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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Search Results for: youtube

Scriptnotes, Episode 721: Preparing to Direct (with Eva Victor), Transcript

February 17, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. Standard warning for people who are in the car with their kids, there’s some swearing in this episode. Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to Scriptnotes, Episode 721, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Let’s say you have finished writing that script that only you could write and perhaps only you could direct, but how do you learn how to direct? Today on the show, we’ll talk with the writer, director, and star of the much-acclaimed film, Sorry, Baby, about their journey behind the lens, which landed them best directorial debut by the National Board of Review and a lot of other awards attention. Welcome to Scriptnotes, Eva Victor.

Eva Victor: Oh, thank you for having me. You know what? You guys have gotten me through some interesting, difficult days. Your voices are very comforting to me. It’s interesting to see your faces.

John: Weird, huh?

Eva: I totally attribute faces to voices, and it’s a very surreal moment. Thank you for this. I’m excited to be here.

Craig: It’s great having you. I’m sorry if we are disturbing you, if the cognitive dissonance is freaking you out.

Eva: Exactly. Thank you for saying that.

Craig: Yes. I want you to feel okay about this, but you might not. I get that. I remember the first time when I was a kid, I would listen to Howard Stern on the radio. I had no idea what Howard Stern looked like. Then they started putting up ads for Howard Stern around the subways and stuff. I was like, “What?”

Eva: That’s a particularly surprising one.

Craig: Yes. That was really shocking. Well, Eva, I have a little bit of like, okay, you were comforting me, too, because even though I don’t spend a lot of time being cool and looking at things that other people are looking at, for some reason, back when you were doing videos, I guess on YouTube, but maybe there was something else, I saw you did one where you’re talking to your imaginary or potentially real offscreen boyfriend, “Babe,” about the heterosexual pride parade. I loved it so much, and it sent me down a whole rabbit hole of all of your videos, and I just thought you were hysterical. It’s so funny.

I have to say, not surprised at all that somebody as funny as you has made a movie like this because I think funny people are better at drama than drama people.

Eva: You know what? That is so cool. The journey of the year has been accepting that I did make videos in the past. I think I was-

Craig: You’re awesome.

Eva: At that moment, it felt really right for that to be what I was talking about. Looking back, I’m like, well, that day that video made sense, but now it’s random, but also have to give it up for whatever journey your journey is. It’s your journey, and that’s okay.

Craig: Tell me about it.

Eva: I’ve come to terms with the fact that there were skills built there. One of the main ones is moving through humiliation and putting yourself out there and feeling devastated by yourself to make something happen, and the pain of not doing something is greater than the pain of doing something and feeling ashamed.

Craig: Sure. Well, that’s what we do, and I like the way you phrase that. The pain of not doing things is worse than the pain of doing them, but the point is pain. Welcome to the show.

Eva: Welcome to the show, okay.

John: I wanted to save talking about short-form video to the bonus segment because we had Quinta Brunson on the show, and she came up at a BuzzFeed, and you were doing Comedy Central, and she learned so many crucial skills there. I want to talk about what skills transfer, what skills don’t transfer, and what you learn from that, but before we get that, we’re obviously going to talk about your film. I also want to answer some listener questions on talking to actors, writing exercises, when to share the script with people.

I also want to confess that the poster for your film is great. It’s you holding a cat, and so I assumed for months before I watched the film that, oh, the baby is the cat, that she’s talking to the cat, and the spoiler is that it’s not about the cat. It’s not about the cat. The cat is a small part of the movie, the adorable part of the movie, but not a large part of the movie.

Eva: I know, and the poster conversation was one of the more intense parts of making, because I went in this huge circle, and the main issue was trying to communicate a tonal movement through an image, and all the images that I was compelled by were sentimental value. I was like, oh my God, that’s the best version of a dramatic poster, and that’s what, if we had made a drama, simply a drama, it should have been– It was interesting, after having worked on posters, to be like, “This is the best image for the film.” That said, it is deceptive, and then I got a lot of feedback that people were like, “I can’t watch because the cat dies,” and I was like, “Oh my God, no.”

John: Again, another spoiler, the cat does not die. The cat thrives in the film.

Eva: That’s the only thing that does okay.

Craig: The cat starts healthy and just gets healthier?

Eva: No, grows up. It’s perfect. It’s a perfect cat.

John: Indeed. There’s another famous screenwriting book called Save the Cat, which apparently your film follows, but we have our own script notes book that’s out there in the world, and we have two little bits of follow-up on that before we get into the meat of the episode.

Eva: Whoa, look.

John: What, wait, what? Oh my God, there it is.

Craig: She’s got it in front of her. Oh my God, incredible.

Eva: Because you know what? I really need it. I’m a little bit through it, but I have to pause because it got to, it called me out a little too much, and I need to recuperate.

John: Not by name, but just by implication.

Eva: It’s like, “Eva, you are a bad writer in it.” I was like, “Oh.”

John: Oh my God. We almost took that one out and it almost dropped in the line edits, but you know what?

Craig: We figured it would be motivating. John, what do we– oh, we have some follow-up from Liz.

John: Drew has the flu, so he’s on the call, but he’s a rough voice. Craig, do you want to be Liz in the script notes book?

Craig: Sure, I’ll be Liz. Liz writes, “I bought the script notes book for my husband Nick, a longtime listener, for Christmas. I’m an author and through a series of unexpected events, ended up in a pitch meeting for a script this week, my very first time pitching a script. My husband suggested I read the pitching chapter in the book. I did, and the advice in there was such a huge help. The meeting was a big success, so thank you so much for writing this book.” That is so nice, it’s almost too nice.

John: Yes, it’s really nice.

Eva: Tell me the me- where’s the sad part?

Craig: There’s no conflict.

Eva: Where’s the underdog? Jeez, [unintelligible 00:06:32] must be nice.

Craig: Right. I kept waiting for my husband. Once I heard my husband suggest it, I thought, oh, this is going to lead to we’re getting a divorce, but-

Eva: Story-wise, interesting, yes.

Craig: Unfortunately for us, Liz’s life is nearly perfect.

Eva: Liz, I’m so happy for you, but you are incredibly unreadable, but congratulations.

Craig: Liz and her perfect husband Nick. Well, thank you. It is very nice. I’m glad. Listen, that was the point, Liz, was that we would help people. It’s nice to see that it’s working in the world.

Eva: You know what? The paper is good paper for a book that’s more– because it’s very paper-paper. It’s not glossy. It gives the energy of more of a manual that you can look to where you need to. That, to me, the paper makes the stakes approachable. It makes the book approachable to me. I thought that was very thoughtful. Orange is amazing, so you guys nailed it with that. The content of the book is amazing too, but also the look and the feel is really powerful.

John: All right, so that is a review from Eva Victor, acclaimed filmmaker.

Craig: That’s pretty great.

John: A lot of people have been leaving reviews online, which is great also because it helps people find the book. Thank you for leaving them on Amazon or Goodreads. I want to single out one reader who gave us only four stars. Fine, you can give us four stars.

Craig: That’s good. It’s four out of five. That’s great.

John: Yes, but most people are five stars. Four, it pulls down our average when someone gives us four stars rather than five stars, which is fine. This man wrote, “2,105 words on the Scriptnotes’ book.”

Craig: What?

John: I’ll put a link in the show notes too so people can read through it because it’s really impressively written. It’s a guy, Dimitri Papadimitropoulos.

Craig: His name is 2,105 words.

John: It’s incredible. What I like so much about his review, he says, “The book’s generosity is not that it is kind, though it often is, but that it treats the reader as an adult, someone who can tolerate complexity, contradiction, and the unglamorous truth that artistry is frequently indistinguishable from persistence.

Eva: That’s a five-star review to me. I don’t know where that–

Craig: It feels like it’s a six-star, and he might have tried to go to six, but it just busted him down to four.

Eva: That’s okay.

Craig: That’s common.

John: Eva, I thought that was a good jumping-off point to talk about artistry frequently is indistinguishable from persistence because that is the thing about filmmaking is that you say, “Oh my God, that was an amazing movie,” and it’s like, “Yes, but it wasn’t just brilliant because it was brilliant because the person had this great idea, it was so much hard work day after day, year after year to get things done.”

I think it’s the thing we talk about a lot on the show, but as I went through my career and as I’ve met and worked with some great directors, it’s just been always such a revelation. It’s like, “Oh, you’re just working really hard.” I think it’s a thing that’s just underappreciated, especially as we get into sometimes award seasons and you think, “Oh my God, this is the person is a genius, that person is a genius.” It’s like, “No, they’re just working really hard.” There’s luck and there’s all these things. There is talent, but it’s all these things.

I want to maybe frame some of our conversation with you around this because you came up, you have some experience, but as I’m reading through the press notes on this, you wrote the script not even necessarily intending to direct it. Can you talk us through the journey to this is a script and now this is a script I’m going to try to direct?

Eva: Yes, totally. I think that theme is very relevant for me. I feel like there was a moment that I realized my career would never be made by somebody else. It picked me up out of oblivion and gave me an amazing role that was the big role for my– There was this realization of you are the one who has to get you where you want to go. I have always been like, “Well, I’m not going to fail because I don’t work hard. I’m going to fail because I’m missing some intrinsic quality that people have.” I was like, “It’s never going to be because I don’t put in the hours.”

That discipline has kept me from I think mentally losing my mind. It’s like, “Well, what can’t I control?” I can write more. I can study. I can watch films. I can get my day job to a place where I’m making enough so I have these hours. I had a development deal with the studio that happened because of my internet videos. That was a very difficult experience because I was turning in page one drafts for, honestly, years thinking that if I just wrote the perfect draft, then I would get the momentum and attention from the people I needed to make that film happen but that didn’t come. That made me lose my goddamn mind. It made me really internalize something about I am fraudulent, I can’t do this, I’m not meant to write.

Then I wrote scripts for a body horror thing that didn’t make sense, but it had a lot of heart. I sent that around to people through my agents at the time. My rejections were very impersonal nos. The one person I’d met before I sent this script to read it and said, no, but the rejection letter meant everything, was Pastel, Barry Jenkins company. When I met Barry, he was like, “Your videos…” which I was even at that point ashamed of or whatever. He was like, “It’s filmmaking. It’s just not the way that other people do it. It’s a small version, but you are directing this. You’re making decisions about how people look, where the camera’s going, and what people are saying.”

I think that gave me this optimism or like, “Oh, man, someone sees the hard work behind these.” Then when I sent them the script, they sent a very generous no and made this really beautiful letter about the script and what was valuable about it emotionally. Then why they weren’t the right partners for it. That was weirdly like a letter that I read and cried out of like, “Oh, but there are people out there who are understanding.”

Then I had been, over the course of five years or so, been stewing on the idea for Sorry, Baby, but was like, “Man, the words, if I start writing them down too soon just for this particular project, I’m going to get too depressed about how bad it is compared to what the story means to me.” It took me a really long time to piece together the writing of it. Then finally, I sat myself down in a cabin in Maine and was like, “It’s time. You’re writing this.” I wrote it and sent it to Pastel again because I was like, “They get me.” They were like, “Okay, what do you dream of for this?” I was like, “Well, I’m going to act in it…” hoping that–

John: I want to clarify, at this point, you are an actor who’s been cast in things independently because you have acting credits. It’s not crazy to think that you’re going to be acting.

Eva: Right. It’s not crazy, but it is a different thing.

Craig: Yes, but there’s that concern that, oh, well, if we had Jennifer Lawrence, then maybe we would get the blah, blah, blah.” You’re like, “No, it’s going to be me.”

Eva: It was very clear that when I’m the lead actor, that means that the film is this big.

Craig: This big. [chuckles]

Eva: I was like, “I’m willing to sacrifice whatever thing that is.”

John: Eva, can I ask you about the script that you sent to Pastel? Does it closely resemble the movie that Ashley has made? The footprint of the film is very small. It’s a cabin in the woods and while the times are shifting around it, the actual literal geography it’s inhabiting is very small. Was it always that way?

Eva: Yes, it was always that small. It’s very similar to the script that we shot. There are some changes. Mainly, I did a little work with Pastel around the character of Lydia. Then once we got Naomi, that opened it up for me of how this person talks. There were a few scenes that we adjusted the dialogue. I have not had this sense, and I don’t know if I will, how little we had to work on the scripts. What do you think?

Craig: I think you worked on the script a lot. I think that what people sometimes think is that all the work on the script happens after the “first draft,” which is never really a first draft. Some people do write first drafts, but a lot of people hand a script over that they have been– you’ve been thinking about it for years. Then when you went to your Stephen King cabin, what came out was something that was already thought through. There was an enormous amount of intention and structure and care and thought.

I suspect, having seen the movie and having seen the way you directed it, that you had already directed the movie in your head. You saw it. You saw it, you heard it, you felt it, you smelled it. It’s all there. It’s okay for that work to happen earlier. I think it’s the best thing. I think it’s why people say yes. There’s a certain kind of movie that you can write that’s about, oh my God, the aliens are crashing to the moon, and you can figure that shit out as you go. For this, what I was so impressed by was how seamless the writing and the direction was. You are a walking billboard for what I think should be the gold standard for how we make feature films, a writer-director.

I just feel like even though there’s a conspiracy to convince all of us that somehow directing is this unattainable thing as opposed to writing, which we can all do, no. No, it’s not. You’re doing it already.

Eva: There is so many layers of the reasons why I didn’t think I would want to direct it that all have to do with not understanding what the job is and you can learn things to do a job. That you’re not born with information, even though it feels like you are. The college I went to, I never had any interest in directing. It was mostly plays where I went. I had no interest because I was like, “Well, this kind of guy does that and that kind of looks this way and talks this way. I don’t want to be in charge like that because I’m not compelled to be him.” It’s like, “Oh, I have my own way of doing that.”

It took a bit of soul searching to realize, oh my God, I’m desperate to direct this. I know how it looks and feels. I need to hire geniuses around me to help me find the words for visual language. It was a lot of, I don’t know, but I want to do it. I think I don’t know is so awesome.

Craig: Best words.

Eva: You’re allowed to make your first movie. You’re allowed to be doing something for the first time because you have to do it. I really fell in love with also– What was reassuring to me was the process of collecting images and moments and pieces, almost like a little scrapbook of information was a very enjoyable private process of building a world. I felt, as the work of director unfolded and I discovered what it was as I was doing it, each part of it felt like a miracle.

At one point in the edit, I was like, “Thank fucking God I like this and it’s [crosstalk].” I love it and I need it. Thank God because otherwise, why would you ever put yourself through this deeply intense experience that lasts forever?

Craig: It lasts forever and every day lasts forever, but also is way too short. It’s this nightmare of time that is never enough and is yet too much. I just feel like you’ve put your finger on something incredibly important, which is we all have a sense, whether we’ve learned it from school or from culture of the kind of person director should be. A kind of person a director should be is a man and he is a big– He’s Michael Bay. Basically, in my mind, it’s–

John: A bit of that personality.

Craig: It’s Michael Bay and I am not Michael Bay. I will never be Michael Bay. I don’t have whatever that is. That’s not me or Ridley Scott. I’m also not that. I am an ink-stained wretch, but ink-stained wretches are also wonderful directors. I love that you overcame the internalized image of what is because I honestly think that’s the thing that hurts us the most is we just start with a belief that we’re not.

Eva: Yes. Trust me, now it’s a different issue, but that one I overcame. I’m not to get through that, but I’m like, now it’s the first, honestly, if we’re going–

Craig: Please.

Eva: Now, because the writing of this film, now my experience of it is nostalgia for a time when I now remember it as flow. I don’t think it was. I toiled over that script. It was just I sent it when I was done with it. Now I’m like, “Oh, yes, directing, whatever, but writing, you guys, this needs oil. This is squeaky or something because it’s been so long. Now there’s eyes on me.” I thought the most painful thing was not having–

Craig: It’s the worst thing.

Eva: It’s the worst. Then this is also like, yes. I’m like, “Okay, now you’re trying to kill me by celebrating my film?”

John: How dare you say yes?

Eva: Well, just be honest, but also be nice. I’ve made a film. I only know how to make that film. It’s a mind fuck.

Craig: It is.

John: Can we rewind and talk about how you learned to make that film? That’s what’s so useful for so many of our listeners, is that you have a script and you have people say like, “We agree you should direct this. Now learn how to direct a film.” What did you assign yourself? What did other people send you to look at? What’s the process?

Eva: You know what? Yes. This I would love to talk about. First off was like, okay, you didn’t go to film school, so there’s a lot of fraudulence around not knowing things about film. I learned lenses will be good. Encyclopedic, ordering the books from film school, reading the books from film school. Research that was very dry, but I was like, “Let’s just read this. Let’s put post-its through it.” Quickly realized like, “Okay, this is simply information that actually I need.” It was a process of constantly being like, “Okay, that fills that need. Now what is missing still?” Then it became, I need to watch a million movies. I’d been watching movies, which is why I wrote a movie, but I was like, “I need to watch films. Then as I’m watching them, not fall into watching them, instead watch them.”

John: Look at them, study them, pull them apart. See what they’re doing.

Eva: Exactly. I became very into backwards shot listing films. A photo of every setup and blending them up and understanding when we return to the same set, it was very mathematical. When are we returning to the same setup? How long are we on Laura Dern’s face and Certain Women before we get to his face? Why? I became more aware of my taste. I was like, “Oh, I like the economy of not moving until we have to.” I became aware of what the film was needing from a visual standpoint.

I was backwards shot listing and would write out the shot list. Obviously, it’s not a complete picture because you never know what someone left out, but you get a sense of how cohesive vocabulary is built in a film. Certain Women was a really helpful one for me because that is three parts. There was chapters to that film and they’re related. How do you make three women who are strangers become related?

Then I created a shot list for my film, which instead of shot listing, because that felt random, I drew storyboards of everything. By the way, I had ample time. Man, fill your day with some shit to do because no one is knocking right now. We were just taking our time. It was drawing everything and every frame of the film. You could go through the storyboard and watch the film, which some of the shots are really what is in the storyboard. Then obviously, some very important changes were made in collaboration with my DP, Mia, who making decisions for good reasons later on. It was like an instinctual storyboard. What is the first thing that feels right?

Then I shadowed my friend Jane Schoenbrun on I Saw the TV Glow. I was like, “Oh, I’m ready.” I’m not ready, but I’m ready to start being ready. I’d been on set as an actor, but on set as an actor, it’s like, “Come in. Do you need water? Do you need Diet Coke? You’re good for the day. Good job.” I find acting very stressful in moments, especially when you’re there for some time, but not the whole time because it’s so vulnerable, but it is a different experience of things are hidden from you to protect you, which I feel complicated about, but whatever. Some things are just not your job to know.

When you’re on set sitting behind a director with nothing to do on the set besides watch that person, you realize how different people advocate for their film and the different styles of how people advocate, but also how a film is built moment to moment. It’s non-miraculous. It’s like by the end of the shoot, you have the pieces to go to the kitchen. Mixing metaphors is okay, I guess. That was my stuff. Then what you do is you take meetings with different heads of department, and through, they made a lookbook. Actually, I’m going to make a lookbook in return, and then you have a conversation with Image, and then you become specific.

The cool thing about directing a film is you make decisions every day over time. The film is built over time, and that was reassuring to me too because at first you’re alone, but then you bring people in, and it’s not just yours. That’s a relief really to, okay, you got that character thing, fucking God, that’s yours. Say it how you want to say it.

Craig: I think that what you just said from start to finish is, I’m going to use the word probably because I want to be kind and charitable to film schools, it is probably worth more than four years of film school. What you just laid out there, in part because you just belied the need for film school. You taught yourself what you needed to learn. I love that. I went through the same thing because I didn’t go to film school. There’s a special technical film school for directing, which you didn’t go to, and I didn’t go to, but we’re smart. We read stuff quickly and learned things quickly.

The thing about lenses, I don’t need a semester on lenses. I need 30 minutes on lenses to get the basic breakdown of it, and then I need to be on set and go, “Can we try something longer?” The cinematographer’s like, “Yes, you know what? 50. That’s cool.” Then you’re like, “Oh my God, that’s the thing.” You start to get muscle memory. All of these things you laid out, the way you storyboarded, the way you broke things down, reverse-

John: Reverse shotless thing is so crucial.

Craig: -shotless thing is genius. That’s genius.

John: I want to just pause for a second because people may not quite know what we’re describing. You’re watching a scene in a movie, and you can figure out, okay, well, we are a close-up of her, but there’s also a two-shot and there seems to be a wider shot, and so you can basically figure out, what were the actual shots they had on the day to make that thing? That was the plan going into it, but then you can also look at, how did they actually use it? When did they move into coverage? When did they stay wide? All the information is right there. You can see it because it’s in the film, and that is so useful.

Part of this is reminding me of, I don’t know, people who watch Drag Race. There’s bedroom queens who basically, who do really good drag at home, and they’re on Instagram. There’s also obviously queens who need to go out and actually perform in front of other people. That to me is the transition from you shotlessing at home and then going to a set and seeing Jane direct it on the set for her movie because you are watching like, “Oh, this is what it’s actually really like. This is what the actual decisions look like in the field where it can’t be perfected on Instagram.” You’re making choices moment by moment.

I’m sure you found this, and Craig, I know you’ve encountered this. When you are on a set and it’s not your movie. You’re still watching the monitor, and you have so many opinions. It’s like, “I can’t believe we’re moving on. There’s no way that’s going to cut right. That’s not what it is.” You recognize, no, but the director knows what they need. They know that, okay, between these two things, they know what’s important.

Craig: Sometimes.

John: Sometimes. Craig’s also a show writer who obviously does have control of a film.

Craig: Every now and again, they go, “Okay, we’re moving on.” I go, “No, we’re not.”

John: No, we’re not.

Eva: Declaring we’re moving on is like, well, that’s crazy. You can’t really go back on moving on. Okay, you have to be sure.

Craig: My thing on moving on is before I move on, I check with the tent. Who’s in the tent? My script supervisor is in the tent, and a producer is in the tent. My assistant is in the tent, people who have been watching this, and I’m like, “Are we feeling okay about this? We’re good? Do you think we got it? We got it? We got it. I feel like we got it. Okay, moving on.”

You’re absolutely right. It’s like an abandonment, and it’s the worst part of directing is that you have to do more than you have time to do so you move at such speed, but you get better as you go. You are, I assume, a much better director week– I don’t know how many weeks you shot for. Let’s say five, four?

Eva: 24 days.

Craig: Five weeks. Week five, you were a better director than week one, almost certainly.

Eva: Definitely. You know what? You don’t really self-reflect like that but then Naomi was there the whole time. She was there the first day, and she was there the second to last day. She was like, “Bitch, what the hell?” She was so proud of me. I was like, “Realize, so true.” You know what? There was actually something else I wanted to add, which was a really pivotal part of my building the film two years, was we did shoot two scenes from the film in a very small– Me and my DP and a group of my DP’s students at NYU came to shoot in an Airbnb in New York where we both lived two scenes, and the prompt for my producers who produced it and it was a practice setting, the prompt was, two scenes that scare you.

I did a scene that was terrifying for me to direct because I didn’t understand the mechanics of the movement of the people, a lot of movement. Then the other one was as an actor, this scene in the bathtub where Agnes tells Woody what happened.

John: It’s a Sundance Labs thing. That’s exactly what you do.

Eva: Exactly. Then I worked with an editor, Kate Broca, who that was the moment when I was like, “Oh, you cannot cut from a Y to a Y.”

Craig: Ah, love this.

Eva: I’m like, “Oh, man, what a master class in failure and a good [unintelligible 00:30:51]. I didn’t really realize it was a test, but then there was this moment when they were like, “What would you have changed about how you shot it?” That was the moment when they were like, “Okay, yes, you understand what you would change.” Also shadowing a set is very interesting because I shadowed a couple days on Billions, the show that I was on, just to watch those directors. The budget of that shoot is one real particular thing. The vocabulary of the show is very heavily covered. We go over every shoulder, clean, we do everything.

Then Jane’s film was a particular budget that was much larger than the budget I was going to have but to go backwards, to get a sense of scope and how much can you get done in a day when you have more days, when you have less days, when you have an actor who can only be there three days. Just to get a sense of a few different things, to understand that things on your set will be particular to your set.

Craig: I think you did a fantastic job. It’s funny, I was watching through and I was noticing, first of all, I have a particular– It’s just taste. It’s not that I don’t like when people move cameras around. I just don’t like it when cameras move around for no fucking reason. I like a camera to be still and I like the people to move around. I loved how still it was so frequently.

I noted as I was watching how many scenes didn’t really seem to need coverage. You had a nice two-shot and it worked that way. That’s how the character were interacting and it was great. The scene that I was like, there’s one that was probably tricky, was when Decker and all of his grad students are around a table. Shooting around a table is a nightmare. It’s a nightmare that nobody– I’d rather shoot a car chase than a scene with that many people around a table.

Eva: That makes me feel better because I’m like, “How do you fucking shoot a car chase?” Would never break that–

Craig: It turns out it’s because you can edit the shit out of car chases, but the eye lines around a table, that’s nightmare stuff for me. You did it really well.

Eva: Thank you. There are a few mistakes in the film, continuity issues, and one of them is in that scene, I’ll never say what it is. Okay, you just have to live with the fact that happened. I think, honestly, Billions prepared me for that.

Also, so much of understanding a scene is who is the scene about and his special attention to Agnes. It’s like, that helps. That helps these boys can be in a two-shot, a three-shot, and they will be cut to highlight that this is less vulnerable.

Craig: Then you got to explain that to them. Sometimes actors don’t like that.

Eva: No. They’re my close friends, so they understand.

Craig: It’s a tricky one. You’re like, “No, I actually think that you guys come through better in this.” [crosstalk]

John: Just so we can see the chemistry between the two of you.

Eva: When I’m in a movie, i.e. one other time besides this, now there’s no bullshit of I know I’m a character. If I’m next to someone who is on set every day and I’m here three days, I get it. I’m here to get you here. It’s interesting. It’s interesting.

John: Eva, you’ve perfectly set up a question we have from Anne. She writes, “How should writers talk to actors? Specifically, do you tell them about their function within a script, or do you just talk about the human being their character is?” It’s that balance between this is the character, this is who you are, the world is that, and functionally, this is what I need you to do. This is your job at this scene. What’s your instinct there? How you talk to actors?

Eva: Depends on the actor. I feel like I’ve now been in enough rooms where people don’t know I’m an actor or they forget. I hear people talking about actors, “Be careful.” I don’t talk about actors like that. I really think what they do is psychotically intense and next-level vulnerable. When I wrote Sorry, Baby, every character I wrote as if I got to play the character. I was like, “You’re going to say something I like. I want the words to be good because what if I do it?” It was very important to me that every actor was who they were in the film. I obviously was a part of every casting decision, but I’m like, “The world is as important as the people who lead it.”

I don’t know, talking to actors, you get a sense of how an actor wants to be treated. Some actors want to be handed off the role, and that I love to do. I love to be like, “You’re the expert now, go fly, you know more than me.” Often actors who are writers too are like, “I get who I am in this.” It was interesting because Naomi is completely brilliant. We never rehearsed. She really wanted to just do it. She’s so connected.

It was a very different process than, for instance, Lucas Hedges, who is brilliant as well, equally brilliant. We rehearsed for weeks beforehand. It was amazing to work with actors who I was learning from who were more seasoned than me because I was like, “Oh, every actor, their soul is how they do things.” It’s great if an actor knows themselves well enough to say, this is how I like to be treated.

John: Let’s go back the other way then. You’ve cast an actor in a role. What is that conversation like? If you’re the director, how do you have that conversation about let’s talk about how you like to work? Any tips on how to have that conversation with an actor?

Eva: My thing was always offering up meetings, calls, rehearsals, and going off of how they responded to that and what they needed for their process. My process as an actor was- I worked with Rebecca Dealy, who is an amazing casting director and also an acting coach, and so my process was also about building my character privately- I think offering everything that anyone could want and then respecting whatever they need.

Craig: That’s a great way of thinking about it because as much as I understand the impulse here that Anne has, which is tell me how to talk to actors or should we give actors this information? They’re all different. Big surprise. They’re all different. One thing that one actor craves is the thing that another actor will throw an absolute fit over. Learning that is easier for some people. It’s probably easier for you, Eva, than it is for me. I’m a little dense. It takes me some time sometimes to realize, oh, this person doesn’t need that and this person does need that. Just because this person needs it doesn’t mean that person.

It takes me a little bit of time. I’m not instant with it. I let them know when I start. I’m like, “Feel free to tell me, hey, this would help, this would not help.” Then my attitude is, I’m here to get the best performance out of you. Help me help you. What do you need?

Eva: There is, I discovered, a lot of value in acting across from your actor because it’s like you’re not coming down from on high with a note. I don’t really believe in the idea of a note. Anytime a director has given me a note– I like the idea more that a director delivers a secret or an idea or just that like, “What if she had this thought?” To me, there’s an immediate trust that happens if you’re in a scene with someone of, I have to have your back and you have to have my back. When I’m acting with you, I can’t judge your performance, [unintelligible 00:39:05] whatever you say. If I have an idea of what you could do differently, I’m going to give you something different, which is–

Craig: Oh, that’s interesting.

Eva: It’s less condescending of, I have an answer. It’s more like, “What if I said it like this? What happens with you?”

Craig: You direct them by altering your performance.

Eva: Not in secret.

Craig: No. You let them know. That’s amazing. It’s funny. I do wish they were like– because I want to be a good boy. Really, more than anything, I don’t want actors to feel like, I don’t know, I don’t want them walking away going, “He’s just difficult today.” I want to do right by them, but sometimes it’s impossible.

John: Craig, you’re trying to balance, you want their performance to be fantastic and you also have to look at the entire scene and entire story, everything around it. That’s the challenge, is you’re always balancing all these different competing desires.

Craig: I’m not acting.

Eva: Every day on set, you have to make a calculation of like, “Okay, if I give this person this thing, then this is taken from this person.” If I go late this day to make sure I know I have it, but does this actor need to feel like they have it, that will report me because it’s their first day, because this scene is vulnerable or whatever. That calculation of like, “Okay, we are going into overtime and because I haven’t done that, I can do that this day,” constant calculations of what is best for the film. Having to kill your darlings even of like, that person will not be happy with me tomorrow, but I won’t go late tomorrow. It’s a busy mind.

Craig: Oh, man, is it ever. It’s like your busy mind has made something absolutely beautiful. I really do appreciate it. I know we have more questions, but this isn’t a question. This is for me. It’s just a statement. What I love so much about what you did was you made a movie about relationships and half of the movie, and I’m just guessing, but half of the movie by weight is you alone, and it’s still about relationships. It’s always, there’s always a ghost in the room with you. It’s incredible how dialed in you are to the only thing I care about in stories which is relationships, and just so well done, just so well done.

Eva: Thank you so much. There are so many ghosts that are on the cutting room floor that in the script, I was like, “Yes, that is my favorite thing in the script that just once the film starts to become–”

John: It tells you what it wants to be. I was looking through the script yesterday and I noticed like, “Oh, these are whole scenes that are in the movie,” and basically what you cut were things that broke out of your POV. The script had scenes that did not have you driving the scene, and then those scenes, they didn’t last in the movie, and that’s not surprising, and I’m sure they were delightful. I’m sure they’re really funny, but the things that were there, they weren’t absolutely necessary, and therefore they fall out.

You had the first scene at a sandwich shop. You had two guys talking about paninis. You had an Agnes and Natasha scene. You had two jurors talking. They’re all funny and great, and I could totally imagine why they were in the script, and I can completely see why they weren’t in the finished movie, and that’s also directing.

Eva: If you had told me we were cutting those scenes, I would have been like, “Let’s just not fuck each other.”

Craig: That’s the fun part. You don’t know.

Eva: It’s crazy, and it makes me so relieved that we shot more than we needed. I mean, I know obviously there are sacrifices that have to be made when you have more pages. It just took everything, but honestly, strategically, those scenes for me, the way I felt about them in the script were like, “I’m deliberately giving my audience intermissions, energetically intense stuff,” but then it’s like, right, an intermission makes tension fall through the floor, so why would you ever do that?

I was like, I didn’t understand that they would change the pace of the film and would be so jarring that whatever tonal shifting I was trying to do that kept people locked in, there was a jolt that was too jolty and would make no one trust me with the other transitions of tone.

Craig: Yes, people lose confidence.

John: Absolutely. Well, I’m really happy that the script you’re putting out there shows the scenes in there because it’s such a good lesson for like, you can see like, oh, this is the shape of a movie before it films, and that this is the shape of a film afterwards, and you discover things along the way. My question is, how early did you know those scenes were dropping out? Was it after the first assembly where like, “Oh,” or did it take a while to figure out that those were things that weren’t helping you out?

Eva: I went through the mental intensity of shooting the film mainly happened in the edit where I was finally seeing myself on screen and the energy of the film wasn’t diluted by cut, and then you shoot a piece at a time, but when you watch it, you’re like, “Oh my God, this is a sad movie.” I was surprised somehow that it was a sad movie and I had to [unintelligible 00:44:19]. Take a second, I really fought for the sandwich scenes, but the second that, for instance, there was a first scene with John Carroll Lynch, and then there’s a panic attack scene, and the second, that first scene–

John: It’s so good. The second scene is so good.

Eva: The second scene becomes-

John: Important.

Eva: -completely different. What that scene did in the film was it gave us too much information about Agnes being mentally unwell that it’s math. It’s constant calibration, constant, “Well, yes, what if we try?” It’s like puzzle making, and you just have to try everything because you are going to get basically questioned by everybody on why each thing, and you can only choose it if you know what it is.

Craig: You have to be able to justify it. Everything does impact everything. It’s like making a jigsaw puzzle, but when you put one piece down, the colors change on the other pieces. It’s a really weird thing to do, and it is hard to say to a great actor like, “Oh, by the way, we left one of your–” People have left scenes with Meryl Streep on the cutting room floor. You just have to do it sometimes because you find what you needed, and everything was a theory. The fact that your theory worked out 98% of the time is insane. It’s miraculous.

Eva: Really wonderful actors, they know that the movie working makes their scenes work. In the Natasha scene that got cut, when I told Kelly, who plays Natasha, “We cut this one scene,” and she was like, “Yes, that makes sense. It was the same scene as a scene before.” I was like, “Oh, sweet, Kelly, nice to know.” I was just like, “Oh, yes, people get it.” People understand that what that does for something else is more.

John is able to be proud of the film because of how his character experienced as a breath of fresh air, completely new energy, 75% of the way through the film. There’s real power in that. Yes, it’s nice when actors get why. I wish every script that you could read was a shooting script. My God, would that be– That is the one cool thing about when you get to know people. There’s a lot of cool things about getting to know people who do this, but one of them is you can make them send you shooting scripts instead of–

John: The sanitized, yes.

Eva: I’m just like, “This is a key to the kingdom,” which I feel like should be more possible.

Craig: Yes, I agree with you. It’s also comforting to see how a great movie had a shooting script that was 90% correct.

John: I think we’ve actually achieved our goal and our thesis, which is basically that it’s not brilliance, it’s actually mostly just hard work. You can’t distinguish and differentiate between the two of them. This conversation about like, “Oh, no, it was just really hard work.” Yes, inspiration and incredibly talented people, but also hard work and constant questioning of, “Wait, am I actually doing this right?” Eva, thank you so much for this education.

Eva: I have a question for you guys. You have both had psychotically successful things. I am curious about your return to the page. Maybe this isn’t your experience, but I am–

Craig: I’m scared.

Eva: -conflicting that– Well, beyond scared. I think reconciling with the fact that each process is humblingly different than another process and work in a new way that you have to relearn, but coming off of attention.

Craig: Attention is the poison, so you can’t. In my experience, when attention is as focused and relentless as it is on something like you and your movie during award season, it is poison in your veins. It’s a beautiful thing, of course. It’s a sign that people connected and loved what you did, but attention causes pain and you need to be alone to write. I really believe that. I don’t think you can write in a room with glass windows and everybody staring at you. You need a little time. You need a little time to flush it out.

I call it going down the well. That’s what Bella Ramsey and I call it, going down the well. You’re going to go down the well and you’re going to be at the bottom of a well for a bit. People are going to wonder, why are you at the bottom of a well? You should be on top of the world. You’re like, “I’m crying a lot.” They don’t understand, but that’s okay. Then the attention, this is the best part.

Eva: Goes away.

Craig: I mean, oh my God. You think it won’t because they just can’t take their eyes off of you and then it’s gone. Then you’re like, “Oh, thank God.” Then, of course, later you’re like, “Oh, no, it’s going to come back.” That’s a different dread. My advice is give yourself a little bit of time.

Eva: Thank you for saying that. As you’re saying that, there was this journey. I was making these videos. It was daily attention on the videos. The turnaround was so psychotic. DMs from people that would break my mind. What had to happen was I stopped. I had Cold Turkey run away for a few years and decide who am I, what is going on, what do I want to write, what do I care about, and it’s like, “Oh my God.” I totally did that and I needed so much silence. Hearing you say that, I’m like, “Oh shit, I actually know about that and that’s amazing.” It’s a different thing, but it is this crazy thing.

John: I would also say that I suspect your curiosity will overcome your fear at a certain point because your curiosity is, as I’m sure driving you through a lot, there’s things you want to explore and do. Just the same way you were intentional about thinking about how you want to direct, you’re going to be intentional about thinking about what do I want to do now? What is interesting to me? What is a thing I want to tackle? You’ll find a clever way to do it.

It could be a new original story or it could be an adaptation of something that you’ve always like, “Oh, I know how to do this thing. Why does this thing not exist in the world?” Then you’ll make that thing and it’s going to be awesome.

Eva: Isn’t that crazy? Thank you so much. You guys are so nice. Always time with everything. Yes.

Craig: It’s really annoying. It’s annoying. We have no problem accepting that for our physical selves. No problem at all. You cut yourself as a kid, it hurts, and then it scabs up, and the scab is itchy, and then it goes away, and then it’s pink and weird, and then it’s okay, and then it’s like it never happened, and it’s just time. We are so frustrated that our emotional pain takes time.

That’s what Dennis Palumbo, who’s a therapist that I went to for many years, and he came on our show and talked on our show, he would often say to me, I would say like, “When does this stop?” He would say, “Tincture of time.” I’m like, “Shit, but also good.” Tincture of time. Yes. A little bit of time. You’re going to be fine. You’re going to be more than fine. You’re going to be great.

Eva: Thank you.

John: Let’s do our one cool thing. I have a book that I’m reading that I really love that I want people to read. It’s called Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves. It’s by Sophie Gilbert. It’s really good. I think you’d both like this a lot. It goes back to some earlier times and the cycles of feminism, post-feminism, and to this churn that happens. Women, and particularly young women, get co-opted into this system of beliefs and any attempt to form an identity for themselves gets marketed back towards them. It’s really smartly done.

Here’s from her opening chapter, which is her thesis. She says she wanted to understand how a generation of young women came to believe that sex was our currency, our objectification was empowering, and that we were a joke. Why were we so easily persuaded of our own inadequacy? Who was setting the agenda? I just loved her framing on all of this because it just does feel like you have girl power, and then it becomes a thing that is sold back to women that they can buy and purchase.

It’s about culture. It’s capitalism. It’s also really about porn, which I hadn’t thought so much about, but the degree to which porn is always on the edges of culture and warping things in a weird way. I thought it was just a great book. Sophie Gilbert’s Girl on Girl. It’s a book out from last year, but I’m just now reading it.

Eva: That is amazing.

John: Craig, what do you got?

Craig: My one cool thing is the Vancouver SkyTrain. I love riding a train, but I’m a New York boy. I love the subway there. The subway goes pretty much everywhere, and I love it. Vancouver is not New York. It’s a much smaller city. It doesn’t have a subway. It’s got this little monorail thing. I just never took it. I never got on it. I was just like, “Oh, it’s a train.” The studio complex where we are based and where all of our stages are is just walking. It’s like a two-minute walk from a SkyTrain station. I was like, “Should I take a train?”

I am so obsessed with riding the SkyTrain. It is so much better than driving. It’ so much better. My mood driving to work, I get in my car and I’m already angry that I’m driving. Then my blood pressure and rage accelerate so that when I finally arrive at work, I am already just at a 9 of pissed. Then I have to go to meetings. The SkyTrain is like, ah, and it’s clean. There’s a train that comes every three minutes. In the subway in New York, you’re like, “Oh, I just missed it. It’s going to be 12, which is really 15, or there’s a stoppage.”

This thing never stops. Three minutes, just [onomatopoeia] and it’s lovely. I’m not saying anything that a lot of Vancouverites don’t know, but if you do live in Vancouver and you haven’t taken the SkyTrain, and you’re wondering, fantastic way to get around.

John: Love it.

Eva: They’re going to be so happy you said that.

Craig: I should get money.

John: Absolutely. Eva Victor, do you have something to recommend to our listeners?

Eva: Yes. I was going to do this mini Nutella that I got in Spain today. Instead of that, I have decided to shift my one, so this is me sneaking in two things. There is a website called rainymood.com. If you go rainymood.com, you can listen to rain sounds and it can be a tab open on your computer while you do other things. I find it incredibly relaxing. You can also listen to music while you listen to rainy sounds, which I think is really beautiful. Rain has always been a comfort to me and consider checking it out.

Craig: The website has rain. It’s like you’re looking through a window that has rain coming down. It’s a beautiful website. This is really nice. The SkyTrain is its own vibe. Also, it’s Vancouver. It’s always a rainy mood. This is shocking right now, what’s going on behind me, the fact that it’s not raining. When I go to sleep, my iPad is doing white noise, but it’s technically brown noise because I’m baby still. I’m just an old baby. The older I get, the closer I return to looking like an actual baby. Soon, the diapers will come.

This actually seems like something that might be nice for when I’m writing because I don’t like specific noises, but rain is comforting like that. This is lovely.

John: Love it.

Eva: No word.

John: No words.

Craig: Love it.

John: Great. Awesome. Thank you so much. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nick Moore. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with our signup for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

The ScriptNotes book is available wherever you buy books. Eva Victor has hers with her in Spain. You’ll find us on Instagram @ScriptNotesPodcast. You’ll find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for ScriptNotes and give us a follow. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkwear. You’ll find us at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about today in the email, you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. Eva Victor as a premium subscriber. Nice.

Craig: We’ve been siphoning $5 a month out of her pocket for a long time.

Eva: Five is a fucking steal. You guys are seriously doing more than $5 a month, but I love it.

Craig: Thank you.

John: Thank you so much.

Craig: Maybe just Venmo then.

Eva: I’ll send a [unintelligible 00:58:02] to you two.

Craig: You’re a big filmmaker now. I don’t know.

John: Absolutely. You can send and become a premium member at scriptnotes.net where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on short-form video versus directing feature films. Eva Victor, congratulations on your directing of your feature film, your writing of it, your starring in it. All the attention for it, which is wonderful, but will also pass and then allow you to do the thing after that next. It was so great having you on the show. We’ve tried for a while and I’m so glad it finally happened.

Eva: I am so happy. This is such a milestone for me in a way that’s beyond, so thank you.

Craig: Thank you, Eva.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right. Eva Victor, we first became aware of you, Craig specifically, because you were making funny videos. You were working at Comedy Central. You were doing other stuff too. Can you talk to us about what you learned making those videos, but why it didn’t take a transfer directly to what you were doing for making a film? That era in making short videos, what was that like for you?

Eva: The most important skill, as someone acting in the film that I was directing, was to look at a take and quickly know if I had what I needed in my performance or if I needed to go again. The muscle of judging my own self and giving myself a note was quite harnessed, which was really helpful because I wasn’t afraid of what I saw. I knew what I looked like. I knew how I sounded. Mostly, was noting myself. I rarely gave notes to other actors. It was more just like, “Let’s do one like this.” I wasn’t building someone. They did that. They did an amazing–

I think also, understanding visual vocabulary and having one vocabulary for one piece. I was making videos, and then that got me the job at Comedy Central. I started making my videos at Comedy Central. I had this series there, which was this web series on their YouTube called Eva vs Anxiety. I got an episode of that, and they made me script stuff. I was like, “Oh, man, I like to come up with the things.” They’re not funny once I write them down or something. I liked when it was more exploratory, but I had to script them for the process of working there.

The first episode we shot was shot with, in my opinion at that time, high production value. It became clear to me, this is not funny for this medium. It actually requires me to hold the phone, and I have to be the director of it because if someone else is, you can tell. It just was, oh, the visual vocabulary that’s appropriate for this medium right now is handheld. You can almost see my arm in it. It has to be for this thing to be funny.

Craig: Editing that chops off the last word. It’s a very–

Eva: Yes, like no air. Yes, exactly. I think part of the reason when I got to, Sorry, Baby, I was like, the first shot’s going to be like 100 seconds because I now can take time. Just understanding that each thing is going to have its own way of being and a way it needs to be. Also, me just doing a monologue, listen. Also, it was interesting because at the time, whenever I took meetings, the only thing I ever heard was, “Well, what’s your Fleabag?”

I always said to people, you would not recognize it because it wouldn’t look a damn thing like Fleabag. What are you talking about? I think there was this limited idea at the time that like, “Oh, if I make these videos online and those translate to Twitter, that means when you make a film, it has to be as close to that because that’s what we know get the views on Twitter.” I’m like, “No, it would be a totally different scope and story.”

In a lot of ways, it opened a door to me practicing a lot and messily trying to understand how to build something. Also, it got me in the door. Once I was in the room, it was hard to find people who could see past the idea of a viral video. That’s what I was useful for.

Craig: I think it’s notable that you dealt with authority in an impressive way because I think when I was starting out, I was young, I was maybe 24, 25, I would put authority ahead of my own instincts all the time because I’m like, “But that’s their job. What the fuck do I know?” I think one thing that your generation has the benefit of is that you had a platform to do it yourself minus any authority. The authority came to you because of the things you did without the authority. When they start to dish out the authority, it feels like there’s a reasonable chance for you to go, “No.”

Eva: Yes, or you make something with the authority and you’re like, “Well, yes, this isn’t working.” They are like, “Wait, so how do you make it work?” It’s like, “Well, right.”

Craig: I stop listening to you and the things that you want me to do.

Eva: Something that was hard about working at Comedy Central was we would have meetings on a weekly basis about who was watching the videos and how much they hated any of the women working there would comment about how ugly everyone was. We would have meetings about how are we going to work on that. Then it was also like, “Well, the viewership base is people who we can’t isolate.” It was a lot of corporate stuff that I was like, “This is crazy I’m in this meeting.”

Then again, I guess that probably also prepared me for nothing shocking to me now. Sometimes you meet with people and it’s like, “Damn, that’s a crazy thing to say to me but the men on the internet said something so much worse.”

Craig: I made the mistake of going to– I never go on Instagram. I have an Instagram account, but I never use it. I went there because my daughter put something on there and I wanted to watch it. Then because I never use Instagram and I’m on the website, there’s things on the left that have red numbers. I’m like, “Are these my friends talking to me?” I click on it and it’s just like a list of people literally telling me to die. Because I make a show based on a video game and it is a little crazy.

It didn’t feel great, but then I was like, “Wait, close the box, put box back in lead lined coffin, put coffin back in ground, never look at again.” No one is ever going to tell me in a meeting like, “Honestly, our feeling is that you should die.”

Eva: Not your people, but just people in general.

Craig: Maybe right on again.

John: Craig, I suspect that five years from now, you and I are going to be talking with a filmmaker who came out of Instagram, Reels, and TikTok. Just like there’s a film grammar for what you’re doing at Comedy Central for those videos, there’s a film grammar for TikTok, for Reels. These people are incredibly talented at what they’re doing. They’re so smart and so sophisticated and they have such high production values, but it’s just not a film TV kind of thing. Them learning how to do that, it’s going to be so fascinating.

A friend of mine has a bunch of YouTube creators who are so smart and so good, but this last summer they did this thing where they all made short films, which is just really trying to learn what the film grammar is like. It’s just so different. Because you’re really good at one thing, you think anything, I’m great at being in front of a camera, but it’s different as Eva will tell us.

Eva: I will say, if you want to figure out how to do something, you have to watch a million things that they want to do. It’s the only way. If you want to make a movie, you watch movies. You have to watch movies from every time of the world. It’s interesting because I feel very grateful that when I was making videos on Twitter, there was 13 people doing that. Man, is it a crazy place now? I don’t know. There’s so much talent.

I am really excited to see what comes because access to an audience has never been easier, and that is so much of what stands in the way of people being able to do things. Having an iPhone is like–

John: Yes, it’s crazy. Eva, thank you so much. Congratulations again.

Craig: Absolute joy.

Links:

  • Sorry, Baby
  • Read the Sorry, Baby screenplay
  • Eva vs. Anxiety
  • Eva’s straight pride parade video on X
  • Demetri Papadimitropoulos’s review of the Scriptnotes Book
  • Certain Women
  • I Saw the TV Glow
  • Girl on Girl by Sophie Gilbert
  • Vancouver SkyTrain
  • Nutella mini jars
  • rainymood.com
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Nick Moore (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Torn from the pages of Squash Magazine

Episode - 725

Play

February 17, 2026 HWTBAM, Scriptnotes

John and Craig gather our listeners’ favorite news articles and ask, How Would This Be a Movie? Stories include an underground network delivering menstrual supplies in Minneapolis, a millennial travel group, how the US hacked ISIS, and a fake college squash team.

But first we follow up on modern comps, email issues, teaching screenwriting, and what it means to be undeniable. We also answer listener questions on querying reps with a published book and whether writers really need to repeat the plot for a second-screen audience.

In our bonus segment for premium members, what do we do with all our old CDs and DVDs? We weigh the pros and cons of physical media.

Links:

  • How an errand for a 12-year-old immigrant in Minneapolis became an underground operation by Jasmine Garsd and Sarah Ventre for NPR
  • I Went on a Package Trip for Millennials Who Travel Alone. Help Me. by Caity Weaver for The New York Times
  • How the US hacked ISIS by Dina Temple-Raston for NPR
  • Whitman College: The Best College Squash Team in History by James Zug for Squash Magazine
  • Shipping Out by David Foster Wallace
  • Email deliverability tester
  • Disempowerment patterns in real-world AI usage by Cornell University and Anthropic
  • The world’s greatest song that simply shouldn’t exist
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram and TikTok
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Gloom Canyon (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Introductions with Joachim Trier

February 10, 2026 Scriptnotes, Transcribed

John welcomes writer and director Joachim Trier (Sentimental Value, The Worst Person in the World) to ask, how do you introduce your characters and their world to the audience? Using the screenplay for Sentimental Value, Joachim lays out how he sets up his themes, characters, conflicts and narrative authority in the first few pages.

We also look at Joachim’s process of developing stories with his co-writer Eskil Vogt, and answer listener questions on endings, casting, and work-life balance.

In our bonus segment for premium members, Joachim and John flip through how we present screenplays on screen, why Joachim translates his scripts in pre-production, and the one little detail you might not have noticed in Sentimental Value.

Links:

  • Sentimental Value | Screenplay
  • Joachim Trier
  • Notorious (1946)
  • The Lindy Effect
  • Chris Ware
  • Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Jeff Hoeppner & Richard Kraft (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

UPDATE 2-17-26: The transcript for this episode can be found here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 720: Watch Your Tone, Transcript

February 5, 2026 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello, and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Episode 720 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, how do you sell and produce an original series in this age of streamers and IP? To help us answer that question, we welcome back the co-creators of the new spy series Ponies, Persons of No Interest, Susanna Fogel and David Iserson. Great to have you back on Scriptnotes.

David Iserson: Great to be back. I listened to this show enough that it is still freaky to see you do the thing that I hear you do.

[laughter]

John: Last time you were here, it was Episode 361. This is Episode 720. It was halfway through. Every 360 episodes, it’s like a year cycle. You come back on the show.

David: This is how hard it is to get a thing made. It goes from script to production over the half-life of Scriptnotes’ journey as a podcast.

John: That was for The Spy Who Dumped Me. Now you’re back with another spy show, so spies are in your pocket.

David: We’re back with something that has some shared DNA in that we wrote it, and that it is about spies, but it’s a very different tone, very different feel. I think we learned a lot of things for making that movie that we didn’t bring into this show. It’s a different beast, but it is still things that we gravitate to. We shot them both in Budapest.

Susanna Fogel: Budapest. French stories–

David: About two women.

John: That’s true. It’s hilarious, but the tone is specific and strange. I really want to get into it because I was struck by sort of Ponies is a tone I’ve not seen on a show in a while, which is fun to say. I want to talk about that.

Susanna: Aw, thanks.

John: I want to talk about the series, but I also want to answer listener questions on trusting your judgment, how to tell if you’re talented, and differentiating character voices. In our bonus segment for premium members, I want to talk about taste. We did a little bit of this before we got on mic, but what is taste? How do you cultivate it, and should you even worry about taste? We’ll get into taste. Let’s remind listeners who weren’t here for episode 361–

David: What were you guys doing?

[laughter]

John: What were you doing? It’s okay. Answer and remind us who you are because Susanna Fogel, and the time since we saw you last, you went off and directed a whole bunch of things. Pilots for the Flight Attendant, The Wild, A Small Light. You directed the features Winter and Cat Person all in the time since we’ve seen you. You’re so busy and prolific. Congrats.

Susanna: Thank you. I go for long stretches of time where I’m not working, and I’m in my pajamas, so when things come out all at once, and it looks like that’s my regular density of work, I feel excited that that’s how it looks.

John: David, when we talked before, we talked about you working on SNL way back in the day.

David: Yes, that was my very first writing job.

John: Yes. Since then, United States of Terror, Up All Night, New Girl, Mad Men, Mr. Robot, Mozart in the Jungle, Run. Since the last time you were here, you also had young kids.

David: Yes, I had identical twin girls who, by the time this episode airs, will be two years old.

John: That’s incredible. As Craig and I often describe on the podcast, kids are the death of a career.

David: Sure, yes.

Susanna: When we started working on the show, they were negative six years old. This is how long we’ve been working on the show.

David: Working on this, I wasn’t married, I didn’t have kids, and I’m married with two kids. I brought my kids and my wife overseas to make this show. I couldn’t get them on camera, but they are a part of the show in that they were there.

John: They grew up in it. My daughter grew up in and around the Big Fish musical, the long journey of that.

David: Sure.

John: Every incarnation she was a part of and saw, so her DNA is somehow in that show as well.

David: Did she run screaming from this industry as a result of seeing us?

John: No, she loves it. She loves tech rehearsal, which is where they’re painstakingly rearranging lights, and actors will move two feet, and they’ll reset the lights. It’s the most tedious process. She was maybe six, eight years old during it. She would sit there at the table for hours watching it. I couldn’t believe it. Now she loves all production stuff.

David: That’s amazing.

Susanna: That’s so cool.

David: I remember when I started off in this industry, and you’d hear people being like, “The last thing I would ever want is for my kid to be in this industry.” I was talking to Vic Michaelis, who’s an actor on our show yesterday, about how all of our toddlers love musicals and how we would be just distraught if they just wanted to be in tech or accountants or just something. We just essentially just need them to be in showbiz because it’s the only thing we understand.

John: At Sundance Labs, I was there with this married couple. She was a writer, and he was a writer-director. For years, we’d see them up there, and they had young kids and like, “Oh, we want our kids to do other things.” Other kids are Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jake Gyllenhaal. Somehow, it does just rub off. Let’s talk about the genesis of this series. Where did this come from? It feels like it should be based on a book or something else, but it’s not. It’s just a thing.

David: It’s not based on a book. You can, as I did, take a deep dive into many, many books about spies in the ’70s, abouty the American Embassy and the British Embassy during the Cold War. There’s a lot of sources that give a window into what this world is. There was an idea that kept coming up when I became interested in, and just to predate even that, my interest in just the aesthetics of the ’70s and the Cold War. It came out of a trip I took in my 20s to Prague and Budapest and Berlin.

You just can see there’s a communism museum in Prague and the DDR museum in Berlin. The aesthetic of this time is such a weird version of what American pop culture looked like through this weird prism. I just was really captivated. If you come to my house, you will see I have a large mural on my wall about the second and third dogs in space from the USSR. I have weird old watches. I love this look and this feel. For me, I would read these books.

The idea that kept coming up again and again is that although maybe film and television, Cold War-era film and television made it seem like spy operations were happening with some success, the Americans and the British really couldn’t run a spy operation in Moscow. They just couldn’t. They tried to. They would be followed everywhere. I think that idea of it was a desperate time where they’d be willing to try anything was something that Susanna and I started talking about.

From there, the most ethereal way I sometimes think of writing is that sometimes it is just there. It is almost behind a wall. As you start naming a character and just finding details of it, it really took form. For us, we just started talking through these characters, and then everything became very clear very fast.

John: The logline of the show is set in 1977. It’s following two secretaries who are working at the American embassy in Moscow. They become spies after their husbands die in mysterious circumstances. The engine of the show, at least at the start, is them trying to figure out what actually happened to their husbands. That’s the logline. What was the actual pitch? What did you actually pitch to people? Did you write this first? Did you go in and pitch to Universal? How did this all come together?

Susanna: This was a really interesting and very singular experience of having a bunch of general meetings after Spy Who Dumped Me, where people were looking for us to do the TV version of Spy Who Dumped Me. We didn’t want to do exactly that. We didn’t want to do something quite as comedic. We didn’t want to do something broad. I had a general meeting at a network that is not Peacock.

David: That doesn’t exist anymore.

Susanna: No longer exists. That shall not be named.

David: It was Quibi.

Susanna: Exactly. The executive said, “Do you have anything that’s similar to Spy Who Dumped Me?” I said, “Not exactly, but David and I had been just batting around the idea of what if there were these two women in this era and they became spies, but it’s a friendship story, but it’s a little bit more grounded in terms of the tone, but also more action.” She said, “We’ll buy that.” She said, “We know we’re not the coolest place to sell a show.”

David: We know Quibi is not the coolest.
[laughter]

Susanna: She said, “I know on the downside, we’re not the coolest place to sell a show. On the upside, you don’t have to pitch it to anyone else. If we don’t do it, we’ll give it back to you, and we won’t be assholes about it.” After having pitch fatigue about trying to sell everything else and just the amount of time you waste or spend with maybe limited rewards, the idea of just getting a yes and being able to actually just go write the thing and not have to spend six months, it was such an appealing thing that we just said yes.

David: Absolutely.

John: Why is that such an exception? Because I never hear that story. It makes so much sense from both sides. From your side, you don’t want to pitch to every place. You just want to go to the one place that will actually maybe do it that feels right. From their side, they don’t want a bidding war. It’s the right idea. If it did go out further, they might lose it.

Susanna: I know. I really admired just her autonomy in saying that. She wasn’t the head of the network or anything. She just said, yes, we’ll buy that as opposed to needing a bidding war to tell her that it’s worth buying.

John: Exactly.

Susanna: We just took the yes, and we wrote it. We had a great experience developing. Then that network folded into a different network. We wrote backup scripts. We were many years spending waiting to see if this would go at that network. Ultimately, it didn’t. We reshopped it with multiple scripts and a Bible and a chap.

John: Multiple scripts that you’d written because you never had rooms together?

David: We just had one script. We had one script. Then we had figured out what the rest of the show would be. This was deep pandemic because I remember I was house sitting for my in-laws when we pitched this to Peacock. I think we only pitched around three places. Other people had heard the premise, and it wasn’t for them. We couldn’t–

Susanna: Mostly because it was an original period piece, and everyone says, “Don’t try to sell that.”

David: It was very scary because this is, again, what people tell you never to do right now. Period. End. Original ideas are both not things that people tell you to try to sell, and we pitched to peacock.

Susanna: Let’s dig into that a little bit more. You’re pitching the show, but the script is already written. At what point are they reading the script versus you pitching first and they’re reading afterward? Because I’m going through this with a project that’s already written as well. Were they reading the script first, and then you could answer specific questions about the show, or are you pitching broad strokes? Did you have–

Susanna: These details are so fuzzy for me because it’s been so long.

David: I’ve done both versions of this. I’ve pitched shows in the past and then handed them the script at the end of it. I’m almost positive they’ve read the script before, and then we pitched.

Susanna: I think because they were inheriting a bunch of ideas already, we shared those ideas, I think.

David: Yes. Then also because what we’re going to talk about is tone. I don’t like pitching tone. I think tone is a really– it is such a vague thing to pitch. It’s–

Susanna: Trying to describe why a joke is funny.

David: Try to describe something, and then also just having to find a comp, and then the comp might not be right. I think that we gave them all the script and we pitched the show. I think at that point, because this is just what television is now, we had many seasons of ideas. We pitched the first season in detail and then said, “Here’s where we would go with season two, and here’s where we would go with season three.” Yes. It was pretty elaborate.

John: The show is visually very distinct and interesting. Were you bringing visuals to the pitch to show them what it would look like and what it would feel like, or was it just talking?

Susanna: Oh, yes, we did. Part of the idea behind the aesthetic of the show is that, like David was saying, there was an explosion of color and pattern. When you see Cold War content, mostly it’s really dramatic, and it’s really dreary-looking. There isn’t summertime, and there aren’t flowers, and there aren’t people with lively patterns on their clothes. The reality is, looking at pictures of people in that time, there’s so much vibrancy to it, in an imitation of American pop culture in a way.

We really wanted to do a loudly colorful look.

John: Yes, [unintelligible 00:12:06].

Susanna: Yes, so it could still have the muscularity of a spy thing, but also the fun of just people wanting to watch things that pop, because it was actually how a lot of the world looked. Yes, that was what we wanted to show in the deck. We wanted to say, this isn’t a dreary, depressing thing. Not only do we not want the tone to be that on the page, but we also want you to know that this is going to be a fun show to watch with lots of a feast for the senses when you’re looking at the clothes and the design and all that.

David: I think for me and Susanna, sometimes you hear people use the word entertaining almost pejoratively. Entertaining is the kind of show that those are the shows you fold your laundry to. They’re not the serious, important shows.

John: They’re lean-back shows rather than lean-in shows, yes.

David: I don’t feel like that is true in the media that we grew up with, the movies we love, the television we love. It just is how film and television has become a little bit bifurcated now. I think we are always trying to lead with being entertaining, and part of that is trying to be visually bold, but also to try to be as significant as we hope to be. To not make it light, to not be soft, to have the emotions real, to try to work to the top of our abilities, but also to not bore an audience. I think being visually bold comes hand-in-hand with that idea.

John: You get the yes from Universal for Peacock?

David: For Peacock, and then went to Universal.

John: It’s always so complicated. Are you going to the studio, or are you going to the network?

Susanna: Yes. We didn’t have a studio on at our first buyer, and so we came to Peacock clean of that. We did bring on a producer in the interim between parting ways with this other Network and shopping it around. I brought on Pacesetter, who had produced this Gillian Flynn show that I directed a couple of episodes of Utopia for Amazon. I had a good experience working with her. I floated it to her and said, “Can you–” She was doing a lot of commercial but elevated stuff, and I thought that she’d be a good match. With her, she became our partner, and then we had her on the journey since then. UTB came on.

David: We went right to networks, and then the networks laid it off to the studios. When we pitched to Peacock, we pitched, among others, to Alex Sepiel, who is somebody who we just knew forever. You lived in a Melrose–

Susanna: He was my neighbor in a hipster, downtrodden version of Melrose Place when we were in our 20s, where we just-

John: Yes, we all have those.

Susanna: -had gross, slummy apartments and a sketchy landlord who was running from the law. He and I were on a trivia team together every Monday. I knew him really from way back. Every time I’ve pitched to him since, it’s like there’s a legitimate familiarity there of just we know too many of each other’s dirty secrets from that time. Anyway, having him as our executive has been really fun. It was fun to work with him because we just know him. He’s a peer. He’s the person who shares our sensibilities, our taste.

Susanna: You have this deal to be making it at Peacock Universal. You have a script written. You need to write backup scripts. Then, at a certain point with backup scripts, you get the order to finish writing everything and to go to a series. How does it work? Did you ever have a room? How did it all fit together?

David: If it were so simple. We sold this in deep pandemic, and it just took time. Basically, between selling it in whatever 2020, 2021, where we got what they call the cast contingent pickup, which happened on the eve of the actor strike.

Susanna: On the eve of the strike. It all took a while.

David: It all took a while. This ultimately just became years. We were paid at different points to do two more scripts. Then we also just were waiting around. We wrote two more after that, just betting on ourselves and assuming that the show would eventually get picked up.

Susanna: We got the cast contingent pickup as we were waiting for actor offer. Actually, we were waiting for an actor deal to close. We’re like, if the deal doesn’t close, it’s not picked up, but it probably will. Then they’re going to be rushing us so fast to get these scripts ready. We should–

John: Just do it.

Susanna: Even though we were grumbling about it, we were like, “We should just write these ourselves.”

David: I think at that point-

Susanna: We had Amelia.

David: -we had Amelia, and we were just making her deal. We just wrote two more scripts. Then–

John: There’s five scripts as you’re coming into–

David: Yes. We did do a writer’s room because we believe in writer’s rooms, but also because we had– This is a spy show with a lot of heavy plotting that we were just doing ourselves piecemeal over the course of many years. We just wanted some smart, interesting people to vet the plot, but also vet the characters. We wanted to build to a really satisfying ending and set up everything that we need to in hopes of a new season.

Susanna: We also felt like maybe if I was going to be directing the first couple of episodes, that we might get in a situation where they would send me over there to start working on crap, and we’d be separated. We just wanted to have as much of it buttoned up as we could before I left.

David: Fortunately, it didn’t happen. We had everything written by the time we started.

John: Eight episodes, right?

David: Eight episodes.

John: Eight episodes. It’s written before you go. Are you block shooting it? How are you figuring out the best ways to do that?

Susanna: Well, I want to say one thing, which I think we can admit now because it all worked out, which is that we definitely lied about having episodes four and five written when we–

David: Yes, and tell them.

Susanna: We had to be like, “We’re thinking it could be something like,” and we go through the whole process. I am glad we did it that way. It made us really interrogate those scripts. We had a lot secretly done.

David: We shot blocks. Yes, we shot two episodes at a time.

Susanna: I knew I wanted to do three or four, and we were trying to figure out– Normally, if it wasn’t a show that I also wrote, I would come in and do the first two or three.

As we were in the writer’s room, my thought was, I knew I wanted to do the first couple. Then there was a mid-season episode that I just was personally really connected to. I knew I wanted to do that. We were like, how can we be creative? I was going to do a middle block so I could do that.

Then, as we started breaking the finale, it sounded like it was so much fun that I called Jessica during a lunch break, and I was like, “I’m going to be really annoyed if someone else directs the finale because now I love it. Can I do it?”

She’s like, “Yes.” Anyway, I ended up basically being there the whole time more or less. It was fun having the experience of breaking the episodes and deciding there which ones. I got attached to different episodes as a director, too, which was nice.

John: Talk about your writer’s room. How did you pick writers you wanted to be in the room with you? Obviously, the two of you have a clear vision, a clear voice. Were you looking for people who complemented you in ways, things you weren’t particularly good at? What were the criteria, and how many writers did you end up ultimately bringing in?

David: It’s funny because we had this conversation a lot, and I’d been in a lot of rooms. I’ve learned a lot. I’ve learned a lot of what to do and what not to do. Also, it was a thing that would keep me up at night before a room started because it’s like I’ve been in great rooms, I’ve been in not great rooms. I’m just like, “Oh God, I have so much pressure on myself of making sure that my room is one of the good rooms.”

John: It’s not just SNL, but also looking through your credits, you’ve been in some challenging rooms.

David: I’ve been in some challenging rooms, and every room I’ve been in, I’ve learned a ton, but also, yes, some were harder than others. One thing that I do feel strongly about from just witnessing it in other rooms is that I am not a huge fan of bringing in specialists. I’m not somebody who’s like, “Okay, we have comedy in the show, we have a mystery in the show. Let’s bring in a really good mystery person. Let’s bring in a really good comedy person.” Eventually, you want people to be able to write the show, and you want people to write the show fully.

Selfishly, we just wanted to bring in writers who at least had a sensibility like us. We wanted to bring in people who had different experiences and different perspectives, and a diversity of types of people. At the end of the day, we wanted people to be able to execute a script that could both have the banter that is emblematic of our show, have the emotional grounding that is emblematic of our show, and be able to speak to the twist. I read a ton of samples, and I met with great people. They met with great people that I would have hired, and I couldn’t afford.

There was a lot of shaping to find the puzzle pieces. What was really exciting putting together is that a lot of the writers just still came about being able to have a sensibility that was shared with different skill sets. We had a writer who was just really good at making a map of who knows what, when, and the board. That’s just not how my mind works. It was just really helpful to see it. Other writers who just really could hook into the emotions of the friendship, drama, and in a way that felt very personal, that we were just able to use there. We built a really nice family, a very small group of writers in a very short amount of time, and all people that we care a lot about.

John: Did the two of you ever disagree in front of the writers?

David: Yes, of course.

Susanna: Yes, probably.

David: Susanna and I have a sibling–

Susanna: We’re very like, “Shut up. I don’t want to do that.”

David: Yes. It’s also helpful to have your ideas challenged and to be able to back it up.

Susanna: The dynamic of the room is like Dave has so much more room experience than I do. At the same time, within a hierarchy of a room, it takes a while for people to know that they can challenge the showrunner’s ideas sometimes. It’s maybe like a learning curve with people knowing that it’s going to go over well if there’s a meritocracy of ideas in the room, and that’s how David is wired. Until they learn that, there’s a certain fear around pushing back on stuff, even if we want the ideas challenged.

Weirdly, although I didn’t have as much room experience as many of the writers that were under us, for a while, it was like I was the only person sometimes who would be like, “No, no,” because other people are just not sure if they can do that in a writer’s room just because of how those rooms work. We really do share tastes pretty specifically. It’s very rare that we have a disagreement about how something is executed. It’s pretty amazing, actually. I’ve worked with a lot of people, but there’s always a sense of if I have to miss a meeting or miss something, I know you’re going to make the decisions I would make, which is a relief, I think, especially if I’m off directing something. I don’t know. I know you’ll catch the thing if I miss it.

David: It was helpful in casting, too. It was just being able to see. Clearly, we had the same vision in our head of who the characters were because we would definitely be like, “Oh, of course, it is this person.”

John: I have almost no TV writing room experience, so I have all these showrunners who come through, and they tell me their stories. A thing that’s always struck me as strange is that you hire writers based on how good they are at writing. You’re reading samples, and you want really good writers. David, you were saying you want writers who can write the whole show, and yet for the weeks and weeks of the show, they’re not writing. There’s very little writing. You’re just using their brain. Isn’t that weird? Isn’t that weird that the people aren’t writing more during the course of the writer’s room?

Susanna: Especially in this room, because we had written so much. We were like, “Okay, there’s two available episodes for all of y’all to do.”

David: Yes. It is very weird. Also, when I think about other rooms that I’ve been in and rooms that I had no hiring and firing power and rooms where I was just an observer in, I think that people who are incredibly skilled at the politics of a room or just how to have a great disposition and have everybody like them or have really good ideas, all really great. If you can’t deliver a script, you’re toast. Ultimately, that is what the hard part is.

I would say that what makes you good in a room is being in a room more, but what should get you in the room is being able to write the script. A lot of the process of running a show is going back to my job’s past and where I didn’t do a good job, or where I would have done differently, or where I can see my place in it. I remember in a very, very early job, a very famous producer who I won’t name, but he has a voice like this.

John: It was Alfred Hitchcock, wasn’t it?

David: It was Alfred Hitchcock. He gave negative feedback about me that his certainty does not match with his experience at all. I took it to heart, and I really tried to internalize it. I didn’t know any other way to be in a room, but feel that I had to feel strongly about my ideas. Now, running a show, you can’t just be like, “Meh, it can be this, it can be that.” You have to be certain. It is a process of just knowing that, aha, I have the solution. Also, I am the 17th person down on the hierarchy of this room. How do I do that? It takes time.

I think now I absolutely love helping other friends with their stuff, coming up with ideas because I have no personal investment other than just wanting to do it. It’s not like if you don’t listen to my idea that it’s going to hurt my heart. I absolutely don’t care. I’ve now done so many versions of what a room is and what breaking a story is and what fixing a story is that I have all of that ammunition. I only have that because I’ve been in a lot of rooms, and I’ve only gotten those rooms because I was able to write the script.

John: Let’s talk about what is so specific and unexpected for me in your show is the tone in that, first off, it’s a period show that almost feels like it could have been shot in the time. Some of that is how Susanna you chose to direct it. You’re going for that pillar box format, so rather than widescreen, it’s square screen. Obviously, everything looks right and feels right, and Budapest stands in really well for Moscow.

The camera movements and everything else, it tells you that we’re in a ’70s place without a shot. The show shot in that time wouldn’t have looked like that. It would have looked crappy and then this looks great. That is part of the tone. Also, the comedic tone between the actors and how the world is presented and how the stakes are presented is just a little lighter than the equivalent other spy show would be. How really did you know that and how did you anchor into that?

Susanna: I think something that we’ve always been interested in is if most spy movies are on plot most of the time, if you went home with those people at the end of the day, they would still call their moms and fight with their husbands. They would still have a life where they’re not acting in character as spy. I think there is a truth to that. We just wanted to shift where the lens is sometimes to that. It naturally has the other parts of a person’s personality that come forward when they’re not on the job in a high-stakes situation are by nature, lighter if their job is high stakes. We’re interested in that.

If it feels true and grounded enough, then it doesn’t feel like the tone is confused. I think sometimes with a mixed tone and what scares people about it is people don’t want it to feel like you’re in two different shows and hopefully if it all feels grounded.

John: You feel like you’re one show, but it’s a very specific unusual show to sort of be in. The Americans is a great show where you have spies who are in their home lives. The difference is they’re incredibly competent. They see attention, even like they’re the best of their game and they’re still struggling with it. Here you have two women who are new to all this. They’re fish out of water as they’re getting started in this. That is essentially a comedic environment to be in. They’re in over their heads, which is relatable but also fun, but just that’s not a thing we see so often. We saw it in Spy Who Dumped Me, yes.

David: Both of us bring a lot to our work because I think this is just how we are as people in the world. I consider myself a funny person. I consider most people I surround myself with as funny people. If I am in a really tense situation, if I’m going into surgery, if I’m going into a funeral, if I have some sort of crisis in my life, I don’t know that part of me is still, I’m putting it away. People are still making jokes. This is another lesson I learned from actually, when I was very briefly on Mad Men was that the rule of writing comedy in a drama versus writing comedy in a comedy is that in comedy, other people in the scene are servicing your joke.

In a drama, there could be a funny person. The other person’s purpose in that scene is not to set up your joke. People are funny because this is the world that they’re in. Twila, in our show, Haley Lu Richardson’s character, is somebody who uses humor as armor in her life. That is just such a true thing for so many people who have-

Susanna: Not for me.

[laughter]

David: -had really difficult lives as she has, that is who she is going to be, and that is how she’s going to deal with crisis. B is very neurotic, not like you. [laughs]

Susanna: Not like you.

David: She’s going to spin out, and-

John: She’s going to overthink, yes.

David: -she’s going to overthink when she is in crisis. These are just true things that these people are going to do, and it is still going to be enjoyable. The fact that these are also people who have jobs in an office, and also Moscow is a really weird place, particularly in the USSR, and that is funny. We are able to try to live in a world that still feels like the world. That the stakes are high and that when there is a life or death moment, it was very important to us that the final sequence of our pilot, which I won’t spoil, but that it should really, really feel extremely dangerous, but there are still jokes before them, and there’s still awkwardness within it. Also, you better be scared.

John: I want to circle back to something you raised through, but was actually such a good point. I want to underline it. You’re talking about Mad Men and how, in a comedy, the characters are there to set up the joke for someone to spike. In a drama, that would feel really weird. There’s just an expectation about how people can be funny in a drama that’s just so different than a comedy, and so just a really smart distinction there. Thank you for that.

David: Oh, you’re very welcome.

[laughter]

John: A few last things. Looking through the script, it has ad breaks, and you feel them in the show also. Is that something that was always there? Did you ever consider taking them out? Because people were watching on a Peacock. They might have ads. They might not have ads.

David: We didn’t write them with ad breaks. We were asked to put them in.

John: Storytelling power. At what point did you know who could actually drive scenes by themselves? Because in the pilot, you established that Andrei can drive scenes by himself, which was a surprise when that happened. Talk to me about when you decided who could hold scenes by themselves.

David: Perspective-wise? Behind the curtain. We added that scene of Andrei late. That was the last scene of the entire series that we shot because we were looking at the already cut pilot. We knew how scary Andrei was because we knew. Because we wrote in the script, this is the scariest person you’ve ever seen.

Susanna: We knew what would happen in episode two.

David: We knew what would happen in episode two, but we needed to have the audience feel that when we see him at the end of the episode, that we are scared to death of his presence. We cast a fantastic but unknown actor, Artjom Gilz. If we had cast a famous movie star who was famous for being a villain, then we would already know– if Christoff Waltz walked in, then we wouldn’t have had to do that. We gave him perspective. I think we just learned more and more about our characters and what they brought, and who gets their own scenes.

Dane, Adrian Lester plays him, and he’s being Twila’s boss. He is somebody who is elusive in a lot of the shows. Part of what he brings is mystery. We don’t know what his life is really like. We don’t know what his secrets are. We have a sense that he has secrets. We really wanted to build several episodes before we could see him be vulnerable and display some of his secrets, and we get a sense of who that man behind the curtain is. For the first chunk of the season, we want to see him as this all-knowing, unknowable person that he projects to be in Twila. The audience know that that couldn’t be true because no one is like that.

John: The rules of the world you’ve established. No one is especially competent. It’s not like they’re bumblingly competent, but they have very limited power to do things. Literally, they can’t turn on the power to their own building, which is established. Let’s wrap up by talking about Budapest because I think you probably knew that this was going to be shooting in Budapest or someplace like it from the start. It’s not a show where you’re forced to go to Budapest. That’s the place where you go to shoot.

Susanna: It wasn’t Budapest for Boston.

John: Yes. That’s the place you go to do Moscow. It’s a reasonable place. Talk to us about shooting there, pros and cons, things you loved, things you learned, shooting there in 2025.

David: Just to get it out of the way, they have a bad government, and they passed some really bad laws while we were there. That did make shooting there complicated. Our studio’s lawyers were really great and helpful and supportive in just trying to make sure that everybody felt safe because they passed some anti-gay laws while we were there. It was very actually moving at the very end of our production. The Pride parade, which was a thing that they banned. The people of the city did it anyway. It was–

Susanna: It came in from other European cities. It was the biggest. It was on the cover of the New York Times.

David: Multiple and it’s larger than it had ever been. It is a blue city in a red country. Our crew, for the most part, was very progressive and lovely, but it’s complicated.

John: Are our crews in Budapest drawn from around Europe, or really, it’s a Budapest crew?

David: They’re Hungarian.

Susanna: They’re mostly Hungarian. Yes. Typically, they have a homegrown film industry of their own that is a different thing, but then they really are home to many– the huge economic part of the country is the film and TV that shoots there, mostly American and UK productions. They have an incredible brain trust and really skilled, top-of-their-game people. Actually, some expats. Our sound guy on our show, who also did Spy Who Dumped Me, did The Martian, and did all that, but he’s an American guy. He went to UT Austin and was living out in LA, and someone said come do a movie in Budapest in the ’90s. Then he just stayed in Budapest and married a Hungarian and had a family there.

There’s a lot of people there that are like– There’s expats living there. Then it’s a city that’s very used to hosting people who want to be insulated in a bubble of a film. It’s not aggressively thrusting you into the culture if you want to be staying at the Four Seasons and whatever. Not on our budget. You can. It has those amenities. I think it’s user-friendly. At the same time, if you stay there more than a couple of weeks, you just can feel the undercurrent of what’s going on in that, politically and otherwise, in the city.

David: It’s also beautiful. There is so much aesthetic that we needed from our show that we had sets, and our sets were beautifully built, and we were on a stage. I would say we were probably 60%, 70% location. A lot of those locations felt like we were in time capsules. We were in these beautiful old buildings that just looked incredible, that we just simply would not be able to accomplish in another place.

Susanna: I had shot Small Light in Prague. We looked into a couple of places like Prague and Berlin. Yes, just as things developed. I think it would have been more expensive, and we would have had a lot less production value, and we would have probably had to send a satellite crew to Budapest anyway, or a place like it. We just decided not to do that. It’s the same argument or the same debate, I guess, about shooting in a state that passes draconian laws here. You’re like, well, I want to make my thing. I want to employ the people. I don’t want to punish the crews that are living there for living there. Also, do I want to make a statement, which seems important to do? I don’t know.

It’s really challenging to figure that out. We can’t shoot everything in. I don’t even know what country to name that isn’t problematic now, so never mind. Greenland. No, just kidding. Venezuela?

John: No.

[laughter]

John: It’s a challenging time overall. Congratulations on the show. I really just dug it.

David: Thank you.

John: As this episode’s coming out, it’s just about to debut on Peacock, right? I think it’s two days later.

David: Two days later, great. Although I’m sad Craig isn’t here, I like that on this episode, as far as television shows created by people who went to high school in Frield, New Jersey, about the USSR, we’re the top one on this episode.

John: This episode. Very nice. Let’s answer some listener questions. We have one here from Richard.

Drew: “I find I can look at a scene on a particular day and think it’s the worst thing I’ve ever written, and then two days later I pick it back up and think, ‘oh, that’s actually not that bad.’ Do you guys get this too? If so, how can we ever truly trust our own judgment?”

John: I rarely do I read something and say, oh, this is absolutely awful. Honestly, the reverse happens more like, well, I absolutely loved something when I wrote it, and then I go back and it’s like, “Oh, it’s actually not so–”

David: It’s bloated and dumb and degressive. I think what I can relate to is I finish something and I think I’m happy with it. It did what I needed to do, but I do want a set of eyes on it. I think for that, you just need to have a very small brain trust of people that you really respect and trust. If you have a partner, if you have a friend, somebody who won’t lie to you if it’s bad, will also be meaningful if they tell you, this is really good. You did a really good job.

I think sometimes that is helpful. I also think that it is a trap to keep going back and reading the scene that you wrote a few days ago, because if you are somebody whose head does that, who looks at it and then hates everything, you’re really going to have a hard time writing that next scene. Just try to finish a version of it.

Susanna: Yes, I would say try to finish it. Then at whatever point you feel comfortable hearing it read out loud, that’s really useful too. We’ve had readings of scripts that we’ve written just for ourselves in Dave’s garage. It’s really incredibly informative every time.

John: The challenge, Richard, is you’re always, you’re both the creator and the critic. At the time you were writing it, you were the creator, and you had this feeling about it. Then you’re also the critic, and that critic is a separate part of your brain. Maybe your critic is an asshole. Maybe your critic is just not good. David, you were saying earlier about how you love helping out a person, helping out a writer, just contributing. Maybe your inner critic is just not actually recognizing what’s good and how to improve it. It’s just seeing all the flaws. Maybe just cultivate that critic a little bit more. Maybe talking to some other people about their work and being gracious with them will get you to be a little bit nicer to yourself.

Question from Daniel.

Drew: “I am a sophomore screenwriting student at an LA film school. I can tell my writing does get better with every script, but I’m not sure if I have that innate talent or ability you guys always speak about. Mainly because with every script where I say, I think I got it, I in fact do not have it. How did you guys realize that you have this innate talent and how long did it take?”

Susanna: Well, just to speak to the first part, I just want to offer some wisdom from a book that I didn’t write called The Work of Art that came out recently. I think it’s Michael Cunningham who talks about the fact that he doesn’t believe that there is such a thing as innate talent. It’s just having a personality that is so obsessively committed to something being good that it will just keep drilling down into something over and over and over until it becomes good. That, to him, is what makes a person skillful, not anything that they’re innately born with. I don’t know that I agree with that completely, but it did resonate with me that there’s an obsessiveness that people have, who I admire, that I think they share.

David: I think this question is very married to the previous question. First of all, definitely the stuff I wrote when I was in college, I wouldn’t share it now as a reflection of my best work, but there were moments throughout my adolescence or into college or into my early 20s where I would write a scene or a line or have an idea and it would excite me. It would be like, “Oh, that’s it. This is what I’m trying to do.” I couldn’t imagine not having any version of that and still being excited about writing.

I’ve got to assume, I’ve got to give the question, give her the benefit of the doubt that you must have had some sort of moment that excited you enough to start doing it. From there, yes, you just have to keep getting better, but you may have it. Also, a lot of very talented people worry that they don’t have that talent. That is also a very real thing that people–

John: Feeling impostor syndrome at this point in your early career is totally natural and reasonable and makes sense. You don’t know what you’re doing, and that’s true. I hope that in entering film school, you’re a sophomore now, people must have told you, “Oh, you’re a good writer,” and you’ve had some external validation that, “Oh, you really know how to do this. This is good.” There’ve been some moments where you felt yourself like, “Oh, this was a good thing I wrote. I’m actually proud of this thing I did.” That’s foundational. That’s [unintelligible 00:42:14] that gets you going to the next one.

There’s this meme I saw this week about thinking of yourself as a verb rather than a noun, thinking of you as the person who writes rather than the end product. Maybe spend this next year really focusing on writing as the verb versus generating this thing and that thing and that thing and see if you like the actual process of doing it. We talk on the show so much about how writing sucks. It’s not a fun thing to do, but you make peace with it. You come to accept that it’s part of this process of getting to work that you’re really proud of. Maybe just focus a little bit more on that rather than the quality and see if you’re digging it.

Susanna: I also think there’s a lot of noise outside the world of just you and your laptop or your notebook or however you write, and that when the noise gets really loud, it can be really hard to just focus on the actual nugget of excitement that you have. I talk to friends a lot now as people talk about how hard the industry is, and there’s a ton of negativity in the air.

Whatever you have to do to trick your brain into just being excited about a thing and sitting down and doing the work, like John was saying, that’s the most important thing you can do, is just to stay optimistic and excited about whatever it is you’re working on and not let the outside voices or your own internal critic stop you from actually just producing things. Find the spark, whatever that is. I know that sounds like a cliché, but it’s really important [unintelligible 00:43:35]

John: In finding that spark, I think it’s also reasonable to say, if you decide this is not actually a thing you like, a thing you would enjoy, it’s okay to say no. It’s okay to find something else you really do love. You only have the one life, so do the thing that actually really excites you and you enjoy it. More than talking about an innate aptitude or something like you’re born with a certain talent, maybe you have a set of interests and things that you actually want to be spending your time doing, and if this isn’t it, that’s fine, that’s good. Go searching for what the thing is that you actually do really love.

David: This is probably a bigger conversation for a whole other episode of this show, but I’ve spent a lot of time lately wrestling with what is the point of this. Not that I think it is without a point, but as I am in a position to– I’m releasing something out into the world, which is very scary. I think about when I first moved to Los Angeles, when I first wanted to work in film and television, and I had this idea in my head that I wanted to manifest of sitting in a movie theater and seeing my name up there. That does not feel like what the goal is now, though I can’t necessarily pinpoint what it is.

I do like writing. I do like making things. It is also a thing that terrifies me. I think it is a really tricky thing for me, for all of us, people who’ve been doing this for decades, to make sense of why we’re doing it. If you are on the fence in your first years, that also might be a good sign that it– Also, just know that we are also wrestling with what the point is, because it’s complicated.

John: A question here from Carlos.

Drew: “A few weeks back, I partook in a pitching workshop with a former executive from a big production company. One thing this former executive said really rubbed me the wrong way. He told us to stop writing pilots. He said that today, a lot of executives will turn down series pitches if they have a pilot attached because they want to be involved in the development stage from the beginning. We should stop writing pilots and focus on just the story development, which broke me since writing pilots is what I enjoy most from series development. Is this something that’s actually happening? I know the situation is probably different over here in Mexico than on the other side of the border, but I still wanted to get your take on this.”

David: Really makes sense why this is a former executive.

Susanna: David and I both, we produce a lot of other writers. We try to really support a lot of pitches that are not just our own pitches. As a director, I take a lot of pitches out that I’m not the writer on. Really, every project is different. We’ve sold things that have a pilot. We’ve sold things that have a pitch. We’ve been dissuaded from having a pilot for one specific type of project that I just think it’s dangerous to get mired in any one dogmatic idea about how to do anything.

If you’re enjoying writing pilots and you’re writing things that you feel really represent your passions and that you’re good at, the worst thing that can happen is you get some producer that wants to take your show out and they say, “Okay, let’s send the pilot later. Let’s develop the story.” They’re not mutually exclusive. It’s such a tactical decision that shouldn’t be your problem. It should be the problem of the person who’s doing the selling and that should be your partner and not a person who’s trying to tell you that you’re doing it wrong. That’s my opinion.

David: I also think how can you tell someone, you as a beginner writer, you are a good writer and you are worth backing and gambling on if no one is able to read what you are executing. I think that, yes, perhaps for a very experienced writer who has a long track record, sure, you can pitch. I also think pitching is a scam, but it’s a scam that we all participate in because you are sitting in a room saying, “This is what this is going to be,” but you don’t–

I think I talked about this many, many episodes ago when we were last on Scriptnotes, is that I have taken out pitches that I just also needed to write the script first just so I knew what the characters sound like and I knew what the jokes were because I don’t really know any other way to do it. You’re just saying, “Trust me, this is what it’s going to be.” If you’re a writer, you should write.

Susanna: Also, if you are a newer writer and there isn’t something produced that people can look at as a sample of how you write and you’re just like, “I have all these ideas for the story,” they’re going to ask to see a writing sample. It’s such bad advice.

John: We don’t know where Carlos is at in his career, but the good thing about writing a pilot is that you wrote a script that can be a writing sample. Maybe this series, it’s not the best way to sell this series, but it’s something someone else can read and David and Susanna can staff you on their show. It’s a thing people can read.

Susanna: They’re going to ask to read something before they pay you to write something based on an outline of ideas of a show that doesn’t have a writing sample. I think it’s bad advice no matter where you are in your career, Carlos. That person should not have a career, and they don’t.

John: Let’s do one last question from Alex here. A common note I receive from coverage services is that I need to differentiate my character voices because they often sound the same. Do you have any tips for how to subtly differentiate character voices without falling into caricature-ish dialogue?

Susanna: Oh, we talk about this a lot.

John: What conclusions do you reach as you talk about it?

Susanna: Honestly, sometimes I think about my first writing class I took when I moved out to LA at 21 at Second City, sketch comedy writing class. We talked about the game of a character. It was for comedic writing, but we talk about it all the time. Each character has to have, in your mind, what is the laugh with and what is the laugh at about that person. My description of how I am is going to be different from my friend’s secret gossip about what’s annoying about me. You have to know what someone would say behind that person’s back, I think, and then write that person–

There are ways in which we all lack self-awareness. If there’s a certain game of that person, that person says things a million different ways because they use too many words to talk, or that person is really passive-aggressive generally. If you just have an idea about a person’s flaw, it can just make their writing specific. We try to do that in our show a lot, where we don’t want anyone to show up in a scene, even a side character in The Office, and not have a specific personality or a tick or a quirk. I don’t know.

David: First of all, it’s also not the absolute worst thing in the world if you have a really strong, specific voice. Yes, sure, that might be your style. It’s okay, particularly when you’re starting out, because every character is a version of you. I think the first time I really thought about this idea was Noah Baumbach’s first movie, Kicking and Screaming, because a character in it tells the other characters, “You all talk the same.”

Actually, they don’t. All those characters are really specific, and I actually don’t think you could interchange jokes from one character to another, but I think it was probably him being a little bit self-aware and self-conscious that these are all characters who are in a very similar life stage, who have a very–

Susanna: The same education [unintelligible 00:50:28]

John: [unintelligible 00:50:29]

David: You can also just look at how it looks on the page. Some people are more verbose. Some people speak more simply, but yes, you should never be able to move a joke from one character to another and have it work the same way. Everyone should have their own voice and meaning, and that was what I was talking about earlier, that I have this ethereal belief of writing that everything exists behind a wall and you have to find it, and I think that is truly characters. That is most vivid with characters. If you start writing their dialogue and you start seeing them, you start hearing them, then you are really going to get a sense of who they are and what their specificity is.

Susanna: The caricature thing, it’s okay if the first draft, they feel a little pushed or a little broad. You’re either dialing something up or down. This is such a basic thing to say, but if it seems like how people would actually talk, or you could imagine a person in your life who would talk or act the way a character is talking or acting, sometimes we do things that are a little over the top as people in life. Just as a director reading scripts that other people write and thinking about directing them, there’s a first script problem that David and I talk about sometimes where just the main character feels like the avatar for the writer.

It’s usually a person who’s more passively observing the world’s hypocrisies and they’re witty and funny and everyone around them is an idiot. I’m speaking in broad terms, but that character, to me, it’s not that interesting. I wouldn’t know how to tell an actor what they’re playing, really. I recently read a script where that was the problem and it was by a young writer. I just thought, “I bet this writer is in their 20s, and I bet this is what amount of life experience they’ve had, and I can feel that in the way it’s written.” In that case, it was a really funny script. There was just a glibness to the writing, and it felt like the writer was punching up their own best joke.

John: I absolutely hear you there.

Susanna: To me, usually those are the characters that, if it’s the main character leading you through the journey and that character is just a little bit of a cypher except for their elevated wit, it feels like a first script to me.

John: Specific advice for Alex here, I feel like maybe you’re having a hard time listening and hearing how people really are different. Assuming this is a fair note that you’re getting from multiple people, that your characters are all sounding the same, I think what you might try to do with your script is just cast it in your mind. Cast actual actors in all those places and imagine how those actors are actually saying those lines. Doing that may give you a sense of, “Oh, there’s actually so many more variables I could be dialing in here.”

If I cast this as Christopher Walken versus Woody Harrelson or– what different choices would make sense given who’s actually going to be doing these lines? That may give you a sense there because you might think, “Oh, no,” and I’m just impersonating someone else’s voice, but you’re not really. Words you’re writing in a script is not going to sound like that specific actor.

Susanna: Whoever plays the part is going to be–

John: They’re going to bring their own specificity, but if you write it for one specific actor, another actor can play that part and it will feel unique and different and it won’t sound like all the other characters. That may be a first good exercise for Alex to try.

Susanna: Real people too. If you have an uncle who is-

John: Oh, totally.

Susanna: -always drunk, I don’t know, whatever, a drunk uncle, whatever you have. You can just– basing it on someone, whether it’s your imagination of an actor or some person in your life that if you were asked in a private booth to talk about that person, you would be able to describe them, good and bad.

David: I think the other way that a lot of newer writers get into the trap of just making characters feel similar, which is another way of saying generic, is that their supporting players, their one-line parts are extremely generic. I would try to avoid too many police officer number twos and just a bunch of people that you are trying to differentiate between the characters who are important and the characters who aren’t. If everyone feels like they have interiority and if everyone feels like they have some sort of vividness, then it does sort of come through everywhere in your script.

I think there’s a lot of– Cameron Crowe does this really well. The Coen brothers do this really well. I would look at movies and just really focus on the people who are in it for one scene and are really popping as a great way to just specify everybody in your script.

John: It may also be helpful to look at some movies that you really enjoy and love, and watch them while you’re reading the script, and really get a sense of like, “Oh, it’s not just the actor’s performance. It really was the words on the page that got to that performance.” That may also remind you like, “Oh, yes, dialogue, it does start here, and characters are really found in these words I’m choosing to have them say.”

Susanna: I think also with the TV show, we were asked the other day what [unintelligible 00:55:20] about story engines for a show going forward. One thing about our show which circles back to your original question about tone, John, was that we have a married couple on the show and we sort of tried to make their marriage really specific even though they’re not the leads of the show and it’s not a show about a marriage. They’re just people in the office, but we ended up wanting more and more and more of them.

If every character has something in a dynamic or in their voice that feels like, “Oh, I want to watch that person in a million different situations,” then it tells a buyer or whoever, if it’s in a TV format, “I want to watch more episodes of those people,”-

John: Totally.

Susanna: -and it just encourages them to see more of a long life or whatever it is you’re pitching.

John: You look at The Office and-

Susanna: Yes, exactly.

John: -just how deep, and how full that room was of very specific voices, that you felt like, “Oh, you could follow any one of these people, and it would be incredibly entertaining.”

Susanna: I think comedies are a good way to study it too. I was going to recommend Jury Duty, which is so largely-

John: Love it.

Susanna: -improvised, but each person-

John: Yes, it’s so well done.

Susanna: -is so specific. You couldn’t swap anyone’s lines with anyone else’s lines.

John: No.

Susanna: That’s on the broader side. I don’t know what tone you’re writing, but yes, it’s useful to try to do that with everybody.

John: All right. It’s time for our one cool thing. My one cool thing is an article by Adam Mastroianni. I’ve linked to him a zillion times. I feel like I should be paid a referral fee here. This blog post you did was so useful for the start of a new year, called So You Want to De-bog Yourself. De-bogging, basically, you’re stuck in a rut. You’re facing a problem, a real-life problem, not a story problem, a real-life problem. What I think Adam is so good at doing is shining a spotlight on certain aspects of a situation and giving it a name so you can actually identify, “Oh, that’s what I’m doing.”

Two examples here. First off is stroking the problem, which is like, “I’ve got a big problem. Man, I have this big problem. I have this thing and this thing and this thing.” You’re not actually trying to solve it. You’re just stroking it. You’re basically just acknowledging there’s a problem here and you’re telling everybody about this problem, but you’re not actually trying to solve it. Stroking the problem is a thing I’m going to probably start using a lot when people express their issues to me. The second thing he calls out is the try harder fallacy, which is basically like, “Oh, man, that didn’t really work at all. You really need to try harder next time.” Almost never do you actually need to try harder.

[laughter]

John: You probably were trying as hard as you possibly could. You have no shortage of effort you put into it. You gave it everything. There’s no secret reserve of energy that you could have– It just didn’t work. You’re going to need to try a different way to do it because trying harder is not going to get there. It’s two of many examples in this really good post about getting out of the muck that you find yourself stuck in.

It’s for real life, but I guess it’s our characters too, because our characters are often trapped in situations. If we as writers are telling them to try harder or to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that’s probably not going to actually really work. A good post and I’ll put a link in the show notes. David, what do you have for us?

David: I have a few connected cool things. My first artistic passion was drawing and painting and cartooning and illustration. My origin story as a writer at all is because I wanted to draw comic strips and political cartoons. Anything artistic, if you don’t use those muscles, they atrophy. I’ve been drawing with my children. I realize I’m not as good as I used to be. I’m a really big New Year’s resolution person. My New Year’s resolution is trying to draw or paint or something every day, either with a pencil and paper, pen and ink or my iPad. The essential iPad drawing program is Procreate.

There are a few companies that make brushes and color systems and fake paper to really emulate some beautiful mid-century comic book style or illustration style. Retro Supply and True Grit are two companies that do that. Retro Supply also has a lot of great videos on how to draw heads and color theory. That’s really great.

Then the other thing that is keeping me honest with my New Year’s resolution is the International Society of Character Artists, of which I am a paying member, does something called caricature resolution in January. Caricature artists all over the world, from beginners to masters, draw the same celebrity every day of the month-

John: Oh, that’s great.

David: -of January. You can find this by searching for the #caricatureresolution2026 on Instagram or on Facebook. They also have an Instagram page. It’s just a really fun way to just see what different character artists are doing, and also if it’s something you want to try whenever this airs, you can catch up.

John: What was today’s celebrity?

David: Today was Bette Midler.

John: Oh, great. She feels like a natural person. [crosstalk]

David: She’s got a lot of hair, a lot of big features.

John: That’s really great. The other things you recommended, those are plugins or things you put into Procreate?

David: Yes. You can download the brush packs and the fake paper and the color systems.

John: Great. I love it. Susanna, what do you have for us?

Susanna: I saw an incredible independent film-

John: Please.

Susanna: -that I wanted to talk about. It’s this movie called The Plague. It’s about 12-year-old boys at a water polo camp in the early aughts. I watched it because I’m on the jury of the DGA first-time feature committee. This time of year, I always get a packet of movies that either are just coming out, haven’t come out yet, or I just wouldn’t have necessarily heard of because they don’t necessarily have the marketing push. I so relate to that that I feel really strongly about seeing all these movies and getting excited about them and plugging them.

This one was really incredible. Just the writing and directing was really impressive and singular and specific, but also just having known kids that age at that time, just the zeitgeist is so perfectly captured.

John: That’s great.

Susanna: The music is perfect. The performances, which are almost all 12-year-olds. Joel Edgerton plays the coach. It’s about hazing and boys at that age. It’s really exceptional, so I recommend that movie highly.

John: That’s great. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Matthew did our outro this week. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We are low in the folder on listener outros, in part because, Drew, people are sending through outros that don’t have the boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Yes, very important. Basically, that is one of our only rules.

Susanna: That is it. That is what you need to do.

David: Can you just clip John just saying that and use that as an outro?

John: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

John: We definitely will. We definitely will. Send us through your outros. We’d love to have more of those, ask@johnaugust.com is also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. The Scriptnotes book is out and available wherever you get books. Get your Scriptnotes book.

David: I bought it for a bunch of young writers, and they probably really enjoyed it.

John: Hooray. Fantastic. We just got the British copies here, which are slightly narrower than the US copies, which is lovely.

David: They write a little narrower.

Susanna: It’s so pretentious.

John: It’s so pretentious. You can find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. Just search for Scriptnotes and give us a follow. You can find us on Instagram @scriptnotespodcast. We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes with the links to all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on taste. Susanna, David, it’s so nice to have you back here.

Susanna: Thank you. This was really fun. Thanks so much.

[Bonus Segment]

David: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

John: Okay.

Susanna: Thank you.

John: Thank you, David. Thank you for bringing us back in here. Drew asked this question. [unintelligible 01:03:38] wrote in about Taste.

Drew Marquardt: I argue often with my friends about old movies, and I get accused of having bad taste, and I was wondering if there’s a method to acquiring good taste. Also, is there a definition to good taste?

John: All right, taste. Let’s talk about taste. My initial instinct when I thought about taste is I often refer back to Ira Glass has this piece about taste where it describes how you develop taste before you develop talent. There’s this conflict between the two of them, and it goes through things. I brought this up, and then I realized, oh, Susanna, you know Ira.

Susanna: I married him, and that is how I acquired good taste.

David: That’s your good taste?
[laughter]

John: That’s how you get good taste, is marry Ira Glass.

Susanna: Yes, I’m goal-oriented. I always strive to have good taste-

John: Absolutely.

Susanna: -and I just went right to the top.

John: I knew I liked you for that. Let’s talk about taste because [unintelligible 01:04:27] concern here is that they have bad taste. It’s like, “Well, no, you have your own taste. You have your own specific–”

Susanna: Who’s saying this person has bad taste? What’s their taste?

John: That’s crazy. Developing your taste and understanding your taste is, I think, a crucial stage of development. It’s basically figuring out what do I like, and then more importantly, why do I like it? What is it about this genre, about this movie, about these things that spark for me that I really enjoy? What is it about these things that I don’t enjoy that are elements of that? It’s worth some time to think about what are those things, and what is a unique fingerprint for you that defines what is good to you?

David: I think that you go through this journey in your life where when you were young, there’s definitely things you don’t like. You look back at this movie I loved when I was seven, and it is garbage, but it definitely fell within what you enjoyed then. Maybe that is something that as you get older, because I think the next step, once you start getting a little– if you’re listening to this podcast, maybe you’re a little bit pretentious, that you feel like there is some sort of value in dismissing other people’s tastes. Looking at other people and thinking, “I like smart things, and you like dumb things,” and that is how you place it.

Then you go through this other journey where you’re like, “Oh, well, actually, some things that are just a mass appeal I really enjoy,” or, “I like this little niche,” whatever. You feel less embarrassed about your taste. You feel about your taste as not something that you want to place against other people. It’s something that’s yours. You embrace. You want to see what you like. It’s this journey that you go through to finally just feel like you can reconcile it. I think what [unintelligible 01:06:10] is probably experiencing is perhaps– I don’t know how old [unintelligible 01:06:14] is, but maybe it’s his friends being a little bit pretentious as they start to learn about their own taste.

I think it’s just really important to just try to take in as much as possible. I think it’s a boring thing about me that I really, really love The Beatles, but I really, really love The Beatles. When you explore what makes them great, they’re very good at their instruments. They’re very good at singing. They’re very good at the technical ability, but they’re not the best at all of that. They took in everything. Bob Dylan too, just took in everything that was available when they were learning and coming up and almost had this encyclopedic knowledge of all of the music that came around it and synthesized it into their own stuff.

Then it was this ability to say, “This is what is good for us,” and give each other shit to say, “Not that line, Paul, not that line, John.” Then that is basically what made The Beatles great, was their very, very refined taste. That taste doesn’t happen without really, really taking in as much as you can and taking in things that you would never think you should take in. Every little piece of it is part of what you build and build and build to what you like.

John: Taste is a crucial factor when I’m looking to work with a person or to collaborate with a person. For a project that we were working on with the company, I needed a designer. The first criteria was just taste. I knew I would find people who were very talented who could build the thing, but also taste is a crucial thing because I can’t give you taste. I have my own taste, but I couldn’t explain why this thing needs to be over there. I needed somebody with that form of taste. Susanna, you, as directing movies, you’re working with collaborators, and their taste is so crucial. They need to be able to have an eye for what it is that they respond to and ability to communicate back to you why they’re making these choices, right?

Susanna: Yes, I think judging other people’s taste is a trendy thing to do. Words like basic, that person is so basic. It just means that they have a taste for certain things that are popular and a certain aesthetic that is popular in certain parts of the country and certain class. It’s all about– there are so many things that are coded in that too, that comment. I think, ultimately, my taste is just what I’m naturally drawn to and interested in and what’s pleasing to my eyes and ears and senses. Sometimes that’s just entertainment that isn’t necessarily elevated.

I would consider myself someone who has “good taste,” at least the taste that makes sense to me. I know when things are entertainment but not nutritious entertainment and when they’re not, but I guess that I would still consider that part of my taste. It’s not a secret that’s in a closet and my taste is only the things I admit that I watched.

John: No.

Susanna: It’s hard to even say what we mean when we say taste. I think it’s mostly coded with trying to say I’m smart, I have good taste, I have an eye.

John: It’s so weird that we use the word taste, because as a sense, it’s the only one that has a sense of revulsion. It’s like, “Oh, that’s delicious,” or, “That’s revolting.” You can imagine a thing. It’s weird that we’re describing a tongue experience for what art is supposed to be.

Susanna: There’s a value judgment, right?

John: Yes.

Susanna: It’s like asking someone what’s their taste and you can answer that question free of judgment, but then people also talk about, “Oh, that person has good taste,” as though we can all agree that there’s a bad taste. I think that’s what you’re saying. It’s like– I think for me, the experience of hiring people is I want to feel aligned with what they—obviously, when you’re hiring a cinematographer, you look at their lookbooks and their decks and they show you what you want the visuals to be. For me, it’s important to talk to them and make sure that the dynamic between the two of us doesn’t make me question my own judgment.

John: Absolutely. You might find a collaborator who, what they like is completely valid, but it’s just not the thing. If you don’t want to be fighting over lens selections with your cinematographer on the set, that’s not going to do anybody any good. Neither are you going to be happy with the choices. They have to be aligned on a fundamental quality. Come back to your show, the tone is a very specific taste. If you guys weren’t aligned on that, or if you’re trying to bring in somebody who didn’t get that, it’d be a mess.

David: I think if we talk about the word taste and just the idea of– I think what we experience making the show is that when something, and I think it’s also what is such a value of a writer being on set and me being on set when Susanna’s on set or whatever, is that I know immediately when this isn’t our show, in the same way that I would know immediately if the milk has turned. You see something, you’re like, “No,” and I don’t have to explain that.

John: It’s a gut reaction. You just know it.

David: I will have to explain it often if I will have to tell a collaborator or have a conversation with an actor or get a light changed or something, but basically something is– and it is also understanding this is not an objective truth.

John: No.

David: I understand that someone else would sit and do their version of a thing and they would want the line delivered that way or they would want this shirt on or whatever, but for me, I know that it tastes wrong.

John: Yes.

Susanna: Yes.

John: The reason why we’re using this tongue sense is because it is like an inherent thing.

Susanna: It’s visceral.

John: It’s visceral. It is. It’s a feeling like, “Oh, that’s wrong.” The Henson Company, we always talk about something is muppety or it’s not muppety, and something can fit in that world or it can’t.

Susanna: It’s an essential thing about it. It’s interesting too, casting comes into play all the time, or I guess just I’m casting something right now. There’s a very specific part, and thinking about different actors playing that part, it’s like they just either essentially are that part or they’re not, no matter how good they are. I don’t know. I guess that diverges a little bit from just a conversation that’s strictly about taste, but it’s just me matching something to a specific image of it in my head, it either works or doesn’t work, and how much can an actor interpret a part and get to where I need them to get to or are they limited by something in their innate self that isn’t quite–

John: I look at some executives who’ve gone on to careers, like an executive who went to a big streamer, and his job is in a very specific division at that streamer, and it’s like, it’s not his taste. I know it’s not his taste. This is not what he’s called to do, but this is what he’s doing, and that just seems like a prison to me.

Susanna: I have so many meetings with people like that. They’re like, “Well, right now I’m working in–” eye roll, whatever.

John: It’s like, well, I don’t know how to help you here because clearly, how can you be giving good notes on these projects when it’s not a thing you like or enjoy? How am I supposed to take your notes seriously when it’s like, “Yes, you can tell me what the algorithm or what you think your bosses want, but you would never watch this movie.” I think I’ve tried to be more honest in my career over time. There’ve been projects I’ve pursued because, “Well, of course I should pursue that,” but then I was like, “It’s not really my taste. It’s not really a thing that I enjoy.”

David: It’s what’s complicated about criticism, and we can all agree that there are just some things that are just bad.

John: There are things that are bad because they’re bad executions of a bad idea.

David: Yes, I think we can agree, except for a few maybe weird tax dodge reasons. No one sets out to make something bad, but yes, there are some things that are– but then other things are just like, “That’s just not for me.” I think it’s a very internet-brained thing. I think it’s thinking that not for me means it is not for existence, and I think as I’ve gotten further away from the part of me that just wants to dismiss people who don’t have my taste, like the 20-year-old version of me, I love that things exist in the world that are not for me.

On your and other people’s recommendation, I watched the first episode of Heated Rivalry, and I was like, “I respect that show. I don’t think I’m going to keep watching that, but I think what a well-made version of a thing that is not a thing for me, and that’s fine.”

Susanna: I think that I really applaud any well-executed version of whatever the person set out to make. I’m a big fan of that, and I do appreciate it even in genres I wouldn’t gravitate towards.

John: Totally. Yes, like slasher horror is not my thing, but I can recognize like, “Oh, that’s a well-executed version of that thing.” We talked on the show some time ago about the syllabus, what movies and genres should you probably see just so you actually have an understanding of what they are? Because there may be things you just don’t know that you love because you’ve never seen them, and so I think you do need to have– part of acquiring a taste, and going back to the question here, it’s like, “You’re talking about old movies because you’re having bad taste.” Well, it’s great that you’re watching old movies, for starters, because-

Susanna: What’s this person watching?

John: -you’re getting a sense of how we got to this place right now in cinema. If there’s things you love, great. If there’s things you don’t love, also great, but try to figure out what it is about those things. We’re saying it’s a visceral reaction, a gut reaction, but there may also be some details there that would be helpful for you to understand, like why don’t I like this? That’s good.

David: This is related to it, but it is part of my moviegoing experience in the last several years, is rewatching movies I’ve loved and feel like I have enough distance from them that I’m now watching them as a new person. I had this experience with The Graduate, which was always one of my favorite movies, and it remains one of my favorite movies in the rewatch, but I connected to it in a completely different way.

As an adolescent, I related to Benjamin Braddock, and that was the prism I saw it through, and now I watch it, and I find him insufferable and think the movie is great, and the movie is commenting on that, and understanding that if, for whatever reason, at any different point in my life, I watched The Graduate and didn’t like it, that it is also just much more of a reflection of me than it is of the piece. I think we as individuals, not we in this room, because we’re all perfect, but other people have a really hard time differentiating something that just does not connect with the version of who they are at this moment and think that it is a flaw of the piece of art.

Susanna: Somebody was saying, I can’t remember who said this, but I agree, that when you watch Reality Bites as a teenage girl, which I did. Everybody loves Ethan Hawke, and then when you get older, you’re like, “That guy–“ If your friend is dating that guy, you’re like, “Don’t date that guy.” Ben Stiller has a good job. He has health insurance. That’s who you want to be with.

John: Oh, so good. Thank you for this discussion of taste.

David: Of course. Our pleasure.

Links:

  • PONIES Trailer | On Peacock January 15th
  • Susanna Fogel and David Iserson
  • The last time Susanna and David were on the show (Episode 361)
  • The Work of Art by Adam Moss
  • So You Want to De-Bog Yourself by Adam Mastroianni
  • Procreate emulators True Grit and Retro Supply Co.
  • International Society of Character Artists’ character resolution 2026
  • The Plague (2025)
  • The Taste Gap by Ira Glass
  • Get your copy of the Scriptnotes book!
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Become a Scriptnotes Premium member, or gift a subscription
  • Subscribe to Scriptnotes on YouTube
  • Scriptnotes on Instagram
  • John August on Bluesky and Instagram
  • Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« 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 (73)
  • 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.