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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 224: Whiplash, on paper and on screen — Transcript

November 20, 2015 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2015/whiplash-on-paper-and-on-screen).

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

**Craig Mazin:** I am Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Scriptnotes, Episode 224, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

On last week’s episode I misidentified it as episode 232, and so some listeners thought I travelled through time and they’d missed episodes. And they’ve not missed anything. We are now back on track, we’re on the 224 train.

**Craig:** I feel like we lost a lot of work there. I mean, that’s 10 episodes that just disappeared.

**John:** Yeah, it’s like one of those things where — Heroes used to do this a lot, where they would jump back and forth in time and like sort of like whole timelines didn’t exist. And those were some really great episodes. I thought that the Shonda Rhimes episode we did was phenomenal. But I guess that’s just not in our timeline anymore.

**Craig:** It’s gone. You know, Melissa was a big fan of Lost. She watched all of Lost, every episode, all the way to the end. She loved the end, by the way. She’s one of those people that just cried and cried. She thought it was great. And you know, me, I don’t watch TV. So you know, every now and then, I’d walk by, I’m like, “What’s going on with Lost?” You know, I’d watch like five or six minutes of it. And I’d say, “What’s happening?” And she’d say, “It’s too complicated, you wouldn’t understand. They’re in a flash sideways.” And I was like, “That’s it. I’m going to go — I’m going to go play a video game. I’m out.” [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. I loved Lost. I loved just sort of all the weird twists and turns they took. And I think they got unfairly slammed for like, people said like, “Oh, they broke the rule, that they were not supposed to be in limbo and like this wasn’t limbo.” But the no limbo rule is really sort of for the initial, what the island was, not that any season couldn’t talk place at limbo and so the reveal that part of it was limbo, was not fair.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s all whirring and clicking noises to me. [laughs] That’s how I feel what’s going on. But you know what we should do?

**John:** What should we do?

**Craig:** We should get Damon Lindelof to come on our show.

**John:** We should absolutely do that. So that will be a goal for 2016.

**Craig:** I don’t even think — it’s not that much of a goal, I mean. We’ll just go —

**John:** Damon is actually a friend.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.

**Craig:** Damon, get on the show. I’m just going to tell him, “Get on.”

**John:** Damon Lindelof listens to the show so I bet he would even be happy to be on the show.

**Craig:** Yeah. Let’s go. Actually, I love — I mean, he’s — talk about a great insight into what we do. He’s written a bunch of things about final episodes. When the last episode of Breaking Bad came out, he wrote this really interesting essay where he kind of put to bed his own weird relationship with the final episode of Lost and how it made people feel, and all the rest of that stuff. It would be really interesting to talk to him about that because he is a really smart guy, and he’s got such an interesting and familiar-to-me relationship with feedback and criticism and, you know, all that stuff. So we’re just going to order Damon to be on the show.

**John:** He will absolutely be on the show. I was talking with him about Season 2 of the Leftovers which I’ve really been enjoying. And he was warning me before it happened, like “Oh, and there’s this one thing that’s going to happen. It’s going to be like a big social media flashpoint,” and you know, the difference is I now can anticipate and see that coming and sort of try to be not even ahead of the story but sort of responsive to where I know the conversation is going to go and he was absolutely correct. And so when it happened and the next morning as people started having their think pieces about what happened on the previous night’s episode, he could be part of that conversation and not say dumb things.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, he really loves to be part of that conversation and —

**John:** But he’s not on Twitter anymore. He’s very deliberately — he steps in when he needs to and steps out when he doesn’t want to.

**Craig:** I see. I see. Well, I mean, he’s a very interesting guy that way. He really is — I think he is interested in being an active participant in the discussion about his own work which I think is really interesting. It’s not — it’s like another job on top of your job and — now, I know that there are a lot of people that, well, they follow, you know, my new role which is just go somewhere for two weeks and come back and it’ll be fine. But he’s in there, you know.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I like that he thinks about these things. He’s very — it’s an interesting thing. So, okay, we’re forcing Damon to do the show.

**John:** It has been decided. Today on the episode, we will be talking about two scenes from Whiplash, both how they function on the page and how they function on the screen, and why they are so wonderful. So this is sort of a follow-up to the episode we did with two scenes from Scott Frank. Actually, that’s I guess one scene we looked at from Scott Frank.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And people loved that episode where we really dug into what Scott was doing on the page and how it worked and why it worked. And so we’re going to be doing that with two scenes from Whiplash.

**Craig:** Great. And Damien Chazelle, by the way, also a super nice guy. And I believe I’m going to force him to be on the show as well.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I got to interview Damien Chazelle for a film independent thing —

**Craig:** I remember that.

**John:** A year ago. And he was just the best. And in that conversation we talked about how those scenes shifted from what he wrote to shooting it to editing it. And we’re going to see some of the results of that in today’s episode.

**Craig:** You know what’s interesting is that, of the four of us, you, me, Damon, and Damien, three of us have something in common. One of us is not like the others.

**John:** Did you all go to Princeton?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** All right. I don’t know what that is.

**Craig:** Damien, Damon and I are all from New Jersey.

**John:** That’s amazing.

**Craig:** What a great state.

**John:** It is a great state, the undersung state.

**Craig:** Undersung. Although I’m sure some people will be like, “Yeah, well, I liked Whiplash.”

**John:** Yeah? No one else has done anything good out of New Jersey.

**Craig:** The other guys did Hangover 2 and Tomorrowland.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** F them.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** F Jersey.

**John:** This is also a great moment for us to bring up the issue of Fs because this will be an episode where we are talking about scenes from Whiplash and there are some F words in it. So in the later half of this show, you may not want your kids in the car to be listening to the episode because they will hear J.K. Simmons say the F-word.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you’re in a car and it’s moving, unfortunately, you are going to have to push them out.

**John:** Yeah, that’s fine. I mean, that’s pretty much parenting. It’s knowing when to push your kids out of the car.

**Craig:** That’s the key.

**John:** We have actual news, so if you missed us at Austin because you were not in Austin for the Austin Film Festival and you were saying, “Oh no, why do we not get to see John and Craig live?” Well, if you live in Los Angeles, you will get to see us live. We are doing another Scriptnotes holiday show. It’s long-rumored, but it’s actually going to happen on December 9th. It will be in Hollywood, California across from the ArcLight.

Our guests for the show include Malcolm Spellman, Natasha Leggero, and Riki Lindhome from Another Period. They’re the co-creators of Another Period and they are phenomenal and funny. Malcolm Spellman was a previous guest. He is a producer on Empire and writer and an all-around funny person.

We may have some other guests too that we’ll be announcing soon. But it’s important that we announce this now because tickets go on sale on Tuesday, the day this episode comes out. So they are $20. As always, all proceeds benefit the Writers Guild Foundation and you can go to the Writers Guild Foundation website in order to purchase your tickets for this show. It has always sold out, so maybe don’t delay too long.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And talk to your friends and come to see us live and in person.

**Craig:** I think these will move pretty quickly. Malcolm is one of our more popular guests. Perhaps our most popular guest and — because he is one of the key writers on Empire, which is a big, big show, I think people are going to want to hear from him about that. And then, although I don’t know Riki Lindhome’s work, I do know Natasha Leggero as a stand-up comedian. She is incredibly funny. I mean, you may be familiar with her from some of the Comedy Central roasts, but that — I always feel like that doesn’t give people a true sense of who a comedian is. And her work is really, really good. She is just smart. She’s smart. I think she’s one of the funniest people out there. So I’m really excited to meet Natasha and Riki and talk about their show.

**John:** And you’ll probably even watch one episode of their show before this begins. That’s not a promise, but it’s a thing that other hosts might do.

**Craig:** I mean, if there’s like a summary somewhere? [laughs] No. No.

**John:** Because you’ll really get a good sense of the tone or what’s unique about it by reading a summary of the show.

**Craig:** [laughs] Isn’t it great when people ask questions and it’s so obvious they just read a summary. No, I will absolutely familiarize myself with the material. And frankly, it’s going to be — I’m looking forward to familiarizing myself with it, because I know at the very least that Natasha is super, super funny. And if she’s working with Riki, I can only imagine Riki is really, really talented, too. So I’m excited about that. I’m going to watch that. But yeah, you guys should pick up your tickets quickly. And you know, usually, we have some sort of extra pizazzle in there at some point.

**John:** Yeah. There’s some pizazzle coming, we just don’t want to quite announce it to the world yet.

**Craig:** Barack Obama.

**John:** Come one, you spoil everything.

**Craig:** Sorry.

**John:** We have follow up from our live show in Austin. In the live show we talked about Zola and whether the Zola movie could happen, how much of that Zola story was real. So if you don’t remember, that was the story of the Hooters waitress who goes on a wild trip to Tampa, I believe, and craziness ensues. And so we talked about sort of what was possibly real, what was not real, how much her Twitter account was just really good writing versus actual reality.

Well, Caitlin Dewey of the Washington Post did a long story on it and did some fact checking and found out that so many of the facts actually check out. And so I’ll put a link in the show notes to that. But basically, a lot of that happened. Nobody got shot in the face, no one died, but a lot of the other stuff happened. And, there’s some disagreements about sort of who did what, when, and where, and how. But most of those people are actually real people. And they — that was their life over a course of some chaotic weeks. And Caitlin also does more follow-up in sort of the parts that happened after Zola’s Twitter story about how Z and Jess and all that stuff resolved

**Craig:** If you recall from the Austin show, my instinct was, if you’re going to make a movie about this that it should be about the strange confluence of a viral news story with — in conjunction with what’s actually really happening. As I read this, I feel it even more because, you know — yeah. So apparently, she made up the part about somebody getting shot in the face. And that’s good because you don’t want murders. That’s difficult. But here’s what I look at, I see that Jessica is 20 years old. I see that she has a daughter, a baby. And I see —

**John:** And she’s lost custody of the baby already.

**Craig:** No surprise there, considering that she is engaging in prostitution. And a greater concern is that she appears to be getting trafficked. And then you read about this guy who’s just a bad, bad man. I mean, when you read these stories on the internet, it’s like “Oh, haha, Z. You crazy nut.” No. Z is also Rudy, also Akporode Uwedjojevwe. That’s right, Akporode Uwedjojevwe.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And he is an awful human being. He is a bad, bad man who deserves to go to prison, as far as I’m concerned, forever, because he is a human trafficker. And it’s not funny. None of this is — I mean the thing is, Zola’s story attracted everyone’s attention because it was so — it was written in such a breezy, funny, catty, confident style. This is not good. I hate that all of this happened. I hate that is happens at all. That’s where I’m fascinated by people’s casual like, “OMG, Zola’s so crazy.” And in fact, what’s going on, which is a series of terrible crimes. And somewhere down the line is a baby. I hate it. I just hate it. I hate that these things happen. And so I’m fascinated by how social media grabbed on to this and looked at it and decided to have fun with it, almost.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not fun for me.

**John:** So someone on Twitter asked what we meant when I said “taking agency,” like we have a character who takes agency. What does that term even mean? And I answered back that the ability to take agency is the ability to have control over the outcomes of things, the ability to take actions which can propel you forward. And so often in stories you see characters who either don’t take agency or basically have no agency at all. They could not affect the outcome whatsoever, and it’s very frustrating to be in their stories.

I think one of the differences between the Twitter account of Zola and sort of how she told the story is that character that she described for herself seemed like she had a lot of agency, she could actually affect the outcomes. And so she’s the one who’s like creating the profiles and she’s doing all that stuff and when the decision to like — like let’s start trapping, she could do that. And so she would cast herself as a character in her story who could make some of these decisions. And some of these decisions were just to run away, but those were decisions she was able to make.

When you look at this actual real-life account, you see that both the Jessica character and Zola had probably less agency in that situation than would be believed. And that’s the difference between a protagonist that you want to watch in a movie and somebody you kind of shy away from because you see how desperate their real plight is.

**Craig:** Yeah. The term “agency” comes up all the time. And it’s something that is most salient when people are looking at stories and saying, “Well, wait a second, this character may be making decisions, they may be doing things, they’re not passive, but are they being creative? Are they being inventive? Are they the person that is kind of master-minding what’s going on? Are they — are they solving in their minds?” This is what we think of as agency. And you’re right, I think that Zola, a.k.a. Aziah Wells, definitely paints herself with more agency than she has. But, you see, this is what we’ve talked about before, it’s this curse of narrative.

When we read these things and we read her account, we’re like, oh, my god, this is an underdog woman who’s a stripper. But she doesn’t care, she’s proud of who she is. And so she’s going to go along and do something that’s perfectly legal and fine. And then things go bad and she keeps her head, she keeps her wits, and she comes out alive. That’s somebody I root for. There’s agency and narrative. And then there’s villains. And the villain is just like a villain, you know. and he’s a bad guy, and he ends up in jail. And there’s this woman who’s weak and doesn’t have any agency. And so we lose respect for her and we — and we gain respect for Zola because she’s not like that.

But in reality, crimes are being committed and there’s terrible victimhood here. And I — and it’s so — this is what I talk about when I — the narrative sickness that we have. We can’t seem to get past our narrative biases to see how much pain and misery is going on here. And this guy, I mean — ugh, god, you see the mug shot of this guy, you look in his eyes and you’re like, “Oh, yeah, you’re a bad guy. I can see it in your eyes. You got — you got bad guy eyes.”

**John:** He does very much. All right. So what we’re going to talk about in this week’s episode is Whiplash. And specifically, two scenes from Whiplash involve characters with — taking a lot agency but also conflict. And the backbone of any one of these stories that we want to tell is characters in conflict. And Whiplash is a very specific example because it’s just these two kind of sociopaths who have this really complicated relationship over the course of the movie. And the characters are — that you’ll be hearing repeatedly in the show — Miles Teller is the actor who plays Andrew and J.K. Simmons is Fletcher.

So the two scenes that I’m going to be playing for you guys, none of them involve actual drumming or sort of the meat of what this story is which is these intense sessions with a band. So the two scenes I want to focus on first is a family dinner, which is one of the few times where we see Andrew’s character outside of this elite music education school that he’s at. And the second one is a conversation that happens at a jazz club very late in the story, in sort of a third act.

So if you haven’t seen Whiplash at all, some of this won’t make a tremendous amount of sense, but you’ll probably be able to follow along with what’s going on because we’re really focusing on what is the writing on the page and how does that manifest on the screen.

**Craig:** So should we watch it now?

**John:** Yeah, let’s do it. So let’s take a look at the first scene from Whiplash. This is a family dinner scene. So this is Andrew coming home with his father played by Paul Reiser. And it is first starting off at a kitchen and then we’re moving to a dinner table scene where we have a big family around a dinner table. So we’re going to play the audio for it. You’ll get a sense of what’s happening here and then we’re going talk about both the scene at it’s written on the page and what it was actually shot like. So let’s take a listen to that first.

[Audio Playing]

**Man:** Yikes, what did you do to your hand? Is that from drumming?

**Andrew:** Yeah.

**Father:** So how’s it going with the studio band?

**Andrew:** Good. Yeah, I think he likes me more now.

**Father:** And his opinion means a lot to you, doesn’t it?

**Andrew:** Yeah.

**Man:** Want to grab the shakers?

**Man:** Jimbo, overcooked. I can barely chew this.

**Man:** He just left.

**Woman:** So how is the drumming going, Andy?

**Andrew:** Yeah. It’s going really well. I’m the new core drummer.

**Group:** Hey, yeah. Yay!

**Man:** Tom Brady!

**Woman:** Did you hear yet?

**Father:** No. What happened?

**Man:** Travis got named this year’s MVP

**Father:** That’s fantastic, Travis.

**Woman:** And Dustin] is heading up Model UN, soon to be Rhodes Scholar and who knows what all else. And Jim, teacher of the year. I mean, come on, the talent at this table, that is stunning. And Andy, with your drumming.

**Man:** It’s going okay, Andy?

**Andrew:** Yeah, I mean it’s going really, really well. Actually, I’m part of Shaffer’s top jazz orchestra which means it’s the best in the country. And I’m a core member so I’ll start playing in competitions and actually I just found out I’m the youngest person in the entire band.

**Man:** How do you know who wins in a music competition, isn’t it subjective?

**Andrew:** No.

**Man:** Does the studio get you a job?

**Andrew:** No. It’s not an actual studio. It’s just the name of the ensemble. But yeah, it’s a big step forward in my career.

**Man:** Well, I’m so glad you figured it out. It’s a nasty business I am sure. Oh, hey, are you going to tell them about your game last week? Living up to your title?

**Man:** I scored a 93-yard touchdown.

**Man:** School record, school record, school record.

**Father:** That’s great. That’s fantastic.

**Andrew:** It’s Division III. It’s Carlton Football, it’s not even Division II. It’s Division III.

**Man:** You got any friends, Andy?

**Andrew:** No.

**Man:** Oh, why is that?

**Andrew:** I don’t know. I just never really saw the use.

**Man:** Oh, who are you going to play with otherwise? Lennon and McCartney, they were school buddies, am I right?

**Andrew:** Charlie Parker didn’t know anybody until Joe Jones threw a cymbal at his head.

**Man:** So that’s your idea of success, son?

**Andrew:** I think being the greatest musician of the 20th Century is anybody’s idea of success.

**Father:** Dying, broke, and drunk, and full of heroine at the age of 34 is not exactly my idea of success.

**Andrew:** I’d rather die drunk, broke at 34, and have people at a dinner table talk about me than live to be rich and sober at 90 and nobody remember who I was.

**Man:** Ah, but your friends will remember you. That’s the point.

**Andrew:** None of us were friends with Charlie Parker. That’s the point.

**Man:** Travis and Dustin, they have plenty of friends and plenty of purpose.

**Andrew:** I’m sure they’ll make great school board presidents someday.

**Man:** Oh, that’s what this is all about. You think you’re better than us?

**Andrew:** You catch on quick. Are you in Model UN?

**Man:** I got a reply for you, Andrew. You think Carlton football is a joke? Come play with us.

**Andrew:** Four words you will never hear from the NFL.

**Woman:** Who wants dessert?

**Father:** And from Lincoln Center?

**John:** All right. So Craig, had you seen that scene since you saw the movie?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. So first impressions?

**Craig:** Well, it’s interesting. I love this movie. I remember not liking this particular scene that much. I loved certain parts of it. I remember thinking that there were some transitional bumps. So you know, what we have obviously is we have an insecure guy who is getting beaten up by one father at school. And now, he’s coming home and attempting to crow and build himself back up .And he’s struggling a little bit with his own father. And then with his uncle who is a dick. And so he becomes hostile.

But the — you know, there were some spots where — little transitional spots where I thought, “I’m not quite sure — I’m not sure why this conversation is flowing the way it did.” There are sections that were great and then there were a couple spots that I want to call out and sort of say, “Hmmm.” And I want to look at the pages because I’m wondering if that’s — if it’s different on the page.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s take a look at it. So if you want to read along with us, I will have these links in the show notes. Basically, there’s two PDFs. So this is the Whiplash dinner that we’re looking at. And so the scene starts on page 48, it’s actually scene 49. So INT. NEW JERSEY — JIM’S HOUSE — KITCHEN. EVENING. Jim grabs a platter from the stove, Andrew by his side. Jim asks, “How is it going in studio band?” Andrew says, “Good. I think he likes me more now.” Jim says, “His opinion means a lot to you, doesn’t it?” Jim looks at Andrew, almost accusatory. A moment. “Yeah? Grab the shakers please.”

So let’s look at what this little snippet of scene does because it feels like the kind of thing, like, “Oh, you could just take that out.”

**Craig:** No, you can’t.

**John:** No, you can’t. Because what this is setting up is that even though you have left the school, you have not left the school. And that this movie is about Andrew and Fletcher. And so the very first thing the father asks is, “How’s it going?” And Andrew answers, “Oh, other daddy likes me now.” And —

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s crucially what this movie is about, is this really fucked up relationship between these two characters. And you have to remind the audience that even though we’re not in that physical space anymore, it’s still about that.

**Craig:** Yeah. The character of Andrew’s father, Jim, will become exposed as something of a weakling. And so you have a situation where a boy-man, Andrew, is looking at his own father and thinking, “You’re not special. You’re not strong. You’re not interesting. And in school, I have this other father who is strong and special and interesting but abusive.” And watching him ping pong between these two is remarkable. And so here, Jim is kind of — it’s interesting, he’s saying — when he says, “His opinion means a lot to you, doesn’t it?” And there’s that pause and then Andrew looks at him and says, “Yeah.” There’s — in the text, you see it says, “Jim looks at Andrew almost accusatory,” got it, “a moment. Then Andrew says, ‘Yeah.'”

But what could have gone in parenthesis in front of the “Yeah” is defiant, right? I’m glad, you don’t need it. You know, Damien is directing his own movie, he knows what’s going on here. But there is a defiance there which is “Yeah, not just his opinion means a lot to me. His opinion means more to me than yours.”

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And you get it. It’s all there, which is, this is what we’re going for. And you know, when you’re writing, you may ask yourself, “How much am I supposed to say?” Remember that sometimes what we have to say is “Yeah.” Real simple. Love it.

**John:** Yeah. So there are moments in this scene that’s to come where — which are very written. Where you definitely sense like, okay, you can sort of feel the writer’s hand there a bit. But so much of Whiplash is just responding to what it actually feels like to be in that moment. And “Yeah” was exactly the right thing to say there.

So let’s move into the dining room. So INT. JIM’S HOUSE — DINING ROOM. NIGHT. Seven people seated at the table. Jim and Andrew, Andrew’s Uncle Frank, Aunt Emma, and 18-year-old cousin Dustin. To Jim, “Jimbo, overcooked. I can barely chew this thing.” Jim laughs along. Andrew watches. There’s an undercurrent to the joking. The power dynamic between the brothers is clear. He just laughs.

So this is all we’re going to ever see of this family again. They’re never going to be around us again. And so I remember when I talked to Damien Chazelle about this scene at this Director’s Forum, I was like, “There must have been a lot of pressure to cut this scene.” He said, “Absolutely.” Because like it’s a lot of actors to suddenly bring in. It’s a whole new location. You’re shooting around a table which seems like “Oh, that should be really simple.” It’s actually really complicated to shoot around a table. It takes so long because you’re matching eye lines.

But he thought it was really important to see Andrew outside of the school and sort of have Andrew try to define and defend himself. And we’re about to move into that section.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, first of all, you bring up this fascinating thing that people don’t know. And that is, what’s hard to shoot and what’s not? Shooting around a table is brutal. It’s absolutely brutal. And it is entirely about eye lines. So the eye lines are also angles. Every time somebody moves their head to look at somebody, that’s a new angle.

So you have Andrew in this point looking at his father, looking at his uncle, looking at his cousins. Those are all angles. You have his father looking at everybody, looking at his brother, looking at Andrew. Everyone is looking at everybody, it’s endless. Anyway, the point was very well directed, very well done. And it was all about the choices of who looks where and when. I love the way that Damien does this.

We need to learn something about Uncle Frank’s relationship with Jim. And all he gives us is, “This is overcooked.” But he’s like being jovial about it, “It’s overcooked. I can barely chew this.” And then his brother Jim, Andrew’s father, just sort of like sheepishly laughs. And then Uncle Frank says, “He just laughs.” And Jim keeps laughing. It’s the most — it’s the most wonderful alpha dog/beta dog moment and you get everything. And you know, and you can see in the scene, that Andrew is watching and he hates it. He hates it because his father is a beta dog and he doesn’t want to be one. He wants to be the ultimate alpha. This entire scene is about masculinity. Bad masculinity. It’s really fun.

**John:** I want to circle back to what you said about shooting around a table because we’ll put up links to these clips as well. We’ll put them on YouTube or some place so people can see them. And what you’ll notice now that we’ve said it is that when Travis comes into the scene, he doesn’t take a seat at the end of the table which would probably be the natural place for him to sit. Instead, he sits right beside his brother. It’s basically so you don’t have to establish a new eye line for everyone around that table to look at each other.

So Travis gets to share a two-shot with his brother and doesn’t have to have his own separate eye line for everything, for everyone to look at him down at the end of the table. That saved them probably eight hours of filming to have him sit in that chair rather that at the end of the table.

**Craig:** I’ll tell you what else it saved them, production design. Because if he’s sitting at the end of the table, I got to see the other part of that room. And then I got to dress it and what does that look like? Ugh. No, smart.

**John:** Because who is important in this scene? Well, Andrew is important in the scene. Like Andrew is the heart of everything in the scene. And so the only people who need really careful coverage are people who are going to spar with him directly. So his father is the second most important character in that scene because his father is this character we’re going to follow out through the rest of this movie.

The other guys, they’re not so important. All they’re there to do is to set up stuff for Andrew to hit back. And that is why we’re not getting into huge amounts of depth about who these other people are. The aunt is just a woman who says some lines and that’s how it should be. Because if the aunt talked about what she did in knitting today or sort of what this other thing that happened in the world is, it wouldn’t help us tell the story of Andrew.

**Craig:** Right. And just as we did with Scott Frank’s pages, let’s just keep note in our minds of how much has gone by here. We’re only about a half-a-page in and I know — I know how Andrew thinks about his father. I know that Andrew and his father are locked in a battle of wills that Andrew is winning. I know that Uncle Frank is the alpha dog to Jim. And I know that Andrew knows this and hates it.

**John:** And so let’s — first line from Aunt Emma, “And how’s your drumming going, Andy?” So first off, she’s saying Andy rather than Andrew. So she’s diminishing him. “Your drumming,” it’s like, oh, it feels like something a little kid does. So she’s not taking him seriously. So she’s trying to engage with him but she’s just, you know — you can very definitely see his reaction to what that is.

And actually, in the scene description he says, “Andrew put on the spot hesitates. But then excited, ‘Well, actually it’s going really well. I’m now the core drum,’ the door opens.” So he started to be able to define himself and then Travis walks in.

**Craig:** Right. Now, here is the little area where I got a little nervous. And even in the scene, I remember even watching the movie I felt this, which is like I’m feeling a little bit of a disconnect. I know what’s happening here. I know that they’re going to be basically diminishing what he does, “Oh, your little drumming thing.” You know?

But what I was nervous about was a disconnect from their attitude and what I think would be real. At least one of them would have some moderated opinion here. He’s going to the equivalent of the Berklee School for Music. That’s kind of what’s implied in the movie, it’s — or Juilliard. I mean, it’s the top of the top. He’s already achieved something fairly remarkable by going there. It seemed not to match up for me in terms of reality that every — I mean, even Aunt Emma would be like this. I would have much preferred Aunt Emma to pipe in and say, “Well, no, it’s a very good school.” And then Uncle Frank mows her down. But I got a little worried there.

**John:** So let’s — this will be a situation where we’ll look at the difference between what’s on the page and what is actually in the film or what made it through the cut. There was a little bit more, I think, along what you’re asking for there in the written pages. So — but also it was distinguished between like, if you are a violin prodigy at Juilliard, people are going to perceive you one way. Whereas, if you play drums, they’re going to perceive you a different way. And so I think, singling out the drumming is a useful way of thinking about it because we don’t think of drummers being musicians in the same way.

**Craig:** I guess, but he is — it’s jazz. Like, if he were trying to drum in a band, I totally get it. But jazz, everyone, I think, views jazz as the academic version of music. It’s the fanciest for drummers, I think, even more so than classical music, so I don’t know. It’s just felt a little — it just felt a little broad. Yeah, I thought it was a little broad.

**John:** So let’s take a look at Aunt Emma’s next block here. “And Dustin heading up the Model UN, soon to be Rhodes Scholar, who knows what? And Jim, teacher of the year. I mean, look at the talent at the table, it’s stunning. And Andrew, with his drumming.” And so she’s trying to include Andrew in the conversation about how remarkable everyone is and singled out Andrew as well but it’s not working. And you can definitely see Andrew’s reaction. And that’s Uncle Frank’s next line, “Yeah, you said that was going okay, Andy.” That sense of like, you know, “Oh, we didn’t forget about you. We are going to circle back to you.”

**Craig:** Right. And so here, we’re getting it. I mean this is — we now know what’s going on, which is Uncle Frank, alpha dog, is going to boast about his boys. Emma is going to boast about her boys. The boasting has been over the top, for me at least. [laughs] And it’s interesting, because — I don’t want to seem like I’m down on the scene because I love the other scene. I love this movie. But there was something a little pushed about the bragging. Where it goes, though, once we get past the push about the bragging, I got very, very happy.

**John:** Yeah. So this is the section that got cut out. And so I want to focus on this. So I’m looking at the bottom of page 50, top of page 51. Uncle Frank asks, “So does the studio help you get a job?” Andrew says, “It’s not that — the studio, it’s just the name of the ensemble. And yes, it’s a big step forward in my career.” So he does say that in the movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Uncle Frank says, “I’m just curious how you make your money as a drummer after graduating.” That’s a reasonable question, I think, for that uncle to ask. Andrew glances at his dad wondering if maybe he’ll chime in, in his defense. But no, dad stays meek and quiet. Aunt Emma, trying to be helpful, “I saw a TV commercial for credit reports where a young man was playing the drums. You could do that.”

**Craig:** I’m glad they cut that one out.

**John:** Yeah. “Yes. Or the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra, but the credit reports gig is a wonderful backup.” And so this is the first time where he’s actually just being a dick in the scene. And that’s an important thing to remember is that you have to think about who your character is in that scene. And Andrew is a dick. And we’ve not had a chance to sort of see how much of a dick he is because he has always been out-dicked by Fletcher. And this is a chance to see him actually being the asshole that he kind of deeply is in his heart. And we have to have some new characters to show that with.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s also internalizing what Fletcher has done to him. He is copying. He is copying his teacher’s voice. He is copying the cruelty in his teacher’s voice. Now, at this point it’s warranted. We’re actually rooting along with Andrew. And what’s interesting about this scene, my favorite part of the scene, is what’s going to come next which is when Andrew stops being rootable for. So at first I get it. Now, I understood why they cut the TV commercial line up because it made Aunt Emma too dumb. And it was too much in the direction of what I already thought was a little bit too much in the direction of.

But Andrew says in the script, “Yes, it’s a big step forward in my career.” They skipped a couple of lines. And Uncle Franks just goes, “Well, I’m glad you have it figured out. It’s a nasty business, I’m sure.” Then he says to Travis, “Okay. You got to tell them about your game last week.” It was really pushing pretty hard. I would have — I would have loved for one of the kids to sort of pipe in on their own, because again we got back to “I love bragging.” [laughs] “Kids, talk more about you.” It just felt a little — it felt a little broad again.

**John:** Yeah. Yet we need to be able to get to moments where we can reveal Andrew just like how much of a dick Andrew can be. And so we need to find a way to get to a place where Andrew feels pushed enough that at least to his way of thinking it’s reasonable to go after these doofuses and sort of point them out. So he’s saying, “He plays for Carlton. It’s Division III. It’s not even Division II.” So basically like — he’s essentially saying like, “How dare you compare what he’s doing to what I’m doing?” Or not even really compare what we’re doing together because like he’s playing at like the amateurs and I’m playing in the pros and the difference then.

Ultimately, where this is all going to is allowing Andrew to state the question which we’re going to see again in the follow-up scene is what is he actually doing this for? What is the goal of being in the school? And the Charlie Parker story is what he’s going to get to here.

**Craig:** Yeah. When he announces it’s Division III, that’s the moment where — and aim for these moments, folks, when you’re writing these conflicts via discussion conversation — that’s the drop your fork. So everything has been survivable barbs. When he says it’s Division III, that’s a flat out insult. He’s literally saying you play for a lame team. It’s not real football. Stop bragging. You suck. I’m good.

Now, interestingly, there’s a line that’s in the script that’s not in the movie. And I want it to be in the movie. So in the script, Andrew explains, “He plays for Carlton. It’s Division III. It’s not even Division II.” Then you see silence. Shock around table. Then Andrew says, “The tilapia is delicious by the way.” And Uncle Frank, in parenthesis, (I’ll get you back for that), “You got a lot of friends, Andy?” Now, this moment, the tilapia line is cut out, so —

**John:** I’m happy the tilapia line is cut out. You want the tilapia line back in?

**Craig:** I do. And here’s why. Because I need a moment for Uncle Frank — I need to see Uncle Frank get angry. I don’t see him get angry in the scene. I see him get angry here because Andrew is being a real snot. He’s trying to like say, “There, I just dropped a bomb. But now moving on, tilapia, everyone. I’m in control of this discussion.” And I want — and I want Uncle Frank to go, “No you’re not. No, I’m in control.”

**John:** The tilapia felt sitcom to me. It felt too punch line. There’s something about how specific the word tilapia is that it just — it made it too clear to me that Andrew knew he was being a dick. And that he was peacocking in front of everybody else where it wasn’t — I didn’t think he was quite ready to be at that place yet.

**Craig:** Well, I would say to you that the language there is not what I’m in love with. Let’s change — I mean, let’s rewrite, Damien. We can change that to whatever. What I’m in love with is the fact that he thinks he just got away with it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And that Uncle Frank, I need — the moment that I like the least in the scene is where Uncle Frank says, “You got a lot of friends, Andy?” It comes off as a non-sequitur. It doesn’t come off as mean. It doesn’t come off as revenge. It doesn’t come off as a challenge. It almost comes off as vaguely conversational and kind of odd. So I needed that moment where I saw Uncle Frank make a decision to go, “Okay. Let’s go.” And that is a specific response to what you just did.

**John:** Yeah. So from this moment on, this scene plays as if it’s a fight between Andrew and his uncle. Of course, it’s really about his father and of course the other, you know, cousins there as well will chime in. But it’s really about this sort of, like, Andrew when he sort of feels like he’s backed into a corner will come out stabbing and slashing. And that’s just the basic nature of him. And it’s important, I think, for us to see it at this point in the movie that he actually is this kind of character. And that, you know, the hard worker we saw earlier on has become a bit of a sociopath. And I think it’s an important sort of change to see

So when he talks about, you know, people know who Charlie Parker is because of all these things that happened. And that he’s not worried about dying broke, drunk, and full of heroine at 34. Like, that’s sort of his fantasy. And that’s an important thing for us as an audience to see. And it’s the kind of thing that in less capable hands, the character would just say it to somebody or would just say to the girlfriend or to somewhere else. But Damien has created a scene that gets him to say this. And I think that’s the important part of the scene.

**Craig:** Yeah. I love that this is a thesis statement about who I am and who I want to be that is presented in the guise of “I don’t want to be you. See, you, you people are all Division III. And I am going to be great. You’re all concentrating on Model UN and Division III. That’s fake and fake. I’m going to be real.” And it’s so much more interesting hearing someone articulate what their vision is for themself if it’s done in opposition to somebody else as opposed to just sharing a thought. I completely agree. I love that this is phrased in conflict.

And then a wonderful relationship thing happens here where Jim, his dad, chimes in in support of Uncle Frank and makes a point that frankly is important and valuable. This is where Damien, I think, does something brilliant because Andrew is sparing with Uncle Frank and making pretty good points. Points that, frankly, I agree with. Until Jim points out that Charlie Parker, Andrew’s hero, died broke, drunk, and full heroine at 34. And that’s true. And this is what we talk about a lot, that the argument of your movie has to be something that can actually be argued.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And here’s the good argument right there.

**John:** Absolutely. You know, to be able to put those words in people’s mouths to really state what your thesis is is so crucial. Now, later on, on page 52, there’s stuff that got cut out here. And you could totally see why it got cut out here. So Andrew does say in the movie, “No. None of us were Charlie Parker’s friends. That’s the whole point.” And here’s what got cut out. “Well, there’s such a thing as feeling loved and included. I prefer to feel hated and cast out. It gives me purpose.” Jim says, “That’s ridiculous. You don’t mean that.”

But the movie does jump back in to say, “Travis and Dustin have plenty of friends. I’d say they have plenty of purpose.” So we cut out those three lines and I’m so happy that those lines got out because Andrew saying, “I prefer to feel hated and cast out. It gives me purpose.” I don’t believe that the character actually understands that yet or is able to articulate it in that way.

**Craig:** I agree. It is too revealing. It involves too much self-awareness. And in a strange way, if you’re aware enough to say that then you’re aware enough to change. Because actually, the truth is when Jim replies, “That’s ridiculous. You don’t mean that.” I agree with Jim. That is ridiculous and you don’t mean that. So I’m glad that that isn’t there. But I love this when Andrew says, “I’d rather die broke and drunk at 34 and have people at a dinner table somewhere talk about it than die rich and sober at 90 and have no one remember me.” That’s the movie. Right? He’s literally just told you, this is the argument of the movie.

And what’s wonderful about this movie and why I think it had an extended life beyond what you would expect from a small independent film is that that question is worth discussing. It’s the kind of thing people walk out of the movie theater, go somewhere, have a cup of coffee or drink, and debate it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because it’s actually worth debating. It’s really interesting. But it’s also where you start to see that Andrew, because he is saying it to his father and literally saying, “I’d rather be what I want to be than what you’re going to be.” It’s where Andrew starts to turn from “I’m making a point that you can all agree with” to “I’m becoming a bad person in front of you. I’m becoming cruel now.” And this is where it escalates.

**John:** Yup. Also very notable that the scene ends as filmed with Jim’s line, “And from Lincoln Center.” But the scene as written goes on quite a bit longer. So there’s an extra sixth-eighths of a page. It says, a moment of silence, Andrew looks at his dad, his dad just looks right back. A simmering anger in his eyes, Andrew turns to the others and slowly says, “In 1967, a scientist named Laszlo Polgar decides to prove talent isn’t about what you’re born with but about conditioning. He has three kids Susan, Sophia, and Judith and he gets them practicing chess for hours and hours before they could even talk. Fifteen years later, Susan and Sophia are the two top female players in the world. And Judith is on her way to entering the history books as the greatest female chess master of all time.” And so Andrew says this thing and — okay. But that wasn’t the scene we were just in. And I’m really glad that got cut out.

**Craig:** Yeah. It is the kind of thing that you probably don’t know until you know, you know. So we have the benefit of seeing the scene. And I think we all do this. There are times when we think, I know what to do here. I know how to drive this home. Because you put yourselves schizophrenically into each character as you write each line. And so I ping pong around as I’m moving through and I get back to Andrew and I can feel how frustrated he is at what his father just said. And I want him to deliver the killing blow.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And what I think is wonderful that Damien found is that, in fact, the killing blow that should be delivered, the one that’s more dramatic is the one from Andrew’s father. That is, in fact, the moment where Andrew gets up and walks out. And we understand his relationship with that man is now essentially severed. That he’s — because what Jim had said to him is, “You can’t do it.” And what’s fascinating is that’s exactly what he’s hearing from Fletcher, “You can’t do it.” They’re both — they have both now found an agreement for different reasons. And so brilliant choice to end, “And from Lincoln Center?” because what leads into it is Andrew saying something very, very mean to Travis. Because Travis is actually being —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, I mean look, that was insulting and unnecessary. It wasn’t like Travis was tooting his own horn, his dad was doing it for him. And he says, “You think Carlton football is a joke? Come play with us.” And Andrew says, “Four words you will never hear from the NFL.”

**John:** And that’s a closer line. Like, the scene really can’t continue after that line. It does feel like that is the button on the end of the scene.

**Craig:** Well, it’s almost the button because you’re like, “Oh, yeah. He just dropped the mic.” And then his father walks over and drops a bigger mic. “And from Lincoln Center?” Like who is it that you think you are all of a sudden? You can say that you want to be great but you’re not. You’re just you right now.

**John:** Yeah. I did not actually connect the “And from Lincoln Center?” to the NFL as well as you did. And so it always felt like a bit of weird floater for me that the Lincoln Center line there. Particularly because there are cuts early on the scene to talk more about Lincoln Center.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so it’s not the ideal out for the scene as it was finally staged. I could imagine an out which is something that Jim says. I agree it should be Jim’s last line there to cement what the conflict is, it’s going to keep going forward in the movie after this dinner table scene. But I just loved this scene.

**Craig:** Well, this is — by the way, this is what critics never understand. So let’s talk about the ticky tacky argument that must have gone on in the editing room. That last line I think is terrific because I think it’s really important for the character and I think it’s important for the relationship for Jim to point out “You aren’t great yet. And so maybe be a little less arrogant.” But the area that sets it up is buried in some stuff that isn’t working. So that stuff has to go. So you sometimes make a trade. And what was working so — what was working at 100 percent is now only working at 80 percent because you’re trying to get rid of something that was only working at 10 percent.

Well, down the line, someone watches this movie, and I say this all the time, they watch it with the belief that everything is intentional and it’s not. And they may go, “I don’t know. That scene just ended with, it could have been better. It just could have been better a line.” Well, ugh, you don’t understand. There are compromises, there must be compromises because not everything is going to work, and even the things that do work sometimes get a little reduced. I still love that line.

**John:** Yes, I do think though if Damien had known in shooting it that like he was going to be cutting out the other stuff, he would have found a way to make Jim’s last line work better because he would have also known it was the last line of the scene, so it was just feels like a bit of a weird floater to me. Or just some other moment of eye contact between them that could have just done the same job.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Yeah. Still a great scene. So let’s take a look at another one that involves our two main characters, our protagonist and antagonist, Andrew and Fletcher. And this is a quite late in the story. So Fletcher has been dismissed from the school. Andrew sees him at a jazz club. And so the video clip which we’ll link to will show sort of the whole sequence which is basically Andrew spotting Fletcher as Fletcher is finishing up a piano solo. It’s the first time, I think, we’ve seen Fletcher actually perform, as just not conduct, but actually perform, and they ultimately will get together and sit at a table and have a conversation.

So you will remember this conversation we see in the movie because it’s where Andrew asks the question, “Where is the line?” Basically asking the question going back to the Charlie Parker story, if someone hadn’t thrown that cymbal at his head, would he have become Charlie Parker? And that’s the thesis that — not just trying to state, it’s like without that cymbal being thrown at his head, he would never have pushed himself to become Charlie Parker that we know. Andrew asks the question, “Well, where is that line?” Where do you push too far that Charlie Parker just walks away?

And so let’s start listening at the end of the sort of a long monologue from Fletcher where he’s talking about this idea of Charlie Parker and his frustration with society.

**Fletcher:** There are no two words in the English language more harmful than “good job.”

**Andrew:** But is there a line? You know, maybe you go too far and you discouraged the next Charlie Parker from ever becoming Charlie Parker?

**Fletcher:** No, man, no because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged. The truth is, Andrew, I never really had a Charlie Parker. But I tried. I actually fucking tried, and that’s more than most people ever do. And I will never apologize for how I tried.

**Andrew:** See you later.

**Fletcher:** Hey, Andrew, listen, I have no idea how you’re going to take this, but the band I’m leading for JVC, the drummer is not cutting it. Do you understand what I’m saying?

**Andrew:** No.

**Fletcher:** I’m using the studio band play list. You know, Caravan, Whiplash. I need somebody who really knows those charts.

**Andrew:** What about Ryan Connolly?

**Fletcher:** All Connolly ever was to me was incentive for you.

**Andrew:** Tanner?

**Fletcher:** Tanner switched to pre-med. I guess he got discouraged. Hey, take the weekend to think about it.

**John:** Obviously the clip will show the whole sequence as we go through it, and there’s really great stuff in the head of this scene, but I really want to focus on the end of the scene and the discussion, the decision between the two characters, and the choices they’re having to make as they go through the end of the scene. So let’s take a look at, if you’re looking at the pages, at the top of page 88 is where we’re starting with Andrew’s question of, “But do you think there’s a line, you know, where you discourage the next Charlie Parker from becoming Charlie Parker?” This is, again, stating the thesis of the film. Fletcher says, “No, because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged.”

Andrew takes this in a moment, and here’s stuff that got cut. And again, I think it’s so useful to see what was on the page versus what was actually shot. Andrew used to ask, “And you, are you back to playing now?” Fletcher used to say, “Not really, here and there. The playing never interested me. I never wanted to be Charlie Parker. I wanted to be the man who made Charlie Parker. The kid who discovers some scrawny kid, pushed and prodded him, shaped him into something great, and then said to the world, check this out, the best mother fucking solo you ever heard.”

Andrew asks, “Where is Charlie Parker then? Sean Casey?” The name hits Fletcher. Fletcher looks at Andrew, who immediately regrets bringing the name up. Why? Because even after everything, the sight of Fletcher hurting affects him. There’s more stuff here. So basically we go through the whole Sean Casey of it all who’s the kid who committed suicide. We skip all that stuff out, and instead we just leave it with Fletcher reflecting on, “I never had my Charlie Parker,” like he doesn’t even say that he was trying to create it, not trying to be it, he makes it clear that he was trying to have a student who would be a Charlie Parker, and he never did.

And instead Damien just let’s — sort of the eye contact and the look between them tell more of that scene.

**Craig:** Yes. It’s really a very smart excision. First, of note is that in the dinner scene, we talked about this question, is it better to be great, or is it better to die you know, 90, and sober, and rich?

And that is a great argument worth having, and people had it. And then the gift of this movie is that it gives you another one. And it’s this one, which is must you forge greatness and fire, or is there a way to create greatness with love and support? And can in fact love and support backfire, can in fact forging someone in fire backfire? And great topic, and well worth debating. And the movie doesn’t answer the question for you which I think is terrific. In fact, Damien, I met Damien at a discussion that was moderated by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, and I think the topic was essentially ambiguity. What do we do about this, and how intentional is all the rest? It was a really interesting discussion.

So you have that, that’s a challenge there. And then the thing is, Fletcher has certainty. There is no debate in Fletcher’s mind. In his mind, it’s almost tautological, we would call this, begging the question in philosophy structuring your argument in support of an answer by assuming that the answer is part of the argument. But that’s the way he is. No. The next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged.

Now the rest of what happens here is understandable. We are always trying to guess how much the audience needs to get the point. And in this case, I think Damien wrote a lot of really interesting things to make us get this point that Fletcher was never about being supportive and teaching a group of kids to play some songs. He was always about finding that person who needed the cymbal thrown at his head, throwing the cymbal at his head, and creating the next great thing.

But the truth is, as good as the acting is in this moment, and as good as the dialogue is later on, all you needed was for Fletcher to go from the top of 88, “No, because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged,” all the way down to the bottom of 88. “The truth is, I don’t know if I ever had a Charlie Parker,” regret, “but I tried,” and that’s it. We get it. Perfect. Perfect cut.

**John:** Yeah, “I tried,” and “I will never apologize,” I think that’s the crucial thing, too, is that we should sort of back up and talk about sort of what information the characters have going into this. So Andrew testified against Fletcher basically, did agree that Fletcher had done bad things. There was an investigation and Andrew had cooperated with that investigation. Andrew knew that Fletcher had been let go from the school.

What Andrew doesn’t know is whether Fletcher knows that he was part of the process because he should have been kept out of it. So he has a lot of questions about Fletcher. Does Fletcher know what I did? And so the top half of that scene you’ll see there’s a little bit more of that sort of like probing. And what didn’t make it into the final cut was really more of those questions about sort of like what actually happened and sort of how much does this guy actually know about what my role in this was.

Most of that got dropped out of the actual cut, so that what it seems like this scene is doing is for these two characters, it’s like these two warriors who meet off the battlefield, and actually can have a conversation about like, “Oh, hey, remember that war?” to some degree, and that’s what the scene seems to be about.

What I think is so smart about it is that this is actually a misdirection yet again, because it seems like Fletcher is being totally honest about what he’s trying to do, and sort of like he’s sort of coming clean about sort of how he’s built and how he’s wired. But as we go into the next beat here, you see he wants something from Fletcher. And what it seems like he wants is, kid, you’re really good, please play in my band. So as written on the page, as we go outside, Andrew and Fletcher exit, they stand for a second, look at one another in awkward silence. Andrew says, “Nice seeing you.” Fletcher nods. Beat. Andrew turns, about to head off when, “Look, I don’t know how you’ll take this. The band I’m leading for JVC, our drummer isn’t cutting it. Do you understand?” “No.” “I’m using the studio band playlist, Whiplash, Caravan. I need a replacement who already knows those charts inside-out.” Andrew looks at him. You can’t be serious.

So it’s turning the tables where it seems like Fletcher is extending an olive branch, he’s saying, like, hey, you really are that good. He’s trying to put the past behind them, and more importantly, he’s validating Andrew who’s not had any validation as a musician for a long time here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Fletcher is a master of the mind game. And in this case, what Damien is doing is he’s having Fletcher mind game us in the audience as well. Because what Damien understands is we are connected to basic narrative understanding, and we believe we’re watching Rocky, and we believe Rocky needs to win at the end, even though of course, Rocky loses, but we need Rocky to at least make a good showing, right?

So Andrew has quit, he is done. I think his father is happy about this. And Fletcher gives him this speech that’s really just, well, it’s a discussion about his philosophy. They’re no longer teacher and student. There’s no power and balance. In fact, in a weird way, Andrew has the power because he’s come to watch this guy play. Assumingly he’s getting paid. And Fletcher says, “All I ever wanted was to find Charlie Parker.”

So now, they walk outside, and now Fletcher goes, hey, my drummer isn’t cutting it. Now, you and I both know as creative people that when someone comes to us and says, “Hey, my writer, they’re not cutting it,” there is a little dopamine blast that goes on in our brain, which goes, oh, so this is about me. Maybe I’m the one you want. And it’s very, very attractive.

So even though Andrew doesn’t quite understand it at first, when he gets it, you can see the dopamine, you can see that release. And then Damien’s really smart because Andrew says, “What about Ryan Connolly?” who was the drummer ahead of him — the seat ahead of him. And Fletcher says, “What about him? All he was was your incentive.” Like, I think, don’t you get it, idiot? You’re going to be my Charlie Parker. I think you could be my Charlie Parker. And it’s this juicy, juicy bait on the end of a hook. And Andrew just bites.

**John:** Yes, he does bite. So the relationship between these two characters is described as sort of like a really fucked up love story. And I think this is one of the scenes that’s sort of most fucked up about it where this is like, well, what about those other girls you were sleeping with? Like, oh, they didn’t mean anything to me. I was only thinking about you this whole time.

And that’s essentially what Fletcher is saying to Andrew is that these were just bait to sort of to get you to work harder. And that’s why they were never anything to you, they never meant anything to me. You are the only person who could possibly do this thing. And that’s incredibly attractive to this kid who really wants to be Charlie Parker. He really wants someone to tell him he is Charlie Parker, and that he’s not just good but he’s like once in a lifetime great. And so this is exactly what he needs to hear, exactly when he needs to hear it, and Fletcher knows it.

And so it’s interesting that Fletcher does say, “We’re rehearsing next Thursday, why don’t you take the weekend to think about it?” And in the script, on the page, Andrew thinks about it and says, “I don’t need to.” But this is a line that was scripted. I’m sure they shot it, but it’s good you shoot it because then you cannot use it. In this case, they did not use it. It lets the cut be the answer where you see, you know, you end the scene on a question mark, and then the far side of the cut is the answer which is basically like I’m so excited, I’m going to do this thing.

**Craig:** Yes. So on the other side of the cut we see Andrew opening his closet and pulling out his old drums. So we get his answer, we know his answer. What’s fascinating about Fletcher’s appeal here is that he doesn’t mean any of it. He’s lying. He is lying in order to set Andrew up, to punish Andrew, because he believes Andrew is the reason he got fired. He’s being vindictive, there is nothing about what he’s doing here that is true to any notion that Andrew could be the next great one. He doesn’t believe that at all, which sets up this remarkable ending, where Andrew becomes that, in spite of, and yet, also because of.

And that’s why the ending of the movie is so fascinating because it’s not like Fletcher’s plan really was to do that. It happened because Fletcher was awful, and this kid came out of that cruelty as great. And then, of course, the great question of the end of the movie is, what now?” Are they friends now? I don’t think so.

**John:** Oh, I don’t think so at all.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that Andrew moves far beyond Fletcher, who returns to a life of obscurity, and that’s the greatest tragedy of all. But also, the question is, Andrew, who ends up in his moment of glory, playing all of his blood and sweat all over the place, what will happen to him? His father is shut out completely in a shot that is almost a direct lift of Diane Keaton having the door closed on her at the end of The Godfather. So his father is gone. He’s cut strings there. He’s gone far beyond Fletcher. He doesn’t need him anymore. Now what happens to this guy? Does he end up dead at 32? It’s a fascinating movie. And this scene is another great example like the Scott Frank scene of people fighting without fighting.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** It’s terrific.

**John:** So we only focused on the end of the scene, but we’ll have the pages up for the whole scene, and the video for it. And I would strongly encourage people to look at both the scene as shot and the page, and really compare them in real time because what you’ll notice is that I think because Damien is the writer/director, he felt file with actors making huge changes to how they were saying those lines of dialogue as long as they were getting the effect across. And one of the most notable things I noticed was, tense changes, and so a lot of things that were written in the present tense in the script are spoken in the past tense in the movie, and it totally makes sense. It all tracks.

What you have to be really mindful of if you’re in production is if you have two characters who are speaking to each other, and you’re cutting those as singles, lines of dialogue might not make sense anymore because people are speaking in different tenses. So are they talking about a theoretical future, or are they talking about a thing that happened in the past? In many cases, especially J. K. Simmons has changed a lot of what those tenses are, and it totally works in the course of the movie, but you have to know your text really, really well as the writer and the director to feel comfortable with an actor making all those changes.

**Craig:** No question. And I think that he did that thing that some writers fail to do, which is transition successfully from the guy who wrote the script, to now I’m the guy directing the script. He treated the script the way he should, which I think was very respectfully, but also with flexibility. And he did a terrific job. I really enjoyed that movie.

**John:** Yes. So that was two sequences from Whiplash. Thank you, Damien Chazelle, for writing your great movie. We’ll have links in the show notes for the script pages, and also links out to the video clips so you can see what the scenes actually look like when they were shot. Craig, it’s time for One Cool Things. What is your One Cool Thing this week?

**Craig:** Well, today, my One Cool Thing is in my frequent category of neurological advances, but this one is amazing. This one actually could change a lot. So one of the problems with treating brain illness, whether it’s cancer or other kinds of disease, is that there’s something called the blood brain barrier, and the blood brain barrier is a mechanism that protects the brain from being affected by whatever the hell you throw into your body at any given moment.

Obviously, we know that some molecules go through the blood brain barrier, that’s why they work on us like you know, heroin, but a lot don’t. And this becomes very frustrating because a lot of pharmaceuticals are really big molecules, and they just don’t go through that barrier at all. So what ends up happening, when you’ve got something, for instance, a cancer in the brain, and you want to treat it with chemotherapy, you can’t because the chemo won’t get through the blood brain barrier.

So what these folks have done in Canada, led by a guy with the best name ever, Dr. Todd Mainprize.

**John:** Love it.

**Craig:** Yeah, if this works, Todd will get the main prize. So Todd Mainprize and his team in Toronto have come up with this remarkable concept where they introduce a particular chemical into the blood, and then they use ultrasound to expand that chemical as it’s moving through the blood brain barrier, and open up tiny little tears in the blood brain barrier that they can then get medicine through. And it’s really targeted, and it’s just kind of amazing.

And if it works, well, you’re going to see major reduction, I think, in terminal brain cancers. I think this could be truly amazing. And of course, when they try and take a cancer out of somebody’s brain, it’s invasive, you know. Sometimes the surgery itself is permanently debilitating. So I don’t know. I mean this is a crazy one, but it could work, it could really work and it would change the game. So very excited, congratulations Dr. Todd Mainprize. You have the main prize of today. You are my One Cool Thing.

**John:** Very cool. My One Cool Thing is called what3words, and it is a system for mapping the entire surface of the earth and providing coordinates that are actually described by three words. And so what they’ve done is essentially they’ve taken the entire surface of the earth and broke it into 57 trillion squares that are about three-meters by three-meters, and so that’s really quite small. But 57 trillion seems like a huge number, but it’s actually a number that could be described with a combination of any three words. And so the computer system is actually assigned a word to each of those squares on the surface of the earth, so you are able to then say like I am at alpha dog hypotenuse, and that is where I am. And it is really a fascinating system, and it makes sort of similar to like providing a URL or sort of a short code for any place in the real physical world, and it seems like a really ingenious system for doing that. So I’m going to link out to what3words.com which will show you how they’re doing it, and provide interactive maps so you can actually figure out where you are, and what the words are for the place that you are currently at. So it really is quite clever and I’m surprised it hasn’t happened before now, but it seems very smart.

So our live show on December 9th will take place at Tides Vivid Snail. And literally you can download the app and put in Tides Vivid Snail and it will give you directions to that specific venue.

**Craig:** That’s so much better than like an address. So much better.

**John:** Yeah, and why this hasn’t happened before? I don’t know, but it seems like a really, really smart idea. So a friend of ours who works in mapping sent this through and it seems just like a very clever way to do things.

**Craig:** Brilliant.

**John:** What’s interesting is that three-meters by three-meters square is small enough that like our house has a bunch of different squares, and so like if I’m out in the office, that’s a different square than the kitchen is. And so it’s a really very specific thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, three-meters by three-meters, that’s basically 10 square feet. That’s amazing.

**John:** Yeah. And it’s fascinating that you could actually think about mapping all the surface of the earth to that, but of course you could. So we have the technology now to do that. So I’m excited by this as a possibility.

**Craig:** We got to figure out how to use this for D&D because we’re basically D&Ding the world now because it’s becoming a grid —

**John:** Absolutely. Everything is on a square grid. Our grid that we’ll play at on Sunday, it will be five-foot squares, but this is similar to that.

**Craig:** Similar. All right, very good, very cool.

**John:** All right. That is our show this week. Our outro this week is by Kim Atle. If you have an outro you would like us to use, please send us an email at ask@johnaugust.com with a link to your outro. ask@johnaugust.com is also the place to send question to us. We love to answer questions, and we’ll do so in a future episode. If you have short questions for me, or for Craig, I am on Twitter, @johnaugust, Craig is @clmazin. You can find our show on iTunes. We are just Scriptnotes. Search for Scriptnotes. That’s also where you’ll find the Scriptnotes app which lets you get to all the back episodes of Scriptnotes.

To register for the back episodes of Scriptnotes and to get special episodes like the Drew Goddard episode, just go to scriptnotes.net.

A reminder that we have USB drives with all the back episodes as well, so you can get all 200 episodes of the show before now on USB drives shipped to your house, which is handy. Lots of people have been using those. A reminder that our live show is January 9th and you should get tickets. They will be at the Writers Guild Foundation website, wgfoundation.org, and we look forward to seeing so many of you there.

**Craig:** Excellent.

**John:** Great. Thanks for a fun episode.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** All right, bye.

**Craig:** Bye.

Links:

* [Buy your tickets now for the 2015 Scriptnotes Holiday Show on December 9th](https://www.wgfoundation.org/screenwriting-events/scriptnotes-holiday-live-show-with-john-august-and-craig-mazin) with guests [Riki Lindhome, Natasha Leggero](http://www.cc.com/shows/another-period) and [Malcolm Spellman](http://johnaugust.com/2015/malcolm-spellman-a-study-in-heat)
* [The true story behind ‘Zola,’ the epic Twitter story too crazy to be real](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/02/the-true-story-behind-zola-the-epic-twitter-story-too-crazy-to-be-real/)
* [Whiplash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiplash_(2014_film)) on Wikipedia
* [Whiplash, family dinner scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSDmo-gJ8XY&feature=youtu.be), and [the PDF](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/WhiplashDinner.pdf)
* [Whiplash, jazz club scene, Script vs Screen](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kunUvYIJtHM&feature=youtu.be), and [the PDF](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/WhiplashClub.pdf)
* [Sunnybrook doctor first to perform blood-brain barrier procedure using focused ultrasound waves](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/sunnybrook-doctor-first-to-perform-blood-brain-barrier-procedure-using-focused-ultrasound-waves/article27171384/)
* [what3words](http://what3words.com/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Kim Atle ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Scriptnotes, Ep 223: Confusing, Unlikable and On-The-Nose — Transcript

November 13, 2015 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2015/confusing-unlikable-and-on-the-nose).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 232 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, we will talk about terrible notes screenwriters get and what happens when novelists attempt to adapt their own books.

Craig, welcome back to your home little set-up, your office. We are now on Skype, we don’t have to see each other in person anymore.

**Craig:** Yeah. Always awkward to look into the face of John August —

**John:** Yeah

**Craig:** To see his dead eyes, to hear the words and clicks as the babbage machine inside his dome calculates what to say next.

**John:** Yeah, Mathew has a whole special filter that takes that out when I record by Skype. But live, you know, there’s no way to really conceal it.

**Craig:** You can’t conceal the babbage.

**John:** There was enough bustling in that auditorium there that nobody really heard it.

**Craig:** No one except for me.

**John:** Yeah. How did you feel Austin went?

**Craig:** I thought Austin went great. It may be my favorite of all the Austins I’ve been to. And it started off on a weird foot because they had this storm and the airport got shut down. So you and I weirdly kind of got in under the wire and got out after the wire. I mean, compared to everybody else, we had the easiest travel of all time.

But I thought it went really, really well. You know, we had to do a little rejiggering on our live podcast because of the travel issues and other things. But we got two great guests regardless. I thought our Three Page Challenge went really well.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then I enjoyed doing my seminar on story structure. That seemed to go really well. And it was just fun seeing people. It was a good group. Lots of old faces, some new faces. Oh, and our wives and husbands were with us.

**John:** Yeah, which was fun for the first time to have them there with us.

**Craig:** Here’s a question for you. I don’t know if this happened for you, but I was kind of hoping it would happen for me, and it did. And that is — just every now and then, the person that you’ve been spending your life with, you know, at this point now with Melissa it’s more than half of my life, it’s good for them to see you in like another context —

**John:** For sure.

**Craig:** And see people like, “Hey,” you know. It makes them kind of — I don’t know, just appreciate the other side.

**John:** There’s always this question in my head. It was whether Mike really believes I am where I say I am, or that if I’ve actually hidden my phone in some other city and I’m a spy living some other secret life. So it’s good for him to see like, “Oh, those places I talk about going, they are actually real and there are people on the other side of that conversation.”

**Craig:** I’m glad that I’m not the only one because, you know, the joke that Melissa and I always have is that there’s this recurring plot on Lifetime made-for-TV movies where a woman meets a man and he’s the man of her dreams, and he just seems so perfect, and then she starts to realize over time that he’s been drugging her every day and confusing her and having sex with her in her sleep. And then cheating on her, manipulating her, and stealing her money. And every now and then, she’s like, “Are you drugging me? Is this real or is this drugs?”

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So at least Melissa got to know for sure that it was drugs.

**Craig:** Yeah. Oh, it’s drugs. We didn’t —

**John:** 100 percent. It’s drugs from top to bottom.

**Craig:** We blindfolded Mike and Melissa and just brought them to a room that where we hastily scrawled Austin on the wall and then just kept them high as hell for a few days. It was great.

**John:** Yeah, it was a fun time.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** So people have already listened to the live show that we did, that was last week’s episode. The Three Page Challenge we did, that is now up in the premium feed. So if you’re a premium subscriber to Scriptnotes, you can listen to our Three Page Challenge where we had three really interesting scripts to talk through and we got to talk with two of the writers of those scripts and about what they had done. So Kelly Marcel was our special guest for that.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** If you are not a premium subscriber, this may be a good time for you to run over to scriptnotes.net and sign up for that. It’s $1.99 a month. You get access to all the back feed and episodes like the Scriptnotes live Three Page Challenge. And also an interview I did with Drew Goddard for the Writers Guild Foundation last week. And so that will be up in the feed by the time you hear this. So a good chance to catch up on things you may have missed.

**Craig:** Wonderful.

**John:** All right. Our future guest, Tess Morris, she’s a young woman we met at Austin this year. She’s a friend of Kelly Marcel. She was there with a movie called Man Up, which was having it’s, I guess, North American premier at Austin. But that film is actually going to be showing at Sundance Cinemas here in Los Angeles starting, I think, next week, when you listen to this podcast. And we are going to have her as a guest on the show. So if you would like to understand what we’re talking about, I would recommend you go out and see her movie. It stars Lake Bell and Simon Pegg. And that’s premiering in New York and Los Angeles I think next week. So just to give you a heads up that that’s a future topic, so if you want to know what we’re talking about, you should probably go see her movie, which is really good.

**Craig:** I think it’s safe to say that she’s delightful.

**John:** She is in fact delightful. She’s British and delightful. But delightful in a different way than Kelly Marcel.

**Craig:** Everyone is.

**John:** Yes. [laughs]

**Craig:** [laughs] That one is unique. No, Melissa kept saying about Tess, she just kept saying, “I’m sorry, but she is adorable.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** She is adorable. And the funny is you said she’s a young woman. She’s not that much younger than we are.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** But she seems like she is, like you want to adopt her and, you know, I keep saying like, “Come stay with us, you could be just our older daughter.”

**John:** It’s interesting because the character that Lake Bell plays in the movie is very clearly inspired by Tess. And it is a woman who is very immature in sort of fundamental things and makes a list about sort of like act like a grown up, and that seems to be a goal for Tess as well. And so, we could talk about being a grown-up, and especially romantic comedies, which is a thing that Tess has essentially written a thesis on about how romantic comedies function and what their function is in the cinema universe. So that’ll be a great conversation we’ll have with her, eventually. And it’ll make more sense if you see her movie first.

**Craig:** Word, word.

**John:** Another clip you may want to watch is online. It’s from Andrew Friedhof who just won the Nicholl Fellowship for his script. And he gave this really nice acceptance speech. So Robin Swicord introduced him. It was a nice acceptance speech. And at the end of it, he thanks you and me, which was just crazy.

**Craig:** It was. And it was very touching. And he seems, first of all, like the nicest person ever, you know. Sometimes you see somebody and they’re talking and you think, “I don’t know what it is exactly but they just seem so gentle and so kind and so nice.” And he said some very lovely things about you and me and the show. And it was very touching, you know. I mean, you know my whole thing these days is being grateful, and I’m very grateful for that. I’m grateful that we — and he’s Australian and, you know, his point was like, “Look, we’re all the way there on the other side of the world from Los Angeles.” And so, these things, like the show that we do, and there are a lot of other resources, obviously, are lifelines for people. And so it was very nice to hear, and it keeps me going week after week. I have no idea what keeps you going, some sort of blend of synthetic oil and jet fuel.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s a special formula that I’ve been working on for years. I mean, actually, through the power of radio, we don’t have to summarize what he said, we can actually just play a little clip. So let’s hear a little clip of what he said —

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** About us.

**Andrew Friedhof:** On the off chance they hear this, I’d like to thank John August and Craig Mazin. I consider myself a proud alumnus of Scriptnotes University, particularly for someone from overseas who doesn’t live in this area, obviously. So yeah, to actually have their advice, umbrage-filled advice, has been invaluable to me, so I really appreciate that.

**John:** So that was lovely. So Andrew, I connected with him on Twitter, so he’s in town for a little while longer doing a thousand meetings, he’s doing The Water Bottle Tour of Los Angeles, which we’ve described. And so we wish him lots of luck and congratulations on this success for him.

**Craig:** No question, it’s exciting. And you know, look, there’s a little side effect of the show that we do here, and that’s when we’re both old, I feel like there’ll just be a wave of screenwriters who will take care of us, who’ll bring us hot meals, you know, blankets.

**John:** I mostly just want people to be a little bit sad when I die. That’s really my only goal.

**Craig:** I don’t know if they will, because you’re not going to really die. You’re just going to, you know, stop working.

**John:** Yeah, that’s true. I’ll actually multiply. I’ll be some sort of underlying A.I. that’s just floating out there in the universe.

**Craig:** You’ll just keep getting parts replaced until people are like, “Yes, technically, it’s John August, but it’s not. There’s barely anything left of the original, of the one.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, this thing has been built up over centuries.

**John:** Yeah, because I’m Skynet basically.

**Craig:** [laughs] You become Skynet. Oh, I, on the other hand, will be dead. [laughs]

**John:** You’ll die in some like really embarrassing accident.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’ll die of explosive diarrhea —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** In front of a crowd, yeah.

**John:** [laughs] That was good.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** My last bit of follow-up is, a couple of weeks ago I talked about that I was thinking about doing NaNoWriMo, where you try to write a novel in the month of November? And I’m actually doing it. I had to start it while I was in Austin, but I’ve actually kept up my word count, and so if people want to stalk me and see how much I’m actually writing per day, I will put a link in the show notes to my official NaNoWriMo profile where you can see how much I am writing each day.

And it’s been really interesting, because you and I have both written some fiction, and I don’t know about you, but I find it challenging overall to switch gears and just be in pure prose the whole time.

**Craig:** It’s very challenging. You certainly feel like you have let go of that comforting structure, that — I mean, there’s just a rhythm to screenwriting, and it’s the rhythm of scenes more than anything.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** A scene feels like a bite size accomplishable thing to do. It has its own beginning, middle, and end. Screenwriting is all about propulsive motion of some kind, emotional or narrative. And in novels, that is occasionally there, and sometimes it’s the last thing you want to do. You want to be reflective, you want to change the vibe completely. So it’s a far less structured form of writing, and that can be a little scary at times. I mean, I have no idea why you’re doing this. It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. I don’t understand it. [laughs] Honestly, I hope it wins the Pulitzer.

**John:** Thank you. I’m not trying to write the Pulitzer book, but I’m enjoying what I’m writing.

One of the things I have noticed is that I’m looking at sort of what the feeling is, as the cursor is blinking. And a difference between screenwriting and writing prose is when you’re screenwriting it’s very clear what state you’re in. So am I in a line of action or in a line of dialogue? And your brain switches gears for like what you’re trying to do there. And in prose, you could sort of be in both. And so as I’m trying to express a character communicating some information, it’s like, “Oh, am I going to do that through dialogue or am I going to do that through a summary of sort of what the conversation was?” Am I going to step outside of the actual moment I’m in to fill in details about someone’s history or, you know, an anecdote that relates to that moment? It’s a very different set of states in writing prose fiction than writing screenwriting. Just on the level of what’s happening right underneath your cursor.

**Craig:** Yes. That’s absolutely true. I remembered thinking, when I was writing prose, that I also had this option to shift gears dramatically in terms of the way the story was being relayed to the reader. In film, you can’t, because you understand people are going to have to shoot this. Ultimately, it conforms to reality. When you’re writing prose, you can slip into a dream state at any moment. You can slip inside someone’s mind, you can slip inside a memory, and you can shift those gears tonally. In fact, you want to. You want to keep people on their toes a little bit. And there is the beautiful freedom of choice. And of course, the terrifying freedom of choice.

**John:** Yeah. It is. The switch of tenses is also a thing that you have to wrestle with when you first get used to it. Screenwriting is written entirely in the present tense, and that’s because everything you’re seeing on screen is happening right there at that moment. Most fiction is written in the third person singular. And it’s interesting, there’s that change of voice, that change of having to decide whether you are an omniscient narrator who knows everything about the characters, whether you’re limiting your perspective onto a certain character, whether you are invoking the second person to say you at times, in that sort of casual way, rather than saying one might notice, like you might see all those choices are interesting and you find yourself having to make them for the first time, and then having to decide, is that the right choice for the rest of the book I’m trying to write?

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s yet another thing that you can even switch. You know, Stephen King has this stylistic quirk that I kind of love where he’ll write traditional prose, third person, past tense. And then suddenly somebody will start thinking something, and now he’s in first person, present tense.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And he’ll slather a bunch of italics over it. And stuff like that is kind of fun, because you start to realize, “Oh, yeah, that’s right, the writing is the movie.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There is no movie. This is it. So I might as well have some fun and break a bunch of rules, as long as — you know, as long as you know what you’re doing and it’s all intentional. It’s so much fun. I don’t know. I mean, one day, I have to get back to —

**John:** One day, you’ll finish your book.

**Craig:** One day, I’ll finish my book. And it’ll be probably around the time that all these Scriptnotes listeners have grown up, become wealthy, and are bringing me soup and blankets.

**John:** Yeah. But at least you’ll have something to do while you are waiting for your stories to begin.

**Craig:** But let’s not kid ourselves [laughs]. I am going to be playing Fallout 12.

**John:** That’s what you’ll do. 100 percent.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Or The Room Part 46.

**Craig:** Oh, I mean, well, just wait —

**John:** Just wait.

**Craig:** Just wait.

**John:** The last thing we need we need to do in our follow-up is talk about the death Melissa Mathison, so the screenwriter of E.T., Indian in the Cupboard, The Black Stallion. E.T. is one of those really seminal movies for me. It’s one of those things where I realized like, “Oh, this is a movie, and it’s making me feel things.” And that comes from her script.

**Craig:** Well, it’s a seminal movie for practically everyone, I think. And one of the reasons why is that it — and this is where, you know, when you get a great screenwriter with a great idea. And she did invent E.T. You can instruct culture about how you can look at a genre in a different way. And to say, “I’m going to make a family movie about a little boy who meets a friendly alien,” and make it really the “Jesus” story, make it the gospel frankly —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And to do it beautifully and touchingly, to present a family with a single mother, where that’s not kind of a thing that is a thing, it’s just that’s life —

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** To have kids that talk like actual kids. It was beautiful. And if that were all that Melissa had done, it would have been enough. But to have also done Black Stallion and Indian in the Cupboard and Kundun, just remarkable. I mean, the breadth of her career, the different kinds of stories she did, worked with — you know, repeatedly worked with the best directors. Her last work is an adaptation of Roald Dahl’s The BFG which Spielberg, I think, is going to do. And that says something right there. You know, when arguably the best Hollywood director ever works with you in the early 1980s and then is working with you in the mid-2010s, you probably are pretty good. I mean, she was one of the best who ever did what we did. And it’s very sad because it’s untimely. I don’t know if they indicated what the cause of death of was, but she was in her 60s. It’s too early. I assume that it was some kind of illness, and it’s a shame. And everyone, certainly everyone who screenwrites needs to know her name. But everybody who loves movies needs to know her name.

**John:** Absolutely.

All right. Let’s switch gears and talk about studio notes. Or not even notes we get from studios but from other people who read our scripts. And the notes that drive us craziest because they are so unhelpful or unspecific. And we each have a list of some things that drive us crazy. Craig, why don’t you start?

**Craig:** Hey, I’m going to just zero in on the one.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** That after all this time, this is the one that — it’s the only one of all the repetitive, useless, silly, boring, edge rubbing off notes that you get, and you’re going to get them. This is the one that sends me into advanced umbrage. And it’s this. “This character feels unlikeable.” Even as I say it, there is a rage building in me, a violence that I can barely repress. And the reason why is because a lot of notes that you get that are bad are — they’re what I call conforming notes.

“Please remove the things that are unique in your screenplay and push them more towards something I’ve seen already because it makes me feel safe. I simply can’t look past my own fear to the experience of the audience. It’s more important to me that I feel safe.” And I understand why those happen, and of course, part of my job is to not let bad things happen to the screenplay while making the other person feel safe. But this note — this note is just stupid, because it doesn’t even make you feel safe. It’s just wrong.

Not only can your character be unlikeable, people like your character to be unlikeable. They love unlikeable characters. The only thing they ever ask of us is that unlikeable characters at some point indicate that they are self-aware, that they know that they’re a little off. And that there is a hint in there, a thread that you can see can be pulled to lead to redeemability, to redemption. And that the character does, in fact, unfold into something of a likeable person. They don’t have to become a good person, but that you can see some humanity comes out. We love curmudgeons. We love the cranky drunks. We love the vulgarians and the addicts and the criminals and the cowards and the neurotics and the selfish. I mean, look back at Bad News Bears.

**John:** Oh, yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, I want to carry with me a poster of Bad News Bears. And the next time someone says, “Well, I think this character isn’t quite likeable,” I’m just going to unfold it, circle Walter Matthau’s face and then smoosh that into their face so that whatever the sharpie I used to circle Walter Matthau’s face makes a weird sharpie smudge on their face and they got to walk around all day. And every time someone says, “Well, what’s with the sharpie smudge?” They go, “Oh, yeah, I said that a character should be likeable.” And they’ll be like, “Really? What about Walter Matthau?” And they’ll say, “Yeah. That’s where I got this.”

**John:** So it’ll be sort of like Ash Wednesday where people have smears on their faces but it’ll be the sort of — it’s the Sharpie Tuesday.

**Craig:** It’s Umbrage Tuesday.

**John:** It’s Umbrage Tuesday. It’s a new holiday that we’re instituting in Hollywood.

**Craig:** By the way, how great is it that Andrew Friedhof actually mentioned umbrage in his Nicholl speech? [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] Yeah, I know. If you just patented that word, I mean, we could have made some money here but no.

**Craig:** So much money.

**John:** You gave it away for free.

**Craig:** As you know, I insist on losing money.

**John:** So let’s try to unpack likeability, because I think when a studio development executive or a producer says “unlikeable,” let’s take a look at what they’re actually trying to say. I think sometimes they’re trying to say that they worry that an audience will see this character, not relate to this character, and will not want to follow him or her on their story. And unlikeable tends to be a note that you get at a character’s — not first introduction but early on as a character is going. And they’re worried that the audience is not going to go on the ride with the character because of things they’re saying, things they’re doing, that they are not engaged in the right way. So sometimes it’s because they’re taking actions which are offensive. But sometimes it’s because they’re not giving you anything to hold on to.

Is that where you see people using the word unlikeable?

**Craig:** I think so. But it seems to me that it’s almost more of a knee-jerk thing of they think that audiences are simple and have only two positions on their dial which is “Aw” and “Ew.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And that’s it. But that’s not true. In fact, “Ew,” contains an enormous amount of “Aw.” Take a look at Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets. He throws a dog down the garbage shoot. He’s homophobic. He’s racist. He’s mean. He’s cruel. He yells at children. And you love him because you can see under it “aw”.

So like I just said here, the character has self-awareness or a sense of redeemability. You see when he’s alone that he has a mental illness and that he’s struggling and you go, “Aw.” And we want that. We want it. And I just feel that sometimes — in truth, there is no redemption for this note. If you say to me — and I don’t get it a lot, but if you say, “Well, this character isn’t very likeable,” in my mind, you’re dead.

I don’t know how else to put it. You’re dead, because you have no risk in you. You have no interest in any kind of true complication to a person. Because the only people, I think, we are interested in in movies are the ones that have something about them that is unlikeable. I can go down movie by movie. You give me any movie, any character, I’m going to go, “Oh, there’s the thing that’s unlikeable about them.”

How much did you love Meryl Streep’s character in Doubt?

**John:** Oh, yeah. I understood where she was coming from. And that was the crucial distinction. If I understand what’s making them tick, I am fascinated and I like them even if I wouldn’t necessarily want to be in a room with them.

**Craig:** Right. Because there is also the implication that underneath the crust is something else. And then the question, why is the crust even there? You know, we want it. We want it. It’s just so weird. If anything, if I were in their position, I would give the note “This character is too likeable.”

This woman is just too — I like her so much. Why do I need to see her go through anything? Just leave her be, you know.

**John:** I think the other kind of unlikeability that people are confusing here is — so there’s how the reader/audience feels about the character. But it’s also how the characters within the universe respond to that character and how they’re responding to what he or she is doing.

So when you said Meryl Streep, I was thinking about Devil Wears Prada which is, again, an incredibly, on the surface, unlikeable character in the sense that like the people around her don’t like her. But because she’s functioning as a villain, that’s good. And that’s sort of what you’re going for.

Real life experience that I had, you know, for the last 15 years is the character of Will in Big Fish. So in the movie version that’s Billy Crudup’s character. And the notes I got from very early versions of the script and sort of all the way through the process is like, “We don’t like Will.” And it’s like, “Well, that’s fantastic because Will is basically me, so thank you for making me feel great about that.” I feel great about myself.

But I kept trying to unpack what people meant when they said that the character Will was unlikeable. And what they’re really saying is, “We really like Edward. And Will seems to be an obstacle to Edward. And that doesn’t make us feel happy. So something is wrong.” And what I was trying to communicate is like, “Well, they are serving as a protagonist-antagonist relationship. They’re going to push each other, and that is their function, and it’s what we’re trying to do.”

It wasn’t until we got to — in the musical version, we were in Chicago and we were still wrestling with this note, people said like, “We don’t like Will.” And we cast the most charismatic lovely actor you could imagine, Bobby Steggert. And people still would come to this note saying, “We don’t like Will.”

And ultimately what we discovered is people didn’t understand what was going on inside Will’s head. And that’s where we had to write a whole new song called Stranger which lets you actually — it give him an “I want” song that lets you sort of understand what it is he’s trying to do. And in writing that song and building the first act around that, suddenly all those “Will is unlikeable” notes started to go away. So I think a lot of times, when you’re hearing that likeability note, it’s that they’re confused about what the character is actually after or what the function of that character is in the story.

**Craig:** Right. And that’s how I get around it, usually. I mean, I think to myself, well, “I don’t want you to like anyone in my movie. I want you to hate them and love them both at the same time.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And you know, there’s that line, Sondheim’s line from Into the Woods, “You’re not good, you’re not bad, you’re just nice.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Nice is bad.

**John:** Nice is so bad.

**Craig:** We don’t want nice. I don’t want you to like anyone. And so you’re right, if they’re saying, “Well, I just don’t like him,” I think then part of the job is to say, “Here’s how I can make the audience engage with this person’s crustiness, with the bad part of them, with the part that’s kind of awful.” The “Ew” needs the “Aw,” you know.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And you just got to figure out how to get it in there so that you are delighted by them. And we know. Here’s the thing, that’s why this note makes me crazy. We know from a hundred years of cinema that audiences love villains. They love villains. They love them, you know. Usually, it’s your favorite part, you know. I mean, I think back to seeing Superman as a kid, Donner’s Superman. I mean, Gene Hackman makes the movie. I hate him and I love him. He’s awesome, you know.

And I don’t know, this is the one note that sends me over the moon. And so if you are a notes giver, I want you to strike this. Strike it away. And if you encounter a character that you’re not liking but you’re also not deliciously hating, then give that note. Say, “I want to really not like and love this person.” I want “Ew” and “Aw.”

**John:** The other thing I want to urge note givers to do is you’re not allowed to ask for likeability and edgy at the same time. And I so often find I’ll be in a conversation, like, “Could we just make this edgier but also make the characters likeable?” And those are conflicting notes and you will have nothing but tears if you try to do both things simultaneously.

**Craig:** Yeah. Notes like that, they are a cry for help. I really do believe that.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** They are. This person is no longer thinking about a movie. They’re just frightened to death. And Lindsay Doran used to run Sydney Pollack’s company. And she said that Sydney had this thing where Lindsay would say, “I want this character to be — I want to love him but I also want him to be edgy.” And Sydney would say, “So you want a close up with feet?”

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** And that’s it. It’s like you can’t.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You can’t have a close up with feet. But when I’m working with her —

**John:** You can frame it in kind of an impossible shot that would do it. Like if it was a yoga teacher, I could see what the close up would be.

**Craig:** [laughs] Exactly. And she we do this all the time to me. She would say something to me and I go, “That’s a close up with feet.” And you know what she would say that was amazing? She’d go, “I know but I want it.” And I would start to think, “Well —

**John:** If Lindsay wants it, you got to do it.

**Craig:** I wonder if there’s a way to make a close up with feet here. Or it would actually make me start thinking about how to be interesting and clever about certain things. But you know, she is not doing this, what you’re talking about. The edgy and likeable thing really is a cry for help.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Using the word edgy alone is a cry for help. It’s an indication that you’re drowning and maybe this business isn’t for you. I mean, one of the great episodes of The Simpsons was the Poochie episode.

**John:** Oh, just absolutely the best episode.

**Craig:** It’s seminal. It’s really important. And I mean that. It’s important for anyone to watch, to understand, how the kind of banal villain of Hollywood works. They want something that’s edgy. They want a paradigm shift. They want it to break the mold. And they want it to be out of the box.

They don’t know what any of these things mean. It’s ridiculous. Never. Never. Never ever say — don’t say edgy. There’s other words. There are better words that mean something. I don’t know what the hell edgy even means.

**John:** No one knows. The other thing I don’t know what it means is confusing. And so, this is a note I will get saying like “This section is confusing” or “I like it but it’s confusing.” And whenever they’re saying “It’s confusing,” I try to sort out whether they’re saying, “I am confused” or “I’m worried that a theoretical audience will be confused.” Because when you actually ask that question, you can suss out whether there’s something that they fundamentally didn’t get that I actually need as a writer to fix in there so they actually understand sort of what the intention is. Or are they just worried that the audience is so much stupider than they are that the audience won’t understand what something is going to be. And they want to dumb it down for the audience.

And what’s frustrating about the “It’s confusing” note is that confusion by itself is not a bad thing. If you look at the stories you love, at certain points in any story you’re going to be confused and your confusion leads to curiosity. And curiosity makes you lean into the movie and really care about what’s happening next. It makes you want to solve the problem. If everything is just completely straightforward and you sort of know what’s going to happen the whole time, there’s no point in watching the movie.

So the trick for the screenwriter is balancing confusion with, you know, clarity so that the audience and the reader feel like they know enough about what’s happening right now, but they’re really curios about how these things are going to resolve. And the answers to those questions are going to be hopefully rewarding. And that’s my frustration with confusion is that so often underneath that note is the desire to smooth out any possible wrinkles.

**Craig:** Well, you know, you said a lot of things that are very insightful here. And I think that what’s really underneath it and what really bothers me about this note, at least for me, is that there’s a hubris involved. Because you’re right. What you’re saying — you’re asking a first question which is, when you say “It is confusing” like that’s a fact, are you saying, “I am confused” or are you predicting that an audience member would be confused?

And furthermore, when you say this blithely, are you saying it in ignorance of the fact that this question is the one that we preoccupy ourselves almost the most with. The titration of information is the name of the game for screenwriting. What do I tell you? How much do I tell you? How much do I mislead? How much do I conceal? How much do I misdirect? We’re thinking about this all the time.

So yes, every now and then, we’re going to get it wrong. You and I see this when we see Three Page Challenges and we’ll often comment, “Well, we’ve crossed the line from mysterious into befuddling,” you know. And so mystery good, befuddling bad. And what is the factor that rules over everything? Intention. As long as you’re intending me to feel this, great. If you weren’t intending me to feel this, bad. That’s a great discussion.

When these people, when they wander in and they’re like, “Well, I read this part. It was confusing.” No. No, no, no. You don’t get to say it like that. Ever. Because you are discounting that there’s so much more calculation that went into this than you can imagine.

What you need to say is either, “I was confused, so let’s figure out how to match intention to result.” Or you need to say, “I am worried that an audience will be confused by this.” At which point, I often say things like, “I’ll tell you what, let’s put some things in here that are modular.” We know we can lift them if we need to so we’re not stuck with them. But if this section needs training wheels for people, here’s some training wheels. And if it doesn’t, we won’t have to use it, right? We’ll have the option. Because I’m thinking about that all the time. And the truth is I’ve never been to a test screening where at least, at some point, the audience was confused by something that I thought was going to be painfully obvious and thought something that I thought was going to be really mysterious was painfully obvious. It’s like you are always surprised at some point, so I get that.

But the hubris involved of just saying “It is confusing.” No, you are an idiot.

**John:** Yeah. It’s a state. And whether that state is internal to the person or inherent to the text. I think most development executives are comfortable talking about a character arc. And so when we talk about likeability, we talk about, you know, hopefully we go from this place where we see the character in this one state and they grow and become a better person at the end of the story.

Well, stories have an arc as well. And so there should be confusion. It should be murky and befuddling. And it should arrive at a point of clarity, hopefully, by the end. And so sometimes you can deflect some of those confusion notes with “This is the point. This is the journey of the story. This is how the mystery is unfolding.” And if you can do that and talk about it, usually with character intention, and make sure that it’s really clear what the characters are trying to do moment by moment. Some of that confusion goes away.

Oftentimes, I like to do what’s called a freeze frame where you just, like, look, stop a scene and like look at all the characters on the screen. And just point to each one and say, like, “What is that character trying to do?” And if you don’t know what the characters are trying to do, you do have a problem. That’s really a reason to stop and rethink what’s going on there. But if you understand what all the characters are trying to do, it’s okay that what’s going to happen next in the story is a little confusing. As long as you believe that the characters know what they’re attempting to do next.

**Craig:** Exactly. Exactly.

**John:** Oh, these notes. All these notes. This all ties in very well to an article that you flagged for us. This comes from Slate by Forrest Wickman called Against Subtlety. And do you want to summarize Forrest’s argument here?

**Craig:** Well, it’s a bit long. I guess we’ll zero in on the part that I found kind of cut to his thesis here. He was talking about, I guess, our evolution in our relationship with things that are subtle versus things that are on-the-nose. He says, you know, it was once true that saying that something was “on-the-nose” was actually kind of a good thing. It’s like, “Great, you nailed it.” [laughs]

So he says, “A reasonably as a decade ago, ‘on-the-nose’ typically meant something positive. Most dictionaries haven’t even added the new definition yet, keeping instead only the century-old meaning of ‘exactly right’ or ‘on target.’ Now, calling out the on-the-noseness is practically its own sport. We spot it in a callback to an eight-year-old episode of Mad Men, the title of an episode of Wayward Pines, the appearance of some portentous-seeming oranges in Breaking Bad, or even the lighting and staging of Nashville.

“And so we mock obvious symbolism. We cringe at message movies and melodrama and novels that too readily reveal what they mean. And we roll our eyes at too-clear subtextual signaling even when we sit down to watch wonderfully unsubtle programs on TV. If we no longer hold the high above the low, why do we still hold the subtle above the unsubtle?”

So he’s coming at this — and I understand there is kind of a thing where you think, “Well, if I got it then it couldn’t have been that interesting, so it’s bad.” [laughs] You know, I mean, whereas things that are — I guess, the average person’s cynical viewpoint of the fancy moviegoer is somebody that likes to sit in the movie that makes absolutely no damn sense whatsoever, and then walk out and go, “Yes. Yes. Intriguing. I think what he was trying to say…” And so he is kind of taking the other side of that.

**John:** Another way of looking at it is by fetishizing subtlety, we are encouraging filmmakers to sort of not actually be clear at times. Or just sort of actually not make the point. Like, if you made the point then you’ve missed you the point in a strange way.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that is, I think, a dangerous thing to do. And it ties very well into this idea of confusion. And sort of, you know, you sort of leave with these muddled messes that sort of don’t quite arrive anywhere. And you say like, “Oh, it was very subtle.” It’s like, “Yeah, but we didn’t actually get anywhere.” And that can be a real challenge.

**Craig:** Well, I think that Mr. Wickman is making a slight mistake here in his essay and it’s a mistake of perspective. Because when he’s talking about “we,” I think what he means is we, the people who are critics, not reviewers, but engage in, you know, cinematic criticism of films or content. That we, on our side over here, are struggling with this. And I would respond that “you” on the other side over there are struggling with a lot of things. And that, in fact, audiences and writers understand that they have engaged in a contract whereby some things will be made clear.

Clumsy symbolism is a thing. We all know clumsy symbolism, but that doesn’t — the problem with clumsy symbolism isn’t that we hate being informed or that we hate that something is revealed to us. It’s that it’s bad. So the example that comes to mind, although he is a, you know, a giant of cinema, Martin Scorsese put that rat in at the end of The Departed and I think everybody went, “Well, yeah. Yes, he is a rat.” You know, that just felt hamfisted.

But no, I don’t think audiences sit down and do what he’s describing audiences do. I think that these people do it. And it’s certainly of no great help to the creator of something. Obviously, we are again trying to gauge and do math, and just as I said, we’re always doing the calculus of how much information. We’re always doing the calculus of, “Okay. Well, how much of this stuff should be really indicative or subtle? How much of it should be things that people can tease out with each other on Reddit like a puzzle if we engage in that at all?”

But I don’t think that we, creating-wise, have a problem. And I don’t think the audience has a problem. I think that this is a problem of people who engage in critical analysis, because so often I think their profession comes down to say something new. And if everyone gets it, well then it’s not very new. Therefore, it must not be good. That’s where the logical mistake is made.

**John:** What you were talking about before in our confusion discussion, about how sometimes you will write additional things that will be modular, that we cab hopefully take out in case people are not getting them. Some of those things are designed to be less subtle. So like, if things are so subtle that no one is actually understanding what the point was, that’s where you put that thing back in that makes it less subtle. And you and I have both been through test screenings where after the test screenings it’s like, “Crap, we’re going to have to put in a line of ADR dialogue over somebody’s back to actually spell something out because people are just not fundamentally getting it.” That something was too subtle or was too easy to miss and therefore people can’t actually understand it.

I think one of the challenges about movies overall is that movies keep playing forward at 24 frames per second. So when you’re reading a book, you can stop and go back and flip through a few more pages and really dig into sort of what’s going on, really how it’s feeling, like how it’s landing for you. Like, did you miss something? Movies keep chugging along. So if you’re sitting in a dark theater, it has to make sense the first time through. And because of that, sometimes things can’t be quite as subtle as they would be in a book. And that’s a fundamental nature of movies.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** The other thing I wanted to look at is, this essay is titled “Against Subtlety.” And I think — I’ll try to find the link to it, but there’s also another Slate article about “Against Against.” So this whole form of an argument is when you title your article against something, you have to sort of stake a big claim about sort of “This is the way things are and this is not the way things should be,” which is actually sort of absurd. And so there’s a middle ground which is it has to make enough sense for the audience to understand what the intention was but not be so obvious that it feels like you were just beating them over the head with it. And finding that line is really challenging especially when it’s not one artistic voice behind things but it’s a committee. A bunch of people have to come to an agreement about what those lines are going to be.

**Craig:** And furthermore, the arbiter is a population. It’s not an individual. So you can make the argument that if you create a piece of art and two out of ten people understand it and eight don’t, that you shouldn’t change it because you made it for those two people. The thing is, for what we do, we don’t have that luxury because people have invested not our money, we’re not paying for it. Other people are paying for it and they don’t settle for that. They want eight out ten people to understand it. They would really like ten out of ten people to understand it. So you don’t have the luxury of tuning yourself to the smartest or the most puzzle-oriented audience member.

You know, he cites some reviews of Spielberg’s movies. And one after another, they were accused of being heavy-handed, so was Hitchcock, so was Kubrick. Kubrick, for God’s sake. So is Wilder for God’s sake. And then he talks about how Great Gatsby initially was. Apparently, here are some phrases applied to it by critics when it came out. “Painfully forced. Not strikingly subtle.” And even in 2013, New York Magazine disdained the book for being, “Full of low-hanging symbols.”

Well, you know, I would like to punch New York Magazine right through itself. They aren’t full of low-hanging symbols. You know why we think Great Gatsby is full of low-hanging symbols? Because it’s instructed to us as children. And the way it’s instructed to us in part is through symbology.

The fact of the matter is that you don’t need to know that the glasses of T.J. Eckleburg — I think that’s his name — represent the eyes of God. Because as you read the book, they impart a certain feeling to you. I think the last person that wanted his book torn apart like that would be Fitzgerald. And yet that’s what literary analysis does. And now, it turns around and blames people for not being subtle enough because they figured it out. I don’t blame crossword puzzle creators for writing a crossword puzzle that I can solve.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s just dumb. And furthermore, I don’t need to solve movies. I can just have a feeling. I’m okay giving myself in and giving myself into a book and just thinking how eerie it is that those glasses seem to be there staring down, staring down. That’s a feeling. I don’t need to go further with it to enjoy the book. And I would argue that for most people that put some kind of evocative symbolism in their work, they don’t want it to be interpreted like an English teacher would either.

**John:** I think you’re absolutely right. The last thing I would say about the difference between film and other arts is that we make movies for big giant screens. And so sometimes you put things on a big giant screen, those symbols look really huge. And so your perspective on what that is telling you, it’s going to be very different based on the context of how you’re seeing it. But we also have to make our movies so that they make sense on an airplane seatback.

And so because we don’t have full control over what the experience will be when you’re seeing this film, you may make some choices that are going to split the difference, hopefully, in a way that suits most people seeing your film. And I think where I often find that is in the sound mix, because the sound mix is where you’re going to make sure that people are able to hear those crucial things that have to be heard even if it makes things a little less realistic.

The color mix will be the same kind of situation where you’re doing your color timing to figure out what the look of your film is going to be. Well, if you are on a great screen, you could go really dark and people will still be able to figure stuff out. But if you try to take that exact same color timing and play it on, you know, a crappy TV, you will not be able to see anything. And so there’s reasons why subtlety may not be possible because of the technological limitations.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I think this is why critics who consume culture at a rate and quantity far beyond what it’s intended will gravitate towards things that other people find confounding. Simply because they are doing that thing in their minds, that Groucho thing. Why would I want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member? Why would I want to like any movie that I understand?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I get it. So therefore, how good could that be?

**John:** Couldn’t be good at all.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Let’s do our last topic today which is books and novelists who adapt their own books. So this came up because just last week while I was in Austin, I was on a long phone call with an author whose book I really think is great. So he and I were having a conversation about the possibility of trying to make it into a movie. And it was an interesting conversation because he has also written screenplays. And so he was excited to have me potentially be involved. But he also wanted to write the screenplay himself. And that is a challenging discussion.

But it ended up being a really good discussion because I got to talk through, I think, some of the real pros and some of the real cons of novelists trying to adapt their own books. And Craig and I haven’t rehearsed this at all so I’m really curious what he thinks about it.

There have been good examples recently of authors adapting their own work. And sometimes being spectacularly good. So I’m thinking of Gillian Flynn with Gone Girl. I love the book. She did a great job adapting that for Fincher. And Emma Donoghue just did that with Room, which is her book. She wrote a great screenplay for that. But you also have J.K. Rowling who didn’t adapt the Harry Potter books. Steve Kloves did those, and I thought did a great job adapting those books and making a whole cinematic universe for those. And now, she has come around and she’s doing The Beasts and Where to Find Them, and that’s her first screenplay screenplay.

So there’s definitely, from this author’s perspective who I was talking to on Friday, I can see why he might be really into the idea of like, “Oh, I’ll do it myself because I actually know the characters. I know the world. I know the universe. I can protect my work to some degree.” And I had to sort of make the counter arguments about they’re fundamentally different forms. And that his trying to hold on to things from the book was ultimately going to hurt it at as a movie.

**Craig:** Well, first of all I love that you said that we didn’t rehearse this implying we’ve ever rehearsed anything. [laughs] Maybe you do. I literally have never rehearsed anything in my life.

**John:** Well, we did not pre-discuss. We haven’t talked through like sort of what our different talking points will be on this.

**Craig:** This is true. As it turns out, I am very sympathetic to your point of view on this. It is interesting. Traditionally, authors would not adapt their own novels because not only because there was the concern that maybe they’re moving into an art form that doesn’t really belong to them or isn’t their second nature but studios in particular I thought were very suspicious of this. Because, you know, their whole attitude is it’s a movie, I don’t care about this book. Sometimes they love every part of the book. Sometimes they just like the idea of the book.

I’m in the middle of adapting a book now that’s going to be a very loose adaptation. The prior adaptation of a book I did was an extraordinary loose adaptation because that’s what everybody agreed was the right thing to do. And in those cases, it’s quite evident that the last thing you want is the novelist doing that and I would imagine the last thing the novelist would want to do would be to do that. But there are these interesting new novelists now and you list three of them. Is it Gillian?

**John:** It’s Gillian. I looked it up.

**John:** I thought —

**John:** Because I heard someone say it and it’s Gillian Flynn.

**Craig:** So Gillian Flynn, Emma Donoghue, and J.K Rowling. All three of them, well two of them have already proved it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I suspect that Joanne Rowling is going to do a good job. She is incredibly smart. I mean, just so obviously smart and more importantly, she understands an audience I think better than practically any other novelist I’ve ever read. I love her books and she just knows the audience so well. Steve Kloves and I think Michael Goldenberg did one of them. All those movies were brilliantly screen-written. They kind of curated those novels gorgeously and even though those films were I think quite, quite loyal, I mean extraordinarily loyal to the novels, the screenwriters managed to kind of get the best of both worlds. And I suspect that she’s — I don’t know her, I would love to — but I suspect that she’s a student. And, you know, she’s often said that Hermione is her. Well, if she’s Hermione, she’s going to be a real student. She’s going to sit down and talk to people. She’s going to read those screenplays again. I bet she’s going to spend some time with Mr. Kloves to talk about how he did it and I bet she does a great job because she knows that it’s different.

**John:** Yeah, so I think there’s definitely examples of writers who are great at doing both things and to those writers, I say full speed ahead, all credit.

The conversation I had with this writer was about his book and how there were certain characters. Here’s a great example. I asked how old is this main character and he said, “Well, it’s written for kids who are, you know, 10 to 12 so sort of in that range. Readers really want to relate to somebody who is about their age or just a little bit older so in that range. It could be up to 14.” And I said, “How old is the character?” Because in a screenplay, a character is going to be one age. That character is going to be one actor. We’re going to cast somebody in that role. And it’s not going to be the audience. It’s going to be one actual actor and so we need to know how old that boy is and that’s going to fundamentally change the nature of the universe around him.

I had to ask about sort of these characters who are in the second and third act and what is their actual relationship, are they the same person, are they different things, are they manifestations of one thing or another? And it’s really fun in the book, because it’s sort of ambiguous. But I said, “It’s not going to be ambiguous in the movie. They’re going to have to be one thing or two things. It’s a fundamental question that has to be answered. ” He’s like, “Yeah, well, we’ll have to get to that.” The challenge is that like all the things that were delightfully ambiguous in the book could not be delightfully ambiguous in the movie because movies are one fixed expression of the possibilities that the book lays out.

**Craig:** Yeah, you certainly put your finger on it there. I mean, we talked about it earlier, part of the fun of writing in prose is anything is possible. And one of the miseries but also comforts of screenwriting is almost nothing is possible because you have to shoot it. You have to shoot it and so your job is to try and make impossible things appear on screen in possible ways. And similarly, you’ll see, I think, novels, novels can wander.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They can be very lax. They can expand and collapse moments as they wish. This becomes harder to do in movies particularly as you’re getting towards the end.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** When people simply need to go to the bathroom and they’re running out of patience because they aren’t reading this and then putting it down and calling someone on the phone. They are captive.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so it is a different relationship that you have with them. It is an interesting thing and I think that there are probably — just as I would argue most screenwriters would make bad novelists, I would argue that most novelists would make bad screenwriters. There’s a reason we do what we do. And then of course there are those brilliant few, and hopefully you’re one of them, that can move between those two worlds. So, and I thought, you know, Gone Girl was a terrific example of how to do that.

**John:** Yeah, absolutely. And what she recognized in Gone Girl is that the essential conceit that she made the book where she had these alternating chapters and ultimately it broke and you sort of saw a revelation sort of at the midpoint. The movie was able to do that but it was only able to do that because it had built a very different rhythm going up to it and built enough goodwill in the audience that it was going to be able to make a huge change and have that be successful. And she had to build a really different engine to sort of get you through that huge shift that she’s made.

Emma Donoghue, you haven’t seen Room yet and I don’t want to spoil anything about it. Where I think — I mean, I think she really did a terrific adaptation. There are a few moments I quibbled with and I recognized that afterwards I think the reason why those didn’t work as well for me is because in the book version, you have full insight. You know what’s going on inside a character’s head and you recognize that the whole story ultimately becomes the boy’s perspective on sort of what the situation is and her misunderstanding, in some cases, of what the situation is. So when you see that in the movie though, you’re naturally going to be in a more third-person perspective. And so you’re seeing there are two scenes which I was watching and I didn’t understand why the characters were doing what they were doing. And I think I was sort of not supposed to because it’s really kind of in the boy’s point of view. And it was frustrating for the audience.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And frustrating for me. And that is a real limitation, I think, of sort of the medium. I don’t think it’s necessarily an easily solvable problem. I’m not saying a different screenwriter would have done a different or a better job of that, but it was a limitation that the form put on this story that wouldn’t have been there in the novel version.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think that adaptation is hard enough. When you’re self-adapting, the pitfalls are that many more and that deeper.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You just have to tread extremely carefully and you also in a weird way have to tread with great humility.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because the achievement of the novel does not guarantee the achievement of the screenplay in any way, shape, or form. You are essentially starting at esteemed zero.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So you just need to be aware of that.

**John:** If I could offer any thought for why a different screenwriter might not have hit that same trap is he or she would have maybe seen that like I’m not going to be able to communicate what’s really going on in the scene and therefore I can’t actually have this scene happen. I think you would have written through those sequences differently recognizing that the limitations you’re putting on yourself are going to make this scene which is probably really good in the book not actually make sense in this movie version.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** And again, it’s a challenge because that’s an incredibly successful popular book and the more popular a book is, the harder it is to change anything fundamental about the plot. And that is a real issue. Obviously, the Harry Potter books had to wrestle with that. Everyone knew every beat of those Harry Potter books. With Big Fish, no one had read that book and so I could change everything in that book and no one knew or cared. There was another book I was involved with where when I set it up, it was an obscure little book and then it became a much, much bigger book and it became clear that the things I thought I was going to need to change were not going to be possible to change because it was a bestseller and that’s a challenge.

**Craig:** No question. It’s really why I marvel actually at how good Kloves did. It’s kind of amazing because the books are enormous. And, you know, it’s funny, the first book wasn’t short. It wasn’t what I would call long. It was on the longer side for young adult fiction but then the books got bigger and bigger and bigger. By the time you got to the end, it was massive. And he just got it all, like he got everything you wanted. And you never felt cheated in any way. He understood that. And I think about this when I’m adapting things now. What I’m looking for are those moments when things change and the stuff in between them, you are going to have to compress and perhaps simplify. It’s the things that matter. Those are the things that you actually want to take all the time with. That’s why the book worked, you know.

**John:** Yeah, I think the biggest observation people have about the difference between the movies and the books is Ron’s character and something that is just dealing with sort of who you actually have in that role, and when you have a flesh and blood person in that part, he, to me, feels different in the movie than he does in the books. And I like them both but I think Kloves had to recognize this is who I have, these are the skills that this actor has, which are great, and I think that the character plays differently to me on screen than it does on the page. But they both work.

**Craig:** One thing that movies do better than anything is engage us emotionally. It’s a rare thing to read a book and start crying. It’s an incredibly common thing to see a movie and start crying.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’ve cried at Adam Sandler movies. [laughs] I mean, on purpose. You know, they connect with us. So when you watch a Harry Potter film, Harry’s story occupies this enormous emotional space from who he is, how he was born, to what he must become, to the things he goes through. He is repeatedly tortured and tortured and tortured. And that is so effective that to then ask the audience to now look over here at this emotional space and this person’s internal life, “Isn’t this rough?” It is rough. It’s rough that Ron comes from a poor family and he’s on the bad end of a classist stick. It’s just not the same as your parents being murdered and you being the chosen one and have Voldemort having a piece of you in him and wanting to kill you and you having to actually let yourself die in order to save the world because you’re Jesus. It’s just not the same.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s not the same like, you know, the New Testament doesn’t really go into like what was going on with Mark at home, you know.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But he was there. He was watching in the story that we cared about.

**John:** And therefore, we can only see Mark’s home story as it relates to Harry and so that’s why we’re not going to go home with Ron unless Harry is there.

**Craig:** And it’s why Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is so much fun because you can say, “Well, what if that was all of the emotional space?” You know. And I love stories like that where you just go sideways and you go, “Well, what if this was the story?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it’s funny, it’s actually something I’m trying to do right now on another thing and I love that but you have to understand if you’ve written a novel where three people have their own beautifully articulated emotional spaces, it’s going to be hard for an audience to actually split their attention that way. Our emotional tension is almost always focused on one person or one relationship.

**John:** Yup, I agree.

All right. Let’s talk through our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing, god, we’ve talked a lot about books today but mine is a book. It is Bartleby, the Scrivener which is a Herman Melville book which I read while I was in Austin. It’s super short, like you can read it in one sitting. It’s 99 cents on Kindle but totally worth reading. And the very basic plot summary is you have a lawyer on Wall Street who has scriveners who are people who are copyists, who make copies of contracts. And he hires this one guy who ultimately just refuses to work and yet the lawyer can’t quite fire him or can’t quite get him to leave his office. And that’s the entire plot of the story and yet it’s just delightful and delightfully well-written.

And the reason I heard about is because Slate did a thing where they took Bartleby, the Scrivener and they have the whole text, although I think it’s challenging to read the whole text in one long webpage. But they did essentially like a director’s commentary or like a filmmaker’s commentary on it. And so they have all these little footnotes and sidebars on the edge to talk through the different criticism and the different things that are actually happening in the story because it’s a short enough text that you can actually like really look at it from a bunch of different perspectives and sort of like what is this story even about because it’s deliberately ambiguous. And so, it was just a great example of trying to take something that doesn’t want to have a director’s commentary and put one on there so you can look at both the text and the surrounding information simultaneously. So I will link to both Bartleby, the Scrivener and the version of it that Andrew Kahn did for Slate where you can see all the notes about it.

**Craig:** I will check that out. What else could my One Cool Thing be but The Room Three.

**John:** So I did not even know this existed until I saw it here on the outline.

**Craig:** Very excited. So The Room was a One Cool Thing. The Room Two was a One Cool Thing. And now The Room Three is a One Cool Thing. For those of you who are not initiated, The Room series is a game for iOS or Android and it is essentially a mysterious occult themed puzzle game. The controls are just as simple as touching. There’s no moving around really and you are solving a series of beautifully rendered, creepy, awesome puzzles. You’re always in a room. You’re always interacting with some bizarre object that moves and opens and unfolds and transforms and it’s just beautiful. And they’ve done it again. And each one has been a little bit bigger than the one before it and they are so smart. I think it’s Fireproof is the name of the developer and they are so smart because they understand that you don’t need that much new. You just need to re-experience it and to get back into that vibe. It’s wonderful. Play it with your headphones on and volume way up. I love it. I mean, I got it on Wednesday, I’m already 60 percent of the way done and I’m bummed out because it’s going to be over soon. Yeah, but it’s great.

**John:** So pretty much anything with Room in it is recommended. So we love The Room the game. I loved Room the movie. Of course the other movie, The Room is a classic.

**Craig:** “You’re tearing me apart, Lisa.”

**John:** And Craig, the four of us need to do a locked room puzzle because we’ve never done one of those and I suspect you’re terrifically good at those.

**Craig:** Well, I’d like to think I’m really, really good at them but I’m okay at them. You know, I’ve done now three and I’ve gotten out of one out of them. So I usually go with Megan Amram who everybody should be familiar with. She wrote on Parks and Rec. She now writes on Silicon Valley and she also has a book out about science, Science… For Her! I think is sort of a parody —

**John:** I have the book.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s great. She is amazing. And David Kwong, my favorite magician, and Chris Miller of Lord and Miller. So we go with a bunch people, Melisa goes, and they’re great. They’re so much fun but, you know, they’re hard.

**John:** They’re hard.

**Craig:** They’re hard. We did get out of one of them in almost record time. I felt good about that.

**John:** Very nice. And that concludes our episode of Scriptnotes. So if you would like to subscribe to Scriptnotes, please go over to iTunes and click subscribe and while you’re there leave a comment. It helps other people find our show which is lovely. Show notes for this episode and all episodes are at johnaugust.com/podcast or /scriptnotes, that’ll work fine. Scriptnotes.net is where you go for all those back episodes, all the way back to episode one plus bonus episodes like the live Three Page Challenge we did in Austin and the Drew Goddard episode. If you would like to send us a note, Twitter is the best place for short messages, I am @johnaugust, Craig is @clmazin. For longer messages, write into ask@johnaugust.com. Our outro this week is by Matthew Chilelli who also edited the show. Thank you, Matthew. Our show is produced, as always, by Stuart Friedel. And that is it. Craig, thank you again.

**Craig:** Thanks, John.

Links:

* [The Austin Film Festival](https://www.austinfilmfestival.com/)
* Sign up for a premium subscription at [scriptnotes.net](http://scriptnotes.net/) for access to bonus episodes, like this week’s [2015 Austin Three Page Challenge](http://scriptnotes.net/three-page-challenge-austin-2015) and [John’s interview with Drew Goddard](http://scriptnotes.net/drew-goddard-the-origin-story)
* Man Up on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Up_(film)) and [Apple Trailers](http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/manup/), and writer Tess Morris on [IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2208729/) and [Twitter](https://twitter.com/TheTessMorris)
* [2015 Nicholl Screenwriting Awards: Andrew Friedhof](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flcUaT0QhLk&feature=youtu.be) on YouTube
* Follow John’s progress on [his NaNoWriMo profile](http://nanowrimo.org/participants/john-august/novels/the-forest-909268/stats)
* Los Angeles Times on [Melissa Mathison](http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-melissa-mathinson-dies-story.html)
* [Against Subtlety](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/11/against_subtlety_the_case_for_heavy_handedness_in_art.html) from Slate
* Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener [on Project Gutenberg](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11231), and the [interactive, annotated version from Slate](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/10/herman_melville_s_bartleby_the_scrivener_an_interactive_annotated_text.html)
* [The Room Three](http://www.fireproofgames.com/games/the-room-three-2) from Fireproof Games
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Scriptnotes, Ep 222: Live from Austin 2015 — Transcript

November 6, 2015 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. So today’s episode of Scriptnotes was recorded live at the Austin Film Festival. There are enough bad words, you probably don’t want to listen to it in the car with your kids or at work if you work at some place that doesn’t like to have occasional swearing.

Our thanks to the Austin Film Festival for having us there. It was tremendously fun. And we look forward to seeing you next year.

Craig Mazin: Hello and welcome. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. This is a real church crowd. Yeah. All right.

John: My name is John August.

Craig: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and —

Audience: Things that are interesting to screenwriters.

John: Really well done. So a few of you may have listened to the podcast before. Can I see a show of hands of who’s actually heard of the Scriptnotes podcast? Oh, that’s a lot of you.

Craig: That’s a softball to use. You’re just —

John: Yeah.

Craig: Looking for praise now.

John: Yeah, we are. Basically, we’re looking for t-shirts out there in the crowd. Some of you might not know what the podcast is like. So Craig, what do we do on a weekly basis?

Craig: John carefully prepares a bunch of topics. He talks to his staff about how to produce the show. He lets me know what time the show will happen. I am five minutes late. I don’t know what we’re doing.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And I talk too much.

John: Oh, no. You talk just the right amount, Craig. So what are we doing today? I’m going to put you on the spot.

Craig: Today, I know what we’re doing.

John: All right. Tell us what we’re going to do today.

Craig: Because it’s special.

John: All right.

Craig: Well, we have two great guests today. We have Nicole Perlman who wrote Guardians of the Galaxy. Little movie. And we also have Steve Zissis, star of HBO’s Togetherness and writer and creator thereof. And those of you who are looking in the book, the guest list has changed a bit because of flights and whatever. I think, frankly, it has improved.

John: Tornadoes, yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Floods.

Craig: We’re also going to be —

John: Acts of God in a church.

Craig: Acts of — we should be safe here.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Well, not me.

John: Listeners at home — and I realize that we’re actually in a historic sanctuary at St. David’s Episcopal Church. And so we are looking over a crowd that’s like maybe, I don’t know, 2,000 people.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And they’re all in pews.

Craig: It’s a mega church.

John: We have this little, you know, satellite room, too.

Craig: Yeah, it’s a mega church.

John: Thank you for being here in this church with us.

Craig: Yeah. And we’re also, today, going to be doing this little feature that we started kind of recently where we take three different stories from the news — current stories from the news and ask, and we’ll have our guests who are in, how would we make a movie out of this. So we’ll be doing that with you guys today.

John: Hooray.

Craig: Hooray.

John: So this will be really fun. So this is probably my seventh Austin Film Festival. You’ve been here a bunch of times, Craig.

Craig: I think this is my fourth or fifth.

John: Yeah. So we love the Austin Film Festival. And yesterday as I arrived, I had maybe not the best start. So I wanted to talk through sort of what happened going from the plane — actually, going from the escalator to the baggage claim. I managed to make a series of faux pas that I feel if I would share them it will make me seem human and relatable.

Craig: Let me just point out, he’s not human.

John: No.

Craig: But he will seem human and relatable.

John: Yeah. So I want you to sympathize with my plight here. So I get down off the escalator and there’s a guy there waiting — maybe you’re out here in the crowd right now — with a big blank sheet of paper and said, “Mr. August, would you draw us a sketch from like, from one of your movies?” I’m like, “I didn’t illustrate any of these movies.” And so like, you know, “Sketch us something from like Frankenweenie or something from Corpse Bride.”

I’m eager to please people. I’m a teacher pleaser. And so I was like, “You know what, I’ll try something. I’ll give it a shot. Like, I’ve never drawn anything from these movies, but sure.” Tim Burton won’t mind if I draw one of his creations.

Craig: And did that guy’s face just go, “Uhh?”

John: No, no. He was really pushing me. And so I was trying to decide whether I was being punked or like to see like how badly I could draw Sparky from Frankenweenie. So I ended up drawing the female dog from Frankenweenie. And like the ball being pushed underneath the fence, and it was like a charming little scene, but completely the wrong thing to draw.

So I’m drawing this thing and I signed it, whatever, and I signed another autograph. And then people started to think like, “Oh, that must be a famous person.” So random people started to like try take photos with me as if I was a famous person. And they have no idea who I am in their photos.

That’s by far the better part of what happened.

Craig: This is what he thought would make him sound human and relatable.

John: No. No, no, no. No, wait. Because the whole thing is about to flip.

Craig: Okay.

John: So as I’m waiting for my bag in baggage claim, there’s a guy who I recognized who was on the flight. I was like, “Is that an actor? I can’t picture him.” But he seems familiar, and he’s wearing sunglasses. And there was a limousine driver who was meeting him there. And so I was like, “He’s somebody famous. Who is that person?”

And then I could see the driver’s little card that he would hold up. And it was flipped over and it said “Raimi.” I’m like, “That’s Sam Raimi.” And so I’m like, “Oh, I should say something to Sam Raimi because we have mutual friends. I mean, like Laura Ziskin and other folks.

And so I finally, like, sort of screw up my courage and say, like, “Hey, Sam. Sam, it’s John. It’s John August.” And he just completely stone faces me. Like does not acknowledge me whatsoever, like I’m just a crazy stalker person. So I became that stalkery person who sort of wanted to, like, get his attention.

So this other nice guy who might be in the audience here today said, “That’s not Sam Raimi.” It wasn’t Sam Raimi. It was Sam Raimi’s brother apparently. And so —

Craig: You met Ted Raimi?

John: Ted Raimi is here.

Craig: Ted Raimi I would have thought would have been like, “No. But let’s talk.”

John: No.

Craig: You know —

John: Ted Raimi shut down.

Craig: Wow.

John: And so this is no slam on Ted Raimi. This is no slam on Sam Raimi who wasn’t even here to defend himself. It’s just this is a situation at trying to get my bag, I managed to humiliate myself kind of twice. So the tornadoes in Austin have been, like, really a highlight after that point.

Craig: I’m really sorry that that happened.

John: Oh, thank you, Craig.

Craig: I care about you.

John: Thanks. That’s nice to hear.

We’re going to try something very new and very different that we’ve never done before. So back on our 100th episode of the show, we did this thing where underneath the people’s seats, there was a golden ticket hidden. And if you have that golden —

Craig: Don’t go looking.

John: Or, maybe go looking but you won’t find anything.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Underneath one seat, there was a golden ticket and that person won a very special prize. So today, we’re going to try doing a raffle of a very special prize. So as you guys came in, each of you should have gotten a little raffle ticket, hopefully most of you. And —

Craig: Did you throw your raffle ticket out? You ate it? What did you do?

John: You ate it? Yeah. It wasn’t edible, no. I guess it technically is edible, just not really good.

Craig: Not tasty.

John: Not tasty.

So this is Annie Hayes, everyone. Annie Hayes is our Austin Stuart. Say hi to Annie Hayes. So Annie Hayes is helping us out.

Craig Mazin, will you pick one ticket from there?

Craig: Yes. Oh, so many. Okay, I got it.

John: All right.

Craig: I have it.

John: So let’s read the number and see if it matches up to anybody here.

Craig: Six. Good. So far so good. Two. One. I think everybody started with 621. Zero. One. Zero.

Amanda Murad: Oh, that’s me.

Craig: Yay.

John: Come on up.

Craig: Let’s see. I’m going to hold on, I’m going to figure out what your name is. It’s Amanda.

Amanda: Amanda.

Craig: Amanda Murad.

Amanda: Murad.

Craig: Murad.

Amanda: Close.

Craig: I thought it was Norad for a second.

John: That would be cool.

Craig: Yup.

John: But Murad’s great too.

Amanda: Okay.

Craig: No, no. It’s not that cool.

John: So are you a screenwriter?

Amanda: I am a screenwriter.

John: And do you live in the Austin area or are you just here for this conference?

Amanda: Just here for the conference. I live in LA.

John: Oh, holy cow.

Craig: Great.

Amanda: Yeah.

John: Is this your first time in the Austin Film Festival?

Amanda: It is.

John: And how is it so far?

Amanda: It is really fun.

Craig: It just got awesome.

Amanda: It just got way more awesome.

John: What are you writing right now?

Amanda: I am working on my second pilot.

Craig: Great.

John: And have you only done TV stuff so far? Have you written a feature? What else have you written?

Amanda: I’ve written one feature. But I have two pilots and a play.

John: Cool. That’s awesome. In these envelopes, they’re marked A, B, and C, there are three different items. And I want you to pick which envelope you would like to open.

Amanda: Whose fate am I deciding in this decision?

John: Your own fate.

Craig: I like her sense of nervousness and caution though, I have to say.

John: Yes. She’s not just blindly rushing in.

Craig: Yeah. She’s not like, “Okay.” No. She’s like, “Okay.” So A, B, or C?

Amanda: Okay. The letter A is usually pretty good to me.

John: All right. Great.

Amanda: A.

John: A. So take this envelope but don’t open it yet.

Amanda: Okay.

John: And we are going to open up one other envelope. So I want a vote from the crowd. Which of these other two envelopes should I open up?

Audience: B.

John: Everybody who wants me to open up envelope C, raise your hand.

Craig: C.

John: Yeah. All right. We’re going to open up envelope C. Open up envelope C, Craig.

Craig: Okay. All right.

John: Let’s see what’s inside.

Craig: See, he gives me stuff to do and everything, keeps me involved. Okay. Oh, this was the good one.

John: Yeah, this was the good one.

Craig: This was the best one.

John: All right. Yeah, it’s a really good one.

Craig: Just let her have it. [laughs]

John: Maybe we should.

Craig: No, because she’s so normal. I mean we had like a chance of getting a total freak. Not that — I mean, there’s at least one of you in here who’s —

John: Yeah. So there’s a thing which I was going to do with all this but apparently, you chose so well or the audience chose for you. Maybe it’s the audience who chose for you.

Craig: You know what? The audience chose this for you.

John: That’s really the audience choice.

Amanda: Thank you, guys, so much.

John: So what this card says is, “John and Craig will read your script.” If you would like to.

Amanda: Yes.

John: Great.

Amanda: Yes.

Craig: And we’ll talk about it on the show. And you can come on the show.

Amanda: Yes. Yes.

Craig: Great. Or you can have a t-shirt.

John: Yeah.

Amanda: I’m going to pick C.

John: All right. Well done.

Craig: C.

Amanda: The letter A has failed me.

John: Yeah. Amanda, at whatever point you feel like you have a script that you want to send in, just send it in to Stuart at ask@johnaugust. I’ll remind him that you were the one who won this competition and the audience won it for you, really.

Amanda: I will be sure to thank you all in my email.

John: And we look forward to receiving it.

Amanda: All right. Thank you, guys.

John: Amanda, thanks so much.

Craig: Envelope B was money, by the way.

John: Yeah, exactly.

So the idea behind that was the Monty Hall problem which is essentially we were going to open up one thing and then she would decide whether she wanted to keep or switch and it involved math and statistics and probability.

Craig: These guys messed it up.

John: No. You guys did a nice thing. You did this all for her.

Craig: They did. Yeah, they did.

John: They did.

Let us get to our very first guest of the podcast.

Craig: Great.

John: Nicole Perlman is the writer of Guardians of the Galaxy. And she’s writing a bunch of other stuff right now and we cannot wait to talk with her. She was a guest way back when, right when that movie came out. And let’s welcome Nicole Perlman up to talk to us again.

Craig: Nicole Perlman.

Nicole Perlman: Thank you.

John: Nicole Perlman, you were on the show before. You had just written Guardians of the Galaxy which was a giant, giant hit. What has changed in your life since we’ve talked to you last, in writing?

Nicole: I’ve descended into heroin use and I’ve lost all my friends and family. [laughs]

Craig: God, I know how that goes.

Nicole: Yeah. Totally. No, it’s been good. It’s been really crazy. It’s been so crazy that I sort of fled to San Francisco. I was like, “Oh, too much stuff. Too much good. Must run north.” So no, it’s been very good. Lots of projects. I’m doing Captain Marvel —

John: Great.

Craig: Awesome.

Nicole: With Meg LeFauve. So that has been cool. We’re really in the early stages but we’re having a lot of fun. And I’m doing a project for Fox, an adaptation of Hugh Howey’s Wool Trilogy, and that has been very cool.

That guy, by the way, really knows how to live. He wrote a best-selling novel and he’s like, “I’m going to go build a boat and sail around the world. See you.” And he like checked out. So that’s what he’s doing which is really cool.

John: I mean you’re checking out to some degree.

Nicole: Totally.

John: Like you’re keeping out of the rat race.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: And so what really prompted the decision? Was it just you had enough stuff on your plate that you actually could leave and —

Nicole: Yes. That was it.

John: That’s the response?

Nicole: And also, people just kept asking me to be on their podcasts and it was just —

John: Yeah, it was such a huge drag.

Nicole: It was a huge drag.

Craig: It’s the worst.

John: Yeah, I mean, Craig, I tell you, you got to back off a little bit.

Craig: I mean, I don’t know what those podcasts are because I don’t listen to podcasts. But I know what it’s like.

Nicole: No, it’s good. It’s probably just for like a year. I’m in LA every week for work but I felt like I could just do it. I spend less time commuting by flying in and out than I did when I was in LA in my car, which is kind of crazy.

John: That’s actually scary, yeah.

Nicole: It’s true though, yeah.

John: So talk to us about — obviously, you can’t give us any character details or really plot details about Captain Marvel.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: But what is it like writing with another writer? Is this the first time you’ve had a writing partner on something?

Nicole: It’s not the first time. I’m working with another writing partner on a spec, my first spec in a long time. So that is another experience. It’s been really good.

Meg and I are really, really just starting out. And she comes from a Pixar background so she’s really used to collaborating. So I think we’re still feeling it out a little bit. The being on the phone part, I’m very meek on the phone when other people are talking. I’m very respectful. I’m just, like, “No, no. You go ahead. No, no. You go ahead.” You know, and —

Craig: You got to lean in, girl.

Nicole: You got to be like, [roars], “Listen to me.” So I think that is — because that goes over really well, too.

John: Yeah, it does.

Craig: I don’t think that’s a good idea, actually. I don’t want you to do that.

John: But you need to get a Groot voice is really what you have to do.

Nicole: A Groot voice for sure. For sure.

John: Simple things.

Nicole: But Meg is wonderful and so she’s really good about character. And I think she comes from a non-genre background and so there’s a little bit of me being like, “Oh, you know, so there’s this history of this type of character, you know, we don’t want to do that because it’s been done that way.” And she’s like, “But we want to have this with character and integrity.” I’m like, “What? Integrity? What? What’s that?” So she’s great. And I think that we balance each other out in a good way. But again, it’s early days yet.

John: So one of the challenges would seem to be that you have to come to a consensus between the two of you about what it is you want to do and how you want this movie to work and how you want the character the work. But also then you have to be able to pitch in a unified sense to Marvel. And Craig sort of loves Kevin Feige or sort of really admires Kevin Feige.

Craig: I do.

John: And so that must be a challenge of like how you want to do your work and also fit into this greater picture. Do you have to be mindful of everything else that’s happening in the Marvel Universe to do your one story?

Nicole: Well, you know, without giving away anything that would get me, you know, excommunicated, basically Kevin and his group of brain trust people go and figure out where we fit in and then have let us know where we fit in. And so Meg and I gave them a list of questions, very long and epic questions and then potential answers to those questions. And they, you know, returned from their mountain top retreat which they [laughs] went to and then returned from and said they —

Craig: Handed you tablets.

Nicole: Pretty much. Pretty much. And so that’s what we’re working with now. And we’re also really in the phase of reading through massive packets of information, you know, which is always fun.

John: Cool.

Craig: I love that you’re writing a spec at the same time you’re doing all this other stuff.

Nicole: Yes.

Craig: In the wake of the success that you’ve had and all of the stuff that they’re now asking you to do, how do you manage to carve these spaces out and keep these things separate? Because you’re working on, you said, Captain Marvel and a spec and —

Nicole: The Hugh Howey Wool.

Craig: The Wool.

Nicole: Yeah. And I just sold a sequel to a movie that was my favorite movie from childhood but I can’t talk about it yet, so that’s going on. And then I’m also doing a virtual reality project with Steven Spielberg.

Craig: That’s five.

Nicole: And then I’m also doing a comic book —

Craig: I’m sorry, with who?

Nicole: Nobody. Nobody. Just a real, you know, up and coming —

Craig: So that’s five things.

Nicole: Yeah. And then a comic book series, too.

Craig: Six things.

Nicole: Yeah.

Craig: So I’ll ask my question again. I mean, how do you keep it all — I mean, do you just push a few things off?

Nicole: Well, honestly, it’s just because — and I’m sure you guys have experienced this — that things go into holding patterns. And especially with Marvel, the movie doesn’t come out for three-and-a-half years, so it’s got a lot of long pauses in between submissions of stuff. So with that and with the other projects, too, there’s a long waiting period.

The people who’ve made me wait the longest are the Marvel publishing people. And that’s like a 20-page thing. You send them and like months go by and then they’re like, “Good work.” “Okay.”

Craig: So in a situation like yours, you’re almost kind of hoping that they’ll take time.

Nicole: Right, exactly. So it’s okay. I think the more projects you have to fill the empty spaces, the less fear, that existential dread of like, “What’s happened to my projects?” You know, they just take a while and so that helps.

Craig: Yeah, because all of your eggs aren’t in that basket. But then there is that sense of being overwhelmed.

Nicole: Yes.

Craig: Do you have that?

Nicole: All the time. All the time.

Craig: Right now?

Nicole: I’m just veering between sheer panic and like different kinds of panic. Like panic of like “I have nothing going on. My career is going to crash.” And “Oh my, god. I’m going to be overwhelmed and die and never get anything done.” So, yes.

Craig: Sounds just like me.

Nicole: I’m really happy all the time.

Craig: Right. Of course. So what do you do to deal with that?

Nicole: I moved to San Francisco.

Craig: Of course, yes. Yes, of course.

John: So I want to get back to the idea of writing a spec. And so what was it? It was an idea that was just burning that demanded to be written? What was the —

Nicole: What it was, was that I’m doing a lot of big, fantastical, world-building projects and I wanted to do something that was contained, low-budget, very character-driven, just a cast of three or four people, and possibly something that would be able to, you know, produce or direct.

My writing partner is a writer/director and so we wanted to do something that was manageable. Which of course my representatives were like, “You realize you’re not going to get paid anything for that.” And I’m like, “Yeah. But get excited about it. Like, you know, get so excited about this guys.” And they’re like, “Yeah. Mm-hmm. That’s great.” So it’s basically what we’re doing in spare time to remind me that I am a writer [laughs] and not a cog in the machine.

John: Yeah, it’s the Joss Whedon do a smaller thing in between the two giant projects.

Nicole: Exactly. Exactly, yeah.

John: Cool. So Scott Neustadter was supposed to be joining us here up on the panel. And Scott Neustadter couldn’t be here because the airport is completely shut down. So like one of many panels who’s not going to be here today. Luckily, Steve Zissis has agreed to fill in. This is Steve Zissis —

Craig: Upgrade.

John: Who is the co-creator of Togetherness. Steve Zissis, come up here.

Steve Zissis: So what’s the processional hymn?

Craig: I’m Jewish. And this is not Greek Orthodox at all. At all. Like the two of us — actually, three of us. And he —

John: I’m good. I’m good. The android faith alone —

Craig: Fucking white privileged man.

John: Yeah. It’s so good.

Craig: I’m good.

John: I’m good.

Steve: What are you?

John: I’m sort of, like, random protestant.

Steve: Oh, random protestant.

Nicole: Random protestant.

Craig: Yes. Yes.

John: Culturally. Steve, thank you so much for filling in.

Steve: Of course.

John: But thank you also for you great TV show, Togetherness.

Steve: Thank you.

John: Tell us how that came to be because this is an HBO show. It was an idea that you sparked with a Duplass brother and is now going into its second season.

Steve: It started, I guess, with Jay Duplass and I fooling around in his backhouse trying to do something creative together. And —

John: It sounds terrible.

Steve: Yeah. We just wanted to do something creative. And at first we started recreating ’80s soap opera scenes from like YouTube clips. And then Jay and I would act them out and we would record them. We didn’t really have a goal in mind.

Craig: How high were you guys? [laughs]

Steve: We just stole someone’s lithium. But then that just started snowballing into something, like, “Okay, we need to do something more structured.” And then we really borrowed upon our own lives and created a relationship show that was very autobiographical.

I was waiting tables at the time. And I would get off of work and stay on the phone with Jay because he was on the graveyard shift with his newborn child. So we would work out the story and the season arc for the first season during the graveyard shift, basically, on the phone.

Craig: Amazing.

Steve: And that’s how it started.

John: So by that point, you were thinking about this as probably a half-hour for cable and it’s going to revolve around these central characters, this family, this guy who’s moving in. You had all those dynamics sort of figured out early on.

Steve: Actually, initially, it was just going to center around the Alex character who was my character. But then when we went to HBO, they were like, “We love it. We really want to work with you. But we’re looking for relationship shows that could be a four-hander.” And we were like, “Yeah. Yeah. We could do that.”

We went back to the drawing board and — I mean, it was tough because we had built something centered around one character. So we were panicked for a little bit. But ultimately, HBO was right.

Craig: Well, I love moments like this because you never — we just did this show last week about William Goldman’s Nobody Knows Anything, which is not nobody knows anything but nobody knows anything. You never know.

So these people hand down these edicts sometimes and our first reaction is, “You know, goddamn. I mean, sure go ahead and turn it into whatever you want. It’s not something that we bled over the graveyard shift while he’s up with his kid and I’m slaving away waiting tables. No, no. Your whim is my command.”

But then sometimes they’re right. And I love that you guys did it. Because the truth is, what was the worst that happened? You tried and it didn’t work, right? But it does work. It’s amazing.

Steve: And HBO in general is really — they’re pretty hands off with notes. I mean, once they sort of, you know, tap you, they want you to do your thing. And they’ve been pretty hands off since then, actually.

John: So when did you actually start writing? So had you written anything before you went in to meet with HBO?

Steve: So we wrote the initial pilot called Alexander the Great which was centered around my character. And then they said, “Let’s go back to the drawing board.” And then it took us about four months to come up with the pilot for Togetherness. We went in and shot that. And then, you know, I was still waiting tables and rubbing rabbits’ feet. And we got the green light for this first season.

John: Great. So you turned in this pilot script. They said yes. They blessed you to go shoot a pilot. But then there’s that long waiting process, you know, whether it’s a show that they’re going to actually want to put on the air.

Steve: Yeah. And we had had the first season sort of arced out. We didn’t write the first season until after we got the green light.

Craig: And then the panic of success set in and you realized, “Oh my, god.” I mean, were you overwhelmed by the thought that you had to do the thing that took you four months again and again and again and again?

Steve: All I remember is calling my mom and crying. And I remember the last day at the restaurant, my last shift, I was so happy. There was such a weight lifted off of me. But I was trying to contain my joy because I didn’t want my fellow friends that I’ve been like slaving with in hell to look at me.

Craig: You’re nice.

Steve: Yeah.

Craig: You’re nice.

Steve: You know, I didn’t want to —

Craig: Right.

Steve: So then I got home and, you know, exploded.

Craig: Oh. It’s such —

Steve: Literally.

Craig: And then — [laughs]

Steve: I exploded.

Craig: I exploded.

Steve: Like the blimp that was released from — .

Craig: Well, we’ll be getting to that.

Nicole: Yes, they will.

Craig: I see you’ve done your homework. You were mostly following the career path of an actor. Is that correct?

Steve: Yeah.

Craig: Prior to Togetherness? Had you done a lot of writing before that? This was kind of the first stab at it.

Steve: The only real writing I had been doing is the countless improvisational —

Craig: He’s an improvisational master, by the way.

Steve: Which I know isn’t really writing.

Craig: Master of improvisation.

Steve: But Jay, Mark, and I had been doing really highly improvised independent films since, like, the early 2000s, even in 1999. And then it just sort of evolved out of that style.

Craig: For your show, I get the sense that it’s not quite like the Curb Your Enthusiasm model where you’re scripting it but you’re almost scripting your own improv. That’s kind of the sense I get from it.

Steve: Well, like Curb and I think, like, the show like The League, they go in with just an outline.

Craig: Right.

Steve: But our show is completely scripted, really tight, really structured. But we just find that, like, the golden nuggets in the scenes and oftentimes the funniest jokes are the ones that are found in the moment. Even the emotional scenes, not just the comedic scenes. Like we talk about it like, sort of like setting up like lightning rods, and then just creating the perfect conditions for lighting to strike.

Craig: Right.

Steve: You don’t always get gold and there’s a lot of trial and error. But if you’re patient, you will.

John: Now, on a show like Togetherness, do you have — obviously you don’t have act breaks, but do you have a template in your head of like over the course of an episode these are the kinds of things that need to happen. We need to be able to take a character from this place to this place. We need to like hit certain milestones. Did you and Jay figure out sort of what the show is like, you know, structurally?

Steve: Yeah. We had a good sense of where the first two seasons were going to be in terms of a story arc and character arc. And then now, we’re preparing to write season three. And for the first time, we’re having to really — we sort of have an open map. We can create our own map at this point. So we’re finding new things now with season three, because the first two seasons were sort of already mapped out in our heads. So now, we’re writing a new map.

Craig: It’s such a great cast, too. I mean, everybody —

Steve: Thank you.

Craig: Everybody is spectacular. You know, the first time I saw the show — I tuned because you know I don’t watch anything. You guys know that. But I watched the show because I’m friends with Amanda Peet and she was in a movie I did and her husband and everything. And so I wanted to see it and there was something about it.

I was one of your first Twitter followers. Because you just — well, there was something, like, you know, I don’t know why I’m attracted to sort of schlumpy side stacks. Yes. Something about you. Something about ethnic, sad men — [laughs]

Like that face right there. It’s like, it’s all I want, like that. Like, look at me moving towards it. [laughs]

No, I mean, honestly, you’re the best. I mean it’s a great show. I’m just so glad that you — I love stories like yours but we don’t hear them a lot. Now, what we do, in a way we celebrate them, I think, sometimes more than we should because a lot of people who are waitering, they’re like, “Fuck it, man. Steve did it. I’m next.” Probably not. Probably not. It’s incredibly rare. So it’s so exciting that it happened, that the incredibly rare thing happened to you.

Steve: And I grew up with Mark and Jay back in New Orleans. We’re all from New Orleans. We all went to the same high school. And we all sort of came across this method of filmmaking sort of by accident. Out of necessity, really, because, you know, we were all broke. [laughs] So, you know, this whole John Cassavetes style, we could say that it was our intention from the beginning but it actually wasn’t. Like Jay and Mark’s first attempt to make a feature film was a complete disaster. It was a failure.

Craig: Because they were trying to make a real —

Steve: They were trying to make something big. They were trying to emulate the Coen Brothers. They failed miserably. They borrowed $100,000 from their father who was like a very successful lawyer in New Orleans. And they squandered — like it was a complete failure. [laughs]

Craig: Was he angry?

Steve: No, not at all. Because he’s —

Craig: Cool dad.

Steve: Yeah. He’s a great guy and so supportive.

Craig: I would be pissed off. My kid blows $100,000, I’m pissed.

Steve: But then after those failures and those failed attempts that they started to find their own voice and style just sort of out of necessity, which is cool.

Craig: And you were part of that from the start.

Steve: Yeah. I did their first experimental films. I did shorts with them. And I loved sort of the improv style of their way.

Craig: Right.

Steve: It just fits with me well.

Craig: Yeah, excellent.

Steve: Thank you.

John: So because we have two of you up here, we want to talk through this feature we usually do called, “How would this be a movie?” And I asked on Twitter for people for suggestions. I’m like, “What should we talk about for how to make into a movie?” And the three best suggestions we got were Zola. People who’ve done their homework, Zola is sort of amazing. So I want to talk through sort of what that is.

We’re going to talk about Zola, we’re going to talk about the rogue blimp, and we’re going to talk about George Bell, The Lonely Death of George Bell. And try to figure out how to make these into a movie or a TV series. Or if someone approaches you with this idea, how do you run with it?

So let’s get some back story on Zola. Actually, I took notes because I’m the preparer. So Zola, if you don’t know is —

Craig: I don’t need notes. I could do this just fine.

John: Just —

Craig: No, no.

John: No, it’s fine. I’ll —

Craig: No, no. I’m done.

John: Just for everybody else, Craig. They might need it.

Craig: Yeah.

Steve: We’ll just ‘prov it.

John: What was the white boyfriend’s name?

Craig: Jarrett.

John: Oh, he’s got it. All right, so for people who —

Craig: I don’t drop mics because it’s not good for the microphone.

John: Yeah. So for people who’ve missed out on the story so far, Zola is a Twitter account. And basically, she had like this epic tweet of like 174 tweets that detailed this wild experience she had in March. And you read this and it is amazing and sort of tweet by tweet sort of going through this long saga of what happened.

Her name is Zola. She meets this girl named Jess at a Hooters. They strike up a friendship. They talk about hoeing. And they exchanged phone numbers. And Zola agrees to go on this trip.

Craig: Just to dance.

John: Just to dance.

Craig: She’s not a hoe.

John: She’s not a hoe. She’s a dancer.

Craig: And she doesn’t know that the other girl is a hoe either.

John: True.

Craig: She knows she’s a dancer. That’s it.

John: Yeah, but —

Craig: She’s not out there trapping —

Nicole: She didn’t seem that surprised though. She’s like, “Oh, yeah.”

Craig: Right.

John: She doesn’t seem that surprised because even early on they were talking about hoeing. So like —

Craig: There was some hoe talk.

John: Yeah. Even not if profession, it’s — they’re sex worker adjacent, if nothing else.

Craig: I ain’t touching that one.

John: All right.

Craig: I’ve gotten in trouble before.

John: So the characters we have are Zola. We have Jess. We have the black pimp whose name is eventually revealed to be Z something.

Craig: Z.

John: Z something. We have Jarrett and Jarrett’s fiancée who shows up every once in a while and is a complete character of mystery. But you guys looked through these tweets and someone approaches you with this, you know, Nicole Perlman, what is a movie you spin out of there? What’s interesting to you as a movie out of the Zola story?

Nicole: Nobody would ever give me [laughs] this project to adapt. I was impressed at her excitement and her enthusiasm about this and she was like, “And then, and then, oh no but wait, oh no, but wait,” you know. And that part was great but I actually kind of lost the thread a little bit, I was just like ah — so I’m going to be lame about it. But I kind of loved the idea of them talking about hoeing like they were farmers, you know. They’re just hoeing and —

John: Yeah. [laughs]

Nicole: That was the twist like —

Craig: I think we’re going to pass on you.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I don’t think that that’s —

Nicole: All right, that wasn’t mine —

Craig: But thanks for coming in.

Nicole: That’s okay, that’s okay.

John: Craig, if someone approached you with that story, do you tell the story as just that? Because it felt like a Magic Mike kind of like road trip sort of, like Magic Mike XXL which is —

Craig: Right.

John: Just following a series of events and perspective.

Craig: Well, it’s so crazy that if you try and tell it, it’s just going to seem like you told it again because the story that she lays out is in bananas. The one way to think about it is, like I was thinking about how sad it was. I mean, the woman that is the actual hoe and she’s getting beaten up and snatched and a man gets shot in the face. This is terrible.

And yet, we’re all reading and everyone’s like, “Oh, my god, you got to read what Zola wrote.” Like that’s an interesting movie to me is that somebody types up something like that and it becomes viral. Meanwhile, the people that are in that have no idea and they’re out there somewhere —

John: Yeah.

Craig: And going through something real. That could be kind of interesting because the nature of these viral things, there’s something really creepy about how it separates us from the real. Someone died. That guy murdered someone.

John: Yes, shot them in the face.

Craig: And they beat that woman up.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Plus the hoeing.

Steve: Is the Twitter account verified?

John: Yeah, the Twitter account is not verified, so let’s talk about that possibility.

Steve: Okay. I’m not sure about the movie, you guys would be better for that. But I think at the end, there should be voice over throughout, we should see the little emoticons on the screen, the tweets, and at the end of the film, there should be a 72-year-old grandmother in Ohio —

Craig: [laughs] Right. Catfishing everyone.

Steve: That has catfished the whole thing.

Craig: Right.

Nicole: That would be amazing. That would be so great.

Craig: That’s pretty great. That’s pretty great. And like her grandson is there in the background playing “Grandma, almost done.”

John: So we’ve talked about this on the podcast before, who was the writer who pretended to be much younger than she was and was Felicity. Was that Riley Weston?

Craig: Riley Weston.

John: Riley Weston. So it would be fascinating if it were a Riley Weston situation where somebody is basically spitting a giant yarn for what all this is. It has such a feeling of truth though. I also had the question about whether all those tweets were written in advance or was she writing them one by one.

Nicole: I think she was writing them all in one stream of consciousness.

Craig: I think so too, yeah.

John: But it’s so hard to, I mean I have such a hard time fitting everything I want to say into one tweet. So to be able to stretch that out over —

Craig: She just got to that character limit, hit return and kept going, you know, I can hear the clacking of her nails on the laptop. And she’s like “Bam, ding ding ding ding.”

John: Yeah. And yet it had a structure to it. She just kind of knew where to start and she knew — she was very good about reminding you, this person you saw before, like I didn’t know his name, but now, I know his name was Z, and it was brilliantly done to me.

Steve: Yes. And just when the energy started to wane, she said, “Only four more tweets till the end.”

John: Yeah.

Craig: I know like she actually knew.

Steve: Yeah.

Craig: You think that there’s — you think grandma —

Steve: It’s a 72-year-old grandmother. That just graduated from the Iowa writing program.

Craig: Nothing good comes out of that.

John: Nothing good possibly can.

Craig: All right, all right. That’s pretty solid.

John: Right. Let’s talk about rogue blimp. So for people who are listening to this, way after the fact, there was a giant blimp, actually particularly an aerostat that was designed for East Coast defense. Basically it wasn’t a camera, but it had a like long range radar for detecting incoming missiles that could hit the East Coast. It broke free of its mooring and all hell sort of broke loose. And so it ended up dragging a cable behind it that did not have power and did other things. This is the sort of a little more in your wheelhouse.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: And a producer comes to you and is like, Nicole —

Craig: [laughs] She’s written a ton of blimp movies.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: Yeah, indeed.

Nicole: A whole sub-genre.

Craig: Like another one. I can do more than blimps. [laughs]

Nicole: Dammit, I’m so pigeon-holed.

John: What kind of movie is the blimp movie to you?

Nicole: It seemed like a wacky sort of like two guys think they’re going to get in the Goodyear blimp but they choose the wrong blimp and then they cut it free. And then because of that they end up almost starting World War III because they keep — I don’t know, but I could see it with the whole cruise missiles with blimps, by the way. I was like that’s how we detect incoming cruise missiles, is with a blimp? You know, that just seems really shoddy. [laughs] I was really disappointed in the Department of Defense. I was like, guys, seriously.

And also the whole Google blimps. Somebody has to get something mixed up with the Google blimp. And I thought it would be fun if they — If they took off on the sort of the like cross country trip in this NSA blimp not realizing it wasn’t the Goodyear blimp and causing a whole bunch of problems with the DOD thinking there was some sort of terrorist attack.

John: Steve, what kind of movie do you make out of the blimp?

Steve: Well when I saw NORAD, it made me think of the 80s movie WarGames.

Nicole: Yes, totally.

Steve: So like tonally I think WarGames would be a [laughs] good match. But I think it should be about the guy that was holding on to the blimp, you know, by the line there. And what happened to him the day before.

John: Yeah, so it’s sort of like Up but bigger.

Steve: Why did he — yeah, like Up. Exactly. Why did his grip — why did he lose his grip?

John: I see the campaign for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and she’s — who’s carrying in the balloons and like it’s sort of like that, but it looks — you need to never let go.

Craig: Never let — that’s the tagline.

John: Never let go. Craig Mazin, what movie would you make out of the blimp?

Craig: You know what, I think you could make a really good Pixar kind of movie about a blimp. Because I love the fact that it seems so anachronistic. And I like the idea that this blimp has been there for so long and he’s just blimping along protecting America and we don’t know. And he just follows orders and he just never doesn’t do his job. And then they come in they’re like, “Oh, you know, we’re replacing blimps, we’re replacing it all, you’re done.” And he’s so depressed. And he basically pulls himself away to just go. And then he kind of goes on this journey that may — helps him find his purpose again and he meets other things that float.

I mean there’s, you know, like dandelions and —

John: There’s a cloud.

Craig: A cloud, you know. But the blimp finds his, you know — it’s basically, he’s committing suicide is what he’s doing but, you know — so it’s — I think he could — I don’t know —

Nicole: It’s really heartwarming.

Steve: I think for sure, at the end credits, there should be a Led Zeppelin song.

Nicole: Ah.

Craig: Nah. No, no. Yay. [laughs]

John: It’s improv. Only good ideas — yes and…

Craig: Yes and.

John: The other —

Craig: Yes and no.

John: Yes and. Another possibility is a — the Michael Bay version is essentially it’s stealth because essentially like the death blimp sort of goes out there and you cannot possibly stop it. And so like if it has a sentience, if it has a thing it’s trying to do. There’s something also kind of like slow motion zombie about it because it’s not fast, it just like — it’s a path of destruction, it’s like the tornadoes this morning. It’s just that it’s going to move through in a straight line.

Craig: So even more blimps start coming and they just keep coming.

John: Yeah. Absolutely.

Nicole: It’s kind of like that — what is it, Rubber with the one about the tire?

John: Oh yeah the tire, yeah.

Nicole: It’s just like this rabid tire that’s running over people. It’s just like that. It’s like the cable very slowly dragging and causing devastation. It would be like, “No,” and it just keeps coming.

Craig: [laughs] It’s a little low stakes. It just — shoot the — just takes the —

Nicole: You just step to the side —

Craig: Just shoot the blimp — yeah.

Nicole: One foot.

Craig: It’s a blimp.

John: Yeah. But the fact that it just keeps coming. And they had to shoot it down. That’s actually the funniest thing. It’s like —

Craig: They do. Use a shotgun.

John: They use a shotgun to shoot a blimp.

Craig: But by the way — I’m sorry but if that’s Pixar and they shoot him at the end and he deflates. You’re going to feel, like that will kill you.

John: It’s Old Yeller. It totally is.

Craig: It’s freaking Old Yeller, but then somebody finds him and inflates him again. You see what I’m saying? It’s like, let’s go make that, guys. Somebody just steal it. I mean, it’s gold.

John: All right. Another option, you have the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, one of those gets loose and you have to go after that thing and shoot that thing down and that’s pretty good. So Underdog gets loose, and you have to shoot down Underdog.

Craig: Underdog.

John: Yeah. That’s how I would do it. Or Snoopy. One of them would do it.

Let’s get to our third possibility which is, well maybe there’s a comedy but it’s The Lonely Death of George Bell. This is a New York Times story.

Craig: Hehe. Hahahahaha.

John: Hahahaha. Written by N. R. Kleinfield. And it talks through the death of this man, George Bell, who was found in his apartment, he’d been dead for about a week. He was a giant, obese, he was a hoarder, everything was sort of awful and he had no —

Craig: Otherwise, good.

John: All of it was great —

Craig: Yeah, yeah. Otherwise, good.

John: He had no next of kin and so he talks through this, how does the city and the state have to deal with people who have no next of kin and sort of what that whole process was. It was a fascinating look at sort of the different layers of bureaucracy that sort of happen to settle out the estate and deal with the body.

Craig: And a lot of people do die alone and disconnected and they don’t even — like they were having trouble even just identifying him even though he was — everyone was like, “Oh yeah, that’s George Bell.” They had to find some — it took them forever to even match up an x-ray to know that it was really him.

John: Yeah. And it wasn’t a remarkable case —

Craig: No, just a guy.

John: The journalist picked this one situation, but like it’s a very common situation. So what kind of movie? You do sad well. So what kind of movie do you make out of George Bell?

Steve: I was — It was a great article. I was really — I immediately thought of It’s a Wonderful Life when I was reading this, for a bunch of reasons. The main character’s name was George Bell instead of Bailey. And then also, if you’re reading the article where unclaimed bodies go, is a place called Potter’s Field which is where the evil Mr. Potter, you know, his area became — but I was thinking, you know, It’s a Wonderful Life is about George Bailey learning about the lives he touched while he was alive. But in this article, you could study the lives that this man touched by his death, which I find it really interesting like the workers who were sifting through his apartment and his other relatives that were getting like — they weren’t hardly relatives, but they were getting some of his money through his death. It’d be interesting to examine how the death of someone can bring people’s lives together and unify people in a way that is unexpected.

John: Nicole, what kind of a movie do you make out of Bell?

Nicole: I mean it’s going to be a sad movie no matter what I think, but if it’s one of those movies that makes you feel better about your own life [laughs] or rather it gives you a more insightful look into what makes a life worth living. I thought that the heartbreaking thing was the lost relationship, the woman that he loved, and he left in his will, and she still cared for him and how he had withdrawn it. And I think that there’s something really interesting about how objects reflect choices that we make in our lives sometimes. And the whole investigation into who this man was, trying to piece together who he was based on objects left behind. And that was really interesting because it, you know, was definitely a memento mori, but it was also a — it was like a case study of every object represented — I almost saw it more as like a mini-series, almost like a Serial kind of thing. But, you know, each object represented a choice that he made to either connect or disconnect and leading to the final disconnection with the one person who still loved him, you know. And what else do you have to live for, you know.

Craig: I love that part. So in the story, he’s left money to people and they have to find these people. Some of those people are dead, one of them is this woman who we find out he was engaged to. The woman’s mother told her daughter, you have to get a prenup, and the guy said, “I’m not signing any prenup,” and he left. And they never spoke again except for occasional cards. And the woman always felt like that was the path she should have gone. And then by the time they find her, she’s also dead, and she kind of ended up in a bad way. And you know what I was thinking was, just because — my whole thing about these stories is, at some point, obviously we need to find the uplift and the redemption or else it’s kind of brutal.

And I love the characters of these people that go into your apartment and start investigating from your stuff. And I thought what if a man dies alone in an apartment in New York, and a woman dies alone in an apartment in Florida. And you have a guy in New York — or probably a woman in New York looking through the stuff and a guy in that apartment in Florida looking through the stuff. And they find things that are related to each other, and they have to call each other to help, and they fall in love.

John: Oh, Softie Craig.

Craig: Well, I mean because they’re — it’s like The Notebook except with different people, you know, and just like —

They’re both like — well, the point — I mean — because I love — there was one guy they talked to who was like, “Yeah, I’m probably going to end up like George, like his buddy.” He’s like, “Yeah, I’ll probably die alone, too.” And here are two people that are like, this could be me, you know, and almost have given up, and then through this they — and so their love happen, you know. It was like there was some George and whatever her name was, you know. I’ll give her a name, Evelyn.

John: As I was reading through this, I looked at it more as a world in which you could set a story, rather than looking at George Bell because it felt like the people who were the investigators, that was a fascinating job and that fascinating job could take you into lots of really interesting places. So you could have the comedy version where — or the romantic comedy where people meet this — sort of meet-cute over death. But you also have lots of good thriller options. So you discover like — it looks like it was just a guy who died, there actually is a much more complicated situation. And once you start digging around, you yourself get in danger. So that’s the thriller way to take it.

With all these three scenarios, this one has characters and has a world which is great, but doesn’t really have a story. It doesn’t have a story driver. It doesn’t have like present day story drive, so we have to find a way to make the story drive take place. The blimp one has a lot of sort of like present day stakes, but there’s no characters, whatsoever, so we have to create a whole new characters.

Craig: Except for the blimp.

John: Except for the blimp. If the blimp is anthropomorphic and can talk. If the blimp can sing, well…

Craig: “Well, I guess they don’t want me no more.”

John: Yeah.

Nicole: Plush toy potential.

John: Yeah

Nicole: Inflatables.

Craig: Actually, you know who’d be a great voice for the blimp?

John: Josh Gad. Oh Steve Zissis.

Craig: A great voice for the blimp. He would, because he can bring sadness but then he can bring joy.

John: I like it — I like it so much.

Nicole: He can lift your hearts.

John: How do you feel about — ?

Craig: Look, look, that’s blimp. That’s it. That’s the blimp face. We should totally do this.

John: Zemeckis. Motion Capture. Steve Zissis. Done.

Craig: Wait, hold on.

Steve: Or it could be Andy Serkis being the blimp.

Craig: Yes, yes. Andy Serkis. He does the voice and he does the blimp.

John: That’s nice. I think Andy Serkis would be delighted to have someone else do the voice because it’s going to work out really, really well.

Steve: Sure.

John: And then the first one has characters and plot and there’s so much but it feels like it’s so already made. I mean it’s Spring Breaker 2 or like my first movie, Go. It has that same aspect of like all this stuff just happening.

Craig: It also has that thing that a lot of real life stories have which is that they’re incredibly episodic and then and then and then and then and then and then and you know what happens at the end? This.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And you’re like, okay, but that actually is a great example of a story that if you just took and tried to narrativize without re-contextualizing anything, people would go, “Why did I watch that?”

John: Although I would push back on that. Zola herself has a lot of agency in the story so Zola is the one who’s like taking photos of the girl and putting it on the back page.

Craig: I know. So who are we rooting for?

John: Yeah. It’s a real question.

Craig: There — I mean Zola literally starts — Zola starts out great like, “I’m not — I’m just a dancer and that’s fine.” And then she’s like, “Oh no, this guy is trying to hoe us. That’s no good.” And this girl is scared and says, “Please, you know, we just got to do this.” And Zola is like, “Well, okay, if we’re going to do this, we might as well do it right. I’m now going to make a whole bunch of money. I’m going to pimp you.” Who are we — ?

John: Yeah, it’s Risky Business though. I think what’s fascinating is that —

Craig: Well —

John: If you would — well, if you take — I think Zola is part of the reason why she’s so fascinating is because she is a woman in that situation. She is taking control and ownership of —

Craig: Another human being.

John: Yes.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yes.

Craig: Not good.

John: [Crosstalk] another human being.

Craig: Like she’s sex trafficking a person.

John: I also love that she will just run at the first sign of danger.

Craig: Right.

John: Anything goes, she’s out of there.

Craig: That was the other thing. Yeah. So this poor woman gets snatched up. What does Zola do? Runs. Does she call the police?

John: No.

Craig: No, just runs.

John: Yeah. So people who listened to the show before know that we’ve had a really good track record of the things we discuss on what would — would this be a movie. They always get kind of picked up. At least one of the three things gets picked up and so maybe an audience poll, of these three movies, which one do you think Matt and Ben are going to try to make into a movie first?

Craig: Right.

John: Because it’s usually them. Sometimes it’s DiCaprio, but usually it’s Matt and Ben.

Craig: Usually it’s Matt and Ben.

John: All right. So can I get by applause, who thinks the Zola movie will happen? Okay, by applause, who thinks the blimp movie will happen? And who thinks the George Bell movie will happen?

Craig: People love death. They love death.

John: They love death and uplifts. Yeah.

Craig: And there’s tragedy and it’s good. It’s Greek tragedy.

Steve: Yeah.

John: It’s good Greek tragedy. This is the time in the podcast where we open it up to questions which we can’t normally do because we’re usually recording this on Skype and there’s no one else in the room. But at this point, we would love to hear your questions.

So there’s not a microphone out there, so you’re going to just raise your hand to ask your question. I will repeat back the question and then we’ll answer it. So if anyone has a question, raise your hand. You have a question right there in the first row.

Craig: So the question is that, so this woman knew about the George Bell story, wanted to write the George Bell story. I assume you contacted the author of the story to try and get the rights, and the author said, “No,” and then sold the rights to somebody bigger.

So John Lee Hancock is here. He’s an excellent, excellent director and filmmaker. And John Lee and I tried to get the rights to a story and we failed, we got beaten out by Brad Pitt. It’s hard. The truth is that the people who write these things, they kind of go where they want to go. It’s tough, you know.

John: So let’s talk about what her options are. So I would say if there are things that are so appealing about that movie for you, you might be able to find different real life details or basically a fictional version that can get you to those places because the stuff we talked about with the George Bell movie, it doesn’t necessarily need to be George Bell.

There were things that were interesting about his specific case, but there were also just things that are interesting about that world and that world is —

Craig: I’d even go a step further. There’s actually nothing specific to his story that — I mean, well, the thing about the woman is great, you know. But you can invent a lot using — no, you can’t? Okay.

You know, and the other thing to remember is that the rights are granted on cycles. They are not in perpetuity usually. So they give people 18 months and if nothing happens in 18 months, a lot of times there’s an option to renew and sometimes they don’t and the rights become available, so stay on top of it. You know, that’s the best you can do, but it happens to everyone. And it’s not just, “I’m a little girl and I’m nobody.” Everybody has to deal with this. It’s one of those things.

John: John Lee should direct that movie. Wouldn’t he do a great job?

Craig: He does a great job all the time with all movies. Yeah. Thank you.

John: Thank you, John Lee. Another question from the audience. Anything you want to ask us. Such a quiet group. Right here. So I’m going to repeat the question. Question is, is anything happening with Challenger that someone might see down the line?

Nicole: Yes, this is the project, this is the zombie project that will not die and I’m glad because it’s my favorite but it keeps coming back from the dead and every time I’m sure it’s dead, it keeps coming back.

So yes, it’s been re-optioned, we have financing from E 1 but again this whole, it all really depends on casting. There’s like four people who could play the part and so if we get one of those four people, hooray. If not, it will die again until somebody else wants to option it.

John: I don’t even know what the project is so this is a script that you wrote?

Nicole: This is a script I wrote a million years — I wrote this script in college actually and it was a love letter to Richard Fineman because he was my childhood crush when I was in high school which is why I had no dates until college. But I really, really loved Richard Fineman. And so I wrote a screenplay about his investigation into the Challenger shuttle disaster and it was my golden ticket kind of, you know, my Willy Wonka ticket in a sense that that was what got me meetings and I won a bunch of contests and got my first job off of that as a sample.

And so it was this project that had, one day it’s like a hair raising story of lots of crazy experiences with directors and actors and it hit financing like five times. So it’s funny every time I get a new financier, I’m like, “Great, awesome, yay. We’ll see. That would be so great if it happens.”

But yes, I love that project. I’ve rewritten it a million times. We’ll see what happens.

John: I remember it now because you talked about it on the podcast the very first time.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: Great. Another question from the audience. Right here.

Craig: It’s a big question.

John: I’ll try to recap it. So what is the intellectual property at the heart of a movie and related, sort of what do we really mean when we’re talking about sort of what a movie is or what the fundamental idea of a movie is?

Craig: Well, I guess we’ll limit it first to screenplay, you know.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Because once the movie is made, that’s the intellectual property. So intellectual property is unique expression in fixed form movie, fixed form done so that works, right?

Screenplay, that’s the intellectual property. It’s the unique expression in fixed form. Courts interpret this. That’s why judges sometimes go, yeah, no. We know that ideas aren’t intellectual property so the blimp idea is just an idea, right, plus it’s not written down. It’s not in fixed form.

If you write a screenplay, that contains dialogue but it also contains scenes that you’ve written, characters that you’ve described so everything that is evidenced by the text in your screenplay is in large part your intellectual property. It’s just the concept, the basic idea of it that isn’t.

So more is protectable than you think. In fact, that’s why so many of these cases fail because eventually somebody goes, “Well, show me what you have and let me see what you have.”

John: So arbitration which we talked about on the show is the WGA process for figuring out who deserves the writing credit on a script when there were multiple writers. And that’s not copyright. That’s literally looking at sort of the copyright is owned by whoever is making the movie.

The arbiter’s job is to figure out, of the things that constitute this screenplay, who did what and sort of whether that person did enough that it actually should count as being her movie or it should be shared credit. And that is a difficult thing. That’s why it’s a good thing overall that we are having screenwriters look at that stuff because it’s a hard thing to judge.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And when you see those weird copyright cases or those things where like, “Oh, this person stole my movie,” they’ll often be — those cases will often be brought in really weird venues because it won’t be sort of in Los Angeles, it will be in like some weird Texas court because they have a better track record of getting those things to happen there.

Craig: But they never —

John: But they don’t actually work. Yeah.

Craig: Yeah, but you’re protected. I mean — great example. Okay, so the question is, you write an in-depth outline for a movie and then somebody else takes that outline and writes a script. Have they infringed on your copyright? Essentially is what you’re asking. The answer is absolutely, no question.

One of the things that copyright gives you is the right to make derivative works which means other people do not have the right to make derivative works unless you license and grant them that permission. So the screenplay that is taken from an outline is a derivative work of that outline.

So this is why when we sell screenplays to the studios, they buy everything. They never leave anything out. They want to own everything. The last thing they want is for you to then go, “Oh, by the way, I’m writing another screenplay that you don’t own this derivative of my treatment that somehow you didn’t buy stupid, haha,” right? Okay.

So yes, that is a treatment and outline in fixed form is protectable copyright. That is intellectual property for sure.

John: Great. Question right back there. Nicole Perlman is a great person to answer that question.

Nicole: I don’t know if I could answer it particularly because I didn’t write samples of different genres. When I was starting out, I kind of got a lot of work from my Challenger sample, got me a lot of biopic, space, aviation, technology work and then randomly an Argentinean tango movie with Sandra Bullock. [laughs] Which did not get made. I can’t imagine why.

So yeah, I would say that it can help you having a brand. I think that if maybe it’s not your strength, definitely try other things and if you might find that you — and I personally — I’m writing Marvel movies and big fantastical science fiction and fantasy kind of things and I’m also interested in space, technology, aviation as well at the same time so — which drives my representatives crazy, but I think it’s a — I think you write what you want to write and what you love and don’t really — if you have a great idea for romantic comedy, write the romantic comedy and then maybe people who are looking for romantic comedy wouldn’t have thought of you because they thought you only did, you know, thrillers so I’d say whatever is your best idea that’s most on fire at this stage in your career, write that, and don’t worry about it.

Craig: Have you sold a screenplay yet or — ?

Audience Member: No.

Craig: Then think of it this way, you don’t even have a brand yet because the brand thing is really just, “Well, we bought something from him so now we’re going to put him on a list for things like that.” So at this point, you’re free, free, free, and by the way, you’ll be free later too.

I mean the nice thing about writing is you can write yourself in and out of trouble. So yeah, now write that great script. There’s no need to worry about pigeon-holing.

John: We have time for one more question. Which question will be — right here.

Craig: That’s a good Zissis question because I feel like your character is a bit of a reluctant hero in Togetherness. I mean it’s not a movie, it’s — but I look at that season, that first season.

Steve: Yeah, in terms of the first season, Amanda Peet’s character is kind of like the catalyst. She’s the kick in the pants of my character that gets him going on a trajectory. But after that, after she does do that, I am on a mission to, you know, transform and pursue my acting goals and et cetera.

Craig: So there’s this tension that happens with the reluctant protagonist where we’re actually waiting for them. You know, a lot of times reluctant protagonists will take on some job begrudgingly just to go back to what they had. It’s very common. Shrek I think just wants to get his swamp back. He’s a pretty reluctant protagonist, right? But then they are transformed.

I think that’s the key for the reluctant protagonist is that we’re waiting for somebody to light that spark. They don’t really — they’re reluctant because they’re afraid, it’s probably a better word, the fearful — and I think all protagonists are afraid, on some level.

I mean your character, definitely, you can feel it. He’s just scared, you know, and then Amanda comes along and she forces you but then — and I love the dramatic irony of what it also does between the two of you which is great, you know, but that’s — that would be my short answer.

John: So what we’re describing with Steve’s show is a show where you have, you know, multiple characters who are functioning as each other’s protagonist and antagonist. They’re causing each other to change. Classically what we are often talking about with movies is you have one character taking a trip that they’re only going to take once.

And so I can’t think of a lot of movies where I’ve been willing to watch a character just never engage and like finally at the end engaged. That doesn’t tend to be a really successful paradigm. So you as the writer have to find a reason to get them engaged with your story so whether that’s burning down their house, so they can’t go back to their original ways, or taking that one thing that actually means something to them which is what Shrek ultimately does.

You are forcing them into because you’re creating a situation where they have to change. Go back to sort of those Pixar story rules, like every day is the same except one day and that’s usually the day that your movie is taking place.

Steve: I think it happens a lot with the lovable loser archetype actually now that I’m thinking about it. If you think about a lot of Bill Murray type movies, he’s usually in that role like Stripes where he is that reluctant — reluctant guy.

Craig: Groundhog Day, he’s just refusing to change, refusing, refusing, refusing to the point where he just, he would prefer to kill himself than change which is the sort of ultimate reluctant hero but again, there’s Andie MacDowell transforming him.

And so I love that you said that that because that’s the answer to every reluctant hero is a relationship that changes them. That’s why we go to movies. It’s for that. I think all heroes in a weird way are reluctant. I mean I don’t like heroes that wake up in the morning and go, “Time to kick ass, let’s go.” Jerry Bruckheimer loves that.

I wrote a movie for Jerry once and the first note I got back was, “He doesn’t seem like a hero on page one.” I’m like, why would — who wants to beep, that’s the movie, beep, hero, hero, hero, hero, credits.

John: Things blow up.

Craig: Yeah. Boom. That is not me.

John: But think about George Bell. Like George Bell is like a reluctant hero who never actually sort of kicks out of gear but there’s a version of George Bell where like he’s in that situation.

Craig: Right.

John: And something kicks him out of that life.

Craig: Okay, so —

John: And he’s a Shrek.

Craig: So have you seen the movie Marty, classic Paddy Chayefsky screenplay, 1955? Ernest Borgnine won an Oscar for it, beautiful movie, and it’s one of those old movies that honestly is not old.

And it’s a very simple story of a butcher who’s not a particularly good-looking guy and he’s lonely and he lives with his mom who harangues him, and he’s resigned and then he meets this woman. And stuff happens and there’s a transformation but it’s a difficult transformation. There’s a price to pay for leaving your shell, you know. You should come to this, I’m doing this structure talk tomorrow, I don’t know if you’re available, this is all I talk about — okay, good. You’ll hear it again but like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It will be a lot —

John: Okay, very quickly because we’re running out of time. I forgot to do One Cool Things. So One Cool Thing is a tradition in the show. My One Cool Thing is actually a little thing I used for filming this last week. It is called a Glif. It comes right here in Austin, Texas. It was a Kickstarter, so Craig’s favorite thing in the world.

It is a little device for holding your phone, being able to mount it on tripod which is tremendously useful when you want to shoot photos or video with your phone because the iPhone is a really great camera these days and so it’s a little mount for your phone so you can attach it to a tripod. That’s my One Cool Thing, the Glif.

Craig: Fantastic. Nicole, what is your One Cool Thing?

Nicole: I was in London last week and I went to the Cosmonauts Exhibit at the London Science Museum and it was amazing and the Russians had some great stories and I highly recommend you guys all look into Cosmonauts. They are fantastic.

John: Great. Steve, do you have One Cool Thing?

Steve: I was just going to recommend an animated film called The Man Who Planted Trees. That’s old but you can get it on Netflix. It’s one of the greatest pieces of animation ever.

Craig: Is it American, Japanese, or?

Steve: It’s, it was a Canadian animator and it’s narrated by Christopher Plummer.

Craig: Awesome. Well, my One Cool Thing is an update on an old One Cool Thing called Thync. I don’t know if you guys listened to the show. A while ago, I found this product that you stuck on your head and it sent electrical impulses into your head in an attempt to calm you down or perk you up and I thought, “You know, this sounds cool.”

And then every now and then on Twitter, someone will be like, “Have you done it? Have you done it?” I’m like, “No.” So I did it, kind of works. It kind of works. You definitely feel it and it allows you — you have an app that sort of is Bluetooth connected to this ridiculous thing and as you move the dial up and down, you can feel it. And if you move it too high, it hurts and you feel your scalp contracting, it’s bad.

So, but there’s this calm lady on your iPhone going, “Find your sweet spot,” and you’re like, “My head, my head, my head, my head, fuck” but then you get, and it actually did. I felt spacey. I don’t know if that’s calm, but I felt spacey.

Nicole: It’s like electroshock therapy.

Steve: I’m thinking of the last scene of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest right now. Craig, we might need to smother you with a pillow.

Craig: Pillow me. Yes, give me the L’amour treatment, I need it. Yeah, it’s time.

John: Excellent. So glad we actually got to shock you, Craig and actually — and attach you —

Craig: Shocking myself.

John: It’s so good.

Nicole: Can we get access to that? Can we just shock you whenever we want?

John: I think —

Craig: No.

John: We’ll build an app for that and soon everyone will be able to zap Craig.

Craig: Shock Craig.

John: Yeah. Nicole and Steve, thank you so much for being our guests.

Craig: Thank you, guys.

Steve: Thank you.

Nicole: Thank you.

John: We need to thank the Austin Film Festival for having us. It’s a huge pleasure to do this every year. Thank you guys for being an incredibly good audience. We need to thank Annie Haze who’s our assistant this week. So thank you very much. Guys, thank you so very much.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Links:

  • The Austin Film Festival
  • The Monty Hall problem on Wikipedia
  • Nicole Perlman on IMDb and Twitter, and on Scriptnotes, 164
  • Steve Zissis on IMDb and Twitter
  • Togetherness on HBO and Wikipedia
  • Papermag on The Harrowing Twitter Odyssey of @_zolarmoon
  • The Baltimore Sun on the rogue JLENS blimp
  • The Lonely Death of George Bell, from The New York Times
  • Variety on Nicole Perlman and Challenger
  • Marty on Wikipedia
  • Glif tripod phone mount
  • Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age at the London Science Museum
  • The Man Who Planted Trees, on Wikipedia and Netflix DVD
  • Thync
  • Intro/Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)

Scriptnotes, Ep 221: Nobody Knows Anything (including what this quote means) — Transcript

October 28, 2015 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2015/nobody-knows-anything-including-what-this-quote-means).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 221 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the program, we’re going to be looking at one of the most quoted and misapplied statements in Hollywood. That little chestnut, “Nobody knows anything.” We’ll also be looking at zombie cars, film school, and the question of whether screenwriters are gaming the system. Craig Mazin, are you ready for this big show?

**Craig:** Let’s put this way. I filled up my umbrage tank on the way in [laughs], so

**John:** I’ve got a bit of umbrage in my tank too, so I think it’s going to be an umbrage-filled podcast.

**Craig:** Here we go.

**John:** Yeah, so we should get right to it.

**Craig:** Buckle in.

**John:** A little bit of follow up and news about events ahead. At the Austin Film Festival, we’re doing our two live shows. We’re so excited. Andrea Berloff will not be joining us for the live Scriptnotes. She’s not going to be able to travel in to Austin. But instead Nicole Perlman who was our guest who talked about Guardians of the Galaxy and she’s phenomenal, so you should come see us and see Nicole Perlman and Scott Neustadter and other wonderful special guests at our live show.

**Craig:** Correctamundo.

**John:** Second off, on our last episode we talked about writers’ rooms and this trend towards hiring multiple screenwriters to work simultaneously in a room to break ideas for big franchises. And we talked about a couple of different properties that were trying to do this. We had a writer write in who is actually part of one of these big rooms. And so she didn’t want to say which room specifically she was in or she didn’t want us to say which room specifically she was in.

So I generalized out some of the things she said. But she actually had a really positive experience with it and thought it was a good thing. So I want to put this more or less in her own words, but considering I am just a man and she is a woman, we thought it might be better to have a woman read this aloud. And I could think of no person who’s better qualified to talk about Hollywood than Karina Longworth, the host of You Must Remember This. And after all Craig has often been a guest on her podcast.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Being Louis B. Mayer, so this is just payback for all that. So this is Karina Longworth reading the words of this screenwriter who is still anonymous.

Karina Longworth: I actually think the room was really smart and effective. It was certainly the most fun I’ve ever had in my career sitting around with a bunch of extremely smart writers. We spent the first couple of days learning all about the history of the project then spent subsequent days talking generally about mythology and interesting places one could take the franchise. We set out to tell a long-form story as opposed to get trapped in the typical formula of any big franchise sequel, blow more stuff up. The goal was for each of us to come up with a sequel, spinoff or prequel, enough to fill out the slate for at least the next 10 years. We weren’t therefore in competition with each other. All of the movies could get made if the studio found them viable.

We all went away to our lone wolf feature writing holes and came back and pitched our movies to the group. Some people asked for notes and others didn’t. It was amazingly valuable to have feedback from a bunch of people who write for a living, even if the feedback was just a round of applause from people who know what the hell they’re doing. But in no way were those stories broken as a group. It was no different than what we all do after we finish our treatments. We give them to our friends to tell us whether we’re crazy or not. Only in this case our friends happen to be getting paid really well.

It was a completely writer-driven process to an extent that I’ve never witnessed in studio development. The result was a bunch of movies that together form a cohesive narrative but also stand alone. If they pull off what we architected and what the intention is at present, then I think they will have pulled off something very novel and worthy indeed. Writers are very, very smart. Give us authority and autonomy and put us in a situation where we’re not competing or begging for scraps, and we can literally deliver you a franchise.

**John:** So, that was a very glowing perspective on what it’s like to be in that writer’s room. So it sounded like she had actually a really good experience.

**Craig:** Well, not only was it a glowing perspective, but it also is different than the story we’ve been told.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So when we did our podcast, our last podcast, we were keying off of an article. I think it was the Hollywood Reporter. And this isn’t what they said. I mean, factually, they seem to have gotten it completely wrong because what this writer is describing is essentially, exactly what’s going on with the Monster franchise over at Universal. And in our podcast last week I think we both said that that sounded like they were doing it the right way. And in this situation it sounds like they’re also doing it the right way. There’s nothing wrong with — and I would imagine it’s essentially necessary, if you are planning on writing multiple movies around the same shared universe, you need to coordinate. It sounds like they’re coordinating.

What it doesn’t sound like they did was the thing that we were most concerned about which was breaking individual stories together as a group. So I’m really glad that she wrote in to share her experience and also particularly glad that the studio in question seems to have opted to go about this the right way.

**John:** Yeah. So we don’t know specifically what the property was or what the thing that she’s working on. So I’m guessing it’s not the Monster movie properties, since we know all the writers who were involved in that. But, in a general sense, it does feel like, you know, each of these writers is coming up with an idea and it sounded like they were getting paid for a treatment. I’m not clear that they’re getting paid for a treatment. They were at least pitching something. It’s not clear that they were turning in any written material. Where it could be — let’s take, let’s say this was He-Man or something. If you were trying to build out the He-Man Universe, where I could see there being problems with this down the road is, you know, two different writing teams have a way to use a certain character or a certain beat that’s in that mythology, well, who gets to do that. And if they both write up this thing that involves some aspect of that mythology, that could still get kind of murky down the road. So

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It doesn’t absolve everyone of all the problems that could possibly happen down the road but it does sound like a much better process than what I had envisioned.

**Craig:** I think that the job of traffic cop rests with the person who’s overseeing — for instance, at Universal, Chris Morgan

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Who is our friend and a screenwriter is along with Alex Kurtzman they are the traffic cops. And so, they can’t I don’t think run into a situation where two people are both grabbing at the same bit of mythology, because their job is to say, “Sorry, you can’t. That one is doing that one.” You have to have somebody like that. I think at Marvel that’s Kevin Feige. You need somebody or it’s chaos.

**John:** Yep, and where this wouldn’t work especially well is if there’s no underlying material in a strange way, like, if you just said like, we want to do a bunch of movies that are set in space and you had a bunch of people trying to do that where there was no fundamental underlying piece of IP, then it gets sort of especially difficult because just the potential overlaps between those things and characters you didn’t really control — I could just imagine that being a bigger mess in some ways than if it were based on an existing piece of property.

**Craig:** It would never happen.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You can’t. If you opted to try and invent a shared universe from whole cloth, which is insane, you would still need them to create some genesis piece of material, a bible, you know.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That everyone could reference. Otherwise, I don’t even know what they would be buying anyway and they certainly wouldn’t be committing the resources to, you know, make many, many movies.

**John:** Absolutely. All right, let’s get to today’s topics. The first thing is something that somebody tweeted at me this week and it was in response to something I tweeted. I’m not even sure what my initial tweet was, but someone wrote back, “Oh, like William Goldman said, ‘Nobody knows anything,'” and I just bristled a bit because “nobody knows anything” has been one of those chestnuts that gets trotted out at any moment whenever something surprising happens. It’s like, “Oh, Hollywood, nobody knows anything.”

And I was frustrated because I wasn’t quite sure the context of the original quote. And so, I actually did some research this week and I pulled up William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade. So William Goldman is of course a legendary screenwriter, everything from Butch Cassidy to Princess Bride. Has worked, you know, throughout Hollywood. But the book in question is from 1983. It is Adventures in the Screen Trade. And so I got the book on Kindle and I did a word search to figure out where does he actually say, “Nobody knows anything.” And he says it a couple of different times in the book.

But the way William Goldman is actually using that phrase is so different than how people are trying to use that phrase whenever they’re tweeting it at me or when I see it quoted in an article. And so I wanted to look at what the original intention was behind that quotation and how we might steer ourselves back towards that quotation.

Now, Craig, as we mentioned before, you’ve been on Karina Longworth’s podcast

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Being the voice of Louis B. Mayer. So I’m wondering if I could invoke your skills to be William Goldman and read this first little quote aloud.

**Craig:** Well, I won’t do it in the Louis voice because that’s

**John:** I think it’s probably appropriate.

**Craig:** She has the exclusive rights to it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I’ll just read it on my own bland voice. Although William Goldman, I did have the pleasure meeting him a year or so ago. And he has this wonderful voice actually. He’s very patrician kind of — it’s very — he seems like — he’s Jewish but he seems like a WASP. It’s that fascinating — who else had that? There’s a little bit of a — well, anyway, it doesn’t matter. The point is he has a great voice. I’ll do my best here.

This is from Adventures in the Screen Trade “Nobody Knows Anything.” “Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and if you’re lucky, an educated one. They don’t know when the movie is finished. B.J. Thomas’ people after the first sneak of Butch were upset about their clients getting involved with the song Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head. One of them was heard to say more than once, ‘B.J. really hurt himself with this one.’ They don’t know when the movie is starting to shoot either. David Brown, Zanuck’s partner has said, ‘We didn’t know whether Jaws would work but we didn’t have any doubts about The Island, it had to be a smash. Everything worked. The screenplay worked. Every actor we sent it too said yes. I didn’t know until a few days after we opened and I was in a bookstore and I ran into Lew Wasserman and I said, ‘How are we doing?’ And he said, ‘David, they don’t want to see the picture.’ They don’t want to see the picture may be the most chilling phrase in the industry.

“Now, if the best around don’t know at sneaks and they don’t know during shooting, you better believe that executives don’t know when they’re trying to give a thumbs up or down. They’re trying to predict public taste three years ahead and it’s just not possible. Obviously, I’m asking you to take my word on this. And there’s no reason really that you should because pictures such as Raiders of the Lost Ark probably come to mind, which I grant was an unusual film. Why did Paramount say yes? Because nobody knows anything. And why did all the other studios say no? Because nobody knows anything. And why did Universal, the mightiest studio of all, pass on Star Wars, a decision that just may cost them and all the sequels and spinoffs and toy money and book money and video game money totaled over a billion dollars…” it’s a little bit more than that William “…because nobody, nobody, not now, not ever knows the least goddamn thing about what is or isn’t going to work at the box office.”

**John:** Uh-huh. Well done, Craig, and well done William Goldman. So I want to focus on what this isn’t saying. So this isn’t saying that decision makers are ignorant, that they know nothing. It’s not saying they don’t have taste. It’s not saying they don’t have experience. They truly do have the wisdom of crowds. They have sneak previews. They have all of these things. They have experience. They have, you know, their own taste. They have crowds. But they don’t have perfect knowledge of the future. And you instinctually did exactly the right thing was emphasizing the word no is that, you know, William Goldman is saying like you may have very good reasons to believe something but you can’t know with certainty what the future will hold. And anyone who does tell you they know with certainty what the future will hold is lying because you cannot predict all these things.

And so, what I get so frustrated about is they’ll use nobody knows anything as excuse for, “Well, why don’t we just try something wild because nobody knows what’s going to work.” Well, people actually may have really good sense of what’s going to work but they can’t predict things perfectly.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. It’s a little bit like that exchange where someone says, “You think blah, blah, blah…” and someone says, “I don’t think, I know.” That means something, right? It means that it’s not in the realm of opinion, it’s a fact.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** What Goldman is saying is that essentially all this stuff boils down to opinions so you can’t know it and therefore you have to make your peace with an uncertain world.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so, of course, people are going to make mistakes but they’re not mistakes at the time. They’re only mistakes in retrospect. That’s the thing. You just don’t know. And he even — it’s interesting, he even italicizes the word know. There’s no — so we actually know that this is what he means. We don’t think this. We know that.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** We know he doesn’t mean nobody knows anything. He means nobody knows anything.

**John:** Exactly. So there’s one other place in the book where he goes back to this nobody-knows-anything idea. And this is where he’s talking about studio heads and studio executives. And what’s so fascinating to me is that this book is written in 1983 and every place I sort of pulled stuff out, it’s like, wow, that feels so incredibly true. I mean, Star Wars is a billion-dollar franchise which is just so funny to think about it, you know.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** I don’t know if it’s necessarily a trillion-dollar franchise but we know it’s still an incredibly big deal

**Craig:** It may end up.

**John:** All these years later.

**Craig:** Yeah. All right. So here’s another passage from Adventures in the Screen Trade. “As stated, the knowledge of their eventual decapitation is central to the life of the studio executive. And as also stated, when that happens, they will go indie prod which is both easier and more lucrative. So, why do the executives care at all if their movies succeed? Because there is a giant caveat involved. The better they’ve done as executives, the longer their lifespan, the fatter the deal they can strike for themselves when they’re canned. None of the Heaven’s Gate group at UA got rich when they were told to get lost. So it’s essential to the studio executive to be at least, for a time, successful. And since nobody knows anything and since the studio heads today haven’t got a lot of faith in their creative instincts since they’ve never been creative, they turn for salvation to the one thing that got them where they are: stars.”

**John:** And again, this is 1983 he’s writing this and yet everything he’s saying is completely true today.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** When he says, “Go indie prod,” what he’s basically meaning is when you get canned as the executive of whatever studio, you get a deal at that studio to make movies. And so, when Amy Pascal leaves the leadership of Columbia Sony Pictures, she gets a big deal at Columbia Pictures to make movies for Columbia Pictures. And she gets to make a bunch of movies there and she will get a good deal there because she had a lot of success running Sony Pictures. That’s the way it’s always been and it seems to be the way that things are going to continue to be because that’s how this business works.

And so, you look at the studio executives, the studio heads, they are the decision makers. And so, as they’re making decisions, they are weighing a bunch of different factors. So if she doesn’t know how things are going to work, she’s going to attempt to stack the deck in her favor in a couple of different ways. Goldman says “stars”. So if you’re making a movie with Jennifer Lawrence, that’s more likely to be a hit than a movie with Zooey Deschanel.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s going to cost you more. But the odds of success are higher because Jennifer Lawrence is a true star.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** A genre, a movie in a popular genre is more likely to be a success than a movie in a less popular genre. So making a western right now is incredibly risky. Making a superhero movie right now is much less risky. Even if the superhero movie is a lot more expensive than that western would be, it’s still less risky.

And the flip side of this is really the defense. If you’ve make a superhero movie with Jennifer Lawrence and it bombs, you have a real good plausible deniability like — I don’t know how this failed, but this was a pretty good bet. Like, I wasn’t going crazy here. This seemed like a reasonable bet. The chance to keep your job a little bit longer hopefully, but also to explain why you made this movie in the first place.

**Craig:** Yeah, he’s making this fascinating point about the motivation of studio executives that frankly I had never really considered and I’ve read this book but I think when I read it I didn’t have as clear of an understanding of the landscape as I do now just as the result of experience. And that is, this notion that they’re not trying to succeed because they want the studio to do well. They’re trying to succeed so that when they eventually get pushed out, they land on a comfier mattress, that’s kind of fascinating. It makes a ton of sense.

**John:** Yeah, I don’t know that it’s a conscious decision for them at all times. But I think it is the reality. I think, you could ask any studio executive, anyone who’s running a studio, “How long do you think you’ll be in this job?” And at some point, deep down, they do know that they’re not going to be there forever. And so they’re looking at sort of like, you run a studio for a set number of years and then you stop running that studio. It’s like there’s just a term-limit to it and you will move on. And there’s an expiration date sort of built in to that job.

**Craig:** I’m not going to ask any of them that question.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** [laughs] I don’t think that’s a conversation that I want to have.

**John:** Next time you’re sitting down with a head of one of the studios, you just say, “Oh, by the way, how much longer do you think you’re going to be here?”

**Craig:** Yeah. Donna, you’ve been here for a while.

**John:** You really have been here for a while. Things seem to be going really well, Donna, right now.

**Craig:** I know. Right.

**John:** But how many bad things do you think would happen before you have to

**Craig:** I mean, you’re going to get fired, so I’m just wondering like, how long do you think is going to take you? That would be awkward.

**John:** Don’t ask that question.

**Craig:** No. I don’t think that that’s going to go well for you. I really don’t. And there’s actually — this is a — not to steal your Segue Man job, but there’s a really nice segue here to our next topic.

**John:** Let’s go for it.

**Craig:** The idea that studio executives are looking for security leads us to this next topic. An article that I read at Medium.com about — well, it’s called the Zombie Mobile. And we’ll include a link in the show notes of course. And it’s essentially a story of the crossover, the crossover which is that thing that’s not a sedan. It’s not an SUV. It’s that sneaker mobile kind of thing. And what the author Adrian Hanft does is he depicts, it looks like about 50 of these cars and they look exactly alike.

**John:** Exactly. If you’re looking at the graphic, he has all the different brands of these cars but in white and with like the hub caps sort of marked out. And you really could not tell them apart, one from the next.

**Craig:** It’s truly madness. I mean, when you look at it you feel like this can’t be real. But it’s real. And he goes into why this happened. And so I’m going to read a little excerpt from his article that I think is pertinent to a question that we’re constantly asking about studios and the movies that studios make.

He says, “People think they want a huge variety of options. But variety cripples our ability to make easy decisions. Car companies give the illusion of variety while keeping the actual categories very basic. This is why you only get five color options instead of choosing from a Pantone book. Deciding between red and white is easy compared to deciding between fire red or cherry red. Car companies understand that in order for you to make a purchase, they can’t overwhelm you with options. There are millions of combinations of vehicles, brands, and options but by breaking the selection down into bite-size mini decisions, salesmen are able to overcome our indecisiveness. Broad categories (car, truck, van) funnel customers towards making a purchase.”

What he goes on to say is the crossover became such a massive success because it even removed that choice. You didn’t have to decide between car, truck, van. They’re going to give you something that was car-truck-van. And they were all going to look alike basically because that’s kind of what everybody wanted.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And the same thing goes for us I think in the studio system. People say, “Well, why do studios keep churning out the same kind of movie?” Because that’s kind of what the audience wants. The audience struggles going for movies that force them to make tricky decisions. They need to know what it is before they go to it.

**John:** Yeah. Barry Schwartz’s book, The Paradox of Choice, sort of laid out this, you know, this idea sort of most recently in sort of in a biggest way about sort of how whenever you force somebody to make a decision, they sort of freeze and they don’t want to make a decision. And so by taking away their choices and not letting them make their decisions, you can get them to do something much more easily and much more quickly. And, to some degree, I think that’s true and when you look at the movies that stand out, they are sort of the oddballs and they take a lot more work and subtlety and skill to market and get any sort of breakout success because they were such oddballs. And the reasons why we see such a reliable template for making some of our big blockbuster movies is because people are familiar with it. They know what that is and they’re not going to be challenged by what they’re about to see.

**Craig:** Yeah, I think the idea of illusion of choice is really important because the audience or the marketplace, they do struggle with choice. But they hate the idea of no choice. So you have to make them feel like they’re getting a choice without actually forcing them to go through the pain of a choice. And so we have genres. And so we have movie stars that help kind of eliminate choice. When you talk to the regular American moviegoer, you get yourself out of Hollywood for a few days and just talk to people or you’re on vacation somewhere, they don’t refer to movies the way we do. They talk about, “Oh, that’s a Brad Pitt movie”. That’s it. “That’s a Brad Pitt movie.” That’s the genre: Brad Pitt movie.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It doesn’t matter. Everything else. All the — your fancy choices and things, it doesn’t matter. They don’t know who directs anything. They certainly don’t know who writes anything. If you asked people what movie directors do you know, you’d hear Steven Spielberg and maybe Martin Scorsese.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Nobody really cares about that stuff. So stars became incredibly important because they’re visible and they help them make choices. And then genres, “Oh, my god, that’s a funny movie. Oh, it’s like a physical comedy. Oh, yeah, it’s a horror movie. Oh, yeah, it’s a thriller. Oh, that’s a spy movie.” So interestingly, if I were to sit and talk about this article with, say, some of the fine people that run marketing departments in Hollywood. What I would say to them is this. You don’t necessarily have to be worried about material that doesn’t fit into a conforming box. As long as you think you can sell it like it does. In fact, I think the best situation is to offer something that’s familiar and comforting to the audience with marketing. And then once they’re there, because it was familiar and comforting, give them something that’s different so that they don’t walk out going, “Oh, yeah, well, it was the same old thing.”

**John:** Yeah. I’ve had similar conversations a couple of times recently about properties that I was trying to get involved with. And it was that question of balancing expectations versus what you’re actually going to deliver them. And so people think they’re going to come in and get this kind of movie. And they are but it’s actually differentiated by quality in a weird way. It’s like, you know, what’s our secret sauce? Oh, it’s actually a really good movie. It’s actually a really good version of that. And so, somebody comes in expecting like, “Oh, it’ll be okay.” And then like, “Oh, it’s actually surprisingly good,” well, that’s an extra kind of bonus. And I’ve had to have those conversations about like, I think you market it like it’s this. And so someone will say like, “Oh, well, I know, the script seemed like it’s really complicated.” It’s like, “Yes, but you know what, that’s the experience of watching the movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** The experience of what you’re actually going to see in the trailer is actually much more sort of it’s these beats, it’s the simpler version of what that is. So the movie I wrote for myself, it definitely falls into a genre. And so the movie does some unusual and interesting things, but I think from the trailer, you would see the simpler version. Even a thing I turned in recently, there was concern that it would be confused as a different kind of movie. And so I wrote up the trailer saying, like, no, I think you sell it like this. I think you sell it like this genre of movie which it largely is but you don’t even discuss these other story points or don’t even bring them into the idea of the trailer because it’s just not important for your experience. If you’re a person who likes this genre of movie, you’re going to like this movie regardless.

**Craig:** Yeah, this is really important. And I think the good marketers understand that because, of course, now marketers are involved in what movies get green lit. The question shouldn’t be, “Does this movie having now watched it fit into a comfortable category for an audience?” The question should be, “Can I market this as a comfortable category?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The fascinating thing is that most people ascribe the word “cowardly” to the studios who continue to pump out the expected how many more superhero movies can we get. How many more of this can we get? How many more of that? They’re just cowards. They’re just playing it safe. No. I think actually studios are willing to take all sorts of risks. It’s the audience that’s the coward. And I understand why.

Going to the movies ain’t cheap. And you know the easiest thing in the world to do? Stay home. So people are afraid to risk two hours of their life and maybe 50 bucks when all is said and done between you and your date to see a movie that they kind of don’t know that they want because they’ve never had before.

**John:** So let’s tie together our studio executive and our ticket buyer. So our studio executive three years in advance is trying to figure out what ticket-buyer wants to see. Ticket-buyer is saying like, “You know, which movie do I want to see tonight?” So they’re going to cost me the same amount of money to see Steve Jobs or to see Goosebumps. I don’t know that I’ll like Steve Jobs. Goosebumps, I’m not sure I’ll like it either, but I think I know what Goosebumps is. So maybe I’ll go see Goosebumps.”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And it’s a conservative decision but it’s a reasonable decision for the ticket buyer. And so the studio executive has to weigh these decisions but three years in advance and not even knowing what the movie is going to look like or what the marketing materials for that movie are going to look like.

**Craig:** That’s absolutely right.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s hard because we — are brains aren’t correct. I may say, “Well, I generally don’t like biopics and I don’t really care about computers. I do like horror movies and I like funny movies and I like Jack Black.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** “I’m going to see Goosebumps.”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The problem is that’s actually not a rational decision because even if I stipulate all those things, I still just might not love Goosebumps because Goosebumps is its own experience, separate from everything else. And I might love Steve Jobs. That’s really what marketing and what the studios are constantly struggling with is the irrationality and safety of the audience.

**John:** Well, doesn’t it make some sense though in terms of loss aversion — so, I’m not saying that loss aversion is a reasonable strategy. But it’s a very well-understood strategy. It’s that you’re more worried about hating something than you are getting joy about maybe I’m going to love this thing. I don’t think people — and I don’t mean to slam Goosebumps as a movie. I’m sorry I picked that as an example, but I don’t think you’re going to Goosebumps saying like, “I think this is going to be the best movie ever and I think it’s going to change my life.” I think you’re going to Goosebumps maybe saying like, “Oh, I think that’ll be an enjoyable way to spend, you know, 90 minutes.” Whereas the Steve Jobs decision is like, “You know, I might love it but I might also really hate it. And it’s not just my decision, it’s like whoever I’m taking on a date to see this movie, what is he or she going to think.” And so there’s a whole psychological aspect of that that is challenging.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** There’s a part of the article where he talks about a wind tunnel. And wind tunnels are incredibly important for designing cars. And when you’re looking at how you’re going to build the car, ultimately the wind tunnel is going to influence the shape of the car greatly. He says, “There are only two directions you can go in the wind tunnel. You can either get blown away or move towards the wind. Take comfort of the feeling of resistance. It means you’re headed in the right direction. If you aren’t feeling wind resistance, you might be going in the wrong direction in the wind tunnel. Savor the feeling of the wind on your skin. Your heroes face the same winds and overcame similar rejections. Eventually, the headwinds produce lift and launch their work skyward.” So talking about the Wright Brothers. It’s essentially, you know, sort of trying to make a plea for — go to the thing that’s making you a little uncomfortable, go towards the thing which you’re not sure you’re going to love. It’s going to spark more interest in you ultimately than the thing that is really safe. And that’s really easy to say but hard to do on a daily basis.

**Craig:** It’s a wonderful sentiment and I’m certainly all for individual bravery and culture choice. However, it will not happen. It will not happen at least on a mass scale ever, because humans on a mass scale are fairly predictable and we have a lot of data here.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There’s a theory that they used to talk about in the old days with network television and when you had three channels. And it was called the least objectionable programming theory, LOP. And the idea was you didn’t have to be the best show on at 8:30, you just had to be the LOP. If people didn’t like the other two more than they didn’t like you, they’d watch you.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so your job is to basically just be bland and inoffensive and not stick out at all and they would turn away from those other things and come to you. And I think a little bit of that goes on in movies but I would continually push this point that it’s okay to market things on a LOP basis and then deliver something better, because unlike television, when they bought their ticket, they’re in.

**John:** That’s absolutely true.

**Craig:** And then the game has changed. The game is not, well, just keep watching it week after week. The game is now, “Don’t walk out of the theatre until it’s over.” And then when it’s over, go home and start tweeting about it. That’s the name of the game. Two very different goals.

**John:** Craig, I have a question for you. Do you think LOP still makes as much sense in the age of, you know, infinite channels and infinite programs?

**Craig:** No, I think it’s over.

**John:** I don’t think it does at all. I think that’s really an outdated concept. I think it actually still does hold true in movies because you’re making a decision about how you’re spending these two hours of your time and it’s a zero sum game to some degree. You’re not going to be able to watch two movies that night. But with TV, you can easily graze. You can find the thing that most interests you. And so, this paradox of choice isn’t quite as much of a problem. It’s just, you know, there’s not enough time in the day to watch all the things you might be interested in watching but that’s a lovely problem to have.

**Craig:** Yeah, LOP is great for a situation where you’re trying to get enormous numbers to come to your choice and your competition is maybe two other choices, which was very typical for the networks in the ’70s and ’80s. MOP, not Michael Oates Palmer but the most objectionable programming theory, I think makes a lot of sense for TV today because everything is so fragmented that what you’re trying to get is you don’t mind getting a tiny audience. You just want them to be fervent

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And you want them there week after week. So in fact, sometimes, the stuff that works best now on television is the stuff that’s the most stick-outable, and the strangest, and the weirdest, and the most hooky. It’s a very different vibe.

But for movies, when two or three major motion pictures are slugging it out to capture the eyeballs of mainstream movie-going America, not the movies but the marketing, I think, the marketing has to feel like that movie is the least objectionable.

**John:** Yeah. To try to wrap a bow around these two topics, getting back to nobody knows anything, I just want to stress the idea that William Goldman is not saying we might as well just have a bunch of monkeys throwing darts at a dartboard. That’s not what he’s pushing towards. He’s just saying that you can do all of these tests and surveys, you could look at what people say they really want, you could try to find the least objectionable program and do all these things that seem like really smart choices and you still don’t know that that’s going to be a path to success.

So I think he’s actually saying, you do all those things because those are reasonable, smart things to do. But don’t mistake the doing of those tests for what is really going to happen in true life because you just don’t know that. You can’t predict that.

**Craig:** You don’t know.

**John:** You don’t know me.

**Craig:** You don’t know me.

**John:** Our next topic, this is actually a short one. It could be a whole podcast by itself but it’s based on something that happened to me this week.

So I went to USC for film school and some USC film students started up this program, which is a very smart program called Dinner For Eight. And what they do is they invite an alum and eight current film students and we just have dinner someplace and we talk over stuff. This is a no-pressure dinner. You’re talking through what their life is like and they’re asking you questions and you’re asking them questions.

And I really took advantage of the chance to ask them questions because I’m always fascinated by why people go to film schools. And it’s something we’ve talked about on the podcast before. Because I can list good reasons to go to film schools, you can list good reasons not to go to film schools. But I was curious what people in film school right now thought about their decision. These were all grad students who were in their second or third year of grad school, and whether they thought it was worth it.

And so, around my table, they tended to think it was worth it, which I think is sort of a self-selecting group probably. But I asked them why they thought it was worth it. And here are some of the things they said.

Context. So, they were learning about screenwriting or filmmaking in context of the actual business that they were in right now. So, it wasn’t learning it from a book, it wasn’t learning it from one person. They had a bunch of people around them making movies. And they were making movies all the time, which was good and useful.

The collaboration, just that they got to work on either shooting movies or they were writing their stuff and they had people constantly there to sort of give them feedback on what they’re doing. Their professors, they had their peer group.

Acceleration. A couple of them said that they felt like they’d been writing for a while but it wasn’t until they were sort of like forced to sit down and constantly be delivering stuff that they really felt that sort of rocket ship take off, which could also be imagined if you like were staffed on a TV show, that sense of like, “No, no, you really have to do it now. There’s no excuses.” They described it similarly as being like good for people who were sort of stalled overall.

And so, a couple of these people had written before and they’ve been trying to do it for a while and they just couldn’t sort of get all the pieces to fit together. And sometimes, it was a skill thing they lacked but more often, it was a psychological thing. And they’re like, there wasn’t a gun to their head to do it, and so with a gun to their head to do it, they were actually delivering stuff.

I asked them how much they were actually writing in a semester. They said they were generally writing two bigger things in a semester. So they might be working on a feature and a TV pilot. That’s a lot. That’s a lot to be working on. But they also said that writing a bunch of little things, a lot of little small class assignments, was getting them sort of more fluid and more fluent.

So, it was interesting to hear this group of young writers, mostly writers, talking about their perspective on why they thought film school was working out well for them.

**Craig:** I always wonder, it’s really interesting, I always wonder what film school would have done to me. I don’t know if film school would have been good for me at all, you know. I mean, because I think about me, you know.

**John:** I think about you, too. So I think about you and John Glickman is a person we both know.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** John Glickman runs MGM right now, but John Glickman was in my film school class. And I remember being in an elevator, we were going to I think it was our law class. And I was in the elevator with John Glickman and we held the door because Joe Roth got in the elevator. And Joe Roth at that point, he had already left Disney. He’d been running Disney and he just started Revolution, I think was his company.

**Craig:** The initial name of it was Caravan, then it became

**John:** Caravan. It was just

**Craig:** Then it became Spyglass, then it became Revolution.

**John:** So it was just Caravan at that point.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So, Joe Roth of Caravan gets in the elevator and John Glickman says, “Oh, hey, Joe. My name is John Glickman. I think the movies you’re making are really great. I really want to work for you. And these are the things I’m working on. This is what I’ve done.” And by the time he got out of the elevator, John Glickman had a job working at Caravan.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** I can envision a young Craig Mazin in film school being similarly driven and plucky and smart and being able to get himself well-situated really soon. But I wonder if you would have become a writer or if you would have become a studio mogul.

**Craig:** Right. Well, it’s interesting because John Glickman did, in fact, go to work for Joe Roth and Roger Birnbaum at Caravan, stayed with them when they turned into Spyglass. Then when Revolution happened, I think Joe did Revolution and John and Roger went over to MGM. And then Roger kind of retired, I think, out of that. And John’s still at MGM.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** He really actually has only had that job that he got in the elevator, which is crazy.

**John:** I was right there when he got it.

**Craig:** I don’t know, you know, it’s a really good question. I don’t know. And by the way, great segue into our next topic because our next topic sort of posits what would have happened with you and with me.

Somebody on Twitter tipped me off to this podcast between a guy named Ashley Scott Meyers and his guest, Gordy Hoffman. Ashley Scott Meyers runs a website. He’s a screenwriter and he also runs a website called sellingyourscreenplay.com. I’m not sure what it’s about. Oh, yeah, of course, it’s about selling your screenplay.

And, you know, the usual offer of script consultant, money, you know. You know how I feel about that. [laughs] Not good.

**John:** Not best.

**Craig:** I don’t feel good. But he also has podcasts that he does and he interviews people for it. And he himself is, in terms of his screenwriting, well, you’ll see he describes himself essentially as a B-movie writer.

Gordy Hoffman is a screenwriter and he also runs the BlueCat screenwriting contest. Have you heard of that, the BlueCat screenwriting competition?

**John:** I’ve heard of the BlueCat screenwriting competition mostly from tweets saying like, “Hey, should I enter the BlueCat screenwriting competition?” And I say, “I don’t know what that is.” But I sort of do know what it is just because people have tweeted me the question of should I enter the competition.

**Craig:** Yeah. It ain’t the Nicholls, but it’s a thing where you, again, pay money [laughs] to submit your script to a competition. And then there’s a prize, I think, of $3,000 or $4,000 or something like that. Also, he is the late Philip Seymour Hoffman’s brother. So they have this conversation and suddenly, the topic turned to you and me. [laughs] And I’m going to read you some things and we’ll see what you think.

I mean, they start off debating this question of whether the oft-repeated advice, “Just write a great script,” is actually good advice. And Ashley says, “Look, I’ve spent my career writing B movies and I think that’s a great place for screenwriters to start out in. If you want to write a studio film, those scripts have to be great.” This is his words. “But there are some terrific opportunities for people in genre movies.”

And Gordy Hoffman says, “I don’t know. Can you raise a family on that income? How does writing a movie that’s not good, that’s product, how does that build a career?” And then Ashley says, well, you know, in the B movies that he, I guess, in that world that he’s in, you can make $30,000 to $60,000 — I think he meant doing one of those movies or maybe in a year, I’m not sure.

And then Gordy Hoffman starts talking about you and me.

**John:** Ah.

**Craig:** And here’s what he says. He says, “When you look at John August and Craig Mazin’s point of view, they’ve made money in the studio system. My whole thing is I want to help you write a classic movie. Those are two different things. Gaming the system to make a ton of money is one thing, but ultimately, it’s my belief that if you want to get money as a writer and you don’t care if nobody likes your movie, some people are like, that’s exactly what I want. But I don’t want Craig Mazin’s job. [laughs] I don’t want to do that. If I chase a gratifying body of work, I’m still probably going to make some money.”

“What gets confusing is the John August/Craig Mazin podcast, it’s not really about writing an emotionally compelling, great culture-shifting movie, it’s about making money as a screenwriter. The fact is, that’s not what I ever talk about. That’s not what BlueCat is about. I’m just going to make good things. Chasing writing the best movie might in the long run be better for your career and your bank account.”

**John:** So it sounds like he’s disagreeing with Ashley Scott Meyers who says that like, “No, no, no, write B movies because — well, write B movies, I guess.” And Hoffman is saying, “No, you should write a great movie.” Am I fair in sort of there are two different opinions there?

**Craig:** Yeah. It seems like what Gordy is saying, aside from [laughs] he’s editorializing about you and me, is that in fact you will ultimately make more money if you do write something great.

**John:** So I’m trying to think about this in terms of the context of what we have said on the podcast and sort of what we are extolling. And the degree to which screenwriters are gaming the system to write movies that either I guess don’t get made or aren’t trying to be good versus the alternative, I’m not quite clear on what his perspective is here.

**Craig:** No, you aren’t because you’re a good person. You know, here’s the difference between you and me. A good person sees something that is deserving of vomit and says, “I don’t understand. Those words don’t fit together. I’m puzzled. I will take a nap.” The bad person says, “I am filled with rage [laughs] because I can see the bad conscience behind this.”

Putting aside how insulting it is, it’s also just stupid and wrong. There is no gaming the system to make a ton of money. There’s no such thing. Does not work. I don’t know what it would be. If there were a way to game this system to make money, then many, many more people would be gaming the system to make money.

**John:** Well, let’s talk about gaming the system because there are some examples of screenwriters who you feel like they just took that rewrite for the money and they had no interest in actually delivering a quality movie. I will say, in general, those people do not have long-lived careers or they eventually get called out for it and then they have to go back and start writing good movies.

**Craig:** Well, see, that’s exactly right. But then, that’s not really gaming the system. That’s making a mistake. Somebody says, “Here, I have a job for you,” and you say, “Well, I don’t care about it. I like making money. I’m not going to write anything good here,” then you’re right, you will not last. And so you didn’t game the system.

In fact, the system gamed you. There is no gaming the system. And they are talking about people that have, you know, long-running careers. That’s insane. Now, Gordy, his one writing credit I think is a movie called Love Liza, which he’s certainly very fond of. He speaks of it in a very fond way. I don’t think it meets his criteria of a culture-shifting classic film. But I haven’t seen it. I just

**John:** But I would say, it doesn’t seem like he’s describing it like a B-movie like Ashley Scott Meyers is describing his own movies.

**Craig:** No, no, no, no.

**John:** Not a bit.

**Craig:** No. He’s describing it as a big work. And he talks about how people still write him letters about it. I mean, he’s sort of saying, “I wrote something that’s important that people really like. That’s better than those things that those guys are writing because that’s just about making money.”

And my response is, we actually care about what we do, it’s just that you maybe not like those kinds of movies.

**John:** Oh, yeah.

**Craig:** That doesn’t mean we don’t. We do. We like what we are doing. It’s, oh my god, people might have different taste. I’m not sure I would like Love Liza. I haven’t seen it but it doesn’t look like my cup of tea.

So I’m not going to say, “Well, obviously, that guy was just trying to game some system.” That’s crazy. Similarly, I get confused by people who think that they understand our motivations for writing based on what they see on IMDb and not based on all the things we’ve written that haven’t gotten made.

But that aside, what I do know for sure is this. I know, as opposed to nobody knows anything, I know that this podcast is in fact [laughs] about, among other things, writing emotionally compelling, great culture-shifting movies. I’m hoping to God that some of our listeners do great work. Does this really sound like a podcast about how to make money?

And creepily enough, we’re the ones doing this for free and this guy is charging writers money to send him scripts. So, huh?

**John:** Hmm.

**Craig:** Huh. Well, moving on.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** They continue their argument. What Ashley says is, “Well, you know, when I set out ” he’s pushing back on that, “When I set out to write B movies, I have high hopes. I try and make it as good as possible. But my main point is that I have accepted that I’m not a gloriously gifted writer. I have succeeded and sold a bunch of scripts because I’m pragmatic. Most people listening to this are probably in that boat. The chance of getting to the John August/Craig Mazin level is rare and there’s a certain amount of luck.”

Well, I was feeling really good there for a second.

**John:** Yeah. And I’m agreeing with some of what he’s saying there. There’s a certain amount of luck, absolutely. And I think we’ve said that many times on the podcast is that some stuff just happens because it happens. And you have to be in the right place to be lucky. But things could go very differently for anyone in this business.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I like his point, by the way — first of all, I think it’s an incredibly grown-up and brave thing to say “I’m not a gloriously gifted writer.” And he’s right. Most people aren’t. Most people trying to be screenwriters aren’t gloriously gifted because this isn’t Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average, right?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So his argument is, “Hey, there’s this other area of screenwriting that may not be quite so, you know, golden city shining on the hill, but it’s something for people that maybe aren’t good enough to play in the major leagues.” It’s an interesting point. Gordy gets all upset.

He does not like the idea of luck at all. He says, “People that are successful, like Ron Howard, they don’t have a plan B,” which I thought was a fascinating choice, Ron Howard.

**John:** Yeah, Ron Howard, like he got to direct his first movie but he was already a successful actor when that all happened. He was a kid actor who was growing into being a grown-up actor.

**Craig:** Oh, yeah, all Ron Howard had going for him was being Opie and then being Richie on Happy Days. That’s it. Other than that

**John:** That’s it. No, he had no plan B.

**Craig:** You know what his plan B was? Living off of the money he had made. [laughs] That’s a pretty good plan B. He then refers to Ben Affleck and says, “That guy had some duds. Now he’s a huge success and in the middle of three tent poles,” which I think maybe he also thinks is part of the gaming the system. And I can’t tell. At this point, I’m confused by his point of view. But he’s saying, basically, take responsibility for your career.

And then, so at this point, I’m like, I think I’m rooting for Ashley here. [laughs] But then

**John:** [laughs] Craig, frankly, you’re rooting for the tidal wave, I can tell.

**Craig:** Well, I always end up rooting for the meteor. So then Ashley says, “Well, listening to the John August/Craig Mazin podcast, there wasn’t a lot of struggle in their career. Craig Mazin went to Princeton. But he was in the right place at the right time. He sold some scripts.” [laughs]

**John:** Aww, Craig. I’m sorry for you because I know there was some struggle in there.

**Craig:** Well

**John:** Yeah, I mean, you

**Craig:** Come on.

**John:** I guess, how do you define the outer boundaries of struggle? I mean, how bad do things have to be to be a struggle? That’s actually a good thematic question for a play on Broadway, or actually, Off-Broadway.

**Craig:** Yeah, feels Off-Broadway. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] It feels more Off-Broadway, obviously.

**Craig:** I just love the description of the birth of my career. It’s so awesome because like, went to Princeton, right place and right time, sold some scripts.

So here’s what happened, I go to Princeton where I don’t study writing or movies [laughs] or screenwriting or anything. I graduate with nothing. I drive to Los Angeles. I happened to walk out on the right street corner where in my hand is a script suddenly. And a guy is like, “Hey, you got a script? I’m buying.” And I go, “Yeah, here.” “Great, kid. Come with me.” It’s insane. Why would anyone think that?

**John:** What’s fascinating, Craig, is I remember it more like a Coen brother set up in a thing where like you accidentally got in the wrong car and there’s like a whole trunkful of money, except instead of a trunkful of money there was a script, and then you like accidentally drove up to some place that wanted your script. And it became a whole caper kind of thing.

My story is similar and sort of plausible in that same way where I came out here and I went to USC for film school. And I think I was genuinely lucky to be here at a time where the industry was growing and there were spots for more people and I got a job as an assistant and worked my way up. And I did very classic boring things where friends would read my scripts and pass them along. And I eventually got into rooms, and got hired to write scripts for people.

And whenever I talk to people about my origin story, I try to make it really clear, like that’s my origin story but that won’t be your origin story because all the variables will be different, both because it’s a different time, because you’re a different person, because everything just generally changes. But I would say, the broad strokes of how I got my career started are probably the broad strokes of how most screenwriters got their career started.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about gratitude. There’s an interesting study about the components of happiness. And one of the major components of happiness is expressing gratitude. And it’s hard when you don’t believe in God and you don’t have a system of religion to contextualize gratitude and yet it’s also not that hard really.

**John:** I don’t think it’s not hard at all.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean it’s only — I guess I should say, it’s not hard, it’s just not as obvious.

**John:** Okay.

**Craig:** So I’ve been thinking a lot about — and I try and be grateful and I try and express gratitude and feel gratitude in those moments. And I think that everybody that embarks on a path will have some aspects of circumstance at the time for which they ought to be grateful. And you’re right, there were aspects of the time that we began for which we should both be grateful. And, there are other things that, you know, were hard.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That is true, I think, for everybody. Everybody will have their advantages and disadvantages. Why people keep harping on this Princeton thing, I have no idea. I wish to God it had something for me, something, anything. I wasn’t hired by people who went to Princeton. [laughs] There wasn’t a network of people who all went to Princeton.

**John:** I think honestly, what’s helped underscore that is like, you know, he went to Princeton and you won’t believe who his roommate was. And I think that is what sort of gets Princeton stuck in the back at people’s mind.

**Craig:** There’s struggle by the way. [laughs]

**John:** There is struggle. Yeah, he did struggle. He had to live with Ted Cruz for a semester.

**Craig:** No, two. A whole year.

**John:** Oh, a whole year, I’m sorry.

**Craig:** Freshmen years, stuck in a room with that jerk. And, by the way just a political aside. Apparently, George W. Bush was speaking at some sort of Republican fundraiser for his brother. And he went out of his way to say Ted Cruz is dangerous and I don’t like that guy. And it was

**John:** Yeah, when George Bush is saying that, that is something remarkable.

**Craig:** Well, they said specifically that what shocked everybody was that W is like of all the things that he is known for, and there’s quite a few, one of them he doesn’t do that. He never ever bad mouths people like that, you know, at least within the Republican Party. Like he’s such a, you know, like he learned from his dad, you don’t do it. And they’re like, well, anyway, that’s what Ted Cruz does. He shakes everybody out of there.

So these guys kind of back and forth about and so Ashley is taking the position that luck matters. Gordy is taking the position that luck doesn’t matter. And then Ashley says the following. He says, “Would Craig has stuck it out for 10 or 15 years grinding it out?” And I think he means like it weren’t working. “And John August has all these technical skills, creating software, would he have stuck it out? He’d probably be running some sort of tech company. They’re smart and hardworking, so other opportunities would have come their way.”

And then he says, “The most successful screenwriters I’ve interviewed, there wasn’t a lot of struggle in their stories. They took off pretty simply.” I don’t think that he’s — that this word means what he thinks it means.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Struggle doesn’t mean failure. And success does not mean the absence of struggle. We have talked a lot about how you don’t really break in. You get a job. At which point, the gun now goes into your mouth. And you are typing in fear. And then you try and get another job and another. And the entire time, everything is conspiring to get rid of you. You are like a contagion in a body with an immune system. So you are being beset upon by your competition, by agents, by studio executives and producers and directors, all of whom know that they don’t have to care about you so they’re not going to because they already have to care about a bunch of other people they wish they didn’t have to care about. You never stop struggling. You never stop. If you stop — there’s no stopping. You know when you stop struggling, the day you say, I don’t need to struggle anymore, period, when you need to, that’s when you stop. Otherwise, you need to and you have to keep struggling.

**John:** Yeah. I think this idea of struggle fascinating because it’s really two different things we’re talking about. We want to talk about how writing is difficult, screenwriting is difficult in its own special way. The opportunity to get your writing in the hands of people who want to actually make it into a movie and then actually get that movie made, that is all incredibly difficult. So that is struggle, that is labor, that is difficult and it’s painful.

But I think they want to use struggle to be all the times it doesn’t work. And there’s a sense if you didn’t go through all the times where it didn’t work, then you didn’t really, I don’t know, you sort of don’t deserve it in a way or that — and its’ not true. That weird sense of like, art is an art unless you had to like cut your ear off to some degree or if you had

**Craig:** Yeah, art must require some sort of brutal pain and also, luck is hugely important because it seems like the people that succeed somehow got hit by a leprechaun’s magic shillelagh and just sort of coasted into millions of dollars and worldwide box office and packed movie theatres. And everybody else, it’s just as good, didn’t get by the shillelagh, so they’re struggling.

**John:** Yeah. I think we’re going to call our next podcast Struggling Gratitude because I think they’re wonderful, really amorphous concepts that are so key to what we’re really talking about because I think gratitude really plays into that sense of luck. And acknowledging that things could have gone so many different ways and we’re very lucky and fortunate to have, you know, ended up in this specific place and this specific set of circumstances that things worked out so well and to acknowledge that things could have worked out very, very differently in any of our lives.

And so, you know, to be thankful for our health and to be thankful for our families and for all the things in our life that are going so well and simultaneously to acknowledge that not everyone is going to have those things and it doesn’t make one person better or worse than the other person.

But I worry that, you know, glamorizing the struggle is ultimately a self-defeating kind of prophecy. It’s a sense of like how people in depression sometimes don’t recognize that they’re in depression because they literally can’t see that they’re in depression. And so romanticizing struggle is not necessarily the — it could have its own sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

**Craig:** It’s not even a useful word.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I just prefer work.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Just work. Work, you know. And by the way, I will say that when all is said and done, with this exchange, I will — I have to give the fight to Ashley. I think that ultimately, he was making an interesting point and a valuable point about what you do when — forget the world of luck — the marketplace is telling you repeatedly over time we’re not going to put your work in a category of say this. Your work is in this category. And he’s being very, I think, responsible and pragmatic in saying, that’s not a death sentence.

**John:** Yeah. I want to actually sort of validate both of their experiences in the sense of Ashley who is self-identifying as writing these B movies, that he’s actually found a way to make that profitable for him. And he seems happy. Or at least, you know, he’s declaring himself content with sort of how he’s being labeled there which is great.

Simultaneously, if your objective is to write a kind of movie that is difficult to get made and, you know, artistically challenging and you like that artistic challenge, which many great movies come from that — I don’t want to say struggle — but come from that place. That’s wonderful too and that’s why I think we’re lucky to live in a film ecosystem where there’s now ways to make those movies.

So I don’t want to sort of denigrate either of their experiences in doing this or even that they can talk to us about, you know, how they perceive our experiences. I just think they’re perceiving our experiences very differently than how we perceive them.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, that’s a nice way of saying that.

**John:** Again, I’m being too nice.

**Craig:** They’re completely wrong is what you just said.

**John:** [laughs]

**Craig:** I think your perspective of your own experience is slightly more valuable than their perspective of your experience. I think that it’s not a bad operating principle to say the following. There are a lot of different ways to pursue the career of screenwriter. And if somebody pursues it honestly and with passion and vigor, then that’s good.

**John:** I agree.

**Craig:** I would never say to Gordy Hoffman, “Enjoy making your navel-gazing mumblecore,” because that’s not fair. It’s just a broad caricature and it implies motivations that I simply can’t say are true. It’s just mean. And I don’t know why he would feel the need to denigrate an entire swath of screenwriters who oftentimes work in certain kinds of movies and then suddenly make something else. I mean look, God knows, the best script I’ve ever written has not been produced. I’m looking at it. It’s on my desk. [laughs]

I love it. And I’ve heard wonderful things about it. And it is very — I think it’s very emotionally compelling. And I think it could be a culture-shifting movie. I don’t know if it’s going to get made, you know. This is the way of the world. It’s just the thing. But I try and like the way Ashley says, I try and make it as good as possible, no matter what it is. And you and I have said before, if we wanted to game a system to make a lot of money, we are in the wrong job.

**John:** For sure.

**Craig:** We should be in finance.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Yeah, no question.

**John:** All right. Let’s go to our One Cool Things for the week. Mine is a very simple series of books designed for preschoolers. It’s called Tessy and Tab. And so we got these when my daughter was two years old, three years old. She got them when she’s four and five also. But it’s called Tessy and Tab. Tessy is a duck, Tab is a Kangaroo. They are preschool age. They do sort of standard preschool kind of things. They kind of flip out on each other. They love to play in the park. The sentences in there are super, super simple. They’re designed for a parent to read with a kid, but ultimately for a kid to be able to figure out how to kind of read for themselves.

It’s not phonics, it’s all sight words. So it’s not going to really just teach your kid how to read, but for my daughter, they became sort of her go-to books for just like picking up to read at any point at any time. They are also really, really thin, so you can like shove 10 of them in a backpack and go through them.

What’s smart about Tessy and Tab, originally when they first came out, they were — they would come every two weeks in the mail. And so kids love getting mail. It’s like, oh, you’re opening this thing. And so that’s a whole special thing for them. The company kind of went under. It came back. And now they send you 60 of them all at once. And so if you were to get this box, I would recommend you sort of hide it away and give it to — you know, make a special envelope and like give it to a kid like every couple of days or on a set schedule because if you have young kids, they’re going to want to read the same book over and over again. You don’t want to strangle this book because you just can’t read it anymore. So it’s a great way to sort of swap in what the book is that you’re reading with your little kid on a daily basis.

So Tessy and Tab, there’ll be a link in the show notes. But they’re just really good and they’re the one thing that my daughter from two years old through six years old still continued to love.

**Craig:** Wonderful. Wonderful. Well, my One Cool Thing, I have a couple of cool things this week, but they’re thematically linked. They’re both puzzles. This first is an easy one, BuzzFeed has a new crossword puzzle. I think it’s a daily actually from what I can tell. And it’s really good. The puzzles are constructed really well. They’re not too easy. They’re not crazy hard. There’s, you know, a touch of challenge to them. I would put them sort of like midweek New York Times level, sort of Wednesday-ish.

But what’s interesting about them is that they don’t have the editorial constraints of the New York Times. The New York Times famously has this — I can’t remember the exact name of the test. But the idea is would the clue and answer be something that you’d be comfortable reading to your grandmother at breakfast? BuzzFeed has no such restraint, whatsoever. And so they have like some pretty racy things and obviously, because it’s BuzzFeed, a lot of very modern, current language. So it’s a nice change of pace from The New York Times if you’re a crossword puzzler.

The other one is this site called logic-puzzles.org. That’s logic-puzzles.org. And it’s a company called Puzzle Baron or something like that. And it’s just one kind of puzzle that I love, that I always have loved. And it’s the logic puzzle where you are told six or seven facts about an arrangement of things and you have to deduce who ate what sandwich with what drink, you know, that kind of thing. Have you done these puzzles before?

**John:** I do. And Clue is a variation on those, but they are really fun. And there’s only really one way that everything could work out.

**Craig:** Exactly. There’s only one. So they are designed and I do them on the challenging setting where sometimes for a big puzzle, you get like four clues. And I’ve learned all these extra tricks that I didn’t know. And it’s such a great way to pass 20 minutes without feeling like you’ve totally wasted your time It’s a little brain sharpener. So I like them a lot. Give them a try. Logic-puzzles.org and it’s free.

**John:** Our special thanks to Karina Longworth for providing the voice of the anonymous writer in our first segment. You should really check out her podcast, which is amazing, called You Must Remember This. It’s on iTunes, but we’ll also have a link in the show notes. So thank you, Karina.

Our show, as always, is produced by Stuart Friedel. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. If you have a question for us, you should write it to us at ask@johnaugust.com. johnaugust.com is also where you’ll find the show notes to all the things we talked about on the program today. We are on iTunes. We love it when you leave us a review there because it helps other people find the show. So thank you everyone who leaves those reviews. If you have a short question for Craig or for me, find us on Twitter. Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

Our outro this week, in the spirit of Halloween, I thought we’d end on something really disturbing. So our outro is something Stuart found. It comes from Pokémon Red and Green, specifically a location within that game called Lavender Town. Do you know about Lavender town?

**Craig:** [laughs] I’m going to ask my son because he’ll know.

**John:** So according to urban legend, this really disturbing theme song caused Japanese children to commit suicide which is back in 1996.

**Craig:** [laughs] I don’t know why I’m laughing. I mean, no, it didn’t, that’s why I’m laughing.

**John:** So here’s a quote from what they say on the site. During the first two days of release of Pokémon Red and Green in Japan back in February 27th 1996, a peak of deaths occurred in the age group 10 to 15. The children were usually found dead through suicide usually by hanging or jumping from heights. However, some were more odd. A few cases recorded children who had begun sawing off their limbs, others sticking their faces inside the oven and choked themselves on their own fists, shoving their arms down their throats.

**Craig:** Oh, yes, shoving their arms down. Yeah, no, that’s — you see that. You see people doing that.

**John:** So anyway, the music you’re hearing underneath this is actually that theme music.

**Craig:** [laughs]

**John:** And it’s disturbingly — well, it’s familiar. So I leave you on this.

**Craig:** Don’t choke on your fist.

**John:** And have a happy Halloween and we will see you at the Austin Film Festival.

**Craig:** Bye, guys.

Links:

* [Austin Film Festival 2015 panel schedule](https://austinfilmfestival.com/festivalandconference/conference/2015-panels/)
* Karina Longworth’s [You Must Remember This](http://www.vidiocy.com/you-must-remember-this)
* Scriptnotes, 220: [Writers Rooms, Taxes, and Fat Hamlet](http://johnaugust.com/2015/writers-rooms-taxes-and-fat-hamlet)
* [William Goldman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Goldman) on Wikipedia, and [Adventures in the Screen Trade](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0446391174/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) on Amazon
* [The Zombie-mobile](https://medium.com/swlh/the-zombie-mobile-b03932ac971d#.whezv2fps)
* [Least objectionable program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_objectionable_program) on Wikipedia
* [The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060005696/?tag=johnaugustcom-20) by Barry Schwartz
* [The Selling Your Screenplay Podcast, episode 95](https://t.co/kq6mQdMUZh)
* [Tessy and Tab](http://www.tessyandtab.com/)
* [BuzzFeed Crosswords](http://www.buzzfeed.com/tag/crosswords), and [logic-puzzles.org](http://www.logic-puzzles.org/)
* [Pokémon’s Creepy Lavender Town Myth, Explained](http://kotaku.com/pokemons-creepy-lavender-town-myth-explained-1651851621) on Kotaku

« 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.