complexities of that and how much we can weave that in.”

I made the decision very early on that this was in a way not the story of the boys. This was partly because I did not have their rights, but it was also partly because they’re stuck. They’re in a cave. You have a choice. Are you going to keep cutting back to them inside the cave getting hungrier and hungrier or not? I said, “My way of doing this is we’re going to see them go in, and then we’re not going to see them again until they’re found.”

**John:** It’s 45 minutes into the film before we see them again. We see, oh, they are actually alive. This is a real open question. Obviously, as an audience who has some knowledge coming into it, we know that they’re alive in there, but everyone on the outside doesn’t. You set up a good expectation that maybe they are going in to find bodies ultimately. They don’t know where they are, how far.

**Bill:** It’s very interesting the way you can tell a story by being able to know the ending and still make it tense. I think it’s because as people watch, they accept that they’re within that moment. One of the reasons that I took the project on actually was because one of the things that really struck me, after the divers found the bodies, there was this ecstasy throughout this enormous camp, real cheers. The boys are there. The boys are alive. That was simultaneously experienced with the divers knowing that the boys are going to die, that there is no way to come out.

I find that sort of crunch very powerful. When I saw that, I go, “Actually, we have got a story here.” Of course, if you can communicate to the viewers sufficiently, this really is an insoluble problem, and then you proceed to find a crazy solution, which against all the odds works, and you have a story.

**John:** Now, let’s talk about decisions of classic characters and themes going through stuff. You have actors we recognize who are doing certain things. Also, what I was really impressed by with the movie, and you talk about making sure that the Thai people in their efforts are centered in this, for a lot of the start of the film and really throughout the film, we’re seeing the rest of the efforts from the Thai perspective. These are competent people who are doing their very best. It feels very documentary in a good way. It feels very matter of fact. You don’t see a lot of speechify. You don’t see people stopping to explain something about Thai culture and history and stuff. It’s very much focused on the moment.

Did you know from the start that you were going to have so many characters and that we as an audience might not even really know their names? I’m thinking about the engineer on top of the mountain who’s trying to divert the water. We recognize him, but we know very little about him. Do you know that from the start, that you’d have this wide array of characters?

**Bill:** Yes, in the sense that I had to place my heroic British divers in this much bigger context. I think the first thing that I thought when I looked into all this story was an enormous number of people volunteered. There was this great mass, like 5,000 people just gave their time or their equipment for nothing. I love that. It runs counter to the kind of story that we’re being told all the time, which is that we live in a competitive world where people will only get off their bottoms for money. I’ve wanted to celebrate that very much, which meant locating as many of these stories as possible.

There are very many stories. You simply don’t have the space. In that sense, you color code the characters so that people recognize them visually rather than knowing their names. You also give them each a little kind of trick so that you can spot how they’re likely to… You can only do that to a very small degree, because you’re juggling so many characters. You talk about it being documentary. Yes, it’s documentary in the sense that it did happen. We’re not grandstanding with it. We’re not trying to make out some sort of opportunity for people to make their own speeches.

I actually think the grand sentiments come over much more powerfully if you throw them away, if they’re not asserted, you ask the audience to find that for themselves. That’s a conscious decision, particularly with the main divers who really led me into this by their own characters. I was picking up from what they told me about themselves, which is, “We don’t do this for money. We’re amateurs. We’re not interested in publicity.” They’ve got a rather delightful… There were so many that got cut out.

When they were first asked to come, Rick, the Viggo Mortensen one, said, “How are we getting there?” John says to him, “They’re giving us business class flights.” Business class, I’ll fly anywhere. I love that. It’s very British, very undercutting heroism and grandiosity. I was working from the characters.

I also think it means that you can feed your actors with a role where they have very few words but a lot of emotional moments. Those emotional moments, they are going to act on. They’re going to be on their face. If you’ve correctly structured the emotional trajectory, the audience knows what they’re thinking and feeling, looking at their face. They don’t need words. That is what screenwriters do. It drives me nuts when people say… Somebody said to me, “Oh, you didn’t have much to do for the first 20 minutes, did you?” I say, “I wrote the damn thing. Every feat is written.”

**John:** Absolutely. What is the camera pointing at, what are we seeing, what are we living.

**Bill:** Exactly. Not just that. Ron and I talked a lot about structuring the dives, because too many dives are boring. Each dive has to have its own character, its own emotional little story. I literally listed them all with the emotions that accompanied them.

**John:** Let’s talk about the emotional trajectory of the Viggo Mortensen character, because he’s the one who I think… I would say your characters don’t protagonate a lot. They’re not going through this classic giant character’s arc where they come in as one thing and leave fully transformed. It’s small and it’s subtle but it’s there. Viggo Mortensen’s character’s probably the easiest one to see that. He’s initially reluctant to necessarily go on this dive, to even join on his trip. Then when he’s there, he’s skeptical a lot along the way. What were the beats you mapped out for yourself? Were they literally in an outlined form? How much were you thinking about how his character progressed over the course of the story? How did you chart that for yourself?

**Bill:** That’s kind of fairly simple really, because he starts out not wanting to go, doesn’t like kids, as he says. He gets there. He’s pissed off, because we then have all the beats about the local Thai divers don’t rate them, which is fun to have that. They’re old guys [inaudible 00:28:12] which gives him something to resent. Eventually, they do get allowed to dive, and it goes wrong. They pull out the pumping guy, and it all goes wrong. Then they’re stuck, and he wants to go home. I got that beat.

All the time, you’ve got John beside him, acting as the antagonist, his protagonist in a way, saying, “Yeah, but we’ve got to stay.” John, who knows, and I like this, John knows that Rick really wants to save the boys even though Rick says he doesn’t. That helps me a lot. I can write those little moments.

Of course, the big beat with Rick is that they find the kids, and he’s depressed. He goes down instead of out. Then you’ve got the interesting question of… This I had to argue out with both John and Rick, who had the idea to use anesthetics. I got it wrong the first time round, because it worked in my structure to have John suggest it. The real Rick said to me, because we’d shown them the script. This is no secret to them, of course. I always do that, by the way.

When I’m dealing with real, live people, I will say, “You can see anything I’m writing at any time.” Of course. It’s their life. I said to them originally, “You’re going to find this really peculiar, because I’m going to invent two characters, Rick and John. I have to.” They were really good about that. They got it. Then lots of stuff I just made it. They said, “That’s fine.” He did say, “That was my idea.” I restructured that beat.

Then you bring in the next group of divers. In the cut version, they come very abruptly. I wrote several scenes that introduced them, but it’s a long movie. Something has to go. You have the relationship with the incoming divers, which again reflects on Rick, because Jason is the one who thinks Rick’s a little bit [inaudible 00:30:19]. You then realize Rick is the leader. He has gone along with this idea. The failure will be his failure. We’re now emotionally engaged on his behalf, not just the boys’. That then takes you through the various beats of finding semi-failure along the way, until the moment when they’re sitting in a group and they’re just laughing. You can feel the release of the nervous tension and at the moments when he’s resisted contact with the families. I had so many moments I could track. There he is hugging families or being hugged I should say, because he doesn’t know how to do it.

It’s a gift really to just track all this. I did give him a little speech, which is not in the film, right at the end when they’re in their minibus and they’re going back to the airport. He’s saying, “You know what? This is something that should not have worked. This is like a one in a thousand chance that it worked, but it did work. You know what [inaudible 00:31:18] make a movie out of it, and everybody else think it’s easy.” I rather like that, but no, it didn’t come to pass.

**John:** The movie probably wanted to be over before they would’ve had a chance for that moment. Let’s talk about the dialog that’s in the movie and the dialog that’s not in the movie, because they both help in form. Let’s talk about the dialog that’s not in the movie, because there’s not a lot of talking. We have our characters mostly doing the work that they’re there to do.

There’s this misconception obviously that the screenwriter just writes the dialog and the director does everything else, but it sounds like if I’m reading the script, I get a very good sense of what those characters are, what’s going through those characters’ heads, even as they are silently observing, moving their way through the cave, stopping to get abreast.
I’m thinking back to Colin Farrell’s character half freaking out because his kid has woken up. There’s all those moments. Those were all scripted. I think it’s crucial that we remind people that those moments are in the script from the start.

**Bill:** That’s right. You’re right. If you were to see one of the drafts towards the end, you’d get a lot more dialog. It’s not so much more dialog, because there are several scenes, basically dialog scenes. This always happens to me. I guess I overwrite. I’m always writing dialog scenes which I think really help to get us sympathetic with the characters. They’re too long, and in the end the whole thing goes. The people along the way read them. Your point is correct. That feeds into their understanding. The director reads them.

I have no complaints about what is cut out. In fact, throughout my career, I’ve had the embarrassing experience of writing scenes that seem to me to be vital, having them cut out, and realizing they weren’t necessary. Each time, I think, “When am I going to learn? When am I going to write the 90-page script that they shoot instead of the 120-page script?” I don’t know why I don’t learn, but that’s the process. I’ve worked with some actors.

A million years ago, I wrote a film called First Knight with Sean Connery and Richard Gere. Sean Connery sat me down in his hotel room in London with a scene, and he said, “Look, I want to go through the scene with you. I’ll do my lines. You do the other person’s lines.” I did the other person’s lines. I would do the line, and Sean went, “Ah.” Then I did the next line, “Mm.” Then I did the next line, “Mm.” He never spoke a word. It all made perfectly good sense. He said, “Would you mind if we just [inaudible 00:34:01].” Maybe you have to start with more and hone it down.

You are dependent on the actors, because once you start dispensing with the words, you’ve structured it so that the audience knows what the actor is likely to be feeling, but the actor has got to deliver that without the acting. In my opinion, acting has become so sophisticated now. Actors are so extraordinary, film actors. You can see what they’re thinking. I can think of moments like the little scene where Harry Harris is being asked to use his skills [inaudible 00:34:46]. He’s saying no, and the other two, Rick and John, are disagreeing on how to deal with him. There aren’t many words, but that little trio, you can see what each one is thinking right the way through. There’s a couple of shots at the end that are just faces saying nothing. That’s also very skilled directing, of course.

**John:** It is. There’s a moment in Worst Person in the World, a film from last year, where a woman makes a fundamental life decision, and we see it completely on her face. It was the screenwriting that got us from her leaving a party to standing at that place and being able to think. The natural instinct would be for her to say something to someone to make sure we understood that, and yet the power of a camera and a really talented face, we can see all that information. It’s a great lesson to learn.

Let’s circle back to you say you overwrite and you need to learn how to write the 90-page version of a thing. Also, it’s just recognizing that the process of making stories is always going to be too much. There’s going to be a process of discovery there, so giving yourself permission to overwrite there a bit and recognizing and hopefully having good collaborators who will see, “Yes, there may be too much here, but we need all this too-much-ness in order to find the movie that we’re also going to want to make.”

**Bill:** I would definitely agree with that, yeah.

**John:** Let’s talk about your relationship with Ron Howard. At what point did he come into the process? Was he there from the start or only after you had a draft? What was his involvement in the film?

**Bill:** He was not there from the start. It was pretty much completely written. What happened was the producer, PJ, hired me. At that point, he had an arrangement with another director, a very good director. I worked on it with that director. I did I guess speed drafts. We kind of ran into a problem of how we saw the movie between me and the director. I have huge respect for the directors that I work with. I tried very hard to deliver the kind of tone that he was looking for, but it ran counter to my instincts. I argued it very strongly with him, but he was very clear what he wanted. There came a point when I said to PJ, “I have to leave the project. You must get another writer who’s in sync with your director.” They had a big think about it. The director had a big think about it. To his enormous credit, he said, “Look,” because PJ and Gabi Tana, the other producer kind of liked my take.

He said, “Look, I’ll withdraw. It’s not a problem.” He withdrew. I then proceeded with my version, which was, to put it very, very simply, more emotional. He was much more action and repression, which is a great way to go. I’m a very warmhearted person. We proceeded in my version. I did several drafts until both the producers were thinking, “This is good. We will shop it.” They then took it to their agents in LA. That is when it went to an agent, and that’s when Ron picked it up. Ron then came in, and I then worked with Ron for several more drafts.

**John:** We both had the experience of an existing draft and a director comes on board. It’s both a conversation with the director about what movie they see versus the movie that you wrote and what they need. You’re trying to explain what your intentions were with things. They’re trying to explain what they think they actually need from a movie. What guidance can you give to a writer listening to those conversations with the director? How do you approach that in a way that both sides benefit?

**Bill:** The first thing is you have to not be defensive as a writer. We writers have a very tough time, because we are not in control. That is the reality. If you want to be in control, be a writer-director, which I have also done. You are not in control. The director is going to have to make this damn movie. It’s no good, you demanding the director executes your vision. He’s going to execute his or her vision. Don’t be defensive. What you do is when the director says, “I think they need more of this or less of this,” what you’ve got to think is, why is he saying that? What’s happening here? Is there a valid point here? If there is, how can I enact it in a way that fits my vision? I’ve had some bad ones, but mostly they’ve been good. My experience has been that it improves when you do this.

I always tell people, and this applies to development as well, if you get notes, don’t obey the note. If the note says, “We think the dog should jump over the cliff,” don’t say, “Okay, I will write it.” Say to yourself, “Why did they say that? Haven’t I got a better way of giving them what they want?” because you will have, because you’ll understand the whole thing. They’re probably looking just at that beat. That’s the problem you have with some directors. Some directors aren’t good at overall structure. I’m talking now about really emotional storytelling. They’re good at a scene. They know that they can make a scene work. They can make that scene work when the guy comes in and we don’t even know what he’s seeing and he’s incredibly scared.

[inaudible 00:40:23] how that impacts down the road. What you have to do is say, “Okay, they want an emotional high point, which I have not delivered. I’ve got to find a way to deliver it, and then they’ll be happy at that point.” If you have a problem, I have had this with some extremely famous directors who have said, “I think there should be a scene like this here.” I’ve said to the team, “That will make no sense. That will wreck the whole flow.” They’ve said, “The boss has asked for it. You’ve got to do it.” I then do it. In my experience, always those the projects that don’t get made, because the director hasn’t understood what the story is, but the director is too powerful. There are too many directors, unfortunately, who never get anybody telling them boo. It’s just extraordinary to me.

I’ve said to the team, “Just tell him it doesn’t work.” They said, “You don’t do that. He’s our boss, literally our boss in every way.” [inaudible 00:41:25]. Mostly, you should be able to collaborate with the director in such a way that the director feels really safe with you as a writer, that the director can say, “I want more here and less here,” and you go, “Yes, fantastic, let’s do this. We’ll find the way together.” That is really exciting.

I have to say, with Ron, he was extremely respectful. I think he had taken on a highly developed script. It had been through many processes. His attack, it was a combination. It was very process-driven. He really wanted to understand how he was going to film the process and what impact that would have. A lot of his changes related to that. Other changes were he wanted more of a particular element. For example, he wanted more of the guy called the water guy, Thanet, who is up on the mountain diverting the water. Let me think. What else was there?

We did talk quite a lot. We played around quite a lot with changing some of my structure. We talked, and I was willing to, but in the end, we stuck with it. He will say that the last time we were on a giant Zoom together to talk about this at this stage, he said that the thing about the screenplay he received was that the structure was there already. He didn’t have to really mess with that too much. He’s a very nice guy.

**John:** He’s a nice guy. I’ve worked with him on a couple projects. He’s lovely.

**Bill:** He’s just amazing. I just wanted him to be able to do what he needed to do. Then the other thing that happened was he started shooting it, and I was not present on the shoot. I was in Australia. He was on the phone to me or on the email to me quite a lot, saying basically for budget reasons, we can no longer do this scene or that scene, “Find a way to write the beat that happens there somewhere else in another way,” or, “Could you please add it in to the existing scene?” There was quite a lot of that, which I was of course completely willing to do. I think you need to be in that sense a kind of craftsman who is there. “We’re now sailing the ship and it’s leaking. Please could you plug that gap?”

**John:** Absolutely circling back to this, in the first time you’re talking with the director or really anyone else in the project, a friend always reminds me that as the screenwriter, you’re the only person who’s already seen the movie. You see the whole thing there. You have everything that’s on the page, but you also have a whole movie in your head. Sometimes those initial conversations are really just aligning what movies is the director seeing in their head and trying to find the overlaps there and fix the things that aren’t overlapping quite right.

In those conversations, it varies director to director for me, but sometimes you are spending three days talking about the color of the paint on the walls, but that’s really the process for just trying to align your visions for what things really look like and what’s important to them or what’s important to you. You never know what it’s going to be as you start the process.

**Bill:** I don’t get into those sorts of conversations. I’m happy for him to paint the walls whatever color he wants really. What I want to know… I say I want to know. I don’t have any power over this person. It doesn’t get me anywhere. I would like to know that the director sees the same movie as me, but to be honest, I never know until it’s done, until it’s actually being shot, because people do the oddest things.

**John:** bill, you’ve made your living as a playwright and as a film writer and director. Do you have any experience running television shows or doing any of the series where the writer would be more in control, the writer would be telling the director what to do? Have you had that experience?

**Bill:** Not in the modern form. I’m doing a Netflix TV series right now, writing it. You’re right, it is very, very different in power terms. Back in the day, when I was working with BBC, I did I think four TV movies. The interesting thing about the BBC and television then is my name was the name that was in the newspapers, to the rage of the directors. It was William Nicholson’s latest. I really of course liked that.

I really disliked the filmed by thing, where directors act as if they’re created the whole thing. I’ve softened over the years. I used to be quite militant about this. I’ve done two movies myself as a director/writer. That has taught me to respect directors very, very highly. I do realize I need them. I just wish that the world out there understood what screenwriters do. I don’t know why this hasn’t got through. We need a movement like Cahiers du Cinema, which elevated the directors. We need a movement.

Maybe you’re right. Actually, it’s happening. It’s happening in TV. The people who create the great TV series are the writers. Our day is coming. That’s fantastic. You get astonishing things like Succession, which I don’t know who’s the hero of that, whether it’s Jesse Armstrong, Lucy Prebble, or whoever, I don’t quite know what’s going on, but somebody is doing something completely brilliant there. They’re also superbly directed, I have to say. Again, let’s all try not to quarrel over who gets the credit and be grateful if we can together do something good, because most things don’t quite work.

**John:** Circling back to Thirteen Lives, so much of the film is in Thai. It’s in a very specific Northern Thai dialect. I’m guessing you don’t speak it. At what point in the process did you need to think about how much of the film was going to be in Thai versus how much was going to be in English and what the balance was going to be. Did you need to interact with any of those language experts or did that process come later down?

**Bill:** It came much later. I knew all along that a large part would be in Thai. That was all part of respect for the people we were filming and not turning it into an outsider attack. I write it all in English, and it goes on the page in bold italics, meaning translate this please. The team making it under Ron then bring in Thai translators, but not just Thai translators, Thai filmmakers who are also Thai, who tell me about the culture. Back comes the message. You have this scene where this Thai Navy Seal speaks to his boss, his captain, in a quite strong way. They would never do that. That does not happen. We have total respect for authority people. You’ve just [inaudible 00:48:20] I change it. I just simply rewrote. That happened quite a bit.

I had a whole lot to do with the governor here, who had actually a very interesting story. I originally made him a rather ironic, wry guy, who was constantly saying, “They’ve set me up for the fall here.” There’s a little bit of it in the movie, but I had quite a lot more. I was told he would not speak of his superiors in this way. Even though he thinks it, even though it’s true, he just wouldn’t, so out it went.

**John:** Probably both choices about how that character would respond but also what the movie wants to do. The movie is so focused on the question of will we be able to get the boys out, anything that feels like it’s not to that point is going to be on the chopping block. It’s hard for it to last in the film. You made choices about how much we’re seeing or are aware of these characters’ personal lives before they get involved. Basically, the moment anybody shows up Thailand, we’re never seeing their homelands again.

Basically, we’re only going to stay near the caves here in Thailand. Talk to us about decisions to show Colin Ferrell’s home life and what you were trying to do there, the few glimpses we had outside of Thailand. Were there more scenes? What were your decisions about showing their life before they get to Thailand?

**Bill:** No, there were not more scenes. I knew that I wanted to just tell you enough about them to give you some anchor for how they were going to make their emotional journey and then just show you enough at the end to remind you where they’re come from and what it means. They’re two different stories, obviously. With Rick, Viggo Mortensen, he lives alone in this chaotic, machine-filled space. You would kind of sense that the guy’s asocial just from the images of him. Also, there was quite a bit of dialog there when he’s talking on the phone to John.

With John, with Colin Ferrell, all I needed to do was show that he’s divorced and he’s got a kid. Obviously, he’s going to identify the kids in the cave with his cave. I don’t need to say that. You just plant that, and that’s there.

In the early versions, there was another thread. They had a kind of office, the British Cave Rescue Council. There was a woman there who fed information back all the time. We did think whether to have her in England, but I really decided no, this is one of those stories where you need to maintain the pressure cooker, get them into the pressure cooker and keep them there. That was a very conscious decision, which is why I didn’t want to go into the home life of any of any of the Thai characters once the pressure had begun. I think it’s sort of like Aristotelian unities. It’s a unity of time and place, and they’re up against the clock, and just hold it there. Don’t play games. Don’t do cutting around with time. Give us a sense of the passage of time.

**John:** [inaudible 00:51:29] your theater background, it did feel like once you created the space of the camp outside the cave, that was your main set. That’s where everything has to happen within the space and within this place and time, which I guess helps answer the question of your decisions about which of the Thai parents we were going to follow, which ones we were going to identify and have some ongoing relationship with. You pick one mother, one father who we come back to more often and we [inaudible 00:51:55] which kid is —

**Bill:** And a boy. The boy, I made him up. That didn’t happen [crosstalk 00:52:00].

**John:** The smallest boy, yeah.

**Bill:** The smallest boy did happen.

**John:** That’s right, the boy [crosstalk 00:52:05].

**Bill:** The one who doesn’t go into the cave and who was out there. I wanted one boy who represented [inaudible 00:52:11]. That didn’t actually happen. They all went into the cave. The smallest boy, that was a real thing, because I had that in the research. Obviously, the mother is a competent mother, the father is a competent father, etc. All their names are changed.

**John:** Let’s talk about structure overall, because you have a time structure, which is very natural for day one, day two, and seeing the progression. With each day, there’s a change that has happened. Sometimes it’s the weather. The way that the weather is a huge villain in the course of the stories is really interesting. You also have the decision to overlay the map and show where things were and how far deep we are into things. Was that a decision that was made on a script level or does that come later on in the filmmaking process, the literal, how deep we are into the cave system structure.

**Bill:** That was not me. That was in the cutting room, in the final stages. That was Ron and his team doing that in the final stages, looking at it and saying, “It is really important that people know how far in we are.” In the longer version of the script, I’d incorporated that information in the dialog and things like that. That didn’t survive. I thought it was really good.

**John:** I think it’s a really smart choice.

**Bill:** It was really smart. In a kind of clever way, there was more information you could take in, but it didn’t matter. You got a visual sense. That was not me.

**John:** I think it’s another thing taken probably from some of the great documentaries of the last 10 years in that sense of as you see somebody climbing a peak in Yellowstone or a peak in Yosemite, seeing how far up they are, and it was just the right choice to give us that sense of-

**Bill:** It’s a very interesting challenge. How much does the audience realize? How much have they picked up? How much do they know? What do they need turning? On the whole, you’ve got to be ahead of your audience. If they’re left saying, “We’re underwater. I have no clue where I am,” which of course is the case. How could they? What we did was, and this was in the script, I characterize stages along the journey. I said, “This will be the stalactite one. This will be Chamber 3. This will be the T-Junction.” The T-Junction was what they called it and Pattaya Beach was what they called it. I gave a description of each stage so that when they built the sets, they would look a little bit different and would give us a bit of a sense that we’re not just always in a bath. We did think about that ahead of time.

**John:** You said you’ve written the script. You’re heading into production. Obviously, casting has happened. Was there a table reading? Was there any chance for everyone to get around tables to read this together? It doesn’t seem like it would have been necessary for this, but was there some sort of [inaudible 00:55:01]?

**Bill:** I simply don’t know, because it all happened in Australia, and I wasn’t there. They all had to fly out and go into quarantine for two weeks, and then they were in their bubble. I would say about this table read, which I’ve had on every film, I absolutely hate them.

**John:** Tell me why.

**John:** There’s a couple of reasons. For some reason, the person who reads the directions is the third AD, and he can’t read. That sounds like an illiterate monotone, which is awful, and I’m dying. I learned after a bit to say, “Let me read the directions, and I’ll put some [inaudible 00:55:37].” The second reason is the actors find it very, very difficult to know whether they’re performing or not. On the whole, they don’t want to perform. They don’t want to perform, because why would they? It’s a weird set of circumstances. The confident ones don’t want to perform because, “Why should I?” The un-confident ones think that they’ll perform and be found wanting. People will say, “Why did you cast him?” The whole thing is awful for everybody. I’ve come out of every reading thinking it is a disaster.

I wasn’t present at the readthrough of Gladiator. I was involved in the project. It was such a disaster that they practically pulled the whole thing. That’s when I came on board. I think they’re terrible, these readings. They do have a function, because I almost think you should get a whole team of completely different people to do the reading. The tech people, they need to know a little bit what this thing feels like. The actors, it’s hard.

**John:** I will make a mild case for the opposing view. I’ve had table readings that have gone as badly as Gladiator’s table read, where it’s just like, wow. Everything you’re saying about an actor choosing not to perform, the risk of performing, definitely been there, seen it. My argument for them is that it makes it clear that all the actors that have at least read the whole script once, because so often, actors, they’re reading, they’re focused on their part. It’s a chance to say, “Oh, you know what? This scene actually pertains to the scene before this scene.” It’s the whole thing feeling together chronologically for once, because movies are going to be shot out of sequence and it’s going to be hard to tell what things are where. For one moment, everyone was together.

The other thing, if anyone’s listening and this is helpful, I will tend to do, if there is going to be a table reading, I will make a special version of the script that is just for the reading, that greatly cuts down the scene description so it’s just getting you right into the dialog there, and it’s all clear. If we’re going to summarize things, everyone’s looking at the same page. I hear you there.

**Bill:** That is very smart. I think you’re quite right. The table reading should be treated as a kind of performance in its own right and thought about and almost directed. Each of the actors could be told, “Don’t worry about it. Just do it clearly. That’s all. You don’t need to emote if you don’t want to.” I have been at readings. When Shadowlands was done as a reading, it was amazingly successful, and it made everybody feel this is going to work. I just wish that happened every time.

**John:** My movie Go had a great table reading, and some other ones haven’t. Of course, in theater, the idea of a reading is actually super common, and those are ways you get financing and get to the next level. Everyone understands that it is a form of a performance there, but with movies it’s a special thing. Really, you have to ask yourself, who should be in the room for that? Is it just for the filmmakers and the actors? Do producers need to be in there? Do financiers need to be in there?

**Bill:** I really like your idea of having a special text for the reading, because that’s great, because you want to maintain the pace. I’ve sat there while somebody reads through a whole page of directions in a [crosstalk 00:58:53] tone where it needs to be tightened, performed, and move on so that we can get the feeling of it. I hadn’t thought of that. If it ever happens to me again… It’s quite a lot of work though, isn’t it, doing your own-

**John:** For you or for me, maybe it’s two hours of time to take and cut it down. If it saves a lot of drama down the road, I’ll do it.

**Bill:** Do you read directions yourself?

**John:** No. We’ll find somebody who’s actually a talented actor who’s not in the production to do it.

**Bill:** Good. Good.

**John:** My friend Dan Ethridge is fantastic at that, so I will draft him whenever possible.

**Bill:** You’ve thought about this much more than me. You’re smart.

**John:** During production, obviously this is happen in Australia. At most, you’re having a phone call or Zoom with Ron, so you’re not super involved in that. At any point doing post, do you come back in? Do you take a look?

**Bill:** Yes.

**John:** Was there anything for you to do?

**Bill:** Yeah. This is entirely at Ron’s discretion. He’s a nice guy, and he’s also a smart guy. It was cut in London. He said would I please come in, see the first assembly, talk about it. We talked together. I came in and saw the shorter version, and we talked about that a lot. I wouldn’t say that I did anything tremendously significant, but I was certainly there watching it and talking about it with him.

**John:** Great.

**Bill:** I was incredibly grateful for that. A lot of directors are frightened of writers, because they know the writer knows more than them what’s supposed to be there. They don’t want the writer on set. They don’t want the writer in the cutting room. They didn’t want the writer getting too much credit. Ron is not like that.

**John:** That’s terrific. This movie came out theatrically limited but then also on streaming. Did you have a chance to see this with an audience?

**Bill:** Not really. As you know, MGM, who financed it, got bought by Amazon after we finished the movie. It didn’t get the screen life that we would’ve liked. I’m old-fashioned. I like cinemas. I like theaters. They did put on a… This was in London. There was a premier in LA, which I didn’t go to. I was obviously invited, but I chose not to make the journey. There was a good screening in London. We were in France. We got the train back for that evening, and the train was delayed three hours in the Channel Tunnel, to my fury, so I actually missed about half.

**John:** Oh, no.

**Bill:** We got into the theater. I haven’t seen it much with an audience. Now it’s seen as a streaming event, and people see it separately. I’ve got this odd feeling. I don’t really know how people have responded to it.

**John:** I watched it again. I watched it last night at home, streaming it. My instinct though is that there’s going to be some big cheers when the first kid is brought on the stretcher up through the pulley system. That was a really emotional moment for me is seeing that the kids are getting out but also that everyone is there pushing the sled out together. I feel like that’s the moment where you’re going to get some cheers in the audience. I’m frustrated that you didn’t get a chance to hear those cheers, because I feel like it’s going to be a great sound. Bill, can you talk to us about what’s next? Are there any things that you’re working on that we can discuss?

**Bill:** I’m always a little bit shy, for the simple reason that I never know they’re actually going to get made.

**John:** Same.

**Bill:** That’s the life we lead. I’m doing a cinema movie. It’s with a very good director right now. It seems to be going a bit slowly. I’m not quite sure what’s going on. I’m waiting for my next instructions on that. I mentioned I’m doing a TV series for Netflix, which is about the crypto scam. It was a podcast actually called The Missing Crypto Queen-

**John:** Great.

**Bill:** … about a Bulgarian woman who created a crypto coin. It’s a wonderful story.

**John:** I think we actually maybe discussed that on our podcast in terms of How Would This Be a Movie. I’m excited that you’re doing that, because she’s a really flamboyant character if I remember correctly.

**Bill:** Exactly. It’s wonderful. It’s all about why do people believe what they believe, which is central to our current experience everywhere, politics everywhere. I’m just doing the first two episodes of that. That doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed. I’m also doing a small British movie about a guy, which is a true story again. You see, these are all true stories. I don’t like adapting novels. I don’t do it, because somebody else has [inaudible 01:03:41] the characters and invented the story.

Real life is a complete mess, so it needs people like me to come in and turn it into craft, something out of that. That’s what I like doing. I’m doing a small movie about a person who goes mad. The fun of it is, it’s kind of implying that madness is a choice, which actually serves a purpose. He thinks he’s a secret agent saving the planet. He ends up being sent to hospital and given heavy drugs and so on. You realize that being a secret agent saving the planet beats his real life. You kind of get why a guy would do that. Essentially, it’s dealing with the fact that all of us are prone to picking up clues around us and creating a narrative of our life that enables us to feel good about ourselves.

**John:** Absolutely. You are the story you’re telling about yourself.

**Bill:** Yeah. I’m doing that. There’s a couple of other longer-term projects. Those are three that are actually on my desk right now.

**John:** That’s amazing. Bill, an absolute pleasure talking with you and meeting you here. Congratulations on the film. I’m really excited to see these next projects as well. A delight. Thank you so much.

**Bill:** It’s a great pleasure for me as well, talking to somebody who gets these things, a fellow. I love it. Thank you so much.

**John:** Thank you.

**Bill:** Bye-bye.

**John:** Have a great night. Bye.

**Bill:** Bye-bye.

**John:** Craig, we are back in this moment. It is time for our One Cool Things. I have two TV shows to recommend to you and to our listenership. First is Andor, which everyone says it’s by far the best Star Wars series. It’s just phenomenal. It’s just really, really good. Craig, I was thinking about you as I was watching it, because there was this scene, I think in the maybe second or third episode, where the Empire, or what will become the Empire, is having this board meeting, just planning meeting. It’s in this big white room. It’s just so smartly done. It’s everything you always talk about how you admire the Empire for its efficiency and for its organization. I thought of you. If I could find the clip snippet of it, I want to send it to you, because you will just love that when you get a chance to watch it.

**Craig:** Obviously, I always root for the Empire. I’m just so confused after all these movies. How do they keep losing? It just doesn’t make sense. Why is everyone so scared of them? All they do is lose.

**John:** I’ll say that the whole premise of Andor is basically how does the revolution start, how does the rebellion start. It’s really smartly done. It’s no surprise. It’s coming from Tony Gilroy, who’s a great writer and is running this show. Just so, so smart. Everyone tells you to watch Andor. I’m just the 19,000th person to tell you to watch Andor, because really, it’s worth it.

The other thing is Fleishman is in Trouble, which I don’t hear people talking as much about. So good. As I recognize the names going past, Susannah Grant, who is of course fantastic, but Taffy Brodesser-Akner wrote the book and she wrote almost all the episodes of the series. It’s so smartly done. The POV storytelling on it is really, really great. Fleishman is in Trouble, another great thing to watch. That is on Hulu in the United States.

**Craig:** Excellent. My One Cool Thing is an article. It is in Wired. I don’t know if you’re going to need a subscription or not. Maybe Wired does a couple of free articles a month. This one is called Welcome to Digital Nomadland by Susana Ferreira. It’s a really interesting story about this class of workers called digital nomads, who work entirely virtually, and so can work anywhere, but they’re alone. These are a lot of people who don’t have families, etc, so they’re stuck alone in their homes. They want to go places. They can go anywhere.

This Portuguese island basically on the southern coast of Madeira created what they call a digital nomad land. It’s basically like we built some homes and some work areas for you, communal work areas. You can come here, live here, and you’ll have a community, instead of being alone. Theoretically, this would also be great for the actual island itself and the people who live there, because it would help the economy. It doesn’t work exactly the way they were thinking, but it’s really interesting, because I never considered this is a new way of building a community. All of our legacy communities are built around decisions that were made god knows when, based on there’s a lake nearby or there’s a river or whatever.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** This is like, “Ah, it seems like a good spot to put a bunch of people with laptops,” so a new way of creating communities. Check out Welcome to Digital Nomadland by Susana Ferreira in Wired.

**John:** Fantastic. That is our show for this week and our show for this year. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Again.

**John:** It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Still.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Michael Lane. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you can get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segment. Reminder to use the promo code. What is the promo code, Craig?

**Craig:** Onion.

**John:** Promo code onion to save $10 on your annual subscription, but only through January 15th, so do that.

**Craig:** Onion. Onion. Onion.

**John:** Onion. Onion. Onion. Stick around after the credits, because we’ll be discussing our non-writing aspirations for 2023. Craig and Megana, thank you for a fun year.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thanks, John.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, I sprung this on you. We didn’t have time to prepare any sort of plans for 2023, but not work, because obviously you’re going to have a very busy work 2023. Maybe I’ll start with some of mine, and you can think of what some of yours are going to be for 2023. I’m excited to be DM’ing again. It looks like we’re going to finish up the campaign that you’ve been so generously hosting for the last three years.

**Craig:** It’s a long one.

**John:** It’s a long one.

**Megana:** Wow.

**John:** When you finish up, we’ve discussed in the group, I’m going to try to run a much, much shorter, not going to go three years, kind of campaign. I’m excited to get back into that and look at who our group is. We have a large group, but not everyone can come every time, so trying to plan for things that will work will if people are just gone, so their tokens aren’t just sitting there idly, that we can actually do things every week with the people that we have on hand.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** That’s probably the thing I’m most excited about in 2023.

**Craig:** I’m excited about that. I can’t wait to just play again. I guess that’s not really an aspiration. It’s going to happen. It’s an inevitability.

**John:** It’s going to happen. We’re going to finish. We’re going to finish the Dungeon of the Mad Mage, and then we’ll do something new.

**Craig:** Yes, we will. When it comes to non-writing aspirations, I don’t really have specific ones, or at least none that are tied to a new year. I have an ongoing project, which is to catastrophize less, take deep breaths, put anxiety in its proper perspective, and remind myself… Am I allowed to curse in this Bonus Segment?

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** Everything will be fucking okay. That’s great.

**John:** [crosstalk 01:11:27].

**Craig:** That’s what I’m working on. Megana, I feel like you and I are very similar in this regard.

**Megana:** Yeah, absolutely.

**Craig:** Tell me, what do you do, or first of all, is that part of your non-writing aspiration for 2023? If it is, how do you go about it?

**Megana:** I think it is. I am also trying to stretch more in 2023 because I’m getting older.

**Craig:** That’s nice. Yeah, you are.

**Megana:** I am. I think that getting myself to a place where it’s like, “Oh, I’m stressed out,” and moving my body in some way is always incredibly helpful. That is a new tactic I’m taking for 2023.

**Craig:** I like it, stretching.

**Megana:** Instead of just panicking alone in my room.

**Craig:** Right, and tightening up in a little stress ball.

**John:** Stretching also one of the things that you can do while you’re doing something else. You can stretch while you’re watching TV. Increasingly, I will just not sit on the couch. I will sit on the floor and try to stretch while watching Andor or Fleishman is in Trouble, because I can still fully enjoy the show, but I’m also hopefully getting my hamstrings a little less messed up.

**Megana:** I have a standing desk, but if we’re being honest, I don’t stand at it very often.

**Craig:** You mean your sitting desk? That’s your sitting desk, Megana.

**Megana:** Now it’s going to be my stretching desk. It’s going to be my stretching and less panic desk.

**Craig:** I like that.

**Megana:** Do you have a standing desk?

**Craig:** I do. Like you, it’s really… Look. Here’s the deal. I know what I can do. I know what I can’t do. I know what I might do. Part of everything is also just giving myself a break.

**Megana:** You deserve it.

**Craig:** I do a lot. You know what? I don’t want to use the standing desk. Screw it. I don’t want to.

**John:** If listeners are looking for things to help them think about their year and they want to try a book, a book that actually was genuinely useful for me was James Clear’s Atomic Habits, which really talks about how the best way to change your habits and get rid of some bad habits and start some good habits is just make them unavoidable. It’s literally like putting your running shoes by the door so you’re going to be tripping over them if you don’t do it. It’s making sure you’re setting yourself up for success. If people are looking for a book or something to read over the holidays, to make them think better about what they want to do in the new year, how to get that achieved, that’d be a good bet, Atomic Habits.

**Craig:** If your New Year’s resolutions or aspirations are to read less and sit more, I just want you to know I’m your patron saint.

**John:** We’re going to support that. Craig, a thing I’m going to try to not do in 2023 is recreate Twitter. I’m not going to try to, because obviously, Twitter is going to… It’s not dead, but it’s not going to be the same thing it was. If it’s around six months from now, six years from now, it’s still not going to be as useful to me as it used to be. I’m not going to try to find the new Twitter. I just don’t think that’s going to be a goal. I’m going to find other ways to encounter the ideas in people that I used to encounter and stumble across on Twitter. I’m not quite sure what that’s going to be. I can still miss the things that were great about it. I’m not going to try to look for the next version of it.

**Craig:** Which is totally fine. I think you probably won’t have to try too hard. I think that there are people right now salivating and rubbing their hands together, going, “We sense a vacuum.” That said, Twitter never really made money. I don’t know if anybody necessarily… They’re not going to want to recreate Twitter either, but they’re going to make something. Something’s coming. You remember the fantastic opening credit sequence for Silicon Valley?

**John:** Oh yeah. Great. The constantly churning, 3D, top-down view of all these companies building up and exploding.

**Craig:** Exactly. They would change it over the seasons to reflect other implosions and new risings. We don’t know what’s going to happen. We just know change is afoot. It just doesn’t stop. The churn doesn’t stop. Something new is going to come along that’s going to take over our lives soon enough.

**John:** What it has started doing more of as Twitter’s been declining is just going back to my RSS readers, the blogs I follow and stuff like that. That was actually really good technology. RSS is what’s actually powering podcasts like Scriptnotes to let new episodes come out there. People can use that for posts as well. I’m going to try to do a little bit more blogging on johnaugust.com. The thoughts that I used to try to cut down to 280 characters to fit on Twitter, I will expend a few minutes to make a longer blog post.

**Megana:** Nice.

**Craig:** Been a lot of that going on.

**John:** Craig, thank you for a very good 2022. I’m so excited to be doing more Scriptnotes with you in 2023.

**Craig:** Oh wait, we’re still doing this? Oh my god.

**Megana:** Wait, Craig, was that your answer for your resolution?

**John:** Catastrophize less?

**Megana:** Catastrophize less?

**Craig:** Yeah. What did you think it should be?

**Megana:** No, I think that that’s great. I also think that you deserve more vacation in 2023.

**Craig:** Aw, that’s very sweet. I don’t love vacations. I know I’m supposed to.

**John:** Maybe a different definition of vacation. It doesn’t have to be sitting on a beach someplace. It could just be like, Craig, for the next week you just get to play all of the video games.

**Craig:** I do love that.

**John:** I think we both wish a little more of that for you.

**Craig:** Thank you. You guys are very sweet. I wish you guys to have a wonderful and happy new year, no matter what it brings for us, which will be fascinating, no doubt.

**John:** It will be a fascinating year, I’m sure.

**Craig:** We will, as always, look back on this and go, “Aw, you guys didn’t know. You didn’t that the space weasels were coming.”

**John:** So naïve we were.

**Craig:** From the Planet Weasel. Yeah, they’re coming. We didn’t know. Until they do come, let’s have some fun.

**John:** Thanks, Craig. Thanks, Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks, John.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [William Nicholson](https://www.williamnicholson.com/) on [IMdB](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629933/)
* [Watch the conversation between John and William here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ22OXQEyos)
* [Thank you to the Writers Guild Foundation for organizing the event!](https://www.wgfoundation.org/blog/category/FYC)
* [Use Promo Code ONION for two months free in our annual Scriptnotes premium membership](https://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Welcome to Digital Nomadland](https://www.wired.com/story/digital-nomad-village-madeira-portugal/) by Kyle Jeffers for Wired
* [Fleischman Is In Trouble](https://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/fleishman-is-in-trouble) on Hulu
* [Andor](https://www.disneyplus.com/series/star-wars-andor/3xsQKWG00GL5)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Michael Lane ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/580standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 583: The One with Sarah Polley, Transcript

February 12, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/the-one-with-sarah-polley).

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

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

**John:** This is Episode 583 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’ve got a very special guest. Sarah Polley is a writer/director whose credits include Take This Waltz, Away From Her, and Stories We Tell. She’s also the star of my very first movie, Go. Welcome to the podcast, Sarah Polley.

**Craig:** Woo!

**Sarah Polley:** Nice to see you. You look exactly the same, and it’s really eerie.

**John:** Somehow I don’t age. It’s a lot of wearing a hat I think is what does it.

**Sarah:** It’s frightening.

**Craig:** I worry that what’s going to happen is you’re going to age all at once.

**John:** That’s going to be terrifying.

**Craig:** One day we’re going to be like, “Oh, no, what happened? He’s a hundred.”

**Sarah:** I think it’s like a Death Becomes Her type scenario. Actually, this house that we’re recording this in reminds me a bit of Death Becomes Her, so it’s all coming together. Some kind of illegal potion, and Bruce Willis is somewhere.

**Craig:** Yes. We should do a deep dive on that one. I love that movie.

**Sarah:** Oh my god, that’s one of my favorite movies of all time.

**Craig:** It’s so good.

**Sarah:** I’ve seen that movie probably 30 times. There was a period in high school where we watched it every weekend. We just kept watching it.

**Craig:** It’s so good. It’s such a good movie.

**John:** Sarah Polley, I remember you from Go, obviously, because that was my first movie making experience, so it was all overwhelming. You had made a zillion things before that point. I distinctly remember there was a point in which you wrapped, and the next night we were shooting, and there’s Sarah again, and she’s sitting on the floor of this hotel room, in a scene that you’re not in at all, just watching. Do you always know that you wanted to direct? It seemed like you were studying it from the moment I saw you.

**Sarah:** That actually happened as a result of that movie in a way, because I remember meeting with Doug. I remember I was not feeling particularly ambitious as an actor. I didn’t want to make a movie in LA. I remember Doug hadn’t read the script yet. I remember he waylaid me at a hotel somewhere, was like, “Just meet with me for an hour,” before I got on a plane.

I remember him talking about his filmmaking and how he wanted to break the rules and light differently, and he operated his own camera, and rules of filmmaking that he felt were outmoded, that he was going to change. I literally had a moment in that meeting where I just went, “If I can shadow you and learn about what the hell you’re talking about right now, I’m in. I don’t particularly want to act, but I’d really like to spend my time this way.” I loved the characters.

It turned into this kind of apprenticeship where I was watching Doug working and watching you working with him. That became something I suddenly was interested in was filmmaking. Even though I’d been acting for a long time, I never thought of it as something I was interested in before that movie. Then yeah, I was watching a lot.

**John:** I want to get more into filmmaking and writing and directing, but specifically I want to talk about your new movie, Women Talking, which Craig and I both just absolutely loved.

**Sarah:** Thank you.

**John:** It’s up for all sorts of awards this season. It’s really, really good. We’ll talk about that. I also want to talk about your book, Run Towards the Danger, which is a moment in your life, but also good general life philosophy advice. I think it’s a generally applicable thing you apply to your life and your career, correct?

**Sarah:** I think that recovering from this concussion, which I had for about three and a half years, and having little success doing so, and then finally finding this amazing treatment program at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, where the advice I’d been given was turned on its head, so the advice to either rest in a dark room, or the best advice I got was walk and do stuff, but as soon as you start to feel symptoms, come on, go down to zero.

He shook that all up, this amazing doctor, Dr. Michael Collins, and he said, “Look, if you remember one thing from this meeting, it’s this. Run towards the danger. You’re not going to get better at handling the things that are difficult for you with a concussion by avoiding them.” There’s a bunch of very specific exercises and vestibular exercises, but basically, your main treatment is exposure therapy. The things that cause discomfort, you have to do more of. That became this paradigm shift for me that permeated every aspect of my life.

**John:** Great. We’ll talk about that in relation to life but also filmmaking and the decision to make this movie after a 10-year gap. We’ll get into all of it. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, I’d love to talk about child actors, because you were a child actor. You have strong opinions about child actors. I watched your movie, and there were a bunch of child actors in it. I’m like, “Sarah, there’s a bunch of kid actors in here.” We’re going to get into that. Craig, I don’t know even what your theory is on child actors.

**Craig:** It’s fraught with danger for everyone. It’s fraught with danger for the children. It’s fraught with danger for their parents and the relationship between the parents and the children, and it’s fraught with danger for the people making the movie or the show, because you can’t help but put your production first. The panic when you’re making something and making your days and all that is just so palpable. You can easily forget that it’s a child. There are so many ways to go wrong, but I think also there are ways to go right.

**John:** We’ll dig into all of that in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members.

**Sarah:** I love the way you articulated that, by the way.

**Craig:** Thank you. We’re now best friends.

**John:** This is a whole bunch of stuff we want to talk about. We might as well start by framing it in the conversation about this movie that you’ve just made, because it was great. It’s based on a book. I’m curious how the book came to you and what the decision process was, like, “Okay, this is something I’m going to choose to adapt and choose to spend years of my life making.” Talk to us about Women Talking.

**Sarah:** I read it when it first came out. I actually heard about it first through a member of my book club. It wasn’t the book we were doing, but she took me inside into the kitchen and said, “Going to tell you the background events behind this novel. When I do that, you’re not going to want to make this into a film.” The book isn’t about that. It’s about what happens after. She told me the background, which is of course this devastating story of these series of assaults in this Mennonite colony in Bolivia. I said, “I don’t want to make that into a film.” She said, “I told you you were going to say that. Just wait.”

Then she told me what the film was about, or what the book was about, which was about this incredible meeting between these women, this incredibly rich, dynamic, challenging conversation about how to respond to these series of attacks, whether or not they’re going to stay and fight, whether they leave, whether they stay and do nothing, and this incredibly democratic process and difficult discussion that they have. Really, by the end of her talking, and I already loved Miriam Toews as an author, I was pretty intrigued. I ran and got the book.

Really the day I finished reading it, on my Twitter feed it comes up that Frances McDormand and Dede Gardner have the rights to it. I reach out through my manager, Frank Frattaroli, who’s also Fran’s manager. My email says, “Women Talking, do they have a writer and director for this?” He sends me an email he received within the hour before mine.

**John:** That’s great.

**Sarah:** It says, from Frances McDormand, “Women Talking with Sarah Polley doing these days.”

**Craig:** That never happens.

**Sarah:** It was all very thrilling.

**John:** That part felt like it was meant to be. Reading the book, did you have a sense of how you would make this into a movie? The movie has a really strange form, but did you know it was going to have that strange form from the start? For folks who haven’t seen it, it all takes place really over the course of 24 hours. It’s these conversations between these women that punctuated at different times. They break up and they get back together. We’re all seeing it through the lens of this decision. I guess 12 Angry Men would be one of the early comparisons to it. When did you know it was going to feel like that?

**Sarah:** I feel like what I was excited about was figuring out if this could be a movie or not. I won’t claim that I had a moment where I just knew this is a movie. I felt very tingly about it and very excited about the idea of what an incredible cast could do with a conversation like this.

I don’t think I would’ve embarked upon it without partners like Dede Gardner and Frances McDormand, who could help me hash it out. This was an incredibly collaborative process from the beginning, and a thrilling one, of these conversations with women that were rich and wild and bonkers. This process of figuring it out was a real process. I think what I was excited about was trying to figure out with them if this was a movie or not. I think as we worked on it more and more and I honed the drafts more and more, we realized it was.

**John:** Now, a strange thing about the movie is that there’s not a protagonist in a classic sense. There’s a group protagonist. It’s a group of people arriving at a decision and making a decision together. The storytelling decisions are all diffuse among these different people. How early on did you land on that? Were you writing scenes? What was your drafts and documents along the way that got you figuring out what stuff was going to happen, what people were saying, where stuff would fall.

**Sarah:** It’s interesting what you say about there not being a clear protagonist, because I think my first two films, Away from Her and Take This Waltz, the anchor I held onto was, I am going to make this as concretely from one person’s point of view as humanly possible and stay as close to that character as I can. I think anything I like about those films, that’s what it is, is that we never leave that person whose eyes the story is through.

Then I think when I made my documentary, Stories We Tell, things cracked open for me in a way that made me very interested in what it means to tell a story through a chorus of voices and what does that feel like and what does that look like. There was this real break for me with that form of a singular perspective. I always knew it would feel like a true ensemble. I always knew that I couldn’t lose the perspective of any one character at all, so I had to write multiple drafts from each character’s point of view, as though they were the only character in the movie, just so I could keep the thread alive, even if they weren’t active in the scene, that I was looking at the script from their point of view and really gauging how this was impacting them.

In terms of the documents along the way, the first thing I do when I’m adapting something is, after I’ve done the first read of the book, before I read it again, I write from memory what I think the key points are and the most beautiful images are from the book and that I want in the film. I’m always fascinated to go back for that second read and realize how many of those moments I’ve made up. They’re not in there. You project it on.

**John:** So much of Big Fish, I’m like, oh, I took that from the book. No, it wasn’t there, ever.

**Sarah:** No way.

**John:** There’s no circus in the book. There’s no war in the book.

**Sarah:** Wow.

**John:** It’s all creations.

**Sarah:** Were those things that you knew right away you wanted in there that you-

**John:** It was actually while we were still shooting Go, I was reading through Big Fish.

**Sarah:** Wow.

**John:** As I was flipping pages, like, “Oh, the Will character has to have someone to talk to, so I’m going to give him a wife. I think she’ll be French and her name will be Josephine.” On that first read through, you create things, you invent things.

**Sarah:** I think I’m also curious about the things that you just don’t know you’ve invented, like, “That image really spoke to me.” You realize something in your subconscious has mapped something from your life onto the book. I think that’s the really juicy stuff to explore is what’s that distance between you and the book and how are you traversing it in unconscious ways. Unpacking that material of what’s connecting you is super interesting.

**Craig:** One of the things that struck me is that it is an ensemble piece, and you are studiously, and therefore effortlessly, or appearing effortlessly, showing it from all these different perspectives. You can tell you’ve done your work, because sometimes you cut away from the person talking to somebody else, and they’re not simply listening. They are doing things. Sometimes they’re not listening, which is fantastic. Nonetheless, the drama begins to organize itself, as it almost always does, around an axis. For me, it was almost like Rooney Mara’s character was the protagonist and Jessie Buckley’s character was the antagonist. Then at some point you start to feel like, “Wait, maybe Jessie Buckley is the protagonist.”

Interestingly, I’m just curious if this was anything that you were cognizant of, a story about a group of women trying to figure out what is true and what is correct and what is the smart way to do things and changing their minds, that in a reflective way, who we in the audience are attaching ourselves to begins to change and swing back and forth in pretty dramatic ways.

**Sarah:** Yeah, absolutely. It was really interesting through the casting process how every actor I met with was really gravitating towards Salome or Ona, because they thought they were the protagonists. I was constantly saying, actually, by the end, the person this actually revolves around ultimately, and she’s not the protagonist, it is a true ensemble, but the more complex journey which I think ends up surprising you is the character Mariche, is Jessie Buckley’s character, who ends up moving towards becoming the person who leads them forward in the direction they’re going to go, which I think is a surprise. I think it is genuinely an ensemble, but I did want it to feel like we could go back and forth in perspective in terms of who we were most connected to, and to be surprised by the end by our connection to Mariche.

**Craig:** It’s pretty amazing to watch. Jessie is such a good actor. Isn’t it a shame that she’s such a bad person though? One of the nicest people.

**John:** One of the stars of Chernobyl, we should say.

**Craig:** One of the nicest people I’ve ever been on a set with, just so lovely.

**Sarah:** I’m going to be honest. They all were. I know people always talk a whole lot of bullshit about the people they worked with and how great they were. This was the most unbelievable community of human beings. They all shared a greenroom. No one had a trailer. They spent every hour together. It was a time where the Canadian women’s soccer team was doing really well. There were all these amazing videos of their team spirit, and when one of them would of them would struggle, how all of them would run and lift one of them up. I just felt like that’s what we were living. Someone would have a great moment or a monologue, and everyone could feel it when it worked. There’d be crazy applause. They’d literally be lifted up into the air.

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

**Sarah:** It was just this sense of collective celebration of each other and connectedness and also challenging each other and pushing each other, but in very, very healthy ways.

**John:** I want to talk to you about the setting of the movie, because I don’t know how much of this came from the book as well. When you say it’s a Mennonite community in Bolivia, my natural assumption is all this should’ve been taking place in Spanish and stuff, but the actual Mennonite community that was there, that was all in German. It was all in low German.

**Sarah:** In Plautdietsch, yeah.

**John:** In Plautdietsch. It was this weird, insular kind of place. When did you know that you were going to shoot it in Canada? When did you know that you were going to do it in English? Were those just fundamental, baked in decisions from the start?

**Sarah:** Yeah. This book was written as a response to real life events in this Mennonite colony in Bolivia, but the movie takes a little bit of a step from that. While we’re happy to talk about those events, and it’s important to, the film exists more in the realm of a fable. I want it to be placeless. I wanted it to be timeless. I didn’t want people to be able to pin these issues which we’re dealing with in every patriarchal society to some degree or another on this obscure, already misunderstood community. I think it’s really important we talk about that story. For the purposes of the film, I did want it to feel we were basically nowhere.

**John:** There’s a moment at which a 1980s Census taker comes through, 1990s?

**Sarah:** 2010 but he’s playing Daydream Believer.

**John:** Making it clear that we’re not in space, we’re not in some sort of alien dimension. There is an outside world that does exist, but these characters have no connection to it. They have no relationship to it, which is so important as we’re trying to figure these things out.

They’re trying to figure it out in a vacuum, because they don’t have the benefit of having read all the other theory about stuff. As they’re trying to figure out collective action and what we do, these are not literary characters who can do these things, and yet they speak at a level of sophistication that makes it seem like they have had some greater conversations about these things, or at least through their biblical training, have had some elevated level of discourse.

**Sarah:** There is this incredible oral tradition, and especially in communities of faith, where even if there’s no literacy, there’s been an incredible amount of analysis of text and interpretation of text and of thinking about spiritual and philosophical ideas. I did play with the dialog a little bit, because in the book, it’s through August’s point of view, the male, educated narrator. The language at times is more sophisticated than what it would be. I did a lot of work of trying to put it in their mouths in a realistic way. When I started to go too far and make it too pedestrian, I started to feel uncomfortable ethically with that decision.

I had this really interesting conversation with my husband who’s a legal academic. I was like, “I don’t actually want to dumb this down, because I don’t believe that they’re not capable of these kinds of sophisticated ideas and thoughts just because they haven’t received an education. I think they’ve lived in community. They have a sense of the collective and selflessness and faith.” He just looked at me and said, “Why not put the most sophisticated language into the mouths of the most marginalized people you can think of?” These women were incredibly marginalized. There was something that felt like a radical act about that and also that there is a heightened reality to the film that I didn’t want to shy away from.

**Craig:** That comes through beautifully. In thinking about the speech patterns that you’re talking about, it was unique. Listening to them speak, you got the sense that they had been raised to be remarkably articulate. Everyone is speaking very clearly and without many apostrophes. There are not a lot of contractions. It’s very florid but also grounded, and yet some of them are better at it than others. It was interesting to watch how different characters had… For instance, Jessie Buckley, her character doesn’t quite engage on the same structured language level that Rooney Mara’s character engages on, or Claire Foy’s. There’s more structure.

I’m curious if there was a dial that you were turning back and forth in terms of the level of articulation and the level of sophistication or formality of that language, because this is such a dialog-centric piece.

**Sarah:** Absolutely. There’s a reference briefly in the film to something that’s a bigger thing in the book, which is that some of these women like Ona have had access to August’s mother, who’s had this secret schoolhouse. She has brought in some of these ideas and talked about things and had more access to somewhat of an education. There are some differences in terms of exposure amongst the women.

**Craig:** It was a really smart choice to give them that inflection. I really loved it, because it also helped me feel that they were in the center of a religious colony. They’re quoting the bible all the time. If they can’t read, this means that they have been drilled over and over in this kind of biblical instruction, which was remarkable.

Also, just to circle back to an earlier point that you and John were talking about, the fact that you don’t tell us where they are I thought was a fantastic choice, because I’m as afraid as they are when they start to contemplate, “If we leave, where do we go?” because I don’t know where they are. They talk about the city. Where? I felt as insulated as they were, which I thought was such a smart choice.

**Sarah:** Thanks.

**John:** Let’s talk about the script itself a little bit. We printed out some pages here. We’re going to have a link in the show notes to the full script so people can read what you wrote here. This draft we’re looking at is dated April 12, 2021 as the production draft, and then a whole bunch of revisions, double pink revisions on August 16, 2021. This April 12th original production draft, how much does it resemble the movie we saw?

**Sarah:** There are some really seismic changes. All of the films I’ve made thus far, excluding Stories We Tell, you would look at the script, and it’s basically the movie. This one, when they released it publicly recently, I went, “Oh, dear god.”

**John:** I want to talk about that.

**Sarah:** We made huge changes in the editing room.

**John:** Craig and I have a friend who one of his jobs is, when it comes to awards seasons, he has to take like, okay, here’s a shooting script, and here’s the actual movie, and he has to make the script match the actual movie rather than this. I loved being able to see this, because I got to see, oh, I can see why those changes were made.

**Sarah:** Interesting.

**John:** The biggest change of course is, in the draft we have here, the narration is from August’s point of view. I’m not even sure who’s narrating it. It’s a woman who’s narrating it to her unborn child. Is it Jessie Buckley’s child? Who’s narrating it?

**Sarah:** Autje, the youngest woman in the room, the teenager, is narrating it to Rooney Mara’s unborn child from the future colony.

**John:** Great. It completely works in the movie, and it could’ve worked on the page here, but it seems like you didn’t know if that was a thing that needed to happen.

**Sarah:** No. In fact, it’s funny, because I love August narrating it in the book. The narration is so beautiful. Ben Whishaw read it so beautifully.

**John:** He’s a talented actor there, yes.

**Sarah:** He killed it. He killed it.

**John:** He’s Paddington Bear.

**Sarah:** There was no way to think of it as anything but that in my mind. I chafed at some of the… This was a lauded book, and everybody loved it. Some of the criticisms were, “Why would you have a male narrator?” which I just found so boring and beside the point. Actually, it’s also about men listening and taking notes. There is such a thing as a useful presence in a room when someone knows how to be a good ally. There was something about it that just felt so one-dimensional about the criticism. I think I was also quite defensive of the idea of August as the narrator.

**John:** You’re a person who defends the writers’ room’s assistant who takes all the notes in the room. You’re defending that person.

**Sarah:** Exactly. I’m totally defending that person. I just was like, “No, this is amazing.” Again, Ben doing that narration was so beautiful. We cut the film together. The scenes were where we wanted them to be. There was some disconnect. There was some distance between us and the film. Then there was this amazing brainstorming session that we had with Dede Gardner and Frances and with Chris Donaldson. We had another editor, Roslyn Kalloo.

There was this moment where I think it was Dede who originally said, “Should we be looking at the narrator here?” Then the idea originally was maybe it’s Rooney’s character talking to her unborn child. Then I think it was Chris who said actually, “What would be amazing is if it’s the youngest person in the room, Autje,” because we had fallen in love with Kate Hallett’s performance. I’d fallen in love with her. She has a poetry about her and just a way of processing things and going through the world that’s so fresh but also sophisticated.

As an experiment, I asked Kate to send me her notes on her character when she was prepping, because I knew at her age I made these beautiful notes that no one ever saw. Sure enough, there were these beautiful notes, which provided the inspiration for me to go back and write this whole other document, which was me trying to remember what it felt like to be 16 years old, around the age I knew you, and how I saw the world, how uncompromising I was, and fierce, but also there was a sense of poetry and connectedness with my true self and how I was processing things.

I just wrote this stream of consciousness document and would have Kate send back these voice memos to us in the editing room of recording them. We didn’t necessarily know where they were even going to go. We would create sequences around them, or we would take sequences that were there and change them according to the voiceover. Suddenly, we started to find the film. Suddenly, what we started to find actually was the spirit of the book that we had lost by remaining too close to it.

**John:** That’s amazing. Let’s talk about the first page here, because you do some stuff that is so helpful to the reader, but the audience doesn’t get to see. You have this list of the women broken down by family. We see the 11 main characters of the story. We’re introduced to them here, so we can see what the connection is, because later on, you’re going to shotgun them at us, and we’re going to be in a room with all of them and have to sort ourselves out. Visually, when we see it in a movie, we can do that, because you recognize actors.

**Sarah:** Exactly.

**John:** On a page, we would have no sense of what this what. It’s going to get really confusing without this little guide map here at the start.

You also say, “VISUAL NOTE: The flashbacks of trauma will be shot at 15 frames per second and there will be a ‘roar’ over these scenes, animal and/or machine-like.” Early on, you knew that there would be moments where you have to acknowledge these things happening, but you didn’t want them to feel like the rest of the film.

**Sarah:** That’s right.

**John:** You didn’t want the audience to be sitting in them that same way.

**Sarah:** Again, the manifestation of how we created that difference ended up not being what I’ve written there. It was a sense that there would be a differentiating factor. What we ended up using was actually this very, very simple bell that Hildur Guðnadóttir brought to us, in place of my idea of this different frame rate and this roar. Actually, what it boiled down to is something extremely simple. There was some sense in which I wanted the reader to be able to imagine those things.

I think that legend is really important in terms of the characters, because when you’re reading them on paper, I find still as a reader, reading scripts, it’s just this dry document staring at you. It is hard to pull apart who is who.

**John:** The other job of these first three pages is to set up the premise. You get right to it. Right away, we know these things happened. The men are out of the village momentarily, and we have to make this decision whether we’re going to stay or go. I was surprised how little like, let’s set up the world, let’s set up everything else. Nope, you’re going to learn about the world as we’re getting into this decision making process. Is that from the book or that was you coming in to start telling the story?

**Sarah:** It’s me. Also, my first draft of this, there’s about 35 pages cut from the beginning of the film.

**John:** Wow.

**Sarah:** This was the best script note I’ve ever received, which was from Dede Gardner. My first draft had all of August’s childhood and backstory, and we got to know the world. We got to know everyone’s backstory, basically. There were some beautiful scenes from the book that I really genuinely wanted in there.

I remembered my first notes call about this script. I’m used to working with Canadians, where it’s, “Oh my god, it’s so good. I just have one little thing.” That’s not Dede Gardner or Frances McDormand. It’s like, “Okay, let’s get down to business.” The first question Dede asked was, “The beginning of the film, the first 20 to 40 pages, did you write these because you wanted to or because you felt you had to?”

**John:** Oh, wow.

**Sarah:** That was really eye-opening for me in terms of, oh, this gets to be what I want it to be, not what I feel I need to do. That for me then set the tone for every decision I made afterwards.

**Craig:** There is something interesting about a movie that is so much… Let’s say we go back in time, and you don’t cut those pages, and you do shoot that, and it is in the movie. Once they isolate themselves in the barn, that’s where they stay, mostly. We have a couple of brief excursions. If you had gone around and seen their backstories and them as children, once you got them in that barn, there is a danger that you’re like, wait, are we just stuck in the barn now? If you start in the barn and you stay in the barn, then it’s this magical space. I think you made the right choice, certainly.

**Sarah:** Thank you.

**John:** What we often talk about, you have to teach the audience how to watch your movie. What’s crucial for your audience is that they understand this is how our movie’s going to work. We’re going to be in this barn largely. We’re going to jump out of the barn at any time for different reasons. We’re going to be in this barn. Our women are going to speak this way. They’re going to speak at this heightened level that’s not quite natural. The first three to five minutes, you have the ability to teach your audience what the rules are. If you hadn’t come out of the gate like that, once we got into the barn it would’ve felt really strange and artificial.

**Sarah:** I also feel that looking back at my first two features, I would love to go back and cut 10 minutes from both of them. I think there’s too many endings to both of them. I think there’s a time somewhere in the middle that kind of lags, and the beginning of Take This Waltz doesn’t really recover, I don’t think. I think knowing that, having this 10-year gap, and going, wouldn’t it be great to create a scenario where I don’t look back in 10 years and go, “I know where that 10 minutes is.” What if I know where that 10 minutes is now?

I had this, and I said it out loud, which committed me so deeply to this, which was my first meeting with Dede and Fran, I said, “I’m not delivering a script over 95 pages, because I know I’m going to regret it, and that’s still going to be too long. I’m still going to need to cut another… ” As it turned out, I didn’t go over that, and we still cut half an hour out of the movie from our first cut.

I just felt like this film really needed to be efficient, especially because of what we’re asking from the audience. It had to be just pulled tight. I’m also just finding maybe since becoming a parent that I’m becoming really impatient with long movies. I just don’t have it in me anymore. I hit 40, and I was like, “Oh, no, it’s over 90 minutes. What am I going to do?”

**John:** Absolutely. It’s a huge commitment. Thinking back to Go, you came back for the reshoots on Go. That was my first movie, so I didn’t know better. I’m always surprised how few movies plan for reshoots and just really look at, okay, what does the movie want to be now and how do we create the scenes that actually best support that movie? People may not know that the jumping-off place where we get to each of the different three storylines, that was all reshoots, and we brought you guys back for that.

**Sarah:** Which was it? What was it?

**John:** In the back of the grocery store where you’re getting evicted and going out with Simon, and then the TV. Those scenes existed, but they were three separate scenes. We had to go back and make them into one scene so we always knew we were jumping off from the same place. On a script level we didn’t know that. On a read through level we didn’t know that. When we actually watch the movie, it’s like, oh yeah, that’s absolutely true. That’s how it has to be.

**Sarah:** That isn’t a function of you not doing your work. You literally can’t know those things until that chemical reaction emerges between all the different elements you’ve brought together. It’s not something that can always be predicted.

**John:** August as the narrator is a thing that you could not have predicted. What else changed? What could you have not predicted until you actually saw the edit and saw like, oh, that was a thing I didn’t need.

**Sarah:** We had more of August’s backstory too. August at the beginning of the film is about to kill himself. Ona comes up to him in a field and says, “No, we need you. We need you to take the minutes for a meeting.” In a way, she does that to give him a function and a purpose. That’s not in there. There are whole swaths of the conversation where any time we felt we were repeating something unnecessarily, we took out.

We took out stuff in the editing room that nobody has noticed. Where all the characters are sitting down, there’s an entire conversation that happens. Somebody comes in, they all stand up. Then they leave. We’ve taken it out. Actually, the people are completely on different ends of the room geographically. We just put in a sound effect of people standing up or something off camera. Nobody notices it. We’ve taken out 30 minutes of the movie. It’s just incredible what you can get away with.

**John:** I’d love to talk about the speeches, because this is a movie where people have to articulate their opinions. There are some long speeches. Page 54, we have a big speech from Salome. This is a thing where I see excerpted as a credit, because Claire Foy does this brilliant job with this speech, but so much of the film relies on us being able to understand what the characters are saying, but why they’re saying it and what their purpose is in trying to communicate that. When you’re writing it but also as you’re working with actors, how are you getting it to feel like it’s in the moment as they’re saying it?

**Sarah:** First of all, I felt like we had to cast this thing within an inch of its life, so I wanted to make sure the majority, the percentage of actors had a theater background, because I think there’s just a certain relationship they’re trained to have with text that was really important for what we were asking them to do in this film.

We had a lot of conversations ahead of time, a lot of family meetings and meetings between people of various relationships. We had a really full-on rehearsal process. We had a week over Zoom of just text analysis and working through the scenes that way, and then we had a week in the actual location before we started shooting. All of that was necessary, because it was really functioning in so many ways as this almost theatrical experience.

**Craig:** I’m curious, just in talking about rehearsals and looking at the cover page of the script, which, in correct fashion, documents when the different revisions took place. You were a busy, busy bee at the end of June and through most of July.

**Sarah:** I love that someone notices this. It’s so satisfying. I was. Look at these dates.

**Craig:** I’m just wondering, was this the result of rehearsals? What was going on there during that? It’s really just one solid month of work there.

**Sarah:** That was rehearsals. It was Zoom meetings. It was rehearsals. I see I have a draft on July 8th and one on July 9th and one on the 10th and one the 18th. It was finding those moments and input from actors and movements within the space and discovering things that I didn’t know.

**John:** Your Zoom rehearsals, obviously you don’t have the same sense of being in a space. When did you first put scenes on their feet? You said you were in a space to be able to do those things. I’m curious really about that main barn set, because I always assumed that it was a one-story thing and they had a ladder down for the stuff that they need that. Looking at production photos, it really was a two-story set. People were really up in that loft, and you had a crane going in there the whole time. It was a set. There was a blue screen behind everything. You had to digitally replace everything around there. That was the space you were able to be in to rehearse?

**Sarah:** Yeah. I have had this thing on every film where I’ve just driven everyone nuts. It drives line producers crazy. It drives the art department crazy. I’m like, “I need the set dressed two weeks in advance.” I need to be able to rehearse in the spaces with the actors, because what I don’t want ever is a crew to be standing around while an actor’s trying to figure something out and for there to be time pressure on that.

I also don’t want to adjust to new blocking in five seconds, because I want to be really thoughtful about how I’m moving a camera and accommodating for how an actor is choosing to move. It allows me to give the actors freedom in terms of their blocking and me time to process that and come up with an intentional way of shooting it.

**John:** A project like this, you can absolutely do it, because there is one main set you’re coming back to. There were also a lot of other, smaller things. I guess they’re not really dialog scenes. Basically, every place else that we’re hanging out during that time, they’re not big, juicy scenes between actors.j

**Sarah:** We actually had quite a few exterior days, because even though the premise of film, so much of it is in the hayloft, there are actually a lot of sequences outside. Those got to be these just visual, beautiful, meditative, poetic moments. Those days when we were out on that farm shooting, we were all so happy to bust out of that hayloft.

**John:** A question about Frances McDormand’s character. I see her in the first scene thinking, oh, she’s going to be the driving force of this movie. It’s all going to be about her. She’s actually a very small role in it. How early did you know that that was going to be a plan?

**Sarah:** It’s funny. When it wasn’t sure that Fran was even going to be in the movie, Fran talked early about wouldn’t it be awesome to get somebody amazing, like a Meryl Streep or someone you expect to be the lead in that movie, and then they just walk out, and you don’t see them again, just in terms of subverted expectations, but someone who you can map enough onto that that perspective stays alive even when they’re not there, because you have them somewhere subconsciously in the back of your mind.

There was something about Fran playing that part that I loved both for that reason but also because she can show you strength and vulnerability in an instant without moving a muscle. We needed to feel something for that character. We also needed to be intimidated by her. We need to feel a million things, and she’s there for so little time.

**John:** She’s definitely intimidating.

**Craig:** That’s something that I think you really balance gorgeously, which is a sense of empathy for everyone. Frances McDormand, when she shows up, she’s tough and she’s not interested in what they’re doing. A conventional story would have her ratting everyone out. You felt like, uh-oh, she’s trouble. By the end, you have successfully managed to instill empathy in her. She’s sad. She’s so enslaved that she can’t imagine being free.

Similarly, you do this over and over with the women who are in the hayloft, which I call barn, because I’m stupid, but in any case, where I kept being surprised with how empathetic they were to each other. Look, it’s called 12 Angry Men for a reason. If you put a bunch of men in the hayloft, they’re going to be shouting. Someone’s going to go full Pacino real fast, and then there’s going to be a lot of anger.

Particularly, I loved the way the generations were striated, that the older women would just moderate the younger women through empathy. The empathy was drawn from their religious background, that they were actually, even though this colony and their religious upbringing had led to this terrible crime, they still believed and were using it in the best possible way.

As you’re writing these speeches and as you’re writing the reaction to these speeches, how did you approach the task of making all of us feel empathetic all the time, even when for instance a character like Jessie Buckley’s is being pretty awful?

**Sarah:** I think that that process of writing and rewriting the script from each character’s point of view helped, just forcing myself to make sure I could see it clearly from everyone’s point of view.

One of the things I love about Sidney Lumet as a filmmaker is if you go back and watch all of his films, I’m not thinking specifically of 12 Angry Men although that’s in there too, but he just loves all of his characters. There’s no one that he others, which means he ended up being so ahead of his time on so many levels of these characters, not necessarily because he was the most progressive guy. I don’t know what his politics were.

If that’s your starting principle, that you will love your characters equally and force yourself to do so, and take their perspective no matter what, you’re going to be ahead of your time. Thirty years later, you’re not going to look so bad in the way you’ve represented someone that had an experience completely other than you. It’s funny, I spent a lot of the pandemic rewatching his movies, and I just took that as my operating principle is that I will love these characters equally.

**Craig:** It shows.

**John:** I want to talk about the decision to make this movie. Also, you have a 10-year gap between this movie and your last movie, and the things that happened in between. You had three kids, which is a lot of it. You also had a concussion. It looked like you were going to be knocked out of commission for who knows.

**Sarah:** Ever.

**John:** Forever. Can you tell us about the decision, like, “Okay, now I’m going to step ahead and make this movie,” and what led up to, “Oh yeah, that’s right, I’m a filmmaker. I’m going to go back and start making films.”

**Sarah:** It’s funny, because I definitely didn’t think I was going to be able to make a film again, because I couldn’t multitask anymore. I couldn’t handle bright lights or a lot of noise, couldn’t handle too many activities in a day after my concussion.

I remember when I did this treatment with Dr. Michael Collins. I’ve been told by doctors before… When I said, “Will I be able to make a film again?” they would look at me sympathetically and say, “It’s a good goal to have.” It was clear they did not think I was going to be able to. I remember my first meeting with him, saying, “Will I ever be able to make film again?” He said, “Let me put it this way. You’re not going to get better until you make a film again, because that’s part of what makes you you. That’s what you’re working towards. That’s what you’re going to have to do. You’re not going to be a hundred percent until you’ve done that impossible thing.” That was an amazing paradigm shift. That for me opened up, for the first time, “Okay, maybe I will make a film again.”

Then this came along. I’m not one of these filmmakers where I have to make a film all the time and I want to have some illustrious career. I don’t need people to tell stories about me being a filmmaker. I make things because I feel like I have to and it’s urgent. I hadn’t felt like that about anything in a really long time. I felt like that about this book and working with these people. I did feel like by the time I embarked upon it, I was way better than I had been, but through the process of making it, all of my headaches went away.

**John:** Let’s talk about the accommodations, because it sounds like you didn’t end up having to make accommodations for disability, because you were actually able to tackle what was standing physically in your way and deal with that, but there were other things that were standing in the way of women with three kids making films.

**Sarah:** Absolutely.

**John:** What were some of the things that you were able to do and your producers were able to do to make it possible for you to make this movie this way?

**Sarah:** The first thing that I said to Fran and Dede was, “I love the idea of writing this. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last 10 years, like many female filmmakers I know who have made one or two films and then have a kid and go, ‘I don’t want to disappear forever, and so I’m going to write.’ I would love to direct again, but I don’t think I can, because I don’t think I can work those hours. I want to see my kids on a daily basis. This is probably impossible, but is is possible to work way shorter hours so people get home for dinner and put their kids to bed?”

Fran took a pause and said, “Men have written the rules of this film industry, and we’re women talking, and we’re going to rewrite the rules. Let’s just make that happen. We’re going to have to fight for more money to do it and more days. It’s going to be hard, and we’ll do it.”

**John:** What are some of the changes that you made?

**Sarah:** We had 10-hour working days, which in any other industry doesn’t sound that spectacular, but in the film industry, for some reason, that’s incredible.

**Craig:** My god, what a luxury.

**Sarah:** I believe we won the 40-hour work week like a hundred years ago, but in the film industry this is revolutionary. We had a rule that if anyone ever needed a break, they could take one. If anyone needed to take a call from their kid or elderly parent or vet or if they needed to breastfeed their baby or if they needed a break from the intensity of the work, we took one.

I learned that trick from my sister Suzie, who’s a GP, who often will give patients her cellphone number and say, “You can call me anytime over the weekend or at night.” What happens is she rarely gets a call. What she does get is a much less stressed out Monday morning, because people know they could. I think that thing of like, anyone can take a break at any time, people panicked when I said that. It happened maybe once or twice. The knowledge that people could I think just created a safer, more nurturing environment that really helped us.

We had a therapist on set, because a lot of stuff I knew would come up. Some of my crew I knew had come from histories of abuse and from backgrounds actually unfortunately like the women in the film. She was available for harder days if people needed and always accessible by phone. We just tried to build in the presence of care as a basic principle of the working environment, which leads us to the conversation about kids, where for me the basic operating principle with the kids was, “If you’re not having fun, if you’re even a bit bored, you can leave. When we do have you here, we’re basically just going to play. We’ll follow you around and have fun together. If you’re not having fun, you don’t have to stay. We’ll work around that.”

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** That sounds like somebody who did in fact work as an actor as a child. There is something nice about being able to retroactively fix some of the crimes of the past. We’ll get into that in our bonus episode.

**Sarah:** I was going to say, I don’t want to give away anything from the bonus people. I’ll keep my trauma to myself for the bonus people.

**Craig:** You’re costing us eights or nines of dollars.

**John:** Talk to us about the plan for making the movie announced to releasing the movie. Did you know it was United Artists from the start? Did it sell at a festival? I don’t even know what the history of this was.

**Sarah:** This is interesting. I originally was going to write it. Dede and Fran had basically raised the money for us to make it with somebody who was going to pay for me to write the script and ultimately make the film or finance the film. There was just a moment early on where I just felt like, not so much in his interactions with me, but just… A couple emails went by with Dede and Fran where I went, “You know what? How about I write this on spec, and then let’s figure out who our partner is?” because already there were caps on budget and all of these things, where it’s like, we don’t have any of this information yet.

I wrote it on spec. Then Dede had a deal at MGM. This was her picture at MGM that year. It both created this incredibly liberating space in which to make the film, but also our partners there at the time were Mike DeLuca and Pam Abdy, who just absolutely understood the film, believed in Dede and Fran, believed in me. It was this utopian studio experience, the likes of which I am certain I will never have again.

**John:** This is MGM when it was functioning. It feels like a Fox Searchlight movie. It feels like a specialty film thing, so they could see it as, oh, this is a thing we could release theatrically, and they had a plan for it. This is all pre-pandemic, right, when this is being set up?

**Sarah:** Yeah.

**John:** Then a pandemic happens, and everything gets pushed.

**Sarah:** We delayed for a year, and then we went back to it.

**Craig:** It’s Orion. It was so lovely to see the Orion [crosstalk 00:46:23]. It was like, ah, I’m back.

**Sarah:** Awesome, yes, but when we were cutting, we were using the old Orion logo.

**John:** The original one is so beautiful.

**Sarah:** I loved it so much.

**Craig:** I know. What happened?

**Sarah:** I was so sad to see it go.

**Craig:** Do they not own it anymore?

**Sarah:** They do. I think that they were revisiting what Orion was and meant, and they wanted it to be more indicative of that, which I actually think makes sense. Now that I’ve lived with it a bit longer, I’m like, okay. I was having a very eh reaction to it.

**John:** I associate Orion with Robocop. There’s a certain kind of movies. I just loved seeing that Orion logo. It’s so good.

**Craig:** It’s so great, just circling stars.

**Sarah:** [Crosstalk 00:46:58].

**Craig:** It makes me happy.

**John:** We have a listener question I think is actually perfect for Sarah Polley. Megana, you want to read it for us?

**Megana:** JM asks, “I’m a novelist, but I recently wrote my first screenplay, submitted it to Austin, made the second round, went to the festival, without really any idea of why I was there. However, at the WGA party, I met an indie director and producer who were looking for exactly what I had, and now they want to make a film. They had a feature film in the festival in the same genre as mine, and we even are from the same part of Canada, so we’ve met up here too.

“This will be a union job in Canada. I’m a dual citizen, but not a member of the WGA or the WGC. I’m waiting for the option now, but the director did tell me he wants to proceed and he’s putting it all together. I’ve had a literary agent since 2009, but I left him last fall, as we’d run our course, and I have a new novel I’m shopping around to agents now, so I’m also agent-less. Basically, I have no clue how this all works or what I should be doing. Please help.”

**John:** This Canadian novelist screenwriter seems to be in a pretty good spot. It’s just looking for an agent or somebody to help out making the deal. Sarah, what’s your first instinct?

**Sarah:** My first instinct is to get the agent thing sorted out. I do think it’s a dangerous thing to be at this stage with an agent. I think people can really undervalue having that protection and that wisdom around a process. It does feel like if someone’s trying to make your thing, it seems like a perfect time to be doing some very real research about who the good agents would be to approach. You would know more about this question than [crosstalk 00:48:34].

**John:** I’m curious whether you think this person needs a Canadian agent manager person or would a Los Angeles person be okay?

**Sarah:** I think either would be okay. I think it’s about the connection. I would meet with both and figure out who you feel most connected to and safest with. Margaret Atwood always says this thing, because sometimes she’s waited for people like me for years and years to make their thing when she’s had other options. She always says go with the one who loves you. Whether that person has more or less status doesn’t matter. Go with the one who loves you.

**John:** Craig, what are you thinking? Does this person need an agent? Would a lawyer be okay for this point? What do you want JM to be asking for?

**Craig:** I agree with Sarah. I think an agent is extremely important. There’s always one little moment of these questions that makes me go (gasps). The (gasps) moment of this one was, “The director did tell me he wants to proceed, and he’s putting it all together.” I’m like, what about you, JM? You’re the one who’s writing it. I get nervous when someone’s like, “Don’t you worry. I got this.” Someone has to be advocating for you. You as a writer will never have more leverage than the moments right before you sign away the rights to a thing you wrote.

**Sarah:** You don’t do that without an agent, because actually, I just have a friend in a situation, worked on an idea for years, and the series is going ahead right now without his name on it anywhere. Get your agent.

**Craig:** These things happen. I’m not sure how the WGC functions in terms of credit and all the rest. It’s a different situation because Canada does have [inaudible 00:50:14], and they don’t have work for hire the same way that we do. There are also other limitations to being in the WGC. I’m not sure there’s much in the way of residuals there, the way there are for the WGA. There are all these questions. The agent will then get a lawyer on board. The lawyer can handle a lot of the details. Somebody needs to be advocating for you. This is the most pro-Canadian thing I can say, as somebody that just lived there for a year and a half. Polite people get chewed up all the time.

**Sarah:** Yeah, a hundred percent.

**Craig:** Canadians are beautifully and wonderfully polite. Your natural instinct may be to accommodate and bend and compromise. That’s why you need a jerk who’s American to advocate for you.

**Sarah:** I could not agree with this statement more. I’ve learned this the hard way over and over and over again. The other thing I would say that I’ve learned far too recently is that clear is kind. I’ve done a lot in my life of being nice and accommodating and all those things. People in a professional environment, clarity is the most kind thing you can do for yourself and for others. It’s underrated in my country.

**Craig:** Right on.

**John:** Sarah, can you talk to us about the state of Canadian filmmaking? It’s a lot to be throwing at you, but is this film a Canadian film or an American film?

**Sarah:** It’s an American film.

**John:** It’s an American film?

**Sarah:** It’s my first American film.

**John:** Your first American film.

**Craig:** Where did you shoot it, Sarah, just out of curiosity?

**Sarah:** In Canada, so mostly Canadian crew and lots of Canadian cast. Just outside of Toronto.

**Craig:** In Toronto.

**Sarah:** Just outside of Toronto, but American finance.

**John:** Talk to us about the differences between Native Canadian films and American films. Do people try to go back and forth and do both? We have listeners in Canada right now. I’m really asking on their behalf. Should they be focused on trying to make a Canadian film or trying to get someone in the US to try to make their thing? What is your instinct? There’s so much talent in Canada.

**Sarah:** I’m a little bit out of touch with the Canadian system, because I haven’t made a film there for 10 years. I obviously live there and I have lots of friends who are going through it all the time. I think you look for the people with whom you can make your film the most authentic to what you want that film to be. You don’t go for the shiny apple where you have this whisper of huge mistrust, but you know they can get a big platform for it. I think you go with the people who help you make the film the most you want to make it.

In my experience, that’s been more in Canada, because there have been some protections, when you get public money for a film, around your creative vision. However, I will say more and more I hear that it is just part of the process now in Canada that you test screen everything. Nobody’s immune to that. With this film at MGM, with a bigger budget than I’ve ever worked with, I did not have to test screen it.

**Craig:** Oh, joy.

**Sarah:** I would say I had not just creative freedom on this, but enormous help from people, where I wasn’t afraid of their notes. I was excited for their notes. It was an idyllic process. I don’t know if it’s as much Canadian versus American as the specific people you can find to make your film with.

**John:** It’s come time for our One Cool Things. Sarah, you said you had two cool things to share with us. Let’s get you started here.

**Craig:** Overachiever.

**Sarah:** I love the novel Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. I’ve read it over and over and over again. I think it had a huge impact on my approach to this film, just in terms of the love and the kindness in it.

**John:** I know nothing about this book.

**Sarah:** Oh my god.

**John:** Now I’m excited, because it’s new to me.

**Sarah:** It’s so beautiful.

**John:** Everyone else may know what it is, but I don’t know, so pitch me.

**Sarah:** It’s written in the form of a letter. This older man who’s a preacher, and he’s writing a letter to his seven-year-old son. He’s dying. It’s about his father and grandfather in the Civil War. It’s about him. It’s about spirituality. It’s about his love of his son. Every sentence is stunning. It gives you some faith in human beings. There was a moment where I just felt I was reading all these great novels, but I just wanted to read about a good person who I might like to be. It’s the most stunningly beautiful book. Whether you’re religious or not, it’s stunning.

I think that a film that I’ve not seen get the attention it deserves this year is Till. I think it’s an incredible film. For me, it’s the best performance of the year, with Danielle Deadwyler. Chinonye Chukwu just is a masterful director. I just recommend everyone go see that movie. Don’t be afraid to go see it. I think people are really afraid. She really protects her audience. She’s very conscious of making it a really fruitful, rich experience to watch it and not a damaging one. I just recommend everybody go see it.

**John:** Protecting your audience feels like that was also a goal in your approach to filmmaking, especially for this movie, because it could’ve been harrowing and terrifying and gruesome, and that’s not what your movie’s about.

**Sarah:** That’s right. We never showed the assaults. We don’t go deeply into that. What we go into is the recovery and the healing and the conversation.

**Craig:** That’s great.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is something that could be a How Would This be a Movie. It could be for that segment that we often do. It’s this article I read this week by David Epstein. It is about this 39-year-old Iowa mother named Jill Viles. She knows she has some form of muscular dystrophy. Her arms and her legs are wasting away. Her torso is normal proportions, but everything else is wasting away and she ends up having to use a scooter.

When she goes to college, even though she wasn’t a biology major, she spends all of her time in the library just researching different things like, “What is it that I could possibly have?” She comes across this syndrome that she thinks maybe she has and maybe her father has in slightly different manifestations.

Where the author, Epstein, gets involved is, she reaches out to him to say, “I think there is this famous athlete, this Priscilla Lopes-Schliep, who is a Canadian sprinter. I think she has the same thing, but slightly different. I think she has the opposite, where her muscles are over-developed in ways that are interesting.” Through Epstein’s help, she’s able to get genetic testing and all of it. It turns out, yes, they basically discovered this one genetic mutation anomaly that is the cause of both of their situations. It’s a good, long read. It’s in ProPublica, but just a fascinating story.

**Sarah:** Wow.

**John:** It is movie fodder. Allison Williams is apparently already developing it, because she’d be perfect for it. It’s so inspiring to see somebody who says, “Listen, I know I’m not the person who’s supposed to be able to figure this out, but I want to figure this out,” and she just does it.

**Sarah:** Amazing.

**Craig:** Love that.

**John:** It reminds me of Lorenzo’s Oil.

**Sarah:** Sounds incredible.

**John:** It’s another relationship to it. Craig, what you got?

**Craig:** I feel like we’ve just overdosed on inspiration, so let me bring things down a bit.

**Sarah:** Good for you.

**Craig:** The most mundane possible One Cool Thing. Bo Shim, who used to be my assistant and is now a writer, got me a holiday gift that I am so in love with. I take it everywhere. I’m the worst person to get gifts for, because either I just don’t need a lot of things, and if I do want something, I just buy it. I don’t believe in waiting, because life’s too short. Get the thing you want. She got me this thing. It’s the Mophie 3-in-1 travel charger. It’s like a trifold wallet that you fold back up again. In one part there’s a little tray for your air buds.

**John:** AirPods.

**Craig:** AirPods, not air buds, because I’m stupid. Then there’s a bit for your phone. Then there’s a bit for your Apple watch. It’s incredibly compact and so useful around travel time, because I used to have to fight over who had their watch charger. It’s all said and done.

**Sarah:** I like that.

**Craig:** It just wraps right back up. It’s not expensive. I don’t mean to say that Bo’s cheap. I’m just saying, folks at home, you can buy this. In fact, I’m going to tell you how much it is right now.

**Sarah:** I like this idea a lot, because I’m not a very organized person, unlike John August, whose house I’m in right now, and is terrifying. It’s Sleeping with the Enemy in here.

**Craig:** For sure.

**Sarah:** Everything has been thought of. It’s absolutely terrifying, but these are my aspirations, and so I would like that.

**Craig:** Every room in John’s house is a killing floor. No question.

**John:** There’s a drain in the side, straight down.

**Craig:** Every single room.

**Sarah:** When you open the drawers, everything’s perfect. You know how terrifying that was in that movie?

**Craig:** I want to amend my statement. This was expensive.

**John:** I’m looking at it. It’s $150, Craig.

**Sarah:** You jerk.

**Craig:** It’s $150.

**Sarah:** You got us all excited.

**Craig:** Now I feel terrible but not super terrible, because honestly, it really is great. Sarah Polley, I do believe that if you are looking to slightly upgrade your life organization, pick this thing up.

**John:** I like it. Craig, I was thinking what an air bud charger would be. I think it’s when you plug in your dog. You plug in your dog, air bud, and so he can catch the footballs.

**Craig:** You insert it gently into your dog.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Gross.

**John:** That’s our show for the week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli as always.

**Craig:** Yay! What what.

**John:** Outro this week is by Timothy Lenko. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send longer questions. For short questions, sometimes I’m still around Twitter. Are you still on Twitter, Sarah?

**Sarah:** I’m on Twitter.

**John:** You and I DM’ed on Twitter once. Craig’s gone though, so don’t talk to him.

**Sarah:** Are you gone for moral and ethical reasons?

**Craig:** I am gone for moral and ethical reasons, yes.

**Sarah:** Wow. Should I be thinking about this? Is this what’s happening?

**Craig:** I am a fairly low bar, so yeah, I think so.

**Sarah:** [inaudible 01:00:09].

**John:** I’m also on Mastodon and the other things, so I have my backup plans.

**Sarah:** Where am I going? Mastodon, is that where I’m going?

**John:** Yeah, probably Mastodon.

**Craig:** [Crosstalk 01:00:18].

**Sarah:** It’s so complicated.

**John:** I’m also on Instagram. Instagram’s easy.

**Craig:** It’s so complicated. It’s so annoying that Twitter got ruined. Not like it was just a paragon of loveliness. Still.

**John:** People can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the script for Women Talking, so you can see where it was before it became the movie. If you want to watch the movie though, is it on Amazon at this point? Where can people see it?

**Sarah:** It’s in theaters only right now.

**John:** Theaters only right now. Go to your theater and see the film on a big screen. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments like the one we’re about to record on child actors. Sarah Polley, it’s so amazing to see you again.

**Craig:** It was lovely talking with you, Sarah.

**Sarah:** Thank you so much for having me. I loved being here. I love the show. I listen to it all the time.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Sarah Polley, you were a child actor. You were in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, The Sweet Hereafter, which I think is the movie right before Go, the bus crash movie. It’s like, “Oh yeah, that girl from the bus crash, she should play a checkout clerk who’s trying to make a drug deal.” You’ve written to and about Terry Gilliam and your experience on Baron Munchausen. What’s the synopsis of that? Basically, it was traumatic in a way that you felt like hadn’t been acknowledged? What was your feeling about being a child actor?

**Sarah:** In general, my feeling about being a child actor is that it’s not a good experience and that it’s also really hard to untangle what a child’s really feeling from what the expectations are of them, by either their parents or other adults in the room. It’s really hard to get the truth out of a kid who feels the pressure of adults.

In general, I think that film sets are generally populated with people who are not trained or particularly interested in the well-being of children. Craig very eloquently put it, the production is always going to come first. When you put the panic, emergency room mentality around something, a kid’s well-being is going to be forgotten, no matter how conscious you are of it.

I had particularly traumatic experiences, for sure. They were on the extreme end, which led to a whole interaction with Terry Gilliam later when he was about to cast another child actor. I reached out to him to explain how difficult my experiences had been on that set, which I felt very, very unsafe. I felt that things had been very dangerous, scared for my life at times. Again, it was extreme, but I’ve seen child actors with less extreme in terms of the tangible, physical danger experiences, and still, I don’t buy it.

There was a really concrete example of what Craig was talking about on my set, because I had this horror of, I can’t make this religious community that’s doing this whole thing to basically fight for the future generation and build a new world without ever showing children.

**John:** That’s crucial.

**Sarah:** That’s exactly what these women are fighting for. I did a couple things. One was, yes, the kids are going to run around and play. We’re just going to follow them with the camera. I’m going to make an announcement every single day, they can leave whenever they want. It’s no problem.

My kids couldn’t visit set, because of COVID, unless they were gainfully employed by the production. My oldest has always wanted to be an actor, because every button gets pushed by your children. There was this advocating that happened for my kids going, “We’re coming to set. It’s the only way we get to see you at work. You’ve never been working like this since we were born. We’re coming to watch you work, and we’re going to be background performers, and we’re really excited about it.”

My kid’s there. It’s my seven-year-old’s birthday. Of course, it’s a giant crane shot and a drone shot at magic hour. As the crane comes into my seven-year-old’s face, my kids keep looking at the camera and flaring their nostrils. It’s this giant crane shot. Literally, we have five minutes to get the shot. We’re just coming in, and they’re like, “Ha ha, let’s screw up mama’s shot again.” They thought it was so funny.

I literally had this moment where I empathized with every filmmaker who [inaudible 01:04:40] for granted as a child actor, which is why kids shouldn’t be on set, because even me, with my past and my trauma and my own children, I had a hundred people standing around panicking, and this kid was potentially between us and getting the shot, and this is why children should never be on sets. I just proved my own point.

**Craig:** It’s true. It’s true. I had a really interesting, I guess I could call it a revelation or good learning experience, making The Last of Us, because we cast an actor who, I believe he was eight or nine. He’s deaf. The thing about casting a kid who’s deaf is nobody questions how much support is required. His mom is there, but also, he’s got an interpreter, and he’s got a coach, one of whom is deaf and obviously communicates with him through ASL. Then the translator, or the interpreter rather, is helping us back and forth. There’s all this support around this kid.

Then I thought, wait, shouldn’t be there all of this even if you’re not deaf? Any kid being on set should be carefully bubble wrapped. Schedules should presume that the kid is not going to be able to nail the crane shot the first three or four times.

**Sarah:** There you go.

**Craig:** What ends up happening when you’re panicked and running out of money and you’ve got this studio gun to your head, whatever it is that is all of our madness while we’re making these things, is children become these annoying obstacles. They can’t work as many hours. Oh, we get to send him to lunch. Oh, he gets a break. Oh, he has to go to class. School they call it, fake school in the trailer, whatever it is. You’re like, “Ugh.” Now you’re angry.

I’ve been angry at babies. I got angry at a baby once, not to its face. I didn’t yell at the baby. Obviously, I’m in the tent by a monitor. I’m like, “Oh my god, I can’t believe this baby. We don’t have another 20 minutes with the baby?” They’re like, “It’s a baby.”

**Sarah:** I literally had this moment a couple of times on my set, where I was like, “Oh my god, we’re bringing the kids again. Oh my god, bringing the kids again. Oh my god.” I remember the parents all coming up to me and going, “No, we’re okay.” I’m like, “I can’t, because I actually literally wrote this rule.”

**Craig:** I know. I know.

**Sarah:** I wrote this rule in the ACTRA, in the Canadian actors union. I’m not breaking it. I promise.

**Craig:** At that moment you were like, “It was really more of a guideline and not so much a rule.”

**Sarah:** Exactly.

**Craig:** “Got to make my day.”

**Sarah:** Here’s the other thing that should be presumed. The other thing that should be presumed, whether it’s true or not, and a lot of the time this isn’t true but it should be presumed just in case, is that the parents don’t have the kids’ best interest at heart.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**Sarah:** That’s a really hard thing to presume, because you always go, “If the parent’s okay. It’s their department.” We have no idea. Whatever face that parent is presenting to us, whatever face the kid is presenting to us, we have no idea what the pressures look like at home. I’ve seen those be two very different things in my own experience of other kid actors I was working with. I would see one face that the parent presented on set and another one that I would see in private moments with the kid. There has to be a third party that is not paid for by either the production or the parent who makes calls that will sometimes fly in the face of what both the production and the parents say is okay.

**Craig:** I think that’s so true.

**Sarah:** I think that person has to be there. I also think kids can’t sign long contracts for series. I’m sorry. There should be a limit on how much a kid could work in a year, maybe one project, maybe two projects a year. I don’t know. I think there have to be some really serious things in place to allow for the fact that as a society we have decided children should not work, but we’ve made this exception for this Wild West of an industry that’s probably the last place that should be given this exception.

**Craig:** You’re on to something there.

**John:** First movie I directed, Elle Fanning was the star of it. Small role, but she was fantastic. She was Elle Fanning before she was Elle Fanning. It’s like, “Oh my gosh, you’re great. I’m going to write additional scenes for you.” We’re shooting exterior. It’s Ryan Reynolds, Melissa McCarthy, and Elle Fanning. We’re setting up these shots. Elle Fanning can only work a certain number of hours.

The AD goes, “Oh, and this is her stand-in.” The stand-in is some other kid. I’m just like, “Wait. First of all, this kid’s really annoying.” I didn’t like this kid. Also, what is this kid getting out of it at all? This kid is not going to show up on camera. This kid is not acting. This kid is just there just to occupy space and is just working.

**Sarah:** They’re not being treated particularly well. Those kid stand-ins get treated badly.

**John:** The kid was annoying. I said, “I never want to see that kid again.”

**Craig:** Did they murder the kid?

**John:** Yes, they did. “Get her out of my sight.”

**Sarah:** “Take her away.”

**John:** Also, I don’t ever want a kid stand-in. I want to find some other way to do this, whether it’s a little person or some other situation where we can just find a person to do that role. That kid could not get anything out of it.

**Sarah:** No, because they’re not even getting the fun, whatever, toxic coddling that can feel good in the moment.

**John:** Absolutely, as opposed to Elle Fanning, who was clearly a superstar in those little moments I saw her. She’s giant and can do all these impersonations. She was having the time of her life. This other kid was there because her mom wanted her to be there.

**Craig:** John, what if that kid is a fan of Scriptnotes? They’ve grown up. They listen to Scriptnotes every week.

**Sarah:** [crosstalk 01:10:04].

**John:** This whole time.

**Craig:** They’re like, “Apparently, I was annoying.”

**John:** I just ruined things [crosstalk 01:10:09]. The other thing I want to point people to is the second season of Nathan For You is about this experiment where Nathan puts together this house to figure out what it’d be like to have a kid. This woman wants to know what it’d be like to have a kid. They hire a bunch of child actors to be this woman’s kid.

**Sarah:** That’s really funny.

**John:** They go through all this stuff. Later on in the season, it becomes clear, oh, some of these child actors have really enjoyed it and enjoyed being part of the family and this relationship and what is responsibility to child actors. Like all Nathan For You, it doesn’t answer the question at all. It just makes you really uncomfortable about it. It was a good exploration of what it feels like to be using children to be doing this emotional labor.

**Sarah:** The other thing about it is it’s this toxic combination of coddling and neglect. You have on the one hand, everyone’s going to laugh at that kid’s jokes, everyone’s going to tell them how great they are. Everyone’s going to lie to them if they’re behaving horribly and laugh it off. There’s no boundaries on behavior really. No one actually deeply cares about that kid’s well-being beyond what their purpose is on that set. There may be one or two angels that come out of the woodwork. In my case, there were. The kid’s experience is not the priority on that set. It’s getting the day. It’s a terrible thing it does to one’s head of both this superficial ego boost and the sense that nobody cares about me really.

**Craig:** Then on the other side of things, there’s the more modern problem. I know Bella Ramsey’s been talking about this. When she started with us, she was 17, so there was still a K on her number. Then she turned 18 fairly early on. When she started shooting with us, she was still not a legal adult. Then you come out on the other side of shooting, and hopefully everything’s gone well and you’re treated well. In our case, we were also very lucky, because her mom was there, and she was fantastic. Everything’s wonderful. Then the internet has to talk about your face and your body and your this and your that and your hair and your eyes and everything and take you apart.

**Sarah:** It’s a whole other dynamic now.

**Craig:** This is difficult for adults, difficult, borderline impossible for adults to handle. For a child, it’s terrifying to think, I want to really tell this story and I want to make a TV show but am I damaging someone. We talked about it a lot. We still talk about it a lot. It’s a scary thing. It’s something that’s made I think being a child actor even harder than it used to be.

**John:** Sarah, you are a parent of a kid who wants to be an actor.

**Sarah:** I am.

**John:** Let’s say you’re a listener whose kid wants to be an actor. At what age do you think you might allow a kid to start, it’s like, “Okay, you can start doing this.” When do you think that maturity might be a thing where you feel like they have some agency in the situation?

**Sarah:** It’s so fun, because I’ve always had to talk about this in the abstract, and now I can talk about it for real as a parent of a kid who really wants to go into it, to the point where I have almost weakened. It’s so desperate, this need and want.

The first thing I would say is we have loaded my oldest kid up with after-school theater programs, weekend improv classes, to get that creative stuff going, because that’s legitimate. Wanting to create things shouldn’t be held back, but in an environment that is designed to be nurturing and exciting and educational. We’ve done a lot of that. We’ve talked about 16 as the age where we can start talking about it if they still have this intense desire to do it professionally. I still think that’s young, but we’re willing to talk about it.

I had a hilarious experience recently. My brother’s a casting director, and he was casting this film with child actors. My oldest was being babysat at the time, last-minute thing. I had to drop off my kid. He was doing these Zoom auditions. My oldest was like, “Just get me on.” My kid goes on, gets the part.

**Craig:** Love it.

**Sarah:** I watched then. I get there. I watched for the rest of the Zoom calls, hidden, and go, “Okay, this woman has cracked the code of how to deal with child actors.” I saw her subvert horrible stage parents who I have worked with and make it a good experience for those kids. This woman was a genius, clearly. Then at the end, I talked to the woman, and she’s like, “I just read your book. It’s becoming part of our model for how we’re going to treat child actors.”

I’m like, “Okay, it’s only four days. I’m free for these four days.” I was like, “Eve, if you’re willing to put up with me being the most obnoxious on-set parent where I’m literally shutting down that production, pulling the lights at the slightest discomfort for anyone.” Eve was like, “Yeah, I’ll deal with that.” We’re about to do it. Eve reads the script. It was a great script based on a great novel, but Eve was like, “This is about a kid with a disability, and I don’t trust that your generation of filmmakers is going to get how to do this in a way that’s not sensitive. There isn’t someone with a disability making this film. I can’t be part of it.” Eve passed.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** Wow.

**Sarah:** Eve passed. Eve passed.

**John:** That’s totally Sarah Polley.

**Sarah:** Just like their mom. Just like their mother. All I really wanted to ever do was pass. I never really wanted to work as an actor. I just liked passing on stuff. It was my favorite.

**John:** You passed on Go a bit too.

**Sarah:** I passed on Go. I passed on everything. It was the best part.

**Craig:** That’s great.

**John:** I remember one person had to fly you up and walk you through immigration in Canada to get you here to Los Angeles.

**Sarah:** I know, because I bailed at the last second, because customs was a tricky, and I was like, “You know what? I didn’t really want to do this anyway.”

**Craig:** I love that.

**Sarah:** “Forget it.” Chuck Schumer got involved. It was a whole thing. With Eve, they wanted to do this so badly, and they passed. Now, I don’t know where we are, because I finally caved on this that was so intense for me.

**Craig:** Maybe that’s all they needed was just permission.

**Sarah:** I wonder if it was also like they saw this thing was on the others in terms of me having this red line around something and went, “We’re just going to get rid of that and then we can move on.”

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** On Episode 2000 of Scriptnotes, they’ll come on this show, and we’ll talk to them about what it was like growing up with a director parent and why they are now the filmmaker they are today.

**Craig:** Yes, when their book, I Hate You, Mom, comes out, it’ll be great. We can go through it and really dig in to what happened.

**John:** Sarah Polley, such an amazing pleasure.

**Craig:** Thank you, Sarah.

**Sarah:** This was so fun. This is the middle of a crazy, soul-crushing part of the process of putting the film out, and this was by far the highlight.

**John:** Yay.

**Sarah:** Thank you for the very awesome conversation, you guys.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**Sarah:** This was amazing.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Thanks.

**Sarah:** Thank you.

**John:** I’ll see you later, Craig.

**Craig:** Thanks. Bye.

**Sarah:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Sarah Polley on IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001631/) and on [Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/realsarahpolley/)
* [Women Talking](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13669038/) film and [novel](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/562880/women-talking-by-miriam-toews/9780735273979) by Miriam Toews
* [Run Towards the Danger: Confrontations with a Body of Memory By Sarah Polley](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/688129/run-towards-the-danger-by-sarah-polley/)
* [Find the Women Talking Script by Sarah Polley here](https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Women-Talking-Read-The-Screenplay.pdf)
* [The DIY Scientist, the Olympian, and the Mutated Gene by David Epstein](https://www.propublica.org/article/muscular-dystrophy-patient-olympic-medalist-same-genetic-mutation) for ProPublica
* [Mophie 3-in-1 Charger with MagSafe](https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HPTA2ZM/A/mophie-3-in-1-travel-charger-with-magsafe?)
* [Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson](https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/marilynne-robinson)
* [Till](https://www.mgm.com/movies/till) film
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Timothy Lenko ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/583standard.mp3).

« 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.