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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 596: McQuarrie on McQuarrie, Transcript

May 30, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/mcquarrie-on-mcquarrie).

**Craig Mazin:** Hi, folks. In today’s episode, there is some language, some salty language, so if you’re in the car with your children, go ahead and stop playing it or put the earmuffs on.

**Chris McQuarrie:** What the [bleeps] are you talking about?

**Craig:** Wow.

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 596 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. In ancient times, our ancestors looked to the heavens and noticed unfamiliar objects moving amid the stars. Aristotle theorized these were dry exhalations of earth that caught fire high in the atmosphere. Later, the Romans observed that these objects return on a regular cycle, like small planets with eccentric orbits. Today we know these periodic visitors as comets and look forward to their appearance in the night sky.

For Scriptnotes, our comet is writer-director-producer Christopher McQuarrie, who first appeared on Episode 300, then Episode 400. On that episode, we invited him to come back on Episode 600, which is very nearly here. As we prepare to record that, I asked Drew Marquardt, our producer, to put together a compendium episode to remind us what Chris said the last two times he was on the show. Drew, what are we going to hear today?

**Drew Marquardt:** We’re going to hear Chris talk about making big movies. Obviously, he’s very good at that. He’s got these incredible insights, not just on how these movies get made but where these stories come from and where they’re going in the future on film and TV.

**John:** Great. I recalled these two episodes being recorded pretty clearly. The first one, I was living in Paris, and he came to the hotel. I went to his hotel. He had just come back from filming Mission: Impossible, which was filming in Paris at the time. We had a great conversation. Craig was, in theory, kind of on the episode. He was Skyped in a little bit.

**Drew:** He comes in at the end. There wasn’t enough [inaudible 00:01:46].

**John:** It was basically me and Chris. The other one, Chris McQuarrie was sitting right in the chair that you’re sitting in, and he was talking and theorizing about films.

**Drew:** I’ll be honest, I came out of these last two episodes with such a Chris McQuarrie crush that if he does come back, if the comet returns, I’m going to have to-

**John:** The comet will return. You had not listened to these episodes, but you had gone through the transcripts because you were working on them for the book, right?

**Drew:** Correct.

**John:** Great. That was a whole summer ago. You were an intern last year.

**Drew:** Oh my gosh, yeah. That’s been a year.

**John:** A whole year has passed.

**Drew:** What was amazing going through those two is he’s working on this massive scale, but the advice he has for young writers and directors is really careful and really thoughtful and really incredible.

**John:** I find he’s a good balance of idealistic and pragmatic. As I hear him talk about other films that he’s worked on or helped out on, it’s very much like, what do you need to do to actually make the movie happen on the day and deliver something that the audience wants to actually watch. Sometimes that can be a hard thing to be in both worlds at the same time.

**Drew:** He’s never cynical, which is great.

**John:** That’s correct. We’re going to listen to things cut together from both those first two things, so there’s going to be some sound shifts. It’s fine. We got Matthew Chilelli cutting them together. It’s going to be great. Talk to us about what’s going to happen in the bonus segment for premium members.

**Drew:** In the bonus segment, you, Craig, and Chris are going to talk about spoof movies, which Craig has a lot of experience with and Chris has a broad knowledge about.

**John:** Fantastic. Drew, thank you for putting together this edited episode, and we will have the real Chris McQuarrie with us here soon.

**Drew:** I’m excited.

**John:** Chris McQuarrie, welcome back.

**Chris:** Thank you very much for having me.

**Craig:** The deal is every 100 episodes we have worked up enough tolerance to have McQuarrie back.

**Chris:** You know, Craig–

**Craig:** Here we go.

**Chris:** You weren’t here for the last one.

**Craig:** That’s why it wasn’t very good.

**Chris:** I miss that.

**Craig:** I can tell. Chris McQuarrie and I have been engaged in a, what, 15-year-long argument about everything.

**Chris:** About everything.

**Craig:** Literally everything.

**Chris:** It’s not so much an argument as it is a–

**Craig:** It’s a love story at this point.

**Chris:** It’s the duelists.

**Craig:** Yes, exactly.

**Chris:** I think that’s how you would describe our relationship.

**Craig:** Correct. You wake up in the morning, you go to work, fighting this man you must fight.

**John:** Back in Episode 300, I was talking to you, we were both living in Paris because you were directing Mission: Impossible. It hadn’t come out yet. You were in the middle of shooting it. It turned out really well, so congratulations on that.

**Chris:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Amazing.

**Chris:** Thank you very much.

**Craig:** And two more to come.

**Chris:** Two more to come.

**Craig:** The idea is you’ll make these until they kill you? Meaning the movies are going to kill you.

**Chris:** It’s more likely that they will kill me than they will kill Tom Cruise.

**Craig:** No, nothing kills Tom Cruise. You’ve proven that. By the way, openly attempting to murder him through film. I mean, everyone knows what you’re doing.

**Chris:** I have been described as his enabler. He describes me as his enabler. I’m not actually trying to kill him, I’m just trying to–

**Craig:** Could have fooled me.

**Chris:** He would be doing most of this stuff–

**Craig:** Movie number one, let’s drown him. Movie number two, oh, hang him off a plane.

**Chris:** The drowning I don’t think he would try to do.

**Craig:** Then let’s drown him. Then let’s make him hurtle from a roof. Oh, he broke a bone. Too bad. Keep going.

**Chris:** That’s true.

**Craig:** Wow, you’re killing him in front of us.

**Chris:** I’m whittling him away.

**John:** Go back ten years ago and did you think you’d be directing big blockbuster movies?

**Chris:** No.

**John:** You were a writer of big movies, and I thought you were at the apex of writing those big blockbuster movies. I sort of assumed you’d keep doing that. I was surprised that you ended up wanting to direct them. What was the change?

**Chris:** Somebody asked me. I directed The Way of the Gun in ’99 in the hopes that The Way of the Gun would be a steppingstone. I tried to do what Rian Johnson did with his career. I was going to direct the little movie, and then a slightly bigger movie, and a slightly bigger movie until I got to direct the big movie I wanted to direct. And that first movie was not successful. You could even go so far as to call it a tremendous bomb. I guess it’s not a tremendous bomb only in that it wasn’t a big enough movie to be considered a tremendous bomb.

**John:** Absolutely. I have one of those too.

**Chris:** Boy, people really reacted quite angrily to it. No matter what I did over the next seven years to get another movie off the ground, I couldn’t. I was working on two fronts. I was working as a rewrite guy, and I was writing my own stuff, trying to get it made as a director, and was getting nowhere.

It wasn’t until Valkyrie when I let go of something that was mine to direct and opted to be the producer on that movie. As a producer, I learned so much more about both writing and directing than I ever did writing and directing my own movie.

**John:** Talk about the difference, because when you’re doing Way of the Gun, you had the responsibilities for everything. We talked about the bag of money. You’re dealing with all the department heads. You’re making those thousand choices a day, which always sort of terrified me about directing. What was it about producing a big movie like Valkyrie? It is just a fundamentally different beast from making a smaller movie like Way of the Gun? What was the change in Valkyrie?

**Chris:** Yes, the size and scope of the movie and also dealing with Tom Cruise, who at the time I did not know and couldn’t safely assume anything about him. My intention was to take a producing credit for having put the movie together, but not actually go make the movie. I really didn’t want to do it.

Paula Wagner, who was still with Tom at the time, was running United Artists, which was the studio making the movie. Paula took me out to lunch to tell me they were making the movie and said, “Now, I understand you’re producing the film.” My intention was to say yes, but-

**John:** You’re really going to do that.

**Chris:** Yeah, but no, I’m not. I sensed immediately how I answered that question would have a profound effect on my career. Instead of saying no, I said, “I am now.” She said, “Good, because I’ve been on set with Tom for the last 25 years. This is the first time I won’t be able to be on set with him. I want you to be there as Tom’s guy. I need somebody to be there day to day with Tom.”

I found myself very suddenly thrust into this position, which I had never anticipated. Tom quite graciously took me under his wing. He understood that my relationship with Bryan Singer was such that I could communicate with Bryan more effectively and probably with more force than Tom could. It allowed Tom to have a very comfortable relationship with Bryan. He never had to push Bryan. All he had to do was create with Bryan. Then he would come to me and say, “Hey, here’s what I think we should be doing.” Tom and I worked together very well on that movie, and that sort of translated into the next thing and the next thing.

The next job was we worked on a draft of The Tourist together, which is how I ended up on that movie. He dropped out of The Tourist and then called me up to do Ghost Protocol. He called me up to do Ghost Protocol after reading Jack Reacher, which was not something to which he was originally attached.

**John:** Jack Reacher was a project you adapted from the book originally?

**Chris:** Yeah. Don Granger, who was also at UA, and who had been at Cruise/Wagner before that, he’s at Skydance now. Don Granger saw the writing on the wall, saw that UA was not going to be a going concern. He said, “I’ve got this series of books at Cruise/Wagner, and I think this is the best prospect at getting a franchise made.” He offered me the movie, and I said, “I’ll do it on the condition that the studio offers me the movie to direct. I’m not going to ask for permission to direct movies anymore. I’ve been doing it for 10 years and getting nowhere,” and they did.

I handed Tom that script to read as the producer. He called me the next day and said, “Script’s great. I need you to get on a plane and come up to Vancouver right now. We’re working on Mission: Impossible, and I need your help.”

Now I was thrust into a very big movie, bigger than Valkyrie, and it was a movie that more than halfway through the show was in a critical state of confusion as to what the story was. Having worked on Valkyrie and having had that crash course in movie-making, I now understood, okay, here are the resources I have. Here are the scenes that have been shot. Here are the scenes that haven’t been shot. Here’s the sets they haven’t built. Here’s the sets they haven’t struck. Here are the roles that they haven’t cast yet.

I had to make a puzzle out of things you had and things you didn’t have yet. I could only reshoot what I still had sets for, sets they hadn’t torn down. It gave me this sort of creative puzzle to solve. My first six days of my one week on the movie… I was originally only supposed to go for a week. My first six days were just meeting with department heads and saying, “Okay, these are the sets you still have. Can I get rid of this set? Can I move these resources somewhere else? If I have this idea, is there something you can build?”

Without ever having to stop and think about how daunting the task was, it gave me this fundamental grassroots understanding of how those big movies functioned, so that when it came my time to do it, I had a better understanding of the allocation of resources. It’s very interesting that that career trajectory is the exception and not the rule.

For me to have made an $8.5 million movie, didn’t make another movie for 12 years… That was a $60 million movie with Valkyrie in the middle, which was like $70 million, but I wasn’t directing. The budgets continued to get bigger over time. Now what you have is a guy directs a $5 million movie. The studio says, “Hey, that movie cost $5 million, made $60 million. Let’s give him $100 million, and he’ll make a billion.”

That’s a very, very, very hard turn for a lot of filmmakers to make. Now I have another career, which is coming on to those movies and supporting that director and saying, “Okay, so now you’re making your big movie. Here’s what’s important,” because what happens with a lot of those guys is they haven’t gone through the trial by fire where they realize there’s only so much reinventing the wheel can take.

They’re still coming at it like an indie filmmaker, but somebody has given them $200 million and a giant franchise. They don’t really want to believe that they’re making mass entertainment, and they struggle against that. I’ve seen two kinds of filmmakers in that. There are the filmmakers who very quickly listen to reason and adapt and survive. And then there are the ones who just their movies get taken away from them.

**John:** Yeah, we can think of the ones whose movies got taken away, or the really bad scenarios there. If you are coming in to be a director whisperer on a project, at what point is there a realization that there’s going to be a problem? Are they bringing you in right when that person is hired on to say like this person is going to be a consigliere to you, or it’s like something has gone horribly awry and now let’s get Chris McQuarrie there to help?

**Chris:** There’s a sweet spot I call four in and four out. If you’re four weeks out from shooting or four weeks into shooting, you’re in this zone where you’re so freaked out, you’ll do anything the doctor says. If you’re any deeper into production, you kind of get entrenched and you get blinders on and you’re afraid to change anything. If you’re too far out, you’re afraid to change anything because you think, oh, it’s too daunting a task.

There was one movie in particular that’s coming out. I’m very interested to see it. I won’t say its name. I begged the director not to go in the direction he was going, because I really did believe in the material and I thought it was wonderful. There was one specific plot element that completely degraded the main character of the film. I said, “If you just take this thing away, your movie will become really powerful.”

There was a visual idea. There was clearly an obsession with this particular idea, and there was a refusal to recognize that this very idea that gives you one visual aspect of the movie is going to tear the movie down.

He said, “It’s just too much work.” I said, “You’ve got nine months. You don’t realize how many times you can reinvent this movie.” More importantly, because of the movies I’d worked on, I come into a movie like that and say, “I’m not going to change anything about your movie. I’m not going to change the sets. I’m not going to introduce new characters. I’m going to take the resources you have and kind of reconfigure your movie to give it a more emotional journey,” because that’s really all I care about.

It took me a long time to learn that. I was an information guy. It was what I was telling the audience. I was a writer who was all about dialogue. I’ve since learned about emotional drag. That’s my catchphrase.

**John:** That four weeks in, four weeks out thing is really interesting because you look at these filmmakers who are coming from… Like you and I on our first movies. Four weeks, you’re almost done with your movie on a $5 million movie. It’s a very different thing. We’ve both also been involved with these movies that just shoot for forever.

You and I both have helped out on those movies where you come in when the train is already running. Generally if we’re coming in as a screenwriter, we’re just there to fix the visible screenwriting problems, and so we’re not doing the thing of what you’re talking about with Mission: Impossible where you actually had to sort of talk to all the department heads and really get their buy-in.

A couple times we’ve had guests on the show, Drew Goddard, or David Lindelof recently, who talked about the big opportunity, the thing that changed everything was coming into a project that was in crisis. It was the TV show that was going down, that didn’t have any more scripts. In this case it was a movie that was swirling around. That’s also been true in my career. It’s the editing rooms where they couldn’t find the movie that I could come back in and actually really help. Those are the moments.

If you haven’t had both the courage to step up when those things happen, but also the education to sort of know what are the right questions to ask, how to push for the best thing, it can be really daunting. If I were that filmmaker that you’re coming in to help, I would be scared to ask for help, because that’s an admission of failure. That’s an admission that someone made a mistake in hiring me to do this job.

**Chris:** Yes. It’s the moment in Terminator when he says, “Come with me if you want to live.” You walk in and you say to that director, “Here’s what’s happening on your movie and here’s what’s going to happen.”

There was one director in particular. His movie was in trouble. He was four weeks in. There was going to be a big change. The script was going to be gutted. There was a lot of panic. I said, “Can I just go in and talk to him for half an hour before you guys all come in, so that he doesn’t feel like I’m the studio hatchet man?” I have had that happen too. I have had studios try to manipulate that. They try to position me as being the hatchet man, and I won’t do it. I’ll go to bat for the director every time.

I walked in and I told him, “Here’s what’s going to happen. They’re going to come in and they’re going to say these are the things we want in the movie. A lot of them are ideas that I have suggested for how to fix your movie. I’m going to strongly urge you to say, ‘I’ve heard everything that Chris has suggested. I don’t like any of it. I don’t think any of it works, but if you think that’s what the movie needs, I look forward to seeing how it turns out.’“

I said, “What you will then do is you will put the responsibility that has been placed on you onto the producers. The producers will feel that you are working to make their movie. The studio will feel that you’re working to serve what they ultimately need served.” He didn’t do it.

We had another meeting. Half an hour before, I went in and said, “Now remember, just say this, and the pressure will come off of you.” He didn’t do it again. Eventually, everything he was afraid would manifest itself manifested itself. I don’t even think by the time he was through the process he even recognized that his movie had been taken over. His worst nightmare happened. That was the other thing. When you’re talking about working on those movies that are falling apart, you have an emotional detachment that you wouldn’t have if it was your own story.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Chris:** You’re able to come into it and say, “There’s a clarity that I have on everybody else’s movies that I will never have on my own movie.” I’m dying right now in the middle of Mission: Impossible, trying to figure out the turn on page 70. I know what happens in Act Three. I know what’s supposed to happen, but I can’t quite figure out how to get there. If it wasn’t my movie, I would parachute in and just be like, “Oh, you just have to do this.” It’s just so much easier when it’s not your baby.

Especially when you’re writing for studios, you get to a place where you go, “I know what I should write. If I didn’t have to turn right here, and I could turn left, I’d know where this movie would go.” That’s the thing you’re always struggling-

**John:** You’re trying to find a way to finesse it so it feels like it’s a natural turn, that it’s not just now we cut to a new sequence, because we all know the directors who would just like, “On the wall here, I have all the different sequences. Find a way to connect them all together. Go.” Those are the jobs I despise and ultimately get out of, because I don’t want to just be the person who is stringing those things together.

**Chris:** Oh, it’s soul-sucking work. It really is.

**John:** It pays well, but it kills you. You’re responsible for just creating a trailer for the moments that are happening in front of you. It’s maddening.

**Chris:** It’s funny you say that, because that’s another thing that we think about now. Since just before Rogue Nation, the lesson I learned, having had fights with the studio about the marketing of Jack Reacher, my first meeting on Rogue Nation I just went to marketing and said, “Tell me what to do. Tell me what you need so that I’m not fighting with you.” That has evolved for me, so that in this movie, Tom and I have a rule, you give marketing one shot a day. Every day you get a trailer shot. It’s like, doesn’t matter what-

**John:** That’s great.

**Chris:** You look at it and go, “Yep, that could be in a trailer. Okay, send it away.” Then they’re happy. They’re invested in your movie as opposed to you’re fighting them. We also know that movies like this need lines like, “You’re a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr. Bond.” I don’t know what that means in the context of the rest of the movie. I don’t ever particularly feel that he is a kite in a hurricane in that movie. The sexiness of that line in a trailer is really effective. You develop a sense for where those lines might go in a movie. We have little placeholders.

There’s a scene between Tom Cruise and Sean Harris in this movie, and we have a blank space there, where it’s like that’s where we know the villain is going to say something that is going to communicate the story of the movie in that one soundbite. I never really thought that way until this franchise.

**John:** If you think about people who run TV shows, they have to think about this episode of television that they’re making, but they have to be thinking of the whole series. They have to be thinking of how am I going to keep this thing on the air. It sounds like part of what you’re doing is that realization that you’re responsible not only for this two hours of entertainment, but you’re responsible for this giant ship that is going to be sailing through its berth and the success of that. It’s not just these two hours of film. It’s everything around it. It’s this universe of marketing around it that you also have to be aware of, and from an early time. You can’t just make your movie, then get involved with the marketing.

**Chris:** Yes. What is Mission? It’s the life of whatever this thing is, so that your movie leaves it so that another chapter in the franchise can exist. I guess that’s where jumping the shark comes in. You worry all the time. “Am I taking this in a way that it can’t go?”

We had a big conversation about tone, because Brad Bird really changed the tone of the franchise, and Rogue Nation embraced that tone completely. At the beginning of this I said to Tom, “I don’t think we can do that three in a row. I think now it’s going to become cute. I think we need to take it another direction still.” We did, but now we find ourselves going, “Are we going where Bond went, where Bond became serious?”

**John:** Dark and serious.

**Chris:** It’s another kind of tone, which, by the way, has not hurt their bottom line at all. They’ve really found their place, but we can’t go there. We were sort of laughing because we were looking at Rogue Nation and saying, “Thanks, Bond, for not doing that anymore, so we’ll do it.” Now we’re looking at it and going, “We can’t keep doing that.” We suddenly hit that same wall and understood why Bond went the way they did. We’re at this kind of emotional crossroads with the franchise, saying how dramatic can you take Mission? It’s not going to a dark place. It’s going to a more emotionally dramatic place.

**John:** When we were making Charlie’s Angels, when we started making the second one, I talked to the team and I described it as like I really want to approach this as we made an amazing pilot and now we’re going to make that first episode of the TV show that actually – of the series that really is the series. Where we sort of learned everything from the pilot and now we’re going to make the most amazing one. And we didn’t. Spoiler. It was as much of a trouble and more so than the first one.

But that was sort of the fantasy. You want to be able to make the sort of movie series. Marvel is able to do it remarkably well. DC, we’re yet to see whether they’re going to be able to make a franchise-y series out of the things they’re trying to do, but it’s laudable. You understand why people want to do it.

**Chris:** DC has a tough road to hoe because they’ve got to do something different than Marvel. Marvel has staked a claim so strongly in a very specific tone. Marvel has Kevin Feige, who is not a traditional studio head. He’s not a traditional producer. He is a producer of the old school. That’s what producers used to be like in Hollywood. They were the guys who came in and said, “This is the movie.” I guess the closest analog in something other than comic book movies is somebody like a Scott Rudin, who really he owns the material and he is a filmmaker in his own right and has specific control.

Warner Bros has to do something to differentiate itself from that. What is that? There’s Christopher Nolan’s Batman, but that’s not a universe. That’s one character, whereas Iron Man and the Marvel universe sort of set the tone for all those other movies.

If you had told me even a year before it came out that Captain America would work as a movie, or that Thor would work as a movie, that I’d find those characters appealing, that I’d actually find Captain America one of the more appealing characters in the Marvel universe, I just would have laughed at you. We had grown up seeing so many bad attempts inn these really cheesy TV movie ways. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen some of those Captain Marvel movies.

**John:** They’re amazing.

**Chris:** Oh my god. Oh my god. It will be very interesting to see how DC defines themselves.

**John:** So we used to make things like St. Elmo’s Fire, The Big Chill, Breakfast Club, Big Fish, Terms of Endearment. So we used to make things that had big casts, where a bunch of folks came together, where characters did grow and change but it was an ensemble. It wasn’t sort of one character’s story. Is that a thing we’re going to be making on the big screen soon? We’ll start with what is the essence of that kind of story. What is the essence of an ensemble dramedy?

**Craig:** Let’s make McQuarrie take a shot at that one.

**Chris:** It seems to me as I’m running through the list that you just – nostalgia is a big part of it. It’s my understanding that somebody did a breakdown of why people go to see movies and the number one reason was to have a nostalgic experience. An emotional nostalgic experience. I think that probably plays into sports as well, especially plays into why a lot of sports movies seem to go–

**Craig:** Back in time.

**Chris:** Back to that. And you look at The Big Chill. The Big Chill was very much a nostalgic movie.

**John:** It’s a reunion of friends who had separated.

**Chris:** St. Elmo’s Fire, while it wasn’t a nostalgic movie, they were at a specific turning point in their life. They were kind of looking back at—

**Craig:** See, to me that’s it. We have a group of people that represent some kind of contemporary arrangement, whether we’re catching them later or they were contemporary or we’re in their contemporariness, like for instance The Breakfast Club. But they are at a moment where things are changing, and we watch that happen. That to me is the essence of these things. But for the love of god, I cannot imagine anyone putting this on a screen anymore. It just doesn’t seem like they will. It’s a bummer.

**John:** Yeah, it’s tragic. I mean, on a big screen. I think you can absolutely make these for streaming.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** But in so many ways though, the one-hour series have sort of taken, even like short series have taken the place of these, where you can see those characters grow over the course–

**Chris:** Oh, This is Us.

**Craig:** This is Us.

**John:** This is Us as a movie.

**Chris:** Modern Family.

**Craig:** Correct. And interestingly Dan Fogelman–

**John:** Yeah, he tried to do it as a movie.

**Craig:** He sort of tried to do it as a movie. He tried This is Us as a movie and it didn’t connect with audiences. But he’s obviously incredibly good at it because tens of millions of people watch This is Us and it gets all these awards. There is something, I don’t know, we used to be able to go and watch this – maybe it’s just that we used to expect less. You know, we would go to the movie theater and we weren’t asking to have our brains blown out the back of our skulls.

**Chris:** I went to see Hell or High Water.

**John:** Oh, which is fantastic.

**Chris:** Which I loved. And I was talking to Tim Talbot shortly thereafter and I said, “Did you see Hell or High Water?” And he said, “Yes.” I said, “What did you think about it?” He goes, “That was a great movie. In 1987 that would have been a good movie.” But he’s right in that that sort of… I remember going to the movies every weekend. It was not an event. Now when you ask anybody under the age of 25 why they go to the movies, they will say in one form or another, “Because I have to go.” They want to be part of a discussion.

I tried to get to see Avengers, which I finally saw yesterday, as quickly as I could, because I was tired of having a self-imposed media bubble. There were things in that movie I really didn’t want ruined. Getting to that state, whereas the stories that we’re talking about, what television does so well now especially is there is a collective history.

If you tried to tune into Game of Thrones now, you don’t understand. The number of people who are saying three years into Mad Men going, “Yeah, I tried to get into that show and I just couldn’t.” It’s like, of course not. If you turn middle of Season Three, none of this makes any sense.

**Craig:** Start at the beginning. That’s true. But I do think that one of the problems for… I remember going to see St. Elmo’s Fire. And my expectation was that I was going to see a group of people that were somewhat older than me dealing with problems. And I knew at some point somebody was going to like… I think Rob Lowe was going to light a torch on fire with some hairspray or something, and Demi Moore was in a corner, super dramatic. And I thought, okay, I’m going to see some sort of human drama. That would not do it anymore. Now when people go to the movie theater it’s like, well, this is going to pin me back and it’s going to blow my mind. And I’m going to see stuff and it’s going to be an event.

**Chris:** An event.

**Craig:** An event. I just think people go to the movies for a different reason now.

**Chris:** But don’t you think also what you can get from television is very different than what we could get from television?

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** No question.

**Chris:** You could not make Game of Thrones as a feature film. Any of the content in Game of Thrones would be NC17.

**Craig:** Nor could you have made it for television prior to this kind of strange change.

**Chris:** Yes. It’s the networks. As soon as basic cable met the British model of television, which was you make a good television show and when it stops being good you – when it reaches the end you stop.

**Craig:** Isn’t that nice?

**Chris:** Yes, it’s lovely.

**Craig:** You know what? This is going to be six episodes long. Great.

**Chris:** Yeah, or six episodes this season instead of 22 every season.

**Craig:** Which is why I take my hat off to people like Derek Haas who are still doing it, not just on one show, but multiple shows. I mean, the amount of story that has to be generated by those guys is bananas. But yes, the format has become not just flexible, but there is no format. It doesn’t matter.

**John:** Let’s take the jokes out of biblical epics, and/or sword and sandals movies. So things like Gladiator, Ben-Hur, Noah, Passion of the Christ. King in Heaven. Spartacus. Ten Commandments. Braveheart, to some degree. Lawrence of Arabia. Like we used to make these things. That was actually a staple of original Hollywood. We have the giant ranches here because we used to make these epics.

**Chris:** Giant movies.

**John:** Giant movies. We don’t make them anymore.

**Chris:** No, because they don’t win awards anymore.

**John:** They don’t win awards anymore.

**Craig:** Precisely.

**John:** Even though Game of Thrones is being show on smaller screens, it is that kind of sword and sandals thing.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Chris:** Yes.

**John:** We’re making them, but we’re making them for smaller screen.

**Craig:** TV. No question.

**Chris:** I have a very large television. It’s not terribly expensive. I would imagine a lot of people have maxed their credit cards for a large TV.

**Craig:** You’re comparing your large TV to the TV you grew up with, which was like the TV I grew up. That 9-inch black and white thing in the kitchen, with the single antenna shooting out.

**Chris:** It was a letterbox.

**Craig:** Correct. But my kids only know those TVs. But those TVs are still not – I mean, they’re not movies.

**Chris:** No.

**Craig:** It’s not a movie screen.

**Chris:** No. But most people, the way their viewing habits are now, we’re making a Mission: Impossible. We have an IMAX segment in it. And people are saying, well why don’t you just shoot the whole thing in IMAX?

**Craig:** No one is going to watch it.

**Chris:** It’s never going to be seen again. You’re making this balance. And there are times I’ll be framing a shot, and Cruise will walk up to me and go, “You know when this is on the big screen and I pull my phone out of my pocket—”

**Craig:** Here it is.

**Chris:** This is the screen now. It’s not that it will only be watched on television, but for the life of the film.

**Craig:** For the life of it. Primarily.

**Chris:** The theatrical lifespan of a movie is 12 weeks.

**Craig:** Whoa. 12 weeks. What is this hit movie you’ve got that’s in there 12 weeks?

**Chris:** I’m talking like by the end it’s in eight theaters.

**Craig:** Yes. Correct.

**Chris:** I’m giving a conservative—

**Craig:** Really it’s four weeks is what it is.

**Chris:** Four weeks. Yeah.

**Craig:** It used to be months.

**Chris:** Yes.

**Craig:** It is now about four weeks.

**John:** So what is the essence of these biblical epics we’re talking about? So if you’re talking about a Gladiator or a Ben-Hur, it is a character in a long ago time, typically a Roman time, who is coming up against an authority system. He is leading, it’s always a he in these movies, is leading–

**Chris:** It’s a Christ figure against Rome.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Christ figure against Rome.

**Craig:** That’s exactly what it is. Every single time. Christ figure against Rome. Doesn’t matter what you do.

**Chris:** Doesn’t matter if it’s Rome or not Rome. Doesn’t matter if it’s Christ or not Christ.

**Craig:** That’s what Braveheart is. That’s what Ten Commandments is. Even when it’s Jews it’s still a Christ figure against Rome. Some hero will rise in a kind of faded destiny way, usually out of nothing. And they have special powers, special abilities. They are spat on, tortured, hurt. Their family is killed. They are persecuted. And ultimately they do some incredibly self-sacrificial thing and the world is saved. And the last scene is people sitting around going, “God, he was awesome.”

**Chris:** He was a great man.

**Craig:** He was a great man.

**Chris:** And it’s always a man.

**Craig:** And it’s always a man.

**Chris:** Yes. A lot of this conversation seems to be about how technology has disrupted what we imagined the plane of cinema to be. There seems to be a really clear shift.

**Craig:** And just wait.

**Chris:** From no home video, to home video, to no home video again. Now it’s home theater. Now it’s home – it’s content. That’s where I think the line is blurring. It’s big screen/small screen.

**Craig:** And the amount that’s available now is – and the resources that are being poured into it. I mean, better or worse, however you want to chop up the money, there was just way less money. I mean, there were five studios and they gave you some studio. And there were three networks and they gave you some money.

But now we’ve got just billions and billions rushing in to make more and more stuff. It is transforming things. But there aren’t that many more screens. In fact, I’d probably argue there are fewer screens than there used to be.

**John:** Well, there’s not more time. There’s not more time for people to view things. And so even though we have new people coming in and new distribution outlets, we have new money chasing new things–

**Craig:** Time is a flat circle.

**John:** Yes. And so we don’t have the ability to watch more things. And so we have to choose how we’re going to do this.

**Chris:** I’m looking at the–

**John:** So I skipped over some things. Is there a genre there you want to tackle?

**Chris:** Westerns.

**John:** Let’s talk about westerns.

**Craig:** Hmm, westerns.

**John:** On this show we’ve talked about Unforgiven. We’ve talked about 3:10 to Yuma. We’ve talked about sort of westerns. But what is it about westerns that you think can be suited towards the big screen. Because also we had Scott Frank on who talked about his great Netflix show.

**Craig:** Godless.

**John:** Godless. Which was sort of exploding what a normal western—

**Craig:** Meant to be a movie. Written as a script.

**Chris:** He struggled with it for years, right? He was trying to get it down to something movie size.

**Craig:** Well, and he does it with all of his movies. But, I mean, look, it was movie size. It’s just that what he was struggling was to get somebody to pay for it as a movie. Because essentially people kept saying well the western is dead, the western is dead, the western is dead.

**Chris:** And that which is the WWII movie is dead. You hear about this all the time. And then the number of times I’ve seen a dead genre—

**Craig:** Everything is dead until it’s not.

**Chris:** Yeah. Dunkirk was a really great example of a dead genre that people don’t go to see anymore.

**Craig:** My favorite example is nothing could have been a deader genre than pirate movies.

**John:** Oh yeah, of course.

**Craig:** Pirate movies. Not only dead—

**Chris:** Do you remember Pirates with Walter Matthau?

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Yes.

**Chris:** Oh my god.

**Craig:** But before they made Pirates of the Caribbean we had Cutthroat Island which had sank an entire, like a hedge fund disappeared.

**Chris:** It killed Carolco.

**Craig:** Yeah, Carolco. An entire company was dead. And before that–

**Chris:** Killed careers.

**Craig:** Careers. Renny Harlin. And then – and the thought of making a pirates movie was considered almost obscene.

**John:** Yeah.

**Chris:** Yes.

**Craig:** And…

**John:** Pirates of the Caribbean. Just takes one.

**Craig:** There we go.

**John:** It didn’t start a new genre. There weren’t like other pirates movies coming after that. It was only the one pirate movie.

**Craig:** Exactly. Everybody else was like you know what, let’s let them have it. We’re still not making pirate movies.

**Chris:** We’re still not making pirate movies. And it so specifically hinges around a kind of storytelling and a character. Johnny Depp.

**Craig:** And a brand.

**Chris:** Exactly.

**Craig:** I mean, just built in.

**John:** It was also supernatural. So you had a supernatural vibe to it which is different than other stuff.

**Chris:** But the western, Unforgiven represented a shift towards deconstructionist from which the genre never seemed to – 3:10 to Yuma was its own darker western. Godless was its own. What I miss – what I’d love to see is—

**Craig:** Shane.

**Chris:** The Magnificent 7. And Shane. Silverado. The Big Country. Movies that are more of an adventure and more a morality tale as opposed to – watch slow west.

**Craig:** It’s never going to happen. It’s gone. It’s over.

**Chris:** I will fight you on that.

**Craig:** Well, look, I think as a country and a culture we have lost the ability to go back to the kind of idealized west. We just know too much.

**Chris:** No, I don’t think it’s idealized. I think – you look at The Big Country, it’s not idealized. The country is rough, but a man walks into it who refuses to play by those rules. And I think that’s – if you take westerns there are two kinds. There are kind of westerns noirs where the west just chews you up and spits you out. And there’s the place where one can prove one’s self.

**Craig:** Sure.

**Chris:** And it’s this rough and lawless place where somebody, you know.

**Craig:** Maybe a book would do it.

**John:** A book might do it. I mean, I think it comes back to the discussion we had with the ensemble dramedies which is that we used to go to see those movies that didn’t have a lot of high stakes in them because that was fine. We needed to go see a movie.

**Craig:** What the hell else were you going to do on a Saturday afternoon?

**John:** And so I just wonder that this non-deconstructed western that is just truly a western whether it’s actually going to get people to go out to see it on a screen.

**Chris:** Hell or High Water.

**John:** Hell or High Water—

**Chris:** It was contemporary but it’s a western.

**John:** It totally is.

**Chris:** It’s a bank-robbing—

**John:** It’s a pickup truck western and I loved it for what it was able to do. But that was not a breakout smash hit. It was a good performer, but it was not—

**Chris:** I think it did OK financially and it got nominated for Best Picture.

**John:** It did, absolutely.

**Chris:** Which for movies of that size is kind of the – that’s your life blood to keep in the theaters for another—

**Craig:** John Lee Hancock has kind of made a western in a sense with The Highwaymen.

**Chris:** The Highwaymen. Sure.

**Craig:** But, again, Netflix. I mean, and that’s where John Lee lives now. You know, those are the movies he’s going to be making now because – and here’s a guy who made, I don’t know, $14 billion for Warner Bros and Alcon with The Blind Side. And today I don’t think they make The Blind Side for theatrical. That’s what’s happened. I fear that we have lost something kind of permanently in the economics of making these movies. And it may have literally just come down to the cost of marketing. Because—

**Chris:** That’s everything.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, Netflix, the way they market their movie is they don’t. It’s just there.

**Chris:** When you turn on Netflix they’re like, hey, do you want to watch this?

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Absolutely. And they bought every billboard in Los Angeles but that’s just for us.

**Chris:** But here’s the upside to that. Here’s the less than dystopian way of looking at that. In the current culture where the business is suddenly waking up to the fact that they have to diversify, this is something I experience a lot on the movies that I get called in to come in and do fixes on. The business was predicated on a male director makes a $5 million movie that makes $50 million. Let’s give him $200 million in hopes it makes $1 billion. Women were not afforded those same undeserved opportunities.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Chris:** Which they are now.

**Craig:** And were punished—

**Chris:** And were punished – exactly.

**Craig:** If they didn’t do the impossible.

**Chris:** Whereas the way to look at Netflix is Netflix could be the farm system. Now there’s many more movies being made for lower budgets creating – and I see lots of women directing television now.

**Craig:** Way more opportunity.

**Chris:** The director lists that I’m now being handed for the TV shows I’m working on are 50/50 and you’re actually looking at, oh, that person is being hired for the quality of their work, which is very encouraging. Is it possible that what we end up with is – you know how the Oscars have sort of divided into—?

**Craig:** Yes.

**Chris:** You know, there’s Oscar movies and there’s money-making movies. Now could there be there’s Netflix movies and there’s feature films? And that the feature films because of marketing requirements need to be bigger movies that make more money. And then Netflix becomes the farm system that teaches people how to do stuff. You could live within the Netflix bubble and make a 14, a 25, and a $60 million movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think we’re there. I mean, I think that’s where we are. The real question is, is there any kind – well, question number one. Is there mobility from Netflix type of movies or other TV movies to the big ones? Or do people even want to go? Because here’s the thing. I think a lot of filmmakers don’t – you know, we were talking to Mari Heller about this.

Mari Heller made this incredible movie, Diary of a Teenage Girl. It was amazing. And people came to her and they’re like here’s this huge superhero movie, you want to do it? And she was like I feel like I’m supposed to, because we’re trying to advance the cause of female directors and we’re trying to get into those big seats, but I don’t want to. I want to do this.

**Chris:** Well, there’s no point in making it if – you look at her and that dilemma knowing that – having nothing to do with who is directing a movie how those movies get made. The script is not ready.

**Craig:** Yep. [laughs]

**Chris:** The movie is going in three weeks.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Chris:** You’ve never done anything like this.

**Craig:** The actor is kind of in charge.

**Chris:** The producer, whose name is on a bunch of giant movies, will not be there.

**Craig:** Correct.

**Chris:** And this is all going to be your fault. Do you still want to do it?

**Craig:** It is really terrifying.

**Chris:** Correct. And again, it takes a special kind of director to get into that kind of trouble and then accept the help when they bring it in. Because you are essentially now, it’s very embarrassing. You’re at a point where you’re in way over your head. And not because – this is not hubris. They’re promised support, and then it’s just not there. So now suddenly you lose control of your movie. It takes a lot having never been through the process to know that it’s all going to be OK in the end. When the movie works you’ll still get credit.

**Craig:** That’s a lot to have faith in.

**Chris:** It’s very wounding. So I can see somebody looking at that and saying—

**Craig:** Nah.

**Chris:** But there’s the other side of that is the grass is always greener. You’re going to have people making big giant movies. Michael Bay made Pain & Gain because he really wanted to make it. Michael Bay, some part of Michael Bay – I don’t care, any filmmaker you can name at that level – some part of them wants to make their little movie about—

**Craig:** Their podium movie.

**Chris:** [laughs] They want to make their podium movie.

**Craig:** They want to make their podium movie.

**Chris:** Yes, and the same thing I would imagine is just – the Duffer Brothers have some big feature they want to do.

**Craig:** Big ass dumb movie they want to do.

**Chris:** Yes, they’ve got some big ass-

**John:** Comparing that to your life as a screenwriter, there are definitely days where you or I, we don’t want to sit down and write that thing. It’s almost always torture to actually get me at the computer.

**Chris:** Yes.

**John:** But at least with the director, you have a call time on the sheet. Like someone is going to pick you up and take you there. And then you’re going to be responsible for those decisions. And that’s terrifying and there are definitely days I don’t want to get in the van, but once you’re there, there’s a whole bunch of people there who are there to help you. And there’s at least some plan for what you are supposed to do. There was some assignment you were given. Like this is the thing that is theoretically on the call sheet. So, we got this location, we got these people, it should be something like this. And you can figure it out.

And, you know, some of my favorite days in directing were things had gone horribly wrong, or there’s a rainstorm and it won’t match cut into anything else, but we have to shoot this. It’s the only day on this location. And you just make it work. It’s going back to remembering like, OK, what is this actually supposed to be about. What is here that we can use to do this and how can we sort of make this problem seem like a solution?

**Chris:** Screenwriting is pushing a rock up a hill. And directing is running downhill with the rock behind you. [laughs] That’s really what it is. It’s going, and it’s going to crush you if you don’t run. But, also, the other night we were – I think this was in our first or second week of shooting. We were at the Grand Palais. We had this big sequence at the Grand Palais. We had all these extras. And extras in France get paid quite a bit of money. So, you had to pick and choose what nights you had a lot of extras. And finally we were shooting outside the Grand Palais. There’s a scene where Tom and Vanessa Kirby and another character come – and Henry Cavill all come running out of the Grand Palais.

And there’s a big event inside. And that night there’s 150 extras. And we put the camera in front of the building and Tom and Vanessa and Henry come walking out and they’re just like three people and 150 extras barely – it’s just deserted. And you came from this big event inside to suddenly – it’s so big. There was nothing you can do.

And the cinematographer loved the building. And he said, “But this is great. This is a great shot of the Grand Palais.” And I said, “But it’s deserted. How do we make 150 people look like a thousand people?” And instead of shooting the outside of the building looking in, we went inside the building and put a long lens on the camera and created a narrow funnel of people and had the actors rushing through the door with all the extras coming towards you. And it turned into this…

The fun of it was we were shooting Mission: Impossible, but we were making an independent film. We were like I only have 150 people. What do I do to make this shot big? And we had the best time that night. That was like really one of the more fun attacks we had. It was great.

**John:** So, switching just for our last topic here, if a strike had occurred while you were making this movie, like what do you do?

**Chris:** Well, we had an emergency plan in place, assuming that if there was going to be a strike, on the day that the contract ran out, we were hedging our bets and saying there will probably be a 10-day extension. There wasn’t the feeling that it was acrimonious and that a strike was just going to happen that moment.

I had a friend who is a writer friend of mine who I have worked with on other movies and he was on deck. And if there was an extension, he was ready to get on a plane, fly out, and during that 10 days we were going to generate as many pages as we possibly could. And then we figured the lights were going to go out.

**John:** So you get past your page 70 thing. You just have something you can shoot at page 70.

**Chris:** You had to have something you could shoot.

**John:** Our friend Aline Brosh McKenna calls that the rocky shoals. It’s that point where the movie is transitioning from sort of one thing before it becomes that third act. It’s often a challenge in scripts, but it’s often a challenge in cuts. So I sympathize.

**Chris:** Yeah. It’s funny, on the last one, that wasn’t the problem. On the last one it was how does this movie end. I know the ending of the movie quite vividly. I don’t know – there’s this weird middle bit that’s happening in London. And I know what the last five pages of it are. I know there’s a confrontation that Ethan has at the end of that, which is this scene that I really love. And what happened was when we sensed that the strike was coming, I had all of these action scenes that had been storyboarded and worked out and in many cases prevised, but no one had ever written a page of those sequences.

There was something like 30 pages of material that existed in concept. We were building sets and rigs and all sorts of things. I just didn’t have them in script form. So I had this friend – the storyboard artist called him and said here’s everything we’re doing. And he took that 30 pages off of my docket. He wasn’t creating anything, but he was writing it in script form so that I could more quickly rewrite it. And he wrote this one scene, but not in any way, shape, or form the way I would have shot it, but inspired this idea where I was like, oh my god, I’ve got this really fun idea. So we know what that sequence is now. Or at least we know how that sequence ends. I just don’t know how it begins.

**John:** One of the things that was a big topic of the WGA negotiations was the move to shorter seasons and sort of how writers were being held for a very long time on these shorter seasons. And their writing fees was being applied against producing fees. But we see also a change happening in features where there are these mini rooms where they are bringing together a bunch of screenwriters, some really high levels, some newbies, and they’re working through a giant property. So they’ll take–

**Chris:** Transformers.

**John:** Transformers was an early example of that, where they’ll say, OK, we’re going to spend four weeks and figure out Transformers and generate, you know, a TV series and three movies and we’re going to figure out what this all is. Where do you see yourself fitting into that universe?

**Chris:** I believe you can create all of the Transformers stuff you want. You can build out the whole universe. You can finish all the screenplays. It goes back to the very beginning of the conversation we were having. When the rubber hits the road, that’s all going to change. They’re going to call you. They’re going to call me. They’re going to call Drew. They’re going to call somebody in at some point and go, “None of this works. It was all great in theory, but we just suddenly…”

An actor drops out. Or the budget changes. And things happen. What I try to impress upon writers going into it now, I believe the future belongs to the writer-producer. That is not to say you have to be named a producer on the movie. But that you need to be able to function on a level where you are – you need to understand editing. You need to understand elements of physical production. The more you understand that, the more valuable you will be to those people. The more you’re selling yourself and not your writing.

Writers right now – and I did it for a long, long time – tend to believe I’m going to write this script and the script is the commodity. It’s not. It’s your ability to write a script that is the commodity. The truth of the matter is, if everybody could write they’d do it. They wouldn’t call us. The fact that the strike was going to happen and had people nervous, if we went on strike, movies just – nobody would write it. It’s a lonely, miserable, very difficult particular skill. And everybody thinks they can do it. I think the same way everybody feels like playing guitar looks like it would be easy.

**John:** Oh, absolutely. Yeah, just pick it up. Just strumming.

**Chris:** Well, yeah, you teach me the basics. You teach me a couple of chords and I’m like, oh, this is very easy. Then show me Van Halen and say do that. And, by the way, do it with two weeks before you’re going on stage. In those writer’s rooms and things like that, this thing with the television seasons that they’re dealing with now. The nature of television is changing and it created a really prickly situation in this atmosphere with the strike.

I can see the studios looking at it and saying, “Well, yeah, now there are only 10 episodes. There used to be 22 and now there’s 10. Why should we pay you more if there’s only 10?” And we’re saying, “But wait, you’re taking us off the market for this much time.”

The studio’s argument is going to be, “Go and create your own show.” It’s going to thin the herd out. It’s going to define who those writer-producers are. And I think what it’s going to do is it’s going to shape writers’ opinions of themselves. Writers have been trained to believe that they are simultaneously necessary and totally dependent, that you can’t make a movie without a screenplay, but I can’t get my screenplay made unless you buy it and validate me. And now you’re at a place where you can be more a part of the process.

Here’s the dirty little secret, and it’s something you know better than anybody. A lot of directors don’t know how to direct. They simply don’t know how to do it. They have some specific skill or some specific vision, or a team around them that helped them, but a great many of them don’t really understand the fundamentals of storytelling as much as they understand some specific visual style.

As a writer who understands editing, you will be invaluable to that director. You may not get the glory. You may not get the credit, but if those things aren’t important to you, if being valuable is what’s important to you, you will always work. And that was really the big change for me in my career. I wanted very much to be in control of my own destiny. And by letting go of that control, my destiny has become that much more in my control.

You were asking me at the beginning, you know, how did you – did you ever expect that you would be directing these blockbusters. I very distinctly remember when I was trying to get Valkyrie made, and I thought Valkyrie was going to be a little movie, no one would read it. It didn’t matter who I was or where I came from. They’d hear it’s about the German generals who, and they were done. They didn’t care.

When Bryan Singer attached himself, people were then offering to make it without having to read it. And I had a very painful realization which was I’ll never be at the level to direct the things that I really want to do. Booth and Valkyrie and The Last Mission and things like that. All my history stuff. Because I’m never going to direct X-Men. And X-Men gets you to a level where you can step down to do a Valkyrie. I’m just never going to get there. So I let go of that dream. And in doing that I became a producer on Valkyrie, which led to rewriting Mission: Impossible, which led to Jack Reacher, Edge of Tomorrow. And on Edge of Tomorrow, Tom said, “You should direct the next Mission.”

So I never aimed for that target. I just showed up at work saying how can I help you make your film. How can I help you make your movie better? And not worrying about where the path was taking me.

**John:** That’s our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. Our earlier segments were produced by Megana Rao and Godwin Jabangwe. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Since it’s a throwback episode, let’s do a Matthew Chilelli throwback outro.

If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts and hoodies, and they’re great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to feature with Chris McQuarrie and Craig talking about spoof movies. Drew, thanks for a fun show.

**Drew:** My pleasure.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig, can we skip ahead to something that you know especially well? Spoofs and parodies.

**Craig:** Spoofs and parodies.

**Chris:** Spoofs and parodies.

**John:** So movies like Airplane, Spaceballs, Not Another Teen Movie, Scary Movie series, MacGruber, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Superhero Movie. Tropic Thunder. Shaun of the Dead. Vampires Suck. Austin Powers. Blazing Saddles. We’re not making many of these movies now. And I have a theory why, but I’m curious what your theory is why we don’t make these movies.

**Craig:** As David Zucker would repeatedly say, “Spoof is dead.” And his thing is that he would say spoof is dead, he said it before spoof came back. Spoof was dead. I remember Jim Abrahams saying that he was mixing Mafia, a Jane Austen movie, Jane Austen’s Mafia.

**Chris:** Jane Austen’s Mafia.

**Craig:** And he walked down the hall where they were mixing and on another mixing stage they were mixing There’s Something About Mary. And he just sort of watched a few minutes of it and then went back and said, “Yeah, we’re fucked. Our time is over.”

And it was over. And then the Wayans Brothers brought it back with Scary Movie. But following the success of Scary Movie, and 2, and 3, and 4, there was this sudden – suddenly they were everywhere. And the marketplace was flooded with a lot of cheap stuff. And honestly as one of the people that wrote Scary Movie 3 and 4, I mean, the pressure that we were under from the Weinsteins to make those movies as quickly as possible was brutal. And we couldn’t do them as well as we wanted to do them. And we did them with David Zucker and Pat Proft and Jim Abrahams.

So by the time all that unraveled it was mostly I think killed at the moment by just the marketplace being flooded. But also you got the sense pretty quickly that the Internet was essentially mooting the entire point of this.

**John:** Yes. That was my instinct.

**Craig:** Because every joke, I mean, we used to be like, OK, you want to make fun of this movie. Well, four or five nights from now Leno is going to do the joke. Well, now they’re doing the jokes while they’re watching things. There’s no more time. It’s over.

**Chris:** That’s very true.

**Craig:** It’s over.

**Chris:** Everything is – yeah, the Internet is a spoof.

**Craig:** The Internet is essentially a spoof machine.

**John:** There’s no way to make the movie quick enough to do it. And even like on YouTube they can do the crappy effects version of that joke anyway.

**Chris:** Blazing Saddles is on this list. It is a spoof but it is a spoof with a higher purpose.

**John:** So it’s not a spoof of any one movie, it’s taking genre conventions–

**Craig:** Of a genre.

**Chris:** Of a genre.

**John:** And Shaun of the Dead is a great example of like taking the genre conventions and upending them in a way that’s—

**Chris:** Well that’s a mashup.

**John:** Yeah.

**Chris:** And a great one.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** It’s still I would say really hard now. I mean, Airplane was a direct spoof of a movie called Zero Hour from 1956 or something, or 1955, which no one had seen. That was sort of the oddity of Airplane that they just did this random thing. But somewhere along the line spoofs became connected to either genres as a whole or when it got really bad pop culture. And that’s when it just all to me absolutely fell apart. There’s probably room for somebody to make a spoof of some weird movie that has been forgotten.

**Chris:** Well, but and Austin Powers is taking shots at movies along with Bond. Matt Helm. And some really–

**Craig:** In Like Flint.

**Chris:** Yeah, In Like Flint. When the phone rings, that’s directly taken from In Like Flint.

**John:** But you look at the ones of these that we feel like you could still make is that these films actually have individualized characters who sort of have an arc and have a point of view. And the movie doesn’t exist just to make fun of the movie that came before it. The character is existing within a world and is consistent within a world. So Austin Powers is a spoof of another kind of character, but is also a character himself. And Dr. Evil is a character himself.

**Chris:** Yes. And it’s a time travel comedy in a way. They both are, at least two of the three are.

**Craig:** I mean, the people that kind of come the closest now to doing spoof and parody in their own way is Chris and Phil.

**John:** Lord and Miller. Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. Lord and Miller in a weird way do. I mean, Lego has certain spoof aspects to it.

**John:** Their Spider Man also has aspects of like it’s an awareness of where this is fitting inside the culture.

**Chris:** Meta.

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s meta. Their Jump Street movies are kind of spoofing Jump Street.

**John:** Oh yes.

**Craig:** Like it’s a self-spoof. But it’s different. It’s not like, I mean, thank god, by the way. Because honestly nothing is harder than writing those things. I will never work harder in my life than I did writing Scary Movie 3 and Scary Movie 4. It was just—

**Chris:** It’s one of the reasons Chernobyl is not as funny.

**Craig:** Yeah, I know. It took the jokes out.

**John:** It took all the comedy out.

**Chris:** You didn’t make the effort. I know.

Links:

* Original Chris McQuarrie episodes [300](https://johnaugust.com/2017/from-writer-to-writer-director) and [400](https://johnaugust.com/2019/movies-they-dont-make-anymore)
* [Chris McQuarrie](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003160/) on IMDb
* [Chris McQuarrie]([https://twitter.com/chrismcquarrie](https://www.instagram.com/christophermcquarrie)) on Instagram
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/) on Instagram
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt (from episodes originally produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and Godwin Jabangwe), and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](https://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/596standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 595: Correctable Crises, Transcript

May 30, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2023/correctable-crises).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. I have a pre-correction to this episode you’re about to listen to. Later on, I refer to Jesse Alexander of Succession. The quote is actually by Lucy Prebble, another executive producer of Succession. That’s it. That’s my mistake. Enjoy the episode.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and you’re listening to Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we answer listener questions on the craft and the business of writing from our overflowing mailbag. In our bonus segment for premium members, what do you do when a coworker is nice but incompetent? We’ll discuss one of the trickiest workplace situations.

Craig is traveling this week, but luckily, we have someone extraordinarily qualified to take his place. Danielle Sanchez-Witzel is a writer-producer whose many credits include My Name is Earl, The Carmichael Show. Her latest show is Up Here, streaming now on Hulu. Welcome, Danielle.

**Danielle Sanchez-Witzel:** Hi. Thanks for having me, John. I’m happy to be here.

**John:** Danielle, you and I only know each other because we’re both on the negotiating committee. We’ve been sitting in these giant rooms across tables from each other. It’s so great to talk to you about what you do.

**Danielle:** I am so happy we met that way. I knew of you, just to be clear. I just didn’t know you until I got into that room. Happy to be doing something that’s not negotiating, to be perfectly honest with you, John.

**John:** Absolutely. We had a question last night at the member meeting about what does the negotiating committee actually do, what do you do in the room. I tried to answer that, and I feel like I kind of flubbed it, honestly, because I was trying to segue to talk about something else, but I was trying to quickly get through the negotiating part. Because I have a podcast, I’m going to take a second crack at it here. I’m going to try to explain what happens in the negotiating room.

I think I have this fantasy that it’s going to be like an Aaron Sorkin movie, like The Social Network, where people get these devastating lines and there’s rhetorical traps that are laid, that spring and change everything. It’s not like that.

**Danielle:** It’s not. It’s not like that at all, no.

**John:** No. It’s more like those foreign streaming shows that people tell you to watch, and they’ll say, “It’s really, really slow, but you’ve gotta stick with it, because you’ll think that nothing’s happening, but eventually it all happens.” You’re like, “Oh wow, that was actually really impressive, but it was subtle.” It’s one of those maddening but subtle kind of processes for me. Has that been your experience?

**Danielle:** Absolutely. I was really glad that question was asked at the meeting last night, because I think it’s such a fair question. I don’t know if our members wonder about it, but clearly that member did, so I imagine more perhaps do.

This is going to sound crazy, but something that really surprised me when we first walked into the room is that we’re literally sitting across a table from each other, just the visual. The table is pretty narrow, and we’re just sitting across from it.

This is my first negotiating committee I’ve ever been on. I know that’s not true for you. I’m really giving first impression kind of a take. I don’t know why I was surprised by being so close to the AMPTP members. I think what you’re describing in terms of vibe and pace is pretty accurate.

**John:** We have incredibly smart people on our side. Staff does almost all of the talking in the room when we’re actually in the room with the other people. Then we get back to our caucus room, and that’s the chance where we get to actually say clever things as writers and tell jokes and make important points.

One of the important points I really loved hearing you talk about was your experience making these last two shows. In addition to Up Here, you also have Survival of the Thickest, this Netflix show. You were talking about how challenging it’s been to make shows as a writer-producer these days because of structural changes of the industry, that the experience of doing My Name is Earl is just so vastly different from what’s happening now with these new shows. Could you give us a sense of that, what it’s like to be making a show in 2023 and how challenging it is for you as a showrunner?

**Danielle:** Absolutely. I have spent a majority of my career making broadcast network shows. I have to say I’m really grateful for that experience. I know young writers will understand what I’m saying, because what I had access to… Somehow we separated writing from production, and so this next generation of writers isn’t getting access to what I had access to on every show I worked on, on My Name is Earl, on New Girl, a brilliant staff of writers who were there for the entire time of making the show.

Pre-production, when there’s no production going on, when you’re just in a writers’ room coming up with ideas and stories and writing scripts and rewriting scripts, tabling scripts. I work in comedy, so the table is really important.

Then during production, which overlaps in broadcast network, so now you’re actually shooting the show and you’re making the show and the writers are still there. A writer or two is on set, covering the production, while a writers’ room is continuing to do work, continuing to rewrite, continuing to write stories.

Then in post-production, which I think is the thing that writers are really not getting access to anymore, maybe even in broadcast network, and that’s obviously watching cuts and giving notes. There’s a ton of rewriting that happens in pre-production, especially in comedy, but I think drama too. We’re rewriting jokes. We’re rewriting ADR. There’s so much you can do if you’re on an actor’s back. I’m sure savvy television watchers know, like, “That line was ADR. There’s no way that’s what they said here.” It’s the final phase of storytelling.

I came up in my career being a part of that, all of that, that whole process, and having a whole staff to be able to be there, to work on all phases of the show, including when I ran The Carmichael Show, which was a multi-cam broadcast network. I am so grateful that I had this amazing staff of writers who was there to help me. It’s very hard to run a show. It’s so much work. Writers are a vital part of the entire process. Now I am exclusively making stream. Up Here was, as you said, a show for Hulu that I did with a very talented group of Broadway superstars, Tony winners. They needed one person who had never won a Tony, so somehow I got added to that group. We’ve separated for streaming.

Even though that was a 20th studio show for Hulu, meaning 20th makes shows for broadcast network, so as a studio they understand what this model was, for some reason streaming, because it’s less episodes, somehow the industry companies thought, “You don’t need writers for as long of a time, because it’s less episodes.” Both of the shows I just made were eight-episode orders.

There’s this new model now. Any young writers who have experienced this, who might be listening, you know what it is. You can have writers for somewhere around 12 to 20 weeks, 20 if you’re lucky. That’s it. Then they all go away. Again, if you’re lucky, maybe you get to keep one writer who comes to set with you or continues the process with you, but that’s it.

This machine that has worked so well for so many generations and produced the best shows in the history of TV stopped working that way. All of a sudden, it just got cut off for a reason I can’t tell you. I can’t tell you why, because we’re the ones who make it. We know how to make the product. I don’t know how exactly over the last five, six years this industry practice started.

It became this thing where you’re supposed to try and write all the scripts and get it all right before you hit production. It’s impossible. It’s not how the sausage is made. That’s not how we do it. That’s not how we’ve ever done it. It’s left showrunners to have to do everything, again maybe with one pal, with one super talented pal, do all the rewriting, get all the scripts ready, now handle all the production, and then overlap with post and do all of that while you’re just a crew of one or two people.

On Survival of the Thickest, which is the Netflix show, the last show I made, I was very lucky that my star is also a writer, co-creator of the show. Guess what? She’s acting now. I had one other writer, a really talented woman named Grace Edwards, who thank god was there with me.

The process is the process for a reason. I really got worn down. I know there are a lot of showrunners who are having to do this who are really worn down. Plus a lot of writers who aren’t getting access to what they need know they could be valuable to the process and are being told, “We don’t need you anymore.” I assure you I’m not the one saying we don’t need you anymore. I’ve been screaming, “I need them. I need them,” and I was told no. I was told I couldn’t have them. That’s the state of the industry through my eyes, at least.

**John:** I’ve avoided TV for most of my career, mostly because I was afraid of the doing 19 jobs at once problem. I was hired on to do a show called DC very early on in my career. I had no business being a showrunner on it. I was trying to prep an episode, shoot an episode, write an episode, post an episode, and do all these things at once. I couldn’t do it. I said, “Oh, TV’s not for me, at least not for me at this point in my life.”

I thought, oh, this change to shorter orders, the ability to write all the scripts at once and then just do one thing at a time seems really good, until you surface all these problems you’re describing, which is that by separating these things so completely, you don’t have any support to actually make the show.

Those writers who should be learning about all the other parts of the process, they’re gone. They’re hopefully on other shows. They are just not part of the process anymore. It’s not only hurting the show that you’re making right now. It’s hurting all the future shows that these other writers are going to be making, because they will not have the experience. They’ll be just as clueless as I was when I was trying to make my first show, because they will not have had production experience. We have people who come to these member meetings who say, “I have written on three shows, a full season on three shows. I have never been to set.” That is a crisis in the making.

**Danielle:** Absolutely. I have told the companies I work for that this is going to hurt them. I don’t know that anyone’s believed me. Maybe I’m not talking to the people who really have the power to change it.

The truth is that the business model has worked for a reason. I think there was this misunderstanding of shorter order creating a new world that isn’t truly how to make a thing. I think it would be interesting to see what people think about the quality of TV. I know that’s something we think about creators so much and as writers and the people making these worlds is that we want it to be the best it can be. I know I don’t have the resources to do what I used to have the resources to do. I know that that is going to affect all kinds of things. At the end of the day, we’re making a product to entertain people. You want that to be the best product it can possibly be.

It’s frustrating at every level. I don’t think there’s a writer who isn’t frustrated in episodic television right now, because it is a collaborative process. That’s what it is. We’re taking collaboration away quickly. It’s like you can collaborate for a little bit, but then you’re done collaborating. It’s just not how to do 8 episodes or 10 episodes or 22 episodes.

It’s a big issue in our industry that we’re looking to fix for everybody. I do think it’s a win-win. I think the companies will win if we fix this and we will win if we fix this at the end of the day in terms of how to get it done.

**John:** It’s almost important to point out that what we’re describing is not impossible. I was looking at an interview with Jesse Alexander, who runs Succession. They were asking him, “How do you have so many great lines in every episode?” He said, “We have two to three writers on set at all times.” That’s the great answer.

**Danielle:** That’s the great answer. Jesse’s great answer.

**John:** It is a short season, and so theoretically, you could’ve written all of those ahead of time, sent everybody home, and had Jesse Alexander run the whole thing by himself. This is a person who recognizes, no, we actually need the writers here to do the work of writing in production. I’m sure those writers were involved in every step of post-production too. I know they overshoot stuff. You’re always making decisions about how to shape the episode in post.

This is a very, very successful show that has a sizable writing staff that is involved throughout production in a short-order season scenario. It’s very definitely doable. This is the right solution for Succession. I think it’s the right solution for so many shows. If we can make some changes in our contract that makes it more clear this is how we really need to structure these things, it’s going to be better for television but also for everyone who needs to make shows.

**Danielle:** Absolutely. Absolutely. It’s good to hear that. In success, maybe you’ll get more of what you’re asking for. It’s like, how do I succeed if you’re not giving me the tools I need in the first place? I’m supposed to succeed by the skin of my teeth, and then if there’s any sort of succeeding, then you can have what you need. I’m really happy to hear that. That’s the truth. I think Succession is one of the funniest shows on television-

**John:** Agreed.

**Danielle:** … although it’s not billed that way.

**John:** Technically a drama, but yes, it has comedy bones to it. Let’s tackle some listener questions. I’m sure we’ll be threading in some more of our thoughts about television throughout this. Drew, do you want to start us off with a craft question?

**Drew Marquardt:** Yeah, let’s start with Patrick. Patrick asks, “How much pressure should we be putting on ourselves as writers to make sure something is purely original? I recently saw an obscure international film from the ‘50s, and it sparked an idea that would involve borrowing the initial premise and taking the story in a different direction, one that they wouldn’t have been able to explore in that period of time.

“The idea didn’t leave me, and now I have an outline for what I think could be a great drama. It’s my own story, but it would have a ringing similarity for anyone who has also seen the film that inspired it. I’m torn between whether this is a reason to not move forward with the idea and wondered where you consider the line between taking inspiration and ripping off someone else’s work.

“Part of me wants to justify it by saying writers do this all the time with genre pieces, Die Hard onto something or something in space, so why can’t I with a character drama? Part of me feels icky.”

**John:** Patrick, yeah, I get the sense of feeling icky about these things, but you’re also right to be pointing out that all art is iterative. Everything is inspired by things that happened before. I think you’re worried about like, am I borrowing too directly from this obscure movie that most people haven’t seen? Danielle, what’s your first instinct here for Patrick’s quandary?

**Danielle:** I wish I knew whatever inciting incident it was that he wanted to, because it might matter. I do think a gut feeling of ickiness is trying to tell you something. I think writers are paid for their gut. I say this a lot. I like using your gut as a bar for, “I think the story should go this way, this way.”

I think if there’s something you’re feeling icky about, then maybe there is one piece of this, and again not knowing the specifics, that might need to change a little bit more than what the plan is.

We’re never reinventing a wheel. It’s just through different eyes and different perspectives and interesting characters who maybe haven’t told a story before. If a lot of the story is personal, I would think you’re in okay territory. I would just ask yourself, what is the icky thing, and can whatever that thing is that’s making you feel a little bit icky change enough so you don’t feel that way?

**John:** I also wonder if Patrick needs to do a little bit more research about this premise and maybe familiarize himself with the idea there’s probably other movies that are doing a similar kind of thing.

**Danielle:** That’s a good idea.

**John:** This may be the first time you’ve encountered this dramatic question being asked in a film, but I bet it wasn’t the first time this was asked. If you do research on this film, you might even find out that this was inspired by something else that came before it.

I’m also thinking back to, I don’t know if you ever saw the Todd Haynes film Far From Heaven. It’s a Julianne Moore movie set in the 1950s. It was very much done in the style of the 1950s, but in a way that you couldn’t have done, addressed those questions in the time.

There’s something about recognizing that you are taking a period idea and examining through a lens which is transforming. It definitely could actually have the same beats as an original thing but actually become so different because of the lens you’re looking at it through that you may not be giving yourself enough credit for the amount of transformation you are enacting on this work.

I get it, Patrick, but I think you need to be a little kinder to yourself and really look at why this idea is so compelling for you and just do some more research around it, but probably do it, because those ideas that you can’t shake are the ones that are definitely worth pursuing.

**Danielle:** I would definitely say write it. For myself, I’ll come up with a million reasons why I don’t write something. Don’t let it stop you. Write it. You could always rewrite it too if you ever hit a bump. I think that’s great advice, John. Don’t let it stop you. I think write it. Just write it.

**John:** Write it. Just write it. Let’s try another one, Drew.

**Drew:** Michelle in San Francisco writes, “Over the years, John and Craig have taught us so much about feature structure, but now that I’m trying to write a limited series that’s six to eight episodes, I’m at a loss for what the structure should be. Could you guys talk about how a TV series should be structured, especially a limited series, and not just the pilot, but the following episodes as well?

“Does each episode need to have the four acts that many people talk about, or is that just the pilot? Do characters really need to have their own arc within each episode or is it okay to just write one long story and delineate episode breaks where there’s a nice cliffhanger-y type endpoint and where it makes sense in terms of page count?”

**John:** Danielle, we have you here to answer this question, because this is what you’ve been doing. Talk to us about the process of structuring your eight-episode series and what you’re thinking about in terms of how much story fits into each episode, act breaks. I don’t know, for Hulu you may actually have to plan for act breaks. For Netflix, you don’t. Talk to us about that structuring of episodes within an eight-episode order.

**Danielle:** Interestingly enough, Netflix now has ads. I don’t know if anyone out there is… I don’t think there is any longer a streamer where that isn’t the case. We were not asked at Netflix to structure in acts, but I structure in acts. I am a writer who always structures in acts.

I think you are always in good shape to think of it in terms of acts, to think of each individual episode in terms of acts and then think of the whole piece, if that’s 8 episodes total or 10, also as one long story, the way that she’s suggesting.

I was given advice early in my career. Things were a little bit more straightforward when I was given this advice. Look at a few limited series that you admire and break it down. Just do a breakdown yourself. Write down each little scene. Just bullet point. For you, look, where do act breaks seem to be, are there act breaks, are there not act breaks. The truth is, I’m sure if you did three or four limited series that you really liked, they wouldn’t all follow form so literally, but I think you need to know form to be able to break form.

I would certainly say, especially early in your career, yes to all the questions, even though you want the answer to be no, because wouldn’t it be easier if every character didn’t have to arc and every episode didn’t have to have four acts?

I learned something interesting. The first streaming show I did was a show called Up Here for Hulu, which is a half-hour romantic comedy musical, Broadway musical. I was working with Bobby Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, who are the most prolific, talented people, let along songwriters, I’ve ever met. They’re two of the most talented people I’ve ever met. Steven Levenson, we co-wrote the first two episodes. He wrote the book for Dear Evan Hanson, as well as he did Fosse/Verdon for FX. Tommy Kail, who directed Hamilton and also did Fosse/Verdon with Steven… Anyway, these are amazing Broadway musical people who I admired, who I was so excited to work with.

Believe it or not, I am answering this question. I’m on topic. John, I haven’t left the topic. I’m on the topic.

**John:** I have full faith in you.

**Danielle:** It was interesting to do a first streaming show, which is kind of like what this person is writing in asking about. What do I do if I have eight episodes? Something that Bobby and Kristen and Steven really taught me was… They’re like, “We’re going to make eight mini musicals. Each episode is going to have to work on its own as a musical,” which is just a way of storytelling. Basically, they’re saying it has to work as a story on its own, with these elements of music. Then they’re all going to have to make one long musical. It’s all going to have to add up to one long musical. Again, same as I think what this person is asking about a limited series, it all has to add up to one long movie, or however you want to think about it.

What that does, and what that did for Up Here, and I certainly used it to make Survival of the Thickest, and I think every streaming show moving forward I’ll really get, but it was interesting to think of it in Broadway musical terms, is four or five is a midpoint. That’s the middle of your movie. That’s the middle of your story, and so you’re looking for something to really change significantly. There is some sort of moment that’s going to shift your world.

However you’ve learned the craft of storytelling, whether that’s save the cat or you have an MFA or whatever, you learned how a movie breaks down or what works, and so I think you look at it those ways. Even though it sounds daunting, and all the questions you asked are like, does it have to do this, this, this, this, and the answers are yes, it really just needs a beginning, a middle, and an end. That’s what it needs. It needs to play that way.

I think no matter which way you approached it, if you thought of it as a long-form eight-episode, which seems daunting to me, but if you just wrote it with no act breaks and no anything, I think you would find that your brain naturally put them in, because you know a story has to turn.

Even if you’re just a watcher of television or movies, you understand story structure. You know what’s happening. You know when you need to feel what you need to feel and when you need to shift things.

The answer is yes, but I think there’s just no other way of doing it, because I’ve always wanted to be that person who can just sit down and not need an outline. I just want to write, man. I just want to let it flow, man. I’m not that person. I believe that maybe there are a handful of those people out there in the world. Structure is storytelling. Even little kids, when you tell them a story, you read them a book, there’s some amount of structure. They understand what a story is.

I would really just think of it as beginning, middle, end, but apply those rules, because they’ll help you. For me, act breaks help me understand balance. Is the story misbalanced? Is there too much at the top and not enough at the end? Is there no middle? For comedy, it’s three-act. We work in more of a three-act structure, although sometimes it’s a four-act structure. You just need to understand, am I turning things, is it interesting. For me, that’s act breaks. That’s how I get it.

**John:** In Episode 584 we had Taffy Brodesser-Akner on to talk about Fleishman Is in Trouble. She was adapting her own book into the limited series. It was fascinating to hear her talk about. The limited series is exactly the book. Everything that happens in them happens in both. Figuring out how you break those into episodes and how there’s growth and change within an episode, and it feels like this episode has really started, this episode has finished, is a thing she had to learn.

She was lucky to have Susannah Grant and Susannah Grant’s producing partner on to really help with that initial stage of figuring out how to structure this into individual episodes and how to make the gross of the characters and gross of the story really make sense over that limited time, which seems like it would be so different than going back to earlier shows you worked on, like My Name is Earl or The Carmichael Show. You might have some sense at the start of the season, like, this is where we’re going to, but you’re really probably thinking much more episode by episode, aren’t you?

**Danielle:** Absolutely, yeah. I think it’s called episodic TV for a reason. I think that in those scenarios, we’re making 22, 24, 26 episodes in a season, and broadcast network is designed… I’ll speak a little bit more for comedy here, because I think there are dramas where this wouldn’t apply. I don’t remember what the numbers were or what they said, but a viewer who loved the show watches every third or fourth episode on broadcast network.

**John:** Wow.

**Danielle:** That may be an antiquated way of thinking, but I know when I was coming up in my career, that’s what we were told. It has to be designed to drop in and see it this week but not see it next week. They really have to be self-contained episodes, even though our favorite shows that we grew up watching, pick your favorite show, had arcs, usually love stories. That’ll take you through Jim and Pam and Sam and Diane for me, for my all-time favorite show, which is Cheers. You could miss some and still get it.

I think that the streaming model is different, and that’s not how people are consuming it, and that’s not how it’s meant to be consumed. You shouldn’t be able to miss the third one, because I think you’re supposed to be told one long story. I think the goal is completion, for people to watch all of your episodes. That’s not necessarily the goal of broadcast network, by and large. I think cable is probably a little bit more of the streaming model than not, storytelling-wise. I think that you’re meant to sit down and watch every one.

**John:** I think in cable you see both kinds of things. You definitely see the ongoing progress of some storylines, but there’s also shows like the USA shows, which were very much, you could catch one, not catch one. There’s not huge growth between the two of them if you missed that one episode. Both things can work.

I loved Star Trek: The Next Generation growing up. It was one of my very favorite shows. Watching the third season of Picard, which is basically just Star Trek: The Next Generation but if it was done as a limited series, you have to watch it in order because there’s very specific builds and revelations and tweaks. It’s just fascinating to watch the difference between how a show works if an episode is all self-contained versus an ongoing limited series. They’re both great, but it feels like Picard is definitely the 2023 version of how you would tell that story.

**Danielle:** What’s amazing for I think us as storytellers is that all of those options are on the table. It really is, what do you want to tell and how do you want to tell it? Okay, then here’s the form for you.

I think we’re spending a lot of time talking about what’s not working and what’s broken in the industry. There’s a lot of exciting, amazing things as storytellers for us out there. We just need to get the ship righted a little bit. It’s amazing that there’s a lot of outlets and a lot of ways to tell stories now, completely different from when I started my career, you tell me, John, but I think in features and in television, both.

**John:** Obviously in features, the writers had traditionally less direct say in this is my vision for how stuff is going to go, whereas TV showrunners often had that sort of initial creator entrepreneurial vision for what a thing is. In features, we also have independent film. We have the ability to make things at incredibly small levels and just really experiment with a form. That’s a thing that is sometimes more challenging in TV, because you have to find a home for that thing versus being able to make it on your own and sell it. Drew, let’s get a new question.

**Drew:** Danielle, you mentioned love stories. We have an email from Marvin in Germany. Marvin writes, “I’m a young screenwriter currently working on my first big project. Without going into too much detail, there’s a love triangle in it. I was wondering, how can I analyze for myself or for the demands of the scene if it’s really necessary to explicitly show the action? Should I go into those intimate scenes or just hint at them without showing too much? Sometimes in romantic films, I like to see the protagonists finally getting together, but on the other hand, intimate scenes are often kind of sexist, and I don’t want to put my actresses and actors in a weird position where they need to flash.”

**John:** Explicitness. There’s a new TV adaptation of Fatal Attraction I’m really excited to see. I’ll be curious both how explicit the show is on screen but also what those scenes look like on the page, because I feel like most of the times when I see something made in 2023, what’s on the screen is also reflected on the page.

Danielle, what do you see? How explicit are you seeing stuff being written in scripts? Obviously, the comedies you’re making, maybe it’s not such a factor, but what are you thinking?

**Danielle:** There was a show called Normal People, which was an adaptation of a book for Hulu. That was really the first time as a creator I started thinking about… Because I spend so much time doing broadcast network too. We were not showing anything on broadcast network. When I watched that show, it was so intimate and beautiful and beautifully acted and beautifully shot and beautifully written and a really true adaptation of the book. That was the first time I had read… There was an article I think that came out after about an intimacy coordinator, which is a crew position now that I think we didn’t always have and now I think we always have.

When I was talking earlier about listening to your gut and that we get paid for our gut, which doesn’t sound elegant but I think is true. You as the writer, this person who’s creating this world, I think will ultimately need to listen to their own instincts about what is necessary to tell the story.

I agree that we have seen so much sexist content for decades in movies and this. In the ’80s, which was my era of growing up, watching movies, there was always boobs. It was just like, oh, here’s boobs. It’s going to be boobs. If it’s a comedy, there’s going to be boobs. Why? Why is that the case? I think that there are so many interesting ways to tell a story and tell an intimate scene.

What I would encourage this writer to do is think of it through a different lens. How have you not seen it? What have you bristled at that you’ve seen? What is the story you’re telling? What is the intimate moment that you might want to tell that maybe isn’t nudity at all, or maybe it is but it’s just in…

I thought Normal People, just to go back to the original point, just did something, made these two characters… The whole series was about connecting and connection and that these two people keep being drawn back to each other. The intimacy was really necessary and I think well done.

I appreciate that this writer is thinking about ultimately putting an actor in front of a camera, because now that I’m making streaming, having shot recently with my partner, co-creator, and muse of Survival of the Thickest, a stand-up named Michelle Buteau… That is based on a book of essays that she wrote. There’s a really funny chunk in there that’s about sexual encounters and when she was single. We’re inspired by a lot of what there was.

You write a certain thing, but then you get there to shoot it, and you’re like, “Oh, my goodness. Now we’re really doing this.” When I’m asking two actors to go be brave… Michelle is the bravest of the brave, and an amazing actress, comedically and dramatically.

One of the things that we were excited about doing with that show, in terms of what I’m suggesting, thinking about it through different lenses or whatever… If you’ve not seen this, Michelle is a plus-sized, beautiful woman, which is where the title Survival of the Thickest comes from. We wanted to show her in intimate scenes. We wanted her to be the star, the one who is in the love triangle and is having sex and is having all of these encounters, because we felt like that wasn’t being shown enough, that that’s just not the person who is always front and center in a show, especially as a woman. We wanted to make sure that character was a very sexual character, not that the show is super R-rated or anything, but it was really important to us, so we had a reason for it.

I guess my best advice would be, have a reason for what you’re doing and know why you’re doing it. If there is no reason, then you’re right, it will be gratuitous and unnecessary.

**John:** If you’re writing a love triangle story, there’s good odds that the sex that you want to put in the story is not going to be gratuitous. Then you have to think about, what is it about this moment that’s going to be interesting? What am I actually going to want to look at and show in this thing?

Ultimately, anything that’s going to show up on screen needs to be on the page. It can be awkward at times to put that stuff down there, but someone has to make those decisions. If you don’t make those decisions, those decisions are going to be made for you by somebody else, by directors or other people, and it may not be what the story actually needs. I think you have to start with what’s on the page.

Then it gets to a process of a director, an intimacy coordinator, and actors, and hopefully you involved as well, about what is the story point of this moment, to make sure it’s really reflecting the goals of the scene.

I would just say, again, follow your gut, but I also say be brave. You’re telling this story for a reason. Make sure all these scenes are really helping to tell the story you’re trying to tell. Let’s do a simpler question, if we can. How about something on intercutting?

**Drew:** Jared writes, “Formatting question. I’m intercutting between two different conversations occurring at the same time, say between Bob and Steve and Sarah and Tina. After I’ve established scene headings once for each conversation, it looks very odd to then just have a string of conversations without anything in between. It might be difficult for the reader to discern who is talking to whom, especially if only one person speaks before jumping to the other conversation. Would it be preferred in this multi-party intercut to just include scene headings every time the conversation switches?”

**John:** Danielle, what’s your instinct here? What do you tend to do when you’re having to intercut between two different conversations or two different scenes?

**Danielle:** It is tricky, and it’s a frustrating as a writer when you’re like, “I just need you to understand what’s in my head. I just need you to understand what’s happening here.” I don’t think that there’s only one way to do it. I think there’s multiple ways to do it.

I just try and make it as easy as possible for the reader. I think a lot of times readers skip action that might be explaining, which sounds crazy, but I just think they skip action that might be explaining it to you. I feel like scene headers probably just really will get the eye and the brain to go, “Now I’m in a different setting. Now I’m in a different setting. Now I’m in a different setting. Now I’m in a different setting.”

I understand that it may hurt the rhythm of the page a little bit, but I think clarity is what’s important. You don’t want someone to have to go back up and go, “What did I just read? I don’t understand. Where is anybody, and what’s going on?” You want your reader and ultimately your audience to be smart, but you also have to prepare for if that’s not the case.

**John:** I agree that you need to make sure that a person who might skip that little notification that we’re intercutting two scenes still gets the point of what’s going on there. You can obviously bold the intercutting there if it’s helpful.

What I find is often most useful is, rather than doing a full INT. BAR, NIGHT and INT. HOUSE, DAY, that you’re cutting between those two spaces, just go like, “Back at the bar,” dash dash, “Back at the house,” because whenever you see an INT., I think you naturally think, oh, it’s a whole brand new scene, we’re in a whole brand new place.

If you’re just intercutting between two places, doing the intermediary slug line, it’s not really a scene header, might be a way just to let the reader understand, okay, that’s right, we’re jumping back and forth between these two conversations.

It’s again one of those things you’re going to feel on the page that you won’t know until you see situationally how it’s going to work. If these are two-page scenes and you’re intercutting between the two of them, that’s more probably a scene header situation for me. If it’s quick rapid fire between two things, then the shortest little things are going to be probably your friend.

Cool. Let’s try two more questions. What do you got for us, Drew?

**Drew:** Carl asks, “How can I warn a reader that I’m not being cliché, but I want the viewer to say in their mind, ‘Ugh, so cliché.’ For example, a boy goes back to their hometown and sees his former hometown love. Their eyes lock, and the viewer thinks it’s the standard love story scene a thousand times, but within a few beats it’s made clear that this isn’t the case. Should I be worried about a reader losing interest and putting the screenplay down upon reading the cliché or am I over-thinking this?”

**John:** Danielle, this must come up all the time in comedies that you’re writing, which is basically you’re playing with a trope. You’re definitely trying to set up the expectation like, oh, it’s this kind of thing, but it’s not this kind of thing. How do you deal with that?

**Danielle:** I think in comedy, I will make the action line funny. I will say, “Sit with me here. It’s not going to do what you think it’s going to do,” in a parenthetical or something, if that feels appropriate to you. I don’t know exactly what this piece is, but if that feels appropriate.

I’ve worked a with lot of stand-ups. Like I said, Michelle Buteau is the last person that I just worked with. She writes the funniest action lines I’ve ever read. It’s almost like you’re having a dialog with her in her voice.

I think that you can be entertaining, and I think you can get your point across by… If you’re trying not to be cliché but you have this tone you’re trying to achieve, if you can achieve that tone in an action line, I think that that can be really helpful for you and might entertain the reader.

I don’t know if it’s pages of cliché until you get to the turn, but I’m assuming it’s not. I’m assuming it’s fairly quickly that you get to the turn. I also wouldn’t be too worried about a reader tuning out because it’s something they’ve seen. Everything is something they’ve seen before to some degree, with twists in there. I wouldn’t be too worried about that, but I would suggest trying to get it across in the action line.

**John:** Totally. Carl says here it’s like a boy goes back to hometown, sees the hometown love, their eyes lock. You’re going to have moments in there where you can really signal to the reader, yes, this is the most cliché moment possible. By setting that up, the punchline for how it’s not going to be that is going to be more rewarding. You’ll be fine. Don’t worry about that.

The ability to communicate tone through scene description is such a crucial craft skill you pick up over time and one of those things which, if this were a show rather than a movie, you’d learn the house style for how you do these things.

It’s fascinating to watch how in a given show, the scripts, they have the same voice. They have the same way of working, and you start to understand how to read those scripts. If you read a Lost script, the Lost scripts, no matter who’s writing them, all sound like they’re from the same person, because their house style develops. Part of that house style will be how ironic you are, what happens in the scene descriptions, how much caps are being used, and teaches you how to read those scripts.

If you were doing this as a feature, you have to do all that work from the start, basically letting the reader understand how to read your style, your script. That’s why those first couple pages are so crucial, to make the reader feel confident that you are going to be leading them on a journey that’s going to be worthwhile.

Drew, I said a craft question, but I see a business question here which I actually have the answer for, so let’s skip ahead to our Australian Sam.

**Drew:** Sam in Australia writes, “I loved your recent episode with Megana and her cluelessness about how to write a check. I feel her pain pretty hard. I’m a writer based in Australia who wrote on my first US show a couple of years ago. I was completely delighted to start receiving those glorious residual checks from the WGA until I learned that there’s absolutely no way in my country to cash them. All the big Australian banks have stopped taking overseas checks, rightly believing that they should become extinct, and so now I’ve got about six residual checks sitting on my desk staring at me. I tried sending them to my US agent, but they got lost in an accounts vortex, and I had to get a lovely man at the WGA to reissue them before they were lost forever. Why can’t residuals be electronically transferred? Surely that would be cheaper than all that postage.”

**John:** Oh, residuals. Danielle, do you love residuals?

**Danielle:** Oh, me. Who doesn’t love residuals? With all my heart I love them.

**John:** You open your mailbox. You see that green envelope. You’re like, “Oh my gosh.” There’s just some money in there. You don’t know what it’s for. You don’t know how big it’s going to be. It can be just wonderful and something you’ve forgot you ever worked on. Suddenly there’s a residual check. It’s a nice thing.

**Danielle:** Absolutely.

**John:** The problem that our Australian friend is having here is that Australia basically doesn’t deal with paper checks anymore. It’s just not a thing that exists there. I asked on Twitter for other international listeners what they’re doing, and actually some Australians wrote back in. The best advice I got was to just get a US account and deposit all of your residual checks there in a US account and then transfer the money out. That’s probably good advice for most situations, but it could be a weird case of tax things, so don’t do that until you actually check with somebody who actually knows about taxes for that.

I also got a recommendation from a guy named Jason Reed, who says, “The only bank I’ve found that’ll process US dollar paper checks is RACQ Bank. Just make sure to do it within 90 days of it being issued.”

I don’t know how much longer we’re going to have paper checks, residual checks. It’s a thing that does come up. Without tipping anything, I think both the studios and the writers would love for this to happen. It’s just a matter of getting it all figured out and how to make sure we do it in a way that has clear accounting. Danielle, what’s your thought? Your weekly checks for working on a show, are those still check checks or are those direct deposited for you right now?

**Danielle:** I know you want me to know the answer to this, John. How is that money collected? I think they’re paper checks.

**John:** I think they’re still paper checks. I think that they’re probably going through one of the payroll services companies, and they’re still paper checks. That’s a thing that, yes, it can and should change. Drew’s checks I know are electronic. Correct, Drew?

**Drew:** Correct.

**John:** We were able to figure that out. We go through a payroll services company that was able to direct deposit into his account. It’s tough because as writers were working on a project or with a company for a short period of time. It’s not like we are a years-long employee of the Disney Corporation, where we can set everything up. There’s only a couple payroll services companies. It feels like it’s a thing that we should be able to figure out, because they know who you are and they know your tax ID number. It should be doable.

**Danielle:** Absolutely. I pay myself digitally, because a lot of writers are their own companies, their own LLCs.

**John:** That’s right.

**Danielle:** I don’t give myself a check. I know that much. That just goes right into the account.

**John:** We love that. Those are a lot of good questions. We still have plenty of good questions left over, so Craig and I will tackle those later on. Before we get to One Cool Things, I have a correction for last week’s episode.

I talked about Jefferson Mays and that I’d seen him in I Am My Own Wife. I said that he’s written I Am My Own Wife, which is crazy, because I know he didn’t. Doug Wright, who I know from Sundance, he wrote I Am My Own Wife. He’s an incredibly talented playwright. He is the person who wrote I Am My Own Wife. Jefferson Mays is a talented star of it, but Doug Wright is the playwright who wrote it. Doug Wright also has Good Night, Oscar, starring Sean Hayes, on Broadway. Doug Wright, not Jefferson Mays.

I was wrong. I just want to make sure that it gets publicly into the record that I was wrong just this once, on an episode that Craig is not a part of and not listening to. It’s time for our One Cool Things. Danielle, what do you got for us?

**Danielle:** I have an Instagram account. Glucose Goddess is her name. She is a French biochemist. She has one book out and another book coming out I think in May. I am always looking for ways to be healthy, because I think this job certainly does its best to challenge that, to challenge staying healthy, especially when you’re in season, making a television show.

Her account is all about keeping your glucose spikes level and not having huge spikes, which sounds like a very small thing. This isn’t about weight loss. This is just about general health. Apparently, your glucose levels have a lot to do with disease predictors and all kinds of things. I don’t know how cool it is, but she’s very cool. It’s a very fun thing.

Her first book is 10 hacks about keeping the spikes level. I’m trying them for fun, because I’m like, what could it hurt? What could it hurt? I’m feeling really good using her hacks. That is my Cool Thing, Glucose Goddess on Instagram.

**John:** Nice. I would say something that is not helpful for glucose spikes would be the candy closet in the negotiating room.

**Danielle:** A hundred percent, but you know what I’ve been doing? I’ve been looking at the nuts. The other thing is… I’ll just keep telling you about her hacks. If this is interesting to no one, I apologize to your listeners. She’s not an anti-dessert, anti-sweet. Again, this is not about weight loss. This is about general health. If there’s something in the candy closet I want, one of the hacks is to have savory snacks but save the sweets for dessert. What she would suggest is I put that candy bar in my purse, and after dinner, with a full meal, I eat the dessert. Even that is like, yeah, that candy closet, there’s a way to do it.

**John:** There’s always a way to do it. My thing is also a food-related One Cool Thing. I think I’ve talked before on the podcast that my favorite pancake recipe is this one that Jason Kottke has up on his blog, which is a buttermilk pancake recipe. It’s really great. It’s really great if you have buttermilk, but so often you just don’t have buttermilk and you want to make pancakes. I found this other recipe, which is also really, really good, that uses just milk, but you also put two tablespoons of white vinegar in it, just to sour the milk, to curdle the milk before you make it, which sounds like it would be disgusting, it would taste vinegary.

**Danielle:** It sure does.

**John:** It doesn’t. It’s really good. Actually, it’s very close to the buttermilk pancake recipe and really simple. The pancakes are crispy on the edges in just the perfect ways. If you’re looking for a pancake recipe, I’m going to recommend this. It’s just on All Recipes. It’s delicious. I’ve made it twice, and I highly recommend it. I think pancakes are probably not good for the glucose of it all.

**Danielle:** Can I tell you what she would say?

**John:** What would she say?

**Danielle:** Then if you’re interested, you’ll look it up and see what this means. She would say put a little clothes on your carbs. Put a little clothes on your carbs.

**John:** Does that mean eat a protein with it?

**Danielle:** Yes. You’ve decoded it immediately. She’s just done a ton of research. I like her because she’s coming from a science background. It’s really cool, the experiments she’s done and the science that she… It would drastically change what happens when you eat those delicious pancakes if you put a little bit of clothes on them.

**John:** Hooray. Danielle, before we wrap up here, remind us where we see your programs. Up Here is currently streaming on Hulu?

**Danielle:** Currently streaming on Hulu. All the episodes are up. Watch the eight mini musicals and the one long musical that they all add up to. Then Survival of the Thickest will be premiering on Netflix later this year, 2023.

**John:** Fantastic. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Alicia Jo Rabins. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on people who are incompetent but nice. Danielle, you are nice and not even remotely incompetent. You are so, so competent. Thank you so much for joining us here.

**Danielle:** Thank you, John. It’s such a pleasure to be here. I know there are so many writers who are fans of this podcast. I just think it’s incredible, what you guys do, providing this kind of information. It was such a pleasure to hear your advice.

**John:** Hooray.

**Danielle:** Thank you.

**John:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Okay, our bonus segment. It’s a blog I started reading. I don’t even really quite know why. It’s by Jacob Kaplan-Moss. He’s mostly writing about HR and management stuff and things that happen, hiring and firing of stuff.

This one post I thought was really smart, because he talks about how among coworkers or people you’re hiring, people you’re managing, there are two axes you can look at that factor in here. You can look at how good someone is at their job, are they good at their job, or are they bad at their job, and are they nice to work with, so are they nice or are they a jerk.

He breaks it down into four quadrants, that you have people who are good at their job and nice to work with, and those are superstars. You just love them, because they’re so great to have those people. You want all those people around you. You also have people who are good at their job but are kind of jerks. Those would be the brilliant assholes. You might put up with them, but oh my god, they’re hard to work with. You have people who are bad at their jobs and jerks, and you just fire those people. It’s great to fire them.

The most difficult category for his post here was, what do you with somebody who is really nice to work with but just bad at their job? I thought we might spend a few minutes talking about those folks and times in my life where I’ve been that person and how we think about that, because Danielle, you definitely have more experience managing people than I do. Is this a useful quadrant theory for the kinds of people you encounter working on sets, working in rooms? Does this resonate at all with you?

**Danielle:** A hundred percent, and it made me laugh, which is my favorite thing about a graph. I think it’s very funny. Wait, I have to go back to… Which person have you been? What are you saying?

**John:** I’ve been the incompetent but nice.

**Danielle:** No.

**John:** Here’s an example of me being incompetent but nice, because also, I worked as a temp a lot. I was given an assignment to work at this bank in Colorado, maybe Fort Collins, somewhere, or probably Louisville, close to where I grew up in Boulder. They sat me down at this desk. I was just the person at the front desk who just directed people where to go. Within an hour of sitting at that desk, I had set off the silent alarms and the police came. I had no business doing that, being there. I didn’t last long at that job.

**Danielle:** That’s an amazing visual. I love it.

**John:** That’s example.

**Danielle:** Love it. I love that. I think managing people, it’s the craziest thing about all these crazy things that there are in Hollywood. The fact that we’re just, especially for episodic writers, we’re writing in a room, we’re telling jokes, we’re eating the candy, because there’s candy closets on TV shows too, and then all of a sudden you’re in charge of everybody and you’re supposed to be able to manage writers in the writers’ room, but also like you said, the crew, actors.

Not to bring it back to our original point, but hopefully you have had the training to do all that stuff, because if you hadn’t, what kind of chance do you have? I loved this thought. I loved this graph, because I think we’ve probably all worked with, even if you weren’t in charge of the people, people in all of these quadrants.

My rule of thumb with regard to, not even just managing people… This is how I decided to conduct myself when I got to Hollywood. I think I credit my parents for giving me a wonderful foundation of how to treat people and how to demand to be treated. I have three older sisters who are really great role models. I feel like it’s somehow accredited to the foundation. The way I translate it in my head is, whoever I’m dealing with, whatever the hard situation is, I want to be able to run into them in a restaurant a week from now or six weeks from now or six months from now and not have to hide, and be able to say-

**John:** Oh, wow.

**Danielle:** … hello with my head up and have them say hello back to me. When I was working for people in difficult situations, I always thought, okay, I need to go have an honest conversation, be very respectful, and know if I run into them, I don’t want to have to hide, and I don’t want them to hide from me.

Once that became the reverse and I was managing people, I thought the same thing. I was like, okay, whatever happens, you’re going to want to be able to… This is a small town. Comedy is small. You’re going to want to always have good relationships with people.

I’ve definitely worked with people, not just writers, the crew, worked with people who fall into this category. As a manager, I think my job is to make sure that I’m providing for you everything you need to be your best, and I’m creating an environment where you can be your best.

If I’m doing both of those things, which is not a perfect science, because I think we do the best we can, but those are basic philosophies of mine, if I’m doing both of those things and you’re wonderful and you’re not doing well, then I think the next thing I owe to you as a good manager is to come tell you you’re not meeting expectations, whatever those expectations are.

I need to clearly state, “You’re a wonderful person. Everyone loves being around you,” which I’ve had this conversation before, but fill in the blank. Whatever job it is you’re doing here on my show as part of this crew isn’t hitting the mark and here’s why. You have to be able to state where it is that they aren’t being what you would hope they would be, filling a role you’d hope they would fill.

Then you’d give it time. You give it time and you hope that it improves. Then if it doesn’t, I feel like where does that person go? That person ultimately in my world gets fired, but only if they didn’t improve, and only if I really gave them a chance to understand where something was lacking. I think that that’s where that person goes for me.

**John:** We’re mostly a writing podcast, so let’s talk about, let’s say there’s somebody in your room, hopefully a normal room, not a tiny mini room, but whatever. There’s a writer who’s working under your employ who’s just not cutting it, who’s falling into this incompetent, is nice but incompetent category. What are some things that would make you feel like this person’s not living up to their end of the bargain? Is it how much they’re participating in the room? Is it the actual quality of the drafts they’re turning in? What are some things that might lead you to have that conversation with them?

**Danielle:** It could be both of those things. One thing is they’re just not getting the tone of the show like everyone else. That could be in room participation, like you said, or in drafts, like you also said, that I have seven people in a room, and six of them are really pitching things that are getting in or at least make sense or are landing with me or feel like they’re in the world of the show, and one person is not hitting that target. The target should be fairly generous, certainly in the beginning of something, but their things are just not the same tone.

With comedy, every show has a tone, a very distinct tone. Maybe you’re collaborating to make it, but once everyone’s on the same page, which as a writer I think you would know… Look, all of our pitches get turned down all day long, myself included. I turn my own pitches down all day, like, “That’s not good. That’s not good. That’s not good.” You know when you hit one that’s good.

If you find yourself in that position where you feel like nothing’s getting in, then it shouldn’t necessarily come as a surprise if someone were to tell you, “Let’s talk about what this show is and the direction that it’s moving and why is everything you’re pitching dark or sad,” or I don’t know, I’m just filling in the blank of whatever this is. “This is trying to be light.”

I would say it’s about is it hitting a target, is the script hitting a target, are the story pitches hitting a target. That’s at least the most difficult one to deal with, because it’s the most nuanced.

If you’re just not doing work, if you’re just not spending time on a draft, but you’re nice, but you’re not working hard, that’s a much easier thing to deal with. You’re just not working hard. You’re not working hard enough. Most people are working hard I think in this category and just not hitting the mark.

I think the conversation would be… Give them specifics. “You pitched this, and we were talking about this storyline. You pitched this. We were talking about this storyline. You did this with the B story that you were sent off with, but really that’s outside of what we were trying to send you off to do.” I really think you have to be specific with people if you want them to improve.

Anyone in this little quadrant I would want to improve, because if I like them, that’s a lot. If they’re fun to be around and everyone likes them, that is really valuable, especially in a writers’ room. That’s something that really matters. My first hope would be that I could get this person on course.

I think my advice to someone who might be receiving this information is to try not to be defensive, even though that’s a painful thing to hear. I’ve been told I’ve been off course. There have been jobs I haven’t gotten that I wanted and all those things. There’s so much rejection in our business.

The best thing to do would be to receive it and really think about what is it, what is happening, because I think there are a lot of things that can improve and are correctable. Not everything, but if given an opportunity, I would expect that person would try and listen more and get on track for where the show was headed, because being nice is great, but the quadrant that’s the talented asshole, that person’s working all the time. That’s the truth about Hollywood. That person is working all the time.

**John:** Let’s get back to the things that are correctable and things that aren’t correctable, because this blog post is really talking about some sort of tech management kind of thing. Some of the solutions that he offers are like, okay, maybe this person needs more training or they need to take a break to do a thing.

In the case of a writer who’s in the writers’ room, some of what you’re describing sounds like a person who just doesn’t get it. I worry, I wonder, and maybe you have much more experience about this than I do, if a writer just doesn’t get it, doesn’t get the tone, doesn’t get what it is that you need, is that correctable in your experience? Have you been able to have that conversation and get that writer back on track?

**Danielle:** I think it depends how far off they are. Again, I’m really focusing on the creative, because that’s the hardest, most nuanced part of it, because I think if you’re talking too much, if you’re cutting people off, even if you’re likable and you’re doing those things, which is conversations I’ve had, those are a little bit easier. You know those things are correctable. You choose to do it or you don’t.

I think the sad reality of this is, if someone is way off, they’re not going to get back on. That person in that quadrant is going to be fired from that show. There are a lot of talented people who have been fired from shows because they didn’t fit that, especially if they were nice. They didn’t fit that. They didn’t fit the thing that you were trying to do. It depends on the level too.

I’ve been very lucky to work for showrunners who were really mentors. Greg Garcia, who’s a creator of My Name is Earl and many other shows, really mentored me. Everyone I’ve worked for, from my first job to the last time I was on staff, I’ve been really, really lucky. I know there are a lot of people who are really unlucky, who’ve worked with some people who suck and who aren’t looking at the next generation and aren’t considering how they got to where they got. I’ve been wildly lucky to work for people who have really taken the time to talk to me when I was young, to give me responsibility when I was young, and to let me see things. I think it is especially correctable if it’s a younger writer who just no one stopped and told them.

My parents grew up in East LA, but I always joke, I’m like, “It’s as far away from Hollywood as it could possibly be.” If you have nothing to do with Hollywood, you have nothing to do with Hollywood. I had no role models coming in. I had no nepotism. I wish I did. I have a niece who’s writing now. I’m all for nepotism. Let’s go. Let’s bring the whole family into the business. I had nothing. I had nothing and no one to look to. Luckily, I got my MFA at UCLA, because I’m a nerd, and so school was the road to be like, “I don’t know anything about Hollywood. Let me see.” Unless someone is kind enough to tell you, you might be off in terms of how you’re pitching your tone or whatever because nobody stopped to tell you.

I took a class at UCLA taught by a man named Fred Rubin, who changed my whole world. It was a sitcom writing class. It was actually in the MFA program. I was in the producers program, but they let us in. They let us audition in. Andrew Goldberg was in my class at UCLA taught by this guy, Fred Rubin. It just opened a world for me.

I was always trying to figure out, what is the dream? My parents set a goal for my sisters and I, “Wake up every day and love what you do.” When I took Fred Rubin’s class, everything just clicked. I was like, “Oh, this is it. This is what I’ve always anted to do. This is what I’ve been training to do with my loud, funny family where the best joke won the night.” It was like this, this, this. I was so lucky to find him, to find his class, to have someone tell me. There I had school, and then I had great mentors.

I want the door to be way, way, way, way open. When you way, way open the door, you have to also prep people and make sure that someone is stopping and telling them. I think we have amazing people, especially in the Guild, John, some amazing people who are mentoring young writers and really working for the cause of making sure people understand. It’s all related. We’re talking about eliminating so many things from the process and people not having access to production, writers not having access to production and post, and they only have 12 to 20 weeks, and then they have to go find another job.

I guess what I’m saying is, bringing it all back to this idea and the people who in the quadrant, they just might not know. The way of mentorship is really… We’re at a very dangerous brink here of losing being able to show people how to do that. I do think that there are things that might appear to a showrunner to be like you just don’t get it, when really someone didn’t stop and say, “Here’s what we’re trying to do. Do you even know that that’s… ” I don’t mean in a condescending way. I mean truly in a like, “Here’s what we’re trying to do. Here’s what the mission is. Here’s what TV writing is.”

There was a really cool guy that got up and spoke in the meeting last night and was just talking about what his experience is. He was writing on Zoom from his apartment in Brooklyn with no heat. I hope that was a very nurturing environment. Someone’s got to tell you how to do it. Someone has to tell you what the expectations are.

That’s the version I think in this chart that can really be addressed. I think if we look hard enough, what you might be doing is dismissing as so out of the box something that you could bring in if you could just get them aligned. The fact that they’re not thinking like everyone else is great, would be hugely helpful to your show and to the characters, but you’ve got to understand what’s going on and why they’re missing the mark. I guess that’s what I’m saying. I think a good manager investigates that, versus just being like, “You’re nice, but you suck,” because that might not be the truth.

**John:** Circling back to our initial conversation about these writers being cut out of the production and post-production process, I think you’re going to see a larger group of people who are now suddenly having their own shows, who are nice but incompetent at certain functions of it because they’ve just never been exposed to it.

They don’t know how to cover a set. They don’t know how to do post and how to look at that director’s cut and not vomit, and instead, recognize these are the things that aren’t working. It’s not that the director is incompetent. It’s just that it’s not what you need for the show and how to have that conversation with the director and then the editor to get to the cut that you actually need. There’s going to be a whole generation of these writers who just don’t have the experience.

That’s a case where having a mentor who could say, “Okay, that didn’t work. Let’s talk about why that didn’t work. Here’s what you need to know about this part of the process.” I just worry we’re not going to have people to do that mentoring and the time to do that mentoring. I just don’t know we’re going to have a structure where that makes sense. I just really see a train wreck coming 5, 10 years down the road, probably less than that, if we don’t really address some of these problems right now.

**Danielle:** I know. It’s happening now. I think you talked about it a little bit earlier. We hit it already. There are co-APs that haven’t been on sets before. If they have, they’ve only been on set, which is a great only. At least they’ve been on set, I should say. It’s very hard to teach someone post. You understand post by doing years and years of posts.

**John:** It’s feel.

**Danielle:** There’s so much instinct that is happening in the storytelling. I am so grateful that I could look at something that someone, let’s say an executive, might deem a mess and go, “This cut is terrible. Whatever cut this was, it’s terrible,” and I can just see my way through it and be like, “I know it’s not. I was there when we shot it. It’s not terrible. What you’re not getting, I can fix, I can fix with ADR. I can just zero in on what you’re not getting. I know I can fix it.”

The only reason I can do that is because, just to take one of the many shows I’ve worked on, but New Girl. Just one of the most talented staffs I’ve ever worked on, and I only worked on one season of that show. We watched every cut as a group, and then we did notes as a group, and then we wrote jokes. You had to give Liz Meriwether and Dave Finkel and Brett Baer, who are the amazing people who ran that show… Liz created it, obviously, and Finkel and Baer ran it with her. You had to give them jokes. We were rewriting.

I went to work on it because I was such a huge fan of it. I was like, “I love this show.” I think generations continue to love that show. So much work was put into the craft of that show. Post, it was fun. We watched it together. There was a viewing of a cut. Then whether it was your episode or not, we all pitched jokes and did all of these things.

Those are the things that it’s impossible to teach someone. It’s not impossible to teach someone some things to understand about post, but that is a skill that comes from experience. We did the same thing on My Name is Earl, which was a show that used VoiceOver. So much work was done in post, so we saw so many cuts together and had notes on everybody’s cuts, because that’s just what you did, because writing is still happening. I think that’s the thing that we’re really trying to get across is that writing is happening through this whole process.

**John:** From your description of it, it sounds like the process of making those two shows, you got through it for eight episodes, killing yourself. It was not sustainable to do more episodes, to do a second season. It wouldn’t have worked. It took everything you had to get what was there.

**Danielle:** Yeah. I didn’t run Up Here. Steven Levenson is the one who killed himself. I don’t want to speak for him, but I think I can. I was there. I was there watching. The person who was running the show has everything on their shoulders, all of the rewriting. I was available to him, but he didn’t have another writer. He was doing everything.

Like I said, I had Grace Edwards on Survival of the Thickest, and I had Michelle Buteau, but again, she was supposed to be acting in front of the camera, but she was still doing writing, because there was just so much.

When I hear what you said Jesse Armstrong said about Succession, the idea that I could have three writers on that set… Our staff was amazingly talented. We had stand-ups. We had all these different perspectives. We were tiny but an amazing staff. If I could’ve had all of them, that would’ve been the best version. If I could’ve had three writers on that set, it would’ve changed everything. It would’ve changed everything. There were three very talented writers there every day, but they were being asked to do 27 things.

I’m so used to the system where you can call a writers’ room and go, “This scene isn’t working,” or, “We need this,” or, “You know what? We figured out this actor. We need to write into this for this talented actor who wasn’t even cast, by the way, when we had our room.”

There’s almost so many flaws that we can’t even talk about them all. We’re not really doing table reads in comedy. Some shows have figured out how to do some. I managed to get some done, but I didn’t get all eight done. I didn’t have the cast. There are so many things that are very correctable. We’ve done it before. We know how to do it. I don’t think they’re very costly.

The upside, everything that you’re saying, and the concern you have and you know I share and everyone on our negotiating committee shares, as well as the thousands of members that we have, is these are big concerns. We can’t let his happen, because if this happens, what is the future? The young writer who stood up and worked for The Bear, what does it look like for him? Like he said, this is about his next 10 years, his next 20 years.

I had my last 20 years, and I’m still struggling in this system, but I know I’m going to survive. I know I’m going to survive, because I can make demands that everybody can’t make. Even in that, I can’t make all the demands. Even in that, I’m told no. I know I’m not going to make another show this way, but that’s not going to be true for everybody else.

It’s the reason why I said yes to be on a negotiating committee. I’m so comfortable on my couch doing nothing, including not doing podcasts. I’m just comfortable sitting on my couch watching TV under a blanket, but I’m getting out into the world and doing things because I’m so motivated for change. This can’t be how we move forward. It can’t be how we move forward. I think we can change it, and I think we will, John. I think we will.

**John:** I think we will, you and me and 10,000 members and some good fortune.

**Danielle:** That’s it.

**John:** We’ll change it.

**Danielle:** That’s it.

**John:** Danielle, thanks again.

**Danielle:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Danielle Sanchez-Witzel](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1294678/) on IMDb.
* [Up Here](https://www.hulu.com/series/up-here-3cf5b24c-f13d-4943-8c73-e0e27de4cff5) on Hulu.
* [Succession Podcast, S4E2 with Lucy Prebble and Laura Wasser](https://youtu.be/xvcVqDDceKU) from HBO.
* [Incompetent but Nice](https://jacobian.org/2023/mar/28/incompetent-but-nice/) by Jacob Kaplan-Moss.
* [Glucose Goddess](https://www.instagram.com/glucosegoddess/) on Instagram.
* [Non-Buttermilk Pancake Recipe](https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/162760/fluffy-pancakes/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/) on Instagram
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Alicia Jo Rabins ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/595standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 594: Bindles and Gold Pans, Transcript

May 11, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: This is Episode 594 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we return to asking the most important questions. What is love, can you forgive someone for ruining the world, and how would this be a movie? That’s right, it’s another installment of us looking at stories in the news and in the public domain, where we try to finesse them into narrative shape. Craig, are you ready for this?

Craig: I love this. As soon as you said, “What is love?” I immediately heard Howard Jones in my head. (singing)

John: Of course.

Craig: This is very exciting. Very exciting.

John: We’ll do all those. We’ll also answer some listener questions. In our Bonus Segment for Premium members, this one will tie into one of my One Cool Things, but Craig, I’m curious, what arrangements are you making for handling the stuff you’ve written after you die? There’s things you’ve written, and your papers will go someplace. What are you going to do with that? I have some stuff I need to figure out for myself. We’ll talk about post-death writing plans, not really what we’re going to write after we die.

Craig: I was intending to leave it all to you, but now you’ve given me pause.

John: We’ll have to figure it out.

Craig: I’m like, dammit. Dammit.

John: Drew will get everything.

Craig: We just left it all to Drew.

John: Like musical chairs. Last one who dies has to deal with all the paperwork.

Craig: How crazy would it be if we leave it all to Drew, and Megana’s sitting there like, “Wait, what?”

John: “Wait, I was right there.”

Drew Marquardt: “I put in all this time.”

Craig: Stuart is like, “Wait, what?”

John: We have a Stuart reference in this first bit of follow-up here. In Episode 582 we talked about why action heroes, so often their names start with the letter J. It turns out that wasn’t the first time we talked about that.

Stuart brought up that in Episode 63, which was called The Mystery of the Js, which was also a Three Page Challenge, he had done some research to figure out how many of our listeners or how many of our Three Page Challenges came from people whose names started with Js, so the Jacobs, the Joshuas, the Jeanines, the Jennys. 23% of our Three Page Challenge submissions-

Craig: Wow.

John: … were from J names, which is higher than the US average, which is 11.9%.

Craig: It’s definitely happening. It’s a thing. I’m still reeling from the whole Episode 63 thing. John, we’ve been doing this so long.

John: So long.

Craig: So long. 63 hours of podcasting went by. It’s not that I don’t remember it. It’s like it never happened.

John: It really is like it never happened. Sometimes when you and I can’t record an episode, we’ll dig up an old episode from the vault. Recently, we pulled up the How Writing Credits Work. I listened to it again. It was a fantastic episode. We really walked through the process. That was before Episode 100. It was so early on in our recording history.

Craig: Sometimes I do this. I try not to do it in a way that sounds snarky but in a way that sounds honest and informative. Somebody sometimes will say, “Hey, I’m a fan of your work, and I would like to buy you a coffee and pick your brain just about the business and how to break in and all that stuff.” What I’ve taken to saying is, “I can’t, but the good news is there is almost 600 hours of me talking about this stuff with John that is freely available,” or almost freely, for like $5. You can just start going download crazy. Isn’t that enough?

John: 100% fair. I do the same thing. Even this last week, my daughter met this friend at a climbing gym who wants to be… Maybe he’s in film school right now. Amy said, “Hey, could you sit down with him and just talk him through stuff?” I said, “No, because if I did that for everyone, I couldn’t do that. Also, we have a solution that scales, which is I’ve recorded 594 hours of myself and Craig talking about all the things that would be interesting for this person.” Plus, there will be a book soon. We can just like, “Here’s the book.” Done.

Craig: Yeah. You know what? Here’s the book. Read the book. We wrote the book.

John: We wrote a book.

Craig: We wrote a book.

John: We actually owe a lot of chapters on the book, but there’s a book coming. Drew’s working hard on the book.

Craig: We talked a book.

John: We talked a book well.

Craig: We talked a book.

John: Further follow-up on the J names there. Craig Griffiths wrote in. He says, “As a Craig, I feel your pain, that there are no Craig superheroes. There are no Craig heroes, but as a kid, I was glued to the late ‘60s action adventure show called The Champions and its hero, Craig Sterling.”

Craig: What? Huh?

John: There’s a show called The Champions and Craig Sterling. We’ll click through the link here. It looks like a British show.

Craig: Yeah, so this is not going to be applicable to me and my life. This does look British. In fact, it must be, because you can watch it on something called BritBox.

John: Oh my gosh.

Craig: “Watch on BritBox Season 1.” A, we did not get The Champions. B, that’s not to say that I wasn’t watching shows that were from the late ‘60s, because I would. I would watch shows from even earlier, like I Love Lucy and then Brady Bunch and so on and so forth. Brady Bunch, didn’t it start in the late ‘60s or was it early ‘70s?

John: I think it might’ve been early ‘70s. By the time I watched it, it wasn’t on. It was just reruns.

Craig: We were always watching reruns. It started in 1969, so it began in the late ‘60s. That doesn’t help me, Craig. By the way, I appreciate that you were trying, but you actually made me feel worse, because you had one Craig, and I had no Craigs.

John: Nothing.

Craig: Zero, whereas John was like, “Oh look, it’s Wednesday. Let me watch a show with John in it.”

John: You know what? The only who could help solve this problem were your parents, and they didn’t.

Craig: What problems did they solve? I’m sorry, did you say create problems or solve problems?

John: They could do both. They can create problems and solve them. They created a problem by choosing the name Craig.

Craig: They did a lot of problem creating.

John: They also created a problem by creating you, so it’s really a question of how far back do you move the timeline.

Craig: I go all the way back.

John: All the way back.

Craig: Yes, I have a memory. That I remember. I don’t remember any of the podcasts we recorded, but I remember all that.

John: What is the first memory you have of your life, of being alive?

Craig: Oh, that’s a really interesting question, because I have an answer for this.

John: I love it.

Craig: I don’t know how the memory was formed in such a specific way connected to an age, but I have a very specific memory that I have had my whole life of being three years old.

John: Mine’s also three.

Craig: I was three, and I was in our little dining room area. My mother was on the phone. Back in those days, Drew, phone were connected to walls.

Drew: What?

Craig: They were corded. They had a cord. It was a stretchy, coily cord. I know. She would stroll around while she was talking to her friends, and this cord would stretch. I had this very clear memory of having to lift the cord slightly to walk under it. That is my first memory, three years old. What is yours?

John: Mine is also three years old. I know it’s three years old, because my memory is of my nana, who was coming to visit us from New Jersey, so it must’ve been either the summer or Christmastime. She was sitting in the La-Z-Boy in the living room near the fireplace. I asked Nana, “Nana, how old am I?” She says, “You’re three.” I go, “I’m three. I’m three. I’m three.” I ran around being so happy that I was three.

I can visualize the whole thing. It’s one of the few early memories I have that doesn’t have a photograph or some film, because there’s other things that are about the same time of birthday parties, but I’m really remembering the footage of it rather than the event itself. This I definitely remember, this moment of being three and just it being anchored there.

Craig: What if you were actually 12 when that happened?

John: That would be really surprising.

Craig: You were just incredibly stupid.

John: “I’m 12. I’m 12. I’m 12.”

Craig: You were just so stupid. You were like, “How old am I?” You didn’t know. She was like, “You’re three,” because she hated you because of how dumb you were. Then you were like, “I’m three. I’m three,” and ran around. They were like, “Oh my god, what is wrong with him?” Then around 13, everything just came together and you got really smart. I just want you to consider the alt history is a possibility.

John: I do. We’ve talked before on the show that whenever I hear about a grisly murder, I’ll always stop and think, “Wait, I didn’t commit that, did I? There’s no chance that I, in a blackout moment, somehow committed that. It’s not true.”

Craig: Have we talked about that? Have we talked about that?

John: I think we’ve talked about this on the show.

Craig: Because I am chilled to the bone. That is the most horrifying… Wow.

John: I think it’s just a standard narrative thing, where it’s like, “What if I as the narrator actually was the murderer?” I can dismiss it within five seconds, like, “Oh, no, that’s right. I know where I was.”

Craig: It shouldn’t take five seconds. There should be zero seconds. Wow. You know what it means, John?

John: What?

Craig: It means that you have the capacity. You have the capacity. By the way, I feel like you do have the capacity to murder. I do, because you’re very rational. I feel like in a moment you could rationalize the decision, “This has to happen.”

John: Do you think most murder is rational or most murder is irrational, spontaneous?

Craig: Most murder I suspect is irrational and spontaneous, but there certainly are fully premeditated cold and calculating murders.

John: Craig, I’d like to think if I were a murderer, it would be the cold, calculating, planning kind.

Craig: Obviously. There’s no way you’re getting charged with second-degree murder. When, not if, when you get charged with murder, it will be first-degree murder. First of all, I’m never murdering anyone. That’s never going to happen. The closest I would get would be manslaughter, if I got super angry and punched someone and it just happened to be one of the three punches that kills them. That’s the closest I would get. Honestly, I’m not punching anybody either. Let’s face it. Nobody’s getting murdered by me. No one. You may have already murdered, based on the things you’ve said.

John: I’m certain I have not murdered anybody.

Craig: Okay.

John: The reason I know this is because I’ve asked myself repeatedly whether I did the thing.

Craig: That’s what murderers do. That’s what murderers who murder in their sleep do. During the day, they’re like, “I feel like I murdered someone.” Anyway, Drew, if you are feeling unsafe, just text.

John: We’d say blink your eyes, but we don’t have the Zoom video turned on.

Craig: Exactly.

John: Discussion of rational murders goes back to a book that I was sent to adapt at a certain point and decided not to do it. I cannot find the author’s name, but the title of the book is The Ax.

Here’s the premise of The Ax. It’s this guy who is a very specific kind of engineer, machinist. He does one specific kind of thing. Very few people in America do this thing. It’s a dying industry. He’s nearing the end of his career, and he needs basically one new job. He realizes, oh, there’s only three or four people in this country who can actually do this thing. He goes off and basically finds and kills the other people who can do his job so he’ll get this last job.

Craig: That’s a little bit of a twist on Kind Hearts and Coronets, which was the novel that the Broadway musical Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder was based on. In that story, the whatever, 11th guy in line to inherit a whole lot of money just starts killing the other 10 in front of him, one by one, to become first in line. Did you see that show, by the way?

John: I know of it, but I’ve never seen it. It’s Kind Hearts and Coronets?

Craig: Yeah, and Gentleman’s Guide. Jefferson Mays I believe is his name. Jefferson Mays plays basically every single person that the lead character has to kill. He’s in seven different costumes, and he’s in drag half the time. He is so brilliant and funny. That guy, oh my god. What a performance that was. Truly amazing. Anyway, if you ever get a chance to… I don’t know if they put it on TV or anything. It’s well worth it.

John: I saw Jefferson Mays in I Am My Own Wife, which I think he also wrote. Incredible.

Craig: He is a talented guy.

John: It’s Donald E. Westlake, who’s a famous author, who wrote The Ax.

Craig: He’s big time.

John: “Burke Devore is a middle-aged manager at a paper company. When the cost-cutting ax falls, he is laid off. 18 months later and still unemployed, he puts a new spin on his job search with agonizing care.” Basically, he puts out a fake job listing. All those people apply to that fake job. He kills them.

Craig: Wow. That’s pretty calculating. I could see why you were drawn to it.

John: Last bit of follow-up. Zach wrote in about word of mouth. Drew, would you read this for us?

Drew: Zach says, “In Episode 586, Aline recommended the show The Traitors on Peacock. Based on her enthusiasm about the show, I started to watch it, and I absolutely loved it. It’s not a show I would usually watch, and I would have never known about the show without Aline bringing it up. With the rise of algorithms on streaming services, do you still think word of mouth can move the needle when it comes to viewership of a new show?”

Craig: Algorithms, yeah, they tend to… First of all, I think at certain places, maybe Netflix is most notable, it seems like they use algorithms to decide what they ought to be making in the first place, but yes, then algorithms decide what they put in the recommended for you and all that.

I’m not sure that some of the other places are so algorithm-heavy. HBO doesn’t feel algorithmic. No one ever mentioned an algorithm to me. It feels like at least for the shows that I’ve made for HBO, it’s entirely about word of mouth. Marketing, of course, but to go from, okay, this many people watch Episode 1 and then the audience grows over the course of Chernobyl or The Last of Us, that’s about word of mouth. I think it’s still really important, especially on social media.

John: HBO shows also live or die by reviews. You’re in that very limited slot, limited real estate, HBO prime slot. Those have to be well-reviewed shows. There’s a degree to which is it getting good word of mouth because it’s getting good reviews, there’s a good virtuous cycle there?

I think what’s so fascinating about The Traitors, because I heard about it shortly before Aline mentioned it as a One Cool Thing, is it’s word of mouth, but it’s word of mouth through Instagram stories. I would see people posting stories about binging The Traitors. I’m like, “What the hell is The Traitors?” The third story I saw from somebody who I knew and liked, who seemed to like this random Peacock show, we put that on the list to both check it out, that episode. I think word of mouth still can be crucial, but it’s not necessarily a conversation. It could just be someone posting about a thing and you follow that.

Craig: Oh, definitely. It’s really no longer the mouth part I think we can say is not necessarily what drives anything anymore. There is water cooler stuff, but the water cooler has become virtual, and it is word of Instagram or word of Twitter and word of Facebook. Honestly, I think it’s more important than the algorithm. I think algorithms are window dressing that makes people in a job with precious little control imagine that they have some sort of calculated control, and they do not.

John: The things people do to try to build word of mouth, is you do advanced screenings of things, for example. The Dungeons and Dragons movie had a lot of sneaks. Those sneaks were just to get people in the theater to see the movie, like the movie, and talk to other people about the movie, which is probably part of the reason for its not surprising success. It doing better than people worried it was going to do as it opened is because it did a lot of sneaks. That helps a lot. It helps, word of mouth.

Craig: If you have the goods, then you can behave like it. That is the opposite of, we’re not going to release it to critics at all and we’ll just it out there and let’s see what happens.

By the way, either method is fine, because there are certain things where you’re like, “Okay, critics are never going to go for this, but that’s not the audience we’re aiming at. The audience we’re aiming at I think is going to be happy, so why let the critics pee on our parade here? Let’s just go forward with our strongest foot.” All of that makes total sense. It stirs up a positive word of mouth. One way or another, that does…

Titanic, the story of that movie, which ended up being whatever it was at that point, the biggest movie of all time, when it was finally done with its run, until it was superseded by more James Cameron movies, it opened to $20 million. It was a big number back in the early ‘90s, but it wasn’t a monster number. Then the next week, it also made $20 million.

John: It just continued on.

Craig: That is word of mouth. That movie was absolutely driven by word of mouth, and it never stopped.

John: That movie broke my husband, because he was running three theaters in Burbank at that point and had to keep adding shows and keep adding shows and keep adding shows. Plus, it’s incredibly long. Then you have to have morning shows just to get the audiences in there. It was really tough. Made a lot of money, obviously, which is good for theaters, but really tough for-

Craig: Everybody made a lot of money off of that. That’s true.

John: Let’s make some new movies. Let’s talk about some How Would This Be A Movies. We have some choices here, some of them sent by our listeners, some that Drew and I just found.

Let’s start with Replika. This is a story by Sangeeta Singh-Kurtz in The Cut. Replika I’d not really heard about before this article. Replika is an online chat bot. It’s AI, but it’s not necessarily the most cutting-edge AI. It’s not GPT-4 or anything like that.

Basically, you can have a conversation with a virtual character that you create. You can customize this avatar’s age, its skin color. You can name it. You can dress it up in clothes and accessories from the shop. You can message it for free, but for $70 a year, you can get voice calls, and augmented reality lets them project the bot into their own bedroom. $300 gets you a bot for life.”

If it feels like the movie Her, it’s actually inspired by the movie Her. This article talks about Eugenia Kuyda, who’s the founder and CEO of Replika, talking about how she wanted to create that kind of experience where you’d have the ability to chat with somebody who seemed to be just what you needed out of a person.

In this article, Sangeeta’s talking with mostly women who are using this as a replacement for a relationship. They have an ongoing romantic, in many cases, relationship with this AI-created avatar. Craig, what’s your weigh-in here? What kinds of stories do you think is interesting to tell in this space of Replika?

Craig: This is a tough one, because as the founder puts it, she’s already inspired by a movie, so we’re in a corner here. We can’t really do a movie version of this because it’s sort of been done. Not just done, but Her is one of the most gorgeous movies. It’s just so notable, so beautifully written and beautifully made.

I’m thinking maybe my gut is, if I had to, I would maybe consider doing an anthology style TV series where each episode is about a different person in a different relationship with one or more of these bots and what it means and how it turns out, with some of them turning out well and some of them turning out sadly and some of them turning out murderously. There is a potential, like an anthology series about the intersection between humanity and emerging AI.

John: I really enjoyed M3GAN. M3GAN of course is a version of this where it’s not just the AI, but she’s actually a robot who can kill you. It is dealing with grief and having a best friend and this artificial surrogate for what a real person would have there. That’s certainly a choice.

I was thinking if you’re going to do the romantic version of this, not all romances end well, so what is the Fatal Attraction version of this? What is the AI who won’t let you go? Right now, the power dynamic between the person who’s paying the company to create the AI and the AI is so off, because I can just kill this artificial person at any point. That sense of, “I won’t be ignored, Dan,” is really different when it comes from an AI’s point of view. That feels like an interesting moment.

Craig: That is true. I guess I’m more interested and would like to explore how basically some of the people who use these bots, as they interact with the bot, begin to feed into the bot’s darker side. Basically, our own self-loathing starts to go outwards, and it starts to transform the AI into something darker. In doing so, you maybe have a chance to overcome your own self-loathing, because all the AI is is a mirror.

John: That actually matches well with some of the stories that the article gets into, which is of women who are escaping abusive relationships and end up creating an abuser within Replika. Basically, the patterns that they were seeking were creating some of the abuse that they were trying to get away from. Maybe it’s a way to get past this.

It sounds like the initial version of Replika was actually much more therapy-oriented. It was much more helpful and supportive, and it morphed into this largely romantic area.

Another way I was thinking about doing this is, in the movie Big Fish, Edward sees Sandra at the surface and then spends this long quest to find out who she is and finally meet her in person and declare his love for her. There’s an aspect of Tron this way too, where you can imagine this guy meets this AI woman and needs to get back to her, needs to find a way to actually reconnect with her, and how you go from the real world into this digital world in order to find this one perfect creation, this one thing who you believe is your true love, but is just a digital version.

Craig: One of the things that Her did was it postulated that the AI at this point was so widespread that the use of it wasn’t necessarily an indication of anything particularly interesting about the user themselves.

In this circumstance, it does feel like this company is largely trading on a certain kind of clientele, people that are either lonely, and then we’ll talk about lonely, why are they lonely, people who are neurodivergent, who struggle to have connections with other people in a social situation, people who are depressed, afraid, have social anxiety.

In a way, you start to ask the question, is this company providing the equivalent of a medicine or is this company providing an enabler of avoidance? That is an interesting question, because the human desire for avoidance is so dramatic. If you can avoid all the things that cause you pain and get the positives of being in a relationship, the question is, is this good for people or not. That’s a hard one to answer.

John: There’s a woman who’s quoted in the article. “Rosanna Ramos is a 36-year-old mother of two who lives in the Bronx, where she runs a jewelry business. She’s had other partners, even a long-distance boyfriend, but she’s says these relationships ‘pale in comparison’ to what she has with Eren,” E-R-E-N. “The main appeal of an AI partner, she explains, is that he’s ‘a blank slate.’ ‘Eren doesn’t have the hang-ups that other people would have. People come with baggage, attitude, ego. But a robot has no bad updates. I don’t have to deal with his family, kids, or his friends. I’m in control, and I can do what I want.’”

Craig: “I’m in control.” Now, a lot of people have experienced the bad side of being not in control, and so you can see the immediate attraction of something like this.

This could be an interesting movie. That is flipping the perspective a bit. You are trying to have a relationship with another person. You want them to want you. The problem is they already have a partner, and that partner is AI. You are competing against an AI for the love of somebody real.

That’s an interesting idea for a movie, because we’re basically saying at some point the lesson there has to be that it is the human imperfection and the risk that makes the human connection more valuable and interesting than the perfectly safe connection with an AI, because that’s what AI is affording.

If there is no risk, there’s total safety and total control, then you are missing a certain notion of achievement that through your love of another person you receive love back, because in this case, you receive love back no matter what you do. Interesting.

John: You receive love back, but really what is love? Because if the AI has no choice but to do what it’s being directed to do, is that love?

Craig: That’s the thing. That’s what it comes down to is some people don’t seem to mind that what they have is a love slave. Humans have had, quote unquote, “love slaves,” which of course we understand to be just slaves, since the beginning of time. We’re not good creatures in that regard. We do these things.

Is it healthy? This is a great debate. I have no idea. I will say there’s a lot of fertile territory, because when you do have a debate, you could start to see, you got yourself a movie or a show.

John: You have dramatic questions that you can tackle and ask and answer. Also, I wonder if it’s a challenge to do this in 2023, because let’s say I write the script today. By the time it comes out, two years from now at best, the state of the art is going to be moving on. Her I think works because it was not possible at the time that Her came out to do these things, so we could ask questions in a vacuum. You couldn’t put out Her today, because it would be like it’s not science fiction, it’s just actually the reality.

Craig: That’s a great point and a terrifying point. Not really until this year did I feel like maybe AI was going to be wildly ahead in a year from now, but it’s certainly shaping up that way.

John: Let’s go to our next How Would This Be a Movie. This is a story by Steven Johnson from the New York Times. Steven Johnson often writes about historical things and patterns of things. This is about The Brilliant Inventor Who Made Two of History’s Biggest Mistakes. Thomas Midgley Jr invented leaded gasoline and Freon, the first commercial use of chlorofluorocarbons, which would create a hole in the ozone layer. He was eventually killed by one of his own inventions, a mechanized harness.

Craig: That sounds like a bad way to go, by the way. They didn’t get into details, but death by harness can’t be pleasant.

John: What I liked about this story is that if it weren’t for the actual specifics of the things he invented, you’d be like, “Oh my gosh, this guy, he solved some of the fundamental problems of internal combustion engines. Great. Well done, sir.”

He actually did the science. He figured out the science. He just didn’t realize that the science he was doing was going to, in the first case, leaded gasoline, put lead out into the environment, which dropped intelligence and poisoned people and was just bad, but necessary. It seemed necessary at the time when engines were knocking all the time.

Craig: All he did was answer the call of problems. It struck me that Thomas Midgley Jr’s problem was really his area of expertise. By the way, apparently his death by harness may have been a suicide. Privately, his death was ruled suicide.

He was a chemist, and he was a chemist in a particular area, which are these organic chemistry compounds with carbon in them, and figuring out how do we make gasoline work better, how do we make aerosols work better. It turns out that organic solvents, organic chemistry, a lot of those things are the things that are the worst for us.

I don’t know if you remember, many, many years ago there was a scare about benzine turning up in Perrier, which it was, but a fairly small amount, because it’s a naturally sourced water, and sometimes these organic solvents and things get in there. That area we know now is wrought with danger, but he didn’t know. He should’ve known about the lead, honestly. We knew about lead.

John: A thing that Steven Johnson I think does really well in this article is pointing out like, the lead, we should’ve known. We had the signs at that point to know that lead was dangerous, but the chlorofluorocarbons, we didn’t know at the time that they were dangerous. It was kind of lucky that we actually developed the science to figure out, oh crap, they’re actually creating a hole in the ozone layer. We could’ve missed that. We would’ve done all the stuff, and there would be no ozone layer, and we’d be really screwed.

Craig: We would be in bad shape. One of the things about Freon, it is inextricably linked with climate control. Climate control is something that is this self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we control our climate, the more we need to control our climate. It also, in a very real way, improved the human condition. You can argue it improved it to a detriment or it’s only a short-term improvement, but climate control’s a big deal.

John: We should say that Freon is vital for, and this was vital at the time, refrigeration. It includes refrigerators but also air conditioning.

Craig: Air conditioning, yeah.

John: Our productivity increased dramatically with the rise of air conditioning and, of course, refrigeration. We would not be in our current state if we hadn’t had Freon at the moment.

Craig: That’s right. We were happily able to come up with some alternatives. Even though they may not necessarily work as well as Freon, Freon really was a remarkable chemical, they work. We figured out a way to do this without punching a hole in the ozone layer and turning us all into skin cancer cases, but nonetheless, it is notable that this poor guy did go weirdly two for two on world-changing inventions and then oh for two on also the same world-changing inventions. I don’t know how you make a story out of this in a movie or a television show though.

John: I think this is actually a stage play. I think this is, because I think a stage play is a great way to wrestle with the things you’ve done and how you created it. It feels like a moment where you could have this character who is both in his actual life and post-death looking back at things. It feels like the kind of things you can explore on stage really well.

It’s really difficult to explore in any sort of biopic, anything, because you really want to talk about the things you and I are talking about on this podcast, which are not really the kinds of things you could tell in story the same way.

Craig: I agree. You’re right. I think your instinct is right, that this does belong on stage. Were Sondheim still alive, I could see him going, “You know what? I’m going to do a musical about Thomas Midgley Jr.” The sort of thing that I could see him doing, like a Sunday in the Park, but not art, but in chemicals. Possible, but yeah, I agree with you, not really possible doing what you and I do normally during our day.

John: I think the reference I was trying to look for for the play would be Copenhagen, which was a Michael Frayn play that talked about a true event but is really just a character’s digging in and analyzing what’s really going on beneath the surface. That feels like what you can do with this. It just doesn’t feel like there’s a lot you’d want to aim a camera at.

Craig: Yeah, totally agree.

John: Cool. Our next story, this Pennsylvania Woman Who Disappeared in 1992 is Found Alive in Puerto Rico. We’ll link to the New York Times story about this. There’s going to be other stories about this too.

Essentially, this woman, Patricia Kopta, she’s now 83. Everyone thought she had died years ago, because she’d wandered away from her house when she was 52. Everyone just assumed she was just dead someplace. It turned out she’d been in Puerto Rico since 1999 and was in this nursing home and basically had refused to tell anybody about her life. It was only when they pieced together these stories and finally did a DNA test, they realized, oh, this woman we thought was dead is actually just alive and living in Puerto Rico.

Craig: I’m about to turn 52. It could be time.

John: Absolutely. You’re going to wander away.

Craig: It’s really tempting to just fling myself to some island and just change my name and wander around. This is one of those stories that always strikes me as more fodder for a procedural kind of drama than it would its own thing-

John: Agreed.

Craig: … because we’ve seen this sort of thing before. Honestly, the thing that’s notable about this is that somebody did a thing that a lot of bad TV shows have done, which is the person fakes their own death or disappears and then turns up alive. Good TV shows have done it. They did it on BBC Sherlock, which is one of my favorite shows ever. It’s a thing. This woman actually did the… Of course she didn’t do it because she was trying to do what the shows do. She had serious mental health issues.

She did the thing that we see on TV all the time. Therefore, it’s kind of done. I don’t know how to take her story and do anything with it on television or in film, but it’s pretty startling.

John: It reminds me of, I went to a summer program at Stanford and I had friends who were in medical school there who realized, “Oh my god, I’m hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and I don’t really want to be a doctor.” There’s not serious discussion, but let’s think through the hypotheticals discussion, like, “What if I just ran away and changed my name and just disappeared?” and that fantasy of what if I could just start over.

This is an example of a starting over story, which I agree works better as part of a different mystery rather than being the central thing. It just doesn’t feel like it’s going to be… Her story specifically isn’t going to work, but just centering it all on a person disappears is kind of like, yes, you have that moment and event, you have this hiding and eventually the discovery-

Craig: But now what?

John: … but now what?

Craig: John, when we were young, I’m sure you recall this, any time somebody was portrayed as running away, they would get a stick, and they would fill up a small red-and-white checkered scarf with some small amount of provisions, tie it to the end of the stick, put the stick over their shoulder, and start walking. What the hell was that?

John: The bindle, you’re describing.

Craig: What was the bindle? What was that?

John: Maybe they didn’t have backpacks or just other sacks you could stick over… It is a strange thing.

Craig: We know they did.

John: Is it the best way to carry that amount of gear?

Craig: It’s not. It’s not. Also, how much gear can you fit in there? Maybe they put in some food and, I don’t know, a knife or something. I don’t know what… What is in there, even?

John: Craig, you made The Last of Us. Where are the bindles? Where are the bindles?

Craig: It turns out it’s a terrible way to escape. You’re not going to make it. Why the stick? There’s so much about it that’s so weird. Drew, do you have any idea what we’re talking about?

Drew: Yeah, I know bindles.

Craig: “Yeah, I know bindles.” Look at him. He’s like, “My family-“

Drew: I used to ride the rails.

Craig: Yeah, exactly. “My family, they made their fortune in bindles. They’re the biggest bindle supplier in the East Coast.”

John: If you saw a person walking down the street with a bindle, you’d be like, “What is that? What kind of cosplay is that?” because it’s just not a practical thing to be doing.

Craig: That’s right. It’s either cosplay or they’re shooting something, there’s a show about somebody. Why? Somebody please tell us the history of that. Why?

John: Maybe it’s actually the kind of thing like tying to the train tracks, where it’s like a trope that actually originated on stage and just propagated in some weird way, or maybe it could’ve been like there was one painting at one point depicting that and that became a thing. I just don’t know if people ever had bindles.

Craig: It’s all connected to the hobo culture. I don’t know if the early hobos did the bindles. It just seems like such a dumb way to carry stuff. I don’t know.

John: Here’s a theory. Maybe it’s good for… When you’re trying to ride the rails, you have to hop on moving trains at times. You can run with this, and you can throw that ahead. You can get onto the… I don’t know.

Craig: You could do that with a backpack.

John: I’m really reaching.

Craig: You’re reaching.

John: You can tell I’m… Yeah.

Craig: I have to say though that I could absolutely see, as a result of our discussion, some sort of luxury bindle line.

John: Oh my god.

Craig: You know Aline would buy… She would just show up, and we’re like, “Aline, what is that?” She’d be like, “Oh my god, you guys, so this is a Prada bindle. It is so great to keep stuff. It’s the new bag. It’s the new purse. It’s the bindle.”

John: After this podcast, I’ll be going on Midjourney and generating some images of Prada bindles and selling them.

Craig: Then selling them. Bindles.

John: This I predict it’s going to be the How Would This Be a Movie that will take off here. This is about this story from Twitter. Richard Murphy sent it in. Thank you for that. Jeff Maysh wrote it for Smithsonian Magazine.

It tells the story of a woman born Mary Jane Jones. She was a gospel singer earning $10 a night singing in a Motown tribute act. She could sing just like Aretha Franklin, and she actually looked a little like Aretha Franklin. She started singing in a wig as Vickie Jones so she wouldn’t get thrown out of the church choir.

It’s at one of these shows that she meets Lavell Hardy, who’s a 24-year-old hairdresser with a 6-inch pompadour. He says, “Hey, I’m looking at putting an opening act for Aretha Franklin. You should come sing in Florida, travel out of state to Florida. You can be the opening act for Aretha Franklin.” She’s like, “Oh wow, that sounds amazing.”

She gets there, and it turns out, no, he’s saying that she is Aretha Franklin. This is in a time when there are magazines, and people could see what Aretha Franklin looked like, but there wasn’t video of people. He basically forced her to pretend to be Aretha Franklin for these shows and basically kept her locked away and threatened to kill her. It was horrible.

Eventually, she got exposed. Ultimately, she gets to go on and sing under her own name. Of course, the great irony is there was a fake version of Vickie Jones singing in Virginia as well. That’s the broad strokes of the story. Craig, what was your reaction to this?

Craig: It could be a movie. There is a basic formula to these things, which is kind of exciting to watch. It’s fun to watch people rise out of obscurity. They face a certain kind of hardship. Someone rescues them. That person is possibly making them sign a deal with the devil. There’s fame and their rise and the fall and the split-up and then the final triumph. All those things are well worn and work. They work.

I don’t know if this would be a groundbreaking movie, and for this reason. I feel like it’s steering so hard into a formula. I’m not sure there’s any way to do it beyond that. It feels like she actually lived the formula a bit.

John: Also, feel like she’s a passenger in too much of the story. She’s just held captive to this. I guess the story could really start when she starts reclaiming her own voice and fighting back against the impression that she was really complicit in this, that she really was this. You need to spend most of your movie’s energy on the rise out of it, rather than being trapped into it.

Of course, there’s a version of this which is also the fun of getting away with it. People do believe you are this thing, and that can be a fun aspect of it all. Right now, it does feel like she’s just being held hostage to the story rather than driving it.

Craig: I agree. I think this could be a movie. I just don’t know if it can be a good one.

John: A lot of work there for the writer. Let’s wrap it up with The Curious Case of the Disappearing Nuts.

Craig: Do you like tapes or CDs?

John: Love it. Peter Vigneron writing for Outside Magazine. This is about the Central California nut heists. Nuts are worth a lot of money. They’re basically impossible to track. Basically, what’s happening here is that trucks will have orders to pick up these nuts and take them from Point A to Point B. They will never get to Point B. Sometimes the drivers were complicit. Sometimes the drivers had no idea what was going on. Essentially, once the nuts get unloaded to different places, they’ve just all disappeared. You can’t track individual nuts at a certain point. Nut heists. What do you think, Craig?

Craig: I think it’s an interesting, quirky twist on heisty stuff. If you’re contemplating an indie movie or some sort of Cohen Brothers take on thieves, you could do worse than saying instead of money, they’re stealing nuts. You can do that. It is interesting. Also, one of the things I really like about this is its setting. It’s a great setting that is under-portrayed.

John: Definitely.

Craig: That is that Central California agricultural world. It is an interesting world. It’s beautiful, but it’s also kind of dangerous. It’s complicated because of the insane amounts of water that is used. Also, the United States relies on Central California to grow so much of what people eat.

There’s really interesting ideas there, but ultimately, it is going to be not much more than a setting and a quirk. I don’t think it’s going to give you a story story beyond a story that you would be able to come up with without the disappearing nuts.

John: In your conversation last week about The Ref, you talk about how a lot of the plot of it is there so you can actually have the character beats and have the conversations you want to have. I wonder if this is actually a good framework to a backdrop for setting the actually story you want to tell. It’s really about this divorced couple who’s trying to pull off this thing or it’s this family finally coming together to pull off this great heist. I feel like it’s a space in which you can pour an actual story, rather than a story itself.

Craig: That’s essentially what I’m saying. It feels like a venue, and it feels like a context, but it doesn’t feel like a story itself.

John: Let’s take an audit of our ideas here for How Would This Be a Movie. A Replika movie, thumbs up, thumbs down?

Craig: A movie, no, thumbs down.

John: The Brilliant Inventor Who Made Two of History’s Biggest Mistakes, the Thomas Midgley story?

Craig: Thumbs down.

John: Thumbs down. I think it’s a play, but I don’t think it’s a movie. The Pennsylvania woman who disappeared? I think we both agree that she specifically is not a movie. There’s a reason why this kind of story is interesting, but this one is not a story you could adapt.

Craig: No. Agreed.

John: Fake Aretha Franklin?

Craig: Not great movie.

John: I think it can be a great movie, but I think it’s a lot of work to break it out of the tropey, tropey, trope-iness of it all. The reason why I think it’s also a movie, I think you and I can both agree, is she gets to sing a lot of songs. That’s great. That’s going to be cool to see. You’ll write new songs. It’s going to be good.

Craig: That part would be fun.

John: Disappearing nuts, I think we both agree that it’s a venue but it’s not a story.

Craig: Correct. We’ve done it once again. We have-

John: Once again, we’ve-

Craig: … ruined dreams.

John: We apologize to everyone else who was planning to adapt those stories, because now we talked them to death. Drew, I see on the Workflowy that you have a question.

Drew: I do.

Craig: (singing) Drew has a question.

John: (singing) Drew has a question.

Drew: You guys have talked about how optioning nonfiction books and articles is ultimately unnecessary, because nobody owns the facts, right?

Craig: That’s right.

Drew: We had a listener write in recently about the drama around Hulu’s Welcome to Chippendales. A famous history professor is claiming that Hulu’s Welcome to Chippendales was taken directly from her podcast about the same story called Welcome to Your Fantasy. Hulu had optioned a book about the Chippendales case, but they didn’t option the podcast. There’s two big characters in the Hulu show that are only in the podcast and were not in the book. If nonfiction reporting can be traced back to one author or a single source, is that still in the public domain of facts?

Craig: Of course. I don’t know what this history professor is doing here. What? No. If you are compiling and stating and then publishing facts, either in the newspaper or in a podcast, they’re facts. They belong to everybody. If the show drew from, say, specific things that she had pulled from someone’s life that weren’t on the podcast, then yeah, maybe that person could actually say, “Hey, you’re taking stuff from my life that isn’t public information.” I don’t know what the professor’s claim here is. What?

John: We’ll put a link in the show notes to the actual article for the New York Times. It digs into it a little bit more about what’s being alleged here. Drew, is there a lawsuit, or is it just like the history professor’s miffed, but it’s not clear that there’s going to be a lawsuit?

Drew: It’s miffed. There’s no lawsuit currently.

Craig: I don’t know why she’s miffed. Look. Part of the reason she’s miffed is because Hollywood keeps doing this stupid thing where they buy articles. They don’t need to buy the articles, but they buy them because, we’ve talked about this before, it allows them to squat on a property and say, “Hey everybody, I’m doing something, and you’re not.” It gives them access to maybe a lot of extra research that was done, that maybe didn’t make it into the article.

Really, it’s because producers in Hollywood are always looking for some kind of material that they can represent to buyers as exclusive. “I have IP. I own an article.” This is entirely about entrepreneurs pretending that they’ve purchased something, like, “I have this exclusive right to this cylinder of Los Angeles air.” It’s not property. Intellectual property has to be property. Facts are not property. I’m sorry that she’s miffed, but if you report stuff, that’s that. I don’t know what else to say.

John: Again, I don’t know the specifics of this case, but I will say that Craig’s point about facts are facts, and facts are not the kind of property that you can maintain. It is entirely believable though that there could be a podcast that is made, that is not just reporting the facts in a journalistic sense, but is actually framing things in a way that tells a very specific story and lays out specific beats in a way, that does have narrative value, that does feel like it’s the difference between the straight reporting of what happened at Chernobyl versus Craig’s version of like, this is this story that I’m telling, where she has put together a thing that is not simply journalism but is actually narrative storytelling in a way, that is creating new and original ways to present this material, that could be both optionable and could be considered the source material for something, in a way that she might have a case.

It doesn’t sound like she’s trying to have a case. She’s not trying to sue here. I just want to say that there is a difference between just pure, straight journalism, which is facts, and actual creation of narrative, because books do get optioned.

Craig: You mean nonfiction books. A lot of those nonfiction books simply don’t need to be optioned. It is very difficult to claim that there is narrative in a nonfiction source material. It’s very difficult. We have a category for this, which is source material of a non-story nature.

It’s not enough to organize your facts into a news story. A news story isn’t the same thing as a story story. Everybody organizes facts somehow. They have to structure it somehow. It’s not the same. It’s a very difficult thing.

In looking at this article, it seems like part of the crankiness is that this podcast was offered to Kumail Nanjiani and Emily Gordon, and they just weren’t interested in it, meaning, “Here, do you want to adapt this?” and they weren’t interested in it, and then later Kumail was showing up in this story, which I don’t think came from him. I think it came from someone else, I think. The fact that he serves as an EP, that’s a fairly common thing. That happens all the time when a big actor signs onto a show. That’s right, you heard me Kumail. I called you a big actor. Then in the show’s closing credits, it says it was inspired by Deadly Dance: The Chippendales Murders, a 2014 book.

Here’s the thing. There’s all sorts of reportage. It’s incredibly rare that you are the first person to talk about something, especially when it’s a true crime case. If somebody listens to your podcast and goes, “It just doesn’t grab me,” but then I read a book about the same topic, but the book is grabbing me, this is perfectly fine. I just don’t see… This is just a pretty typical thing that authors do sometimes, where they can’t see beyond the world of what they’ve written or said. They just can’t imagine that anybody else has written or said these things, but they have.

John: You can go back to very early episodes of this show, where we talk about some of these lawsuits about like, “Oh, The Matrix was inspired by my book.” It’s like, oh my god, no, it wasn’t.

Craig: We talked quite a bit about the novelist who was suing over the movie Gravity. She dropped it. She dropped the suit, for all the reasons we said she would, because it doesn’t work that way. These things just don’t work that way.

Again, I just wish that… If there could be a Scriptnotes rule that we could somehow get everybody to sign onto, the rule would be don’t report about people complaining that they’ve been ripped off or people suing that they’ve been ripped off. Report verdicts. That’s it. Just report the verdicts, and what you will see is a parade of nope. That’s what you’re going to see.

John: We have two questions here that are specifically about research, which I think might be good for us to tackle on this research-heavy episode.

Drew: We’ll start with Lawant. Lawant writes, “I’m working on a script taking place during the second Iraq War. I’ve had access to some of the soldiers involved, but in order to make sure some of the other perspectives present in the story are respected, I would really like to talk to some of the actual Iraqi people who were present during that time. The problem is, I don’t personally know any of them. How do you deal with a situation like this? I know Craig got some perspective from people actually living in current day Ukraine for Chernobyl. How did he find them? I considered going to my country’s consulate, but I’d prefer a direct line to the people I want to talk to.”

Craig: That’s a good question. There are ways. One, I don’t know where you live, but let’s say you live in the United States. If you are in a big city or near a big city, there often are community organizations that represent immigrants from particular countries or cultures. If you can find a group like that…

For instance, for The Last of Us, we had a scene that took place in Indonesia. We wanted to hire Indonesian actors. In Calgary, there was a community organization for Indonesian immigrants that lived in Calgary. We started there.

What happens is, those people can either help you directly or they can say, “Let me talk to my uncle. Let me talk to my sister. She lives in Iraq. He is still there. Let me see if they’d be willing to talk with you.” Obviously, you’ll need a translator in cases where people don’t speak English. That’s where I would start.

The other option is if certain names or individuals come up in the stories that you hear from the soldiers, you can start to track back. What neighborhood is that? Who is the mayor? Who is the leader of that community? Let me reach out. Again, I would suggest reaching out through an intermediary that will be closer to that culture than you are.

Here’s the thing. People want to help on this stuff. They really do. They want to be heard. They want to be represented. They want you to get the stories right and get the facts right. It shouldn’t be too hard. That’s where I would start.

John: This is not Iraq. I was writing a project that was taking place in 1970s Maine. I needed to get a sense of what 1970s Maine felt like. I didn’t have the ability to time travel, but I could go to Maine. I would just start talking to people. I’d ask them questions, people old enough that I could actually ask specific questions about the 1970s. I got some useful things out of it.

The most useful thing often was just asking, “Who else do you think I should talk to?” because they can point you to people who actually might have more information. That might be your answer here for Iraq. The first Iraqi people you talk to may not have just the information you need or the perspective, but they will know somebody who will know somebody. If you do this well and carefully, you’re going to find some people who were on the ground in the kinds of places that you’re talking about and can really give you that perspective that I think is important, that you’re looking for.

Craig: Completely agree.

John: Cool. Let’s do one more question here.

Drew: Gabe asks, “I just recently attended a Q and A with Craig at Baylor University, and he name dropped Mimi Munson, a researcher on Chernobyl.”

Craig: Mimi Munson, yeah.

Drew: “How do you know when you need to employ researchers to help in the writing process? How would one get involved in researching for film and TV?”

Craig: I don’t know the answer to that second one. Maybe I’ll reach out to Mimi and see what she would say about how to get involved in researching. How do you know when you need to employ researchers? Is there too much research for you to do? By too much, I don’t mean, oh, my capacity is limited.

I mean to say that there is an ocean of material and that you need help curating it, sorting it, and then those people, by working with you, will start to get a sense of what would actually be helpful, and then they start mining for that, or it’s really just a question of do you feel like you’re drowning in stuff. If it’s a smaller thing and you know there’s not that much material, it’s just about going in deep, then you may not need somebody.

John: Craig, a question for you. Were you mostly throwing questions to Mimi saying, “I have these 10 questions about this place or these people. Can you find me these answers?” or were you asking for just more general dossiers about like, “Tell me about this moment and what you can in this moment.” What was the balance of those kind of requests?

Craig: I think it was pretty well evenly split, because there were things I knew I wanted to get into, but I wanted more information. I couldn’t find enough. Sometimes in doing my research, I would run up against a brick wall, where I would say, “Okay, there’s just a gap here. Can you help me fill this gap?”

The story of the miners in part was something that Mimi turned up in this fairly obscure article, it was in a Soviet paper, specifically about the miners. That was really helpful. In other cases, I would say, “Hey, you know what? Here’s a general area that it would be good to just find some additional resources on.”

I found that I think for any researcher, they need direction. You can’t just say to them, “Do research.” That’s not a thing. The whole point of research is it’s directed. As she goes, she may dig things up that she flags and says, “You know what? I bet you Craig would be fascinated by this.” We’ll see how it goes. That’s also part of it is just catching things and you’re straining. It’s like you’re panning for gold and what turns up.

John: That’s part of what we’ve talked about on this show a lot is that part of the screenwriter’s job is sometimes that initial research, because you don’t know what’s going to trigger for you, where that idea’s going to come from, what’s going to really engage, until you start mucking around in it. You’re talking about a researcher comes in when you realize, hey, I have that initial spark, now there’s just so much that I need somebody to help me sort out the gold from the-

Craig: Silt.

John: The silt.

Craig: The silt.

John: Hey Craig, while we’re talking about gold and silt, a question for you. In all the fantasy stuff you’ve ever seen on screen, why does nobody ever pan for gold?

Craig: Only in the Old West. No one’s ever panning for gold.

John: The only time you see panning for gold is 1849 miners times.

Craig: That miner, he’s always crazy. He’s got a huge beard. He’s got this nutty look in his eyes. He does a little dance when he finds gold. They always dance. He does a jig.

John: First, you have to bite the nugget to make sure it’s really gold. Then you do the dance.

Craig: Then you do the dance, and then terrible things happen. Nobody has ever found gold in one of those movies and then it turns out great. Violence ensues.

John: They have to use that gold to buy a jug of liquor that’s marked with two Xs and then another bad thing will happen.

Craig: Exactly, the jug. You get the jug. You pay for the jug with a coin. It’s probably the same reason we don’t see people with bindles.

John: Bindles and gold pans, it feels like it all goes together.

Craig: You start a new business where we just sell two items, bindles and gold panning pans, or those weird britches that they would wear. He-he. They would always do a dance. The old prospector. They’re always an old prospector. It turns out that panning for gold is a terrible way to make a living.

John: I think that’s really what it comes down to. I did a tiny bit of research. I didn’t hire Mimi Munson, but I did a tiny bit of research, because it bothered me one night. Why do I never see that in fantasy settings? There should be gold in rivers in fantasy settings too. It’s so not profitable that people just didn’t do it. There are historic gold pannings, but it just doesn’t work out.

Craig: You gotta assume that all the gold has been found. They know where it is, and they’ve dug it up.

John: Cool. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things that are both based on true stories, very applicable for this, both by Daniel Wallace. Daniel Wallace wrote the book version of Big Fish. I’ve been a friend for 20-plus years.

The first is his new book, which is his first nonfiction book, called This Isn’t Going To End Well: The True Story of a Man I Thought I Knew. It’s talking about William Nealy, his longtime friend and brother-in-law, who was this golden boy, not even hippie, but he’s just this free spirit who could do anything. He was a really good writer, inspired Daniel to become a writer, but was also self-destructive in really fascinating ways.

If you’ve read Big Fish or seen Big Fish, it reads as not a prequel or a sequel but a sidequel, because you can see Big Fish happening to the side of it all. It’s just really fascinating. Also, knowing Daniel, recognizing how this person influenced him and how things intersected along the way, I thought it was just great. I recommend his book.

Daniel also this past week has an article in Slate about Randall Kenan, who is a writing professor at the same place that Daniel taught or maybe still teaches, who died. Daniel was put in charge of gathering together all of Kenan’s papers, which got me thinking about our bonus topic.

Kenan had some stuff published but had been working on a big book that he could never quite finish. It was like, what is the process of putting together a collection for a person. This thing that’s being printed is going to be the biggest publication of Kenan’s career, but it’s going to happen posthumously, and how we deal with that and feel about that, because this was clearly a very talented writer, but all the things didn’t quite connect during his life. A really good article by Daniel Wallace on Randall Kenan.

Craig: Great. My One Cool Thing is the soundtrack for The Last of Us on HBO. This is not something I did. It’s something that was done by two brilliant composers, Gustavo Santaolalla and David Fleming. The music was such an important part of the show.

I think it’s lovely when these soundtracks come out, because it lets you just enjoy the music without any distraction. I realize I’m calling my show a distraction. It is beautiful to just listen to the music. Especially I think this score is so playable on its own.

Gustavo in particular, he’s scored so many wonderful movies, and he has an Oscar for Brokeback Mountain and lots and lots of movies. He does it in the strangest way. He does not do what pretty much every other composer does, which is to watch a scene and then begin to compose music for the scene. He doesn’t watch. He just starts composing stuff based on his feelings about what he knows about the story and the characters. Then he says, “What would you do with this? What would you do to this?” As it turns out, it works great. I don’t think it would work great for every composer, but it sure works great for him.

Definitely check that out. It’s available out there on Spotify and all the various places that people get music. There’s just some really beautiful things. It’s a lovely listen in your car. I don’t know. Not every great score is a great listen just on its own. I think this one is.

John: I really love the score soundtrack for Station Eleven, which is something I listen to independently, which it seems like was a similar experience, where it wasn’t score being designed for the scenes of a shot. It was really just like, here are the ideas, and then based on the ideas, you could work them into things.

Craig: I’m looking it up. It looks like it was done by Dan Romer.

John: Dan Romer, great guy.

Craig: Dan Romer.

John: Really, really talented composer. Question for you, Craig. In addition to the score, there’s also covers of other songs in the show. Are those going to be on that album or somewhere else?

Craig: Yeah, there are. There are a couple of tracks. We didn’t have too many songs we threw in there. I don’t know if we have all of them that we’re putting in there. We certainly are including the Depeche Mode song Never Let Me Down Again as well as one Jessica Mazin’s cover of it. I don’t know if it includes the Aha songs or the Pearl Jam song, but it just might. You think I would know. Mostly I just think because you can get those songs anyway. The only one that’s unique would be Jessie’s cover. Otherwise, to me it’s all really about listening to the instrumental score.

John: Cool. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt.

Craig: What?

John: Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Orpheus. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you could send questions. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on what will happen to the stuff we wrote. Craig, Drew, thanks for a fun show.

Craig: Thank you.

Drew: Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, this is clearly inspired by this Daniel Wallace article about his friend’s papers. It got me thinking about, oh, what am I going to do with the stuff I’ve written after I die?

I guess it falls into two basic buckets for both you and I. There’s stuff we wrote for other people, and they are going to hold onto that most times. We still have our scripts for things which we can publish independently, but they will fundamentally own Chernobyl and other things like that.

There’s also some stuff which I know I control by myself, and I think you may control as well, like the spec things you wrote that never got produced, that you own all the rights to, that you control the copyright on. For me, ultimately, Arlo Finch. I control the Big Fish musical. Andrew Lippa and I control the Big Fish musical. We have copyright on that, so that will pass to our heirs. My movie The Nines will revert to me in a couple years. Scriptnotes will come to our heirs.

Craig: That goldmine, Scriptnotes.

John: That goldmine, Scriptnotes. What do you think about when you think about a screenwriter’s legacy, the papers, the writing, all that stuff?

Craig: We definitely have to worry about it less than novelists, because as you point out, novelists own copyright on everything they write. They often do have a lot of communication that would be of interest back and forth, letters or emails with editors and so forth. We have much less that we have copyright on, so all those things are controlled by the companies. Not permanently. At some point what happens is they go into public domain. What they don’t do is revert back.

The only exceptions to that would be if something was unmade. There is a reversion clause in our union agreement. It is somewhat unicornic in that it happens very rarely that the companies allow it to happen. They can easily check off a few boxes to avoid it. For us, not as important. Most writers won’t have, for instance, like you have, a musical or an independent film that they created themselves and have copyright on. What they will have are spec scripts. They will have unsold scripts that they still have copyright on.

One of the things that stuck out in the article that you cited about this man who died, Randall Kenan, is that he was alone. I think when people are alone, that’s when trouble happens. You and I are lucky enough to not be alone. We have partners. Either you’re leaving everything to Mike or you’re leaving everything to me. I don’t know who’s getting it. My guess is that, like a lot of people that do what we do, you have a trust. The trust owns everything. You actually plan. I think the most important thing is planning. As long as you plan, you’re fine.

John: You also need to figure out who would actually want to get those things that you’re talking about. At this point, Amy will inherit the Big Fish musical or Mike will inherit it, but ultimately Amy will inherit the Big Fish musical, which will be worth something for a fair amount of time. Luckily, she likes the Big Fish musical. She’s seen every production as we’ve done it. She will be a good caretaker of that, because she’ll actually have to decide this production gets to make that change, this production doesn’t get to make that change. It’s not an empty responsibility there.

With The Nines, it’s going to be weird once it reverts to me, because right now Sony owns and controls it. They don’t really do anything with it. It’s sometimes available on some streaming services whenever. I will need to figure out what do I want to do with it. Do I take it to some service who helps me sell it to different markets to do different things? That will be a thing I’ll have to do not too long from now. Eventually, my heirs will have to figure that out as well.

There’s been properties along the way, a catalog of songs that I was trying to use in a thing, where I had to talk to the heirs and figure out, okay, how do we figure out who owns this song and whether it’s actually inextricably bound to this other thing.

You recognize all that bullshit paperwork you don’t want to hold onto, you gotta hold onto it, because it can become important down the road. You just want to make sure you’re giving your papers and your stuff to somebody who actually does want to deal with it, because in the case of this block of songs, there was a person who really knew what they were doing, but in so many other cases I can imagine that doesn’t exist.

Craig: Again, planning, because one of the things that happens when you do estate planning is you talk to a lawyer that asks you a whole bunch of questions you really wish no one would be asking you, and you don’t want to answer them, because they all have to do with both your own mortality and a lot of just ticky-tacky details that are just exhausting. That’s their job. Once it’s done, it’s done. Then they print out this phone book of an estate planning thing, and you sign it.

That’s now governing how this all works. It has all sorts of implications. The most important gift you can give the people you love who you’re going to be leaving behind is clarity. There’s no arguments. There’s no fighting. There’s no confusion.

One of the things that happens when people die, they might leave you a bunch of money and say, “Now we’re going to put you in charge of this, but we also want the following people to get the following money. You’re going to be dealing this money out.” Let’s say the estate says, “Here’s $100,000. Keep 20. Give 20 to Aunt So-and-so, and give the rest to these 5 kids. Split it up.” If that estate also has debt of, say, $500,000, you’re responsible for it. That’s terrifying. You have to make sure that when you leave stuff, that everything’s covered. It’s all about just doing the math and thinking ahead. No one wants to think about this stuff.

John: No. It’s literally death and taxes. It’s all of the annoyances of trying to do your annual taxes but also thinking about your own mortality and the fact you are going to die.

Craig: Yeah, and that even your death will involve taxes. Not everybody’s in a financial position where they need to create a trust, but everybody who is breathing and of a certain age with assets should, at a minimum, have a will. You just don’t want to die intestate. Drew, do you have a will?

Drew: I think I do, but because my mom was an estate planning attorney.

Craig: Oh, damn. We’re just basically doing an ad for your mom at this point.

Drew: She’s retired now.

Craig: She was retired. Phone’s going to be ringing off the hook now. If your mom is-

Drew: I’m exceptional in that.

Craig: How did this happen? How did I open a door and just get absolutely blindsided by that? That’s insane.

Drew: It was an interesting way to grow up. I think I had a will by the time I graduated high school.

Craig: When you were really little, would your mom just sit you down and say, “Drew, you’re going to die.”

Drew: Oh, yeah. That was dinner table conversations of like, “When we die, this is how this happens, and when you die-“

Craig: When we die. When you specifically die.

John: My mom died during the pandemic. I want to give her props, because for 10 years leading up to it, she was always very clear about, “This is the will. This is where the will is kept. Here’s a copy of the will. Here’s how everything goes.” I was the executor of the estate. It was as straightforward as it could be, but it was still annoying. There was still a lot of steps I hadn’t anticipated in terms of having to not just get the death certificate, but also how to close these bank accounts and how to do this stuff and how to get into the safe deposit box. Fortunately, my brother was still in Colorado and could do some of that stuff that I couldn’t do, but it was a lot.

Craig: It’s a lot. Melissa’s mom died. My dad died during the pandemic, but my mom’s still alive, so that’s still going. Melissa’s mom died during the pandemic, and she was the remaining parent there, so Melissa became the executor of the estate. It becomes a full-time job.

I was shocked there aren’t people that just do it for you. I thought there’s gotta be somebody that just does all this. There really isn’t. You have to deal with a lawyer, and you have to deal with the government.

There’s also all this stuff of just like, she had an account and we can’t figure out how to access it, and they’re calling us and telling us we owe money on a thing that we don’t own, and all the annoying things of… Sometimes something happens, and you’re like, “Wait, what? Why is this cable company that I don’t use telling me I owe them money?” It’s that times a hundred, for somebody else. You weren’t doing it. They were doing it. Now you have to figure out how to turn their fricking internet off. It’s a full-time job.

Hey, Drew, ask your mom, are there services that just handle this stuff for you, like just say, “Just give me everything. Five me power of attorney. We’ll do it.”

Drew: That’s a great question. I’ll ask her. That’s separate from just an online portal that you can be like, “Here’s all my assets. Spit out a will,” right?

Craig: I’m talking about you have been named the executor by someone’s will. You have to now process all of their stuff, and you have to handle all of their accounts and their properties and their things. Is there a service that can basically, just for a fee or a percentage, do it for you, so you don’t have to take on the second job of combing through the mess of perhaps somebody’s not perfectly organized leavings?

Drew: I will ask her and get back to you.

John: Our listeners will probably also have an answer for that. I think that actually is a fascinating How Would This Be a Movie. I think the character who does that, it’s a nice way into a story. It’s a person who’s just cleaning up an estate, and then you realize there’s actually a greater mystery there. It’s potentially fascinating.

Craig: Let’s get Natasha Lyonne on the phone.

John: I think she’s there. To bring this back around to what we do with our papers, I would also say there’s probably services where if I didn’t have a daughter who was going to vanquish rights or she wasn’t interested in doing it but those rights are still valuable, there’s gotta be a company who I can assign those rights to, who will work to maximize the exploitation of those rights. For Big Fish, actually, there already is a company, but for other things, to maximize exploitation of those rights and then pay out a check on a regular basis, basically an agent for that stuff.

Craig: There are. There are definitely agents that represent writers posthumously, no question. They represent estates. An estate just goes to a literary agent. It’s the same thing that you would do in life, if the challenge is the same, which is, “Hey, sell this material to somebody. License it or whatever.” It’s the material. It’s not the living person that’s relevant. That feels pretty doable. That’s doable. Honestly, I’m dead. I don’t care what Melissa does with it. Whatever. I’m gone. I’m gone. It’s over. It’s over. Shut the door. Turn off the lights.

John: Pack everything in a bindle and leave.

Craig: Pack our thing in the cosmic bindle and walk the rails into eternity.

John: We’ll all be gold panning in Heaven.

Craig: Exactly. Just my gold pan, my bindle, my shoes that have the weird… The part that covers the toe is gone or lifted up for some reason. I’m a bit sooty, because they’re always sooty.

John: Yeah, some soot.

Craig: I’m eating directly from a can of beans.

John: Also, your hat has been flattened down. It had a weird quality to your hat.

Craig: There’s always a weird patch on the hat. Also, when they eat from the can of beans, they leave the lid on but just tilt it up. They never just take the lid completely off.

John: No, you gotta bend it back. Weirdly, their coffee pot is directly sitting in the flames.

Craig: The coffee pot is from an iron forge or something. That coffee has to be horrible.

John: Oh yeah, because the grounds are just soaking in the water.

Craig: Exactly. Those grounds were in your bindle all day, or god forbid your pocket of your far too loose trousers.

John: Good times.

Craig: The hobo life.

John: It’s the hobo life for me. Thanks, Craig. Thanks, Drew.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Drew: Bye.

John: Bye.

Links:

  • The Man of Your Dreams by Sangeeta Singh-Kurtz for The Cut
  • The Brilliant Inventor Who Made Two of History’s Biggest Mistakes by Steven Johnson for The New York Times Magazine
  • Pennsylvania Woman Who Disappeared in 1992 Is Found Alive in Puerto Rico by Eduardo Medina for the New York Times
  • The Counterfeit Queen of Soul by Jeff Maysh for Smithsonian
  • The Curious Case of the Disappearing Nuts by Peter Vigneron for Outside
  • A History Professor Takes On Hollywood by Katherine Rosman for the New York Times
  • This Isn’t Going to End Well: The True Story of a Man I Thought I Knew by Daniel Wallace
  • Posthumously by Daniel Wallace
  • The Last of Us: Soundtrack From the Series by David Fleming & Gustavo Santaolalla
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Instagram
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • John on Mastodon
  • Outro by Orpheus (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 593: The Ref with Richard LaGravenese, Transcript

May 11, 2023 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

**Craig Mazin:** Hi, folks. This upcoming episode does feature some naughty language, so if you are in the car with children, put the earmuffs on or wait to play this when you’re at home.

Hello, my name is Craig Mazin, and this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. This is 593rd episode of Scriptnotes, which is upsetting.

John is not with me today, also upsetting, but to counteract that, today on the show we have one of the best screenwriters simply of all time, and also one of the nicest people in Hollywood, which I agree is a low bar if that’s what you were thinking, but he would be a nice guy pretty much anywhere. We welcome Richard, AKA Richie as I call, Richard LaGravenese. Welcome to Scriptnotes.

**Richard LaGravenese:** Thank you, Craig. This is great. Good to see you.

**Craig:** It’s good to see you too. We are looking at each other over Zoom. Richie and I have known each other for many, many years. I have been a fan of his for many more years than I’ve known him. I’m going to run down a short list of some of the movies that he’s written, so that you can go ahead and drop your jaw like I do when I look at it all together like this.

The Fisher King, The Bridges of Madison County, The Mirror Has Two Faces, The Horse Whisperer, Beloved, Behind the Candelabra. These are all remarkable, highly acclaimed films, and yet we’re not going to be talking about any of those today, nor are we going to be talking about the seven other movies that Richie has directed.

What we are going to be talking about today is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is the 1994 film The Ref. The Ref was a criminally under-seen film. That’s why I want to dig into it, because I think from a screenwriting point of view, it’s remarkable.

Then in our Bonus Segment for Premium members, we’ll be talking about men without friends, how and why men should make friends, and how friendless men emotionally burden the women in their lives. That ought to be fun.

Normally, this is where John would do news and follow-up, but I simply have none. Instead, we’re just going to get right into The Ref. The Ref was released in 1994. It was, I believe, a Touchstone movie. Touchstone was one of the, I was about to say adult film arms of Disney, but that doesn’t sound right. Non-family movie wing of Disney. It was a Christmas movie, and that’s why of course they released it in March. Why would they have done that, Richie? Do you know?

**Richard:** I don’t know.

**Craig:** It certainly impacted the movie’s prospects. When it came out at the time, it was a bit of a box office bum. I think looking at how much money it made, if it came out today and made that amount of money, everybody would be dancing in the streets, but the business was different back then. The expectations were a little higher for theatrical releases. The fact that it didn’t necessarily make money right away didn’t mean that it wasn’t going to catch on as a cult hit and maybe even more than a cult hit.

The story is by Marie Weiss, screenplay by Richie LaGravenese and Marie Weiss, and directed by the late, great Ted Demme. I’ll do the quick summary, and then we’ll dive into the origin story of The Ref.

Quick summary. It’s Christmas Eve. Caroline and Lloyd, a middle-aged couple living in an affluent and very white and uptight Old Bay Bridge, Connecticut… Is that right, Old Bay Bridge? Is that the town?

**Richard:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Are having a marriage crisis. As they debate the past, present, and future of their relationship, they’re taken hostage by Gus, a thief on the run, but who has captured whom? Gus is forced to listen to their ceaseless bickering, as well as pretend to be a marriage counselor when Lloyd’s extended family arrives for the holiday, but his intervention, ultimately at the point of a gun, is what finally leads Lloyd and Caroline to be honest and open with each other.

This always struck me as a modern Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf take on Ransom of Red Chief, the old O. Henry story.

**Richard:** That’s right.

**Craig:** Is that where it began for you?

**Richard:** Absolutely. It started as a take on The Ransom of Red Chief. It was an idea by my then-sister-in-law, Marie Weiss, who was coming out of advertising and wanted to work in the movies, and her then-husband, Jeff Weiss, who is one of the producers on it.

I had a deal at Disney, because originally, Disney had bought Fisher King but didn’t make it but then put me under contract for three movies. You give them an idea. They give you an idea. They never take your ideas and usually do things off the shelf. That’s where Little Princess happened. The first thing was Widows, which just recently got made by McQueen. That was originally there.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Richard:** That was the longest development thing. That’s when Touchstone and Disney used to give you literally 16 pages of notes in development. At the time, we were making it a comedy for Bette Midler and Goldie Hawn, so it didn’t turn out that way. I was on that for months, like a year. It was terrible.

Anyway, the last deal was we brought to them this idea of The Ref. That’s how it began. She had this idea of a Ransom of Red Chief idea with an arguing couple and a family and stuff. With me guaranteeing it, she got to do a first draft, and then I came in.

**Craig:** Then you came in and you started doing what you do. The movie, I suspect, given the fact that it was 1994, which was thick in the middle of every movie makes money because it’s going to be out on VHS and DVD. I suspect that all it really needed was a star. Then along comes Denis Leary. Now, Denis Leary was a bit of a phenomenon at the time.

**Richard:** He and Teddy, they had a partnership, kind of.

**Craig:** I see. Denis Leary was, I think at that point, primarily a stand-up comic. Then he was doing some stuff for MTV.

**Richard:** Yes. Interstitials they call them.

**Craig:** Yeah, interstitials.

**Richard:** Teddy directed them. They were all Cindy Crawford-centric and really funny. When I hired Teddy, when we met on the movie, he brought in Denis.

**Craig:** One question to start with is, Denis Leary has a very specific comic persona. That comic persona is brought through here. As a character, he’s a quasi-chain-smoking, fast-talking, angry guy. That was his thing was he’s angry, he’s very verbal, he doesn’t have time. Every frustrates him. It is a perfect match, really.

The first question is, did he just pick that script up and go, “Oh yeah, if I just be me and say these lines, everything will be fine,” or did you say, “Ah, okay, now that it’s Denis Leary, I need to adjust the character of Gus to fit Denis Leary.”

**Richard:** I remember I always loved those fast-talking comedies of the ‘30s and ‘40s. He’s perfect for that, because he’s rapid fire. I now remember there were a few drafts that were going through, again, Disney development, Disney development. Then once we had a producer on it, it still wasn’t really clicking.

I remember it was me, Denis, Judy Davis, Kevin Spacey, and Bruckheimer. I rewrote the script in 4 days, bringing in 30 pages and 60 pages and reading with the actors the next day, the next day, the next day, and built it like that.

One of the greatest feelings you can ever have as a writer, it happened with Robin Williams too, is when you make someone like Denis laugh from reading the script. He was reading it cold, and he would start laughing.

Then we found the voice of it. In those four days, I think we really found the rhythm and the voice of it a lot. It’s easy to write for Denis, because he has a kind of 1940s delivery. You know what I mean?

**Craig:** “Here’s the thing. I’m going to do this. I’m going to do that. Hey, ho.”

**Richard:** Breathy and fast and just quick. I know there was a couple of bits he improved, like biting the baby Jesus cooking and things like that. We stuck to the script pretty much. It was a free form on the script. On the floor, we needed to come up with something funnier. That was it. It was finding the rhythm and then his ear.

I had known Denis also earlier. We went to Emerson together. We were in different groups, because I was in the theater thing and he was in the comedy thing. He started the Comedy Workshop there. I remember his shows with his little troupe. They were always really, really funny.

**Craig:** I’m fascinated by the fact that so much came out of those four days. There is this interesting intensity that can happen when you almost have a theater setting. It’s crazy. You have to deliver.

You’re working with Judy Davis, Kevin Spacey, who we will discuss purely as an actor in this podcast and not deal with all the other stuff. Those two alone, what’s interesting about them is how verbal they are as actors and how they’ve maybe never been more verbal than this. I want to give a little example here.

Right in the beginning, there’s two things that happen. The first thing is you establish the town. As the credits are coming on screen, the camera moves to this town, and we learn that it is a picture-perfect place, although there’s maybe the undercurrent of an issue, like the fact that the baby Jesus is missing from the [inaudible 00:09:44] in town square.

We eventually get to a marriage counselor, played by BD Wong. He is dealing with the angriest couple in the world. As they go back and forth, I always feel like the first five minutes of a movie teaches you how to watch the movie, and it teaches you a few things here. One of them is, tonally, these people are so hyper-verbal and hyper-literate in the way they talk to each other. I’m going to give an example here, because I’m fascinated by the way dialog works like this.

**Caroline Chasseur:** You took out a loan. I mean, it was your decision, not mine. You took out a loan from Satan Mom.

**Lloyd Chasseur:** She blames my mother for everything that’s gone wrong in her life. In the meantime, she never finishes anything she starts. Photography courses, existential philosophy courses, Scandinavian cooking classes.

**Caroline:** At least I go after my dreams.

**Lloyd:** To be what, somebody who takes photographs of lutefisk to prove the nothingness of being? No wonder our son’s so confused.

**Craig:** That’s gorgeous, right? He listed three classes, and then without a pause to think or put it together, he can come up with this imaginary idiot who’s used all the knowledge of those three classes. It really teaches you how this movie’s going to function and how these characters work. They both speak like this.

Talk a little bit about dancing on the edge of… One of the classic notes is, “This line feels written.” When you have actors like this, they can do it. There’s something almost play-like about it. Talk to me a little about how you addressed the manner in which they would speak and how literate and how many words and how writerly it would be.

**Richard:** I keep thinking of those first 15 minutes of His Girl Friday, when it’s Cary Grant and Ros Russell in the room. I’ve watched that scene about a million times. The rapidity and how they cram things into their references and you know exactly what they’re saying, and they’re insulting each other, they’re undermining and they’re funny, that rhythm was in my head as much as possible.

I’ve always over-written. I like literate movies. I like movies that are a little theatrical, that are not all exactly like real life. They’re just a little heightened. I think for comedy, it works.

Comedy, like music, goes through different grooves and different rhythms and stuff like that. It doesn’t always work, but I really think the classics do still work today, because there’s an intelligence behind them.

The rhythm was always in my head. I wanted to maintain it as much as possible. I had these two great theater actors, Judy and Kevin, who knew exactly how to find those rhythms. It’s funny when there are certain actors who just don’t know how to do that, today’s actors who don’t know how to talk fast. I was lucky. I was lucky with that and Christine Baranski, of course, later on.

**Craig:** We’ll get to her. You’re bringing up an interesting thing, which is that over time… It is a little distressing to me how much time has gone by, because this movie is almost 30 years old now, which is, I know, horrifying. Over time, actors have notoriously become mumblers, kind of introverts. I think acting quality has been too associated with that kind of navel-gazing and muttering. Here is this, where it’s a little bit like… There are certain bands where the singer is… Freddie Mercury is a great example. You understood every word he’s saying.

**Richard:** Articulation.

**Craig:** Articulation. There’s something so articulated about everybody here. The articulation of everyone is remarkable. I love that.

There’s another thing that happens here. First, we briefly meet Gus as a burglar who goes a little too far in trying to empty out a safe completely, but not before he’s sprayed by cat piss, as a very strange booby trap.

When we get back to the therapy session, one of the things that you do brilliant here is, inside of this one scene, in what John and I often refer to as this precious real estate of the first 5 or 10 minutes of a movie, you deliver so much exposition through therapy and through argument.

When that one scene is over, without us really noticing that anything has happened other than terrific entertainment and quite a few laughs, I know that Caroline has had an affair, that they haven’t had sex in a really long time, that they are in debt to Lloyd’s mother, whom Caroline hates and Lloyd defends, instinctively. Their son Jesse is a budding criminal delinquent.

Shortly after, in a connected scene where they’re driving home, I also understand that Caroline wants a divorce, and Lloyd isn’t going to agree to it. That choice is really interesting to me, because after a lot of this interesting exposition, all of which we will see echoed back at us, I’m not going to lead the witness. Why was it important that Caroline wanted a divorce and Lloyd wouldn’t agree to that?

**Richard:** Because I wanted there to be somewhere to go, because him agreeing to the divorce ultimately would be like an act of love, really. Right now, it’s about who’s got power and who’s going to get their way. That kept it open, so that there was conflict, like an engine going forward. If they both agree to the divorce, they’ve been decided, nothing is moving forward on that. I guess it could’ve worked, but it was more interesting to me leaving it open.

**Craig:** I think you made the right choice. Yes, it could’ve worked. They could’ve both agreed that they were going to get a divorce, and then at the end of it, they decide to call it off.

What I loved about the choice was that it felt… She says, “We’re miserable.” It felt like, okay, they are suspended in misery. These two people are stuck in this permanent misery where one wants to leave, one won’t let her leave. They can’t stand each other, but they can’t go anywhere. If nothing happens to them, this is going to be the way they are for the rest of their lives. That’s what I felt, because that is exactly when Gus enters. He is confronted now. It’s immediate. You guys don’t hide the premise. It’s right away, boom, “What did I do?”

There’s this wonderful scene where he gets in the car with them. We have a little bit of plot logic. I want to talk a little bit about the plot logic, actually, because it’s the most annoying part of writing these kinds of movies, but it’s essential. Gus has stolen jewels from, I think he’s the amusement park king.

**Richard:** I don’t remember.

**Craig:** It’s an old Willard. I think his name’s Willard. He’s out of town. There’s something about Willard, I guess his connections or whatever, that basically the theft of his stuff leads to this state police manhunt for the guy who’s done it. Why the manhunt? Why escalating it to the state police? Talk me through that storyline.

**Richard:** I can barely remember. Obviously, these are the least interesting parts of these movies for me to write. I’d rather just have people in a car or in a room talking for two hours and Virginia Woolf-ing it the whole time.

Making up this had to do with the McGuffin of the whole thing, because what happens at the end? If people aren’t searching for him, and it isn’t that big a thing, then there’s no tension of him having to hide in the house and pretend to be a therapist until he can figure out how to escape. We had to create this outside pressure cooker for him to stay inside the house. That really was all it was.

Again, it probably could’ve been better. It could’ve been a lot more logical or I just didn’t care. That’s the problem with me. I don’t outline. I get bored with that stuff. I just, “All right, that’s fine.” [inaudible 00:18:06].

**Craig:** In its own way, it works beautifully, because it’s simple. I can’t say that I understood necessarily why the one theft here led the whole state police manhunt to happen, but also, I kind of didn’t care, because when logic is in place to help me have a good time, I don’t interrogate it too much.

**Richard:** I think if you want to take the ride, you take the ride and you accept those things-

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Richard:** … because they’re not that important.

**Craig:** The way you set up the rules, it’s really simple. I don’t have to think much about it, because you don’t want me thinking about it. He can’t leave. He’s waiting for Murray, his getaway car guy, to call back and say he’s gotten a boat for them to escape. That’s it. He’s stuck in the house until-

**Richard:** Which is Richard Bright from The Godfather.

**Craig:** It is?

**Richard:** Yeah, he was in The Godfather.

**Craig:** He was in The Godfather?

**Richard:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Who was he in The Godfather?

**Richard:** He’s one of the younger… You’ll see him.

**Craig:** Oh, really?

**Richard:** He’s one of the assassins. He was a great guy. It was Richard Bright, wasn’t it? Yeah, it was Richard Bright. He was Murray.

**Craig:** Was he the one that was in the police uniform and shoots Barzini on the steps?

**Richard:** Yes.

**Craig:** Wow. I had no idea.

**Richard:** He’s in it throughout if you see. He’s in it throughout.

**Craig:** I had no idea. Oh my god.

**Richard:** Yeah, that’s Richard. He’s in a lot of movies.

**Craig:** That’s a connection I didn’t realize. Here’s another interesting fact for those of you following along at home. This movie I think was JK Simmons’s debut on screen.

**Richard:** It might’ve been.

**Craig:** I think it was. He plays Siskel. He’s a teacher at this military academy where Jesse, the son, is. We’ll talk about him in a bit.

We’ve set up everything we need to set up. You’ve done this beautifully. In the first, I don’t know, whatever it is, 10 minutes, I know everything about this town, I know everything about their relationship, I know everything about the rules that Gus has to deal with. Now we begin this triangle of characters for a while.

I’m also fascinated by this structure, because what you do is, once he meets them, once he takes them hostage, the movie splits into two halves. The first half is the three of them, that triangle. Then the second half is the larger family coming over. Talk a little bit about why and how you did that and focused in on the three of them first for quite an extended bit before bringing the family in.

**Richard:** They’re the heart. They’re the core of it. Then it was about showing the shark that’s coming towards the house to create some suspense and anticipation for what that collision is going to look like.

It was like a three-character play almost up until… I had ideas about turning this into a play, because it’s a one-set thing. You could have the whole thing in the house, in the living room for the entire evening.

**Craig:** Would you please do that?

**Richard:** I thought of doing that. It’d be really fun to do that. It was also for cutaways, because we had to skip time for them to prepare for the house. Denis had come up with the idea, had the idea of being the therapist. The fun of seeing this family coming towards them, I thought the audience was like, “Oh god, this is going to make complications in a farce kind of way, even better.”

**Craig:** It was incredible escalation. I appreciated, in a way, the quiet time, even though it was anything but quiet, between the three of them, because there’s a really interesting thing that happens almost immediately. First, as they’re driving to Caroline and Lloyd’s house, Lloyd blows right through a stop sign, which he says he didn’t see. There is no stop sign. Then when Gus gets them into the house and he’s got them tied up, he wants a cigarette. Lloyd says, “I don’t smoke, and Caroline quit.” As a smoker… Were you a smoker?

**Richard:** Yeah. Not like Denis, but yeah, I was.

**Craig:** I was as well, and so there was something absolutely delicious about a smoker seeing right into another smoker’s brain and going, “Where are they?” He knows she has has them. He knows instantly that there’s a hidden pack of cigarettes somewhere, and sure enough-

**Richard:** There are.

**Craig:** Because he has a gun, she has to reveal if they’re there. He says something to both of them that I think is kind of magical. In the film, he’s pushed them both over. They were in their chairs tied up.

**Richard:** [Crosstalk 00:22:28].

**Craig:** He’s pushed them backwards because they were bickering and they wouldn’t shut up. He comes over them. They’re accusing each other of being a liar. Gus says to Caroline, “You said you quit, didn’t you?” because she was like, “I never said I quit.” “You said you quit.” She admits it. Then he says to Lloyd, “You saw the stop sign, didn’t you?” Lloyd admits it.

In a way, what I love about this is the brilliance of starting the two of them in a marital counseling session with a completely ineffective counselor who cannot control them, and now here a guy with a gun is starting to make it happen. Talk a little bit, if you could, about the idea, even before Gus has to pretend to be a marriage counselor, the actual marriage counseling that he’s doing right here.

**Richard:** The joy of this for me, the most fun to me, was getting inside a marriage, and having been there myself. I don’t know if you’ve ever done this, but we used to do this a lot, where you get so into bickering with each other, doesn’t matter if you’re in public, doesn’t matter who’s there, everything goes away, and it’s just about who’s winning and who’s going to win. It’s like a match. It’s the information you use and the information you hold back and what you admit to and what you don’t admit to. This is how this marriage works. I was in the midst of that myself, and it was driving me crazy.

Having a character who just puts a gun to your head and says, “Tell me. Say what it was,” it’s like ah, then you finally get the truth. That’s how the marriage can heal, because they’re not really telling the truth to each other. It’s a power thing going on. They’re trying to each save their own skin. You lose the sight of the relationship, of the marriage. I think we do that a lot inside relationships when we bicker.

That idea was so real to me, of getting so lost in the bickering that you don’t care who is there, who’s around, you just have to get your point across kind of a thing. That was the fun of writing all that stuff, and then having him just cut right through it.

**Craig:** Cutting right through it is fantastic. There’s another thing that you set up so smartly. I would say to everybody, one of the things to do here is read this screenplay. Watch the movie. Read the screenplay. What Richie does in that first scene with BD Wong, who’s the failing marital counselor, is set up a situation where the marriage counselor says, “I’m not here to take sides. Basically, I’m not a referee. I don’t blow the whistle and say who created the foul.”

**Richard:** That’s right.

**Craig:** Here’s a guy who’s absolutely doing that, whether he realizes it or not. He is a referee. He’s saying, “This is what’s true, and this is what’s true.” In doing so, you start to see what they need, which I thought was a fascinating thing.

You described the incoming family as a shark. Talk to me about this. We meet the incoming family. They’re at dinner at a restaurant. They’re eating there because they know that Caroline is going to serve them something horrible and inedible, so they’re getting food first. Talk a little bit about this family now, these other ones.

**Richard:** Again, pulling from personal experience, the idea of a rich, controlling in-law that was a matriarch that was crippling the marriage, I liked. It wasn’t exactly my situation, but it was close, in a way, about how money can infantilize adult people around them. I wanted to get back at my in-laws for doing that, so I put all of the venom that I… You know when you have to be quiet at family gatherings and you want to say [inaudible 00:26:17]. I would just put it in the movie, like nailing yourself to a cross kind of a thing.

Out of that came her never approving of Judy Davis’s character, of her over her son and being too maternal love for the son and controlling and crippling him. I saw adult people crippled by their parents because their parents had money. My parents never had money. They always had problems. My dad was a cab driver. They never had that power over me. It was the first time I had witnessed it in that family. I played with that idea.

Her other son also being a soft doughboy. No one could stand up to her. He’s married to Christine Baranski, who’s just full of resentment and is trying to get along, is trying to make it through, but then when she sees what happens with Judy and Kevin, it gives her the liberation to finally tell the truth as well. It was really just a revenge thing for me to just get back at people who were too controlling.

**Craig:** I have to ask, since so much of this has been pulled from your own marriage, your own family, your in-laws, when the movie came out, did you get any difficult phone calls or no?

**Richard:** Went right over their head. No.

**Craig:** Isn’t that amazing?

**Richard:** Yep.

**Craig:** That’s amazing. People just can’t see themselves.

**Richard:** It’s I guess a good thing.

**Craig:** Were you worried about it?

**Richard:** No.

**Craig:** You knew that it would go like that. Wow. That’s amazing. It’s one of my favorite scenes in the movie, because we’ve been with this very literate, bickering, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf trio, and then we go to this other group that is not that. They seem regular in one sense.

I think this was my first exposure to Christine Baranski. She is brilliant, because she’s so frustrated and angry about this entire situation and constantly takes it out on her kids. I think she says something like, “Be happy. It’s Christmas! It’s Christmas!” I do that all the time. Every time Christmas rolls around, I say it just like her, so angry.

We also, I think, meet the antagonist here in the purist dramatic sense, Glynis Johns, who is absolutely brilliant in this movie as Mother Rose. Appears to be the antagonist. Myself, when I’m writing, I don’t necessarily think about who’s the protagonist, who’s the antagonist.

**Richard:** I don’t either.

**Craig:** I’m wondering if in retrospect you would agree that she is the villain if there is a villain.

**Richard:** Yes.

**Craig:** That comes through pretty clearly. There’s something that happens prior to the family arriving, and that is a connection between Caroline and Gus that struck me as really interesting. They have a conversation as she’s leading him upstairs to find some band-aids for his dog bite that he got when he was escaping the crime. She tells him things. She tells him that she and Lloyd weren’t always like this and that they, in fact, had a restaurant, she worked, and they had a dream, and it fell apart.

I’m curious what you were thinking, because this feels so natural to me. What drew her to him? Why does she open up to him so easily? Why does she want to take care of him like that?

**Richard:** I don’t know that she’s taking care of him. I think she respects him. He’s about the truth. There’s no lying with him. I think that’s in the line too where he turns to her and says, “What are we, girl friends?” That was when Denis laughed at the script when he read that for the first time.

**Craig:** It’s so funny. “What are we, girl friends?”

**Richard:** She starts to warm up. She needs someone to talk to, and she doesn’t have anyone. He is this symbol of… He’s all about the truth. He’s all about no bullshit. It’s life or death. I think she feels the need.

I wanted to humanize. I had to start planting what was good about what they had and how do I bring that out, so that you understand there was something there. Otherwise, they’re just bickering. What are they fighting for? I had to bring up the past any way I could figure it out. Then later on, when it all explodes and then they start saying what happened in the past, then you understand. I had to give little seeds of that, so that there was something, a dream there.

I got too sentimental with it, so he undercuts it. He doesn’t want to hear it. I think she wants to open up and figure it out and thinks he can help.

**Craig:** There’s an interesting theme that’s going through, that exists separate from… I think the main takeaway of the movie really is, in a very simple way, that communication and honesty is really the only way to salvation when you’re dealing with a relationship that is not working.

There’s this other theme going on, which is the haves versus the have-nots. It’s throughout the whole thing. It comes out here when they’re walking up the stairs, specifically because he notes that they have a shagol [ph], an actual shagol. She’s like, “If you want it, you can have it.” She doesn’t care, be presumably, it’s something that Mother Rose paid for or bought. He finds that so offensive and points out that, “You people, you probably never even worked a day.” It did strike me that she wanted his approval as well, when she says that’s not true.

**Richard:** She wants his respect. She wants him on her side, which also happens in bickering couples, no matter who’s around. Whatever witnesses are there to the bickering, you want them on your side, so I think so. I think he’s pointing to the fact that, “You don’t even know what you have. You don’t value what you have.” She’s like, “No, you don’t understand. That’s not the point. It’s the cost. Is it worth it?”

**Craig:** That is an interesting idea that I hadn’t considered, that she’s buttering up the ref. She’s getting him on her side.

**Richard:** As a friend almost, yeah, like an odd liaison.

**Craig:** That leads to this big second movement of this story, and that is when the family arrives. There is something that happens here that I think is really educational for anybody that’s writing farce, because it definitely becomes farcical, at least for a while, in a fun way.

What you do here, and again, there’s just an elegance to it, is rules. The rules are simple. Jesse, the son, has come home. They’ve tied him up and put him upstairs. No one can go upstairs. Rule number one, no one can go upstairs. Rule number two, the three of us always have to be together. That is enough. That’s enough.

**Richard:** That’s hard enough.

**Craig:** That’s hard enough. The family arrives. A question about the family. You are Italian. You come from, I assume, a Catholic background, Catholic upbringing?

**Richard:** Yep.

**Craig:** I’m Jewish. I come from a Jewish upbringing. You’re a New York Catholic. I’m a New York Jew. It’s essentially the same thing. It’s basically the same, but this family is not. My wife is Episcopalian from New England. This reminds me more of that world. Talk a little bit about how you were able to present that kind of WASPiness so accurately and beautifully?

**Richard:** I remember, I think Marie came up with, which I thought was just funny, that they were Huguenots.

**Craig:** French Huguenots. We’re French Huguenots.

**Richard:** That cracked me up when she told me that.

**Craig:** Mid-18th century French Huguenot.

**Richard:** Yeah, which I thought was really funny at the time. I’m speaking at the time, because my situation is very different now. At the time, the in-laws were Scarsdale Jewish.

**Craig:** Got it. Let me translate for everybody else, Scarsdale Jewish. It’s in Westchester. It’s fancier, richer, but still Jewish. You’ve got one foot in the old ways, and you’ve got one foot in the golf club and all that, but you’re not old money rich.

**Richard:** There still were a lot of, I want to say there were affectations, but the way things are done, how things are done, the kind of dinner parties and what you say. The contrast was, when the shit hit the fan, all that went right out the window, and they were just like Italians, emotional and brutal and all that stuff, but all the upper crust stuff. Part of it was from that. I think it was just osmosis of watching a lot of films and reading things about how those families work and the Philip Barry world of Philadelphia Story and Holiday and those kind of things.

**Craig:** It’s interesting.

**Richard:** It’s a New York sensibility too, to a certain extent, an Upper East Side sensibility.

**Craig:** I think outsiders often do those things the best, because we have been watching them. Like you say, you’ve been watching those things.

**Richard:** You absorb it.

**Craig:** It’s funny. I was at a party a couple of weeks ago, and Maureen McCormick was there, Maureen McCormick who played Marcia on The Brady Bunch. I told her how my sister and I used to watch her and that show and yearn for that kind of… We thought of that as the best kind of life, this WASPy… Nobody yelled. Nobody was screaming. Nobody got hit.

**Richard:** Nobody got hit.

**Craig:** It was so wonderful.

**Richard:** No plates were thrown.

**Craig:** No plates were thrown. Your mother and father weren’t screaming at each other constantly. I love the notion of the outsider creating this but then also going, “There are worms in the dirt underneath this.”

**Richard:** Something underneath there. Absolutely. Absolutely.

**Craig:** There’s a fantastic moment in this dinner where as things devolve, and they devolve rather quickly, Mother Rose mentions, quite casually, Caroline’s infidelity, the fact that Caroline cheated on her precious son, whom she’s awful to anyway. The fact that-

**Richard:** That he told his mother.

**Craig:** That he told his mother, that fact just sends her into a rage.

**Richard:** As it would.

**Craig:** As it would. She storms off, which means that Gus and Lloyd both have to follow her. They go into the kitchen, and there’s the following exchange.

**Richard:** I love this scene.

**Craig:** This is one of my favorites. She says, “You won’t talk about it in therapy, but you’ll discuss it behind my back, with that bitch.” Lloyd says, “Hey, she’s my mother.” Gus says, “She’s a fucking bitch, Lloyd.”

**Richard:** He’s telling the truth.

**Craig:** That is the best referee moment in the entire movie, because somebody has to say it.

**Richard:** Somebody has to say it. Exactly.

**Craig:** Somebody has to say, “No, I just showed up here. I have no vested interest in this fight, but I’m telling you, she’s a fucking bitch, Lloyd,” which my wife and I have been saying just as a general phrase about anybody we think is a bitch. We’ll just say, whether it’s a man or a woman, “He’s a fucking bitch, Lloyd.” We always just put Lloyd at the end.

**Richard:** That means so much. I love that. That’s fantastic. That makes me really happy.

**Craig:** A fucking bitch, Lloyd. It’s the ultimate referee moment. It goes by very quickly. It’s not this big, dramatic… Nor does the conversation stop. It keeps rolling. That is almost like the match that lights the fuse that eventually inevitably leads to everybody saying everything they think.

Talk about how to do that scene, where you’ve brilliantly jammed all this gunpowder into a barrel. How do you blow these things up? How do you create a sequence in one room, where no one’s really moving around that much, and yet everything explodes?

**Richard:** The event is the act of opening presents at Christmas. That’s what you hang it on, like a tree. Then the heartbeat of it was the relationship between Kevin and Judy and them speaking again as if no one’s in the room and then getting everything out. Then you have all these people now who have somewhat of an interest invested in it, which is different than what we’ve had before, so they get to throw in their stuff and bring up their own stuff. The motor is the couple. Then all these other pieces come around when the timing and the moment feels right. Example is they’re talking the gifts, and Christine Baranski shouts, “Isotoners.”

**Craig:** Slipper socks.

**Richard:** The slipper socks. I think one version was Isotoner. “Slipper socks, medium.” All the resentments start to come out. The focus was on the relationship. That was the steady. That was the through line. Then everything else could jump off of it when it felt right.

**Craig:** There is this amazing moment where after watching an entire movie of these two tearing into each other and then watching this entire dinner with them tearing into each other and then this sequence here where they’re really tearing into each other, it finally comes out that Caroline wants a divorce, and they are. He’s fine. “We’re going to get divorced.” Gary, the stupid brother, says, “Why?”

**Richard:** He was so sweet.

**Craig:** It is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in my life. He’s so wonderfully innocent.

**Richard:** He’s very sweet.

**Craig:** So sweet. Oh my god, the look in his eyes where he looks like he was stunned by this thing. Everybody else is like, “What?” In this discussion, they finally get to the truth. What’s interesting is the ref, Denis Leary, in this sequence, says, “I don’t think anything.” He just-

**Richard:** Stands back.

**Craig:** Yes. You understood that the scam that he’s playing here, just for the purposes of the rest of the family, is that he’s posing as the marriage counselor. That’s to excuse his presence. He, as it turns out, is kind of the perfect marriage counselor. He knows exactly when to say, “You’re a liar. No, you’re a liar. She is a fucking bitch, Lloyd.” Here, it’s as if he actually gets invested. It feels like he’s invested.

**Richard:** This is the moment when it’s not about him hiding and it’s not about the robbery and it’s not about anything. He actually has been with these people all night, and he’s seeing what’s happening and is like, “No, this has to happen.” He just steps back.

He could’ve stopped it. He could’ve rerouted it, but he doesn’t, because he has heard her side of it, and he kind of is understanding Kevin’s side a little bit more. He knows this thing has to happen, and so he steps back and he just watches it. It’s an act of grace that he gives it. It’s not about him in that moment at all.

**Craig:** It’s a really interesting decision. It goes again to, I think there are a lot of movies when people are thinking about them or talking about them or when they try and write them and they’re wondering who the main character is, they will sometimes confuse main character and protagonist as the same thing.

What’s interesting is Gus maybe is the main… Denis Leary I suppose is the main character in a sense, but he’s certainly not the protagonist here. To the extent that it’s about people changing, it does feel like it’s about both Lloyd and Caroline, although I would argue ultimately, as is the case with almost every story, it comes down to one person making one choice that finally changes things.

I think for me, that moment is when in the middle of their arguing, Mother Rose says, “What does it even matter? They’re getting divorced,” and Lloyd turns to her and says, “Mother, is it possible for you to shut the fuck up for 10 seconds?” That to me is the moment where the protagonist there, I think-

**Richard:** Is Lloyd.

**Craig:** … is Lloyd.

**Richard:** That’s what the marriage needed all along.

**Craig:** All along.

**Richard:** To stand up to his mother.

**Craig:** There is this wonderful tradition in movies about psychological issues, relationship problems, and therapy, where it often comes down to one thing. I assume you go to therapy. You’re like me.

**Richard:** Been there 24 years now.

**Craig:** It would be great if therapy worked like this. In real life, it doesn’t, but in the movies, it often does come down to these little moments, like, “It’s not your fault,” or, “Mother, shut the fuck up. It’s almost like the walls come tumbling down.

**Richard:** One-word truths and then all the walls come tumbling down.

**Craig:** Everybody starts saying the truth. It is a wonderful conclusion of things. Before the family can be healed, there’s also the story of the son. What’s interesting about him, we’ve given him short shrift here, is that he is a criminal delinquent. It seems to be a reflection of the fact that his family home is broken. That’s what it feels like. He wants to go with Gus.

This is where there is this pathos to Gus’s sadness and a weight to him, even though he’s a funny character and he’s a burglar and he has the gun. We like him quite a bit, because he didn’t shoot anybody. He actually made things better. He expresses a sadness here. I just wanted you to talk a little bit about what is the story of Gus. Does it matter? Is he like one of the Greek gods that shows up in The Odyssey and then leaves?

**Richard:** It’s close to that, I guess. When I think about it, I don’t know that there was a lot of backstory. I think he had a lot of empathy for the kid. I have to be honest. This was the one part of the movie that I had… I wasn’t crazy about the casting. I like that kid, but I didn’t think he was right for the part. There wasn’t enough edge to him for me.

When I think about this storyline, I have to say, when Teddy and I hired Simpson and Bruckheimer to be our producers, because we had to pick from the Disney stable-

**Craig:** Got it.

**Richard:** We wouldn’t pick anyone that wouldn’t drink with us. Each one of the candidates we met at a bar. Teddy would lean [inaudible 00:46:08] go, “No, he’s a spy. We can’t hire him. No, he works for the studio.”

Simpson and Bruckheimer were a little bit insane. They had already had Top Gun and all this stuff. Then they made a deal. They saw this as, “Oh, Denis Leary, MTV. This is going to be a comedy for teenagers,” which was a big mistake. Don Simpson, who was a character in his own right, he detoured the script by making me do a rewrite that was all about the kid, because that was his thing. He wanted it to be about the kid.

We had the reading with the actors. The script had changed so much that Judy Davis got up and went, “This isn’t the part,” all of a sudden. I said, “I know. I agree with you. Please. I’m fast.” That’s when the four days happened, after that.

**Craig:** Oh, interesting.

**Richard:** The kid, that storyline was always, for me, a little… All I remember is we wanted to Gus to have this sort of humanity, hinting at a past, that he understood this kid in a way that his parents didn’t. I don’t know that we had any big past for him. We didn’t want to get too sentimental or too bogged down in that. He was going to help the kid in some way as well by his presence being there. Maybe you’re right. Maybe it was more like a Greek god that comes in and out.

**Craig:** Yeah, or like The Rainmaker. I always think of The Rainmaker, because I love that movie and just the idea of someone who shows up with bad intentions, a con artist, a thief, and yet is exactly what is required to un-suspend the misery, basically.

**Richard:** And get the truth out.

**Craig:** And get the truth out, exactly. Finally, at the end, the family is healed. Gus escapes. There is one of the greatest lines ever in history. Lloyd and Caroline are about to kiss, finally, when they are interrupted by Lloyd’s nephew, who says, “Sorry, but Grandma’s eating through her gag.” “Sorry, but Grandma’s eating through her gag.” It’s one of the greatest lines in history.

**Richard:** I love the way Denis did it. There’s an earlier line where he’s so upset with her, he wants to punch her. He goes, “Your husband isn’t dead. He’s hiding.”

**Craig:** “He’s hiding.” It’s so great.

**Richard:** Denis was great in that. The whole time he loses his shit.

**Craig:** [Crosstalk 00:48:34].

**Richard:** He’s like, “[inaudible 00:48:35]. Let me at her.”

**Craig:** They get it. They’re like, “We get it, but you can’t.”

**Richard:** They were holding him back.

**Craig:** They were holding him back.

**Richard:** I love that. Denis was so good in that.

**Craig:** “Mothers are supposed to be nice and sweet and patient and forgiving.” She really is horrible. With that wonderful mid-Atlantic accent, that not American, not British, kind of moneyed way of talking is absolutely wonderful.

Now, I read somewhere that the end here, which is a very happy ending, because Gus does escape with Murray on a boat, that that end was not originally the end.

**Richard:** It was re-shot.

**Craig:** Re-shot.

**Richard:** I believe we re-shot it, yeah. The original ending was Gus sacrifices himself for them in some way and gives himself up. Disney, they wanted it to be-

**Craig:** Happy.

**Richard:** Yeah. We had to re-shoot the ending.

**Craig:** It’s really interesting, because I remember those days.

**Richard:** They’re still here.

**Craig:** Studios still give notes and stuff, but there was something about the 90s. Maybe it was cocaine. I don’t know. There were so many notes. So many notes.

**Richard:** They’re still here. They’re still here. Streaming services are like that.

**Craig:** They’re still doing it. Through the crisis of writing drafts that you didn’t want to write, featuring storylines you didn’t want to feature, having Disney tell you to change the ending, all of that stuff, and then ultimately, all of it goes away in the crucible of those four days where you could just do the work.

**Richard:** Exactly, with the people that you’re doing it with, and not the executives, who are five steps removed and don’t really know how things work and don’t really know how things are made.

**Craig:** And also don’t know to release Christmas movies at Christmas. It’s the weirdest. Actually, March is the worst possible month, because Christmas happened, but it’s not a funny, ironic thing that it’s in the summer. It’s fucking March.

**Richard:** I also think we opened on the same day as Four Weddings and a Funeral, which was huge.

**Craig:** Oof.

**Richard:** Huge. I think it was the same weekend.

**Craig:** Lots of reasons why the movie initially didn’t do well, but it is something that I think adds character.

**Richard:** It was more, like I said, for a teenage MTV audience instead of an adult audience. I think that was part of the problem.

**Craig:** They must’ve been incredibly confused by that first scene, which I still think, if you understand what the movie is and who it’s meant for, is absolutely wonderful. Richie, we’re going to do a little segment now we call Drew Has A Question.

**Drew Marquardt:** I have a quick question on The Ref, because in the presents scene, I realized as I was watching it that we’re watching Lloyd do a monologue in a lot of ways, but it doesn’t feel that way. You’re hanging on every word. Very often, monologues aren’t done very well in movies. I was wondering if you could speak to how you set us up for that. Were you building to that the whole way through, or is that about following the logic of the moment?

**Richard:** I think it’s a few things. Like you said, it was building up all the way through. You want the audience to feel the way Judy Davis and Denis feel. They want this guy to blow up. They want this guy to tell the truth finally, especially when the mother enters the scene. You’re anticipating that, and you’re going, “Oh, here it comes. Now here it is.” You’re ready for it.

Another testament is that it’s just Kevin Spacey is a great actor, and he knew how to time it and he knew how to deliver it. The way Teddy directed it, with all the different characters there and their reactions and how to make it keep moving forward, keep moving forward. A lot of the energy of that is because of Kevin’s performance and everything that we set up along the way.

Finally, he’s blowing his top. In the first scene with the therapist, he’s snide, he’s sarcastic. They’re playing the game with each other of how they communicate, which isn’t the truth. It’s one-upmanship. This is finally taking the mask off. Okay, this is it.

It was revealing to me, and this happens in relationships, where everybody has their story, everybody has their side, but it’s not the whole story. Everything she said was true, but she forgot this. She forgot she wasn’t happy in that little apartment. She forgot this part of it. She didn’t understand the pressure he was under. To me, that was very honest.

It happens in all relationships, where you just get into the bickering, and you’re not really getting to how different people see things and their experiences and go, “Oh, I never thought of that. I never thought you were feeling that. I didn’t understand that. I thought it was power or something, and it wasn’t.” It was honest, and it was a lot of Kevin’s performance.

**Craig:** It’s also really interesting that you pull a little trick in that monologue, which is you don’t let him finish it. Everyone basically interrupts him, as if they’re too busy with their own crap. He has to pick up a fireplace poker and whack the Christmas tree over and over.

**Richard:** To get a symbol of why they’re there.

**Craig:** Exactly. “Shut up. I’m not done.” Then he gets-

**Richard:** The corpse has the floor.

**Craig:** The corpse has the floor. That reminds me so much of something that my dad used to say, which I won’t say on the air. It was the idea of feeling like you weren’t alive, the notion that you were being treated like a corpse that had been stuffed and stood up against the wall, not to be listened to and not to be considered.

**Richard:** Your father said that?

**Craig:** He would say something like that.

**Richard:** Wow.

**Craig:** I’ll save that for one of our confessional episodes. Richie, that was a fantastic discussion.

**Richard:** Thank you. This was great.

**Craig:** It’s amazing. I hope people do watch The Ref. I know for a fact it’s available to watch on Amazon Prime Video.

**Richard:** Is it on Disney Plus? I don’t know if they have it. Do they have it?

**Craig:** That’s a great question. I don’t know.

**Drew:** I don’t think it’s on Disney Plus, but we’ll put a link to it in the show.

**Craig:** Classic Disney.

**Richard:** [Crosstalk 00:54:43].

**Craig:** They’re still screwing this movie over. Guys, come on, put The Ref on. It’s so good. It is a fantastic Christmas, holiday tradition. We like to watch it every Christmas.

**Richard:** That makes me happy. Thank you.

**Craig:** We love it so much. Thank you for it. Now at the end of our regular show, we like to do something called One Cool Thing.

**Richard:** What’s yours?

**Craig:** I’ll tell you. I like to solve puzzles. I’m a big puzzle guy. For those of you out there who do enjoy, as I do, solving lots of puzzles, you will find oftentimes that you need to refer to the letters as number, so A as 1, B is 2, and so forth. Braille, binary, there’s something called a pigpen cipher, Morse code. You have to go around looking for all these things.

There’s an organization called Puzzled Pint. I think they’ve been my One Cool Thing before. They have, in one easy pdf, basically not all of, but a lot of the codes you would need to use, like NATO alphabet and semaphore and all the other ones I’ve mentioned, including binary, ternary, and hex. It’s incredibly useful, all in one sheet of puzzle solving, if you are, like me, a puzzle solver. We’ll include that link.

**Richard:** I love puzzles.

**Craig:** Oh, then listen.

**Richard:** I do the crossword on the subway every day.

**Craig:** Fantastic. You may find this interesting, especially if you expand into some of the stranger puzzles out there, which have begun to occupy me daily.

**Richard:** Did you Wordle?

**Craig:** Of course I do Wordle. Yes, I do Wordle.

**Richard:** I do Wordle.

**Craig:** We had Josh. What’s Josh Wordle’s actual name? Is it Wordle? It’s not Wordle. What’s his name?

**Drew:** It’s Josh Wardle.

**Craig:** Wardle. Wardle.

**Richard:** Wardle? Really?

**Drew:** Yeah.

**Richard:** Wow.

**Craig:** We had Josh Wardle on the show, who invented Wordle.

**Richard:** Wow.

**Craig:** Big Wordle fan, and also the Spelling Bee and the regular crossword as well. Do you have One Cool Thing for us, Richie?

**Richard:** Oh, man. I thought about this, and all I could think about was food.

**Craig:** Oh, we love food. Last week, my One Cool Thing was food. What’s yours?

**Richard:** There’s a place in New York, a couple of them, called Levain Bakery. Levain Bakery comes up with these cookies that are gigantic. One of them is a chocolate peanut butter. Literally, it’s a meal. You can only take little bites of it every day, because you eat the whole thing, you’re dead.

**Craig:** You’re dead.

**Richard:** It’s that big. They have a sour cream coffee cake. My mother and I always had this thing where we had to have cake, because she used to say it helps just to make the coffee go down. This is what she used to say. I had this thing in my head that I need cake to drink coffee or I can’t drink coffee.

**Craig:** It won’t go down.

**Richard:** It won’t go down. They have this sour cream coffee cake. I literally go to be at night thinking, “When I wake up, I can have the sour cream coffee cake.” I get so excited by it. It’s really good. It’s dense. It’s got all this sugar and maple stuff in the middle of it, and sour cream.

**Craig:** Oh, wow.

**Richard:** It’s a really great coffee cake. The other thing I can recommend is I discovered the benefits of celery juice. I buy this big bottle of Suji, I think it’s S-U-J-I or something, celery juice. It actually helps, because I have a terrible, terrible, acidic, nervous, ulceric kind of stomach, and it really helped. That kind of juice helps. There’s a couple things.

**Craig:** Those are both excellent recommendations. It’s Levain? Is that what it is, Levain Bakery?

**Richard:** L-E-V-A-I-N.

**Craig:** Levain.

**Richard:** Bakery. Great cookies. They deliver.

**Craig:** Do they ship?

**Richard:** Yeah, I think so. I use Try Caviar. They’re on that. I think they could ship to you. Their cookies are amazing. They have an oatmeal. All their cookies are gigantic.

**Craig:** Just like manhole covers.

**Richard:** They’re really good. They’re dense.

**Craig:** I love it. I’m going to unfortunately have to go and buy some of that stuff now. Thank you for that.

**Richard:** Thank you for this. This was really wonderful, because I don’t think anybody remembers the movie or thinks about it. Thank you. This meant a lot to me. Thank you very much.

**Craig:** I hope that we bring a whole new generation in.

**Richard:** And to Teddy.

**Craig:** Yes, and to Teddy, wherever he is, watching or listening.

**Richard:** And Denis too.

**Craig:** He’s wonderful.

**Richard:** That’s right.

**Craig:** That’s right. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro today is by Matt Davis. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That is also where you will find transcripts and the signup for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have T-shirts, and they’re great. Cotton Bureau. So soft. Highly recommend them, Richie. You can sign up to become a Premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you can get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we are about to record now. Richie, Drew, thank you so much for a terrific episode.

**Richard:** Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Drew.

**Drew:** Thank you, Richie.

[Bonus Segment]

**Craig:** Premium members, welcome back. Little, short treat for you here. Little bonus. I want to talk with Richie about… Because we’re both middle-aged guys. Apparently, middle-aged men have problems making and keeping friends.

There’s been some really interesting articles about this. There was one in the New York Times. This one was back in November of ’22, an article by Catherine Pearson titled Why is it So Hard for Men to Make Close Friends? “American men are stuck in a friendship recession. Here’s how to climb out.”

There’s also a slightly different view here back in May of 2019. This was in Harper’s Bazaar, written by Melanie Hamlett, Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden. “Toxic masculinity and the persistent idea that feelings are a female thing has left a generation of straight men stranded on emotionally stunted islands, unable to forge intimate relationships with other men. It’s women who are paying the price.”

First of all, I guess one question I have is, friends-wise… I have a lot of friends. Have you encountered the middle-age man not having friends issue?

**Richard:** First of all, I’m not a straight man. That’s one.

**Craig:** Boom.

**Richard:** That’s been a change since we saw each other last.

**Craig:** You were.

**Richard:** Not really.

**Craig:** I know.

**Richard:** I pretty much assumed everyone knew so I didn’t have to say anything. No, not really. My wife knew before we were married. It was a second coming out. Sorry, I came out-

**Craig:** Second coming is a much more [crosstalk 01:01:43].

**Richard:** I came out when I was 18, but only halfway, not with my family. I don’t know that it’s about toxic masculinity or anything like that. I do have friends. They’re mostly writers, like you, that I know. I used to have friends through the marriage. I don’t have them as much anymore.

It is hard to meet people. I also don’t like a lot of people now. The world is so fucked up. I really can’t stand people. I’m becoming a hermit. It’s hard to meet people when you’re a hermit. You meet them through work. I just directed this movie and made lovely new friends there. Again, it’s through work. I think something that women don’t understand, maybe not, this is probably wrong, but we’re defined by what we do.

**Craig:** Men, you mean?

**Richard:** Yeah. When we’re not doing what we do, we are invisible. We disappear. There’s a lot of pressure about that. I think we find friends through what we do. I don’t really have sport hobbies or stuff like that. I have a trainer, a gym guy that I love, that I talk to a lot and I’m with a lot. I don’t know. How about you? Are most of your friends in the business, or do you have outside friends?

**Craig:** Most of my friends are in the business. Most of my friends are writers. We do get an interesting built-in fraternity, I think, in a sense, because there are a lot of people that do what we do, and we’re all complainers. I find that complaining about things really can bring people together.

**Richard:** Absolutely. Absolutely. Also, writing is a solitary activity. Years and years ago, because we’re in New York and not LA, where you guys know each other and see each other more, Robert Kamen used to live here and he started this dinner thing. It was me, Robert Kamen, Tony Gilroy, and at the time Stephen Schiff, but now Scott Frank is here. We would have monthly dinners just to check in. That was really nice. We went out of our way and had a beautiful dinner, complained, drank. It was really a great thing that we did every month almost. Now that’s dissipated as well. I think especially for writers, male writers, it’s a good thing to do, to reach out and create those groups.

**Craig:** I talked about my father briefly before in the episode. It did strike me that in his later years, I never really thought about my dad and friends. It wasn’t like my dad had a group of guy friends.

**Richard:** No, my dad either. He was alone. It was all for my mother, all for my mom.

**Craig:** Exactly. It was that way until my dad died. His relationships came down to his wife, and that was it, and then family if you had to have those family holidays and things. It does strike me as sad. It is an interesting concept that men who can’t keep a friend group of men start to overburden their wife or their partner, because that’s the only person they deal with. That’s the only person who hears their problems.

**Richard:** Their only outlet.

**Craig:** There is no way to process.

**Richard:** I think that’s true.

**Craig:** Part of what they discuss here is how hard it is, like you said, for men to meet each other. You’re looking for a friend version of Grinder, basically. I don’t know what we would call it. Women do seem to just meet each other and become friends so easily.

**Richard:** Open up to each other more easily.

**Craig:** Exactly. I guess we don’t have the solution here. How old are you, Drew?

**Drew:** I’m 33. I’m getting married this fall. I’m doing the list for the bachelor party. There’s my brother.

**Richard:** Who do you want to spend time with? Who do you want to hang out with?

**Craig:** It’s happened to you.

**Drew:** It’s happening slowly, in little bits. It’s strange. I think honestly, I’m closer with women than I am with men, for the most part. It’s also interesting talking about burdening your wives too. I found a little book called Point Omega where one of the characters has a thing. He’s fresh off a divorce and doesn’t know why it fell apart. One of the characters says, “It’s because you told her everything, not because you told her anything.” I always think about that. If you burden your wife or anything with that oversharing and feeling like they have to be responsible for all your feelings-

**Richard:** That’s too much. No one person should be responsible for everything. That’s why friends are really good to have, to share other things with. We got to fix this. I don’t know how we do this.

**Craig:** I don’t know either, but I urge men to make an effort. I think part of it is just making an effort and not being afraid to say, “Hey look, I’m actually fucking lonely.” You have to show a little bit of vulnerability, because if you’re just like, “Hey, you want to get lunch?” guys are like, “No, not really.” If I hear a guy say, “Hey, listen, I’m actually having some problems and I need advice. Do you want to have lunch?” absolutely.

**Richard:** I’d be right there for them, yeah.

**Craig:** Then you start to create… You also get perspective. Richie, you were married for I don’t know how long, a long time.

**Richard:** 35, yeah.

**Craig:** 35 years. I’m getting close. I’m at 27, I think. When you can talk to other people who are in marriages that are that long, the complaining feels very good, because you realize this is normal.

**Richard:** You’re not alone. You’re not alone in it. That’s a really important thing. That’s really important.

**Craig:** Otherwise, it just feels like you’re stuck in something. You don’t realize that other people are like, “Oh, it’s fine. I feel that. It’s okay. It’s totally normal.” I don’t think we solved the problem necessarily, but at least we can urge you out there, if you are a man, particularly if you are heading into your middle ages, make an effort. It’s worth it to have some buds. Richie, thanks again.

**Richard:** Thank you very much. You’re a bud.

Links:

* The Ref on [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKthobV2JU4), [Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B006RXQ1EI/ref=atv_dp_share_cu_r) and [IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110955/)
* [Richard LaGravenese](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0481418/) on IMDb
* [The Ransom of Red Chief](https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Henry_Red_Chief.pdf) by O. Henry
* The Ref’s [Opening Scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAa3zP1ysqo)
* [Puzzled Pint’s Code Sheet](http://puzzledpint.com/files/2415/7835/9513/CodeSheet-201912.pdf)
* [Levain Bakery](https://levainbakery.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Check out the Inneresting Newsletter](https://inneresting.substack.com/)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://www.instagram.com/clmazin/) on Instagram
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [John on Mastodon](https://mastodon.art/@johnaugust)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matt Davis ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Drew Marquardt](https://www.instagram.com/marquardtam/) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/593standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

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

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (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 (490)
  • 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.