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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: talky

Scriptnotes, Ep 399: Notes on Notes Transcript

May 14, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/notes-on-notes).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 399 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

So, this afternoon Craig and I did something different. We went over to Amblin and spoke to a group of about 30 development executives to discuss what it feels like as a writer to get notes. And to offer them suggestions for how to give notes that will actually achieve what they want.

In many ways this episode reminds me most of Episode 99 where we sat down with therapist Dennis Palumbo to talk about psychotherapy for screenwriters and the weird ways that writers process emotion. In the first half you’ll hear me and Craig sort of giving a presentation. Then we open up for discussion with the whole group. Enjoy.

Ah, so nice. So this is theoretically going to be Episode 399 of our show. 399 episodes of our show, which is crazy – crazy, crazy. And on one of these episodes Craig proposed you know what we should go in and talk to studio executives about how they give notes because we as people who get notes a lot could give them insights in how to give notes. And so Craig made this offer. Someone took us up on this offer. We went and talked to some folks at Disney.

**Craig Mazin:** Yep.

**John:** It was a good conversation. A much smaller conversation than this group. Ben, thank you for bringing us in here to talk with this larger group about our notes on notes. Because usually we’re coming in here to hear these notes and we are filled with sort of this emotional response sometimes to these notes and we’re trying to figure out how to do them.

But I thought if we talked through the process of giving notes and hearing notes we might honestly be all able to do this a little bit better. So that’s the impetus behind this presentation.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is mostly to help you guys help us. I mean, it’s always self-interest really. Because we are kind of allies, whether we realize it or not, there’s a little journey that we’re all going on to try and make something which is impossible to do, as we know. And so we are allies and that means we have to figure out how to help each other along the way. And I think sometimes in everyone’s zeal to help the opposite occurs. I won’t say what that word is. It’s hurt. You’re hurting people.

So, anyway, we know that all the intentions are good, but hopefully we can give you some practical advice just so you can hear how things filter through our minds when we have these experiences with you.

**John:** Yesterday Craig emailed me to say, “That thing we did at Disney, did we have a script? Did we have anything we were working off of?” And I said I don’t think so, I think we just winged it. He’s like, “No, no, I’m pretty sure we had some sort of script.” And then Craig texted me last night saying like, “I found it. I found the shared Google doc.” So this is the shared Google doc we’re working off.

**Craig:** Should inspire a lot of confidence in the two of us.

**John:** Yeah, absolutely. So these are the notes on our notes on notes. And it keys in with this slide show, so that’s why I was hoping we could stick a little bit on this first–

**Craig:** Yeah, let’s do it. Where should we start?

**John:** Why is it so hard to get notes? Craig?

**Craig:** Got it. So, when our work, and I include all of you – your work, everything you do – when it is exposed or critiqued we feel emotional pain. That’s common to every human being in all circumstances. I don’t think that that is a sign of weakness, even though you may have been taught that, particularly if you grew up in the ‘70s. But rather it is a sign of being human. So congratulations.

But here’s a question that might seem obvious until you really think about it. Why? Why should being criticized or critiqued make us feel emotional pain? Well, it turns out there’s a good answer. Let’s talk about a little science. This is the last bit of science you’ll have to deal with today. So Chernobyl – no – neurologists know that emotional pain doesn’t come from this part up here. So our neocortex or frontal lobe, this is all of our rational human thinking/processing/reasoning brain. Emotional pain comes from this little lump underneath called the limbic system. I can’t get there because it’s underneath. But it’s basically an inheritance from rats and lizards and birds. And all it really does is control our fight or flight response.

And this fight or flight response happens before the human smart part of our brain even knows what’s happening. A little bit like if you touch a hot stove your spinal reflex will have your hand moving back before the rest of your brain goes, ow, that’s hot. Well, similarly when you get negative threatening input the limbic system is going to fire off messages before the front of your brain even has a chance to process what has happened. And unfortunately the limbic system only has one alarm message to send. It’s very stupid. Again, it’s from rats and birds. And the message it sends to you, to the front of your brain is you are in danger of dying. That’s the only phrase it knows. You’re in danger of dying.

So, start fighting or starting fleeing. Now, that may sound a little dramatic, but if so–

**John:** Craig, it sounds a little dramatic.

**Craig:** I can make it more dramatic.

**John:** But honestly I’ve had that response to notes in a room where I felt like the floor was collapsing underneath me. And so therefore I have to do something. I have to take an action right now which is not just sitting and listening.

**Craig:** Yeah. Another writer we know told me a story once that in the middle of a notes meeting she just asked if she could take a break to go to the bathroom and then she vomited. And then she came back. This is – I understand this.

Here’s what’s happening. When you’re writing or directing or creating something you’re creating a kind of external expression of yourself. We put ourselves into these things. And what you’re doing is essentially recreating the contents of your mind on page or on screen. And the more you care the better you are at it frankly. The more you invest of your own humanity and passion and love, the more enmeshed you become with it. It becomes hard to figure out where you stop and it starts.

If you have kids, and I don’t know, it’s a pretty young crowd, but if you do have children you will understand this. The children are not you, but if they are threatened well then you will feel fear and pain and adrenaline. The limbic system is pounding its alarm system. You made the so they are you. Rationally we understand that the script isn’t us, but the limbic system sees no difference at all.

**John:** Yeah, it’s sort of the mama bear syndrome. You see your cub being threatened and therefore you must protect your cub. And so how do you get past that sense of like I must protect this thing that is partly me that is in danger.

**Craig:** Yeah. And to try and connect it a little bit to what you guys do, if you’re not also writing things, I want you think of how you feel when somebody criticizes something that is inherent to your identity or your being. There they are. I want you to think about how you feel when somebody criticizes your appearance. Your weight. Your sexuality. Your race. I want you to think about how you feel when someone essentially says you’re not good enough the way you are. I’m talking about your parents basically.

That’s why you’re here in Hollywood. You’re not good enough the way you are. Here’s a bunch of things that are completely wrong with you. Let me enumerate them and go into detail. Here’s what you should be instead. And please listen carefully.

Well, when these things happen it’s quite likely you’re going to want to run out of the room or wring their neck. It’s fight or flight. And in these instances now switching back to writers when they begin to feel emotional pain writers will get angry, they will get sullen, they will get argumentative. They’ll get snippy or passive-aggressive. Does any of this sound familiar? Have you seen this happening? It’s fight or flight.

**John:** From the writer’s perspective, this sort of is a natural reaction. They feel like they’re under attack. From the outsider’s perspective it’s like why are they being so weird about all of this. We all have the same goal. We’re trying to make a better movie, a better pilot. We’re trying to – theoretically rowing in the same direction. Why are they acting so weird?

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s actually a great sign. I know it’s annoying to deal with in the moment. If you’re dealing with a writer who is like, oh yes, who is reacting to your notes as if they didn’t write the script at all, that’s a psychopath. And also probably a bad writer.

But John is absolutely right. That the irony is all of that emotional pain and the response to that emotional pain has nothing to do with making the movie better. And this is where writers kind of start to circle and cycle a bit because the more emotional pain we feel the worse these meetings and encounters get, which leads to worse interaction, which leads to more emotional pain. And we could even start to become viewed as the D word. Difficult.

And it’s hard because the front of your brain is saying, “Hey, they’re going to start thinking of you as difficult.” But underneath there’s this little blurb saying, “Kill them.” And that’s a rough one to correspond. Yes, you will look at it from your side as somebody trying to make some sort of intellectual or angry defense of what they’ve done, to deny what you’re saying, to essentially negate everything you are putting into this. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s just somebody who is terrified that they’re about to die and they’re trying to stay alive, whether you realize it or not.

So, John, how do we do this better for us and for them? Can we get into some practicals?

**John:** Let’s do some practicals. Let’s talk about some dos and some don’ts, which are almost always going to be sort of opposite reflections of the natural instinct versus what’s probably most helpful at the moment.

So let’s start with owning an opinion. And so when you have an opinion and you’re sharing an opinion, really take possession of that opinion. Really feel it. Have it be a meaningful opinion to you that you think will actually improve the project. Not just an opinion you’re repeating because you’re supposed to be passing it along.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, that’s essentially why you have your jobs. You have your jobs because somebody says, “Look, you’ve got good taste. I like the way you respond and react to things.” So it’s really important that you own that opinion. But what you should not do is convert your opinion into a fact. It’s OK. Opinions are good enough. It’s just good enough. I think sometimes there’s this game that happens in these rooms. You’ve probably watched it or maybe even participated. It’s called the battle of examples.

Here’s my opinion. And someone says, “No, because they did that in this movie and it didn’t work.” And then someone says, “But, they did it in this movie and it did work.” Someone says, “No, that movie is different.” Someone says, “No, because of this.” No because of this. Everyone is trying to [empiricize] an opinion.

Here’s the deal. The first person to do something well in a movie that works – that’s original and they win. And the first person to do something poorly in a movie that doesn’t work – that’s stupid and it was a bad idea. It doesn’t matter what happened before. There is no way to turn your opinions into fact. You might as well just say it’s how I feel. That actually is good enough.

**John:** Yeah. And when you try to make your subjective opinion into an objective fact or presented as an objective fact we immediately go defensive because we can see logically that’s not actually an objective fact so then we start to doubt everything else you’re saying, too. So saying your opinion as an opinion, as your subjective take on a situation, is great. And it also reminds the writer that they’re being hired for their subjective opinions, for their subjective skills and sort of negotiating this emotional terrain. So keeping it in the realm of opinion is really helpful.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** A do. Do share your reactions and your questions. You are often one of the very first audiences for a script so share what you felt. Share what you felt as you were reading through it because as we’ve been writing a thing we’ve been living with this thing for months and so we don’t have clean eyes on stuff. You guys do have clean eyes. So phrasing what you find in what your first read was, what it felt like to you to be sitting in an audience watching it on the screen of your mind is really helpful because particularly when there’s things that aren’t clear or places you thought the story was going that it wasn’t going that’s great for us to hear.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you guys have all been in focus groups in screenings and there are people in those focus groups who say when this happened I felt this, but when this happened I felt this. And we think, OK good, we’re getting our NRG money’s worth. And then there’s that guy who, you know, “Actually,” because he goes to cinema school and he’s thought about this during the screening. You’re like that’s useless. What we need are true honest human reactions, right?

So what you want to do is hold on to those for sure, but try to avoid announcing the conclusions of your reactions. Because that’s where you’re sort of short-circuiting a natural process. If something worries you in a script as you’re reading it or confuses you or makes you annoyed or bores you that’s really valuable. We need to hear that. Tell me where it got annoying. Like right here, or this is where I got confused. Where it becomes less useful is when people say to us as writers, “You know what, she’s too angry. This character is too angry. She’s too mean. She’s a turn-off.” That’s a conclusion. And we don’t know quite what to do with it.

And what it really sounds like is, “And that’s a fact and somehow you missed that.” When what is useful is to say, “I don’t understand why in this scene she’s so harsh with him given the circumstances. Can you talk about what you were going for because what I felt was put off?” That’s a discussion. That’s a conversation.

**John:** Absolutely. Because now you’re talking about what your reaction was to something that you read and we can discuss that moment. We can discuss what our intention was behind that rather than she’s too mean. We can’t do anything with that. There’s nothing we can write that fixes “she’s too mean.”

**Craig:** You’re kind of just inviting us to say, “Well, I don’t think she is.” And now we get into an argument over a fact that is not a fact at all.

**John:** A suggestion, speak towards the passion. What you’re interested in. Speak towards what you want. Even if it’s in the context of criticism. So always be discussing where you want things to be going rather than sort of where things are right now that aren’t exactly what you want. So speak towards what is getting you excited about the project, not what is turning you off.

**Craig:** Yeah. You wanted to do this in the first place for some reason. Something excited you about it. If the script isn’t there say, “Listen, when I got to this place I wanted it to go here. How can we get it there?” That’s a thing where you can move toward.

What we really don’t know how to process as writers is how to write away from something. There is really no way to write away from a thing. So, here’s an example. Don’t make this scene so talky. OK. You’ve probably felt that a lot of times. Don’t make this scene so talky. This scene is way too talky. That’s writing away from something. Don’t bother with all this plot language. There’s too much plot language. Less. That’s writing away from something.

And these notes are generally born of fear. That’s not a knock on you guys. That’s really useful. I mean, that fear is necessary to kind of evaluate this material. You’re scared that an audience, to whom you’re accountable to, is going to get bored, or turned off, or confused. Your fear is completely warranted. Just please keep it to yourself because we are drowning in our own fear and we cannot handle your fear as well.

And also to help us write towards something just re-contextualize these things. For instance, OK, this scene is too talky, please write it less talky. Write away from that. Not as helpful. But what you could say is, “These two characters have this great vibe in this scene where they say almost nothing, when they’re kind of just reading each other’s minds because it’s clear that their relationship works like that. They don’t need as many words as two other people might. And so they’re intimating things like for instance this point.

This scene here, how can we move this scene more toward that? Then the writer goes I know how to do that. It’s not even about buttering them up and saying, “Look, you did it really good here.” It’s not that. It’s just giving them something to write toward.

**John:** Absolutely. And you’re giving them characters to write towards. In all your conversations talk about characters and talk about the choices the characters are making. Talk about it in terms of these characters being living creatures within the universe of your movie or your TV show. And what they are literally doing. And so that way you let the focus of choice less on the writer and more on what the characters are doing.

**Craig:** Yep. Because characters are talking. Characters are boring. Characters are beautiful. Characters are interesting. Characters are illogical. What we weirdly don’t know how to work with effectively is discussion of the scene or the script, which seems odd. But the scene or the script is this other thing that is a function of characters. So, when we hear talk about scenes in scripts and stories we’re weirdly jarred out of the mindset, the writing mindset, where we solve problems. Because where we generally solve problems is in the realm of character. Well, OK, if this isn’t working how can I make it a better function of this character? Or how can I change this character to get more like something else?

If all you do – if literally all you do – is write the notes as you would normally write them and then say now let’s just funnel this through a filter of characterize it. Let’s just put all these notes now within the context of character notes, you’re already going to be literally 50% closer to getting what you want.

**John:** When you’re giving notes, give the notes that can lead to meaningful changes in the screenplay. So here’s an example of the most meaningful note I ever got on a screenplay. And so this was right here at Amblin. It was Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen. I was up in their office, they were in one of the bungalows. And it was the second draft of the script. And in the script I’d written Will tells a story of how his father died, but he tells it at the funeral rather than telling it to Edward Bloom while he was in the hospital bed. So their note was what would happen if you told that story to Edward rather than about Edward. And it was just – I did have that immediate like, “oh no, they want me to change something,” but then the light went on and I was like, “oh, that is just so much better.” That is a meaningful change. It is not a huge change, it’s not a huge amount of work for me to do, but it is a huge change in sort of how this all works. And it was just – it was a fantastic note. And it was a meaningful note that changed a lot of things in the script.

There were other small things which wouldn’t have been as impactful. So be thinking about what is the thing that opens up possibilities.

**Craig:** Quality. Not quantity. Here is another kind of note which you and I have seen. This is an actual page note that I received from an actual studio. “Let’s cut Elena saying please at the end of this scene.” Well that’s just stupid. And it’s stupid for so many reasons.

But the most – I guess the most prominent reason is anybody that has spent any time on set or in an editing room knows that of all the resources that are required to make motion pictures and television the amount that is expended to add one more word to the end of a scene is zero. You are already there. That’s dumb. And when we get notes like that it kind of starts to undermine our confidence.

It may be that you think I really don’t like that she says please there at the end. Fine. When it comes time for the editing room if people have still left it in you make that argument there. That’s a meaningful note in the editing room. But it is not a meaningful note when you’re writing the script.

**John:** Yeah. And there’s some meaningful notes that are meaningful on set but not in the script. So this is an example from me. “Page 71, Aladdin’s line at the middle of the page, ‘I want to show her I’m someone worth knowing,’ feels a bit too direct and declarative. Can we find a way to say this with more subtext?”

I get why they gave the note. They were trying to be specific and kind of creative and helpful, but it had no relation to the actual we made. There is not a single moment in Aladdin that is anywhere near this subtle or with this kind of subtext. I can guarantee you.

**Craig:** I mean, that’s already way more sub textual than the rest of it.

**John:** Oh yes. Oh yes. It’s a very declarative movie. And this was like an actor line reading. Honestly it was trying to get way too detailed on a moment that was not – we just weren’t at that place. And so trying to use really fine pens on something where like we’re still kind of at Sharpie level here. And that was the wrong note for the moment.

**Craig:** We understand, by the way, that in many ways the notes process is your last attempt to exert control over this material before other people come and kind of start doing things that you cannot control. And we know that that is terrifying. But just be aware that controlling the script is really a thin substitute for controlling the shooting of the script and the editing of the script and the performance of the script and the direction of the script. It’s not going to get you what you want.

So the real thing is how can you work together with the writer to build in those protections so that you do get what you want?

**John:** How do we set up the world of the movie where this note makes sense? That’s sort of the macro.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Do – present a unified set of notes. Try to give one set of notes to a writer rather than three conflicting sets of notes to a writer.

**Craig:** He said try.

**John:** Try.

**Craig:** Try.

**John:** And the converse is don’t pretend you’re giving one unified set of notes because that’s even more frustrating.

**Craig:** That’s the worst. Because sometimes you will get like the three groups of notes. They don’t overlap whatsoever so you are essentially paralyzed. By the way, paralyzed after reading three different documents explaining why essentially you’re stupid in different ways. So then you call up, say can you guys just agree on why I’m stupid. That would be fantastic. And then they send you an agreement of why you’re stupid and then they call you afterwards and say, “No, no, no, that’s not why you’re stupid. You’re stupid because of this, not because of that.”

And so it goes. Again, you’re trying to do your jobs. And we know that your jobs are difficult. We understand that there’s a lot going on back there. We don’t know what to do. We are – I mean, I will tell you this much: we’re naïve about how the situation works back here. And you want us naïve. You don’t want us thinking about that stuff. We just don’t get it. So if there are battles to be fought and battles to be won, fight them and win them, but do them before you get to us. Because it just stops us dead.

**John:** When you make a note stand by your note. If you truly have an opinion on material it shouldn’t change based on outside opinions or based on what worked last week at the box office. And so we’re going to believe your opinions if your opinions are consistent through time rather than they feel variable. Because if it feels like it’s a moving target it’s tempting for us to just kind of wait and see where the target is next.

**Craig:** It takes effort on our part to get past our pain to absorb the value of your reactions and your opinions, your honest thoughts and your honest opinions. Then we do. And we take them in and we become enmeshed with you and with your opinions. And then someone else comes along, like a director, or an actor, and they say, “Nah, what if we did this instead?” And you say, OK. And it’s all gone, like that, in an instant.

I’m not accusing any of you individually of doing this. But it has happened to me many, many times. And you start to think well then why am I ever listening to you about anything. If you’re not going to stand up for this, if you’re going to be so fastidious and insistent and specific with me, and then so flippant and casual once somebody else comes along, why bother?

**John:** Yeah. And I’ll say that sometimes it just naturally does happen that a director or some other powerful person has a note that directly conflicts with everything else you’ve been trying to do. In those moments acknowledge it to us privately. Otherwise it feels like we’re being gaslighted. That this was all – they never said that thing before. No, they did set it. This really is a change and this is why we’re making the change.

**Craig:** This is a really important point because I think sometimes it’s a natural instinct to think if I call up a writer and I say to them, “You know that thing that I was really on you about that I finally convinced you of that you believed in too that I just rolled over on completely?” If I call that writer up and admit that I’m going to look weak to them. I assure you it is the opposite. You only look weak to us when you pretend it didn’t happen. We know it happened. We know it happened. And we know why it happened. And if you call and say, “I fought as best I could but this is the deal, so I’m saying my powder for another bigger fight. And I apologize, but this is how it’s going.” We get it. And then we love you again.

**John:** Indeed. A do – do make it your goal to love the script. And that your notes are on a path towards loving it even more. The converse would be don’t attempt to win the who-can-complain-more game, which is a thing that happens. Sometimes it has happened in rooms where there’s multiple people all trying to fix a problem. Or sometimes it’s not a thing that I’ve written but it’s a project that I’m being brought in to rewrite and it just becomes this who can bitch most loudly about this thing that’s a problem.

**Craig:** Yeah. A little bit like those nature movies when the gazelle gets brought down and then all the hyenas come in and it’s just like fun at that point. It’s happened. The dam is broken. Let us tear this thing apart. Obviously if you’re doing it to a writer and she’s written something and everybody in the room is tearing it apart that’s incredibly traumatic. And it also begins to feel cruel.

The whole point is that we’re trying to improve something. If the point of the meeting is let’s all try and outdo each other to see who hates this more, why are you having the meeting? Just fire her and move on. You know?

But if you are going to have that meeting then you have to sort of get back to first principles. Why we loved you. Why we hired you. What we hope for you. And it may be that she can’t get there. But she’s definitely not going to get there if the tenor is a kind of one-upmanship of critique. Somebody among you must be the advocate in one way or the other.

**John:** Do ask writers how they like to receive notes. And so what is most helpful for the writer. And so you may have a process that’s your normal process and maybe that’s going to work great, but ask them first. And if there’s a way that you can actually communicate with them better try doing it their way.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, some of us like conversations. My preferred mode is a conversation. I don’t actually read the printed out notes. Just totally admitting it. I don’t read them. It took me a while also to realize that they’re not real. That they are a representation of a lot of – like some sort of power-brokered consensus among a lot of people. And that eventually you get to these notes and you’re like well this is a weird one. And then someone goes, “Yeah, none of us really agreed with that, but X wanted it, so it goes in.”

And the reading of it just for my brain when I just flip through and it just becomes like mush and it doesn’t work. But if I have a conversation, if I can see your eyes, and I can feel your emotional response, because those things are so dry. They’re so dry. Then I feel like I’m getting somewhere and I can have that conversation and you’ll actually get way further with me just talking than handing me the document.

But other people do not get – like the face-to-face thing tears them apart and they run into the bathroom and throw up and they really do need that document to kind of ease them into the process.

**John:** And also because we’re writers we will dwell on a specific word choice far too much. And so “it feels gloomy,” I’m like gloomy? Gloomy? What does he mean by gloomy? Foggy London gloomy? And so I end up getting on the phone and I’m like what do you mean by gloomy? And he’s like, “Well it feels like serious.” And I’m like, oh, serious, OK, serious. That’s not gloomy. It’s like you went through your thesaurus and found gloomy because you didn’t want to say serious, but–

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re bad at wordsing.

**John:** Yeah. You are bad at wordsing. So, that’s why actually conversation is so much more helpful usually than a document.

Finally, do reread your last set of notes before you get the next set of notes before you give the next set of notes because we will and we’ll remember and it’s not a good sign. But at the same time don’t feel like you have to defend your old notes with the new ones. If they’re bad ideas don’t feel like you have to defend them. You can move forward. Just make sure you’re moving forward in a consistent direction.

**Craig:** You’re allowed to be inconsistent. You’re allowed to change your mind. Just don’t pretend that you’re not. That’s the most important thing. It’s the gaslighting factor that makes us feel like we’re going insane. Just say it. I changed my mind. I change my mind all the time. I change my mind while I’m writing. I’ll do an outline and then I’ll do the script and some things are going to change because I changed my mind. It’s totally fine.

But if I was like, “No, that’s what I said I was always going to do.” What? It’s insane.

And, you know, that will kind of get you out of a lot of problems, too. It’s also OK to admit that you made a mistake in notes. Very frequently what will happen is because we know the script better than you do just because we wrote it – that’s not a knock on you – it will say, “On page 86 she says this, but she couldn’t have known that because she never ran into so-and-so.” Yes, she did, on page 5. You just missed it.

“Oh, OK. You know what? My bad.” I’ve been in meetings where they’ve been like, “Yeah, but not really.” And I’m like we’re going to change the movie because you skimmed? Nah. That’s bad policy. Yeah.

**John:** Let’s imagine some perfect notes. So if we could ever see some perfect notes in the world they might describe a movie that you want to green light, not a draft you want to read. And that’s really helpful for you talking in general about notes, it’s like always talk about the movie, don’t talk about the script. The script is a way to get to a movie, but don’t get so focused on this 12-point Courier. It’s always talking about the vision you have for a movie that’s going to be in a theater.

**Craig:** Yeah. I refer to it as the document. And I know that it’s tempting in those meetings to talk about the script, the script, the script, but in every other meeting you have you will talk about the movie. In casting, in pre-production, in budget, in hiring directors, in lighting, locations, movie, movie, movie, movie, movie. You sit in the room with the writer, document. The writer will go along with that completely. The writer will follow you right down that document hole and perfect a document. That’s not what you want the writer to be doing.

What you want the writer to be doing is to helping you perfect a movie, the theory of a movie, the imagination of a movie.

**John:** Perfect notes celebrate what’s working and not just what works in the first paragraph of notes.

**Craig:** Congratulations.

**John:** Yes, congratulations–

**Craig:** On a terrific first draft.

**John:** There’s so much stuff we love here.

**Craig:** However, we have a few remaining concerns.

**John:** Yes. I have to tell you, you know, 20 years at this and very rarely do I get notes that midway through will say like, “This is a fantastic moment. We’re so happy with this scene.” And they may feel that. There’s moments that they’ll independently say it, but they don’t ever acknowledge it in a notes session about how much they love a moment. Telling us what you love about a thing is so helpful because it lets us steer the ship towards something. And lets us know that we’re not crazy. We actually were able to do something good here.

**Craig:** This may be the biggest piece of advice for you guys. Because it does two things at once. Obviously we are desperately craving love and attention that we didn’t get from our parents. And so you can help provide that. In a very real way in the psychological phenomenon of transference you become our parents in this process and we are desperate for your approval, no matter age we are. No matter what level we are.

So, dropping those things in the middle makes us feel good. But John is absolutely correct when he says us knowing what you love is just as useful to us from a writing towards point of view as us knowing what you aren’t responding to because now we get like, OK, there is an aesthetic that we are forming together as part of our relationship. We had an opinion, you had an opinion, we’re finding points of commonality. And from there we make more points of commonality. And the notes process somewhere along the line just became a Negative Nelly list. Which is fine. We’re not running away from Negative Nelly. But we need to know Positive Patty because if we don’t all you really are doing again is writing away from something.

**John:** Finally, perfect notes inspire the writer to explore and create. The times in my career when I’ve had just great notes I’m excited to get back to that next draft because I’m seeing all the new things I can do. I don’t have the answers to things, because the notes didn’t provide answers. They provided really good questions that made me want to explore new things. And they got me past some of my hang-ups. They got me to realize like oh you know what if I did cut all of that then I’d have this space to do all this other stuff. They got me excited to build new things. And that’s what notes should ultimately do is it’s a plan for what is possible to create going forward.

**Craig:** There’s a phrase in family therapy, “Do you want a relationship or do you want to be right?” And that’s kind of how it works with this. You want a relationship. And you can be right, but through the lens of the relationship. If your goal at the end of a notes meeting is to make sure the writer has heard every single thing that you want to change, shape, control, move around, or alter, you haven’t done it right.

Your goal at the end of that notes meeting should be that the writer is excited to get back to the computer to make this new thing better. And that takes effort. And it also means you’re going to have to kind of sublimate some of your needs and your desires, too. But just keep in mind in the emotional tally sheet we’re taking it much harder than you are. Even though you’re the guys that paid all the money. We’re still emotionally taking it harder than you.

**John:** So this is not meant to be just a lecture. It’s meant to be a discussion and a conversation.

**Craig:** I wanted a lecture.

**John:** Yeah, he wanted a lecture.

**Craig:** I’m all about the lecture.

**John:** So now we’d love to talk with you guys about sort of about your response, questions you have, push back on anything you want to push back on. Who would like to ask a question or raise a hand? A silent group.

**Craig:** We also may have just been perfect.

**John:** Yeah, it’s entirely possible.

**Craig:** Oh, no, not perfect.

**Male Voice:** What do you find the note that comes up again and again most frequently in a general sense that you guys either don’t like or you don’t know what to do with? And I know that you’ve given some examples here, but something more specific that, you know, the scene isn’t working, or yeah. Go head.

**Craig:** The, and I think we’ve said this on the show before, the note I hate the most, the note I respect the least, and the note I think should be stricken from everyone’s development vocabulary is “this character isn’t likeable enough.” Good. Those are the good ones. Every movie I’ve ever loved was full of unlikeable characters. We are here – are we allowed to say where we’re doing this? We’re recording this at Amblin, the home of Steven Spielberg. Go watch Jaws and find me the likeable character. It’s wonderful.

So, it just has to go. And I know that it comes from places. Marketing has wormed their way into things and so on and so forth. But just fight back. Fight back as hard as you can. And if you can’t, if you lose that battle, then preface that note by saying, “I am so sorry to say this and I don’t believe it myself, but I am forced to say this. This character isn’t ‘likeable’ enough.”

And it’s particularly bad when it’s about a female character. I find that at that point we’re starting to drift into the whole like trope, you know, she’s got to be, you know. That one.

**John:** My biggest one is probably “faster.” Basically like can we get to this moment faster and basically like can you not do all the stuff that you’re doing to set up the world. And somehow have everything already be set up so we can get to this moment faster. And I think so often because we are rereading scripts and rereading scripts again we know what’s going to happen, and so therefore we’re always anticipating the thing happening and we forget that for an audience watching it they have none of that information. And so they are coming into it at a speed and they have to get that information.

So, I would say that we are constantly in push to get to those moments faster and faster and faster in ways that are not helpful usually for the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. The classic one is the first act is too long. And this ending is a bit abrupt. And I’m always like the first act should be longer and the third act should be shorter. I love first acts in movies. It’s when the people are meeting and I’m discovering them and this world is being built. And when I get to the climax I just want them to blow stuff up as fast as they can and get me back to the relationship because I know like, ugh, [croaking noise]. So yeah, rushing the first act in particular, I think try and fight that one as best you can. Because it does translate into movies where you end up reshooting because people don’t connect with the characters.

**John:** Funny how that works. Yeah. Moments you cut out. Other questions.

**Female Voice:** When someone gives you a note of like this is the bad pitch.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Female Voice:** Is that a more or less preferable note in general, and also do you prefer having more specific direction or the response and then you guys decide?

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Great questions. So I would say the bad pitch or the bad version, so the bad version is this, I can hear that and understand why it’s being said that way, which is basically don’t do this thing that I’m telling you to do because I know how incredibly cloying it is or how it is just clunky. But the effect that I’m hoping we could get to is this, so that I can take that really well. Some people will bristle more at it, but I’m actually fine with the bad version.

It’s kind of like giving an actor a line reading. You’ve got to be a little bit mindful of that. In terms of specifics, specifics help if they are giving – if it’s specific to what your response was. But if it’s trying to provide a solution then we’re going to be like then why do you need us in a certain way. So it’s trying to be really clear on sort of why you are feeling this way, you’re feeling it as you’re reading it, but not sort of like therefore this must happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that that’s exactly right. It’s a little bit writer dependent. I mean, the only thing I’ll caution about the bad version is it’s the bad version for a reason. And so John’s right. You’re trying to get at kind of an effect, but just make sure that you’re policing yourself that the effect that you’re not going for is also just bad. In other words, sometimes it’s like, god, that would really solve this here and also make it boring and same-y. Right?

And for suggestions, I find that if someone says, “Here’s a solve, and take it or leave it if you want, but maybe in my proposed solve you find some interesting thing to take off and blah, blah, blah,” that’s great. If it sort of comes down as, “Here’s what I want you to do. Do this and this and this.” Then you begin to just lose your will to live.

**John:** You feel like a typist rather than a writer and that’s frustrating.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** More questions?

**Craig:** Yes, come on down.

**Male Voice:** Honestly, I kind of want to dive in more to the likeable character question, because I think I gave that note yesterday maybe.

**Craig:** Of course you did.

**Male Voice:** And it’s not that I want a perfect Disney princess as the protagonist, but I usually will be feeling that when I’m not connecting to the character. I’m not engaged in their journey.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. And so there is a mistake that happens in our brains when we are not connecting with a character and that character has qualities that are difficult or confrontational or testing we associate it with that. But those aren’t the problems. I love a great villain. I feel deeply connected to great villains. Like I watched The Little Mermaid again the other day and Ursula is the greatest.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** She’s not likeable. I mean, she’s a bad octopus lady.

**John:** You understand exactly why she’s doing what she’s doing.

**Craig:** Correct. And so the issue is how do you find a way to make that person’s unlikableness relatable. Relatable is not likeable. Relatable means that I understand it. You know, a lot of Melissa McCarthy characters work this way. And we just talked about this with Mari Heller. She was on the show talking about How Can I Ever Forgive You. Is there an Ever in there? No. How Can I Forgive You? Can I–

**John:** Can You Ever Forgive Me?

**Craig:** Can You Ever Forgive Me? Will she ever forgive me? And the entire process was managing someone who is not likeable. And about finding moments where you can relate to the not likeableness because all of us go through our lives having moments. I mean, unless one of you is just a saint everybody has moments. And so you don’t want to push things into likeable. You want to push things towards relatable, meaning make me understand and sympathize with the conditions that make her or him unlikeable.

**John:** Yeah. Mari Heller was also talking about Diary of a Teenage Girl and how important it was for that character to have a voiceover at the very start, or not even a voiceover, where you’re picturing the world through her eyes so you can see how she perceives herself before she tells you that she’s having an affair with her mother’s boyfriend. So, you know, that is an unlikeable character thing to do is to have that relationship, but we loved her before we sort of knew that thing that was happening. And so it sounds like what you’re describing in this note that you said unlikeable is that you were having a hard time connecting with the character to see the movie through that character’s eyes and to really want to sign up for the journey with that character.

And so Bill Murray’s character in Groundhog Day is very unlikeable.

**Craig:** The worst.

**John:** But also funny.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And because he’s funny you’re willing to go on this journey with him and sort of see him grow and change. So, phrasing things as not being able to click into them is I think going to be much more helpful to than saying unlikeable because then a writer is going to be like, “Well, can I just spackle something on them? Can I just spray a little likeability perfume on them so that they’ll pass the test?”

**Craig:** Or sand off the edges. Unsharpen the pencil.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** And then everything just gets sort of generic and soft. And we just lost interest.

**John:** Or you give them a puppy to make them likeable.

**Craig:** Give them a puppy.

**John:** Give them a puppy. Other questions or things you want to push on?

**Craig:** You can tell us we’re wrong. We’re OK with that. You can give us notes.

Yeah, so the question is what do you do when you’re developing a comedy and people, meaning the producers, the executives, don’t like the jokes versus the story. So that comes down to sense of humor. And there is no note. The note is we don’t think you’re funny. The note is you’re fired, I’m pretty sure.

Now, there is obviously a lot that goes into a comedy, but I’ve always felt from the work that I’ve done that if the plot and characters aren’t connected inextricably with the sense of humor and the comedy and the jokes and the set pieces then just something is wrong. I don’t know if you can properly write a comedy using somebody over here dumping character and plot sauce on it and someone over here doing the jokes.

I mean, I’m sure you guys have been in a lot of those roundtables where we do like the punch-up. And everyone just laughs for six hours and maybe get one usable joke out of there because none of it is connected to anything. It’s just floating on top. Like that goop on top of soup. So, I think in that case the note is you’re fired. I just feel so bad about saying that, but I mean why torment somebody. They’re not going to become funny the way you want them to be. I don’t think that’s how it works.

**John:** No. The other thing to remember about comedy is that if you’re reading the same script ten times, 15 times, it’s going to stop being funny. And nothing changed about the jokes, it’s just that it’s not fresh to you anymore. And comedy is about surprise and unexpected twists and characters doing things you couldn’t expect. And once you expect them it’s not funny anymore.

I’ve been to so many test screenings where suddenly the audience is laughing, they’re like, oh that’s right that was a joke. I completely didn’t remember that that was a funny thing, but that’s a joke apparently. And that absolutely happens.

One of the most edifying experiences for me was I did the Broadway version of Big Fish and I’d have to swap out jokes from one run to the next run to the next run. And you’d just see like what gets a laugh and what doesn’t get a laugh. And you just don’t know until you try it. And that’s the hardest thing about comedy. You won’t know if that script just in 12-point Courier is funny until you get it on its feet and sort of see it with people. That’s why if you can get a reading together that’ll help.

**Craig:** I will say for comedy features that generally speaking the people that write them are technicians. And so they’re way more concerned about getting laughs than you guys are. Way more concerned. I mean, every first screening of a comedy I’ve ever done I’ve gone with a Xanax in my pocket, right here, and I’ve had to take it a couple of times because when you’re not getting laughs it’s the worst feeling in the world. So, partly I would say if they have a track record trust the track record. If they’ve made people laugh in a dark room before, they’re going to make people laugh again.

You may not necessarily see the connection from the page to the room but they’re working it and they know what they’re doing in theory. So, some of it is an act of faith. Which is scary.

**John:** So the question is what are the best practices for when a writer is brought on to rewrite a different project. How can you set them up for success as an executive? So what I always tell writers who are being brought on to a project is if at all possible talk to the previous writer. And that way you can sort of know where the bodies are buried. What things were tried that didn’t work? It’s a cleaner handoff. It won’t always be possible. Sometimes it’s not a happy situation and it’s just not going to be realistic.

But for you as an executive who is like bringing in a new writer to the project I think having a discussion about some of the things that have happened before, but most importantly is where you see this headed and sort of what the overall goal is and what the intention is. Again, talking about what the movie is going to be rather than what the script is right now. And the times that I’ve come on to rewrite projects where it’s gone well I could take a look at the script and say like I can see what the intentions are here. I can also see where there was a bunch of just crud that built up over time. A lot of my job is just to scrape away the crud and get you back to what the clean movie of it is and make it all read better so you can see like, oh wait, we had a really good movie here and I couldn’t see it anymore because so much stuff had been built on top of it.

**Craig:** Yeah. When a movie works it all seems just intentional, like it just fell out of a camera in one big chunk. And there it is and it’s done. And sometimes when you arrive as a rewriter what you’re looking at is a script that’s more like, you know, the way the city looks in Blade Runner. It’s like a city built on top of a city with a thing that’s sticking out this way. And it doesn’t look intentional at all. Nor will it ever look intentional. And it has to be kind of torn down.

One thing that helps me when I come in is an understanding that the people involved are aware that they’ve gone wrong. I mean, unless it’s one draft – unless it’s one and done, and even in that case there has to be some shared culpability for kind of it just didn’t work. We’ve made mistakes. We as a group have made mistakes. There is no shame in that. And being able to say, “You know what? We think our mistake is this, but what do you think our mistake is? And we definitely shouldn’t have done this, and what do you think we should do?” That’s all fine and good.

But the dangerous thing is when you come in, the jobs that I will routinely turn down are ones where people say, “It’s just two weeks. We just need two weeks.” And I go you do not. You need all of this – there’s no way to – “Oh, we just have to fix the first act. That’s it.” What? Oh, we’re going to change the first act and everything – all we have to do with this house is fix the foundation. That’s all we’ve got to do. That’s all we’ve got to do. The rest of it will stay just fine. We’re just going to undermine everything and it will magically float and then we’ll put…

No. And so owning it a little bit I think and just being honest about the work that’s going to be required and thinking about your rewriter as a craftsperson. You know, like if a plumber says to me, “Look, I could do this, but you don’t want me to do this,” then I go, you’re right, I don’t. Don’t do the thing that you don’t think I should do. Let us be plumbers. If we say, “You need to do this the right way,” and then you go, “OK, do it the right way.”

**John:** Sir?

**Craig:** OK, so the question is how do you breakup with someone? It’s coming to an end. You can’t continue working with the writer. You would love to. That was your intention. But it has to end. What’s the sort of best way to end it and still stay in a relationship and maybe something in the future will happen?

**John:** The best example I can give you is Dick Zanuck. So Dick Zanuck produced a zillion things but the first time I met him was on Big Fish. And I remember he called me on Dark Shadows. And he called to say, “John, I’m so sorry to tell you but Tim and Johnny decided to bring on a different writer to do this next pass. These are the things that they said they want me to do. I talked with them about it, but I wanted to make sure you heard it from me before you heard it from anybody else.”

And he was so awesome and such a gentleman. I was upset and he let me be upset and angry, but I wasn’t upset and angry with him. I was upset and angry with the situation and sort of the stuff that was going on. But I would have willingly worked on another movie with him tomorrow because he was so straightforward with me about what was going on.

What kills you is when you’re just ghosted. Or when you find out from somebody else. When Craig texts me and says like, “I can’t believe they hired this writer.” I’m like, oh, on that thing that I thought I was still on. That’s–

**Craig:** I didn’t know that that was happening. I swear to god. I thought you knew.

**John:** Yeah, I know. And I didn’t know. And like that is what kills you when you find out, you’re like I assumed this was my movie and it’s no longer my movie. That is what sort of really kills you. And so just as soon as you can and being really clear that you value them and the work that they’ve done. And that you would like to work with them again. I think that’s the message you want to–

**Craig:** The spirit in which you ask the question is your answer. You feel something for this person. You have a natural empathy for them. Let them know. It’s OK. I mean, this is business. Things happen. Things are going to happen to us. Things are going to happen to you guys. But let them how you feel. And let them know that you tried your best and they tried their best and if it’s your decision let them know why and how it’s sad for you, too, but it’s what needs to happen.

It is always I think about intention. And if we feel seen and heard and treated like a human being. Of course, there’s no way to make us not feel sad if we want to stay, but at the very least we know that the relationship that we had with you it was legitimate. Because you’re feeling something, too. That’s why I would come back because I know, OK, if you’re all puppy dogs and sunshine and then one day it’s like ghosted, bye, or oh, sorry yeah, we’re moving on, OK, well why would I ever go back to you? The puppies are not real. That sunshine is a lie.

So, just, yeah, and that requires you guys to be vulnerable. And I’m sure somewhere there is a kind of like executive and producer school where they’re telling you don’t be vulnerable and don’t show any of this stuff and don’t get embedded with these people. And stay like tough. And all I can tell you is it’s not going to work well with us. You won’t get better work out of us that way.

It requires you to feel. I mean, my favorite development person in any capacity is Lindsay Doran. And Lindsay Doran feels more for my work than I do. The hardest arguments I’ve had with Lindsay are about things that I wanted to cut. I’ve literally had a discussion with her where she read it and she said, “Well, you cut that one line and now I just don’t care about the characters anymore.” I’m like that’s not possible! It was a line.

But she is so emotionally invested and, you know, we have a movie together that’s set up here and we had a director on it that we loved and then the studio just wanted to go a different way. And we had to say goodbye to somebody. And we both felt a lot. And we shared that with that person. And I would like to think that that mattered. It may have not made things better at that moment, but it means that we showed what is true which is that our relationship with this person was real.

So, do that. And you will be rewarded with repeat business.

**John:** Cool. Last question.

**Craig:** Oh, she’s reading a question. Oh, this is a great question. Boy did you just stand in front of a target and ask us to wheel a cannon in front of you. So the question is what should be achieved in a producer’s pass. And the answer John is?

**John:** Ah! I mean, we should just stop on the term “producer’s pass.” Producer’s pass does not exist. You won’t find it in any contract. You won’t find it written down anywhere. Here’s the reality from a writer’s perspective is that we think we’re done. We hand it into producers. I think I’m done. And they’re like, great, there’s just a little fix up. And it’s like, OK. And so we do this little bit and it’s like, oh a little bit more, a little bit more. And then we find out they actually did turn it into the studio and we’re actually getting the studio development executive’s notes back. And so it’s a whole extra pass before we’ve turned it in.

I get this at my level, but when I talk to newer screenwriters it’s endless drafts for them to actually get a thing in. And producer’s passes are a useful way of pretending that it’s not a real thing but it is a real thing. So here’s what I’ll say is that if a writer is choosing to give it to this producer for a weekend or whatever for sort of last looks/clean some stuff up, that’s fantastic. But it can’t be about profound changes to the script. It can’t be a week’s worth of work or two weeks’ worth of work. That’s just crazy.

**Craig:** Yeah. There is no producer’s pass. And producers have gotten away with murder. They really have. Congrats. Good job.

**John:** I will say some sympathy for producers. I think they have a really tough job right now too because they are scrambling to get movies made in a tough environment. They have tremendous expectations on them. Writers are often dealing with one-step deals which is a problem.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** I don’t want to slam producers for trying to get too much free labor out of us, even though I sort of am slamming them for getting too much free labor.

**Craig:** Well, but it’s logical. I mean, look, the economics of producing are such that you don’t really get paid unless the movie gets made. Development isn’t a job. Getting movies made is a job if you’re a producer. That’s where all the money is. And everybody deserves to make a living. And then on top of that the studios have taken away two-step deals. They give you one step. You now have one shot with this person that you argued for to make it work. And if you don’t maybe this whole thing dies. So of course you want a thousand drafts for that one draft.

The problem is that’s not fair to the writers. What we should be saying to our partners at the studios is make two-step deals. If you want a producer’s pass how about we all get the pass together? It’s called the second draft. There used to be a thing called the second draft. It’s less important honestly for me or for John than it is for new writers. I really strongly urge you guys if you know a writer is getting paid less than twice scale, which is lot of writers, give them two steps.

It removes this panic. And then you’re able to get the draft. If you want to do your three days of twinklies, do your three days of twinklies. And then turn it in and then everybody can talk about it. And everybody can have the conversation. And then they write a second draft.

But if that’s not there what ends up happening is people do get abused. So, that’s my big thing there. For me, when it comes time to – and look, we’re going to have this experience. You and I are about to have this experience. I’m going to hand over a script to Samantha. You know, if you need a couple days here or there, no problem. A couple days, here or there.

**John:** But let’s say you need more than a couple days. Let’s say you have a writer who is making scale or twice scale, but not a lot of money. And you do need more than just a couple days. It’s gone into the studio and they’re like, there’s just this little thing before it gets up to our top boss before we can actually get it – we just need a little bit more work.

There’s already a provision in there for a little bit more work. Everyone has a weekly. And there’s a scale weekly which is not expensive. Pay that writer for the one week or the two weeks of work it takes to get that next thing in between their real steps.

**Craig:** Pay them an optional polish if you want.

**John:** Move stuff out of order, but it’s when you hold somebody on with the promise like maybe they’ll get to that second draft that’s where it becomes exploitive.

**Craig:** And the say like, “Look, if you don’t do this then you’re going to get fired and the movie is not going to get made.” And it just becomes this kind of thing of, well, if what you’re telling me is I’m going to get fired unless I work for free, yeah, I’m fired. That’s what fired is.

**John:** You’re taking a person who is making scale and making them the villain in the situation, which isn’t good. Them not doing that free thing is–

**Craig:** We just got all Che Guevara on them. I love it. That’s great.

**John:** Sorry.

**Craig:** But it’s true. It really is true. And I will also say that for – if you can – if you’re working with a writer and they agree early on, before deals are made or anything, if they agree early on to write a treatment, some writers don’t write them. I don’t think you’re a big treatment guy. You know I’m a huge treatment – I love a treatment. I’ll write a 60-page treatment. I’ll write the hell out of that thing. You’ll know what the movie is before I ever write in Fade In or Final Draft.

If that happens, then your producer’s pass is baked in because you’ve had a chance to discuss and go through that. And I like to do that specifically so that when I’m done with the draft I’m done. There it is. Now you know what the weekend is going to be like. But you’re going to like it. It’s good. It’s good.

**John:** Thank you guys very much.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** And thank you for putting this together.

**Craig:** Thank you guys so much. Thank you guys.

**John:** And that’s our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It was edited by Matthew Chilelli. Special thanks to Ben Simpson and Samantha Nisenboim for putting this session together and for the folks at Amblin for hosting us.

Our outro this week is by Mackey Landry. 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 short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We try to get them up about four days after the episode airs.

Some folks have also started doing recaps and discussion in the screenwriting sub-Reddit. So if that continues, great.

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net, or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

If you’re doing either of those things you may want to check out the Scriptnotes Listener’s Guide at johnaugust.com/guide to find out which episodes our listeners recommend most. Thanks. We’ll see you next week.

Links:

* Episode 99, [Psychotheraphy for Screenwriters](https://johnaugust.com/2013/psychotherapy-for-screenwriters)
* Episode 394, [Broken but Sympathetic](https://johnaugust.com/2019/broken-but-sympathetic) with Mari Heller
* Now accepting recommendations for updating the [Listener’s Guide](johnaugust.com/guide)
* Submit to the Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch)
* Watch Chernobyl May 6th and listen to [The Chernobyl Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-chernobyl-podcast/id1459712981) with Craig and Peter Sagal
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Mackey Landry ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_399_notes_on_notes.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 282: The One from Paris — Transcript

January 8, 2017 Scriptnotes Transcript

**John August:** Bonjour et bienvenue. Je m’appelle John August.

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** Je m’appelle Aline Brosh McKenna.

**John:** Et vous écoutez l’Episode 282 de Scriptnotes, un podcast sur l’écriture de scénarios et des choses intéressantes pour les scénaristes.

**Aline:** Ah, très bien. Très bien, Paris.

**John:** So we are here in Paris. That’s why I’m doing my introduction in French. Aline Brosh McKenna flew all the way over here just to record a podcast.

**Aline:** Yes.

**John:** That is the dedication of a true friend. Aline, welcome to Paris.

**Aline:** Thank you. And I am looking forward to the mocking that I will get from Craig for actually taking time during my family vacation to come here and podcast with you. But, come on.

**John:** Come on. It’s Scriptnotes. You have to do it for Scriptnotes.

**Aline:** Priorities. And also – all you and I know how to do together is podcast at this point. We see each other, we just instantly begin–

**John:** The microphones come out. And we start recording a podcast.

**Aline:** No matter where we are.

**John:** It’s really embarrassing, especially when there’s nothing to actually talk about other than filmmaking. Today on this podcast, we are going to be answering some listener questions about cheating reality and bilingual characters, appropriate for being here in French. And we’ll also be inviting a special guest on to talk about the process of adaptation and autobiography.

**Aline:** Great. That all sounds great.

**John:** That’s this week. But also something terrible happened this week, which was the death of Carrie Fisher.

**Aline:** Oh gosh. Quickly followed by the death of Debbie Reynolds.

**John:** Yes, which is terrible. So, we’re recording this where it’s all sort of brand new news. By the time this comes out, it won’t be new news. But I wanted to talk with you because Carrie Fisher, obviously we know her as Princess Leia, we know her as an actress, but I really thought of her mostly as a screenwriter. That was sort of how I encountered her.

**Aline:** Yeah. When I first came to LA she was sort of the premier script doctor. And, you know, was very witty and funny and was sort of brought in to make things sort of, as I understood it, wittier and funnier and warmer. But she also obviously had a great presence as an actor.

My favorite Carrie Fisher performance is Hannah and Her Sisters. It’s probably my favorite Woodie Allen movie, and that performance, the subtle competition between her and Dianne Wiest is great. So, yeah, that’s been really sad. And then also for me, as an ‘80s baby, the George Michael thing was devastating. And I spent a day listening to every George Michael song that, you know, back to back. It’s been a weird week.

**John:** Yeah. I wrote up a little piece about George Michael when I got the news, because just a few days before it happened we were listening to a George Michael song at a café in Italy and it’s like, oh, I wonder if George Michael is still alive. Like it occurred to me like is he still alive. And then two days he had died. And so one of the nice things about all artists, including Carrie Fisher, is that they can physically die but the work that they’ve created lives on forever. And so I’ve been trying to listen to George Michael songs, but also songs from other artists who I might not have thought of recently, just because that’s how you sort of keep them alive.

**Aline:** Right. And I think of Carrie Fisher as a wit and as a novelist and Postcards from the Edge. But, of course, my son is a huge fan from Star Wars. And so he was very sad and upset when we found out the news and we were waiting to hear when we first heard about the heart attack, we were waiting to hear if she was okay. And he was posting on Facebook about it. So she means something to different generations of people which is great.

**John:** Did you have a chance to meet her ever?

**Aline:** I never did. No.

**John:** So, I met her twice. The first time was at a screening of Big Fish. It was at the ArcLight in Los Angeles and it was sort of our LA premiere. And the lists had come down and Dick Zanuck was nearby and Bruce Cohen was nearby. And this woman came in and she sort of like, she put up the armrests and sort of like curled up on the seat. And it was Carrie Fisher. And she came to watch the movie.

And then a few weeks later, I think, I was at a birthday party that she’d thrown for her friend and met her there. And she was exactly kind of the person you hoped Carrie Fisher would be. And she was generous, and warm, and cool. And like you I sort of encountered her mostly as a script doctor. As a person who was paid a lot of money for weekly work on something.

And I remember I was an intern at Universal and they were discussing bringing her in to do a weekly on this project. And I heard her quote, which just blew my mind that we paid that much per week. And what her job would be. And that was actually very inspiring. Like, I kind of want to be a screenwriter if you can do that. [laughs]

**Aline:** Yeah. But it’s rare to be a famous actress and sort of screen icon and also be doing that kind of work a day work.

**John:** There’s a quote I saw this last week about this where in a Newsweek interview they were talking about her working as a script doctor. And they say like do you still work as a script doctor. She says, “I haven’t done it for a few years. I did it for many years. Then younger people came to do it. And I started to do new things. It was a very long, lucrative episode of my life, but it’s complicated to do that. Now it’s all changed actually. In order to get a rewrite job, you have to submit your notes for your ideas on how to fix a script.”

**Aline:** Oh wow.

**John:** “So they can get all the notes from the different writers, keep the notes, and not hire you. That’s free work. And that’s what I always call life-wasting events.”

**Aline:** Can’t say it any better than that.

**John:** Absolutely. So, we’ve all encountered that situation where you’re brought in to do this work or not do this work, and they mostly want your opinions.

**Aline:** Right. For free.

**John:** Some follow up. So, episodes you were not involved with, but maybe you listened to. Back in Episode 277 we discussed film versus reality. Justin in Beijing wrote in to say, “So, listening to the podcast about how film and TV teaches bad medicine, if my friend gets stabbed and my dumb friend pulls out the knife, should I put the knife back in my stabbed friend?”

**Aline:** What’s your follow up? I’m guessing you should not do that.

**John:** Yeah. Craig is really our doctor on the podcast. But I’m guessing you should not put the knife back in.

**Aline:** I’m guessing not.

**John:** But just yesterday I saw the movie Passengers and that exact moment happens where she pulls the thing that’s impaling her out. And I wanted to say, no, don’t, leave the bolt in.

**Aline:** Oh.

**John:** Because you will just bleed more when you pull that thing out. No. Don’t do it.

In Episode 280 we talked about the Reed College protest over Boys Don’t Cry. Did you listen to that episode already?

**Aline:** No. I’m really way behind.

**John:** It’s fine. But that was the one where I got really angry, and so actually had like more umbrage in that episode. We got a bunch of good responses about that, and some stupid ones, too, inevitably. But the one that stuck with me most was from a listener named Kate Hadley. And we’ll put a link to her piece up in the show notes.

What I liked so much about her piece is that she was able to focus on some things that Craig and I had not even considered. And one of the issues you have when you have cis-gendered actor playing trans is it sort of perpetuates that idea that a trans person is just playing dress up. That it’s all a disguise. And that it feeds into these terrible bathroom laws and stuff like that where there’s this perception that it’s just a man who wants to get into the women’s restroom. That it’s not a real person with a real identity.

So, she wrote it much more articulately than I just expressed it, but I’d really encourage you to take a look at what she said, because even though she, like I, disagree with the Reed College protest, she really was able to scratch at what I think was underlying that issue over sort of trans representation in film.

**Aline:** Right.

**John:** Cool. Last bit of follow up here. Matt wrote in about French titles. And he wanted to clarify – we talked about the Zak Efron movie, which was called something else, but the Australian title was Are We Officially Dating, and it turned out that was the initial script title for the movie.

**Aline:** Wow.

**John:** So for the Australian version they went back to the original script title, which was unusual.

**Aline:** How did they know that?

**John:** You know, my hunch is it that it may have been one of those sort of foreign rights deals, or that it was a negative pickup in some way, so that–

**Aline:** It had been circulating with that on it?

**John:** Maybe so. Or, that some other international entity was a financier in it. So, in their head it was always called this other title. And the American people had changed the title.

**Aline:** Got it.

**John:** Aline, what have been the titles of your movies overseas?

**Aline:** I have no idea. I never look them up.

**John:** So The Devil Wears Prada would make sense.

**Aline:** I think it’s basically The Devil Wears Prada in most countries.

**John:** But I mean some of your things must be – like Morning Glory would be a very different title I bet in different countries.

**Aline:** I have no idea.

**John:** Cool. But we also had a follow up from Rodrigo in Brazil. And so if you can read to us what he wrote.

**Aline:** Sure. He says, “I’m sorry to disappoint you, but Brazil’s title for The Hangover is even worse. Instead of calling it Ressaca, which is the regular hangover translation, Hangover in Brazil is called Se Beber, Não Case!”

I really made that up. Made that completely up.

“Don’t Drink and Marry. Brazil has a long list of bad title translations. The best one I can recall is when Teen Wolf got translated to The Boy from the Future, because Back to the Future happened a couple years before earlier. And marketing. Which brings us to a topic I think you never talked about in your podcast. How important is the title of the screenplay and how often does it get changed until it hits the screen? All You Need is Kill, Edge of Tomorrow, Live, Die, Repeat comes to mind.”

**John:** Let’s talk about that. Titles for screenplays. How important is the title for you when you’re coming up with a screenplay?

**Aline:** Oh, I think they’re critical. If you don’t have a title – if things are floating around for too long with an untitled, it seems like something is wrong with your idea. You just can’t hone in on what the idea is.

I think that a lot of the genius of Devil Wears Prada was in Lauren Weisberger’s selection of a title. It’s just so evocative. It tells a whole story. You know, it encapsulates the whole movie. And 27 Dresses, that was kind of – that’s the whole movie also.

**John:** That was your original title.

**Aline:** That was my original title. Yes. That was the whole idea – the whole idea is the title. So, I think it’s a good – I have worked on things before where I didn’t have a title way into writing it. It’s not a good sign. It’s really not a good sign.

**John:** I can see that. So, Morning Glory, so she’s a morning TV anchor.

**Aline:** Yes.

**John:** But was that always the title or what happened there?

**Aline:** Yes, that was always the title. That was the one that I worked on with J.J. and I remember – we were talking about it, maybe I had worked on it for like a month, and then the title kind of hit me, and I… – I don’t think that’s a great title because it has a pun in it ultimately.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** And also because I didn’t realize that Morning Glory in lots of places in the country means boner.

**John:** Ha-ha. Excellent.

**Aline:** Did you know that?

**John:** I had no idea. But I can see that. It’s like morning wood.

**Aline:** Morning wood is morning glory. And also there’s a Katherine Hepburn movie. That I did know. But I don’t think it got – like Broadcast News kind of tells you not only what it’s about, but it tells you its sort of take on it, that it should be the news. And one of the problems with Morning Glory as a movie is we never really honed in on like what we were saying about the news business. So, the fact that it has one of those titles that’s a bit irrelevant.

And then I’ve written movies also where people for the life of them can’t remember the title. Laws of Attraction. Or, you know, I Don’t Know How She Does It. Well, I Don’t Know How She Does It is a book, I guess.

**John:** I Don’t Know How She Does It actually makes sense. Like it feels like something that a character in that world would be saying. And it expresses her underlying–

**Aline:** It’s a great title for the book. As a movie title, I don’t think it widens out at all. I mean, obviously we would have called it that because it’s the book title. But you need to have something that really is – I mean, I think The Hangover is a brilliant title.

**John:** Agreed.

**Aline:** It’s just very simple and very clear. And what you’re looking for is I think something very clear that describes the movie.

**John:** In Rodrigo’s question he references what was called Edge of Tomorrow, was a Tom Cruise movie when it was released. But originally the title for it was All You Need is Kill, which I think is a great title.

**Aline:** Great title.

**John:** But it didn’t test well, or they didn’t feel like it marketed – they were concerned about it. So then Edge of Tomorrow, which felt really like I have no idea what that means.

**Aline:** Edge of Tomorrow reminds me a lot of Edge of Night, which is a soap opera.

**John:** It also reminds me of Oblivion, which was the other Tom Cruise sci-fi movie.

**Aline:** Totally.

**John:** And so for the home video release they changed it to Live, Die, Repeat.

**Aline:** Wasn’t technically Live, Die, Repeat was the slogan, but it was like ten times bigger than the title? That was just somebody in marketing saying, “Don’t make me go and release this on home video with the same title. You’re killing me. Can we use this other thing?”

**John:** It’s challenging because it was a movie that was critically liked. It performed well, I guess. And sort of would otherwise deserve a sequel. But the title didn’t catch people.

**Aline:** That’s a surprisingly good movie. But I think it needs to be something where – I think a good test for writers is you want to be able to turn to your friend and say, “Oh my god, did you see this yet?” And have it be something which they’re not going to go, “Wait, which one is that?”

I think titles which are like Nowhere Fast, which are sort of like assemblages of vague terms, gerund nouns, or gerund adjectives – Running…

**John:** Running Water.

**Aline:** Running Scared. That is a movie, isn’t it?

**John:** Running Scared is a good one.

**Aline:** Yeah. Or Being Blank. There’s a lot of. Finding Blanks. And Being Blanks.

I have a script that I’ve been working on for a number of years. It’s this movie that I wrote about my mother and her friend. And it’s about these two French women. And I always refer to it as French Ladies. Because when I was talking to my agent or talking to anyone, French Ladies was what I always called it. But I was going to call it The Best Revenge. That was a title I was using was The Best Revenge. But I never referred to it as The Best Revenge with anyone, with my agent or anyone.

So, I started just calling it French Ladies. And then finally the producers were like, “We should just call this movie French Ladies because that’s the only thing we refer to it as.” And it just sticks to your ear.

So, it’s got to be something that you can turn to your friend and say, “Boy, we should really go see…”

**John:** Yes. 100%.

**Aline:** And they won’t go, “What?”

**John:** Yeah. I’m having a lot of what these days because it’s screener season, so you and I are getting all of the Academy screeners. And so a lot of these are movies I haven’t otherwise seen. And so we get this big list and I’m like I have no idea what this movie is. I’m sure it came out, but I have just no idea.

**Aline:** You know what’s the best, one of my favorite – well, The Meddler is a great title. And I loved that movie this year. One movie that I loved but the title took a long time to lodge in brain is Hunt for the Wilderpeople.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** I kept trying to recommend it to people and saying like–

**John:** Wilder beasts?

**Aline:** Something wild. You know, I couldn’t, it didn’t kind of lodge in my brain.

**John:** That was a previous One Cool Thing. The only reason I know about that is because the Kates recommended it.

**Aline:** It’s a great movie.

**John:** I’m looking forward to seeing it.

**Aline:** It’s a great movie. But somehow the title, Hunt maybe wasn’t a thing that landed in my brain as the thing that it was.

**John:** Yeah. With my movies, like Go was originally called 24/7. And 24/7 is an interesting title, but it wasn’t the right title for what that movie was.

**Aline:** That really makes me think it’s about a convenience store.

**John:** Totally. And it’s not about that. It’s not Clerks 2. But when I came to Go, it was like, oh, that’s what that movie feels like. And that was a title that I took from another pitch that I had set out that had never sold.

**Aline:** Oh really?

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** Scavenged.

**John:** Scavenged. The Nines is a similar situation where The Nines was a short story I had written and it’s like, oh you know what, I’m going to take that title–

**Aline:** Didn’t The Nines come out close to Nine?

**John:** Yes. So that was a whole title mess. And that’s another thing worth discussing is that a lot of times you’ll have a great idea for a title and someone else will have already claimed it. So, it’s not a copyright situation. It’s the MPAA has a whole registry – actually, I take that back. I think it may be AMPAS has the registry. No, it wouldn’t be. Which one would it be?

**Aline:** It’s the MPAA.

**John:** It would be the MPAA. Has the registry of titles. And so you have to clear your title and make sure that it’s not confusing with another movie that’s out there.

And so The Nines was the first one to register The Nine. And then 9 came out, which was the animated version. There was also Nine the musical. And we were first. And so we had to give permission for those other things, so it becomes a whole negotiation.

**Aline:** You could have called it John August’s The Nines.

**John:** Yeah. You could have.

**Aline:** Like Lee Daniels’ The Butler.

**John:** Absolutely. Or Disney’s The Kid. There’s ways, you know, the studio title in there to get it done. But, yeah, going back to Rodrigo’s question, titles are crucial and important. And there’s honestly nothing more frustrating when you wrote a movie and you shot a movie under one title, and then it suddenly changes title at the end. You don’t even recognize this thing that you spent all this time working on. And I definitely know friends who have had that situation where like it’s called something crazy. Charlie’s Angels, the second Charlie’s Angels, the script I originally turned in was Charlie’s Angels: Forever. And that was going to be the movie title for a long time. And then they came back to us with a whole bunch of little things that had tested. They tested a bunch of different titles. And Full Throttle was a title just by itself that they tested. And so they decided to call it Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle.

**Aline:** But with sequels, I don’t know what the words are after the first part.

**John:** Yeah. I have no idea what the next Fast and Furious is.

**Aline:** Oh wait. But isn’t–

**John:** I’m going to get it wrong if I try to guess.

**Aline:** I don’t know. It’s all the kids have been talking about. We seem really old and out of right now. Because the trailer just came out a couple weeks ago and that’s all the kids talk about.

**John:** Your sons are in the other room, and they probably know the real title.

**Aline:** They know. They know.

**John:** But we don’t. Chris Morgan knows, but we don’t know.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** We have a question from listener Tom Dowler who wrote in. Let’s hear what he said.

Tom Dowler: My question is inspired by Craig’s recent list of very commonly seen yet completely nonsensical medical practices. My wife and I actually keep an ongoing list of things only seen in movies that characters do all the time, yet no one does in real life. And that list includes things like someone sitting alone on the back seat of a car, but is sitting right in the middle of that back seat rather than directly behind the driver or the passenger seats. Or, someone who is stressed walking into a bathroom just to splash cold water onto their face and then star meaningfully into the mirror. Or, someone carrying on a complete conversation while brushing their teeth, but somehow not covering their chin in toothpaste suds or choking on their own spit.

So, my question is this: should we as screenwriters embrace these ridiculous conceits if they help us tell our story and fit in with the Hollywood establishment? Or should we strike out in the name of truth and reality? Do you risk alienating your audience if we present a vision of life which is unlike what they’re used to seeing on screens, even if it more closely matches real life? Thanks very much.

**Aline:** I mean, to me that’s an easy one. Those things are goofy and they’re kind of the mark of a bad – someone sitting in the middle is probably because it was easier to shoot, and I don’t think that would pull you out as much as sort of weird human behavior. The thing that I’ve noticed more and more that really pulls me out of a movie is Joe Cornish who is a director I worked with for a little bit has this thing where when people are being so serious in a movie that you just want to go over and tickle them.

Like there’s these movies now where everybody is just – it’s so dire. And everybody is saying things like so seriously. And it’s all so portentous. And you want to go and poke people and be like, “You fart. You laugh.” I really so dislike things where one mode of being subsumes every other mode of being. And I think you’ve got to be funny. You’ve got to preserve, even when you’re inside a big budget serioso space opera or action movie, I mean, sometimes those just get so goofy in terms of tone. And people sort of stentorianly explaining to each other the plot and you’re just thinking like – you want somebody to be like, “Do you want to get a sandwich? The cafeteria, ah, they got my favorite thing today.”

Like those glimpses to me of human behavior, the lack of that to me is the silliest, fakest, weirdest thing that will pull me out of a movie more than anything is… – And I’ve really noticed more and more that because we’re in this world where every movie is either Moonlight or some gigantic $250 million movie, it seems like all the human behavior now is being relegated to the tiny movies. And in big movies now people are acting like weird, solemn robots who don’t have bodily functions or senses of humor.

So, I think inhabiting, you know, if you watch Alien and see how many like real human little moments there are of humanity inside of that, that really grounds you inside those characters and that behavior. And I think it buys you permission later to have some big piece of like super serioso exposition or action.

**John:** What I hear you describing is both a writing concern, basically you’re not creating the scenes in which characters are going to have those sort of real moments and can puncture this veil of seriousness, but also performance and directing. So basically how you’re portraying your world so that people feel alive and present in this. And I think some of that is the writer’s responsibility, and some of that is just the weight of the movie and the weight of the movie machinery around it. So, you talk about these movies where people are being so incredibly serious. It’s as if they understand what movie they’re in. What I always love about Alien, and I’ve said this many times before, is that the characters in Alien think they’re in a movie called Space Truckers. And they have no idea that an Alien is supposed to show up. So they’re not philosophizing. They’re not planning for a horror movie to break out. They’re just being in the movie Space Truckers. And then things go horribly wrong.

But some of what the original question is asking about are things, are shortcuts that we’ve taken for production that are just convenient. And we’re sort of used to them now. They’re conventions. And they really are annoying.

So, he talks about a character sitting in the middle of a backseat, which is of course ridiculous. No one ever does that. People also don’t drive around with their head rests missing, and yet you see that all the time in movies so that you can see into the backseat more easily. A lot of times we’ll remove the rearview mirror so you can have the shot going through the windshield. And you don’t realize that the rearview mirror is missing, but it’s gone in more than half the movies you’ve seen.

**Aline:** I notice more things that are there because of vanity. Like when people are waking up in full makeup. Just giant eyelashes. I’m really noticing that. And also the constant kissing without teeth brushing. Just people – you don’t even want to – forget kissing. It might even be easier to stomach kissing than speaking. People wake up in the morning and look at each other and have these conversations that it would be like, you would really be shielding yourself. Or you would say, “Wait a second.”

**John:** So, you guys are doing Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. So, when you’re filming those episodes, and you directed episodes, how much are you willing to bend reality? Are you sitting, Rachel, in the middle of the backseat?

**Aline:** Well, there’s some stuff like that that is just production stuff. But the thing that we’re always battling is the vanity and the touches and the touchups. And they’re always attacking the actors with the makeup brushes and the hair. And that’s a constant back and forth. Especially when we have to go quickly, because those people have a responsibility to do their job. They want to do their jobs. They want to erase every under eye shadow. But Rachel and I both would always try and err on the side of like, well, she’s had a shitty day. She loves a day where she’s not wearing makeup and she’ll always – I’m always getting texts from her saying, “Can I please not wear any makeup in this scene for this reason?” And sometimes she’s even like stretching it, because she just wants to not be doing it.

But, you know, the perfect hair and makeup, you have to – like our show has a certain extra crank over reality. So it’s not a movie where you can – you know, it’s not Kids. We’re not really doing something where people’s hair looks exactly the way it would like Donna Lynne when she’s playing Paula, like clearly someone – her hair wouldn’t look quite that great for the office. So, you’re kind of walking a line where like you need some aesthetics, but not so much that people seem distractingly done.

So, I think for every piece you’re doing, when you’re making it you have to find sort of your level of – but a lot of those things that he’s – I mean, there’s two different things. Things that are bent for production, which you have to do kind of frequently, and shooting in cars is kind of a nightmare, and so things are often kind of wonky. And then there’s stuff where people are just behaving not like humans.

**John:** Yeah. My last bit of advice would be to recognize when you’re about to walk in to one of those tropes, and if there’s something you can gain out of not doing that trope, or sort of calling out that trope, that could be great. And so, I mean, that tooth brushing thing might be like if you’re movie can stand the joke about the tooth brushing, do that as the joke. Acknowledge sort of the trope of it and move past it. Or like don’t let people have that conversation while they’re brushing their teeth. Or make the other character stop them from having that conversation while they’re brushing their teeth.

**Aline:** One scene that really stuck with me was in Fun with Dick and Jane, the original one, Jane Fonda sits on the toilet and pees while she’s talking to him. And pees, and wipes, and gets up. And that really always stuck with me in life because it was like, god, you’re never really seeing people peeing in movies, or talking while they’re peeing, or continuing conversations in the bathroom. And I just feel like as a culture we’ve moved away from movies where people pee in toilets while they’re talking, except in these super small movies. But in a big movie now if you did that, it would be–

**John:** Oh, we get noted to death on that. Because it’s like, you know, we get notes from the studio executive about that’s not going to look really good. I don’t want to see Charlize Theron peeing. And then on the day you get that note, and then there will be the second guessing, and it wouldn’t got shot. Or if it did get shot, it wouldn’t make it through the edit. They’d say like, “What parts did you not like in the movie?” “I didn’t like the part where she was peeing.”

**Aline:** She was peeing.

**John:** And then we could cut from that. That’s the frustration. And because these big movies have all that weight and all that responsibility of they have to test well. Anything that people don’t like is going to get nixed.

**Aline:** Right. And in the context of doing that sometimes you’re straining out human behavior. And, you know, at the end of the day, don’t we still go to movies to see how people behave, should behave? So, I think it’s good to preserve those things and it’s a mark of a good writer that you can inhabit those big moments with the little moments.

**John:** I would also point out that I think female characters have a much higher standard for what kind of real behaviors we’re excited to see them do on screen, versus male characters. So, like Seth Brogan peeing on screen. Great. You know, beautiful actress peeing on screen? No, we don’t want to see that.

**Aline:** There’s definitely movies I’m watching where I’m going where is the salon? They’ve been roughing it in the outback for six weeks and her hair looks fabulous.

**John:** So Passengers is a beautiful movie, and I really enjoyed large parts of it. Chris Pratt, who is a very handsome guy, gets to look really crappy at times, which is completely appropriate and character appropriate. When Jennifer Lawrence needs to look bad, it’s basically like she’s a little shiny. That’s about as bad as they make her look. And, yes, part of it is the sort of romantic comedy fantasy. Like if you were on this cruise ship and you had all this stuff. But did she spend four hours on makeup just to get up in the morning? The suspension of disbelief is really high.

**Aline:** But I think it’s establishing a language for your movie. Because if you’re making La La Land and there’s this sort of veneer of wish fulfillment about it, and he dialed in the level of wish fulfillment, because they’re not perfect. They don’t look perfect. The movie has edges to it. But for large parts she looks beautiful and is wearing aspirational things. And he looks quite handsome and is wearing aspirational things. But not to a level that pulls you out of the movie. But if you’re making a grittier film, then people need to look like that.

And what is often, I personally find annoying, is when you have actresses in a littler film where they should be grubby and instead they look like they just wandered from the Méche Salon on Robertson, having just gotten their tips done. So, I think that’s more on production though than writing.

**John:** Yeah. I remember interviewing Winnie Holzman when she was talking about My So-Called Life. And they set up rules for that first season where Claire Danes’s character could only have certain outfits. So basically they picked her outfits and then she would have to repeat outfits, because she didn’t have an unlimited wardrobe, which I thought was actually a very smart idea. A good sort of structure to impose upon yourself. Like we’re not going to go nuts with her wardrobe.

**Aline:** And that suited the tone of that movie which was a real exploration of her psychology. And I think when you can tell – we always talk about this, how you can tell within 30 seconds whether you’re comfortable in a movie or not. It’s just so instant. And there are those little, you know, humans are so incredibly good at scanning faces and behavior for authenticity. And the minute you see somebody doing something which doesn’t suit the world, which sticks out in some way, it’s very noticeable. But a lot of what he’s also talking about are just like poor writing clams.

And talking to yourself is a thing that writers get stuck with because they’re struggling to get exposition out. And so I think if you’re writing a scene and you’re really super tempted to have someone talk to themselves, just try and think of another way you can do it. Just try and think of another means to get that information out.

A lot of it is you may not need that information to come out then. It may be something that can come out more naturally later, and you can sort of have the character express the emotion that you’re looking for and find out the exact news item in another way.

**John:** Absolutely. The moment where the character steps in the bathroom and splashes cold water on his face, which is so cliché, and I don’t think people do in real life, find another way to sort of – you can use the look of what he would be doing in that moment to do–

**Aline:** Have you ever done it?

**John:** I’ve never done it.

**Aline:** Never splashed yourself with water. Have you ever, though, looked in the mirror and said, “John August, you go out there and give the best meeting of your life.”

**John:** Oh, I have looked at myself in the mirror and psyched myself up, but I’ve never actually spoken. So, actually, I’m curious about your opinion on mirrors. I think mirrors are incredibly helpful sometimes when I’m writing dialogue because sometimes I’ll need to look in a mirror and actually have and sort of talk through that conversation, or think through stuff. Somehow looking in a mirror is actually really helpful for me in writing sometimes.

**Aline:** I don’t do that. To me, the characters are like in a little screen projected in the back of my head.

**John:** For Big Fish, when I was writing the death scenes and stuff like that, I would look at a mirror and get myself to cry and then I–

**Aline:** No!

**John:** And then I would write those scenes. And so it was very, very method. But I would bring myself to tears and get myself–

**Aline:** This is where Craig makes jokes about your robotic programming and how you have to mimic the feelings of a human by recreating them in your software.

**John:** Absolutely. All I can say is that algorithm worked.

Final question comes from Brian Sanchez who writes, “I’m a new listener to the podcast and you guys have inspired me to try to write this idea I’ve had in my head for a sitcom, mainly just to see if I can do it. It features a Latino family and I would like the dialogue to ring true to how an actual Latino American household sounds. Growing up with Cuban parents, we constantly switched between English and Spanish in the same conversation. When writing these scenes, would you put the translations in the script, or would this be confusing to the reader?”

**Aline:** Well, in French Ladies what I did was I translated little things. I mean, I left small sentences that the other character – so if one character spoke and said something that the other character could respond to in English. So, if the French character said, you know, “Let’s go to the café for lunch.” Then the other character would say, “I don’t want to go to the café for lunch,” so that you would hear whatever information you needed to know in English. And so I often did it that way by the responding, the other character would tell us what had been said.

And then for the reading purposes I would say in French, Subtitled, and then just write it in English. That’s mainly what I did. It really depends on who you’re writing it for. And if you’re writing it as something you want to sell to an American TV audience, then – but if you’re sending it to someplace that is a Spanish language place, you could probably do both and you could then subtitle whatever one you… – You know, I’m always impressed in The Americans they super committed to the Russian. Giant long, long, long scenes, very articulate Russian. These are very highly educated people and they must have a ton of people working on that. But they super committed and then you just sit and you read the subtitles. And…

**John:** I love The Americans. And we watched all three seasons while I’ve been here.

**Aline:** Four.

**John:** Actually, I’ve only been through three seasons. Sorry. So don’t tell me what happens next.

**Aline:** Four is real good.

**John:** Oh, wait, no, maybe we did watch four.

**Aline:** Let’s tell everyone what happened now.

**John:** Let’s spoil things for people. I love to watch that show. And so we’re plowing through the show, I’ll tend to be looking at something on my iPad at the same time, or I’ll be playing a game. And then it gets to the Russian sections and you can’t follow it because you actually have to look at the screen to do stuff.

**Aline:** Are you that person who watches stuff and then is also doing other stuff?

**John:** Oh, we’re very much that family.

**Aline:** Really? So you’re watching a series and you’re also playing a game?

**John:** Sometimes, yes.

**Aline:** Wow.

**John:** I won’t do it for like a movie. But for an ongoing series, especially like things that are talky that you can sort of figure out. So I’m looking up and down to do that.

**Aline:** Wow. Wow.

**John:** Yeah. But back to the issue of multiple languages, I would say there’s two things to be thinking about. First off is what does it read like on the page. And so how do you make sure it makes sense on the page. And so italics may be a way to do it. You might just have an introductory note saying like everything you see in italics is actually in Spanish. Some way to do that just so it’s as efficient as possible on the page so you’re not wasting page space.

But really the bigger issue is thinking about what is it going to feel like to the person watching the show. And are you going to expect that they can understand the Spanish or not understand the Spanish? Maybe you’re targeting this for Telemundo where everyone would get both languages and that’s awesome.

**Aline:** Sure, I mean, Jane the Virgin is a bilingual show. In Jane the Virgin they subtitle it and I’m assuming they just reverse the subtitle or dub it for the reverse. I think anything which is clear and easy to understand.

**John:** Yeah. So, if you’re sitcom is sort of like Jane the Virgin, I would say like pull some Jane the Virgin scripts and do whatever they do because that’s working quite well for them and they’re in their fourth season.

**Aline:** They’re in their third season.

**John:** Yeah. And they’re a good show. Their show is partnered with yours currently, or not?

**Aline:** No. They are with Supergirl and we’re with Vampire Diaries now.

**John:** And when are you back on the air? So we’re recording this at the end of December. When is your next episode?

**Aline:** January 6 we are back on the air with two episodes back to back, eight and nine.

**John:** Holy cow. I’m so excited.

**Aline:** Back to back. Yeah.

**John:** I love your new introduction for the show.

**Aline:** Thank you.

**John:** I think I sent you guys an email about it, but I just adore it. And it was such a great choice to go through and sort of reframe the show based on sort of what the nature of the central dramatic question of this season is, which is like I’m just a girl in love. You can’t sort of blame me for this thing, which was actually established in the very pilot episode. It’s the thing that Donna Lynne Champlin says in the pilot.

**Aline:** Yes. You’re in love.

We – because the premise of the show changes every season, the credit sequence for the first season makes no sense, because the first season is all about, oh what, you’re here, I’m here, what, that’s so weird, that’s funny. And then the second season is really her being like, no, no, no, you love me. You love me. So, it required that.

So, we’re doing a new one, if we get a third season, we’ll be doing another one for that season. And sort of because the premise for the show is rather slender, one of the reasons that to us it seems sustainable was because we were going to take a slightly look at being an obsessive ex every year. And so that’s what keeps it kind of going. And so every year will be a slightly different look that dynamic.

**John:** Yeah. You’re not The Americans where there’s just a new Cold War bit of espionage you can throw in. It’s not a procedural where every week there can be a new thing.

**Aline:** It’s kind of unique to our show because if we had stayed in the mode of the first season, we would have run out of steam pretty quickly. And also the trajectory of being obsessively in love with someone is something that has different phases to it. And the first phase is like, what, you’re here, I’m here, that’s so weird. I don’t know why I’m in your Starbucks on the other side of town. And then the second one is like, no, we’ve slept together, and you love me. And so they’re different phases. And when we pitched it we had pitched four completely different phases of her pursuit.

**John:** Yeah. I was just impressed that you blew up your series so completely in the second season, which was a great choice. So, hooray, congratulations.

A thing we do on the show quite often is How Would this be a Movie. And usually in those cases we’re looking at three different stories in the news and discussing sort of how would you take them and make them a movie. Today we actually have a special case because we have a story, a true story that we can look at and look at sort of how it is progressing towards becoming a movie.

So, I’m going to try to give the very short encapsulation of the idea. But we’re going to hear sort of how it expands and the other ramifications of the idea. This is a story that starts in 1949. Max Schneck was found murdered. It was a scandal covered for months by all the major newspapers here in France. Journalists told the story of a man killed by his supposed lover, who cut him into pieces and traveled through France with parts of his body in his suitcase.

The story of the murder became the basis of a book, The Indestructible Mr. Schneck, written by his granddaughter, Colombe Schneck. She’s a friend of Aline’s. And she’s sitting right beside you. Welcome Colombe.

**Colombe Schneck:** Hello. Very nice listening to you. And I learn a lot.

**Aline:** So if you’ve heard those little laughs, those are Colombe.

**John:** Yes.

**Aline:** Can I say who Colombe is?

**John:** Please. Tell us everything.

**Aline:** So, Colombe’s father and my mother were friends from school, so I’ve known Colombe all my life basically. And Colombe was a journalist and she was on television and then it’s fair to say – and the radio – and it’s fair to say when she got to be about 40 they did what they do in America which is they take women and they remove them. They remove them because they can’t be seen in public. [laughs] And it was a good excuse and opportunity for Colombe to do what she had been wanting to do, which was to become a writer. And it’s just funny for us having known each other since we were born that we both ended up becoming writers.

And so Colombe has written numerous novels, nonfiction books. She’s also on the radio and has had a radio book review show. And she’s now also getting into filmmaking and has been making documentaries. And this book that you’re talking about is a book she wrote, was her second book. Her first book. Her first book. Is that the one that you’re thinking of turning into a movie?

**Colombe:** Yes. Exactly. This is the first book I wrote ten years ago. And when I wrote it I was kind of innocent. But what it means to write a book about your family. I had bumped, I don’t know, how do you say, into this incredible story in my family. I learned by accident reading a glossy newspaper. I love to read glossy newspapers. Old one. That my grandfather, Max Schneck, was murdered in 1949. At the time was a huge story in all the newspapers. You know, John, you just told us the punchline which I was I think incredible to learn that your grandfather was cut into pieces, was gay. Pieces of his body were traveled by his murderer all over France.

So, for years I kept that story in the – I don’t know how you can keep this kind of secret, because the kind of shame in my family because of that. And one day, I don’t know why you begin to think you can write. It kind of makes a mediation and freedom and say maybe I could do something about that. And I began to write the story of my grandfather with the help of my grandmother. We never talked about it for 40 years.

So, I went to do some research and went to find the newspaper of that time and I found out all this story was fiction. The newspapers made a fiction about my grandfather. He was killed by a man, but it was not his lover. They were both in love with the same woman. He was cut into pieces. He was killed by [[unintelligible 00:38:37]]. But the worst story was as interesting as the fiction story. So, I wrote a book, very simple, very short, about my grandfather and my grandmother, because all the way, all the year I wrote the story I talked to me grandmother about her life, her love for her husband. And I spoke also about my grandmother was kind of a character I didn’t know.

I tried to be sincere and tried to do something. I didn’t know it was a book or nothing. I didn’t know I could write a book. But at the end I read the thing and I thought, well, maybe I could send it to a publisher. And this great publisher published it. It was a success.

But the thing which amazed me – I wasn’t ready for that – is my family wasn’t very happy about it. I thought they would be happy to know the truth. That at least I was writing and publishing a book. And they were very mad at me. And I was very surprised. I thought they would approve.

So, ten years after that, I published many books about my family. I continue doing the bad things. And begin to do some documentary films. One day I talk of maybe it would be interesting to – I had many production house ask me to write to do the film about my first book, and it never seemed right. I didn’t like the way – we didn’t find the good films.

After all ten years, I could make the film myself and write the screenplay and maybe direct it. And that the story would be interesting, is not only the story of my grandfather, but what happened in the family when you write a book about your family.

**John:** Great. So let’s stop there and let’s all have a discussion about sort of the different ways this kind of story could be told. Because when I first met you, you told me the story. And I thought, well, that is fascinating. And so I encouraged you to pursue the movie and we talked about Sundance Labs, or other ways you could develop this kind of story.

The things that really triggered for me, is like obviously it’s this initial sensational story, but there’s a truth underneath the sensational story. But also the degree to which a scandal in the past has ripples into the present. How you don’t really want the story, the true story, necessarily to come out. And how the very process of investigating the facts, the truth, can rip a family apart. Those are very much the ideas behind Big Fish as well, which is that you have a journalist coming in who is trying to find the truth of his father’s life and ripping things apart in the process. And sort of the conflict in that. What is the writer’s responsibility to the truth versus his or her family?

Those are all great themes. But also I think really difficult and a really challenging sort of first movie to make. Aline, what’s your–?

**Aline:** What I think is really interesting about it is that there was a secret that was in the family, something she hadn’t talked about, and then sort of by lying around in her house and reading some tabloids she stumbled upon this thing. And it’s almost like this thing reached into the future and made her into a writer. And what I think is interesting is since the book was published in those years, she’s fully become this thing. And I think partly maybe people’s shock was a reaction to there’s also a thing when you become a writer.

Like I ran into my high school boyfriend really early in my 20s and he said, “What are you doing?” And I said I’m a writer. And he said, “You’re a writer?” And then he said, “You tell people that?” And for some reason people find it insulting. And also because when you’re a writer your responsibility is to tell the truth and this was a truth that people don’t want.

And I remember the very first time I met Peter Morgan, who writes primarily nonfiction-based things, we were sitting on a panel together and somebody was talking about the difficulty of working on real life stories. And he said, “We’re assassins aren’t we?” And that really has stuck with me, because I have another friend whose sister-in-law is quite a famous novelist and her rule is if you don’t want me to write about, don’t do it or say it in front of me. Because otherwise it’s fair game.

So, I do think it’s really interesting that this story is the thing that sort of made Colombe a writer. And then she experienced kind of a larger version of what most people do, which is people didn’t want her to be telling her truths. And she’s then gone on to tell stories about the apartment she grew up in and her family’s experience in the Holocaust. And they’re really amazing books. Are any of them available in English, by the way? No?

**Colombe:** No, it’s French-language published, and German, and Lithuanian.

**Aline:** Not English yet?

**Colombe:** Not yet.

**Aline:** They’re really wonderful books. So, but I think it’s a very good way to approach it. So it’s like a detective story where you’re becoming this thing and you’re following this thing and sort of how it affects everyone you know.

**John:** But what I find so fascinating is that you are a character in this story. In almost any version of the story that we’re telling, you are the protagonist of the story. You’re the character who changes. Who comes from being a person who is not investigating the past, to starting to investigate the past, and the process changes you and makes you into this thing. So, in any version of the story presumably your grandfather is a character in the story and we’re going to see an arc through there. But it’s so interesting, like Big Fish is obviously autobiographical both to me and to the original author, Daniel Wallace. But we got to be able to hide behind, like, oh, it’s a fictional story. That’s not me. That’s not my name. That’s not who I am.

And this – it’s going to be a process no matter what you do. That character is you and you’re going to be exposing yourself–

**Aline:** Can you think of a movie like that where somebody has – I mean, there’s All the President’s Men. There’s lots of movies like that. Spotlight, or whatever. But what are movies where the person, the first person, I’m sure there are. I’m thinking about–

**John:** A movie that I didn’t end up writing, but I ended up sort of circling around was called Born to Run. And was about this journalist who decides to start running. And one of the challenges I really faced is that he was the character in the story, but I didn’t feel like he was a movie character in the story. And so where are your responsibilities? Your responsibility is to yourself, to truth, to the story, and in order to make the best version of the story you may need to change certain aspects of what you really did.

**Aline:** You’ve already written the screenplay?

**Colombe:** Yes. And one of the characters in the screenplay, the character who is telling the story, says I’m a thief, because you take story from, you know, from your family, from people around you. But you also are a liar. I’m a thief and a liar. But I changed things to make it as a story, as a good fiction.

So, that writer is a very bad character. And I want to tell about that. But there’s no other way around. [[Unintelligible 00:45:05]] how much he steals from his family life, his wife, his mistress, and put them in a book and his films, like for the arrangement. And how it’s difficult for his wife to see her character in the arrangement of the awful wife. But there’s no other way around it. There’s a way we should all do that. We are all thief and liar. And those are the things of a good writer.

**John:** But usually we get to hide behind the veneer of fiction and pretend like, oh, no, no, that’s not really you. And, of course, in this situation there’s no way to do that. And so you also face the dilemma of, you know, your family already had the frustration over your book. But a movie is going to be reopening those wounds.

**Colombe:** It’s a mother/daughter story, so I changed – this is the real lie. This is my imagination and I could put so much more writing and that’s when I have fun.

**John:** There’s the simplification that can happen, because obviously there’s going to be more characters than you need to do. There are characters who aren’t going to be relevant to this. So, you can do some trimming around there [[crosstalk 00:46:06]].

**Colombe:** I remember one of my book, I wrote about my family, there’s one character close to my family was a person, a real person, was very unhappy at me because I didn’t put her in the book. She was really like pissed off and furious. And she doesn’t want to speak to me anymore because I didn’t put her in the book. And she felt she was very important in my family. But, I didn’t need her for the story. So, that’s true, we are all liars. We take people and, no, no, yes, this one yes. This sentence, I like it, but I’m going to change it. So, that’s a problem.

**John:** One of the most frequently asked questions we get on the podcast is I want to do a story about a real life person, and what are my obligations and responsibilities? And it’s obviously messy, because if someone is in your life and you’re portraying sort of who they are in your life, that’s fair game to a large degree. But if you are libeling them, then that can be a real issue as well.

And so, I mean, obviously you’re going to be sensitive to like not making them absolutely monsters. Or, if they’re monsters, not making them do something that is patently false. Or like kill a person that they didn’t actually kill.

But it becomes a real tricky issue.

**Colombe:** Yeah. When I take a character, pass them around me, and put it in a character in a book, in a screenplay, it’s not the person anymore. It’s a personage. It’s a fiction person. It’s not the person. I don’t feel – maybe I can take a few things, but most of those things come from my imagination. I will change them. I will talk to him and I don’t feel any responsibility for the person. Because that’s not even him anymore.

**John:** Yeah. I always feel like my first responsibility is to the audience. And it’s the person who is going to be watching this movie and making sure that they can follow and understand the story I’m trying to tell them. And, yes, you have other responsibilities to, you know, the other filmmakers involved and to the people giving you the money, and everyone else. But, I mean, your first responsibility is what does this story want to have happen so you can tell the best version of the story.

**Colombe:** For instance, for this first screenplay I’m writing about my grandparents, my grandmother [[unintelligible 00:48:04]] I was a great character for a book. She was very, how do you say [[unintelligible 00:48:09]] in English? Cranky. And she was bit panicked. And she was really – she was very funny. She was a very good character. But so I took so many things from her, which I will, but also I put more so I make it more funny, because I need more. You know? I need some humor.

**John:** So let’s talk about where you are at right now with your process and trying to get this into a movie. Because when I first met you, you’re a novelist who has made documentaries. You have this great story. To me, it seems like a slam dunk. Well, she’s going to be able to do this. But it’s not easy to do this. It’s a challenging step. And probably different – I’m not saying more challenging – but different to try to do it here in France than it would be to do it in the States.

**Colombe:** Yeah. When you write a novel you do [[unintelligible 00:48:52]] fiction. It’s great because you have all the freedom of the world. You can invent your methods. You can invent the way you write. You go where you want to go. There’s no rules. Which his kind of frightening and difficult sometimes, because you have to invent what you’re going to do.

And when I begin to write screenplays, which I like very much, it’s suddenly you have rules. You have things you cannot do. It’s a more collective process. And I like it very much.

And the problem I had is I put too much talk, too much blah, blah, blah…

**John:** Just dialogue, yeah.

**Colombe:** Dialogue. I’m a writer. And difficult to admit. I need to translate this blah, blah, blah into images. So this is the difficulty I had.

As a documentary writer, which is great, documentary film director I like because you don’t have to invent anything, you know. You film and great things happen in front of you. It’s wonderful. It’s like, wow. I haven’t done anything but the person are doing things for me.

This I had to myself. So, this is what the difficult things I had to–

**Aline:** Translating. That’s a great way to put it. Translating the blah, blah, blah into images is as concise an explanation of what being… – And when I started writing I was also very dialogue-based, because that’s just how my brain works. And I was writings wraps and wraps of dialogue. And I would have to go back and put in action things into the page so that it wasn’t just tons and tons of people talking.

And that’s something I still find that – over time that’s something that’s difficult for writers is to figure out how can I just have this happen without commenting, or announcing, or, you know, it’s a skill you learn. It’s like any of the other things that you learn. But I think it’s very brave and interesting to go from journalism, to fiction, to nonfiction, to documentary films, to fiction films is, you know, she’s made the transition so many times before.

**John:** Yes. That’s why I’m convinced you’ll be able to do it, because I think screenwriting is like journalism. There’s a lot of structure to it. It’s like fiction writing in that you’re trying to build out a world that doesn’t exist beforehand. It’s documentaries in that you are trying to find a way to tell a story cinematically rather than just with words. So, I have a hunch it’s going to work, but I’m fascinated to see sort of what’s going to happen next.

So, thank you for sharing this part of the process so early on.

**Colombe:** I don’t know. [[Unintelligible 00:51:15]] New things, you know, when I first went into journalism, or to write a story, I didn’t know how to do it, you know? I just had to do it. And well I shouldn’t think too much about what I’m doing. When I was writing my first fiction book, my first book about my family, I think maybe it’s going to be nothing, or maybe it’s going to be a book. I don’t know. I’m going to do it and we’ll see after. When I did documentary films, it was the same kind of process. Now, I’ve kind of experienced what I’m able to do, the way I’m working, and so I’m less innocent about the way I’m going to do these fiction films. But I still – the truth is I still don’t know.

I can even things and face problems and try to respond to it. I don’t know if this is a good American way to do it. But–

**John:** Yeah. It’s absolutely the American way to do it.

It has come time for our wrap up segment which is One Cool Things. So, at the end of every episode we talk about One Cool Thing. So, I don’t know if we warned you about One Cool Things.

**Aline:** I will tell you my One Cool Thing. I have a very good One Cool Thing. So, I’m in Paris and the dollar is quite strong. And then there’s duty free. So, I went to Hermes to buy a scarf for myself and for my mother. So, I–

**John:** This is the most Aline One Cool Thing ever. It’s great.

**Aline:** Yes. So I go in to buy the scarf and I’m picking out some ones that I like. And I find one that I like and the woman and I were speaking in French, which is always fun for me to get to use my French. And she’s chatting away in French. And I pick one and she says, “No, that’s not good for you.” [laughs] And I said, “Oh, really? I like this one.” And she says, “No. No, no, no. This is not good.”

And then I am trying not to be bossed around by her, and I’m saying, “No, no, I like this one. Show me some other ones. But I like this one.” She’s just showing me other ones and I’m noticing that that one is scooting away from. It’s just scooting down and into the drawer, never to be seen again. She was just not going to sell me the scarf that she thought did not look good on me.

And so she just kept bringing me new ones, and new ones, and new ones until I found one that I liked as well. And it just was the perfect French experience of buying something, you know, overpriced in the best way and being completely bossed and judged and having their aesthetics imposed on you. And I couldn’t have been happier. By the end we were great friends.

**John:** Speaking for Craig I have to say like that’s crazy. There’s no way that’s a One Cool Thing. That is actually some sort of like weird – it’s the failure of the commercial system. That’s amazing, and yet I do understand sort of what happened there.

**Aline:** I absolutely trust her and I know that this was better than the thing I had picked out.

**Colombe:** One of the cool things I’ve done this year, and this is not far from Aline. For my screenplay, the mother and the daughter are walking in the shop, selling clothes, which is kind of my fantasy. Walking in the story, selling clothes. A family business [unintelligible 00:54:17] store, you know, like we have. So, for a week, I went to a store being a seller to help me to write my screenplay. And I just love it. I just love it. To be able to – it’s like to be in a movie theater. You know?

You hear and you watch the women coming in and they all when they come in the store they all are depressed. That’s what the seller told me. They need something, but they don’t know what they need. So you have to help them to go out from the depression. It’s a depression selling them a dress or scarf or anything.

**John:** Or a Hermes scarf.

**Colombe:** Or Hermes, yes. So you look at them and you listen to them. And you help them. So, this week of selling clothes was one of the best things I’ve done this year.

**Aline:** Wow.

**John:** Very nice. My One Cool Thing is a book. It’s called Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy.

**Aline:** Colombe and I ripped out some girly stuff about clothes. Yeah.

**John:** So it’s a book I read. It’s by Cathy O’Neil. She’s also the host of a podcast I like a lot. I’ll put a link in the show notes to it. But her book is really good. It’s about the degree to which the algorithms behind big data, which are meant to sort of make things more equal and fairer, like for like credit lending or for sentencing for criminal offenses, for getting into college. They have all these computer algorithms, which should make things more fair. Because they’re supposed to be taking race out of it and things. But they end up sort of baking the race and poverty into it. And it ends up making things much, much worse.

And so just a great book, a quick, easy read.

**Aline:** I have notes on our One Cool Things. I think they’re clams. They’re just too on-the-nose. Yes, all of us. We just did. It was too on-the-nose what we did.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Aline:** If I had had the algorithm book and you had had the Hermes scarf that would have been more interesting. Yeah, we’d make different choices.

**John:** Yeah. We got to do this again. That is our show for this week.

So, as always, our show is produced—

**Colombe:** Très bien. Merci.

**John:** Très bien. Our show is produced by Godwin Jabangwe. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is also from Matthew. If you have an outro, you can send us a link at ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. On Twitter Craig, who is not here, is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. Aline is not on Twitter. Sorry.

**Aline:** Oh, you know what? I’m going to do it.

**John:** Oh, okay. So when Aline has a Twitter handle–

**Aline:** I’m going to – should I do it? Rachel tells me all the time I should do it.

**John:** You should totally do it.

**Aline:** I’m going to do it.

**John:** Once you have a Twitter handle, we will give you – we’ll put it on the air?

**Aline:** I’m doing it. Are you sure? Oh, okay, you’re on Twitter and Instagram.

**Colombe:** @ColombeSchneck.

**Aline:** Colombe Schneck.

**John:** Colombe Schneck is also on the Instagram and on Twitter.

**Aline:** Okay. If I go on Twitter and I don’t like it…

**John:** It’s fine. She’ll leave. You can leave and protest. Because actually part of the process of being on Twitter is leaving Twitter. [laughs]

**Aline:** That’s a thing everything does at some point?

**John:** You have to do it. You have to leave it.

You can find us on Facebook. Just search for Scriptnotes podcast, or on iTunes. Search for Scriptnotes. That’s also where you’ll find the app for listening to the back episodes. You can find the show notes for this episode, and all the back episodes, at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. They go up about four days after the episode airs.

We have like 20 of the USB drives left. Very, very few. But you can always get to all the back episodes of Scriptnotes on Scriptnotes.net.

And for Aline Brosh McKenna, Colombe Schneck, I’m John August. Thank you very much for joining us on Scriptnotes.

**Aline:** Au revoir.

**John:** Au revoir.

Links:

* [Scriptnotes Midnight Blue T-shirt](https://cottonbureau.com/products/scriptnotes-midnight-blue)
* [Scriptnotes Gold Standard T-shirt](https://cottonbureau.com/products/scriptnotes-gold-standard)
* [More Of The Same: Excerpts Of Self-Sabotage](https://moreofthesame.squarespace.com/blog/2016/12/21/an-open-letter-to-a-town-in-transition)
* [Turning Point: Carrie Fisher’s Latest Star Turn](http://www.newsweek.com/turning-point-carrie-fishers-latest-star-turn-83217?rx=us)
* [Weapons of Math Destruction](https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Math-Destruction-Increases-Inequality/dp/0553418815)
* [Colombe Schneck](https://twitter.com/ColombeSchneck) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Get your 250 episode USB](http://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/250-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_282.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 268: (Sometimes) You Need a Montage — Transcript

September 27, 2016 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2016/sometimes-you-need-a-montage).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 268 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the podcast we will be looking at montages and why they’re not the great evil they’re often made out to be. Plus, Final Draft has just released version 10.0 of their eponymous app. Will this be the one that makes Craig finally admit he’s loved them all along?

**Craig:** Yeah. What a mystery that is.

**John:** So, I think maybe like you’re the Darcy and she’s the Jane Bennet and like all this time she keeps showing up and you keep dismissing her, but maybe she’s really the one you’re meant for.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Maybe you’re destined to end up with Final Draft.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m waiting for Final Draft to take off her glasses. And then I’ll realize–

**John:** Yeah, yeah. That’s it. It’s really the glasses that have been the whole problem.

**Craig:** I just never realized how beautiful your eyes were. [sings] If you leave, don’t look back. Please…

Oh boy. That’s ‘80s Craig. ‘80s Craig is coming out.

**John:** Don’t sing any more of that, or else we’re going to have to pay for lights.

**Craig:** God help us.

**John:** Last week on the program we discussed writers who lived and worked outside of Los Angeles and New York and London. And we had some great people who wrote in for that segment. We also had some people who didn’t fit into that segment, or wrote in late, so we have a bunch of those stories. They’re going to be up on the blog at johnaugust.com, so you can read those. And there’s a few audio ones, so we might cut those together as a bonus episode. We’ll sort of see how it works out. But thank you to everybody who wrote in and recorded yourself talking about your experiences working outside of Los Angeles.

**Craig:** I like this new – I listened to our last podcast, by the way.

**John:** Oh my gosh. Let me sit down for a second.

**Craig:** Yeah, so that’s number one. And, you know, it’s not a bad show. I got to say. It’s just not bad. [laughs] After 260-some odd of these.

I like this new feature where people ask their questions as if they’re calling in.

**John:** Yeah, so we’re never going to be a Karina Longworth. We’re never going to be a You Must Remember This, which is like highly produced and written and just gorgeous and beautiful. But, we do our own thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, but Karina herself is highly produced and beautiful. We’re, you know, we’re just two guys.

**John:** Yeah. We’re just two slobs with Skype.

**Craig:** Just standing here asking for you to love us.

**John:** Exactly. One of the people who wrote in last week and sent stuff for us to look at was Rachael Speal. And she’s the one who sent us the pre-teen detective story. So, here’s what she wrote after she listened to the episode.

“As you mentioned, the solving the crime is not the real story. I thought of it more as a coming of age story about a girl living in the hood who is caught between two worlds: the world she lives in, where there’s little chance of success, and where she would like to be successful, etc. I’d call it a mashup of Princess and the Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete, with some sharp humor.”

I don’t know either of those things, but great.

“I also thought to tie it into the unrest that’s happening with the police and the black community by giving her a brother who is readily harassed by the police. This would be another source of conflict since she wants to become one of the people who regularly harasses your community.”

That was Rachael’s take on this story that she sent in. Craig, what do you think of Rachael’s take?

**Craig:** I’ll be honest with you. I’m not a big fan of that. And here’s why. Putting aside that I also don’t know what a mashup of Princess and the Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete is. It sounds like you want there to be sharp humor. And it sounds like what you want to do is reposition this story into an inner city community and that’s fine. No problem with that.

Where I’m starting to get a little worried is you’re attempting to tack on a very serious social issue onto your teen-as-an-adult genre comedy. And those things don’t really live together very well. Either I’m meant to enjoy this as the kind of inevitably adorable child-solves-crimes type of story, or I’m meant to feel like this is a very real story about a very serious problem. I don’t know how you do both at the same time. I think one would just hurt the other.

**John:** If you look at her question though, she’s not saying comedy at any point. She’s saying coming of age story. So, I think there’s something that she’s getting at which is essentially the police basically shut her down saying, “No, no, nothing was stolen.” And she’s like, no, there really was. Basically her coming of age is basically recognizing that this system is not there to protect her and she has to take the law into her own hands.

**Craig:** Yeah. I just don’t believe that story. That’s my problem. I don’t – there are certain things – whenever I go in and talk to a studio about something a lot of times they will have a project where they’re saying everything here except the idea is wrong. We don’t like the tone. We don’t even like the genre. We want something totally different.

The first question I ask is: what are the things that are inherent to the concept, that are baked in, that you can’t really walk away from because then you have essentially nothing? And to me if you have a 12-year-old girl solving crimes, I just don’t understand how that could possibly be serious. It could be coming of age. I could see that. But then if it’s coming of age, I don’t see how the coming of age can be intertwined in any way that takes her “job” seriously. You know, having a brother who is saying, “You’re becoming part of this institution that oppresses our people,” is not compatible with, “I’m 12 and I want to solve a crime.”

It just doesn’t – I don’t see how that connects. I just think that both things would end up undercutting each other and you’d end up with the dreaded fish with feathers.

**John:** I can definitely see that. There’s something about the 12-year-old girl that it’s not Home Alone, but there is essentially like she’s showing up the grown-ups. It always kind of feels like a comedy and it’s very hard to sort of push yourself completely away from what that is.

And so you’d have to make your world very, very, very dark in order for me to believe that this is what it is. And then I’m not sure I’m eager to sign on to seeing your movie.

**Craig:** I love a good coming of age story. I think that coming of age stories are wonderful because they treat children like the small adults that they are. The sheep movie that I’ve written, even though it’s a whodunit, is really a coming of age story. That was the thing that attracted me to it the most because sheep are grown animals, but they are childlike. So, it was interesting watching theoretical adults go through a coming of age story. And I think that this is an area that’s underserved. I’d love to see a coming of age story set in the inner city, set among child who are of color. That’s interesting.

And I don’t necessarily want to see that muddied by what is essentially a high concept hook. High concept immediately begins to take you one step away from reality. And so that’s my issue here. I just don’t know if these two flavors go together.

**John:** Yeah. When I was reading this aloud, I almost said Precious instead of Princess, and Precious is an example of an inner city movie where you have this heroine who is facing such insurmountable odds. And there’s nothing about them that is inherently comedic. It’s just grim kind of throughout. And there might be a way that Rachael could do this movie with – there’s a way Rachael could probably write this movie, but the centerpiece of that is probably not going to be this girl junior detective. I mean, there’s something about that that’s not really at the heart of that.

**Craig:** No. Because it’s trivializing. I mean, it’s hard to say. Any time children do the adult job, it’s kind of trivializing the adult job. And, you know, a movie that takes a stark blinder-less look at a serious problem can’t afford to then also present something else in a way that feels artificial. In any story in which a child does an adult job is almost certainly going to have that artifice to it.

By the way, we have to have Lee Daniels on the show, because Precious is one of my favorite movies. I’m obsessed with that movie.

**John:** It’s so good.

**Craig:** Obsessed. It’s so – it is – that is such a great example. When we talk about specificity of voice, I can’t imagine anyone else in the world making that movie.

**John:** Absolutely true. Cool.

Our next topic is Austin Film Festival. So, Craig, you are headed to the Austin Film Festival, which is October 13 through 20, but there’s no Scriptnotes. Is that correct?

**Craig:** There is no live Scriptnotes. However, because you are far, far away, what I am going to do is try and pick up at least two – at least two – very cool interviews for us. Katie Dippold will certainly be one of them.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** So I will get a wonderful interview with Katie Dippold, who wrote Ghostbusters and The Heat and Spy. And I’m going to also try and pick up – I might see if I can get Mike Weber and Scott Neustadter, which would be fun. I’m arguing with Scott Alexander of Alexander and Karaszewski about doing it. He’s like, no, it’s my weekend to have fun. I don’t care, Scott.

**John:** It could take an hour to do this.

**Craig:** You sit down and freaking talk to me. So, I’ll work on Scott, because he’s the greatest. And those two guys have had just the most remarkable career. They are very rare in that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything of theirs that’s bad.

**John:** They’re so good.

**Craig:** Ever. And they work in every different kind of genre. But I’ll be picking up at least a couple of good one-on-ones. So we’ll get something good out of it for sure.

**John:** Very, very good. And you’re going to be doing a couple different panels while you’re there, so people can see you at least live in person.

**Craig:** Again, I will be doing my seminar on structure, which is fun and entertaining and hopefully enlightening for you. It always seems to get positive feedback from the group there. And it’s actually one of the nice things about Austin is that they do ask people. So, I’m going to be doing that again, and that’s a good one. The current schedule seems to be incorrect. I think it was my mistake, because I misinformed them about when my flight was leaving.

So, currently it’s listed for Sunday. It won’t be Sunday. I believe it will be Saturday. I will be doing a panel with Lindsay Doran, which should be terrific. And that’s just Lindsay and I talking about what it’s like to work with a producer, what it’s like to work with a screenwriter. How things can go right, which is a rare topic for us. That will be a nice little intimate discussion which I would love for people to come see.

And lastly I will be one of the judges of the final pitch competition thing, to crown the ultimate winner of Austin’s Pitch Festival competition thing.

**John:** You are a brave, brave man, Craig Mazin.

**Craig:** Yes. I will be the Simon Cowell of this thing. I should probably know the name of it if I’m going to be one of the final judges.

**John:** It’s the End of the Pitch Competition, basically.

**Craig:** I mean, I did – I don’t know if you ever did this at Austin. One year I judged the finals of the screenplay competition. Did you ever do that?

**John:** Okay. I think I’ve done the pitch competition. I’ve introduced the pitch competition final thing. As I recall, it was in a place that was like far too noisy and people were trying to pitch in like a crowded bar. It was basically the worst possible place for it. I’m sure it’s evolved from that point forward. But it’s a nighttime thing. You’ll get through it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m actually looking forward to it, because it feels like more of a party frankly. I mean, I don’t know how many people are actually pitching to be in the finals, but I can’t imagine it’s too many. The pitches are really short. And then there’s a party. So, I’m down for the party.

**John:** Cool. If you are not able to join Craig in Austin, there’s a chance to get a little piece of the Austin experience. So, the Austin Film Festival does this PBS series called On Story where they sit down with the filmmakers and writers to talk about the movies that they’ve worked on. So, there’s a new book coming out, it’s coming out in October, so it’s out in time for the film festival. It’s screenwriters and filmmakers on their iconic films. So, basically they’ve transcribed all of the interviews from these different people, so they have Ron Howard, Callie Khouri, Jonathan Demme, Ted Tally, Jenny Lumet, Harold Ramis, and a bunch of other folks talking about it. So, there will be a link in the show notes if you want to see this book that they’ve put together of all of their interviews.

**Craig:** Those things are terrific, honestly, if you care about what we do.

**John:** Yeah. Which we do. So, let’s get to some questions from our listeners. And so once again we have audio. I’m so excited to have the audio now. First off we have Eric in Chicago. Here is what he said.

Eric in Chicago: Hi John and Craig. My wife and I are produced screenwriters with one feature released and a second one in preproduction. We’re considering what our next project should be, and we have a script that we wrote several years ago that we still love and would like to pursue producing. But, the catch is the director who asked us to write the script is also claiming ownership of the project because he asked us to write it for a professional athlete who was interested in getting into acting.

He only laid out the barest of premises and we took it from there, developing, outlining, and writing the screenplay. When the athlete lost interest, the director dropped the project and didn’t do anymore with it. We have no contract with anyone and no money ever changed hands. So, who owns the rights?

**John:** Craig, what do you think? Who owns the rights?

**Craig:** I do believe based on the circumstances Eric has laid out here that not only do he and his wife currently own the rights, I believe he and his wife always controlled the rights to this screenplay, because no money changed hands. There was no contract. Nobody ever asked Eric and his wife to sign a statement saying that this was a work-for-hire. This isn’t based on underlying material, as far as I can tell. He’s implying that this was a project that was for a professional athlete to act in, but wasn’t about that professional athlete’s life, so that professional athlete doesn’t even have a claim of life rights.

So essentially they wrote a screenplay that is original to them and they own the copyright 100% lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. The only issue for them is that, of course, the fact that you do own something doesn’t prevent somebody from coming along later and saying, “Wait, wait, wait.” I love that the director claimed ownership. I don’t think the director understands what the word claim or ownership means.

However, they may come back if you attempt to sell this and say, “Wait, wait, wait,” at which point it’s customary that they be granted some fake producing title and perhaps a little bit of money or something. But as far as I can tell, you guys own this completely.

**John:** I agree. I think in the issue of copyright, they’re pretty well set. There was no contract. Nothing changed hands. This director was asking them to write a script on spec, which is basically just like, hey, let’s take a leap of faith together. And then the director jumped off. They still own the script. So, it’s fine.

I agree with you that the reality of this gets made, that director is going to come back and he’s going to ask for something. It will end up being some sort of crazy producer credit. Whatever. You’ll deal with it when the time comes.

The only thing I would say in the general sense is it’s great that you had movies made and a second one in production, going back to your old stuff that you loved and kind of worked on a while back, it’s unlikely I think that you’re going to get that movie made. I would say don’t spend a tremendous percentage of your time trying to get that old movie made. Keep working on the next thing, and the next thing. Because trying to resurrect old, dead projects is just a giant time suck. And it’s not usually the best use of your time and resources.

**Craig:** That is a great, great point. And maybe the path of easiest and smartest resistance, if resistance can be smart, is if you’re working with somebody who is legitimate and they ask you if there’s any other things that you have. Sometimes they’ll say things like, “Do you have anything in your drawer?” And you can feel free to hand them that. And if they love it, then just say, okay, here’s the situation by the way. These are the facts. But, hey, if you want to figure out how to do this. Now it’s their problem. Now they want to make it. You’re not trying to do anything. And they will handle these other people for you.

And suddenly this problem just goes away.

**John:** I agree. Our next question from Octavia Barren Martin in Australia. And this is what she said when she wrote in.

Octavia in Australia: Hi John and Craig, as we say in Australia. I’m a screenwriting student here in Sidney, and I’m currently making my second flawed attempt at a screenplay. And I have a question about writing sex scenes. Now, I have a scene that’s not just an excuse for boobs. It’s, you know, instrumental to the plot, but I just want to know how much detail to include.

At the moment I’m kind of vacillating wildly between Lawrence Kasdan’s Body Heat and the deliberately glued together pages of the sexual reproduction manuals that my religious high school kept in their library. Which is best? Thank you. Big fan of the podcast. Cheers.

**John:** First off, I love Octavia’s voice. And I love the accent. And I’m not quite sure – I’m sure there are people who are actually professional specialists who can tell me what exactly it is that is so special about that Australian accent. It’s not a vocal fry, but it’s like the vocal fry that you hear Australian women particularly do. It’s just kind of great.

So, I just loved hearing that aloud. And if we read it aloud ourselves, we wouldn’t have any of that quality.

**Craig:** No. Australians manage to shove four or five vowels into the same space where Americans use one. Cry. Cryyyyyy. It’s like, Denyyyyy. Love it.

What a great question, by the way, and it took just a second for me to understand that Octavia was not asking about not five, not seven, but six scenes. No, no, no, not six scenes. Sex scenes. Sex. Sex scenes as we say here.

So, writing sex scenes should be an awkward experience for everyone involved. I mean, writing about sex is – what do they really say – it’s like, I don’t know, dancing about food or something. It’s just hard to do.

And I have written a couple. I don’t really like sex scenes to be honest with you. They take me out of movies. That’s just my personal opinion. I mean, there have been some terrific ones. But writing them is difficult and awkward. I think that the first question you have to ask, Octavia, is what is it that I want the audience to see.

If you’ve decided that nudity is important and explicit sexual activity is important, then be explicit. But then be explicit – my instinct is to be explicit in the way that the camera is explicit. That is to say not flowery. Not “erotic.” But presentational. Because I think that what you’re meaning to say is this is really happening. It is a real experience here. So, let me describe what’s happening.

So, I would probably go more for a “you are there” style and the reader understand that they’re watching a real sexual experience. If it’s meant to be sort of romantic and oh-ah, then I think you probably leave out the parts where you refer to nipples and butts and just speak a little bit more impressionistically. And then hopefully the filmmakers and the producers and everybody will ask for you to clarify, but they’ll get your intent from that.

**John:** I completely agree in terms of focusing on what we’re actually going to see on screen. That you don’t have to – this isn’t novel writing, so this isn’t where you have to create the actual feeling of what it would be like to be in that moment. This is really like what it would be like to be watching this moment happen in front of you.

The other thing I would say is that I think you and I are both thinking like this is like a 9 ½ Weeks sex scene, or there’s something where it’s a silent sex scene where it’s all about the sex. Like the first Terminator has a really great sex scene in it, and it’s just about the sex. There’s music playing, but it’s just about the sex.

But a lot of sex scenes are actually dialogue scenes. That may be really what you’re going to be focusing on here is like if there’s talking during it, if they’re moving back and forth between positions, but they’re having discussion. If it’s funny. If there’s anything that’s not just the visuals of like these two bodies intersecting, write that part, and then you don’t have to worry so much about all the scene description that’s taking up the space on the page to indicate that this is not just a one-eighth of a page quick sex scene.

**Craig:** Yeah. I feel like there’s two kinds of sex scenes fundamentally in movies where let’s call them two kinds of consensual sex scenes that you see in movies. One kind is the kind that is a realistic view of sexuality. People may be talking through it. There’s some kind of relationship point that’s occurring. Maybe character changes are happening. Revelations are occurring. It can be fumbling, awkward, adorable. I’m using all these things.

And then the other kind is two people are having sex and you could play Take My Breath Away over it and the camera could slowly drift away towards a fireplace. That second kind, that’s like 90% of sex scenes. So, the Terminator one is a really good sex scene. That definitely falls under the Take My Breath Away/cut to fireplace.

**John:** 100%. It’s the interlocking fingers. It’s all of those things that I think are now really clichés, but like it was the first time I saw it, so wow, that’s what sex looks like.

**Craig:** It’s so not at all what sex looks like.

**John:** It isn’t.

**Craig:** Sex looks like [laughs] – sex looks like the inside of my shut eyes while I’m trying to get rid of my shame.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That’s not true.

**John:** Maybe we won’t talk anymore about that.

**Craig:** No, my sex life is wonderful.

**John:** It’s all good. So, my advice for Octavia is just really look at what is the purpose of the sex scene, what are the – again, we’re going to say specificity, but what is it about this sex scene that is different from other sex scenes? And that may be your clue into how to make this sex scene less awkward for you to write and also more enjoyable for the reader to read.

**Craig:** Hey, Octavia.

**John:** Ugh.

**Craig:** Yeah, Sexy Craig here. Sexy Craig. No faces. Just body parts. I don’t want to look at faces. Tell me more about that book.

**John:** [sighs] All right. Let’s get on to our big topics of the week.

**Craig:** That’s a big class sigh.

**John:** Let’s move onto our big topic of the week. So, we actually have two craft topics this week. I had the first one here. This is because, so I’m busy writing Arlo Finch, so I’m owing them my draft, so I’m cranking through pages and chapters.

So, most of Arlo Finch takes place in what we think about as scenes. So that is you have characters who are in one moment dealing with the things that are right there in front of them. And really most popular fiction that you read is written that way, where characters are in a space, they’re having conversation in that space. And then they are going to leave that space and time and move onto a new place.

When you’re writing that kind of stuff, you often have an omniscient narrator’s point of view, so you can fill in things from the past. You can sort of blur the edges of the present a little bit. But usually you’re kind of in one space in time.

But, that’s not always the way it is in prose fiction. And sometimes you’ll encounter in prose fiction things that have no relation to time or place. They’re not pinned to any one specific moment.

And so an example being Pride & Prejudice, going back to Darcy once again. Most of Pride & Prejudice takes place in scenes, where like you’re in a moment. You’re at this dance and she’s seeing these things happen in this time and place.

But here’s an example from kind of later in the book. She writes: “Nor did that day wear out her resentment. A week elapsed before she could see Elizabeth without scolding her, a month passed away before she could speak to Sir William or Lady Lucas without being rude, and many months were gone before she could at all forgive their daughter.”

So here in the course of two sentences, we’ve gone through months. And you’re filling in a bunch of details that happened, but there’s not like one scene. There’s not one moment that’s happening in those.

That’s prose fiction. But, I think the equivalent that we see in movies is montages, where we’re not so bound to one place and one time. So, I wanted to talk about what montages are and how we can use them effectively in screenwriting.

**Craig:** You know, there’s an interesting history to montages. The original use of the term montage was really just for editing. So, instead of showing two people in a oner talking and then one leaves the scene, the idea was that you could cut a close up of one person and then a close up of another inside of a master shot and essentially what we call coverage now. And they called this a montage.

And then an editor named Slavko Vorkapic, which may be the greatest name in film history.

**John:** That’s a great name.

**Craig:** Slavko Vorkapic came up with this other thing that they started called the Vorkapic which was what we now think of as the montage. A collage of scenes, often set to music, without dialogue, that sped through a longer amount of time in a dream-like way. And he was called upon, you know what we need here, we need a Vorkapic. Get Slavko Vorkapic to do this for us. And he would.

Over time, of course, this just became known as the montage. And unfortunately you and I, children of the ‘80s, ‘70s and ‘80s, we know that the montage became this overused cliché thing that happened in every action movie and every teen comedy where somebody had to get beautiful, get strong, get skilled. And so they did it within 45 seconds set to a terrible ‘80s song.

**John:** A power ballad usually.

**Craig:** Power ballad usually. You know, and “You’re the best, around.” I mean, that’s the ultimate, right? The Karate Kid 1. And–

**John:** But in the South Park Movie, “You Need a Montage.” I mean, it’s absolutely true.

**Craig:** “You need a montage.” And where it got absurd was that the montage became this kind of lame-o way of doing what’s supposed to be the best part of movies, which is watching the caterpillar turn into a butterfly was reduced down to some 40-second baloney song. And it was just unbelievable. But that’s just an abuse of montage. There are some terrific ways to use montage, and you still see them, it’s just they’re not quite so hammer to the face.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s talk about sort of why montages get a knock in scripts. I think a lot of times you see a montage, if you see a montage in a movie, sometimes you can sense like, oh you know what, that really wasn’t supposed to be a montage. They were just trying to cut through a bunch of stuff. So, a bunch of little scenes got sort of chopped up into a montage that were never supposed to be a montage. So that’s one thing.

But a lot of times in a script level you’ll see the writer is just basically trying to cheat and rush through a bunch. They’re trying to get their page count down, so they’ll take a bunch of little small scenes and bullet point them as a montage when they’re not really a montage. They’re really just a bunch of small scenes.

The reason why line producers hate montages is they actually take a tremendous amount of time to shoot. Because like you’re going to this location, that location, this location, that location. Well, every time you’re going to a new location, that’s a tremendous expense of time and money for a production.

And so line producers will go through your script and they’ll see a montage and they’ll just shudder because they know that actually is a lot of work. A lot more work than it looks like in the script.

And then, of course, the real problem is they’re just such a cliché. And so so often you’ll see the training montage, the she gets beautiful montage, the whatever to get from one place to another place montage where we’ve seen it so many times that it’s painful to watch it.

**Craig:** Yeah. You really aren’t allowed anymore to have somebody train in a montage. That’s done. You can’t do it. It’s not that South Park killed it, but South Park simply sang the funeral song. It was already dead.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, that you can’t do anymore. Nor can you do – and training montage isn’t just I’m getting strong, or I’m learning how to fight. It is also I’m changing my appearance. Or perhaps the worst of them all, I’m going to try on clothes.

**John:** Ugh.

**Craig:** Whilst my friend – my impotent friend – stands there nodding no, no, no at that hat. And you go, really? And she goes, “Uh-uh.”

**John:** Yeah. The curtains slide open and close.

**Craig:** Ugh. And it is lazy. And you’re right. They actually do take an enormous amount of time to do. I mean, we did a montage in – we’ve talked about this one, the one in Hangover 2, where the montage was really a representation of this kind of strange Zen dream recovered memory that Zach Galifianakis’s character was having in which he remembers in these flashy surreal glimpses the night before. Except that the way he did it, he remembered them as children.

So, we had to shoot the crazy montage twice. Once with our actors, and then once with children doing the same things. And talk about an enormous investment for about 90 seconds of movie. They are hard to do.

But that’s okay. I like it when – and we don’t think of them as montages, but when people – characters in movies are experiencing something in a way that is not quite rational. A dream. A memory. They are under the influence of some kind of substance. Then a montage actually makes sense because the montage is essentially presenting what a broken reality should look like.

**John:** Absolutely. Well, what they’re doing is they’re showing a different texture from the rest of your movie. So, if the rest of your movie is very straightforward, that montage can be really hallucinogenic and it feels different because it’s cut as a montage. That’s one of the reasons why it’s different.

Another example of going to a different texture, like you think back to The Social Network. And that’s a very talky, talky, talky movie. But there’s one real montage in that which is this Henley Regatta scene, where Fincher shoots this boat race as if it’s just some giant sporting event. And it really sticks out and really lets you sort of catch your breath because it’s just very different from the rest of that movie.

The opposite can be true in something like Witness. And so Witness, you know there’s police procedural, there’s thriller, there’s drama, but then they get to this montage where they’re building a barn and it’s happy. It’s a joyous moment. And it sticks out because, well, it’s a montage, and it’s also a very different tone.

And so when you’re shifting textures, that’s often a great use of a montage.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it follows a certain rule, I think, both of those examples, which is a good rule for you at home to apply to your own potential montage. Is there some kind of interesting information I might be losing if I don’t show this in a montage? I think the answer for both the Regatta and the barn raising is, no.

Then another question is do I feel like I am cheating reality a bit here by showing this in a montage. And, again, I think the answer is no. A race, like a regatta, shows rowers straining to push a boat in water. That will not change. Barn-raising is cutting wood, nailing it together, and raising it. That’s not going to change.

Somebody learning karate, that’s going to change. That’s a long process. It doesn’t happen in an hour. It happens over months. Or years. So, you don’t – and Karate Kid is the greatest movie. It gets a pass. I mean, it’s from the ‘80s and it’s wonderful. But you don’t feel like, ugh, you know, like in real life it takes a year to raise a barn. It doesn’t. It probably takes about a day or two. It’s fine.

So, if you can answer those questions and feel like you’re on safe ground there, then sometimes you want to do a montage. You want to give the audience a break and let music give the experience of pure emotion, which is what music does best, as opposed to a kind of deliberate instigation of emotion which is what dialogue does best.

**John:** Absolutely. The thing I want to stress about great montages is they really serve the function of scenes. And what do I mean by a scene? Well, scenes have a beginning, a middle, and an end. They have a reason for why they’re there and they have characters in one set of circumstances at the beginning and a different set of circumstances at the end.

And so as long as your montages are doing that process of taking characters from one place to another place, or taking the viewer from one place to another place, that’s probably going to be an effective montage. Or at least it’s a reason for trying a montage.

Look at is this the best way to tell this piece of your story? Are you trying to show a multi-step process? Are you trying to show the effects of something that would be really hard to do otherwise? And one of the things I’ve noticed about montages is that they’re a terrible place to introduce new characters, but they’re actually a great place to sort of stick in new characters who you don’t want the audience to care about.

Any character who sort of shows up in the middle of a montage, they’re sort of immediately discounted. And so we know like, you know what, I don’t have to worry about that person. That person is never going to show up again in an important way.

So, that random cop who shows up? Forget about him. You’re never going to see him again. We don’t need to know his name. It’s all going to be fine. And that’s actually a very useful thing when you’re showing the effects of something happening, so like the cyclone is tearing through the city, you can bring in a brand new character there and have them do something and we don’t care to ever see them again. That’s one of the nice things about montages is that the audience knows not to worry about people who show up while music is playing and big things are flying around.

**Craig:** Absolutely true. There’s always that – in disaster movies you’ll see some disaster hitting some city where our heroes are not. And an old lady is running scared. And we see her face and she just stands in for like everyone who lives in India is this lady. And, yes, you’re right. It’s like, okay, the montage is attempting to make this vaguely human. Something that montages are not very good at.

One thing to think about if you are on the edge of the knife of this decision, montage or not, is to ask is there one scene that could encompass a moment of change or revelation that would change someone profoundly and permanently. Because if there is, if you can do it in one fascinating moment, if it’s the kind of thing that could happen in one fascinating moment, you owe it to yourself to try that first. See if you can find that before you go to montage, because the very nature of montage is to suggest no one moment is particularly important. But rather there’s this normal progression of moments that get you from A to B.

**John:** Yup. It’s worth remembering that in the early days of cinema when a character was traveling from point A to point B, a character was traveling from New York to Paris, you would see them drive to the airport, get on a plane, and fly to Paris. You would see the Eiffel Tower. You would see them get in another Taxi and take them to the hotel.

Now we just cut to the hotel in Paris. And we sort of get past that. We sort of shorthanded the montage so we don’t see that. So always ask yourself: if this is a place where we normally would have a montage for this thing, what is the possibility of just doing the blunt cut where we just jump ahead to this new thing where we see the character already in a completely different outfit and a completely different hairstyle and everything has changed. Is there a way the audience can catch up with you that’s going to be kind of worth it to have made that really aggressive jump in time? Sometimes there is.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you have in Star Wars this moment that could have easily been supplanted by a montage where Obi-Wan is training. And there’s another one actually in Empire Strikes Back, an even longer training sequence. And both of those could have been montaged, and people would have been like what the heck – there’s a montage in the middle of Star Wars? What’s going on?

No, because the truth is you can find those key moments. In Star Wars, the key moment is I’m going to cover your eyes. You have to hit this thing. I can’t do it. Well, you’re going to have to figure out how to do it. And in Empire Strikes Back, it was lifting the X-Wing fighter out of the swamp.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so instead of doing this whole long thing, there is a moment. If you can find a moment, dump the ‘tage.

**John:** Dump the ‘tage. Let’s wrap this up by talking about sort of how you portray montages actually on the page. And so you’ll see different ways of doing it. I’m not usually a big fan of the asterisk thing, because that’s just honestly cheating. Like you’re trying to cram way too much in there too quickly. Especially if you’re trying to move between different locations, just doing like little starred asterisks. That’s no Bueno for me.

But, what I will often see is short scene headers, a single line. We talked through the Ocean’s 11 montage which sort of goes through a bunch of different places as one of the heists is happening. That’s a terrifically well-formatted thing where it’s not sort of building out full scenes for those, but it’s giving you the feeling for what it’s going to be like to watch that.

No matter how you format it, just make sure it feels like it’s accurate to what it would feel like in the theater watching it on the screen. That’s the most crucial thing. That you’re not short-changing the time or the actual sort of weight of the moments in trying to get it down on the page.

**Craig:** Yeah. You don’t want to just jam this thick list in there. But, you know, there is a middle ground, I think, between breaking out every single location. You can sort of – I think it’s fair to say, all right, I’m going to do something called INT/EXT Various Montage. But if each thing is clearly its own paragraph and you’re not shoving stuff together or overdoing it and really giving it its space so it’s clear to read, I think that that’s an acceptable middle ground.

But, you just have to do it in such a way that you don’t feel like you’re compressing your montage down on the page to – now I’m just cheating on page count. You know, anything that feels like that is that.

**John:** It is that. Also in favor of getting rid of the scene headers is that sometimes that is actually more true to how it’s really going to feel. Like you’re not really establishing a new location. You’re just in it and you’re moving through it. So, I will do the INT/EXT Various, but when it comes time for production as long as those things are individual paragraphs those will each get their own scene numbers. It will all be fine.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Cool. All right. Let’s talk about Craig’s most exciting news of the week, which is that Final Draft 10 has now shipped. It’s available for people to download. You can download a trial version, which is what Craig and I did this morning.

**Craig:** No, no, I paid for it.

**John:** You paid for it?

**Craig:** I’ll tell you why.

**John:** Tell me.

**Craig:** Because I’m a paying customer. So I can say whatever I damn well please.

**John:** Oh, good stuff. I just did the trial version. So, here are sort of my quick impressions. Craig’s quick impressions. If you want to know more about our history with Final Draft, you can go back and listen to The One with the Guys from Final Draft, which was one of our sort of iconic episodes where the people who run Final Draft came and talked with us about their app and sort of their frustrations with us.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** What I’ll say that I liked about it, because you should always start with what worked. If you’re giving notes on a script, you start with what worked. And here is what worked about it for me.

I think their new app icon is much, much better.

**Craig:** Wait, hold on. Let’s stop right there. That tells us a lot.

**John:** It does tell us a lot. I would say actually 80% of the icons in the app are significantly improved. And like this sounds like I’m [unintelligible] praise, but I think the icons were so horrible in the previous builds that they actually are noticeably better.

**Craig:** Well, just to point out, the upgrade costs $80. So, so far for $80 you’ve gotten better icons.

**John:** Better icons.

**Craig:** Okay. And?

**John:** I don’t have a lot else to pose in this initial thing. So, there are a lot of new features and we’ll talk through the new features. And some people might say like, oh, well that’s worth my $80. I’m not sure that it’s worth it for $80 for me.

What I found as I used it with you, and also as I used it more, is wow this thing is so cluttered. And so we’re going to talk about collaboration which was just a mess for cluttering, but I took screenshots of Final Draft on my 13-inch MacBook that I’m using here in Paris and I could see half a page of actual screenplay because there was so much on the screen. There’s all these ribbons and jewel bars and stuff. And you can hide some of them, but you can’t hide all of them.

So I took a screenshot of that, and then I took a screenshot in what I actually use, which is Highland, to show the difference between these apps and their approaches. It’s like someone in Final Draft’s family was killed by white space and they are just determined to eliminate all white space they can possibly see. Every square inch of the screen is filled with some doo-dad.

**Craig:** Hello white space. You killed my father. [laughs] Prepare to die. Yeah, this is not good. And I swear to you, I opened it up thinking to myself, well, let’s be as fair as I can. They have somewhat predictably done what they can do. Not what they should do, but what they can do. The easiest thing for them to do is keep their underlying code and just slap a bunch of crap on top of it. This is cluttered.

And most of the crap they’ve slapped on top of it is either useless or doesn’t work well. What they seemingly still cannot do is fix simple things like dual dialogue, which is still a broken implementation in Final Draft. That’s apparently rocket science to them.

Their crap that they’ve given you is all crap that swims in the same filthy water as guru books and structure baloney. Story maps. And story storms. And structure fields. And all this baloney that’s basically just useless graphical representations of slug lines. It’s absolutely useless.

**John:** So, let’s talk through the bullet points of their new features. Basically when you go to their “What’s New in Final Draft 10,” these are the things they’re singling out. So we’ll just talk through what they actually are so people know what they are.

The first is that there’s a horizontal stripe at the top of the screen which depicts page 0 to 120 of your script. And you can see sort of the scenes laid out in there. I thought this was actually a really interesting idea. I think the ability to get an overview of your whole script that way was fascinating. I thought it was a really bad implementation of it. It took me a very long time to realize you had to double click to get to a place in there. I don’t know why you double click to get to a place.

It’s called Story Map. I would call it Story Stripe, but that’s fine. That’s me. But what’s weird is that it assumes that all scripts should be about 120 pages. And so what I opened up was this TV pilot I wrote, which is 60 pages. So it showed the back half of it as being like black. Like I need to write more pages, I guess.

**Craig:** God. I mean, how dumb.

**John:** I couldn’t find a way to get rid of this stripe which was taking up an extra three-quarters of an inch of my screen. And so I just clicked things randomly. I look through the menus. View and Hide. It turns out it’s called Story Map and there’s an icon on the toolbar to do it, but it’s not toggle kind of icon. It doesn’t show you that it’s engaged or not. So, you click it once to show it, and click it again to hide it, but there’s not clear way that that’s how you do it.

So, I’m not a fan of the Story Map.

**Craig:** No. And things like not indicating whether a toggle is on or off or calling something Story Map when in fact it is a Story Stripe and of minimal value – honestly, I find minimal value. And then doing weird things like locking it to 120 pages indicates just a lack of taste. I don’t know how else to put it. There’s no taste behind this. It’s just ridiculous quasi-functions that fulfill marketing checkboxes. But there’s nothing of value, inherent substance there, that makes my life easier as a writer. Nothing.

They just wanted to be able to say, “We’re shipping something with a Story Map. Do you have a problem writing screenplays? Are you not yet making a million dollars a year as a screenwriter? Don’t worry. We have Story Map. That’s the thing that you’re missing. A stripe across the top of your screen with little gray blobs showing you were slug lines are.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Argh.

**John:** There’s also a Beat Board, which is sort of like the Index Cards.

**Craig:** [laughs] Here we go again. Beat Board.

**John:** You can draw these little boxes and put text in them and kind of arrange them. I didn’t find it especially useful. You can also split-screen to have that on one side and your text on the other side to make your screen even smaller. I really had a hard time envisioning anyone using this professionally, because almost any other tool you might pick to do that, be it paper, or be it some other application devoted to outlining – like Workflowy, what we use for our notes – would be a much better choice for really almost anything. So, I found that frustrating.

What I was most curious to try was collaboration. So that’s why I had you download it, and why we played with it. So, once upon a time, Final Draft had this thing called Collabo-Writer, which I don’t know anybody who really used, but they always billed it as a feature. It kind of went away. This is it back. It wasn’t at all what I thought I was going to be getting. Craig?

**Craig:** Well, there is a current application of this. A software called WriterDuet which is web-based but also desktop based. It allows for real-time collaboration between people over separated computers and IP and all that stuff. Very similar to the way Google Docs works.

So, if you and I both control a Google Doc, or for instance this Workflowy document online, we can both be editing at the same time. We can annotate who changed what and so on.

Final Draft appears to have caught up to everyone else’s terrible version of their good idea. I don’t know how else to put it. Collaboration works as follows: you start a document and then you invite someone to collaborate. That pulls up a code. That person then goes into Final Draft, says I want to join a collaboration, I enter the code. I am then brought, ugh, to a screen that is that document, almost completely obscured by an un-closable window. That is a chat window with my collaborator. And in that chat window, you and I can talk to each other, like the way you would with iChat or something, although oddly they don’t have word wrap in their text entry, so that’s something that I think was solved 40 years ago by UNIVAC, but somehow these guys haven’t mastered it.

**John:** Yeah. We should say that by word wrap we mean literally if I type longer than one line, the first line disappears, and so I can’t see what was up there.

**Craig:** I mean, that’s just madness. That’s not even like, oh, we have a problem with our beta. That’s freaking alpha. That’s just ridiculous. And, again, a sign of just no taste or concern.

Regardless, here’s the biggest problem of them all. And this is really where they should have just said, “You know what, everyone? We should be in the business of going out of business. Let’s just close the doors because we’re terrible at this.”

This problem of synchronous editing that everyone else has solved continues to elude Final Draft. Their solution is one of you can edit the document at a time. And then if the other one wants to make a change, their cowriter needs to press a button that relinquishes command of the document and now you get command of the document.

And when I say you have no command, I mean you can’t even put a cursor or highlight a word. You cannot impact the document if you are not the editing member of the collaboration team at that time. That is absurd.

**John:** Yeah. So, honestly, the built in tools that are on every Macintosh would do a better job of sharing a document. Of honestly sharing this Final Draft 10 document than the actual built-in tools of Final Draft 10. So, if we wanted to edit this document together, what we should do is just share screens. Just use the screen sharing thing that’s built into every Macintosh.

**Craig:** Precisely.

**John:** And just use messages to do it, because then you could at least put the window behind the screen. It was so frustrating that this is how they chose to implement it. And so while we were doing this, I said like, oh Craig, I’m going to save the transcript of this so we could post it, but then I couldn’t save the transcript. And once I closed the window, it was gone forever.

**Craig:** Of course. Of course. Which is important for writers who are collaborating. You know, when they’re sharing ideas and stuff, it’s important that they do so in a way that cannot be saved. Because as you know, oh, whatever. You know what, if you want to save something, if it’s that important, put it in the Beat Board. The Beat Board, which literally every of these – these functions are all available, done better, by other people for free.

And so they bundled together poor implementations of other people’s work and they’re charging you $80 for it. There is literally no reason, none, to buy this upgrade, as far as I can tell. If they had – first of all, $80 for an upgrade, it should be a major upgrade. We’ve had this problem before. That’s just off of the rest of the world’s idea of what an upgrade cost should be. This should, I don’t know, it should be a $20 upgrade. It really feels like that. If.

But, there’s no reason. I mean, they didn’t change the file format, so why would anybody upgrade?

**John:** I don’t know why people would upgrade. I think the one thing that was a new feature which, like Aline uses on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, I know they will write alternate dialogue, and then when they put it up on the big board and Aline is doing the final pass they will vote on the dialogue. So that’s a thing she might actually use this feature.

But you know what you can also do for alternate dialogue? In Highland you put it in brackets. In any other application, just put it in parenthesis and show the alternate dialogue right there. You’re going to make your decision. So, Final Draft lets you pick one of your alternate dialogues to actually be in the PDF or in the thing, but that’s not so useful. That’s not a big marquee feature for a major upgrade.

**Craig:** No, it’s not. And this one is the one that actually angers me the most. Because I like it, and I know I like it because it was my idea. I had the idea to give a screenwriter the ability to write alternate lines but hide them and so just put an icon next to a line that says, okay, there’s four versions of this and you can somehow scroll through them one-by-one as opposed to seeing them all on a list, just to keep the page count and the page size realistic.

And so I called up Kent Tessman who is the developer of Fade In Pro. And he went ahead and implemented that. And charged, by the way, you know what the big charge for that upgrade was? Zero dollars. And he implemented it in a very elegant way where you would select, okay, I’m going to add an alternate to this line, and then you would start typing that alternate and a little number would appear with two arrows on either side of it. 1, 2, 3, 4. And you would just click through the arrows to see the various versions.

Well guess what just should up in Final Draft? Alternate lines that work exactly the same way, even with the little number and the arrows. Wow. Wow. So that’s the one cool thing they did wasn’t even their idea and another developer did it who is an independent developer, sole proprietor, and they – I am saying that it appears to me as the layman that they ripped him off. That’s how it appears to me.

**John:** I can see that being a very probable situation. What I do want to say about – this is not really sort of full in defense of Final Draft, but in acknowledging the reality of the situation, Fade In used a lot of what Final Draft has built in terms of the structure of how the app works. Down to the point where many of the dialogue boxes are nearly identical. So, I fully want to give credit for Kent for implanting your alternate dialogue idea, but I also want to acknowledge that Fade In would not look like Fade In if Final Draft didn’t already exist.

**Craig:** 100%.

**John:** Is that fair?

**Craig:** It is fair. And, in fact, I have great praise – great praise – for a program called Final Draft from 15 years ago, when it seemed like they were still innovating and the code was current and they were really the best option available for the price. Those days are so long gone. So long gone.

It still appears to me to be bloatware. It still appears to be ugly. They are adding functionality that isn’t actually functionality. It’s simply poorly done support for marketing buzzwords. You can see how they continue to concentrate entirely on the market that they say they aren’t concentrating on. They claim to be the industry standard. They are concentrating entirely on suckering in people who are not in the industry by promising them useless tools that will help them get into the industry. They will not.

And, lastly, and this is the most important thing of all. When Final Draft says they are the industry standard, that is insane. The industry standard is PDF. Everyone – everyone – sends and reads screenplays of all kinds on PDF. No one gets what I would call the source word processing file, whether it is a FDX, or an FDR from Fade In Pro, or a Highland file. Nobody gets that.

So, yes, there are people that use the raw files for scheduling and so forth, which is why basically I think every major software, WriterDuet, and so on and so forth, they all import and export FDX files. They are not the industry standard of anything as far as I’m concerned, except bilking people for poorly written, poorly done, highly marketed software.

**John:** And that is our first take on Final Draft 10.

**Craig:** [laughs] I wonder if they’ll come back. I mean, I hope they do. Honestly, because I enjoyed my conversation with Marc Madnick. I don’t he was a great representative or ambassador for his own company, which is probably why I would love to talk to him again, because I would love to hear him sort of explain some of this stuff.

**John:** Yeah. Here’s where I come down with Final Draft 10. I think if you wanted to buy Final Draft, this is the probably better version than Final Draft 9 to buy. So, for whatever reason you’re stuck in your head that you’re going to buy Final Draft, then Final Draft 10 is going to be a better bet than Final Draft 9. It looks better. Probably, I think, some of it runs better. Friends who have been beta testing say it’s less flaky. It’s certainly, you know, it doesn’t hurt my eyes to quite the same degree. It’s like I can’t see very much of the screen. So, there’s that.

**Craig:** [laughs] It doesn’t hurt my eyes as much. They should put that on the cover of the box.

**John:** [laughs] Indeed. You know, they always have like J.J. Abrams or James Cameron saying like, “It’s the industry standard.” So, John August, “It doesn’t hurt my eyes as previous versions.” That’s what it comes down to.

**Craig:** The parts that I can see.

**John:** We left off four little bullet points. They have these things called Structure Points. They’re like little markers that show you where your act breaks are in your Story Map.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Great. Headers and footers, you can now put the file name in there, which is useful. That would take Nima, our coder, about 30 seconds to implement in any other application. But great.

Scene numbering. They now let you number – so if you’re adding a new scene between scene 8 and scene 9, that could either be scene 8A or scene A9, depending on what numbering scheme you’re using. You can choose between those two numbering schemes. Great.

**Craig:** I thought they already had that. In my end, both Final Draft and Fade In Pro both had the ability. Because one of them is more of a UK convention. I think they already had this.

**John:** The last time I had to do production revisions, and realistically every time I had to do production revisions, I end up manually numbering those things anyway because it’s always so strangely complicated. And you really want to do whatever the AD tells you to do.

Finally, the revisions dialogue box is even more complicated than before. Every time I have to do a set of revisions, and like on Big Fish, I did all of Big Fish the Musical on Final Draft because I started in there and there was just really no way to get out of it. But every time I did it, and I had to open that dialogue box, I’m like oh my god, how do you – like figuring out how you build the new draft and what you want to have revised is just such chaos.

And they added some new stuff there, so god bless you.

**Craig:** Yeah. Now you can bold some of your revisions which I urge people to never do.

**John:** Yeah. That’s not a good idea.

**Craig:** That’s just crazy. And just so you know why. I’m a believer that you should have options when it comes to how you designate what your revision – in fact, that’s another thing. I called Kent and I’m like, hey, I don’t want to just have to use an asterisk to show revisions. By revision level, I want the ability to say I want double asterisks, or I want an exclamation point. Because sometimes that does come in useful for people who are looking at multiple revisions at once to see, okay, that came first, and then that came.

But, bolding – like italics – is something that we use in the actual text of the document to imply creative information. You should never, ever use bolding or italicizing to indicate revisions. That is a terrible idea.

**John:** Yeah. You should not do that.

**Craig:** Well, but the good news is they’ve given you the chance to do it.

**John:** Indeed.

**Craig:** Yeah. Because the one thing we know for sure is that they are not in the business of going out of business.

**John:** 100%. All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a book I just finished reading. It’s called Invasive. It’s by Chuck Wendig who is a screenwriter and a novelist who has written a bunch of Star Wars books and other books. He’s also a really good writer about writing. And so I’ve been following his Twitter feed and looking at his blog. He always has just great advice for writers. And so I’d never actually read one of his books, so I read one of his books. Invasive. It’s quite good.

It is a thriller in sort of the Michael Crichton science thriller way where this is about a developed species of invasive ants, these sort of killer ants that break loose and cause havoc. It was well done. And it was fun to read something that feels like a movie, but done as a book. And it was fun to sort of see what that looks like on the page versus how it would be in a movie.

This is a story with a sort of Clarice Starling kind of FBI consultant protagonist and a lot of ants. It’s very squirmy. So I would recommend Invasive by Chuck Wendig.

**Craig:** That does sound cool. My One Cool Thing was really our One Cool Thing. We were just talking about it. A lot of people sent us this video on Twitter. The Marvel Symphonic Universe. This is a video done by Brian Satterwhite, Taylor Ramos, and Tony Zhou who was, I believe, also the guy that did that visual comedy video that we talked about a while ago. And this seems like this is kind of his thing to do.

Currently, 2.6 million views on the YouTube.

**John:** So they really need Scriptnotes to push it.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, I’m not sure this is a cool thing. I can’t quite tell. But it’s an interesting thing at the very least. Essentially, they ask people on the street in Vancouver, hey, off the top of your head can you sing the theme from Star Wars, and everyone can. Can you sing the theme from James Bond? Everyone can. Can you sing the theme from Harry Potter, and everyone can.

Then they say, “Can you sing any theme from a Marvel film?” And the answer is no. Which was interesting to me because I thought, oh, yeah, that’s something I didn’t realize I didn’t know, but I don’t know any of those. Now, the video then kind of extends this into a critique. And I’m not sure the critique is valid.

I love movie music and I love wonderful themes. I’m not sure it’s valid to just say these Marvel movies have a certain style of music and it’s not at all as good as John Williams. Well, what is? It’s also hard to argue with their choice of style for music because it seems to be working for them and their fans.

But, at least it’s interesting in the sense that I never really thought about the nature of how Marvel uses music in their movies, which is very much closer to sound design than it is to actual classic melodic score.

**John:** Yeah. I liked the questions that they were asking. I wasn’t so delighted with the answers they were trying to give. The questions were, of course, why can’t you remember a Marvel theme. And what is the role of temp music in effecting sort of the final music in a movie? So, temp music has become pervasive and to what degree are our choices in temp music really dictating what the final thing is going to sound like?

And I thought that was interesting. The final thing is like melody has kind of disappeared in our movies for better or for worse. And so we think of those great movies with John Williams themes and they’re very prominently used. And the reason why you can remember them is because they had repetition. Andrew Lippa, a friend, says you know what the key is to memorable songs? Repetition.

Repetition is the key to memorable songs. You have to repeat things again and again and people will eventually hear that melody again and they’ll expect the melody because you’re repeating it. You’ve got to keep repeating the song again, and again, and again. And that’s absolutely true.

And so the reason why we remember Star Wars, the reason why we remember the Harry Potter theme is because those are used throughout the movies consistently. And Marvel has not chosen to do that. And that’s, for better or for worse, those movies don’t have a musical signature that tells you that that’s what they are.

**Craig:** Yeah. I completely agree. And I love that, Harry Potter in particular, I love the way that they did make a choice to use that wonderful John Williams theme and allow the tone of their movies to breathe, to give it room to be played over, and over, and over. That in and of itself is a choice.

When you’re making a kind of frantic, high octane action-adventure, a little harder to do. Not impossible. You know, Terminator has a very memorable theme.

**John:** [Hums]

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Which one are you thinking of?

**Craig:** [laughs] I’m just thinking of [hums].

**John:** I think they’re both themes from Terminator.

**Craig:** Oh really? I don’t know that first one. I just know the percussive one. [hums] And so that was a perfect theme for that movie because that movie was about the relentless march of action as instigated by a robot. And [hums] is not a melody per se. I don’t remember the melody. I just remember that percussive rhythm thing.

And, yeah, I can see how movies that are about that then take that to the extreme. And everything becomes very rhythmic. Sometimes when I’m writing an action sequence, in order to kind of get my blood flowing I’ll put on some Hans Zimmer from The Dark Knight. And it helps. It’s not melodic. It’s percussive. Even as melody is playing, it’s the rhythmic percussive nature of it that kind of gets me going. But, I prefer the Danny Elfman theme from the Tim Burton Batman. That’s a wonderful – and that was repeated over and over. And I think everybody can hum – you can hum that one, right?

**John:** I’m not sure I can.

**Craig:** [hums]

**John:** Oh, of course.

**Craig:** That one, right?

**John:** That one.

**Craig:** Yeah. It was wonderful. I like that. But, you see, Batman has evolved and there’s no space for that anymore. Now we need [hums]. That’s basically the theme to the Nolan Batman. [hums]

So, it’s choices right? I feel like I had the same issue last time with Tony which is that he makes these really – I know he’s working with a couple other people here. He makes really interesting observations but is coating them in a jacket of judgment that I don’t think is deserved.

**John:** Yup. I would agree.

And that’s our show for this week. So, as always, we are produced by Godwin Jabangwe. We are edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro, which is very, very much on theme is by Rajesh Naroth. I should also say that in addition to Harry Potter being a great movie to see, I went to the Universal Studios Harry Potter thing before I left for Paris. It’s really great. Craig, have you been there yet?

**Craig:** I was at the one in Orlando a number of years ago. The OG.

**John:** Similar but delicious.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s fantastic. They do a great job.

**John:** So, if you have an outro for our show, you can send it to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place to send questions like the ones we answered today.

On Twitter, I am @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. On Instagram I’m also @johnaugust, so you can see all of my photos from Paris if you’re curious on that.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where we will have some of the bonus stuff from people who wrote in about getting work while they’re outside of Los Angeles, New York, or London.

You’ll also find our transcripts there. Transcripts are going to be delayed about two weeks now, because the guy who is doing the transcripts is taking a vacation. He deserves a vacation. So, if transcripts are delayed, that’s why. Because we are quality employers who let their people take vacations.

You can find the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. And also on the USB drives which are now back in stock at the store at johnaugust.com.

And that’s our show for this week. Craig, have a great week.

**Craig:** You too, John. See you next time.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Starting a Screenwriting Career Outside of LA, New York or London](http://johnaugust.com/2016/starting-a-screenwriting-career-outside-of-la-or-new-york-or-london)
* [AFF Pitch Contest](https://austinfilmfestival.com/festival-and-conference-aff/conference/pitch-competition/)
* [On Story Book](http://austinfilmfestival.com/product/book-on-story-screenwriters-and-filmmakers-on-their-iconic-films/)
* [The Henley Regatta in The Social Network](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QetnuKbo1XI)
* [Witness Barn Scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7kLSk9-TRg)
* [Invasive by Chuck Wendig](http://amzn.to/2cpgsKn)
* [The Marvel Symphonic Universe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vfqkvwW2fs)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Get your 250 episode USB](http://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/250-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_268.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 133: Groundhog Day — Transcript

March 6, 2014 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2014/groundhog-day).

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

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

**John:** And in lieu of doing a normal Scriptnotes this week we want to talk about a director, we want to talk about a writer, an actor — a filmmaker who made a movie that was incredibly influential to both of us — and so this is going to be one of those episodes we’re going to just talk about one movie the whole time. And this is Craig’s idea, so Craig, what is your idea?

**Craig:** Well, we lost one of the greats. Harold Ramis passed away about a week ago. And not only did Harold Ramis direct and write, he was an actor, he did everything. And he was for anyone who writes comedy he was the giant of my generation.

**John:** I agree. He was incredibly influential. But let’s just talk through some of his credits as a writer and then going into him as a director. Caddyshack. Meatballs. Groundhog Day, which we’re going to talk about today. Multiplicity. He was the guy who sort of started off with this idea of like the slob comedy, the slobs against the —

**Craig:** Slobs versus snobs.

**John:** Yes. He was always the rebels against the institution kind of comedies. And then progressed into the movie we’re talking about Groundhog Day today, which is basically I think the template of what so many comedies tried to do afterwards. Without Groundhog Day you wouldn’t have a lot of these other movies.

**Craig:** No question. To give him his full due, in terms of his writing, and we are primarily a screenwriting podcast, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes, Ghostbusters.

**John:** Ghostbusters.

**Craig:** Back to School. A lot of people don’t know that he wrote on that. And, of course, Groundhog Day. And also Analyze This and Analyze That. Just incredible. Just incredible. And then as a director he directed Caddyshack and he directed National Lampoon’s Vacation which was written by John Hughes, I believe. And he directed Groundhog Day.

And just a remarkable man who I think until Groundhog Day was underappreciated. I think that it’s easy maybe in the time of comedies — comedies are rarely properly appreciated in their time. It was easy to think that Ramis was part of this gang of guys that made slobs versus snobs comedies and they were broad and they were over the top and they were outrageous and drug-fueled. And all that is true.

But there was a humanity to all of those movies, particularly when he and Bill Murray collaborated that frankly is as rich and valuable as any of the humanity that you get from the great dramatic films. And Groundhog Day, I think, practically everyone would agree is the peak, is the peak of that.

**John:** With Groundhog Day you’re taking the idea of one of these sort of grownup man-child people who has just not progressed enough and giving them a chance to practice to the point where they actually grew up and become the man they really should be. And that feels like an important evolution in comedy overall, but certainly the kind of comedies that he was making and the kind of comedies that we aspire to make.

It also created, I think, a template for what a high concept comedy could be, which is basically you have a man in a predicament and these are all the things that are going to go wrong. He is uniquely the one person affected by it. And over the course of this adventure has to learn to change. And that idea of like here’s a man in a normal situation, goes into a crazy situation, and as a comedy we are going to arc until he gets through it.

So, without Groundhog Day we don’t have Liar Liar, we don’t have Multiplicity, we don’t have so many of these comedies. We don’t have a lot of those Adam Sandler comedies, too, where it’s one guy in an extraordinary, high concept comedic conceit.

**Craig:** Yeah. It certainly set the tone for what I would call the modern version of that. There’s a long comic tradition of this. In a sense It’s a Wonderful Life is a great prototype for this kind of movie, with a bit of a comedy and a bit of a mock-ish film as well. But a supernatural interruption of a normal guy’s life causes him to examine his life. Heaven Can Wait predates Groundhog Day.

There are many examples, but interestingly Groundhog Day is probably the best of all of them because everything is right in it. And when I say everything is right — you have to start initially with Danny Rubin’s idea. There are a ton of big supernatural life interruption ideas out there. And some of them are really interesting. For instance, what if you couldn’t tell a lie? What if you were god for the time being?

But there is something about you’re going to live this day over and over, which is an idea that had been explored a number of times in other areas, that lend itself so perfectly to this genre that said you put a million screenwriters in a room and you’re going to get 999,999 lesser scripts than Groundhog Day.

**John:** Well, that essential idea of you are repeating the same day again and again is kind of a Twilight Zone idea. And there are a lot of ways you could do this that is basically a thriller or is Memento. There’s a version of it that’s that.

So, to be able to see the comedic possibility in that and not just as a single joke but as an ongoing progression of growth for a character is really smart and is part of the reason why this movie works.

So, we should say, Groundhog Day is credit to Danny Rubin, story; screenplay by Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis. Directed by Harold Ramis.

And I think we should just start talking about the movie, because this is will be one of those things where we actually go through the whole thing and really talk through it. And as we kind of come upon these realizations about sort of how this movie is working, let’s talk through them.

Sound good?

**Craig:** Yeah. Sounds great.

**John:** So, this is a Columbia Pictures and I always love watching old Columbia Pictures because you sort of see the evolution of the logo. I love the evolution of all film logos.

**Craig:** [laughs] I know.

**John:** And there’s a piece which I’m going to link to on the evolution of the Warner Bros. logo that came out this week which is actually genius. You sort of see like how the shield came to be and how it stayed the shield for so long and then it became that weird WB for awhile. And then it got back to the shield.

This is a Columbia Pictures logo and it’s the pre-Annette Bening Columbia Pictures.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Because there’s a moment in time where it was shifted to the woman, Columbia looked like Annette Bening. And this is still the old one.

We come up on blue skies. We see Bill Murray in front of the weather map. And so right from the very first frames we’re seeing who Bill Murray is in front of the blue sky weather map. Essentially he’s fake. He’s faking the weather. He’s having a good time with it. He’s really jovial on-camera. And then very quickly we’re going to see that he has a completely different off-screen persona and he doesn’t get along with anybody.

**Craig:** Right. He ends the telecast, his news broadcast, by announcing that he will — as he has done before — he’s going to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania because Groundhog Day is coming up. And his co-anchor says, “Oh, yeah, that will be your third year in a row?” And he looks at her, “Fourth. Fourth.” And we know, oh god, he doesn’t want to go at all.

Here’s what’s so fascinating about this section. This is what happens prior to Phil, his new producer Andie MacDowell, and his cameraman Larry, played by Chris Elliott. Here’s what happens before they hit the road to Punxsutawney. Phil does his weather broadcast. It’s quite funny. And it’s perfectly charming Bill Murray. He sits down next to the news anchor to finish the report and we get the sense that he’s actually not thrilled about what he has to do.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** He has a very brief discussion in which he says he plans on staying in Punxsutawney for about three minutes, whatever the minimum is. He hates going there. He looks at his new producer, Rita, who he’s intrigued by but yet states very clearly, “Ain’t my kind of girl,” because she looks like a nice girl. And that’s it.

Then they’re on the road. Here’s what is so interesting to me about how this movie begins. We don’t see him alone at home. We don’t know how he lives. We don’t know anything about his life. We never learn if he was married, had a girlfriend, dog died, nothing. He just meets Rita. Her character is established as such: she’s giggling in front of the blue screen and that’s it. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We don’t know any backstory of his relationship with his cameraman Larry. There are a thousand studio notes that I can see piling up right now that Ramis and Rubin decided to not do. They just said, screw it, it’s Bill Murray. He’s a bit of a jerk. There’s Andie MacDowell. She’s very sweet and nice. Let’s go.

**John:** So, one of the first lines of dialogue in the movie is, “Somebody asked me today, Phil, if you could be anywhere today where would you want to be?” Which is, of course, establishing the entire premise of the movie we’re about to see. It doesn’t feel like it’s establishing, but it is.

On the podcast we’re often doing the Three Page Challenge and everything we’re talking about here — this was three pages. This was at most three pages.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** We’ve established all of this stuff about that he’s going to Punxsutawney, that they’re in Pittsburgh, he’s going to go to Punxsutawney. He doesn’t want to go to Punxsutawney. He’s been there way too many times. He doesn’t think this producer is anything worth noting. And that he’s a very different person on-screen than off-screen. It’s a tremendous amount of work packed in here.

What’s also fascinating to me is we started credits over a blue sky and a blue screen.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes.

**John:** And then we stopped, we took a pause off the credits, and then we’re going to go back into credits and we’re going to have a song called I’m Your Weatherman playing as we’re driving from Pittsburgh to Punxsutawney, which is again very classically sort of establishing your world. This is what it looks like. This is going from the big city to the small town. Because without it, without that driving sequence we would not have a sense of how small Punxsutawney is and that it really is a drive, because that drive is going to become an important factor later on in the film.

**Craig:** That’s right. We have, on page three or four we’ve already left our old comfortable life behind. We’ve begun our adventure. One interesting thing to note that we’ll come back to at the end is that the initial credits pre-weather sequence, pre-intro of Phil are time-lapse, it’s time-lapsed photography of clouds moving rapidly across the sky.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, we arrive in Punxsutawney and Phil is, as they’re approaching, Phil is doing his thing with Rita. He is being a jerk. And she’s picking up on the fact that he’s a bit of a jerk. What we’re learning about him and this is why — sadly, this was the last collaboration between Ramis and Murray. No one quite knows why. But, at this point you could see that they had evolved to an almost shorthand where Murray could essentially say, “Here’s what my character is. It’s this version of Bill Murray.” There’s a few of them. This is the arrogant jerk Bill Murray.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And we get it pretty quickly that the thinks he’s god’s gift. He thinks he’s better than everybody. He thinks he’s too good for his surroundings. And, frankly, even thinks he’s too good for Rita.

They pull up in front of the Pennsylvania Hotel where he throws a little bit of a tantrum on not staying here, “I don’t want to stay here, it’s terrible.” And she surprisingly says, “Actually I booked you a nice little bed and breakfast. You’re not staying here. I’m staying here.”

And he’s quite pleased with that. And off he goes to his bed and breakfast which becomes — and we’ll have no idea at this point in the movie if we’ve never seen it before — becomes home base for the entire film.

**John:** Yes. So, we arrive in Punxsutawney at 6 minutes and 30 seconds into the film, establishing that hotel sequence and him going to the bed and breakfast. Establishing the borderline sexual harassment happening, like, “You could help me with my pelvic tilt,” that kind of stuff.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** That kind of banter between them. But then we are into the bed and breakfast. We don’t really even establish the bed and breakfast. He basically shows up there and then he’s waking up.

**Craig:** Very smartly we do not establish anything but that bedroom.

**John:** Yes. At 7 minutes and 35 seconds the clock flips over to 6am. Sonny and Cher sing I Got You Babe. There’s really annoying radio banter, which even the first time you hear it is really kind of annoying and cheesy, talking about the National Weather Service. There’s a big blizzard coming. And it feels like the way many movies would start, which is basically like the day has started. Now the day has started.

**Craig:** That’s right. And I just want to point out that there’s a great lesson for all of us, no matter what we’re writing, from the way that the morning wakeup occurs. Danny and Harold understood as a circumstance of the story they were telling that every aspect of this wakeup moment had to be very carefully considered because they were going to repeat it multiple times.

As such, you can tell that it’s been imbued with great care. The choice of the song. The choice of the clock, the style of clock, the way it flips over, the time itself. The banter between the radio guys, their words which later will actually be thematically interesting. All chosen very carefully.

And I just want to point out is the side advice for us all, for me, and for you, and everybody listening is the truth is all movies eventually become Groundhog Day. They will be watched over and over and over. You might as well try and imbue everything with that amount of care because they knew that you were going to have to watch that scene five, six, seven times within one move, but all scenes will be watched five, six, or seven times if you get what I’m saying.

**John:** Yes. Well, also I would say as a filmmaker you’re always kind of making Groundhog Day because you’re going to have to witness those scenes a thousand times, in filming them, in editing them, in watching them on the screen in front of an audience. So, another good reason to make sure all those scenes are excellent.

Now, what we wouldn’t know if we were going into this movie blind is that everything we’re seeing here has to work in the moment, the first time we’re seeing it, and has to have a special resonance when we’re seeing it the second time through.

So, we’re establishing the pattern of what the day is supposed to — the default pattern of what the day is going to be. And so unless Bill Murray changes something, this is exactly how the day will play out. So, he’s going to get dressed, he’s going to go downstairs, he’s going to have an interaction with the bed and breakfast house — the woman who runs the bed and breakfast.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Now, many movies would have established her the night before, here we didn’t. Here, the first time we’re seeing her is down there at the moment. It’s a chance to learn a little bit more about him, how he’s just kind of a jerk. He’s just on that edge of like you kind of fundamentally don’t like him.

**Craig:** Yeah. He asks her for an espresso. She doesn’t really know what that is. He mutters some stuff, “You probably couldn’t even spell it.”

There’s a sequence of things that happen here prior to him arriving. So, you know, he wakes up, he gets dressed while he’s listening to this idiotic banter. And then he —

**John:** Oh, the hallway. Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. And basically there are four things that happen that they chose very carefully that represent what it means for Bill Murray in the morning. I mean, we know there’s wakeup, but then they wanted four things that they — again, we are going to see over and over and over. He bumps into a very cheery man in the hallway. Then he has a discussion with Mrs. Lancaster, the innkeeper. And the discussion is mostly about nonsense except for the final bit where she asks him if he’s going to be checking out. Then as he’s walking he encounters two people — one, a homeless man that he does not acknowledge, and then Ned Ryerson.

Ned Ryerson, who is a former high school classmate that Phil does recognize, he is incredibly annoying. And at the end of that encounter he steps in a slushy puddle.

Those four things are wonderful. They’re brilliant because they are mundane. Even the Ned Ryerson bit is sort of mundane. But they are picked so carefully and cleverly because they are repeatable in interesting ways.

And if I may just add one other thing. In comedy we’re always talking about pushing against something. That you have a character that has to have something in the world to push against. And what Harold and Danny did so well was immediately start constructing things around Bill Murray that he must push against. They in and of themselves are not that wacky, or funny, or interesting. It’s him pushing against them that’s interesting.

**John:** And they’re all actually distinct. So, the guy in the hallway is like so cheery, he’s kind of alarming. The woman downstairs, Mrs. Lancaster, she’s perfectly nice and she’s trying to make just normal chitchat and he sort of blows her off. Ned Ryerson is an important distinction because he’s really annoying and obnoxious. And so it creates some sympathy for Bill Murray’s character from us because he’s just really annoying. And we’ve all been in that situation with like the overbearing guy.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, in a weird way it puts us back on Bill Murray’s side.

The one thing I will say as people are hopefully going to rewatch the movie, one strange little discontinuity I noticed is after all that conversation about the coffee, and so Bill Murray does make himself a coffee, you see him take the coffee and the coffee does just sort of disappear at a certain point.

**Craig:** Yeah. And there’s another scene later where he pours himself coffee and then just doesn’t even take it. But we can imagine he tossed it or something.

**John:** It happens. So, even in like great films you will see little things like that, because they’re just so trivial that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t affect your enjoyment.

**Craig:** I really do think that the people that run these gaffes squad websites need to have their head checks for some sort of personality disorder.

**John:** Then we arrive at Gobbler’s Knob which you know they just had a delightful time every time they got to say Gobbler’s Knob.

**Craig:** I know. And then but also big points for not making dick jokes about Gobbler’s Knob.

**John:** No, they just stick it there. And there’s a fair number of sort of background jokes. Like when they first pull into town you see Heidi 2 on the billboard. And then we actually go there. I always thought it was just a background joke, but then you actually —

**Craig:** Yeah. They go to the movie.

**John:** They revisit it. So, this becomes a crucial set. And you can imagine they were probably there, god, they probably spent two weeks, or many days, at sort of the Punxsutawney Phil thing, which is basically this is Bill Murray meeting up with his producer and his cameraman to film the Groundhog Day, the same thing that’s supposed to be happening every year. And so we have the whole crowd. It’s establishing the details and making sure the details work for the first time and can work every time thereafter.

And so that every time you’re coming back to one of these moments it has to be distinct.

**Craig:** That’s exactly correct. They create — one thing that’s fun about this movie, touching on what you said earlier, is that it invites the audience into an experience that we as filmmakers have all the time which is reliving these moments over and over and over and over. We begin to soak in these environments, which is why when you make a movie you obsess over choosing the right locations and the right places. And when you can’t it’s so disruptive.

A side story. Marc Forster made a movie and I can’t remember which one it was, but there was a scene that takes place in a laundromat. And he found the perfect laundromat and then they couldn’t shoot there because of a permit issue. So, they had to settle for a different laundromat and he just can’t watch the movie. [laughs] It’s like that — it just makes him crazy because of the laundromat thing.

Well, so you can imagine how these guys felt when they were picking these locations. Not only would they have to relive them over and over but so would the audience. It’s perfect. Right? And what’s perfect about it is that Ramis did something that is rarely done well and that is a small town movie. It’s very hard to create a small town that doesn’t feel fake, that doesn’t feel corny. You get a good small town vibe from Back to the Future. You get a good small town vibe from this.

And one thing that this nails is that town center, Gobbler’s Knob, a place where all these people can meet and come together. And they’re having fun. They’re happy. Rita, Andie MacDowell’s character, is happy. She’s excited. She’s been up — he just gets there two seconds before he’s supposed to do his report. She’s been there for awhile, talking to people, hearing their stories. These people are fun.

She’s representing already something about herself in this town that is so foreign to him. And all he wants to do is finish this thing and get out of there. And they pull the big rat out, as he keeps calling it, pulls the groundhog out and unfortunately the groundhog has seen his shadow and there will be six more weeks of winter. Ah-ha.

**John:** Now, I found watching this again — I found the whole bit with the groundhog himself a little bit strange, because they didn’t try to do the whole shadow thing at all. It was really the groundhog was whispering some secret to the mayor.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That felt like they were sort of bending the rules, at least of my expectation about what that moment is supposed to be, not having ever really watched it. But that whole like groundhog speaking his secret language thing felt kind of odd to me. It didn’t hurt my enjoyment of the movie, but it was just not what I was expecting that to be.

**Craig:** I don’t know how the actual Groundhog Day ceremony goes, but here’s why if it does go that way that’s why they did it. If it doesn’t go that way, here’s why I think they made a great choice to do it the way they did it.

The worst thing in high concept supernatural comedies which is a genre, body switch movies, for instance — the worst thing is the moment of magic. It always makes me feel goofy. I love Liar Liar. I just never like the fact that the kid makes a wish and blows out the candles and then there’s a woosh and a tinkling.

This movie, they avoided that completely. And I think if an actual groundhog had wandered out of his hole and seen his shadow. It would have almost —

**John:** It would have felt like that was the magic.

**Craig:** Yeah, like the groundhog did it. You know? [laughs] And this movie is brilliant in its refusal to explain or acknowledge why this phenomenon occurs. And that helped.

**John:** In a general sense, why is the day repeating? It’s because he hasn’t grown up. He hasn’t learned his lesson. There’s no other mystical reason behind it. It’s because he needs to stay in that moment.

**Craig:** Yeah. What we get the sense of eventually is that Bill Murray simply is living wrong. And the movie — oh, and this movie has been dissected on the philosophical basis a billion times. The movie is about what it means to live well, what is the purpose of life given that it is essentially repetitious in nature and absurd and then eventually ends. How should one live best?

And while we’re at this point in the movie we’re not aware that that’s where the movie is taking us, we sure know one thing: Phil is not living well. And so whatever it is — whatever reason it happens — I often say that in high concept supernatural comedies we’re basically doing our version of a bible story where god reaches down and changes something and forces you to deal with it. And in dealing with it you become stronger and better.

**John:** Yeah. So, we do the live report, the filmed report from Gobbler’s Knob. They’re back in the van. They’re driving. At 15 minutes and 26 seconds the snow starts falling. The road is closed ahead. We’ve established that Bill Murray had predicted that there would not be snow and that therefore they would be able to get back, but he was wrong. He has an argument with a cop on the highway saying, “I make the weather.”

**Craig:** Not a great day player.

**John:** Not a great day player.

There’s a moment where all the long distance phone lines are down. There’s a payphone, which of course people would now say, “What’s a payphone? What are long distance lines?”

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Essentially he’s trying to call home. This was a moment where I really had — I guess it’s important to establish overall that the long distance lines are down so that you don’t believe he could just reach out to some other person or some other friend outside of this bubble universe that they’re going to create.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** It felt a little stutter-steppy to me, but essentially I ended up going with it. And so essentially ultimately our little town is going to be sort of cut off from the rest of Pennsylvania because of this storm, even though it’s not that bad of a snowstorm in our little town itself.

**Craig:** It is essential logic stuff. And, of course, we live in a time now that’s very frustrating for high concept writers because technology has blown through so many of the convenient barriers we can put in place. But it’s important to know exactly this, that the town has become an island. When he relives every day he will be reliving every day in one spot. One spot he cannot get out of. There will be no one else to talk to. There will be no Skype. There will be no plane that could come in.

He will live this day, in this place, without fail because, of course, he has agency, nobody else does. Everybody else is going through their day almost like figures in a cuckoo clock that come out every hour, you know. They’re going through the motions of existence. He’s not. He can do whatever he wants.

So, I thought it was necessary to do that. And the nice thing is it feels stutter-steppy in the moment because it feels like unnecessary who cares. Great, the highway is closed, and oh great, the long distance lines are down. Later on — we’ll never stop to think why doesn’t he do this or why doesn’t he do that?

**John:** Yeah. What they’re essentially doing is taking away the question.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** They’re basically making it so that you’re not asking the question. And they’re partly — they’re taking the curse off of it with a joke, which is he’s on the operator saying, “I have to get through. There’s got to be a line. Can you get me on — an emergency line. I’m a celebrity. I’m a celebrity in an emergency,” and like the two things should trump all things.

So, it feels like it’s meant to be just a comedic beat when it’s essentially trying to take away some logic questions down the road.

**Craig:** There’s good craft there. They’re covering up their exposition with a joke. And they’re also helping it out a little bit by building it into his character and using it to show how desperate he is to not be in this place that he will now be in forever.

**John:** Yes. At 18 minutes and 25 seconds time loops. And the clock radio hits the morning and we are back at I Got You Babe.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The same radio DJs. The same moment. And so this is classic — this is the definition of a high concept/supernatural comedy moment where you realize that the universe has changed. And he is living the same day again and has to figure out what the rules of this new universe are.

**Craig:** That’s right. And in these moments, these are the fun ones. So, when you’re writing these things you know that there’s a — you get this period of disorientation which is fun to show. And you want to see your character reacting like a proper human that is shocked and concerned and freaked out. And letting them experience that with the audience, so they in the audience can experience disorientation.

The hard part is going to come after when you have to now navigate the treacherous sea of episodicism. And we’ll get to that in a minute. But right here they do it pitch perfectly. They do the fun part pitch perfectly. His response is to be concerned, puzzled, and to reach out for help, in a panicked sort of way. Nobody believes him. And then he does — Ramis appears in the movie at this point. He does exactly what a normal human should do. He goes to see a doctor who gives him X-rays. There is no tumor, there’s nothing.

He goes to see a shrink who is of no help at all. And then it happens, again.

**John:** Craig, you skipped ahead.

**Craig:** Oh, I did?

**John:** Actually, you skipped a whole loop. So, the first loop is actually just, “Did you ever have dÈj‡ vu, Mrs. Lancaster?” “I’d say the chance of departure is 80 percent.” Rita gives him a good hard slap on the face. He tries on the phone again, talking to the operator, who basically must have said like you can try it again tomorrow. And he’s saying, “What if there is no tomorrow?”

And we really just kind of jump cut through a lot of the day. At the very end of this day as he’s going to bed he breaks the pencil and sticks it inside of the clock radio.

**Craig:** Yeah, this is great.

**John:** And then he wakes up the next morning and the pencil is intact, which is again establishing the rules that like he cannot alter this universe at all. Everything he does will be undone again which is essentially the futility of existence manifest. There’s nothing he can do. He’s truly stepped in there.

So, this is where we get to the Harold Ramis and to the other folks. The first new set we see is at 27 minutes in, which is the Tip Top Cafe, which his another recurring set. We meet the waitress. He sort of tells Rita that he’s not going back. He basically for the first time tells Rita what’s going on.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And then we go see the doctor, Harold Ramis. X-rays. We see the psychiatrist who is really a couple’s counselor, so they’re playing some jokes here. And his going to the bowling alley with the morons. So, the morons who we established at the diner.

**Craig:** Right, okay. So, great, you’re right. I did rearrange some of the stuff. And I love — the pencil thing is really important because it’s the prove it for himself. They’re answering these questions that I think we don’t even know these are questions we ask, but, well, how does he know he’s not dreaming? How does he know this is real? How does he know…?

And apparently they shot a scene where Phil goes kind of nuts in his hotel room and trashes the whole thing and then passes out, falls asleep, and he wakes up in the morning, the hotel room is fine. And Ramis opted to delete that and just go for something far more elegant, which is the breaking of the pencil. It’s just creepier when he sees it.

But, no, you’re right. So, then he has his desperate attempts to seek help from a friend, medical attention, psychiatric attention. It doesn’t work. And that’s how he ends up in that bowling alley and that’s when he comes to realize something very important to himself and his condition. That is that there are no consequences.

**John:** Absolutely. So, and he gets to that no consequences thing by reflecting back like on this one perfect day he had where he was on the beach with two beautiful women and he’s like why couldn’t I have had that day over and over and over again.

**Craig:** “That was a good day.”

**John:** That was a good day. Why can’t I have that day? And, of course, the lesson will be like you need to make today that day.

But through these morons that he’s driving home, these drunk guys he’s driving home, he’s recognizing there are no consequences. And that feeds us into or first of really only two set pieces, things where you’re actually spending some money and driving some cars around.

So, this is where he’s risking life and limb. He’s smashing mailboxes. He’s driving on the railroad tracks. I’m not going to live by their rules anymore.

**Craig:** Right. And so this is the first big character choice that I think Rubin and Ramis have to make since the beginning of the movie. The beginning of the movie they make a character choice that I’m going to have a guy who is as Rita will explain a wretch. He’s a self-absorbed arrogant wretch who’s living life wrong. And then we put him in this position and he does not behave in any way other than selfishly as this condition arises.

In this moment they have a choice. What’s the first — once you get over the denial that it’s happening and you accept this is happening, what is your first response as a character to it? The first emotional response? And the first emotional response they give this guy is, “Oh good, I can just be — I can indulge my worst aspects with impunity. It is the ultimate childish reaction to what we will understand later is a gift.

So, rather than change he gets worse. And this is where the next sequence — well, describe the next sequence and the things that he does and I’ll point a little interesting something out.

**John:** So, at the end of this first driving sequence, the cops arrest him, he gets put in jail, and he has a real question of like, huh, will this change how everything works? And, of course, he wakes up the next morning and there’s no jail and like no policemen came looking for him.

Then he feels sort of strangely happy. He feels too empowered. And so he punches Ned in the face. He lets someone else step in the puddle. He gorges on foods at the restaurant in front of Rita. Like I don’t worry about anything anymore.

**Craig:** Right. And she delivers that wonderful poem, The Wretch.

**John:** Yes. Which felt, you know, I love this movie — every time she had to do poetry felt forced to me.

**Craig:** Well, you know, I love Andie MacDowell in this movie. Even though her character is fairly thinly drawn in the sense that it is a compendium of facts that Phil learns. What I love about her is that we’re actually learning about her through Phil. So, our experience of her seems odd because it’s the way his experience is. He’s collecting facts and information, trivia, and attempting to build a human being out of it.

But eventually we come to get this vibe from her. It’s hard to describe. I thought she was great and curiously great, you know, because it wasn’t like a bravura performance by any stretch, but she’s —

**John:** Well, I would say this and Sex, Lies, and Videotape are the two films where we really think of her as being, you know, that’s Andie MacDowell. That’s who you sort of want in your movie.

But I would agree that he’s collecting a compendium of facts because partly it’s because we are limited to POV to Bill Murray’s character, to Phil. There are no scenes in the whole film that don’t have him, except for one, which I’ll point out later on.

But he is driving, so we’re only seeing his point of view. I could imagine though a version in which Phil was watching her being awesome with somebody else, or sort of learning about her by not just facts but seeing her interact with other people which could be meaningful. That’s just an alternate version of how he could come to actually realize how incredible she is.

**Craig:** Right. I liked the poetry thing, also, because she pulls out this very remarkable thing. She recites a poem. And he barely notices. He barely notices that she spat out a poem whole, which most people would stop and go, “Whoa. How did you do that? How do you know about that poetry? Oh, I see you studied…”

Nothing. Not interested. Too busy shoving his face full of cake. And in this sequence, what I’ll call his impunity sequence, note that Phil using his powers — so punches out Ned Ryerson. He uses his powers to collect information about a woman named Nancy that he then has sex with because he’s leveraging that information as if he knows her.

**John:** It’s the first time he’s using the power of the loop to do it. So, he’s asking her questions like, “Hey, didn’t we go to high school together,” blah, blah, blah, and gathering up all this information knowing that he’ll remember it the next time. He can use that to start the conversation the next loop.

**Craig:** Exactly. He uses his awareness, his practiced awareness of the rhythms of the town that keep repeating over and over to steal a massive bag of money from the back of an armored truck. He shoves his face full of food because he’ll never have to worry about gaining a pound.

He does whatever he wants. And note that when we talk about lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, the dude is making his way through the list of deadly sins.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** He is absolutely wallowing in decadence, true biblical decadence because he’s untouchable. And he then makes the inevitable and critical mistake and also best thing which is to now extend that power to a wooing of her. If the child can have everything he wants, surely he can get the thing he wants the most. And that’s her.

**John:** That’s Rita. So, to his credit he does say — we’re 44 minutes in — he does ask Rita about herself. For the first time he actually asks her about herself. And he seems kind of interested in sort of what it is that she’s after. But then they have a conversation at the bar and this is the first time in the movie just jump cuts a scene from day to day to day, staying in the same set, same moment.

So, this is where she orders a drink and he takes note of what the drink is. And the next time he orders the same drink and keeps building. And so you sort of see the escalation of how he is — being able to anticipate every one of her moves and therefore become fascinating to her.

**Craig:** That’s right. And what we’re watching is a man in pursuit of something cheating. He’s cheating. It’s pure and simple. He’s asking her questions and getting answers that he users later on to test. He will order a drink that’s the same drink that she gets because he knows because he’s done it a bunch of times. But then he makes a toast to the wrong thing. He buys her the wrong food. He fixes that. He is cheating because he’s not interested in being honest. He doesn’t love her, he just wants her. So, he is collecting whatever he can to manipulate her all for the purpose of possessing her.

**John:** He’s putting on a performance with the goal of getting her to bed.

**Craig:** And here’s what’s so fascinating, and this is why I think this movie resonates beyond its concept. He’s willing to get slapped in the face 50, 60 times, it doesn’t matter, because he’s moving inexorably towards having her. But, you can see what’s tripping him up. Why does he fail?

Well, he gets her into his room. And he tells her, “I love you.” And when he says that we can think, well, it’s just another lie he’s telling that backfires terribly because from her point of view what do you mean you love me, we’ve known each other for a couple of days. Of course, he’s known her now for months and months.

So, is he lying? No. You get the feeling that when that comes out it’s like there’s this good guy in him that said something, that violates the careful practiced seduction, the cheating seduction of this woman. That’s the thing that trips him up and he can’t recover. There is no way from that point forward through his multiple efforts — no way for him to get past the slap in the face.

And now we arrive at maybe what I think people think of as the defining section of this film and tonally why this film is special.

**John:** Let’s pause there for one second because I know what you’re getting to, but I want to point out one very clever thing they do right here. So, this perfect date that happens, and so we sort of see him building into it and then we come to them at Gobbler’s Knob, at night, they’re building a snowman, the kids are throwing snowballs. He throws back in just the right ways. They collapse in the snow. They start dancing to But You Don’t Know Me, again, a perfect song choice for that.

And she says, “This has been a perfect day. You couldn’t plan a day like this.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Which is, of course, telling. But when she says know and he’s trying to get her to say and she’s like, “I could never love a man like you,” we see him try the same date again and fail.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so we see him racing through — he’s manic.

**Craig:** Oh, desperate. Desperate.

**John:** And he’s desperate. And so we see him doing the same things, but doing them worse.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And it all falling apart. And that leads us into this montage. And then we get to our moment.

**Craig:** And that’s a great, I’m glad you brought that up, because the second snowball fight shows that he’s lost.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, Phil is a guy that has been, even though life has taken him out of control by making him relive the same day, day after day, very predictably he has managed to control that also. So, now he is using the repetition to his advantage to sleep with women, and to steal money, and to punch people out, and eat what he wants. And he’s attempting to control his relationship with Rita as well to get to the place where he can finally sleep with her.

And now that he’s said I love you to her and he’s in love with her without even realizing he’s in love with her, he’s lost — his ability to rig the game is slipping away from him. He is desperate. He’s a man who realizes there’s a chance that this will never happen. There’s a chance that I will live here now forever and never get you. And what was seemingly heaven has turned to hell.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And this, of course, parallels our regular lives. We don’t live the same day over and over and yet we sort of do. And there comes a point where we’re confronted with the absurdity of it.

Religion aside, I think everybody sooner or later has a moment where they ask, “Is there a point to this?” And the answer that comes to them is no. And if I’m trapped here and will always be trapped is there any possible way to make this stop? And the only answer is —

**John:** Yes, he literally says, “And I have to stop it.” He becomes convinced at this moment that the groundhog is the cause of all this.

**Craig:** Right. And that’s — by the way, brilliant choice. Because what you don’t want to have this character do is say have some long, tragic, talky, mopey scene where he buys a gun and a bullet and writes a sad note and then tries to kill himself. No, no, no, he thinks there’s utility yet. The way out is for me and this groundhog to go.

And so he kidnaps the groundhog. There’s a big car chase. And Rita and Larry watch as Phil makes the choice to drive off the cliff, end his life, and the groundhog’s life, Woodchuck, in the hope that either he will wake up and it will be tomorrow, or at least this torture will be over.

**John:** Yes. And of course he’s wrong.

**Craig:** He is. And we see his dead body.

**John:** Yeah. And that’s the one moment we break perspective.

**Craig:** Ah, there’s another one.

**John:** Oh, okay. So, he dies in that crash and we go through a montage where he tries different ways to kill himself. We see the toaster suicide. We see the truck. We see him jumping off the building. And so I thought the first break of POV was — the only break in the POV was Andie MacDowell and Larry the cameraman, they pull back the sheet and we see his dead body on the slab.

**Craig:** No, there is another time. And it’s meaningful.

**John:** It’s meaningful.

**Craig:** But, yes, it’s proving it to the audience, he’s dead. The guy died.

**John:** Truly dead.

**Craig:** Ooh, and then “So put your little hand in mine” and he’s awake again. And now, now this movie goes dark.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it’s wonderfully dark. And this is where a great comic actor can deliver dramatic commentary about the human condition better than the best dramatic actor, because it’s safe with them. I don’t want — if I watch Meryl Streep try and kill herself I either want her to kill herself or I want her to survive and then I just want to cry a lot and watch her recover slowly. But Bill Murray can try and kill himself and somehow it’s still funny.

It’s funny in the darkest, sickest way because, you know, death —

**John:** It’s when a clown dies.

**Craig:** When a clown dies. Death is funny. Not ha-ha funny, but absurd funny. That’s what comedy is. It’s tying into how stupid life is, and wonderful. And so his first death is hysterical. I mean, again, Danny Rubin and Harold Ramis were so smart the way they escalated things.

First it’s a “we’re going to have a goal by killing myself and the groundhog.” Next, when he realizes, oh well, that didn’t work, he gets the toaster oven from poor Mrs. Lancaster and heads up into the bathtub and electrocutes himself. It’s funny. The way he does it is funny — just ka-tunk, ka-tunk on the thing and drops. That doesn’t work.

Next, he steps out in front of a truck and he does this thing that I have been obsessed with.

**John:** The hands up and surrender, that one?

**Craig:** That he puts his hands up and then he just makes a little talkie talkie motion with his hands. Like he’s beeping along with the truck horn. I’m like he’s so disassociated from existence at that point. It’s like he’s a ghost at this point. And he gets run over. And, no, he’s awake again. And he throws himself off a building. And it doesn’t work.

And now what do you do?

**John:** Well, you’re 1 hour and 4 minutes into the movie. And what does he do? He has a little revelation. He says to Rita in the diner, “I am a god. I’m not the God, I’m a god.”

**Craig:** Which again it’s just so great. [laughs] That is such a Harold — I don’t know if that was in Danny’s original script. That feels like such a Ramis line to me. It feels almost like a Ghostbusters line.

**John:** Yeah. Absolutely. Where it’s like I’m saying something huge and then I’m going to slightly diminish it, but in the way I’m slightly diminishing kind of —

**Craig:** “I’m not the God, but I’m a god.” [laughs]

**John:** So, he tells Rita about what’s going on. And it’s not the first time he’s actually told Rita that he’s reliving the same day. He did that before, but he tells Rita stuff about everyone in the diner, including stuff that we don’t know, which I think is really important. He’s pushing beyond the boundaries of just our experience with the movie to tell about this young couple, and she’s having second thoughts. And he seems sincere at the same time, too.

He actually seems to care a little bit more than we’ve ever seen him before.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And so she says, “Okay, well as a science project how about I just stay with you the whole day.” And he agrees. And it becomes their first day date that is not manufactured in a way, where he’s actually being honest with her about what’s going on.

**Craig:** That’s right. There’s this moment in Shogun. I love that novel. Have you ever read Shogun?

**John:** I’ve never read Shogun.

**Craig:** Ah, it’s great. I mean, it’s trashy but it’s wonderful. And there’s this very cool moment where the feudal Japanese tradition of ritual suicide and the hero, who is a Dutchman that’s now living in Japan to become a Samurai himself, experiences something where he realizes he has to stop an injustice. And if the people who are in charge won’t stop the injustice then he’s going to kill himself because he cannot live with the dishonor.

And he doesn’t. He takes the knife out and he doesn’t just think about and then they say, okay, no, no, no. He starts to plunge the knife in and his hand is stopped by another Samurai. And they say, “Okay, you’ve proven your point. We’ll not do it.” But he meant to kill himself. And he stands up and he’s a bit drunk and they explain this happens. When this sort of thing happens, when you decide to let go of life and all of your burdens and commit to a release, an honest release, that you are essentially reborn.

And in his failure, his multiple failures to kill himself, what we see now with him in the dinner is he’s not eating tons of stuff. And he’s not stealing money anymore. He’s just honestly talking to her without wanting anything else other than another human to feel what he’s feeling.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** He’s not yet at the point where he can empathize with the people around him. But he is at the point where he can be honest with her. And she picks up, out of all the things he knows about her — that she doesn’t like fudge, she likes dark chocolate but not white chocolate — that’s the thing that she picks up on immediately is that he’s being honest.

**John:** Yeah. She spends the day with him. We see them in bed. She’s not — nothing sexual — just lying on shoulder, trying to stay awake before this damn thing happens. They do a funny joke —

**Craig:** Cards in the hat.

**John:** The cards in the hat, but also midnight. Basically she’s convinced it has to happen at midnight. “It’s 12:01, we broke the curse.” It’s like, no, that’s not actually how it works. And we as the audience have never really been quite clear what it is that resets it, but he wakes up every morning at 6am.

**Craig:** At 6am. And they’re also playing around with our expectation that, oh, this is it, he’s really nice to her and she’s hanging out with him. The movie will end.

**John:** Yeah. Not even close.

The other sort of crucial thing here is that he finally — he’s being honest in general to her, but he actually confesses feelings, he’s sort of in monologue form while she’s fallen asleep next to him about what it actually feels like to be in his situation. And it’s one of the few sort of moments of introspection that he really gives us, or at least says aloud.

**Craig:** What he’s doing here in this moment is loving in an actual way. He has come to understand there is no prize. There’s no prize for this. He’s starting to love her with no expectation of anything in return, even if she were to love him back. In that moment she won’t at 6am.

And to let yourself love somebody that you know will not love you back the next day, well, that’s something. And we’re watching it happen with him. And as he starts to allow himself to love somebody unconditionally, he becomes emboldened to start loving everyone unconditionally. And now his life begins to actually change.

**John:** Yes. So, some of the visible changes we see, he brings coffee to Gobbler’s Knob to the crew who is waiting there. It’s actually weirdly the worst acting moment of the movie I feel like. There’s this awkward scene with Chris Elliott that doesn’t quite work, but works textually in the sense that he’s actually making a change.

He wants to be a better person. And so he goes, he gets piano lessons. Again, they find a funny way to get the piano lessons happening there. He basically says like, “I will pay you $1,000 for a piano lesson so the kid can go out.”

**Craig:** And by the way, did you notice who the piano teacher was?

**John:** Who was the piano teacher?

**Craig:** She’s the woman in the very beginning, well not the very beginning, but the first time he wakes up at 6am, I guess the second day, so it’s the first repeated day and he wanders out and he doesn’t know where all the snow is. And he sees some of these people moving and he says to a woman, “Where is everyone going?” And she goes, “Gobbler’s Knob. It’s Groundhog Day.” That’s the piano teacher.

**John:** Oh, great. Honestly if you can find a day player who is good, why not use them twice?

**Craig:** And set them up and show them — you know, all these people that you’re just ignoring are going to become an important part of your life.

**John:** I agree. He’s nice to the stairwell guy. We see him continue to practice the piano. Obviously piano practice is a great metaphor for by working hard and continually trying to do better you will actually get better at this thing. We see him learning how to make ice sculptures. He gives Phil Ryerson a long uncomfortable hug.

**Craig:** Ned. Ned Ryerson.

**John:** Ned Ryerson. It’s a really great choice.

**Craig:** “I’ve missed you so much.” [laughs] I mean, Stephen Tobolowsky, talk about a guy that came in and just had to nail it, had to nail it, and nailed it. I mean, forever. He has a Groundhog Day forever himself which is being Ned Ryerson. Just incredible.

**John:** But within this sort of like change for the good montage there’s actually a really sort of dark thing slipped through which is the old man who seemed begging from the very start, he sort of takes a shine to him and sees him later on in that night and sort of just takes him to the hospital and the old man dies. And there’s nothing he can do to keep the old man from dying.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** And recognizing even as a good person the futility of life, that there is an end to everything.

**Craig:** That’s right. So, in this section we see Phil starting to live the right way. He is living unconditionally. There is no reason to learn the piano. If you’re not learning it to have sex with a woman, what are you learning it for? To play for whom? Why?

Because. Because there’s a joy in learning it. There’s no reason to help an old man that will die every single time. Just as there’s no reason to help anybody because we’re all going to die. But he does because it feels good to try. It feels good to try to be good to the people around you even if their flat tire will be flat again tomorrow. That living and loving other people is its own reward.

**John:** Yes. So, ultimately this is pushing us up to a sequence which has been suggested from the very start that there’s this big dance, this big ball that happens at night, but we’ve never seen it. And so we will finally see it.

We arrive — oh, actually this is the other time when we change perspective.

**Craig:** Yes! Yes!

**John:** Ah! Craig Mazin, you’re ahead of me.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** We actually arrive at this big event with Andie MacDowell and Chris Elliott and with the piano playing. And we, of course, know that has to be Phil playing and of course it is Phil playing and he’s up on stage. And everyone there loves Phil because Phil is just an awesome guy who has done amazing things for everybody in this town today.

**Craig:** Right. So the moment, the second off POV moment is we’re in the bar and we’re with Chris Elliott and Nancy, the girl that Phil had seduced with his time traveling trick. And, you know, of course Chris Elliott is getting nowhere with her because he’s a goof. And then Andie MacDowell, Rita, shows up and says, “Hey, has anyone seen Phil?”

And Nancy says, “Oh, Phil Connors. I think he’s in there.” She’s apparently met him that day. And now what’s so great about the perspective shift is it allows us to see Phil through her eyes. We’ve been basically watching her through the male gaze the whole movie and now the movie flips around to an interesting female gaze, even the idea of the male charity auction.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a bachelor auction so that women get to bid on guys.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** And she ends up bidding on him.

**Craig:** That’s right. So, that section is entirely — now for the first time in the movie we get to see Rita as a human being separate from Phil’s gaze looking at this man. And it’s so smart that they did this. Because what they’ve been holding back from us, what Danny and Harold held back from us, was her perspective of him. So, why would we ever believe she could love him if we’ve never seen him through her eyes? And now they give us that moment.

**John:** And he gets to say the lines, “I’m happy because I love you,” which is an important idea. So, basically this day is perfect not because he set it up as a perfect rouse for her. This wasn’t sort of done for her. It was done for himself and for everybody else. And that’s what sort of finally gets them connected.

**Craig:** Well, he’s living a day. So, his day, some of the things that happened on this day: he helps three old ladies whose car has a flat tire; he catches a boy that falls out of a tree; he saves the life of the town mayor, it seems, who is choking.

**John:** And lights the cigarette of the woman behind him.

**Craig:** I know! And lights the cigarette of the woman behind him! Exactly. And what’s wonderful is you start realize, oh my gosh, he does this every day. That now he lives every day, and he says to the kid — he catches this kid who falls out of the tree. He goes, “Thank me.” The kid doesn’t thank him. He runs up, “You never thank me. See you tomorrow.” And why is this a perfect day? Because it’s a day he’s okay living over and over. This is a day he’ll look forward to. If you live this way it’s all right that it happens again, and again, and again.

Just like marriage. If your marriage is good it’s okay that you wake up next to the same person day after day. It’s what you want. And we feel that now at last. And we also feel that he doesn’t care that it’s going to happen again. He’s not trying to get out of it anymore. He’s trying to stay in it, just as we should all.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a little bit of Candide to it all which is basically you can keep trying to do all these different things but ultimately you may want to just come back to tend your garden and live life delightfully in the smaller place rather than sort of keep trying to change everything around.

**Craig:** When you say Candide I immediately want to sing Glitter and by Gay.

**John:** Of course you do.

**Craig:** [sings] Glitter and Be Gay.

**John:** Because you’re a natural soprano, Craig Mazin.

It was also, of course because I’ve been mainstreaming True Detective this whole time, I kept coming back to the idea that True Detective is really a remake of Groundhog Day.

**Craig:** Time is a flat circle.

**John:** Time is a flat circle.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah.

**John:** And the POV shifts, honestly, because True Detective for this last episode has been lock step POV with our two guys. And some of the other women characters, especially the women, seem bizarre because of that, but it’s because of the locked perspective.

**Craig:** Yes. And this notion of your life repeating is ancient. I mean, in Nietzsche, I know you hate it when I talk about Nietzsche, but he wrote famously about the eternal occurrence, which I don’t think he meant in a cosmological fashion, but the idea that we just live over and over. Obviously this goes back to reincarnation and the idea of living over and over until you somehow find a spiritual — let’s not use the word perfection, because I think that that’s a trap — but a spiritual evolution.

And he experiences this with her and they make one last great, great choice that in this beautiful day where Rita watches as all these people come up to Phil and thank him honestly for saving their young marriage, and for saving their lives, and for helping them. At the end of this day they’re comfortably together in his room and he’s okay with the idea that if every day ends like this that he’s happy to live every day like that.

The morning comes and it’s a new morning. And they play a joke where they play the Sonny and Cher song and then they go, “Oh, god, we’re playing the same song.” And we go, oh my god, the spell is broken. And the last great choice is that Rita says, “You just fell asleep last night.” They didn’t have sex. He got nothing. He only gave. The whole day he just gave. And now he gets his reward to live. And where does he choose to live and with whom?

**John:** He says, “Let’s live here.” But before he says that he says, “Today is tomorrow.” Or, no, “Today is tomorrow” which is I think a great line.

**Craig:** Great line.

**John:** And then they ultimately decide, “Well let’s live here,” which I think is a reasonable — a really good choice for sort of the lesson that we’ve learned here. He now knows and loves all these people. And the movie decides to just — it cuts out. I mean, many movies would have gone a little bit longer and there’s arguments to be made for staying or not staying, but they don’t want you to sort of ask those next 15 questions. And so ending the movie is a really good way to sort of not ask those next 15 questions about, you know, well what does she want? Well, she wants to be a producer, she wants to do other things, she wants to do all this other stuff.

No. You can talk about that as you’re driving home.

**Craig:** Yeah. What are their jobs? Who knows?

The last image, I think, of the movie is clouds. But this time they are still. At peace. And from a structural point of view, let’s point out something. This is something we could talk about in another podcast, although I should bring it up now, I guess. And that’s this idea of predictability. We’re constantly, “Oh, it’s too predictable. Predictable.”

Hey, what’s more predictable than a movie where a guy lives every day over and over and then finally falls in love and gets a new day? So, predictable. We want that. This is good predictability. We’re desperate for it by the time it comes. We just want it to be earned. And we don’t mind the fact that it happens the way it’s supposed to happen because it’s structured so gorgeously.

**John:** The difference is execution. So, there’s expectation but there’s also execution. And it’s executed incredibly well. And it’s looking at exactly what are the moments that can happen and how to do the best possible versions of those moments. And everything was tuned and refined very carefully and very thoughtfully about how we’re going to get these moments to play just right.

You’re example of trashing the hotel room is a great example of that, because he’s going to do other destructive things later on. So, if you had done a giant destructive thing then it wouldn’t have really worked. It wouldn’t have had the same impact later on.

**Craig:** Right. Driving the car into the mailbox, which is his first act of destruction, wouldn’t have been so transgressive. I mean, it was more fun.

A lot of times, this is the basis of my talk at Austin that I did and I’m going to do it again at the Austin Film Festival. You could put this movie and Finding Nemo side by side. And notice some very clear thematic character structural similarities. A character has a philosophy. And they would prefer to remain precisely in the condition s they’re in, exercising that philosophy forever.

Something disrupts their ability to stay where they are. And all they’re trying to do is cling to that philosophy to get back. Where they end up is a place where they lose their faith in that philosophy. But they don’t yet have something new that they can properly believe in. And so they’re lost, and in this case throwing themselves off of buildings and in front of trucks.

And then they slowly begin to find this other way to live, but not until they act in a way that is selfless in accordance with that way to live. Same thing in Up by the way. Not until they act in a way that says I’m okay if I get nothing for living through this philosophy. In fact, I’m okay if I get hurt by living through this philosophy. It’s worth it.

Not until that point are they free to live happily ever after. Not until — Carl can say, “All right, you know what? I’m not going to. I’m here at the cliff and I can put this house down. But I’m not. Instead I’m going to go back and save the kid.” That’s not the end. The end is when he lets the house go. The end here isn’t when Bill Murray realizes, “Oh my gosh, I don’t have to be a jerk. I’m going to learn piano. I’m going to help people.”

The end is when he gets her in his bed and he’s okay to get nothing because he has no expectation that this has any purpose beyond just living well. So, it’s a great example of how to create structure around a character’s evolution from thinking one thing to the very polar opposite of that thing.

**John:** Agreed. It’s a terrific movie.

Craig, it’s been a pleasure talking it through with you.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And I should say this was always on our list of like when we do the next one of these movies we should do Groundhog Day because Groundhog Day is a classic. It was a great choice to do it this week and celebrate an amazing movie and an amazing filmmaker who gave us a tremendous number of fantastic movies.

**Craig:** And I should add that I know a number of people that worked with Harold. I got to talk on the phone with Harold Ramis once, many years ago. It’s funny to say that having a 20-minute conversation with a person is one of the highlights of your life. But it’s one of the highlights of my life. Because he is… — I think Harold is an example of the best version of what I wish I could be. [laughs] You know?

And from the funny, broad, insane movies to the more thought-provoking ones, just a brilliant man. And by all accounts — certainly my own brief encounter with him, but by everyone else’s accounts — one of the nicest men in the business. And I hope that that’s a lesson that other people can take into heart as well that the nice guys often finish first.

So, rest in peace Harold Ramis. We’ll miss you.

**John:** Indeed. Craig, thank you very much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. Bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Chicago Tribune’s [Harold Ramis obituary](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-24/entertainment/chi-harold-ramis-dead-20140224_1_harold-ramis-chicago-actor-second-city)
* Ramis on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ramis)
* Groundhog Day on [Amazon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000SP1SH6/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) and [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film))
* [How to Write Groundhog Day](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0072PEV6U/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Danny Rubin
* [Warner Bros. Logo Design Evolution](http://annyas.com/screenshots/warner-bros-logo/) compiled by Christian Annyas
* [Shogun](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0440178002/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by James Clavell
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Scriptnotes listener Jonas Bech

« 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 (74)
  • 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 (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.